Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CX A340-600 To SYD  
User currently offlineBabaero From Philippines, joined Jan 2002, 464 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4340 times:

For those interested,especially the aussie spotters.

CX A340-600 start operating CX101 on 30th Mar 2003. CX101 will be operated every day with -600 aircraft as per summer schedule.

LAX service reverts back to 744

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4289 times:

That was very interesting thing for CX aircraft changes sked from HKG-LAX by the Airbus A346 to B744 aircraft again. What is exactly will have planned going on on the Airbus A346 aircraft to SYD? Well, talk ya later!

Regards!

Scott W.


User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4175 times:

Amazing,

makes no sense to me. Surely the A346 is more suited to HKG LAX with its range and swapping to 744 and placing A346 to SYD seems silly




User currently offlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 833 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4115 times:

I'm afraid it's bums on seats and the Airbus with only 288 in the winter (lower loads) with the strong headwinds is the more economical A/C, while the 400 in summer with a full load of 343-389 and weaker headwinds makes it the better A/C.


C152 G115 TB10 CAP10 SR-22 Be76 PA-34 NDN-1T C500 A330-300 A340-300 -600 B747-200F -200SF -400 -400F -400BCF -400ERF -8F
User currently offlineCX773 From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2001, 365 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4100 times:

It does make sense with changing to HKG-SYD. the fact is A340-600 can't make money on HKG-LAX route. so CX is not going to use this plane to fly HKG-JFK for sure!



User currently offlineB-HXB From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 745 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3924 times:

Boeing 767-300: My thoughts exactly! I can understand why they might not choose to use it for HKG LAX but what about HKG LHR which is sometimes operated by an A340-300? Isn't the A346 designed to be an efficient, ultra long-haul aircraft?

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3924 times:

CX773-

I find that comment very hard to make. The schedules they're carrying out have ALWAYS been the plan. They aren't suddenly swapping planes.

Can you add some substance to your statement that the plane can't make money?

N


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3916 times:

I can understand why they might not choose to use it for HKG LAX but what about HKG LHR which is sometimes operated by an A340-300?

It appears that CX is on the way to choosing the 773ER, despite the additional engine type, for Euro-flights in the near future.... as opposed to A346. They'll be [idiotically] reluctant to fly a twin over the water however, so they'll probably work the two together.


User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2389 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3875 times:

I'm sure Cxflyboy can elaborate, but surely dispatching a twin over the high terrain between Hong Kong and Europe would be impossible due to single engine maximum operating altitudes at the high weights required for the route. A four engine aircraft only has to prove 3 engine operating altitudes.

User currently offlineFSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3872 times:

"I'm sure Cxflyboy can elaborate, but surely dispatching a twin over the high terrain....."

Stop calling me shirly..  Smile/happy/getting dizzy I love Airplane the movie



FSP


User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2744 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3860 times:

AJ,

Hence the reason twins have a much higher thrust-to-weight ratio than quads. Many airlines operate Europe-HKG flights with twins, both with 777s, A330s, and at some times, 767s.

The only operational limit right now is flying directly over the Himalayas, and this restriction applies to ALL aircraft, not just twins.

Regards,

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2389 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3837 times:

I'm aware of twin certification, particulary as I fly the B767, however at max weight the single engine ceiling is still in the low twenties. The higher thrust to weight is mainly to meet second segment climb criteria. It is the Himalayan routes in Chinese airspace I am referring too, that being the most efficient at some times of the year. What percentage of Cathay's flights operate on these routes?
The Himalayan operational limit on a Boeing 747-400 is related to oxygen capacity southbound, with jumbos on L888 for example carrying extra oxygen in the passenger cabin. It can only be flown southbound as aircraft are too heavy northbound to maintain the LSALT engine out.


User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3845 times:

One would have thought that the ideal route for CX 346 would be HKG LAX loaded long range fuel efficient type of leg Cathy envisaged for 346.

Yet they take it off that and place on a route HKG SYD that is within the range of almost anything else 330s 744 773s 772 767s when the larger capacity 744 has proven ideal.

Whats going on here. Does Cathay know something about 346 that we don't.

Could CX be a little disappointed in there 346s thusfar and maybe they are genuinely interested in this brute GE engines and all


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King



User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3827 times:

It was always planned to go to SYD at this point. The LAX part of the schedule did have a planned end date.

Maybe cxflyboy can be more specific.

N


User currently offlineCx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6598 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3815 times:

It is correct that SYD was always in the plan. The 744 carries 100 more pax than the A346, so they are not competing aircraft. The A346 however does carry a lot of freight and that is what they needed more of in Sydney.

I obviously don't have data for the 777-300ER. However for the 773 in our configuration, MTOW is 263tonnes. Our data for Engine INOP max alt shows at 300 tonnes up to ISA+10 we can maintain FL140. We don't use full TO rating at the moment, but if we did, I believe our MTOW would be around 300tonnes, or certainly towards it. At these weights we cannot clear some of the highest terrain on our European routes. We would definately use different routes, namely the more northern routes over Mongolia rather than the route south of that over Urumqi. Air France currently flies 772s HKG-CDG, but not sure which way they go, north or south.


User currently offlineGuyBetsy1 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 840 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3751 times:

I think the A333 that flies that route regularly is due for maintanence and the B747 that flies to SYD is also probably due to be retrofitted with the New Business Class, hence the aircrat swapping.

CX is still refurbishing their aircrafts with the new Business Class seats, hence there will always be confusion as to what aircraft flies where. And whenever each aircraft goes in the hanger, it disappears for a month and that void has to be filled out somehow by replacement aircraft. So a 346 that normally flies the long haul can take the flak for a semi-long haul flight for a while.

All the Airbus A340-300s will be refurbished by this year. The B747-400s are halfway done with the remaining 8 to be completed by Feb 04. So in the meantime, there will be plane charades!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
CX-A340-600's To Eventually Replace 744's? posted Tue Aug 27 2002 06:00:56 by Bkkair
CX A340-600 Diversion To YYZ On Nov. 28? posted Mon Nov 29 2004 22:39:15 by Q400
CX A340-600 Going To YYZ Today posted Fri Aug 22 2003 03:26:49 by Cx flyboy
Virgin A340-600 To Feature In New Bond Movie posted Thu Jun 15 2006 16:48:49 by Angelairways
Virgin A340-600 To EDI? posted Thu Jun 30 2005 12:18:22 by Gkirk
Lufthansa A340-600 To DEN? posted Tue Dec 14 2004 05:12:14 by Corbin
CX A340-600 Anymore On Order? posted Thu Nov 11 2004 01:33:33 by Ktachiya
LH A340-600 To ORD posted Sat Aug 28 2004 03:39:59 by Ord777
A340-600 To Lagos Tonight (sat) posted Sat Aug 21 2004 16:01:29 by Intheknow
Virgin Atlantic A340-600's To MIA? posted Tue Apr 20 2004 09:17:52 by MIAspotter