Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5869182/

Topic: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2013-09-12 15:55:33 and read 19282 times.

Just read a pretty detailed piece about evolution of business at Cathay Pacific.

Among many items covered here are some highlights.

o Challenging business environment - remain focused on profitability
o 77W's great - 22% more efficient per payload tonne vs 744 - "unprofitable 747 route becomes a very profitable 777 route”. 6 more 77W in 2013, 8 in 2014 and 4 in 2015.
o Modest downgauge from 744 to 77W improved yield also.
o Premium economy growing in popularity and helped improve economy yield mix - esp North America and LHR.
o 5th LHR service running at 95% LF.
o Constrained by air-service-agreements in some markets like Australia, so focus on boosting yields with existing capacity.
o Jetstar is nothing more than a franchise operation, and against HK law. Dangerous precedent if allowed.
o CX + Dragonair face stiff competition already, not afraid of LCCs. Working on modifying fare classes to provide even better price/service offerings on regional routes.
o HK already has local LCC that is growing (HK Express)
o Next big expansion opportunities is Africa - for example Algeria and Nigeria strong demand from China markets. Could use A340s before A359 arrive.
o Cargo conundrum. Demand still weak. 777F order sent to China. 3 more 748F coming, and last 744BCF leaving fleet.
o Shanghai-based JV Air China Cargo (ACC) continued to bleed red ink - hopefully improve as 777F replace "gas-guzzling" 744.
o One of the airlines actively co-operating with Boeing on the design of the 777X - a "420 seat ULH heavy duty airliner."
o 777-9X "will achieve incredible efficiencies" - 20% lower block fuel burn than the 77W and 15% lower cash operating cost (COC) per seat.
o With 777-9X, CX is very likely to bypass VLA order.
o VLA - significant inherent financial risk
o 777-9X would strike the “sweet spot” between capacity growth and passenger yield as VLA risks cannibalising passenger yields as airlines use discounts to fill.


Full story:
CATHAY PACIFIC COULD PROFIT FROM CHANGING TIMES
http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/0...-could-profit-from-changing-times/

=

Overall sounds like CX will remain focused on offering a strong global network with a high quality product, along with strong emphasis on corporate financial performance.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: NZ107
Posted 2013-09-12 16:04:44 and read 19239 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Constrained by air-service-agreements in some markets like Australia, so focus on boosting yields with existing capacity.

I believe the air service agreement with Australia limits the number of movements. I'd like to see CX throw some 77Ws on this route in order to increase capacity. I'm sure that could work for them too.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Next big expansion opportunities is Africa - for example Algeria and Nigeria strong demand from China markets. Could use A340s before A359 arrive.

They'd need to inherit a few more aircraft if they wanted to do this. They don't currently have enough aircraft coming in to replace the A343s - the 744s are the ones being removed from service as the new 77Ws are added.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: na
Posted 2013-09-12 16:14:19 and read 19169 times.

Ok, I´ll bypass CX from now on. I once liked them, but with no VLA they wont see me as a paying passenger again.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: meta
Posted 2013-09-12 16:30:47 and read 19005 times.

Quoting na (Reply 2):
Ok, I´ll bypass CX from now on. I once liked them, but with no VLA they wont see me as a paying passenger again.

So because they don't want new 747-8's or A380's you won't fly CX  
The 77W is hardly small...

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: phxa340
Posted 2013-09-12 16:40:26 and read 18914 times.

Quoting na (Reply 2):
I once liked them, but with no VLA they wont see me as a paying passenger again.

Right, because every carrier with an A380 is better than CX. CX, if they bypass the A380, will prove that you don't need an A380 to beat an A380.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: behramjee
Posted 2013-09-12 16:50:17 and read 18840 times.

you forgot to mention few key notes from the article:

1. DFW will be the next U.S. destination using the B77W

2. New EU routes being seriously studied for the A359 include BCN, MAD and BRU effective 2016

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: Kengo
Posted 2013-09-12 16:54:06 and read 18797 times.

If this order materializes, it would give a big boost to the 777-9 program, considering CX is already a customer for the A35J.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-09-12 17:12:09 and read 18665 times.

Quoting Kengo (Reply 6):
If this order materializes, it would give a big boost to the 777-9 program, considering CX is already a customer for the A35J.

How, they are quite different in size! In CXs system they will be for different markets. Unless you think CX buying the A35J makes them more likely to buy the A380 which was probably never going to be the case.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-09-12 17:24:05 and read 18593 times.

Hmm, the African expansion is very logical particularly Lagos with the amount of Chinese investment in recent years. However they will face very heavy competition from the Gulf carriers as well as ET, as the West Africa to Asia market represents a majority of the pax leaving Lagos on these carriers.

The 779 is also interesting, seems 10 abreast is very likely and the seat width should be on par with the 17.5" currently offered on their 747....this certainly makes the 18" economy seat importance comment questionable. I do believe the availability of Y+ gives them much more flexibility regarding the Y pax who wants and pays for wider(ish) seats
...and it seems to be paying off too with high average load factors and good yield to boot.

Though a 420 seat 779 in CX 4 class configuration seems very unlikely, even in a 3 class config with F...except of course this is a 3 class config with J & Y+.

The CX document @ the end of the article makes for a good read, especially for Boeing heavy pilots and those interested in a bit more of their thoughts on the folding wingtip mechanism.

It's also good to hear an airline revealing trip costs and cost per seat comparisons.....it will be certainly impressive if the 779 does deliver 20% lower fuel burn than a 77W...so excited! 

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: QFVHOQA
Posted 2013-09-12 17:49:43 and read 18458 times.

Nice to see CX looking at new long haul routes. I read a recent article on CAPA website comparing the recent performance of CX to SQ: Singapore Airlines is falling behind Cathay Pacific as Asia's network airline giants diverge

It mentions that CX is trying to snap up as many of the remaining slots at HKG as they can, even to the point of flying unprofitable routes for now - essentially slot-sitting. So these new long haul routes would likely replace some regional routes that aren't doing so well wither at CX or KA.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 8):
The 779 is also interesting, seems 10 abreast is very likely and the seat width should be on par with the 17.5" currently offered on their 747....this certainly makes the 18" economy seat importance comment questionable. I do believe the availability of Y+ gives them much more flexibility regarding the Y pax who wants and pays for wider(ish) seats

If the 779 can fit a 747 seat at 10 abreast then CX would certainly be happy with that. I think some of the Asian carriers like CX, SQ & KE have avoided 10 abreast on their 777s as the seats are too narrow for their "premium" market positioning.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-09-12 17:59:23 and read 18419 times.

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 9):
If the 779 can fit a 747 seat at 10 abreast then CX would certainly be happy with that. I think some of the Asian carriers like CX, SQ & KE have avoided 10 abreast on their 777s as the seats are too narrow for their "premium" market positioning.

It should fit the 17.5" seats in 10 abreast perhaps with a marginal reduction in aisle width....as the current 77W has 18.5" at 9 abreast...and Boeing plans to introduce an additional 4" width in the cabin.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-09-12 18:14:52 and read 18336 times.

Quoting na (Reply 2):
Ok, I´ll bypass CX from now on. I once liked them, but with no VLA they wont see me as a paying passenger again.

It's fortunate for our ability to fly to lots of destinations at reasonable cost that almost no passengers think the same way you do.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2013-09-12 19:29:00 and read 17985 times.

I am shocked. More than 10 posts and not one person has said "The A380 is perfect for them and they are going to order lots of them" Which is the ususal CX thread.

While I'm not sure they will order the 777-9x, Its certainly reasonable for them to pick it to top the fleet. A351 while close won't have the range/payload of the 779, making the two frames complementry. The 778 is... highly unlikely.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-09-12 21:06:39 and read 17626 times.

Quoting na (Reply 2):
Ok, I´ll bypass CX from now on. I once liked them, but with no VLA they wont see me as a paying passenger again.

Good riddance. I'm sure CX won't miss you.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 8):
The 779 is also interesting, seems 10 abreast is very likely and the seat width should be on par with the 17.5" currently offered on their 747....this certainly makes the 18" economy seat importance comment questionable.

  

Indeed. If the 10 abreast 747 is just fine, then so too will the 10 abreast 777X be fine as the whole point of adding those 4" of cabin width is to allow for the same width economy seats as the 744 to be fitted, albeit with a narrower aisle.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 8):
Though a 420 seat 779 in CX 4 class configuration seems very unlikely, even in a 3 class config with F...except of course this is a 3 class config with J & Y+.

