Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cathay And The 748-i  
User currently offlinecraigpc01 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 31 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 20950 times:

Given their order for the freighter version, and their need to replace the 744 passenger fleet sometime in not so distant future, is it likely they order the Intercontinental?

47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUnited1P From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 20944 times:

I'm pretty sure that the 777-300ER's are going to serve as the backbone for Cathay's new long-haul fleet, and therefore are the replacement for the 744's.


"You've never been lost until you've been lost at Mach 3." -Paul F. Crickmore
User currently offlinecraigpc01 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 31 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 20915 times:

I thought so as well, but they do share cargo and passenger crews (so I understand) and they also have some of the airline bravado, wanting larger, prettier birds so it makes me wonder about the 773 being their complete replacement

User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 20346 times:

I have no doubt that Cathay will at some point order something larger than the 77W (due to the lower CASM of the 748 and a380 vs the 77W), but whether they will order the 748i or the a380 is a good question. They both have their pros and cons and CX has already ordered the 748F. CX is also an airline that is not really aligned with either Airbus or Boeing (they have big fleets from both), so this will be really interesting.

I do think that they are in no big hurry to order, so it may be a while...



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 offlineCX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6611 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 20208 times:

The million dollar question....

User currently offlineKiwiinOz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 19986 times:

Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 4):
The million dollar question....

Actually, I think it's more of a billion dollar question


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 19789 times:

I had compared A388 to B748 in the technical forum a while back. Here's a post from that thread(reply 18). More details are available in that thread.
It is reasonable to assume that A388 will only get better by the time 748 is in service. It will be interesting to see what CX order, if at all it orders any VLA.
A388 Versus B748 Economic Analysis (by LAXDESI Jul 26 2008 in Tech Ops)

For a 6,000 nm trip(almost HKG-LAX),

A388 burns 53,007 gallons, carries 90,469 lbs. cargo, GSM(gallon seat mile) .0168, GTM(gallon ton mile) 0.0968
B748 burns 42,397 gallons, carries 84,050 lbs. cargo, GSM .0174, GTM 0.0919


A388 burns additional 10,610 gallons at a cost of $42,000
A388 earns additional $84,000 (120 seats X 70% LF X $1,000) in seat revenue.
A388 earns additional $5,000 (6,419 lbs. X 50% LF X $1.5) in cargo revenue.

The net trip advantage to A388 is $47,000--about $17 million annually. Looks like both aircraft are equally matched in cargo potential. However, the A388 carries a lot more as the range increases. At 7,000 nm the A388 carries 26,000 lbs. more cargo.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31062 posts, RR: 87
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 19050 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What is the density of CX's belly cargo?

The 747-8 will offer a good bit more belly volume than the A380-800, so that should be taken into account. That extra payload weight the A380 can lift is useless if you run out of space.


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 18480 times:

Quoting KiwiinOz (Reply 5):
Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 4):
The million dollar question....

Actually, I think it's more of a billion dollar question

...drum roll... 

I would love to see an order from CX for the 748I, and if not the 748I, then perhaps if Boeing launches the 77W-NG they'll order some of those if they are no longer interested in flying VLAs.



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 18130 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 6):
The net trip advantage to A388 is $47,000

So Boeing needs another 50 seats to bridge the gap. From Boeing marketing, the BBJ already has the option of putting seats in the crown space, it may be time to rethink this option for the 748i if they cannot win new orders as is.


User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3662 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 17839 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 6):
A388 earns additional $84,000 (120 seats X 70% LF X $1,000) in seat revenue.

How many people are paying $1,000 one-way?


User currently offlineSolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 1102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 17598 times:

That's a good cost/benefit comparison but I am actually surprised by how close the 748i is compared to the A380. My guess is that the actual operating revenue from an A380 over a 748i will be around 15 million per year. The problem is that that there is 30 million + cost difference between the two planes up front which I suspect will only grow over the years but at that rate you're looking at 2 years to break even on costs. That's not a bad break even point. I think one issue for CX might be the cost of introducing either plane as a new fleet type. It might be a little cheaper to introduce the 748i. The A380 make sense for some routes but if you can't fill the plane with people and cargo consistently the excess capacity doesn't hlep you.

User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9186 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 17598 times:

CX can afford the A 380/B747-8. They will order both or either of them. They need them

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 17268 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 10):
A388 earns additional $84,000 (120 seats X 70% LF X $1,000) in seat revenue.

How many people are paying $1,000 one-way?

Keep in mind the additional seats are spread over all three classes.

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 11):
The problem is that that there is 30 million + cost difference between the two planes up front which I suspect will only grow over the years but at that rate you're looking at 2 years to break even on costs. That's not a bad break even point.

Keep in mind that A388's operating benefits should get better over the years too. I am not sure why you state the relative production cost of A388 will get worse in the future.


