6 More A350
 

Delivery 2016-17. Maybe the deal is attached to the A380 or maybe not..:rolleyes:
Well its good news us & maybe the top cx fleet in future.

Lufthansa struggling to fill their 380s and Emirates too. I still think CX has the right approach, smaller aircraft with more frequency/cargo space/and seats over all.... AND, the 747-8 is already in the airline and doing well by all accounts.
And will the 350 REALLY be a 777 killer? Personally, I doubt it!
:ok:

-8 doing well?
 

Especially with the tail tanks having to be locked out due to aerodynamic "Flutter concerns" Hmmm

Double dare ya to find a spare seat on an EK380.
Can't they just impose a more restrictive CoG for inflight like they did on the B773ER to fix these B748 flutters? Its Boeing so this is all ok. :ugh:

Exactly.. even in F.

We buy F on occasion on EK and if we don't book well in advance, there are often no seats.

Pilots never seem to get this. High load factors and big numbers of seats sold are not the sole metric for profitability. Any airline can fill any size airplane on just about any route if it is willing to sell seats cheap enough. I'm not saying that EK is doing this or that they are not profitable. However, we will never really know with them because of state involvement with their finances.

Revenue management and yield per seat are critically important. Why do you suppose CX is willing to take seats out of long haul aircraft to offer premium economy? Because they are betting that this configuration will make more money. Surely the seats will be sold for greater profitability than economy, even when factoring in the reduced number of seats. Also, fewer punters equals fewer bags which opens more space for cargo. The A380 flies in the opposite direction.

In short, CX cares very little about low fare hunters crammed into the back by the lavs. They are only one step above non-rev travelers on the food chain. CX is after yield efficiency, not mass when it comes to revenue generation. Perhaps EK's business model supports more mass, but I'm not that familiar.

HKJunkie, what are you talking about? The -8F does not even have a tail tank.
The Wraith is commenting that the numbers are supposedly meeting or exceeding published numbers.

Also, fewer punters equals fewer bags which opens more space for cargo. The A380 flies in the opposite direction.
Just imagine how much cargo we could carry if all the seats were taken out? You plonker.

Not my point at all genius! I'm just stating that low yield economy seats don't just chew up floor space on the main deck but cargo space below as well. I do not think those passengers are CX's bread and butter. Business travelers and cargo most definitely are. Why else would CX reduce a 300 pax 777 to introduce a fourth product offering, premium economy?

I know all you Airbus flyers are hoping for a big lifestyle improvement with an A380 order, but it is just very unlikely from everything I hear and can logically deduce. The A350 is your best chance at long haul flying in the future. Unfortunately, that appears to be quite a few years off at this point.

The aerodynamic flutter on the -8f was one of the reasons in its delay, this was sorted a long time ago with changes to the gear doors design, unless of course it has reappeared which I am not aware of on the -8f.

Read link for comment on the subject of potential 747-8 WING flutter problem with the tail tank more than 15% full. The quick fix apparently is to inhibit the fuel system from carrying any fuel in the tail which obviously results in a reduction of range. The permanent fix has not been announced:

Business & Technology | Boeing blocked from carrying fuel in 747-8 tail until problem fixed | Seattle Times Newspaper

Edited to correct previous and clarify a wing flutter problem rather than a tail flutter problem.

Cx does nothing better than make money. They know their business model and follow it well. If they buy the 380 it will be because they get it for free...the TRUE value of a Bus.... But I doubt CX will go down route again. The 747-8i is a happy medium....offers seats when needed but no over capacity during the downturns. Cargo space, reliability and commonality for crews, engineering etc...
But, ultimately, we shall wait and see! Both aircraft have their merits.:ok:

I don't think it will be any of the two.

777 and 350/330 for pax, 748 and 777 for freight, that's it.

There is much to be said for fleet simplification. CX LOVES the 777, and it seems like the A350 may be it's equal. Cathay's model is built on frequency and flexibility, and I see this as a likely scenario. I do however see the addition of some 747-8Is, since we are already flying the type, and we need a larger aircraft for places like LHR.