Even in a J, W and Y configuration, I can't see how they're going to fit 420 seats in a 777-9X. The current 77W with such a configuration seats 340, so 420 would be an 80 seat increase. The only way 420 seats are going to fit on the 777-9X in CX configuration would be to reduce the number of premium seats available, or alternatively, configure the 777-9X with a 2-class regional seat configuration.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: United Airline
Posted 2013-09-12 21:08:23 and read 17616 times.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 12):
I am shocked. More than 10 posts and not one person has said "The A380 is perfect for them and they are going to order lots of them" Which is the ususal CX thread.

You may still see CX ordering the A380. Perhaps the A380-900 which they are very interested in?

They change their mind all the time.....

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-09-12 22:09:26 and read 17396 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Just read a pretty detailed piece about evolution of business at Cathay Pacific

You haven't said so (which bends the forums rules a bit I'd guess), but is this the Aspire Aviation article?
If so, some of the commentary above is not attributable to CX, but is Aspire's own take

Quoting na (Reply 2):
Ok, I´ll bypass CX from now on. I once liked them, but with no VLA they wont see me as a paying passenger again

CX as far as I can tell haven't said this at all. I take this to be Aspire's own opinion

I'm not predicting it, but you may yet see your CX VLA's

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 13):
Good riddance. I'm sure CX won't miss you

Spoken like a true airliner enthusiast .....

Rgds

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: N14AZ
Posted 2013-09-12 22:13:53 and read 17383 times.

@ Laxintl: thanks for this very interesting summary. It's always good to have some threads to get some grounding (or earthing, I think this is the correct British word) to the real aviation world.

Quoting na (Reply 2):

with no VLA

For me, the 779 will be a VLA.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: francoflier
Posted 2013-09-12 23:43:57 and read 16723 times.

Mr. Daniel Tsang, who wrote the article, is very likely a well informed journalist with great insights into CX and its market, however, this remains his writing and his analysis, and none of this, apart from a few quotes, comes from the horse's mouth.

Out of that, I'd say:

777-X is pretty much a given at CX, given its commitment into the program already. I just can't see them cramming 420 seats in it, not in a 4 class cabin where they currently fit around 300 in the 77W. Even with 10 abreast eco.

CX's operating philosophy of maximizing yields and profits, at the expense of volume and possibly market shares, is pretty evident. Though maybe a little too conservative and unambitious in my opinion. There is stiff competition out there, but CX still has a good hold of the booming Chinese market.

Routes to Africa? Why not, but I don't see it happening soon, not before they receive the A350.
I could see BCN, BRU, why not ZRH or MAN. The A350 will certainly allow them to open new markets with a lower risk than the 777 or current A340.

DFW with the 777 seems very likely as well, though I would be surprised if the don't consider other east coast destinations too.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: trent900
Posted 2013-09-13 00:03:56 and read 16526 times.

Quoting na (Reply 2):
Ok, I´ll bypass CX from now on. I once liked them, but with no VLA they wont see me as a paying passenger again.
Quoting meta (Reply 3):
So because they don't want new 747-8's or A380's you won't fly CX
The 77W is hardly small...

I'm sure na is referring to the comfort of ride. I find 77W's uncomfortable on long journeys ie; noise, space etc which always makes me try and book on an A380 first (I'm sure we're not the only two people that does this), but as other people have mentioned this isn't always possible.

Trent.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: sassiciai
Posted 2013-09-13 00:05:48 and read 16512 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 13):
Good riddance. I'm sure CX won't miss you.

Not just pointessly rude, but IMHO thoughtless and stupid! Of course the airline will "miss out" if he goes elsewhere, gifting revenue to a competitor is never a happy event for an airline

How dumb to reply without even verifying why!

I'm sure that CX is aware of the "halo effect" around the larger of the VLAs as reported by its operators, and that this keeps on drawing the punters to seek out that aircraft when possible, drawing them away from others

Elsewhere on this site, there is a discussion on-going about the noise levels that some posters find excessive inside the 777, CX's main long haul platform. You might consider whether this is behind his reluctance to fly CX!

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2013-09-13 00:11:19 and read 16447 times.

Quoting United Airline (Reply 14):
You may still see CX ordering the A380. Perhaps the A380-900 which they are very interested in?

I just don't see it. I think it's pretty clear they favor frequency over gauge; they fly 5 daily NYC trips for crying out loud, and 5 LHR, both places they could easily reduce trips with 380/748.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
o 5th LHR service running at 95% LF.
Quoting francoflier (Reply 17):
CX's operating philosophy of maximizing yields and profits, at the expense of volume and possibly market shares, is pretty evident

   And the way to do that is with schedule frequency versus gauge, which they've been doing

Quoting behramjee (Reply 5):
1. DFW will be the next U.S. destination using the B77W

Why AA went to ICN over DFW I will never know...

Quoting na (Reply 2):
Ok, I´ll bypass CX from now on. I once liked them, but with no VLA they wont see me as a paying passenger again.

I feel the same way about WN and the L10 

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: francoflier
Posted 2013-09-13 00:38:42 and read 16186 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 20):
And the way to do that is with schedule frequency versus gauge, which they've been doing

Yes, that's true.
However, as the analyst wrote, some of their markets are movement restricted already.
Hopefully the 777X is enough metal to upgauge these routes.

Which sort of brings me to wonder about the replacement of the 77As. Those are high density aircraft for regional routes.
Some seat close to 400. CX has been operating high density regional jumbos since the Tristar.

I wonder if some of the A350s or 777X will be configured in high density configuration for these routes?

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: sassiciai
Posted 2013-09-13 00:58:36 and read 16043 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 20):
I just don't see it. I think it's pretty clear they favor frequency over gauge; they fly 5 daily NYC trips for crying out loud, and 5 LHR, both places they could easily reduce trips with 380/748.

I just compared SIN-LHR with SIA, and HKG-LHR with Cathay

SIA has 4 non-stop departures (plus one on Virgin via a stop in the ME), departure times are
01.00
09.05
12.45
23.30
Three of these are A380

CX has 6 non-stop departures, one is a B747, the others are B777W, departure times are
00.20
00.35 (B744)
10.05
10.25
14.40
23.55

Is this CX offer all about frequency? Really only 3 times to choose from. Two of these leave 20 minutes apart just after 10am. There are 3 departures that are effectively at the same time around midnight, indicative of needing 3 B777W to address the demand (note that almost simultaneously around midnight, BA has two departures - one of which will soon be A380, and if memory serves me well, VA also has departure(s) at that time). It could be argued that this CX route would benefit from flying A380s.

SIA has 4 different departure times, probably offers as many/more seats, and does it with 4 rotations instead of 6, on routes that have broadly similar lengths!

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: spink
Posted 2013-09-13 00:58:57 and read 16038 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 13):

Even in a J, W and Y configuration, I can't see how they're going to fit 420 seats in a 777-9X. The current 77W with such a configuration seats 340, so 420 would be an 80 seat increase. The only way 420 seats are going to fit on the 777-9X in CX configuration would be to reduce the number of premium seats available, or alternatively, configure the 777-9X with a 2-class regional seat configuration.

10 abreast will get them another 33 seats. The additional length of the 779 vs 77W will get them another 30-40 seats. So that's 63-73 seats right there. Going from 32" to 31" with slimline seats gets another 10. for a total of 83 additional seats. 83+340 = 423. So even a couple seats to spare. 420 in a J, E+, E config certainly is doable.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-13 00:58:58 and read 16037 times.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 21):
I wonder if some of the A350s or 777X will be configured in high density configuration for these routes?

The 420 seats in the 777X are probably based on a high density configuration.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: AF185
Posted 2013-09-13 01:02:37 and read 16628 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 20):

I just don't see it. I think it's pretty clear they favor frequency over gauge; they fly 5 daily NYC trips for crying out loud, and 5 LHR, both places they could easily reduce trips with 380/748.

True, and their flights to/from NYC are pretty well spread out throughout the day.
However, some of their frequencies are really close to each other (due to schedule preference, slots..etc), and I just don't see any real advantage for passengers (especially for long Haul ops).

Some examples:

HKG to LHR
CX257 : 10:05
CX239 : 10:25

LHR to HKG
CX254 : 22:20
CX238 : 22:35

HKG to CDG
CX261 : 00:05
CX279 : 00:45

Even for most business travelers, what do 30min difference make considering you're going on a 12h flight?
With all the costs incurred by those "double" flights (operations, crew, jet fuel etc..), I still believe CX will not completely rule out the VLA sub-fleet option.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: DarkSnowyNight
Posted 2013-09-13 01:04:45 and read 16486 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
o With 777-9X, CX is very likely to bypass VLA order.
o VLA - significant inherent financial risk
o 777-9X would strike the “sweet spot” between capacity growth and passenger yield as VLA risks cannibalising passenger yields as airlines use discounts to fill.

