Hmmm. The part about deferring three 747-400ERFs is odd. Cathay took delivery of their last one B-LIF about a week back - it was their fourth -400ERF this year. Cathay do not have any other new-build -400ERFs on order and Boeing is not manufacturing any more 747-400 anythings.
The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
Babybus From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3512 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11497 times:
Deferring 20 777's is quite remarkable as they are not that big and are supposed to be very fuel effiecient. Using these on 747 routes would help to increase or hold up seat prices.
Obviously not an airline that could seriously handle a A380. Sad but true.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26682 posts, RR: 83 Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11393 times:
Quoting Babybus (Reply 5): Deferring 20 777's is quite remarkable as they are not that big and are supposed to be very fuel efficient. Using these on 747 routes would help to increase or hold up seat prices.
CX has almost enough 77Ws on order to replace their entire 744 fleet, though they appear to be updating their 744 fleet to the new cabin which implies they are not going anywhere soon. And with fuel prices back to more reasonable levels, 744 operating costs have also dropped which is why in the current environment, continuing to operate them can make sense to conserve cash by not paying financing costs on new equipment (even if more efficient).
No it isn't, but with Boeing keeping 747-8 production at one per month, deferrals don't really have much of an impact, especially with a backlog stretching close to a decade at that rate. If nobody wants freighters, then Boeing can use the space to park 787s until they're ready to build the first 747-8I or 747VIP. It would be bad news for 747 suppliers who will be idled for a time, but them's the breaks and they'll deal with it just like Boeing will. But I think somebody in the next six months or so will be ready to take at least one 747-8F.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9603 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11387 times:
I can understand that they are deferring the 77Ws. As long as the 744 fleet is venerable and the fuel prices are low, why should they take 777? Not necessary before 2012/15. And by then a A350/748I-combination could be a more attractive solution.
Quoting Shamrock321 (Reply 3): Have CX any 744s or 772s in storage at the moment?
No, but in the light of these news its even more odd that the 772 scheduled for retirement are still active. I don´t get it. And aren´t the non-ER 773 a bit big for regional routes by now.
The 748F deferral seems to be a precautionary measure, as the first wasn´t scheduled to be delivered soon, probably not before 2011 anyway.
Francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3195 posts, RR: 10 Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11084 times:
Quoting Babybus (Reply 5): Obviously not an airline that could seriously handle a A380. Sad but true.
CX could very 'seriously' handle A380s or any other aircraft, just not right now.
The current priority is to preserve cash, and that means reducing costs and deffering aircraft deliveries to reduce payments to the manufacturers. Obviously, no order is to be expected until things pick up.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26682 posts, RR: 83 Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7816 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 8): No, but in the light of these news its even more odd that the 772 scheduled for retirement are still active. I don´t get it.
I am going to hazard a guess that CX still has a need for a ~350-seat twin capable of tooling around Asia so until they can offload the 777-200s to generate some cash to pay for the new A330-300s that would replace them, they are effectively "stuck" with them.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16808 posts, RR: 57 Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7636 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 8): I can understand that they are deferring the 77Ws. As long as the 744 fleet is venerable and the fuel prices are low, why should they take 777? Not necessary before 2012/15. And by then a A350/748I-combination could be a more attractive solution.
When is the 748i going to be an attractive solution for CX? What can it do for them that the A380 and 77W or 350-1000 can't in combination?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26682 posts, RR: 83 Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7499 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13): When is the 748i going to be an attractive solution for CX? What can it do for them that the A380 and 77W or 350-1000 can't in combination?
I would posit nothing. CX is said to have expressed interest in the 747-400ER because it would eliminate the tech stops their 747-400s sometimes experience heading westbound over the Pacific, but it is also said that those tech stops were minimal enough to not justify the greater expense (purchase price and navigation/landing fees) of the type.
The 747-8I should also have no issues crossing the Pacific westbound. However, neither will the A380-800 and you can put more people in an A380-800. Yes, a 747-8I will carry more cargo volume, but CX does have their own freighter arm so I am not sure how much stuff they move in the belly of their passenger planes (can you offer any insights on payload volume and payload weight, Zeke?).
News to me at the moment, the only rumor is that a number of A340s will be sold as the 772s could not be sold, this is to bring cash into the business. A330s are not due for delivery this year AFIAK, bit early to plan their fate. I assume it would not prevent the A340s being leased back.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 14): (can you offer any insights on payload volume and payload weight, Zeke?).
Westbound numerous options are available for freight for the shipper, belly space is not a premium for passenger aircraft. The USA in general is is weak on nett airfreight exports.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
I was looking at it from a Boeing point of view. This is the first of the deferrals of the 748F is it not?
I know you were Chris....it's just that deferring the others isn't any less bad.
I believe you are correct on this being the 1st 748F deferral - I doubt it will be the last unfortunately. I think "deferral" is going to be the most used word by the airlines this year
Nicholaschee From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 661 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7241 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 15):
News to me at the moment, the only rumor is that a number of A340s will be sold as the 772s could not be sold, this is to bring cash into the business. A330s are not due for delivery this year AFIAK, bit early to plan their fate. I assume it would not prevent the A340s being leased back.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9603 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5099 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13): When is the 748i going to be an attractive solution for CX? What can it do for them that the A380 and 77W or 350-1000 can't in combination?
