Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why CX Needs Only A A389?  
User currently offlineLPSHobby From Brazil, joined May 2007, 191 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6821 times:

I have seen here many times that Cathay would probobly buy a stretched A380, the -900, but they unlikely will buy the -800, what is the reason for this?

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1631 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6737 times:

I do believe this has to do with economics. IIRC, the wing design is actually optimized for the length of the -900, effecting CASM, etc.

Anyone who has better insight, please correct me if I am wrong.



AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
User currently offlineFCKC From France, joined Nov 2004, 2348 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6710 times:

For range and cargo.

User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6596 times:



Quoting FCKC (Reply 2):
For range and cargo.

Wouldn't the range be less (with the same available fuel volume)? For more range, an a380R would make more sense.

Quoting LPSHobby (Thread starter):
I have seen here many times that Cathay would probobly buy a stretched A380, the -900, but they unlikely will buy the -800, what is the reason for this?

I wonder this myself. While I am a fan of the a380, I really doubt the a389 will ever be built. IMHO it's just too big. There are only a few routes in the world where this aircraft can be used.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineAirbusA370 From Germany, joined Dec 2008, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6545 times:

They could replace 2 744 with 1 A389 (or 3 777 Big grin )

User currently offlineHuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1114 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6435 times:



Quoting LPSHobby (Thread starter):
I have seen here many times that Cathay would probobly buy a stretched A380, the -900, but they unlikely will buy the -800, what is the reason for this?

It is not just CX, but also most of the current operators of the A388. The main difference is that those who have already ordered are not willing to wait, while CX wants to buy time...possibly because it doesn't want to go through the process of having to sell of the A388s when the A389s come onboard. They may even be hoping to be a launch customer of the A389 and get hefty discounts plus publicity.



It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4369 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6386 times:

Many A.nutters keep trying to "force" some "need" for Cathay Pacific to get A380s that the airline itself has never identified.


Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineEbbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6325 times:



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 6):
Many A.nutters keep trying to "force" some "need" for Cathay Pacific to get A380s that the airline itself has never identified.

Duh! we do that for every airline not only CX and certainly not only the A380 or variants thereof.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 6182 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 6):
Many A.nutters keep trying to "force" some "need" for Cathay Pacific to get A380s that the airline itself has never identified.

They only go on the comments CX's own CEO has made...  scratchchin 

Maybe he keeps trying to "force" some "need" for Cathay Pacific to get A380s that the airline itself has never identified, who knows?  Wink

Quoting Kappel (Reply 3):
Wouldn't the range be less (with the same available fuel volume)? For more range, an a380R would make more sense.

From memory CX have said they either want a longer range plane OR a bigger one - they may end up with both of course...  Smile

As to range, that would depend on how heavy a 389 variant was.

A 590t A389 (of 79.4m) should sport pretty much the same practical range (above the fuel limited range) as a 560t A388 (of 73.4m), but offer 15% more capacity.
Obviously ferry range would be down a touch as the fuel volume wouldn't change..

Rgds


User currently offlineCX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5729 times:

CX are interested in the A380. They have never made a secret of the fact that they will need to make a decision on VLA in the coming years but there is no hurry. The problem with the A388 is that is represents significant investment and restrictions on operations due to infrastructure in many of Asia's airports, and in return for only 100 extra seats or so in a config comparable to SQ/QF etc. At the moment, the 744 which the A388 would be replacing on a couple of routes comes back from a longhaul flight, and flies around Asia, namely to Manila where the capacity of the 744 is actually needed at many months in the year. Other routes around Asia don't really need the 744 most of the time but the loads are good enough to make the flying profitable. At the moment the A388 would have trouble flying around Asia profitably most of the year round. Added to this, Cathay wants an A380 that can fly LAX-HKG all year round with no restrictions, something the A388 cannot do. (Granted the 744 can't do it either but there was no choice but to buy the 744 when it was around. Now there is a choice).

Details are not firm yet on the A389 and it's capabilities but CX are staying very interested on it and leading up to the financial crisis they were leaning towards getting the A388 if the A389 was going to be significantly delayed. The financial crisis has of course delayed any decision on the A380/748i and no doubt they are glad they had not made an order yet.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5611 times:



Quoting AirbusA370 (Reply 4):
They could replace 2 744 with 1 A389 (or 3 777  )

I'd like to see that math.

They could replace 2 777s with 1 A389, and that is the point. Otherwise, an A388 is just an upgauge of aircraft size on a route.