I don't think anyone here can claim to be surprised at this, but it's very good news just the same.

Quoting na (Reply 2):

Ok, I´ll bypass CX from now on. I once liked them, but with no VLA they wont see me as a paying passenger again.

I get why it's nice to fly the 380. But honestly, the only 380 operator that flies where(ish) CX does and operates a 380, and is approximately competitive (though not quite as good overall lately) would be SQ or TG. Certainly you could book with CZ or MAS, but would you really take those over CX? Just for the 388?

Quoting waly777 (Reply 8):

The 779 is also interesting, seems 10 abreast is very likely and the seat width should be on par with the 17.5" currently offered on their 747....this certainly makes the 18" economy seat importance comment questionable.

I'd certainly say that's possible, but I would not call it done just yet. CX have avoided the rush to 10Y on their existing machines thus far, and there isn't a reason to say their changing this is a foregone conclusion...

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 16):
For me, the 779 will be a VLA.

Indeed! Given the capacities involved, the capability, I think it past due that common knowledge begins to admit that 346s and 77Ws are already VLAs; and certainly 35Js & 779s will be as well.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-09-13 01:48:49 and read 16315 times.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 26):
I'd certainly say that's possible, but I would not call it done just yet. CX have avoided the rush to 10Y on their existing machines thus far, and there isn't a reason to say their changing this is a foregone conclusion...

A 779 that used the extra width to have even wider 9Y seats would be lovely, but very unlikely...

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: DarkSnowyNight
Posted 2013-09-13 01:55:38 and read 16240 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 27):
A 779 that used the extra width to have even wider 9Y seats would be lovely, but very unlikely...

That would certainly be the case if the extra width were somehow optional, but it isn't as though CX gets a choice here. The 779 cabin will be wider, whatever happens. I certainly wouldn't say it won't happen, of course. I just don't think it's as automatic as that (note I'm not saying it would be a bad idea or anything like that, just that I can see a lot of business reasoning for leaving it alone as well).

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-13 01:58:22 and read 16222 times.

Quoting spink (Reply 23):
10 abreast will get them another 33 seats. The additional length of the 779 vs 77W will get them another 30-40 seats. So that's 63-73 seats right there. Going from 32" to 31" with slimline seats gets another 10. for a total of 83 additional seats. 83+340 = 423. So even a couple seats to spare. 420 in a J, E+, E config certainly is doable.

Indeed. Going from 9-abreast to 10-abreast in a larger aircraft is the key here.

Now before people start panicking about comfort etc: read the document. It literally says:

Quote:
Boeing is planning to market the 777X stretch to CX as a 420 seat (in CX configuration) ULH heavy duty airliner

Thus keep in mind:

> It's a cabin proposal from Boeing to CX
> Boeing marketing always uses high-density configurations
> See it as a playground for CX, something their fleet planners can use to start from

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 16):
For me, the 779 will be a VLA.

Boeing doesn't project it as a VLA.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 27):
A 779 that used the extra width to have even wider 9Y seats would be lovely, but very unlikely...

Very unlikely in today's economic times.

[Edited 2013-09-13 02:01:07]

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2013-09-13 02:12:14 and read 16093 times.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 21):
However, as the analyst wrote, some of their markets are movement restricted already.

Like where though? They don't seem to be having much trouble getting slots anywhere.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 22):
CX has 6 non-stop departures, one is a B747, the others are B777W, departure times are
00.20
00.35 (B744)
Quoting AF185 (Reply 25):
However, some of their frequencies are really close to each other (due to schedule preference, slots..etc), and I just don't see any real advantage for passengers (especially for long Haul ops).

True, but those two trips add up to a lot of seats, and more importantly, those two aircraft can go to two different destinations beyond HKG.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-09-13 02:25:37 and read 16005 times.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 17):
CX's operating philosophy of maximizing yields and profits, at the expense of volume and possibly market shares, is pretty evident
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 20):
And the way to do that is with schedule frequency versus gauge, which they've been doing

Doesn't that favour the A350 over the 777X then? Or am I experiencing another case of the A380 having its own rules?

Rgds

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2013-09-13 02:30:59 and read 15941 times.

Quoting AF185 (Reply 25):
Even for most business travelers, what do 30min difference make considering you're going on a 12h flight?
With all the costs incurred by those "double" flights (operations, crew, jet fuel etc..), I still believe CX will not completely rule out the VLA sub-fleet option.

Its very hard to park 1/2 a A380, or switch 1/2 a A380 to a new route. You also have to look at the costs for having a limited number of frames of a certain type.

Could they use the A380? Yes, certainly.
Do they want to use the A380? Given their statements for the whole history of the A380 program till today.... No. They also don't want a 748i. Its that simple.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: seansasLCY
Posted 2013-09-13 02:38:48 and read 15830 times.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 22):

CX has 6 non-stop departures, one is a B747, the others are B777W, departure times are
00.20
00.35 (B744)
10.05
10.25
14.40
23.55

I thought CX operated 5 daily to LHR?

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
5th LHR service running at 95% LF.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: 330lover
Posted 2013-09-13 02:48:33 and read 15793 times.

Quoting seansasLCY (Reply 33):
Quoting sassiciai (Reply 22):

CX has 6 non-stop departures, one is a B747, the others are B777W, departure times are
00.20
00.35 (B744)
10.05
10.25
14.40
23.55

I thought CX operated 5 daily to LHR?

From Galileo:

1.....7 HKG LHR 0020 0620 CX 237 77W
1234567 HKG LHR 0035 0620 CX 255 744
1234567 HKG LHR 1005 1600 CX 257 77W
.23456. HKG LHR 1025 1615 CX 239 77W
1234567 HKG LHR 1440 2030 CX 253 77W
1234567 HKG LHR 2355# 0540 CX 251 77W


so on day 1/7 CX 237 at 0020
and on days 2-6 CX 329 at 1025

So yes: total of 5 flights daily

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: sassiciai
Posted 2013-09-13 02:49:21 and read 15760 times.

Quoting seansasLCY (Reply 33):
CX has 6 non-stop departures, one is a B747, the others are B777W, departure times are
00.20
00.35 (B744)
10.05
10.25
14.40
23.55

I thought CX operated 5 daily to LHR?

You are correct.

I looked too quickly at the CX timetable - the 00.20 departure replaces the 10.25 two days per week (Sunday and Monday). In the timetable matrix, it is in a list of 6 rows!

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: CX Flyboy
Posted 2013-09-13 02:50:26 and read 15768 times.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 17):
Mr. Daniel Tsang, who wrote the article, is very likely a well informed journalist with great insights into CX and its market, however, this remains his writing and his analysis, and none of this, apart from a few quotes, comes from the horse's mouth.

Exactly. There has been no new information about CX. Just to be clear, everything written there has been strung together from information already known and most of it already previously discussed even on the forums here. Much of it is the opinion of the writer only. However he has done a good job of consolisating information and analysing it.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 22):
Is this CX offer all about frequency? Really only 3 times to choose from. Two of these leave 20 minutes apart just after 10am.

The strategy is frequency. The end result is that you get whatever you can get in terms of LHR slots. They are not ideal but you fly them anyway then hope for better ones as they come available. Having said that, the flights are almost totally full all the time, so it is still mission accomplished for CX.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: DarkSnowyNight
Posted 2013-09-13 03:03:15 and read 15627 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 31):
Doesn't that favour the A350 over the 777X then? Or am I experiencing another case of the A380 having its own rules?

I would think it favors both types (the 35J & 779, I mean). Part of the gift of frequency is that you get a good bit of discretion over which gauge to use when. Just as an example, I could totally envisage an extra daily to LAX (since we already don't get too many from CX) with an A35J or even an A359 in addition to the current lineup of 77Ws, and eventual 779s.

This would be no means be impossible with an A388, no doubt. But it would be harder to place that 380 somewhere else, should the need arise, than it would a 779.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-13 03:11:17 and read 15613 times.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 22):
CX has 6 non-stop departures, one is a B747, the others are B777W, departure times are
Quoting sassiciai (Reply 22):
Is this CX offer all about frequency? Really only 3 times to choose from. Two of these leave 20 minutes apart just after 10am. There are 3 departures that are effectively at the same time around midnight, indicative of needing 3 B777W to address the demand (note that almost simultaneously around midnight, BA has two departures - one of which will soon be A380, and if memory serves me well, VA also has departure(s) at that time). It could be argued that this CX route would benefit from flying A380s.


