340 future?
 

Hi guys,

I'm joining CX as an SO shortly and will be going on the 340. With the ongoing delivery of the 777's are CX still going to be operating the 340's on their current routes? Or will they gradually be phased out as has been suggested on previous posts.

Also from what date do the 744's take over the JHB route( is there a specific date or does this vary from year to year)??

Any insights would be much appreciated.

Cheers

The first of the A340-600s has already left the operating fleet. The other two will leave by the end of Autumn.

The rest of the A340-300s are here to stay apart from maybe the 4 which are leased. CX fleet figures quoted by management for 2012 indicate 11 of the 15 A340-300s still in the fleet.

As for JNB, I believe the 744 is put on at the start of the northern hemisphere winter schedule. (end of October I think it is?)

Ive been developed a interest in what happen after A340? (those 300s-) The company bought aircrafts from both Boeing and Airbus with balancing amounts in old days. But now they looks bit closer to Boeing.

quoted from another thread on pprune.

the a340-300 is pretty efficient in the crz, so i suspect in these fuel crazy days that cx will keep hold of them for a little while. the a340-600 strangley seems to have been an experiment for the polar route and therefore a forerunner for the 777ER currently plying the HKG-JFK route. read into this what you will.

regards,

N1 Vibes

Economies of the -400 vs. the A340.?

We were discussing this on the flight deck the other day so I had a look at a couple of Flight Plans to LHR on the same day - 1 x A343, 1 x B744. For accuarate comparision I used Corr/1000kg LDG wt to get both plans up to MZFW (i.e. max payload).

Back of the envelope result:

B744 burn 132.8T payload 64.9T Time 11.43, kg fuel used/kg payload = 2.04

A343 burn 91.7T payload 47.0T Time 12.18, kg fuel used/kg payload = 1.95

i.e 3-4% difference at max payload. Then you have to account for all the other costs e.g. cost of crew spread over 385 pax vs. 250-280 pax, Time cost of the extra 30+ mins flight time, pax preferences (particularly F & J class etc.), maintainence cost etc. etc.

Also note that 3-4% is often the difference between 2 aircraft in the same fleet due to performance degradation.

Therefore I suspect any decison to get rid of one or the other will be demand based - are lots of people still flying therefore needing high capacity aircraft? Will there be a cutback in demand meaning smaller planes are the answer?

Of course the B773-ER beats the pants of both of them on fuel economy.

330-200
 

what about A330-200?

I have done some research,

A340-300 w/max load, passengers 287, 275 tonnes for 7200 nm.

A330-200 w/max load, passengers 293 , 230 tonnes for 6750 nm.

Both carrying 10-12 cabin crews which similar to the A330-300 in fleets,
HKG-LHR 5209 nm, HKG-AMS 5016 nm, HKG-CDG 5187 nm, HKG-FCO 5021 nm
HKG-JNB 5762 nm, HKG-YVR 5555 nm, HKG-AKL 4943 nm, etc etc. ETOPS 180/207 on both transpacific flight and Europe flights. A330-200 can fly most of A340-300 long haul operations with slightly decrease in cargo load, plus twin-engines efficient.

Of course the B773-ER beats the pants of both of them on fuel economy.

Does it really??? Maybe the 744 but not the A340-300

"Of course the B773-ER beats the pants of both of them on fuel economy.

Does it really??? Maybe the 744 but not the A340-300"

Are you kidding me? 773ER is by far the most efficient a/c in the fleet. Simultaneous flight plans were run for quite a while on the 773ER and 346 for JFK, and the differences were huge. ER is faster, carries way more payload and burns approx 17T less fuel per sector. The ER actually carries more payload than the 744, although of course has less seats.

:ok:
2Cents - you are correct!

"2 cents" good post however, you are quoting against the -600 not the -300!! So your argument is not totally correct.

Thank you iceman.

What are the schedules like for YVR A340 guys?

advisory,

CX does not have a 744 that can lift 64.9 t, average across the fleet is max payload is 60.7 t on the 744. 47.0 t is about right for the 343, if memory serves correct the 343 route is longer than the 744 route.

2 cents,

I think that is a bit of an old wives tail emanating from crew on the 777 fleet to bolster/justify themselves as being the new "senior fleet".

On average, the CX 773ER aircraft are about 4,100 kg above the Boeing spec weight in our config, max payload is about 65.7 t (spec is 69.8 t), the current CX 346 is about 63.0 t (spec is 68.6 t). Our 346 aircraft are the early MSN aircraft, they are heavier than current new build.

The story that you don't hear was the comparison was between a Boeing spec aircraft and the current CX 346 aircraft, not a real comparison between the real configuration on the new 773ER to a new 346HGW.

The CX 346 aircraft are MZFW limited to 245t, current new build 346HGW aircraft MZFW is 251 t (MTOW was also increased by 12 t), the real difference in payload between the two types is small, on spec the 773ER is supposed to lift 69.8 t, and the 346HGW 74.6 t. The 346 does burn about 800 kg/hr more than the 773ER, but in reality as you would know, airlines seldom go full with passengers/payload, but you would have the extra fuel burn if you had the 346. Fuel is only part of the cost of operating the aircraft.

