EK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3890 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (6 months 4 days ago) and read 2211 times:
Quoting Someone83 (Reply 1): The two oldest ones was produced in 1992 (LN12 and LN17), and was used as test aircrafts for Airbus, before delivered to CX in the mid-90s
What is it with CX and the habit of buying the test aircraft... I believe CX purchased the Boeing B772 test frame too...
Someone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 2778 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (6 months 4 days ago) and read 2208 times:
Quoting na (Reply 3): The article also mentions older 777 to be replaced. Its about time to do so, once the 787-10 is there, those plane will be pretty old.
True, they also have the oldest 777, and several other non-ER models from the mid-90s that should need replacement at the end of this decade, about the time when the -10X should arrive
frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1194 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (6 months 4 days ago) and read 2208 times:
Quoting Someone83 (Reply 5): True, they also have the oldest 777, and several other non-ER models from the mid-90s that should need replacement at the end of this decade, about the time when the -10X should arrive
CX still has A333s on order, I expect some of those could very well replace the oldest -300s and 772s.
Quoting EK413 (Reply 4): Regardless congratulations Boeing and CX when the order is announced that is...
There is IMO an excellent chance CX will find the 78J very much suited to its needs. But I don't expect them amongst the early buyers.
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11948 posts, RR: 37 Reply 7, posted (6 months 4 days ago) and read 2208 times:
Quoting CCA (Thread starter): Interesting I thought the 787 was dead in the eyes of CX.
The -8 (too small) and -9 (conflicts with A359) definitely, but the -10 is a different bird, in terms of CASM. In a 2 class layout, (albeit with 9 abreast in Y), the 787-10 could seat up to around 386, although in CX config (they'd be more likely to go 8 abreast in Y), it would be more like 340-350, not far off the current 333 config.
Although I expect most 788/789 customers to go for the 787-10 at some stage, I don't this would be the case with CX. However, I'm sure Boeing would be more than happy with c. 50 from CX.
Interestingly, there is also an article in the "pro" section of Flightglobal - to which unfortunately I don't have access - which says that CX is targeting a mid 2013 decision re the A388 and 747-8, and is also interested in the 777X.
Their 744s are pretty much "has beens" and the fleet is gradually been whittled down, leaving the 77W as its main long haul type; as the CX product is expanded with a new J class and Y+, the capacity of these acft is being reduced, so it really doesn't surprise me that CX is still interested in ULH acft.
mogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (6 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2209 times:
All the current 777-200A and 333 operators in Far East Asia that use widebodies for intra-Asia hops should definitely consider the 787-10X - OZ, KE, CA, MU, TG, SQ ....
I still think the 787-9 would be the best selling of the family, but the -10 should definitely eclipse the -8.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, RR: 83 Reply 9, posted (6 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2204 times:
An interesting development considering zeke has stated one of the reasons CX went with the A350-900 over the 787-9 was due to the narrower cabin of the 787 not allowing a "common Economy Class hard product experience" across CX's future widebody fleet.
If CX is now willing to budge on tighter seating for a larger 787, perhaps they are willing to budge on tighter seating for a larger 777 (the 777-9X)?
mogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2205 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
An interesting development considering zeke has stated one of the reasons CX went with the A350-900 over the 787-9 was due to the narrower cabin of the 787 not allowing a "common Economy Class hard product experience" across CX's future widebody fleet.
If CX is now willing to budge on tighter seating for a larger 787, perhaps they are willing to budge on tighter seating for a larger 777 (the 777-9X)?
Or ... CX is splitting their economy class into regional and long-haul ?
Put the 787-10X on flights 6 hours or shorter (out to India, DPS, and CTS), and use tighter 3-3-3 regional Y seating
Put 359 and 777-8x/9x on flights 7 hours or longer (including all M.E. and O.Z. flights) using a comfortable 3-3-3 long haul Y.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2182 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2202 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting Someone83 (Reply 5): True, they also have the oldest 777, and several other non-ER models from the mid-90s that should need replacement at the end of this decade, about the time when the -10X should arrive
If by "several other non-ER models from the mid-90s" you mean 777-200s, yes, I would agree. But I'm not so sure about the 777-300.