The current A380 is too small but also too big for CX.

One A380-800 is just a bit too small to replace 2x 77W aircraft. Let's have a look at the available seats:

> 4-class 77W: 275 seats / 550 seats
> 3-class F 77W: 297 seats / 594 seats
> 3-class Y+ 77W: 340 seats / 680 seats

BA has 4-class A380s with 469 seats while LH has 3-class A380s with 525 seats. It's obvious the -800 is too small to replace two 77W aircraft, but a larger aircraft might do the job.

On the other hand, replacing one 77W with one A380-800 would be a massive increase of available seats, making the -800 too big for CX, unless demand for air travel would grow enormously so it can justify six A380-800s on those routes.

[Edited 2013-09-13 03:12:50]

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-09-13 03:24:57 and read 15426 times.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 21):
Which sort of brings me to wonder about the replacement of the 77As. Those are high density aircraft for regional routes.
Some seat close to 400. CX has been operating high density regional jumbos since the Tristar.

I wonder if some of the A350s or 777X will be configured in high density configuration for these routes?

A359 seems to be the most likely candidate to replace the 2-class 772s, together with the 2-class A343s.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 22):
It could be argued that this CX route would benefit from flying A380s.

IIRC, even CX acknowledged this. However, this HKG-LHR route was one the few routes, along with perhaps one or two others. Just enough to sustain no more than 10 A380s, not enough for CX to sustain as a subfleet.

Quoting spink (Reply 23):
10 abreast will get them another 33 seats. The additional length of the 779 vs 77W will get them another 30-40 seats. So that's 63-73 seats right there. Going from 32" to 31" with slimline seats gets another 10. for a total of 83 additional seats. 83+340 = 423. So even a couple seats to spare. 420 in a J, E+, E config certainly is doable.

I've reacted in the dedicated 777X developments thread, but it is better discussed in this thread so I'll copy it if you don't mind:
This is probably how they could achieve it, but in reality I can't see CX sacrificing that much of the comfort which makes them a premium, 5 star airline, to cram as many pax in their cabins. It would ruin their reputation IMO.

10 abreast in Y will only gain 23 maximum in reality. It requires an extra seat in the centre of the Y cabin, and at the back this is not possible because of the stronger curvature of the fuselage. This will affect at least 4 rows of Y at the back, see current 10Y 777 configurations. And you cannot add any seats where CX has lavs or galleys positioned in the middle.
As for Y+, reducing seat width will just scare away the passengers who are willing to pay a premium for a more comfy seat.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 29):
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 16):For me, the 779 will be a VLA.Boeing doesn't project it as a VLA.

It will be bigger than the 747 classic though!  Wow!

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2013-09-13 03:45:24 and read 15231 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 31):
Doesn't that favour the A350 over the 777X then? Or am I experiencing another case of the A380 having its own rules?

I think it depends how the economics of the 777X and 350 ultimately compare. It's a smaller step change between the twins than from the twins to a 380.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: a380787
Posted 2013-09-13 03:47:59 and read 15242 times.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 5):
1. DFW will be the next U.S. destination using the B77W

"This cross-feeding between Cathay Pacific’s international network and Dragonair’s regional one is going to be of greater and greater importance as the airline evaluates new routes to Dallas-Fort Worth using new Boeing 777-300ERs "

They only said "evaluating" not guranteed next one. Everyone thought their next would be HKG-DFW when they surprised people with HKG-EWR.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: RedChili
Posted 2013-09-13 03:57:30 and read 15130 times.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 26):
I get why it's nice to fly the 380. But honestly, the only 380 operator that flies where(ish) CX does and operates a 380, and is approximately competitive (though not quite as good overall lately) would be SQ or TG. Certainly you could book with CZ or MAS, but would you really take those over CX? Just for the 388?

Depending on the route, they also compete with airlines like QF, EK, QR, LH, BA, AF (and one day maybe VS) that either fly or will fly the A380 on routes where CX could be an alternative.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: kaitak
Posted 2013-09-13 04:31:44 and read 14806 times.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 5):
1. DFW will be the next U.S. destination using the B77W

As A380787 mentions above, many (myself included) expected this instead of DFW.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 5):
2. New EU routes being seriously studied for the A359 include BCN, MAD and BRU effective 2016

What about MAN.

Quoting United Airline (Reply 14):
They change their mind all the time.....

Not necessarily; they said they would evaluate the A380 and they did; it didn't make the grade. They are not going to jump on the A380 bandwagon if it doesn't meet their criteria - and good for them. They know their market and they have a plan and right now, the 777X seems to fgit their needs better.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 16):
For me, the 779 will be a VLA.

Me too!

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 27):
A 779 that used the extra width to have even wider 9Y seats would be lovely, but very unlikely..

I wonder if CX will have a problem if the A35J is seen as more comfortable than the 779, if they go for 10 abreast. They will want to avoid a perception of one aircraft being perceived as considerably more comfortable than another. Presumably they will also work on soundproofing on the 779, because I have heard a number of complaints about cabin noise on the 777.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: fcogafa
Posted 2013-09-13 04:33:13 and read 14772 times.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 42):
Depending on the route, they also compete with airlines like QF, EK, QR, LH, BA, AF (and one day maybe VS) that either fly or will fly the A380 on routes where CX could be an alternative.

Their loads don't seem to be too bad considering they don't have the 'attraction' of the A380(!)

Also, replacing B777s with A380s looses useful cargo space

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: DarkSnowyNight
Posted 2013-09-13 05:13:47 and read 14388 times.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 42):

Depending on the route, they also compete with airlines like QF, EK, QR, LH, BA, AF (and one day maybe VS) that either fly or will fly the A380 on routes where CX could be an alternative.

You do have a good point. Nevertheless, for all of those except for maybe EK, CX still has an edge in every non Y class section. And that's not to say their Y isn't a front-runner either, just that there is more of a difference closer to the front.

Long story short, while there is indeed an attraction now to flying the 380, it isn't a big enough factor that CX should concern themselves with it, especially as there is fabulous potential for operating it at a loss anyway.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-09-13 05:34:22 and read 14158 times.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 17):

777-X is pretty much a given at CX, given its commitment into the program already. I just can't see them cramming 420 seats in it, not in a 4 class cabin where they currently fit around 300 in the 77W. Even with 10 abreast eco.

CX's operating philosophy of maximizing yields and profits, at the expense of volume and possibly market shares, is pretty evident.

Agreed. With the imminent retirement of their 747-400s, CX may well be looking for an aircraft larger than the 777-300ER / A350-1000 to fill the void that is to be left by the 747-400. The 777-9X appears to be the perfect fit.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 19):
I'm sure that CX is aware of the "halo effect" around the larger of the VLAs as reported by its operators, and that this keeps on drawing the punters to seek out that aircraft when possible, drawing them away from others

I am sure that they would have evaluated the aircraft, like any other reasonable airline would do. Evidently, CX have either yet to decide whether there is any benefit to them in ordering a 747-8i or A380-800; or decided that either, or both of those aircraft aren't suited to their present needs.

Any airline would be negligent in ordering an aircraf that's not suited to their needs only because of a subjective perception of a "halo effect". If CX are ever to order the A380, it will be because it suits them to do so, not because of some subjective "halo effect".

Quoting astuteman (Reply 31):
Doesn't that favour the A350 over the 777X then?

I think it would favour both of these large widebody twins over a quad. One of the reasons why I don't think we'll see CX order either the 747-8i or A380-800 is because they have a very substantial fleet of A350s and 777-300ERs either on order or currently in service, and if that article is any indication, they appear to be very interested in ordering the 777X as well.

The A380-900 is an entirely different kettle of fish, though. I think if Airbus were ever to release it, CX would be interested.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 38):
The current A380 is too small but also too big for CX.

  

Your post pretty much sums up the reasons why I don't think CX will order the A380-800, but that they could quite conceivably order the A380-900.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: commavia
Posted 2013-09-13 05:43:14 and read 14054 times.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 41):
They only said "evaluating" not guranteed next one.

  

Although for all the reasons previously discussed in other threads, I think HKG-DFW makes total sense. One way or another, whether flown by AA or CX, that route should be able to succeed. It is certainly very long, but the right aircraft can cater to the enormous connectivity available between oneworld's single largest hub in the Americas and oneworld's single largest hub in the Pacific Rim.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 41):
Everyone thought their next would be HKG-DFW when they surprised people with HKG-EWR.
Quoting kaitak (Reply 43):
As A380787 mentions above, many (myself included) expected this instead of DFW.