If CX finds the A380 too big perhaps? Then the 748I is a perfect flagship. A350/77W are definitely too small for that role. With 787s and A350s for the "middle class" and 748Is or A380 above the 77W could even be the odd one out by 2015. Not necessarily, but no one can tell that this not a realistic possibility, depending on market development.
The 3 ex-SQ A340's are leased. B-HXM, B-HXN and B-HXO. I haven't heard of us selling A340's, but I have heard the leased A340's will be leaving (This is the 3 Ex-SQ and B-HXL)
RedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2053 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3646 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11): I am going to hazard a guess that CX still has a need for a ~350-seat twin capable of tooling around Asia so until they can offload the 777-200s to generate some cash to pay for the new A330-300s that would replace them, they are effectively "stuck" with them.
The 772 has 336 seats. The two-class 333s have 311 seats. So the two airplanes can generate roughly the same amount of cash. But I believe that the 772 has far higher trip costs than the 333. So, if they have to cancel some intra-Asian flights, my guess would be that parking the 772 would be the wisest thing to do.
Unless, of course, they can save even more by "parking" their long haul aircraft in between their flights to Europe and other faraway destinations.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13): When is the 748i going to be an attractive solution for CX? What can it do for them that the A380 and 77W or 350-1000 can't in combination?
The 748i does not have the same flexibility as the 388 in the premium classes. I would guess that a sardine class carrier like Corsair would do better with the 748i (less risky) than the 388. Cathay, however, is as far from Corsair as you can come.
The only argument I could see for Cathay getting the 748i is that I believe the Hong Kong aviation authorities have restrictions on twin-engine flights in the vicinity of the Himalayas. If my information is correct, Cathay would have a problem dispatching the 77W or 3510 on flights to Europe. The 748i will be the only quad smaller than the 388 which can do such flights in a decade from now.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 15): the 772s could not be sold,
If you can give me a decent discount (in the order of 99.99 percent off), and free shipping, I'll take one of them!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26682 posts, RR: 83 Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3595 times:
Quoting RedChili (Reply 21): The 772 has 336 seats. The two-class 333s have 311 seats. So the two airplanes can generate roughly the same amount of cash. But I believe that the 772 has far higher trip costs than the 333. So, if they have to cancel some intra-Asian flights, my guess would be that parking the 772 would be the wisest thing to do.
On that I agree. But if they are unable to cancel any flights, the 772s are quite possibly cheaper, overall, then brand new A333s because even if their block hour and trip costs are higher, the finance payments on new A333s could very well wipe out all those savings to the point that over six to twelve months, the 772 costs less cash to keep in the air.
That being said, it is clear regardless of how the actual costs pencil out, CX no longer sees a need for the 772s in their fleet for the mid-to-long term so their days are numbered.
SunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3946 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3387 times:
Quoting RedChili (Reply 21): I believe the Hong Kong aviation authorities have restrictions on twin-engine flights in the vicinity of the Himalayas. If my information is correct, Cathay would have a problem dispatching the 77W or 3510 on flights to Europe.
HKG- Europe is a long way from the Himalaya's. Both AF and NZ to name two, use twins on the route. HKG-DXB is much closer to the Himalaya's and EK and CZ use twins on that route.
Thus I would question this information.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3968 posts, RR: 14 Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3313 times:
Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 23): Quoting RedChili (Reply 21):
I believe the Hong Kong aviation authorities have restrictions on twin-engine flights in the vicinity of the Himalayas. If my information is correct, Cathay would have a problem dispatching the 77W or 3510 on flights to Europe.
HKG- Europe is a long way from the Himalaya's. Both AF and NZ to name two, use twins on the route. HKG-DXB is much closer to the Himalaya's and EK and CZ use twins on that route.
Thus I would question this information.
this has been discussed in the technical thread in the past, there are apparently routes from east China to Europe which go near the himalayas which preclude operation by twin engined planes due to their lower single engine out ceiling but there are enough alternative routes that it isn't going to stop anyone flying to europe or points further west but it may be a longer route depending on where in europe you are going
25 SunriseValley: There was a new airway route opened in 2006 that overcome the problem . see link below. Apparently China opened some new airways prior to the Olympic
26 RedChili: As far as I can remember, I saw the Himalayas from the airplane window last time I flew HKG-Europe (on LH to FRA). As far as I'm aware, none of these
27 Cloudyapple: Of all the trips I have taken between Hong Kong and numerous places in Europe on numerous carriers, I have only ever flown along B330 which takes you
28 SunriseValley: My understanding is that by providing a service from a country they are bound by the rules of that country.
29 RedChili: I believe that some rules may apply, but far from all. E.g. the first Western airplane that was certified in Russia was the A310 in the beginning of
30 Airbus_A340: That's correct, this is the case for a few of our Europe flights. The 747-400 though is capable of flying the Y-1 route, and it does so quite regular
31 Columba: So does LH and they have opted for the 747-8I - and as it is said the cargo volume was one reason why LH has decided for it.
32 Stitch: Well maybe CX is different. Zeke seemed to imply they don't move much in the belly and the A380-800 would be no worse in that role then the 747-400 s
33 SunriseValley: I was told by a official of the NZ regulator that if NZ was to fly from N.Z. to a South American country under the joint Australian and .N.Z. EDTO (
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2053 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2112 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2008, 1547 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6798 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3512 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, 
From France, joined Oct 2001, 3195 posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2220 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 661 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3946 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