The 346 has a significant advantage in terms of payload lift out of JNB even with the extra thrust bump on the 773ER, at 30 deg off the same runway the 773ER will only lift about 11 t more than a 343, well behind the 744/346 capability.

But of course! Who would want to take on Zeke when it comes to A vs B argument?

What would it take for you to like a Boeing Zeke?

If they had the new economy seats and business class I think you would find that the 346 & 343 would be considerably heavier than spec. Just like the 773ER:ok:

Zeke,

You are obviously loyal to the bus, fine. Been there, didn't like it. However it is not an "old wive's tale" as I have seen the comparisons on paper, and yes it was a CX ER, not a Boeing "spec" aircraft. So, yes the cost of fuel isn't everything, but the savings add up at around 15T less fuel per ULH sector, every day times 50 aircraft, or more eventually!

Don't we get 2.4 A330's for every B777ER so every dollar we get for a bum on seat vs. what we're paying to buy the aircraft in the first place and service the debt means we're streets ahead with the 'bus.

If we're here to make money, that is. If we're here to look good then dump them all and go back to the Convairs:ok:

330's? Are not those the airplanes that leave the passengers behind when you put freight on them from Oz?

Sorry to digress a little. Please would someone tell me the cost index used at the moment on the long haul fleets and whether this has been amended in view of the price of oil? Tks

anybody know what the rosters are like on the a340 based in YVR? and more importantly, how are the crew rest bunks?

thanks

Junior
 

Quote:
330's? Are not those the airplanes that leave the passengers behind when you put freight on them from Oz?

They are the ones that recently did AKL with all pax and 7 tons of freight direct.
Think of the fuel saved there.
Uummm????

Pounder
 

At the moment it is a HKG trip about every 8 days.
Heard though, that the A340 will be coming off YVR with the Winter schedule.

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=12988

20pct better fuel economy then 747 per passenger?

330s cant do Europe due to oxy generators not bottles for the Pax meaning it cant do the escape routes.

The 777ER may be good on burn but just wait till CX get the A350-1000 now there is a nice aircraft. I for one will be keen to fly it.

A330-300 may not do Europe flights from HKG , but pretty sure both 300s and 200s can operate Europe flights from Asia.,KE fly ICN-ZRH 4733 nm, ICN-VIE 4465 nm by A330-300, AF fly CDG-HKG and CDG-CAN by A330-200 though CX dont have any plan to deploy A330-200. A350 would be great for another option, but we still have to wait couple more years which may explain geh065 mentioned that earlier A340-300 will stay in fleet till 2012.:ok:


note:
A330-300 max range 5,650 nm

340-500 to KMIA
 

Class 2 Rumour (i.e. heard on the flight deck and therefore limited substance):

CX looking at 340-500 for Hong Kong to Miami DIRECT!

:bored:

Cheers

ARSE (MY)

NW A330 are fitted with Oxygen bottles (in the passenger area...) to fly Tokyo Portland (KPDX)

anyone care to explain what the big deal is about oxygen bottles? why does carrying oxygen bottles allow the A330 to fly long distance routes?

try terrain, B330 ( high terrain) depress etc. I guess not an issue if you fly routes that avoid high terrain...

"Heard though, that the A340 will be coming off YVR with the Winter schedule."


Permanently? So what does this mean to a YVR DEFO entering A340 training later this summer - back to back training courses? Jeez - seems like a waste if true...

Maybe they'll invite you to join as a DESO based in HK instead. :D

Another whinging DEFO :{

My heart bleeds for you buddy.

Possibly two free ratings, A340/B777 & a YVR base!

If it's all too hard why not give up your base for a current CX pilot more senior to you that wants it but can't because of DEFO's.

Policy for Sectors to FOs
 

Just my personal policy, but feel free to apply it yourself, if you so desire:



DEFOs don't get sectors unless C/Control have them as takeoff & landing critical, and the company requires them to do the sector to maintain legal recency. Clearly the captain has the authority to apply more restrictive operating minima, and that applies to "Company Policy - First Officer Flying" (or more to the point - "My Policy - DEFO Flying. hint hint)

If there is another FO on the crew (ie non-DEFO), then he either gets the sector, or if I need to do it, the non-DEFO will be in the seat as PM for take off & landing.



Any questions?

Nice attitude w@nker.

just a little question here, how do you guys know each other is Direct Entry or not, any significant label on head or something?:confused:

All except the DEFO have large watches

That's by far the most short-sighted statement I've ever heard. We're supposed to be fighting the company you twit - not ourselves.

How do you expect to encourage new joiners to join the AOA with that sort of attitude coming from members. Oh that's right - you're probably not a member. :rolleyes:

Maybe he's not a Captain either.

I actually heard that we are looking at 777-200LRs to do some non-stop really ultra ultra longhaul, possibly including South America.

parking brake on A 330
 

Hi,
Tell me one thing I know u cannot put PRK ng brake in air , but if u put which u can do it -- wht will happen just for a knowledge

Cheers

:ok: