Vulindlela744 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 527 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7965 times:
It does seem funny they have not jumped on the A380. It seems that quite a few of their routes would benefit from it. Seems like they are going with the 777-300ER as the flagship of their fleet. maybe they are just waiting to see how the airlines like it and also to see the actual economics of it after a year in service. Stay tuned
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12665 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7938 times:
After CX's experience with the A340-600, an aircraft they never liked, they won't be buying early models of Airbus aircraft; CX's Tony Tyler has said, publicly, that he wants to wait for a higher gross weight/longer range A380 before CX will consider the type. An -800R model is expected at some stage and maybe this will be the juncture at which CX considers the type.
I do think, however, that it is a question of when, not if. Remember, CX didn't get its first 747s until 1978, but it has become a pretty significant operator of the type.
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7964 times:
Its hard to argue against the efficiency of twin 773ER and paid off 744's, Cathay even has ex-SIA 744 with P&W engines in its passenger fleet, Heresy for Cathay I think but then times are interesting in teh airline business. Those 777 flying to JFK and other points are beauties.
CX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6650 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7754 times:
From what I am hearing now, the A380 will definately be coming. They have not ordered any so far however, because they are pressing Airbus to launch the A380-900. There is no immediate hurry for CX to place an order so they are sitting back to wait and see about the -900. If indeed the internal deadline comes (whenever that is), and the -900 has not been launched, then CX will order the -800. At the same time, the 747-8i's order book does not exactly have a huge backlog so there is no hurry to decide on either one.
At the moment we have almost more aircraft arriving than we can handle so the company is busy preparing for those 777, 744ERF, 747-8F and A330s.
DLPhoenix From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7672 times:
There are three questions that will drive the decision regarding the A380s:
- What is the potential revenue from the additional seats they can sell on a route operated by A380 Vs 77W.
- How much more does it cost to operate an A380 on this route?
- How much cargo revenue will be lost? (the 777W is capable of carrying more cargo, but like passengers the is also the question whether there is enough demand to utilize the extra capacity)?
In the era where fuel trumps every other cost element you would rather cary less passenger at peak season and avoid empty seats when off peak.
Bottom line: I think CX can fill an A380 year round from the US west coast to HKG, I am not sure regarding other routes.
I expect them to acquire a relatively small fleet of 8 and stick with the 77W for most of their routes.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10329 posts, RR: 97
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7490 times:
Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 8): Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 6):
they are pressing Airbus to launch the A380-900
But if the A388R comes along first,
Which it almost certainly will......
Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 8): Except that a standard A388 cannot make it eastbound year round. Hence the need for the R.
Although even the standard A388 is likely to see c. 2% off its SFC, c. 2% improvement in drag, and at least 4 tonnes off its OEW by 2012, which should boost range by at least 300 Nm, possibly more, which will give it a range (with 525 pax) approaching that of the original A340-500.........
Which should be adequate......
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2274 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7414 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 10): 2% off its SFC, c. 2% improvement in drag, and at least 4 tonnes off its OEW by 2012, which should boost range by at least 300 Nm
300 nm is quite conservative. The improvements you cite would yield closer to 500 nm. And that's for the plain vanilla A388... bump up MTOW to 600 t, add the fuel tank in the center wing box and you've got yourself yet another 750 nm. Add it all up and you get 9450 nm, same as the 772LR (if fitted with the extra fuel tank option).
At the risk of sounding repetitive, today's A388 has about as much growth potential as 1995's 772A (if people can even remember that aircraft!)
KennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7339 times:
ILFC have 10 A388s on order and 4 options, does anyone know when the first is due delivery? I vaguely remember that Emirates were to take some, maybe Cathay would take a few to get a taste without the commitment? Finally, might there be some surprises as to who the ILFC birds go to !!
Cloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7230 times:
Quoting Ozair (Reply 9): I agree, few other CX routes show the benefits of increasing to an A380.
Heathrow is one. So will the Indian routes require the aircraft (not now but in a few years). After all, the Indian routes feed the NA routes. And in between the longhauls, Bangkok, Tokyo and Manila are prime candidates.
Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 12): Isn't SQ planning on sing it on the SIN-HKG-SFO route after they get the 6th one? How restricted will it be SFO-HKG??
Cathay's range problem is mainly with Los Angeles. San Francisco is 300 Nm closer than Los Angeles to Hong Kong so this alone mitigates some of the range issues. Add to that the low seat count on Singapore's A380s. I don't foresee any problems with their service. Might be once or twice a year fuel stops at Taipei but nothing like Cathay's B744s from Los Angeles.
Lutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 785 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7159 times:
Quoting Ozair (Reply 9): Quoting Ctang (Thread starter):
To me, Cathay should order at least 16. They need it for the Sydney, London, Los Angeles and Tokyo.
SYD is a bad example. CX prefer frequency to capacity on this route and rarely fly anything bigger than a A346 there.
Quoting DLPhoenix (Reply 7):
I think CX can fill an A380 year round from the US west coast to HKG, I am not sure regarding other routes.
I agree, few other CX routes show the benefits of increasing to an A380.
Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 6):
They have not ordered any so far however, because they are pressing Airbus to launch the A380-900
Why are they so desperate for the A389? Is it capacity based or the range improvements that will probably emerge from any new versions, -900 or -800R?
TYO as well doesn't need A380, CX have 5 flights a day, and Haneda should open up soon. CX aren't desperate for the A389, it is just that if you decide to have a bigger plane, you might as well go for a bigger plane... i.e. if there is a case for 8 A388, there is a better case for 8 A389. But it would still be a niche aircraft for CX, the B777-300ER looks to be the long haul workhorse (40 ordered) with the A330 the regional workhorse (56 ordered, including KA)
CHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 61
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6758 times:
I think its well known that they have always felt that the baseline A388 isnt enough plane for them, rather than being too much for them. They either want more range, or more capacity and ideally both, although thats very unlikely. I expect them to take 10+ once Airbus launch the A388HGW.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???