Really? I must have missed that, since I remember EWR being fairly thoroughly discussed and very long rumored going back almost two years, and when the rumor popped up last month about a new U.S. destination, the discussion seemed to almost immediately center around two cities - neither of which was DFW - and opinion seemed to relatively quickly coalesce around EWR. I don't remember HKG-DFW ever being seriously discussed as CX's "next" U.S. destination until the publication of a CAPA article on 26 August (almost two weeks after the EWR announcement) that alluded to, "Cathay Pacific evaluating Dallas/Fort Worth service."

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: behramjee
Posted 2013-09-13 05:43:21 and read 14068 times.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 43):
What about MAN.

MAN is a no brainer considering just the O&D demand between HKG and MAN alone over the past 12 months is 110,000 passengers! There is no way MAD and BCN can make more money for CX versus MAN.

Now as far as the African plans of LOS and ALG are concerned, currently the most dangerous city that CX operates to is Karachi, Pakistan and their crew do not overnight there. Instead they operate one set of crew BKK-KHI-BKK.

Lagos is a far more dangerous city than KHI especially after sunset (I know because I currently live in LOS and used to live in KHI) hence I do not for see CX operating nonstop flights from HKG to LOS due to the required overnight layover. I also do not see CX operating to LOS via DXB (like how CZ used to) as this too would require the crew to overnight in LOS.

The only way I can imagine CX operating to LOS is via NBO with one set of crew doing double duty shift operating NBO-LOS-NBO (5 hours flight each way). Due to the worsening economics of operating the A343 on long haul flights these days, if this plan did indeed come to fruit, it would happen only once the A359s start getting delivered and not anytime before.

FYI...for the past 12 months, the Nigeria-China (without HKG) total market size demand was approximately 90,000 passengers and HKG-LOS alone was approximately 15,000.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2013-09-13 06:37:24 and read 13477 times.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 48):
FYI...for the past 12 months, the Nigeria-China (without HKG) total market size demand was approximately 90,000 passengers and HKG-LOS alone was approximately 15,000.

Yeah I'm not sure what they're thinking with LOS considering they're pretty much east of all the markets they'd connect any volume to...

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: RWA380
Posted 2013-09-13 07:09:29 and read 13131 times.

Quoting na (Reply 2):
Ok, I´ll bypass CX from now on. I once liked them, but with no VLA they wont see me as a paying passenger again

Wow, well that is your opinion. To me entering and departing the A380 takes too much time, with too many people in the plane, even though they use two doors.

But if it were up to me, every flight would be on a 763, but I'd never exclude a carrier because they didn't fly a 763.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 5):

1. DFW will be the next U.S. destination using the B77W

Well I think most people thought AA would start this one, but I think CX is the better choice in their partnership.

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 9):
Nice to see CX looking at new long haul routes. I read a recent article on CAPA website comparing the recent performance of CX to SQ

I think geographics of HKG vs. SQ give CX an advantage, as HKG is more centrally located, but SQ is an equally as amazing airline. I think in the future, CX will be known as the "premiere airline of Asia" just from the growth I've seen in my life time.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 17):
DFW with the 777 seems very likely as well, though I would be surprised if the don't consider other east coast destinations too

MIA maybe? I would not be surprised, but once again, I think most people thought AA would be the one to start this, just like DFW. What an amazing ULH route HKG-MIA would be, It would have to one of the longest, since SIN-JFK/LAX are going away.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-09-13 07:32:14 and read 12869 times.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 50):
MIA maybe?

I don't imagine CX buying the ULH aircraft needed to serve MIA nonstop with a reasonable load. They'd need 777-8X or a ULH A350 variant that Airbus hasn't committed to yet.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: wingman
Posted 2013-09-13 07:37:26 and read 12800 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 13):
Good riddance. I'm sure CX won't miss you.

I rather respect this comment. If NA is serious, and we know from the other 380 that there are only 30 airports currently serving the 380, and this is the only plane he will fly (which I deduce from his comment), then he will be spending the rest of his life flying major trunk routes for business and for pleasure. I also respect his position though, in that vacation planning is now radically simplified.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-09-13 07:54:12 and read 12560 times.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 43):
I wonder if CX will have a problem if the A35J is seen as more comfortable than the 779, if they go for 10 abreast. They will want to avoid a perception of one aircraft being perceived as considerably more comfortable than another. Presumably they will also work on soundproofing on the 779, because I have heard a number of complaints about cabin noise on the 777.

But they currently do have perceptions issues on the 744 vs the 777 where there is a 1" diff in seat widths btw the Y seats on those aircraft, so I really do doubt that will come into play with the 779. The sound thing is once again over played, whilst the 380 is possibly the quietest airline in the sky...the 777 when compared with aircraft of the same gen are on par with each other. There was a document posted on the "777..18 years strong etc" highlighting the cabin noise diff and frankly it was negligible. Having flown the 777, 340, 330, 747 etc in both forward and rear cabins, I can't in all honesty point out to noise being of primary concern and I certainly haven't at any point seen any of the pax pointing out noise being an issue on the 777.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 48):
Lagos is a far more dangerous city than KHI especially after sunset (I know because I currently live in LOS and used to live in KHI) hence I do not for see CX operating nonstop flights from HKG to LOS due to the required overnight layover. I also do not see CX operating to LOS via DXB (like how CZ used to) as this too would require the crew to overnight in LOS.

The only way I can imagine CX operating to LOS is via NBO with one set of crew doing double duty shift operating NBO-LOS-NBO (5 hours flight each way). Due to the worsening economics of operating the A343 on long haul flights these days, if this plan did indeed come to fruit, it would happen only once the A359s start getting delivered and not anytime before.

FYI...for the past 12 months, the Nigeria-China (without HKG) total market size demand was approximately 90,000 passengers and HKG-LOS alone was approximately 15,000.

I do agree Lagos is not the safest city but yet, in the last 5 years...airline from North America, Europe and the Middle East have either opend routes to Lagos or increased frequency and/or capacity. These airlines mostly over night crew in Lagos and have found ways around these "security" issues. Also, Lagos more dangerous than Karachi? Don't kid me. I know this because I am Nigerian, lived in Lagos as well as a few cities in Europe, North America and the Gulf states. Like any large city, there are dangerous parts in Lagos I wouldn't go at night and there are certain places in NY, London etc I would think twice about going once its night time. Secondly the route from the airport to the hotels in the same Ikeja area where the airlines over night crew is straightforward.

Plus, I am still yet to know of any international airline that isn't raking in profits on this route.

For a market with no direct connection to HK & mainland China, 105000 pax demand is a lot and almost on par with the 110,000 for HKG to MAN which you put as a no brainer. Add to this that LOS is a high yield market with very little seasonal fluctuation makes it an attractive money making destination and once a direct connection is established, pax demand will certainly increase. Forecasts based on a gravity model I looked at as part of a report suggests this is a very good route, also taking into account the rate at which trade btw China and Nigeria has increased in the past 10 years and set to increase some more. They will however face a lot of resistance from the Gulf carriers and ET...though ET has started operations from the South East geopolitical zone, where a majority of this trade market originates from.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: 777way
Posted 2013-09-13 07:54:41 and read 12551 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 8):
Hmm, the African expansion is very logical particularly Lagos with the amount of Chinese investment in recent years. However they will face very heavy competition from the Gulf carriers as well as ET, as the West Africa to Asia market represents a majority of the pax leaving Lagos on these carriers.

LOS didn't work for China Southern as well as Jade Cargo, Algeria is a surprise, what market there?

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: angmoh
Posted 2013-09-13 07:59:19 and read 12510 times.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 50):
Wow, well that is your opinion. To me entering and departing the A380 takes too much time, with too many people in the plane, even though they use two doors.

Actually they use 3 doors and entering and departing is fine. It is much better than an A321, 737-900ER and especially 757. Yes, A330/772 are better in this respect, but it is about the same as 77W.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 50):
I think geographics of HKG vs. SQ give CX an advantage, as HKG is more centrally located, but SQ is an equally as amazing airline. I think in the future, CX will be known as the "premiere airline of Asia" just from the growth I've seen in my life time.

Personally, I think CX has dropped standards a lot in the last 10 years. I don't fly them often and if I fly them it is in Y, but they were top notch about 10 years ago and now on par with MH and TG if my limited exposure is an indicator. Their fare is on par with SQ, but their product is no longer on par in Y.

I can accept their fleet strategy and no A380, but if they go 10 abreast on 777X, then it confirms to me that they are on the way down. If they go 9 abreast on 777X and use that for premium service with lots of cargo to places like JFK, then I can understand that. But if they fly 10 abreast 777x to JFK and a more comfortable 9 abreast A359 to places like AMS, then I am wondering what their quality strategy is.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: N14AZ
Posted 2013-09-13 08:08:14 and read 12383 times.