User currently offlinecraigpc01 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 31 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 16413 times:

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 11):
I think one issue for CX might be the cost of introducing either plane as a new fleet type. It might be a little cheaper to introduce the 748i. The A380 make sense for some routes but if you can't fill the plane with people and cargo consistently the excess capacity doesn't hlep you.

But CX will have already introduced the 748F, so adding the 748i would not necessarily be adding a new product type.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 16017 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 6):
A388 earns additional $84,000 (120 seats X 70% LF X $1,000) in seat revenue.

As I think I pointed out, demand isn't elastic in this way.

If a route has 70% LF on an A380, that indicates a demand of 70% of the seats of the A380. If the 748 is 70% of the size, that would indicate a near 100% LF on the 748, so on average, both have the same revenue.

Where the A380 has the advantage is that demand may not be consistent day to day, so they can fill it beyond the 748 capacity on higher demand days and charge more for those seats. But where the 748 has an advantage is that it's usually better to have a higher average LF than peaks and troughs.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 15625 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 15):
Where the A380 has the advantage is that demand may not be consistent day to day, so they can fill it beyond the 748 capacity on higher demand days and charge more for those seats.

No disagreements here. On some CX routes, there is probably enough demand to fill beyond the B748's capacity on a consistent basis. Furthermore, A388 may be more desirable for slot/timing constrained CX routes. There may be room for both types as in the case of LH.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12482 posts, RR: 34
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 15052 times:

I strongly believe that there will be an VLA order from CX and although CX has a 748F order, I don't think that it automatically leads to a 747I (pax) order. Remember that there is quite a lot of cockpit commonality between the 744 and 748, so it may be possible to have a common crew pool (at least as long as both types are still operated).

There is a lot of good things to be said about the 747-8I and if there were no A380, buying it would be a no-brainer. But there is an A380; the 747-8 is at the end of the 747's life; that's it - there will be no 747-9 and no growth. The A380 is at the beginning of its life (relatively speaking); there is expected to be an A388R (long range) and of course a 389, so investing in the A380 makes sense from the point of view of long term growth.

I think it's also fair to say that while money talks and the economics are very important, so too is passenger appeal; the 747 has great pax appeal, but the A388 has considerably greater appeal; perception has an impact as well; in due course, most of CX's major regional competitors - SQ, TG, MH, KE, QF, VN, CZ and possibly NH - will have A388s. Does CX want to be the odd one out? Sure, you can point at its history in saying that CX was late climbing on the 747 bandwagon, but the CX of the 1970s was a regional carrier; the CX of 2010+ is a major world carrier and it will not want to be left behind, nor be seen to be.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 14795 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 17):
But there is an A380; the 747-8 is at the end of the 747's life; that's it - there will be no 747-9 and no growth. The A380 is at the beginning of its life (relatively speaking); there is expected to be an A388R (long range) and of course a 389, so investing in the A380 makes sense from the point of view of long term growth.

You make a good case for A380. Rising fuel prices in future will favor A380 too.


User currently offlinepnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2244 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 14348 times:

Everyone assumes there are bodies to fill any VLA. Look at the events that have effected travel in recent years. Swing flu, SARS, 9/11, and now the economic slowdown. Couple that with common currencies and high speed electronic trading and the world is a more volatile financial place now.

Any airline that invests in aircraft with lots of seats has to be able to ride out flying with many seats without bums in them for periods of time. So while the A380 might be more efficient when it is full, it doesn't always fly that way. The same with a 748i. What do the economics look like when a 748i is only 75% full, and then put those same number of bums in an A380 and see what that does to the economics. You can then make the same point with a 77W or presumeably an A350 when it flies comparing them to a 748i.

Contrary to Anetters constant assertions, it is not moving the most bodies that counts or just the prestige of the aircraft, it is about profit flying the metal. If an airline can make more $, more consistantly, by flying a smaller aircraft full then partially full larger than that is the smarter business move.

IF the A380 is trouncing everything in sight, and you add all the ancillary costs in, including leases/amortization of purchases, labour costs, maintenance, and IF airlines can fill the seats, you will see lots of A380 orders. Airlines will be screaming to get their aircraft that are ordered and not delaying delivery.

IMHO the jury is still out on the A380. Too early to call it a dismal failure, but certainly not the game changer yet that some claimed it would be.

The benefit the 748i has, is the need for fewer bums to generate profit. And since none are in the air yet, proving things, even while the numbers appear good so far, it too is quite unproven.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31062 posts, RR: 87
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 13754 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kaitak (Reply 17):
...the 747-8 is at the end of the 747's life (while)he A380 is at the beginning of its life...