Now, would they want to replace two 777s with an A389 and cut frequency? The CEO seemed to express that frequency was important to his customer base on routes where they offer multiple flights.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5299 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
Now, would they want to replace two 777s with an A389 and cut frequency? The CEO seemed to express that frequency was important to his customer base on routes where they offer multiple flights.

On the few routes where there are two (or more) aircraft leaving for the same destination within half an hour to an hour, I can't see the problem (like LHR, and yes, I realise the 744 flies this route), but other than that, I can indeed imagine that they would rather have an evening and morning flight for example, rather than just one flight per day.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4094 times:



Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 9):
Added to this, Cathay wants an A380 that can fly LAX-HKG all year round with no restrictions, something the A388 cannot do. (Granted the 744 can't do it either but there was no choice but to buy the 744 when it was around. Now there is a choice).

I believe that a B-747-8I and a possible A-380-800R could do that mission year round.

Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 9):
Details are not firm yet on the A389 and it's capabilities but CX are staying very interested on it and leading up to the financial crisis they were leaning towards getting the A388 if the A389 was going to be significantly delayed. The financial crisis has of course delayed any decision on the A380/748i and no doubt they are glad they had not made an order yet.

Correct, I doubt that with the current economics and down slide of air travel CX wants to commit to either VLA.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4723 posts, RR: 39
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3952 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
I believe that a B-747-8I and a possible A-380-800R could do that mission year round.

If the B747-8i can do this, also the A380-800 can do this. Especially since the A380-800 flies further then anticipated. The B747-8i might fly further then anticipated. So far it is 200 NM behind the present A380-specs which will be improved soon. Airbus has released information about the first (of no doubt many) improvement packages which this new airliner will see through its lifetime.

See also:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/747-8_background.html
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...lies/a380/a380/specifications.html

The possible A380-800R for sure could do this route all year round.  Wink But the improvements Airbus is already realizing on the basic A380-800 might prevent the A380-800R ever making it to the market.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3013 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 9):
Added to this, Cathay wants an A380 that can fly LAX-HKG all year round with no restrictions, something the A388 cannot do

Mmmm - no other plane barring the 772LR can do this either  scratchchin 

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
I believe that a B-747-8I and a possible A-380-800R could do that mission year round.

The 748i might "do the mission", but without "restrictions"?
Depends on your definition of "restrictions" I guess.
You can be sure that any "restrictions" the A388 might suffer, the 748i will fare equally badly, possibly worse..  yes 

I'm convinced this piece of nonsense has come about because the A388 can't carry it's FULL payload of 85 tonnes westbound on that route year-round.
A couple of points:-
a) A 500 seat A388 is unlikely to be able to carry 85 tonnes anyway. Full stop. There ain't room (I think about 72 tonnes is nearer the mark)
b) the 748i can't carry its full payload westbound on that route year-round either.
c) the 774?  faint  Westbound the 773ER probably beats it for payload

It's a 6 300Nm trip great circle.
Factor in worst case windage... lets say 1 200nm to make the air distance a nice round 7 500Nm - worst case.

At 7 500Nm air distance:-

* 744 Max payload c. 67 tonnes - payload at 7 500Nm c. 34 tonnes. . (i.e. 51% max payload)
* 748i Max payload c. 77 tonnes - payload at 7 500Nm c. 52 tonnes. (i.e. 67% max payload)
(Based on last published R/P chart)
* A388 Max payload c. 85 tonnes - payload at 7 500Nm c. 66 tonnes. (i.e. 78% max payload, 95% more than the 744 will carry, and 27% more than the 748i will carry)
(Based on EIS specification)

If you want to argue that 500 pax and a full belly will probably weigh about 72 tonnes, and the EIS A388 is a bit shy of this at 66 tonnes at 7 5000Nm air, I'd call that splitting hairs.
What do you think 400 pax and a full belly of a 748i will weigh? 52 tonnes?  no   Smile

If CX order A388's new from Airbus, they will almost certainly get a plane that is better than the EIS version by dint of 4t off OEW and better engine SFC. In which case figure on:-

* A388 (improved) Max payload c. 85 tonnes - payload at 7 500Nm c. 73 tonnes. (i.e.86% max payload, and probably as much as an A388 configured for 500 pax can physically fit in it. It's also by the way 40% more than the 748i will carry over that distance..  faint  )

Story over? Not yet.