Quoting wingman (Reply 52):

I rather respect this comment. If NA is serious, and we know from the other 380 that there are only 30 airports currently serving the 380, and this is the only plane he will fly (which I deduce from his comment), then he will be spending the rest of his life flying major trunk routes for business and for pleasure. I also respect his position though, in that vacation planning is now radically simplified.

Come on, of course he was referring to the longhaul-section of the flights only. Of course he will use whatever airplane for the connecting flight.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 20):

I feel the same way about WN and the L10 

Excuse me my ignorance but what is a L10?

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: RedChili
Posted 2013-09-13 08:08:43 and read 12400 times.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 45):
You do have a good point. Nevertheless, for all of those except for maybe EK, CX still has an edge in every non Y class section. And that's not to say their Y isn't a front-runner either, just that there is more of a difference closer to the front.

I actually forgot KE and OZ. Although CX is really considered a premium airline in all classes, some of these other airlines are also considered to be among the world's finest airlines.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 46):
Agreed. With the imminent retirement of their 747-400s, CX may well be looking for an aircraft larger than the 777-300ER / A350-1000 to fill the void that is to be left by the 747-400. The 777-9X appears to be the perfect fit.

The obvious problem being that the 744 is being retired now, while the 777-9X won't be available until 2020, or possibly even later.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: angmoh
Posted 2013-09-13 08:08:51 and read 12389 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 53):
But they currently do have perceptions issues on the 744 vs the 777 where there is a 1" diff in seat widths btw the Y seats on those aircraft, so I really do doubt that will come into play with the 779.

1" I notice within 1 second of sitting down and for me it is a reason to switch. I have done that in the past: changed to a different route to go from 747 to 777 9-abreast. It is a big deal on 13 hour flight. Your statement on noise I agree with, but seat width is a big issue (my shoulder width is 18" - sitting next to me in a 10-abreast 777 is definitely no fun).

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2013-09-13 08:14:30 and read 12308 times.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 56):

Excuse me my ignorance but what is a L10?

L1011 

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: gegarrenton
Posted 2013-09-13 08:16:16 and read 12294 times.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 56):
Come on, of course he was referring to the longhaul-section of the flights only. Of course he will use whatever airplane for the connecting flight.

Plenty of long haul routes wouldn't be on VLAs either

Anyway, I don't think that anyone making such an absurd statement really gets that much credit.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2013-09-13 08:30:49 and read 12190 times.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 1):
I believe the air service agreement with Australia limits the number of movements.

Article says 70-weekly frequencies.

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 4):
Right, because every carrier with an A380 is better than CX. CX, if they bypass the A380, will prove that you don't need an A380 to beat an A380.

  

Article mentions the 777-9X CASK is expected to match the larger A380, with benefit off lower overall trip cost and reduced yield pressure to fill all the seats.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 13):
Indeed. If the 10 abreast 747 is just fine, then so too will the 10 abreast 777X be fine as the whole point of adding those 4" of cabin width

  

Never quite understood this 9 vs 10 argument. Outside some aficionado's I don't think the general public cares, and survey after survey does not put seat density as much of a decision point for consumers.

At the end of the day with precious little space to play with, every square meter needs to help make the economic case for a model.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 20):
Why AA went to ICN over DFW I will never know...

Suppose because its a bigger market, its closer, and can be flown on the smaller 772ER ?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 20):
And the way to do that is with schedule frequency versus gauge, which they've been doing

   CX in the longhaul arena has definitely pursued a frequency model in scheduling, along with as mentioned in the article placing importance on managing yields upward.

Quoting 777way (Reply 54):
Algeria is a surprise, what market there?

As odd as it might seem, the two nations have strong business ties.

Below article calls Algeria the most important market in Africa for China with 50 companies and 30,000 Chinese employees based there.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCont...in-Algeria-in-a-decade-Envoy-.aspx

For info ALG is one of the top markets for TK, which employs a A330/A340 in the route to connect with China services. Outside of Saudi Arabia connection, the ALG routes top beyond connecting markets are PEK & PVG for TK.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: N14AZ
Posted 2013-09-13 08:50:43 and read 11964 times.

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 60):
Plenty of long haul routes wouldn't be on VLAs either

From FRA actually yes, at least in direction Asia: KE, TG, LH.
Two of my colleagues are planning their flights exactly as NA described: they take TG to Bangkog and then further to China or to Vietnam because they love the cabin and the service. They just didn't know they are actively searching for A 380-flights, until I told them it's the A 380.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 59):
L1011

And I was already wondering if WN ever operated the Let 410..  

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: gegarrenton
Posted 2013-09-13 09:19:13 and read 11655 times.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 62):
From FRA actually yes, at least in direction Asia: KE, TG, LH.
Two of my colleagues are planning their flights exactly as NA described: they take TG to Bangkog and then further to China or to Vietnam because they love the cabin and the service. They just didn't know they are actively searching for A 380-flights, until I told them it's the A 380.

How does listing a couple 380 routes refute that not all routes would be 380?

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: okapi
Posted 2013-09-13 14:45:21 and read 9610 times.

Quoting 777way (Reply 54):

Well apparently, Air Algérie has the market with 2 weekly non-stop flights from ALG to PEK on A330. There are massive investments in Algeria and many other African countries. You can read an interesting research from the African Development Bank here: http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/upload...ons/Brochure%20China%20Anglais.pdf

These investments are bound to grow over the next ten years and both ET and KQ are deploying Boeing 777s on China routes. Cathay's move now makes sense. Only time will tell if they'll be able to turn this into profit. No doubt the A350 will be a good card to play in this case.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: B-HOP
Posted 2013-09-13 18:03:17 and read 9004 times.

You look at the amount of excess baggage check in on ET, KQ flight you will know why, they don't need to load, those in itself make loads of $. It is similar to Bangladesh flt, a full fare return is HK$8800 (exclude tax) on KA, for a five hour flight, there are massive amount of trader traffic to Africa, I am surprise they are not going NGO/Lagos (via DXB) today. For VLA, they have not officially denied it altogether though it would be interesting what lift they have between 2017 and 2020, would not surprise if B throw 8 to 10 748 at rock bottom price in order to get CX to launch 777-9x, As Jetstar, they knew they are a force to be reckon so they are worry, not with 320 flying around Asia but with 787 doing L/H routes, growth of low cost in SIN came from abundant of cheap accommodation (hostel for US$15 a night)for lower end travelers, something HK do not and government itself DOES NOT want to have (yield);HKE by contrast, is nothing, but things move on from coloniel times, you DON'T OWN the traffic right, so I would believe a license will be granted.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: NZ107
Posted 2013-09-13 18:17:12 and read 8951 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 53):
But they currently do have perceptions issues on the 744 vs the 777 where there is a 1" diff in seat widths btw the Y seats on those aircraft,

The bigger issue is the difference between the seats on the 744 (old shell seat) vs the 77W (the new cradle seat). Maybe some people notice this width difference but I've never had a problem with the width of any seat. But comfort for me comes from the seat itself and the 77W seat is miles ahead of the horrible shell seat which CX decided not to replace; but instead install it as a 'regional economy' seat.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-09-13 19:01:17 and read 8867 times.

Quoting 777way (Reply 54):
LOS didn't work for China Southern as well as Jade Cargo

Look @ the main hub for China Southern...is there any surprise why it didn't work? I believe the Jade Cargo route to LOS was seasonal, secondly Jade Cargo ceased ops after just 7 years of operation.....they had numerous routes that didn't work.

Quoting angmoh (Reply 58):
1" I notice within 1 second of sitting down and for me it is a reason to switch. I have done that in the past: changed to a different route to go from 747 to 777 9-abreast. It is a big deal on 13 hour flight. Your statement on noise I agree with, but seat width is a big issue (my shoulder width is 18" - sitting next to me in a 10-abreast 777 is definitely no fun).

Ah understandable in your case but you'd be in a very small minority....most people wouldn't notice the difference.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-09-13 21:31:55 and read 8629 times.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 57):
The obvious problem being that the 744 is being retired now, while the 777-9X won't be available until 2020, or possibly even later.

Last time I checked, the last of the 744s are not due to be retired until 2016. There is always the option for them to lease some aircraft in the interim period. Even if not, though, they have a sizeable fleet of 777-300ERs and A350-1000s either already in service or on order, so they are not exactly short on capacity.