A good point, but the 747-8 does have the advantage of being turned into a 747-8BCF down the road. So if CX is a bit worried about how traffic growth will be in the near term, they could consider 747-8s for the next decade or so, then start to add better A380s in the late 2020s while transitioning their 747-8s from a passenger role to a cargo role to supplement their 747-8Fs just as today they operate a mix of 744Fs and 744BCFs (which I am guessing were former passenger planes replaced by the 77Ws?).


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 13356 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 17):
there is expected to be an A388R (long range) and of course a 389, so investing in the A380 makes sense from the point of view of long term growth.

I don't think the A388R will ever come to fruition. Airbus doesn't need it. The improvements coming to the frames by 2012 should make range nearly on par with early A345s  Wow! Then there's talk of the possibility of throwing TrentXWBs on the A380 which probably take range close to 9,000nm. I can see an A389 becoming more of a reality, but for now, I think the A380 is still much larger than anything else available, so no need to launch an A389 for a while yet.



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineACES320 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 393 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10993 times:

The fact is, we have grown used to having a pool of airlines being launch customers. CX and BA were for some of the 777 series, but just as BA Cathay Pacific were not part of the hype and craze surrounding the A380 introduction. When I think of potential A380 customers, for some reason, CX always spring to my mind, and I would love them to be. But why would they be one of them in the first place? We may well assume that they are a large long-haul and 747 operator, so the natural path is that they replace them with the 747/380. But as mentioned below many things have happened.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 19):
Look at the events that have effected travel in recent years. Swing flu, SARS, 9/11, and now the economic slowdown. Couple that with common currencies and high speed electronic trading and the world is a more volatile financial place now.

I would not say those are the particular reasons why CX won't go VLA, but certainly for the likes of BA, CX, JL, UA, just to name a few, they operate in a much mature market than they did some years ago. The would not expect remarkable levels of growth I can assure you so they will keep a close eye in their future fleet composition. As a fact, late in the 90's BA shifted strategy away from fleet size and network expansion to yields and capacity control. Same could be the case for CX right now. The typical launch customers as we used to know them are not anymore.

I would tend to assume we will see a bigger role being played by the 787/350 combo that just lets a window open for some VLA joining the fleet as a complement to these two, not as the backbone of the fleet.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 15):

If a route has 70% LF on an A380, that indicates a demand of 70% of the seats of the A380. If the 748 is 70% of the size, that would indicate a near 100% LF on the 748, so on average, both have the same revenue.

That is just part of the equation. The assumption is OK in an O&D scenario. Most airlines. though, plan their loads in terms of network. Costs, revenues, and LF are spread over multiple itineraries in multiple city pairs. As straightforward as it may seem your statement, those figures are difficult to quantify and identify on a deployed network. Routes and performance are not assessed on an isolated basis.



LHR, BHX, EDI, BKK, USM, CNX, PHU, GRU,PEI, BOG, CTG, CPH, AMS, DOH, DXB, FRA, MAD and always PEI
User currently offlinePellegrine From France, joined Mar 2007, 2449 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8830 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 15):
As I think I pointed out, demand isn't elastic in this way.

If a route has 70% LF on an A380, that indicates a demand of 70% of the seats of the A380. If the 748 is 70% of the size, that would indicate a near 100% LF on the 748, so on average, both have the same revenue.

Where the A380 has the advantage is that demand may not be consistent day to day, so they can fill it beyond the 748 capacity on higher demand days and charge more for those seats. But where the 748 has an advantage is that it's usually better to have a higher average LF than peaks and troughs.

Ticket demand is not exactly inelastic either. With the way airlines price tickets, 70% LF/demand on the A388 might only equal 80% LF/demand on the B748i. There is more demand at cheaper fare classes, and hypothetically there should be more seats available at cheaper fare classes on the A388. There is less demand at full fare. A relevant question is, "can the A388 attract a greater number of tickets at a high/full fare than the B744/748i?" Your argument holds, but reality is somewhere in the middle.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 19):
Everyone assumes there are bodies to fill any VLA. Look at the events that have effected travel in recent years. Swing flu, SARS, 9/11, and now the economic slowdown. Couple that with common currencies and high speed electronic trading and the world is a more volatile financial place now.

Any airline that invests in aircraft with lots of seats has to be able to ride out flying with many seats without bums in them for periods of time. So while the A380 might be more efficient when it is full, it doesn't always fly that way. The same with a 748i. What do the economics look like when a 748i is only 75% full, and then put those same number of bums in an A380 and see what that does to the economics. You can then make the same point with a 77W or presumeably an A350 when it flies comparing them to a 748i.

Contrary to Anetters constant assertions, it is not moving the most bodies that counts or just the prestige of the aircraft, it is about profit flying the metal. If an airline can make more $, more consistantly, by flying a smaller aircraft full then partially full larger than that is the smarter business move.