Box

heathrow is not getting a larger aircraft
777 courses for that base are already being scheduled for 2012
Two 777 by the end of 2012 daily and four by the end of 2013.
More J class.
Also 777 freighters going in that direction.
747 freighter out, 777 freighter in due noise.
747 only manchester,ams,

777 (frt)out of heathrow via milan links with pax(777) service through there.
crew coverage another under the table reserve.

4 engine a/c will all be going across the Pacific eventually most likely -8I's.

Turnandburn's version is consistent with what I heard from a very senior LHR based STC. He has already been offered the 777 course. I believe they will go to primarily or all 777 in LHR. They may choose to augment this with -8I or A380 if they get them and need more seats. Also, I heard the LHR freighter may be cancelled so they can run a 5th pax service. Worth considering that 5 777 pax flights could carry about 20T each (100T total) worth of freight. Perhaps satellite airports such as Gatwick and Manchester factor in as well.

Upgrade to 777!
 

Our masters up North like the 777 too. I hate to say it but the 747 has had its day as a pax mover.
From ATW:
Air China (CA) will debut its Boeing 777-300ER Feb. 1, on the Los Angeles (LAX)-Beijing (PEK) night flight, replacing a 747-400. CA, which is the only carrier to provide nonstop service between the two cities, doubled the daily service in September. It will go one step further to enhance the route in June when it plans to upgrade the 747-400 day flight between LAX and PEK to the 777-300ER.

777s to LHR
 

Looks like two 777s and two 400s a day to LHR starting in May...

Lufthansa confirmed that that they will have no problem operating without the stab fuel until the solution is found.

They are confident the aircraft will have a 8000nm range with a economical payload and should gain 300-400nm when they get the stab fuel.

Longest route they use their 744 on currently (and longest route in the network) is FRA-EZE.

Keep in mind that unlike CX, LH operates the 744 at 394t MTOW vs. CX's 396t (on some tails).

Their second batch of deliveries only have a 385t MTOW and don't even have the stab fuel tank. (still manage to operate FRA-EZE).

Regarding the 748... boeing just announced a 6t MTOW increase via service bulletin. Aircraft already in service with 442t will thus go to 448t.

Fac6,

Take all that and do something useful with it why don't you? Join the GC and get some work done instead of wasting your time here on Pprune with all of us simple-minded blowhards.

Will be 4 a day soon I believe.

It's nothing to do with noise, it's all about eu carbon emissions and fuel burn!

What is the status of the LHR noise regulations ? I “heard” the noise regulations that were due to come in were deferred as BA/VS said they will not stop operating 744s for some time yet.

FRA-EZE is only around 6300 nm, which is like a eastbound HKG-LAX. They have said it will not be a problem over their route network, which is a lot short of 8000 nm.

Lufthansa operate their 747-8Is with only 386 seats, very little capacity change over their latest 744s configuration.

Might be very little capacity change BUT a big fuel req drop :ok:

-400 wing fuel = 163T
-8 wing fuel = 184T (yes the -8 has an extra 21Ts in the wings)

Even without the stab fuel the -8 holds 11T more fuel than a fully fueled -400 and burns at least 15% less.

Comparing the 8F to the 400ERF, the 8F looks like it burns a small amount more, not 15% less.

Well I can say that according to the DCP 747 that on an ICN HKG sector the 8F burns about 4 tonnes less than a 400 ERF. That would be around 15% less for a bigger payload :ok:

I wouldn't use short haul metrics to judge the -8F. Long haul is what it is built for. In that mission, it is easily carrying the extra 16% cargo volume and the increased weight of the aircraft for the same or better burn than the -400ERF. This before two engine tweaks over the next couple years and a rumor of more performance from the wing after some flight control changes. Also, the airplane will only get lighter as the production process is refined.

To me, it looks very likely that the ten -8 options CX has will be firmed as Intercontinental orders this year. Yet you never know what rabbit Airbus will pull out of the hat to sell the 380.

The promise of fewer cracks in the wings of CX bound 380s perhaps....:E:E:E:D

Based on what? I've flown it a bunch and the thing makes gas every sector. CFP will eventually be adjusted I'm sure, but I think we are are carrying at least 20T more freight for the same fuel burn as an ERF. That's what I'm seeing anyway.

Based on Pprune bulls***:D

The 8 seems a very impressive piece of kit :ok:

Enjoy.