Quoting B-HOP (Reply 65):
For VLA, they have not officially denied it altogether though it would be interesting what lift they have between 2017 and 2020, would not surprise if B throw 8 to 10 748 at rock bottom price in order to get CX to launch 777-9x

There is indeed that possibility as well. It would be great to see the 747-8i in CX colours  

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: B-HOP
Posted 2013-09-13 22:38:02 and read 8532 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 67):
Look @ the main hub for China Southern...is there any surprise why it didn't work? I believe the Jade Cargo route to LOS was seasonal, secondly Jade Cargo ceased ops after just 7 years of operation.....they had numerous routes that didn't work.

There are 200,000 traders and their families from all over Africa living in Guangzhou alone, (with or without paperworks) and travel around factories all around PRD to do sourcing for their home countries, though I think the reason may be the distance from Guangzhou and crew cost (away for a week), meanwhile, CZ developing themselves on kangaroo routes means their 330 have even better use.



Quoting CXB77L (Reply 68):
There is indeed that possibility as well. It would be great to see the 747-8i in CX colours  

I reckon the 748, if join CX in this context, would be the replacement for 773, high capacity, with nice front end seats (to counter MH,SQ,TG.KE 380 in HKG), whilst shares the same platform as 748F.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: TGV
Posted 2013-09-13 23:04:20 and read 8479 times.

Quoting trent900 (Reply 18):
I find 77W's uncomfortable on long journeys ie; noise, space etc which always makes me try and book on an A380 first (I'm sure we're not the only two people that does this), but as other people have mentioned this isn't always possible.

Totally agree !

When AF went 10 abreast in their 777 I left them, and my preferred airline to SE Asia (from Paris), became CX (I even liked the hard shell seats on their 744, unlike many people).
But now that they use 777 on the CDG-HKG route I have moved to SQ, even if this entails often slgihtly longer flights, as A380 comfort is decisive in Y.
I will test the MH A380 option for my next flight (but it will be in J, as the fare was reasonable).

I have not yest tried the CX Premium Eco, as fares where too high in the few cases it was a possible option (for me Y+ can be 50% more than Eco, but not 100% more) but will do it when possible.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: RedChili
Posted 2013-09-13 23:42:36 and read 8357 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 68):
Last time I checked, the last of the 744s are not due to be retired until 2016.

I was under the impression that most of them were gone already, and the rest were leaving very soon. But anyway, that leaves a minimum of four years with a 77W as the largest airplane. And that is assuming that Boeing will not be late with their 77X program.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-09-14 02:20:44 and read 8181 times.

Quoting TGV (Reply 70):
But now that they use 777 on the CDG-HKG route I have moved to SQ, even if this entails often slgihtly longer flights, as A380 comfort is decisive in Y.

Unlike AF, CX do not configure economy class on their 777s with 10 seats across. I have found CX's latest Y product to be exemplary - and far better than their previous hard shell seats (even though like you, I actually quite liked those seats)!

Quoting RedChili (Reply 71):
But anyway, that leaves a minimum of four years with a 77W as the largest airplane. And that is assuming that Boeing will not be late with their 77X program.

It does indeed, which is why one of the options would be to lease some more aircraft for a few years if they do indeed need something in the interim period.

I don't think the fact of the 777-9X entering into service four years after CX's planned retirement of its last 744s is a decisive factor as to whether or not they will get them.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: TGV
Posted 2013-09-14 04:42:24 and read 7986 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 72):
Unlike AF, CX do not configure economy class on their 777s with 10 seats across. I have found CX's latest Y product to be exemplary - and far better than their previous hard shell seats (even though like you, I actually quite liked those seats)!


I agree that 9 abreast 777 are far better than 10 abreast, however I have never been a great fan of the 777, and I was just confirming the opinion of tren900 on this point : if I have the choixe between a 777 and a 380, I do not hesitate, even at the expense of a longer journey time.

The level of noise in the cabin of 777 is far to high, and I have finished at least half of my flights on 777 (in Y, Y+ or J) with a headache.

Plus, I prefer window seats, and in this case a 2-X-2 config is the best : this is what you can have on the UD of the 380 (SQ 388 flying to Paris had this config when I flew them, not the complete J upper deck config).

In the coming years, with the 787 and 350, getinng a 2-x-2 config will become very difficult in Y, let's hope Y+ will remain within a reasonable price range !

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-09-14 06:01:51 and read 7839 times.

Quoting B-HOP (Reply 69):
There are 200,000 traders and their families from all over Africa living in Guangzhou alone, (with or without paperworks) and travel around factories all around PRD to do sourcing for their home countries, though I think the reason may be the distance from Guangzhou and crew cost (away for a week), meanwhile, CZ developing themselves on kangaroo routes means their 330 have even better use.


True, however Nigeria is just one Country in Africa...so that will be a % of that number...then take into account that an even smaller % of that number will fly @ least once a year. The distance was a factor particularly for the a330 they used, as it would have little weight to haul cargo after loading pax and fuel. In essence, they used the wrong aircraft from the wrong hub. When that wasn't working, they decided to do a stop via dubai...which was an even worse idea as they were up against EK who have a lot of Nigerians going via Dubai to Asia. If they do attempt this route again, they should try from Beijing instead and with a 787 which can travel the distance with a reasonable payload.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: CX Flyboy
Posted 2013-09-14 17:14:49 and read 7289 times.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 41):
Everyone thought their next would be HKG-DFW when they surprised people with HKG-EWR.

Actually EWR was planned and even announced a couple of years ago before they postponed plans. The recent EWR announcement should have surprised no-one.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 43):
Quoting behramjee (Reply 5):
2. New EU routes being seriously studied for the A359 include BCN, MAD and BRU effective 2016

What about MAN.

MAN is included.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 49):
Quoting behramjee (Reply 48):
FYI...for the past 12 months, the Nigeria-China (without HKG) total market size demand was approximately 90,000 passengers and HKG-LOS alone was approximately 15,000.

Yeah I'm not sure what they're thinking with LOS considering they're pretty much east of all the markets they'd connect any volume to...

I have not heard anything internally about Lagos or Algeria, even from a presentation to staff of future toures being examined. The way the article seemed to lump those two destinations in the same paragraph as talking about future co-operation with Air China makes me seem to think that the writer was referring to some sort of tie-up on the route with CA and not CX flying the routes themselves. It is a badly written paragraph.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-09-14 17:18:26 and read 7277 times.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 41):
They only said "evaluating" not guranteed next one. Everyone thought their next would be HKG-DFW when they surprised people with HKG-EWR.

AS much as I would love to see Cathay fly to DFW I would prefer AA to their 77W to Hong Kong.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: CXGabriel
Posted 2013-09-17 08:22:19 and read 6091 times.

Another article: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/AW_09_09_2013_p44-610771.xml

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: B-HOP
Posted 2013-09-17 09:04:37 and read 5958 times.

CXGabriel

Cant read the article, would you mind to summarize that for us.

Kev

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2013-09-17 09:16:12 and read 5922 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 61):

Suppose because its a bigger market, its closer, and can be flown on the smaller 772ER ?

But it has two problems for AA--it's Asia, and it has competition, both of which are terrible for AA , never mind that it has limited oneworld presence.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 76):

AS much as I would love to see Cathay fly to DFW I would prefer AA to their 77W to Hong Kong.

It seems like it's AA's to lose, but it's also very risky for AA.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: a380787
Posted 2013-09-17 10:29:03 and read 5738 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 76):
AS much as I would love to see Cathay fly to DFW I would prefer AA to their 77W to Hong Kong.

And the difference is .... ? Much easier upgrade process for AA elites ?

Not sure how F heavy this route is. Perhaps CX using a J / Y+ / Y config is better than AA using F/J/Y

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-09-17 10:56:04 and read 5685 times.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 80):
And the difference is .... ? Much easier upgrade process for AA elites ?

Because for most of the last 30 years the only city AA fliesto in Asia is Tokyo. They fly to China too and recently DFW to Seoul. Hong Kong is the natural extension of their Asian operations, especially since its a OW hub.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-09-18 02:39:45 and read 5182 times.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 17):
Mr. Daniel Tsang, who wrote the article, is very likely a well informed journalist with great insights into CX and its market, however, this remains his writing and his analysis, and none of this, apart from a few quotes, comes from the horse's mouth.

Aspire Aviation in my view is low quality, they are wrong more often than not when it comes to CX and very bias towards anything Boeing. They then go around making edit to their articles when the real fact emerge, without leaving the original and making an amendment.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 17):
Routes to Africa? Why not, but I don't see it happening soon, not before they receive the A350.