There is an IGW A388 variant undergoing certification now, according to Airbus, and crucially, without compromising the 4t OEW reduction.
I've had whispers that the increase could be of the order of 10 tonnes MTOW.
That could easily be incorrect.
But if it IS correct, figure on:-

* A388 IGW (+10t assumed) Max payload c. 85 tonnes - payload at 7 500Nm c. 80 tonnes. (i.e.95% max payload, probably actually MORE than an A388 configured for 500 pax can physically fit in it, and some 54% more than the 748i will carry over that distance..  Wow! )

What was the question again?  Wink

Rgds


User currently offlineNicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1099 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2878 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 14):
Mmmm - no other plane barring the 772LR can do this either

the A340-500  duck 


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2218 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 15):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 14):
Mmmm - no other plane barring the 772LR can do this either

the A340-500

I'll 'fess up to a bit of pedantry there...  blush 

On the basis that I picked 7 500Nm as a representative air distance, the only plane I know whose Range/Payload chart says it will haul "maximum structural payload" (MSP) out to that distance is the 772LR, who's MSP range is - 7 500Nm.
The A340-500 takes MSP out to 7 000Nm, according to its chart. (I'll guess the IGW beats that by a couple of hundred)

I conveniently ignore there of course my own understanding that airliners virtually NEVER see MSP in real world conditions, but hopefully went on to explain that later in the post.

But a quick check for understanding..

The next best MSP range after the 772LR and A340-500 is, er..
The A380-800, at 6 600Nm
Which I think by 2012 with 4t off OEW and a 1.5%-2% SFC improvement will move to 6 900Nm

If Airbus do actually get to add 10t to this improved bird's MTOW without adding any extra weight, then that plane will, I calculate, haul its MSP out to 7 200Nm, just about matching the A340-500IGW (and not a Trent XWB in sight)

Next best after the A380? The 748i at 6 200Nm MSP
Although I admit that this does flatter the A388, as the 748i's max payload is relatively higher for the size of the plane.

Gosh. What a serious response.....  Smile
I'd still like someone to tell me why they think the A380 can't do LAX-HKG but other aircraft can. I'd hate to think all you guys were out there feeding me rope to hang myself on...  Wink

Rgds


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2196 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 16):
I conveniently ignore there of course my own understanding that airliners virtually NEVER see MSP in real world conditions, but hopefully went on to explain that later in the post.

I totally got what you meant. People say "max payload" or "unrestricted" and they don't actually mean it. You were being cheeky.  Wink

What they mean, of course, is CX wants a plane that can do the route year round without leaving anything behind, or in other words, that allows CX to use the plane to the full extent they would want to use it year round.

That's not the same as unrestricted or max payload. Virtually nobody flies passenger jets with max payload and base fuel on a regular basis, nor do they plan to. Otherwise, just about every aircraft would be "restricted" on every flight.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
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...
Why Do (mostly) Only US Airlines Reserve Seats? posted Sun Oct 5 2008 04:44:15 by Ssides
Why Did BA Only Order 6 B777-236s? posted Sun May 25 2008 06:21:13 by JohnClipper
Why Does DL Only Fly 8 777s? posted Sat Mar 3 2007 08:20:40 by FXramper
Why Southwest Needs Assigned Seating posted Fri Jan 5 2007 08:00:23 by Osubuckeyes
Mexican "Avolar": Why HMO-TIJ Only One-way? posted Sun Apr 2 2006 08:09:35 by JoseMEX
Why Did BA Only Use Classics To USA? posted Sun Nov 13 2005 12:20:15 by B741
Why BA Needs Sun Air Denmark As Franchise? posted Mon Aug 29 2005 14:38:25 by KEno
Why Does NW Only Let MX Push Planes? posted Sun Aug 21 2005 01:33:15 by HPRamper
Why Does NW Only Serve Gatwick? & FCO Question posted Tue May 17 2005 07:21:02 by Squirrel83
Why B6 Needs To Fly To Burbank posted Sun Jan 30 2005 14:48:50 by ContinentalEWR
Mexican "Avolar": Why HMO-TIJ Only One-way? posted Sun Apr 2 2006 08:09:35 by JoseMEX
Why Did BA Only Use Classics To USA? posted Sun Nov 13 2005 12:20:15 by B741
Why BA Needs Sun Air Denmark As Franchise? posted Mon Aug 29 2005 14:38:25 by KEno
Why Does NW Only Let MX Push Planes? posted Sun Aug 21 2005 01:33:15 by HPRamper
Why Does NW Only Serve Gatwick? & FCO Question posted Tue May 17 2005 07:21:02 by Squirrel83
Why B6 Needs To Fly To Burbank posted Sun Jan 30 2005 14:48:50 by ContinentalEWR