This argument is also relevant to the conversation. But if your competitor can fly an A388, fill it, and operate at a lower CASM than your 77W which is also full....you'll have a problem.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7877 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 23):
This argument is also relevant to the conversation. But if your competitor can fly an A388, fill it, and operate at a lower CASM than your 77W which is also full....you'll have a problem.

Good point. Furthermore, even with a lower RASM, A380 could still make more money if the relative CASM against 77W is even lower.


25 rheinwaldner : The lower CASM allows to ffer the lowest prices. And the lowest price is one of the largest discrimniator. Get the largest share of the market largel
26 Post contains images scouseflyer : On is the case of HK$ a quarter of a Trillion Dollar question Agreeing with the points made above, it'd be good to see a 748/'A380 order from CX but
27 HNL-Jack : Just a point of clarification...I believe the launch customers for the 777 were UA and BA.
28 CCA : Has anyone actually got some prices, I mean any flight operated by any A/C vs the same one operated by an A380. I don't think CX charges by the A/C an
29 Post contains links ACES320 : Cathay Paciic was launch customer for the 777-300. First ordered was placed 06/14/95. First deliveries of the initial 772 examples were made to Unite
30 BrianDromey : Im really not sure about CX and the A380, on one hand their 77W seems to handle what thy need and the A380 still would not give them HKG-NYC non-stop,
31 scouseflyer : Only guessing here, but could it be because in 1997 (HK handed back by the British) they became a Chinese airline and thus maybe Boeing / Airbus were
32 Post contains images Stitch : Except that Airbus Aficionados consistently say the exact opposite - that the A380 is so wonderful passengers will gladly pay a premium to fly it. So
33 cloudyapple : Yes. B-HNL was purchased from Boeing in 2000.[Edited 2010-05-12 08:23:56]
34 cloudyapple : You guessed wrong then. Hong Kong and China are 2 separate entities in when it comes to international trade treaties. What applies to China does not
35 Jacobin777 : Is there any proof of A380 carriers charging a lower fare on competing routes? In fact, running a quick booking on the "Kangaroo Route", I find many
36 Post contains images zeke : With the lowest seat cost, and premiums being paid by passengers, means higher yields for airlines, highly undesirable position to be in. Naturally n
37 Stitch : I've flown SQ221 and I've flown SQ231 and as I have said time and time again, I prefer the A380-800 and I have happily paid a small (≤$500USD) premi
38 incitatus : What is the source for the addt'l 120 seats number? SQ has 96 more seats in the A380 than in the 747-400. True, the A380 has a new business class, bu
39 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Timings play a part as well. I think my comment of: is just as valid...
40 behramjee : CX will be installing by 2012 a premium economy cabin hence a 4 class A 380 is a better option versus a smaller 4 class configured B 748. The A 380s w
41 LAXDESI : IIRC, EK has put out a statement suggesting that they can only get about 370 seats on a B748 if it is configured the way A388 is configured (ratio of
42 incitatus : No airline is going to fit the 747 with 9-abreast, 19"-wide coach seats. And no airline has yet fitted the A380 with narrower seats and 11-abreast in
43 United Airline : I see UA, CX, JL, ANA as potential B 747-8/A380 customers. UA can still order them
44 rheinwaldner : I know! It speaks even more for the A380 if the resulting LF proves good enough even when charging higher prices. That is a paramount testimony of th
45 LAXDESI : I agree with your points on Y/F seats. Going by marketing claims, A380 has about 60 more seats(525 versus 467). Reworking the numbers for a 6,000 nm
46 tonymctigue : I really hope that CX opt for the 748i. I just love the B747. It is my favourite aircraft of them all by a fair distance. My love of flying comes from
47 sydaircargo : i think they will go for the A380 option, asia is the market for that kind of aircraft. and having it in service on SQ,CZ,MH,KE and maybe NH all aroun
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...
Cathay Pacific And The A340-600 posted Fri Sep 25 2009 10:36:01 by CF-CPI
FedEx And The A380 & 748 posted Wed Nov 7 2007 11:57:35 by DIA
How Are The 748 And New 747F Doing? posted Sun May 20 2007 00:58:29 by Thrust
When Did Cathay Retire The 747-200 And -300? posted Wed Aug 30 2006 10:09:31 by Airbus_A340
Cathay Pacific And The 772 posted Wed May 2 2001 21:35:30 by B7474
Evergreen And The 744F posted Fri May 7 2010 10:01:45 by na
Question About TAM And The Star Alliance posted Wed Apr 28 2010 16:27:45 by AirCanadaA330
Aerolineas Argentinas And The CF6 posted Wed Apr 21 2010 23:48:27 by AR385
British Airways, Volcanoes And The Toronto Star posted Wed Apr 21 2010 18:19:22 by mtbga
Japan Airlines And The Garden Jets. posted Fri Apr 9 2010 22:33:25 by SexyAdonis