The A350 will see a lot of different possibilities become available, LOS is just one of them. The deployment will depend on what routes will provide the best yields to the NETWORK, not just a route segment

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 68):
Last time I checked, the last of the 744s are not due to be retired until 2016. There is always the option for them to lease some aircraft in the interim period. Even if not, though, they have a sizeable fleet of 777-300ERs and A350-1000s either already in service or on order, so they are not exactly short on capacity.

There should be no more ULH 744 services after next year, there will be freighters and some regional flights. When the A350s start being delivered, the 777s stop. The -900 is not there to replace 744s.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: a380787
Posted 2013-09-18 03:35:01 and read 5042 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 81):
Because for most of the last 30 years the only city AA fliesto in Asia is Tokyo. They fly to China too and recently DFW to Seoul. Hong Kong is the natural extension of their Asian operations, especially since its a OW hub.

The issue with this flight is that all the largest O&D markets between HKG and North America (SFO, LAX, ORD, JFK, YVR, YYZ) would require detour and backtrack to take advantage of such a flight.

If it's about connections to China, then the CX ORD-HKG flight is less backtracking for most pax, and if it's about Latin America, CX HKG-JFK already has connections to a lot of the bigger destinations (GRU, GIG, EZE etc)

Either operated by CX or AA, DFW-HKG is a solution searching for a problem.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-18 04:50:43 and read 4889 times.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 22):
Is this CX offer all about frequency? Really only 3 times to choose from. Two of these leave 20 minutes apart just after 10am.

I think these flights around midnight are for passengers that want to land at LHR right when curfew is lifted in the morning and so they can have a full day in London. It seems to be a popular time. Certainly an A380 could be a benefit here.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 39):
10 abreast in Y will only gain 23 maximum in reality.

I personally count at least 31.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 39):
It requires an extra seat in the centre of the Y cabin, and at the back this is not possible because of the stronger curvature of the fuselage. This will affect at least 4 rows of Y at the back

As with the Max and the 787 I believe Boeing will change the aft contour to prevent this seat elimination in the back.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 39):
As for Y+, reducing seat width will just scare away the passengers who are willing to pay a premium for a more comfy seat.

I am not sure if they will have to decrease seat width in Y+. SQ fits their 77Ws in Y at 19.0" at 9-abreast. If you take that seat setup and add the additional 4" of cabin width you essentially get CX's current Y+ configuration (19.5") but at 9-abreast.

So CX can get at least 31 seats in Y by going to 10-abreast, 30 more seats for the -9 stretch, and 4 more Y+ seats which takes seating over 400 seats in their configuration. Definitely dropping their 18.5" Y seat for 17.5" seat would be a real detriment so the decision is not a slam dunk.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-18 04:57:47 and read 4861 times.

In regard to Y+, I personally like the idea of expanding Y+ if CX decides to go to 17.5" 10-abreast in a 777x cabin. With an expanded Y+ CX could purposely not sell a couple rows of the seats and just upgrade the most loyal Polo members to Y+ on every flight. They would still fly more passengers, make more money, and if they periodically upgraded their loyal Y customers maybe they could even provide a better experience at exact the same time. Give Y a better IFE system and hopefully a more comfortable seat and maybe the loss of an inch won't matter that much.

Hong Kong is facing competition from cheaper airlines, ignoring the economics of 10-abreast may not be a good idea. Are their valuable customers really flying Y afterall?

tortugamon

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-09-18 06:24:30 and read 4679 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 84):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 39):10 abreast in Y will only gain 23 maximum in reality.
I personally count at least 31.

I thought the first 4 rows left ofdoor 3L were Y+, but these are Y. So I give you those 4  
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 84):
As with the Max and the 787 I believe Boeing will change the aft contour to prevent this seat elimination in the back.

The MAX apparently will get a 787 style tail section, but the 777X renderings show it keeps the 777 screwdriver tail (which I'm very pleased about for esthetic reasons   ) The 4" extra internal width might give it one extra row of 10Y at the back though.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 84):
I am not sure if they will have to decrease seat width in Y+. SQ fits their 77Ws in Y at 19.0" at 9-abreast. If you take that seat setup and add the additional 4" of cabin width you essentially get CX's current Y+ configuration (19.5") but at 9-abreast.

It's possible, yes. And with more and more 777s with 10Y probably likely.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 84):
So CX can get at least 31 seats in Y by going to 10-abreast, 30 more seats for the -9 stretch, and 4 more Y+ seats which takes seating over 400 seats in their configuration. Definitely dropping their 18.5" Y seat for 17.5" seat would be a real detriment so the decision is not a slam dunk.

Can see 400 pax in a Y/Y+/J 3 class CX configuration is indeed a possibility, if they keep the Business class the same. For 420 pax they have to either reduce their J seats or cram more seats in their current space, I can't see that happening now. However, in 10 years time, who knows?

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-09-18 06:32:28 and read 4644 times.

420 pax is possible but again, that's in a tight Boeing configuration. Here's the 787-10 seat map for example, the last 27 seats (3 rows) are 31" pitch instead of 32". A similar construction on the 777X can give you 2 more rows (2x 10 seats).

http://oi42.tinypic.com/35ioth3.jpg

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-09-18 07:05:59 and read 4581 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 85):

In regard to Y+, I personally like the idea of expanding Y+ if CX decides to go to 17.5" 10-abreast in a 777x cabin.

CX is getting rid of the 17" seats out of the long haul aircraft (by dropping the 744), and never to return AFAIK. The A330, A340, A350 and 777 will have the same seat for 8/9 across, so no 17" Y seat.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-18 07:12:40 and read 4550 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 86):
Can see 400 pax in a Y/Y+/J 3 class CX configuration is indeed a possibility, if they keep the Business class the same. For 420 pax they have to either reduce their J seats or cram more seats in their current space, I can't see that happening now. However, in 10 years time, who knows?

I agree. Spink has some good arguments on how to get to 420+ plus but I think it compromises some of CX's comfort.

One way I think they can 'cram more seats' but keeping standards intact is by storing FA carts in the crown of the aircraft and shrinking galley size. Boeing has already patented the galley cart elevator/lift and there is plenty of room up there as its only partially occupied by a very spacious crew rest area. Also, as J class is only 4 abreast in CX configuration there really is not the same need for overhead bins over the center aisle thereby freeing up more space for cart storage. It would add to aircraft weights but I could easily see additional rows being added if these dozens and dozens of food carts did not occupy valuable cabin floor space.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 87):
31" pitch instead of 32"

Hopefully CX won't have to make this compromise. I think 31" is just not enough for long haul especially for a premium airline. Hopefully Boeing didn't make that type of recommendation in their 'pitch'.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2013-09-23 08:28:39 and read 3720 times.

Regarding the 9 vs 10 across, I think its inevitable the standard will be 10, especially if the 777X has the 4-inch wider cabin.

Working on a couple carrier projects, I have seen the very strong compelling financial case made for 10-across on current 777 series. It almost becomes a non-decision when the numbers are played out over several years. It really makes a big revenue earnings difference.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 76):
AS much as I would love to see Cathay fly to DFW I would prefer AA to their 77W to Hong Kong.

As a AA EXP, I'd rather see and take a CX flight any day.

Also CX has much better knowhow of running such long haul sectors, and believe they better opportunity to make flight work versus AA.

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-09-23 09:26:27 and read 3556 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 76):

AS much as I would love to see Cathay fly to DFW I would prefer AA to their 77W to Hong Kong

What would stop AA from using their 10 across on this route?

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-09-23 09:40:28 and read 3498 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 88):
CX is getting rid of the 17" seats out of the long haul aircraft (by dropping the 744), and never to return AFAIK.

If CX stands by that I see very little chance of them operating the 777-9x. I just can't see there being enough benefit over the A351. And if that is the case, I have a hard time seeing the A351 as the largest aircraft in CX's fleet. A VLA certainly becomes more realistic, and therefore the A380 seems likely (over the 747-8i). However, I think they will accept the 10 abreast and chose the 777-9 for the reasons stated above.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 90):
Regarding the 9 vs 10 across, I think its inevitable the standard will be 10

Me too. AA, LX, and now LH in addition to it already being the lion's share of new deliveries. I still think SQ could be a hold out as I see them converting to the A351.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 91):
What would stop AA from using their 10 across on this route?

Nothing. Early reviews have been very positive. Especially in J.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo
Username: a380787
Posted 2013-09-23 09:52:58 and read 3461 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 91):
What would stop AA from using their 10 across on this route?

actually, nothing. given their 77W are 10-abreast and 772ER to be retrofitted to 3-4-3, it's almost guaranteed AA DFW-HKG would be 10-across while CX HKG-DFW would still have a good chance of 3-3-3


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/