Manni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23 Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1455 times:
Despite earlier rumours that CI was going to purchase the 748, and the immidiate denial of CI thereafter, saying that both the A380 and 748 are in the race, CI now has shelved plans to renew their fleet.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4273 posts, RR: 14 Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1393 times:
you beat me to it, will suggest deletion of the thread I started,
any news though on their A340 replacement plans??
whats happening with their 744F damaged in production??? on another thread someone said it was written off, if so , how are Boeing going to meet their contractual requirements?? will other 744F customers get their planes bumped or will CI have to wait till there is a vacant production line slot - which another thread says has been all taken up by CX!
Qantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1271 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1393 times:
Quoting AA1818 (Reply 2): How was the plane damaged in production???
During a cabin pressure test, the cargo door blew on a certain part, the final report isnt out yet but luckely nobody war hurt.
1 day later Boeing did some tests on MH`s new B744F, registration 9M-MPR to check that nothing was wrong with that A/C because it was the plane build right after that CI with the Line number 1370 and the MH had ln 1371, but after doing a cabin pressure test etc. the plane was delivered. The damage on the CI 744F with registration. B-18722 was only on the cargo door, so replacement is not a problem, i think their just waiting for the exact causes to be sure till delivery accurs.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4273 posts, RR: 14 Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1387 times:
Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 3): The damage on the CI 744F with registration. B-18722 was only on the cargo door, so replacement is not a problem, i think their just waiting for the exact causes to be sure till delivery accurs.
WorldXplorer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 381 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1361 times:
Interesting to read that their response to high fuel prices will be to cut service to JFK, IAH, and FCO. Those must not be money makers for them. IMO, JFK is a surprise. I notice that all three of those destinations are 1-stop flights. Does anyone know where they route thru? I wonder if just the tag-ons will be dropped or if the entire routing will be cut.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4273 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1340 times:
JFK - ANC, probably too much competition from BR and other carriers connecting via other places like NRT, SEL
IAH - SEA, they actually increased TPE-SEA this summer so that segment is doing well, IIRC the TPE-SEA-IAH was up to 4/week, now its only 3x/week and with 2 additional flights TPE- SEA only. I think UAs flights to Vietnam has cut into their business significantly as originally there ws a large number of Vietnamese Americans going to Vietnam from IAH taking the CI flight and connecting in TPE.
FCO - BKK, this was once via AUH which they dropped a few years back but this spring they changed TPE-VIE to TPE-AUH-VIE, maybe they will go back to TPE-AUH-FCO, IIRC they cannot carry passengers BKK-FCO, only their BKK-AMS flight is allowed to pick up in Thailand (or they are allowed only a daily flight picking up and TPE-AMS is now daily)