CX has 398 seats in the 777-300 - more seats than any other type in its fleet. The 787-10 isn't going to be as big as the 777-300, and given that the 787-10 is likely to be configured in an 8-abreast layout - as I would expect them to be - there is going to be quite a significant seat count deficit between the 787-10 and the 777-300. It may well be that the 787-10, despite the seat count deficit, ends up having better costs per seat. But I think the 777-300 is in a unique position as a very high capacity, medium haul aircraft, with no imminent replacement that fills its shoes precisely.
Besides, CX's newest 777-300 (non-ER) was delivered in 2006. 5 of their 12 777-300s aren't even 10 years old, so I'd expect those to carry on in the fleet until post-2020.
Quoting kaitak (Reply 7): although in CX config (they'd be more likely to go 8 abreast in Y), it would be more like 340-350, not far off the current 333 config.
I would expect that they'll put 8-abreast in the 787-10 as well. That way, they can offer product consistency across the range. The 787-10 should have wider seats at 8-abreast than the A350XWB at 9-abreast.
The 787-10 would make a perfect A330-300 replacement. While they still have A333s on order (so I don't expect the 787-10 to completely displace the A333s in CX's fleet), some of their older ones are likely to make way by the end of this decade when the 787-10 arrives.
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 8): All the current 777-200A and 333 operators in Far East Asia that use widebodies for intra-Asia hops should definitely consider the 787-10X
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, RR: 83 Reply 12, posted (6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2202 times:
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 10): Or ... CX is splitting their economy class into regional and long-haul?
zeke specifically noted that CX did not want customers switching between long-haul and regional aircraft from noticing the hard product was different.
That being said, the A350 order was placed when Tony Tyler was CEO. It is possible that new CEO John Slosar has a different view on hard product consistency in the Economy cabin.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 11): But I think the 777-300 is in a unique position as a very high capacity, medium haul aircraft, with no imminent replacement that fills its shoes precisely.
The A350-1000 would be an excellent airframe to replace the 777-300.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 11): The 787-10 should have wider seats at 8-abreast than the A350XWB at 9-abreast.
In such a configuration, the 787-10 would offer about an extra inch of seat-cushion width.
Boeing has been talking to CX for a long time on all the different 787 models, which is why I was surprised with the Boeing news release that came out last week saying they are now able to talk to airlines about it, they have been. I did not see the point of it.
The oldest A330s have been replaced with new A330s for some time now, with more of them departing the fleet next year, I think I the next 12 months there are around another 6 new A330s coming in, with only an overall fleet increase of one frame.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, RR: 83 Reply 15, posted (6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2200 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 13): Boeing has been talking to CX for a long time on all the different 787 models, which is why I was surprised with the Boeing news release that came out last week saying they are now able to talk to airlines about it, they have been. I did not see the point of it.
The impression I received from both CX's press release at the time of the 2010 order and your subsequent posts on the matter was that CX had decided on the A350 family over the 787 family and that no further RFPs would be issued for this class of aircraft.
So I admit to being intrigued and surprised that Boeing and CX have still been speaking about the 787 since the original A350 order was placed and subsequently expanded.
mogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2205 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 12): zeke specifically noted that CX did not want customers switching between long-haul and regional aircraft from noticing the hard product was different.
That being said, the A350 order was placed when Tony Tyler was CEO. It is possible that new CEO John Slosar has a different view on hard product consistency in the Economy cabin.
Switching from their flat bed J on 77Ws to those hideous reclining "regional Js" on 773As is a much larger inconsistency compared to switching 3-3-3 on 777 to 3-3-3 on 787.
Nothing as extreme as Lufthansa though - going from A380 F to "intra European J" (aka economy class with middle seat blocked out).
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2182 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2207 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting Stitch (Reply 9): zeke has stated one of the reasons CX went with the A350-900 over the 787-9 was due to the narrower cabin of the 787 not allowing a "common Economy Class hard product experience" across CX's future widebody fleet.
They can still keep a "common Economy Class hard product experience" by using 8-across seating in the 787-10. I think the fact that they didn't for smaller 787 variants is that the cost per seat equation doesn't add up. That's where the extra size of the 787-10 comes in.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 12): The A350-1000 would be an excellent airframe to replace the 777-300.
I agree, and have said so in other threads, but I meant specifically a large widebody optimised around high capacity, medium haul missions. I guess the A350-1000, being very much a long haul aircraft, could be paper derated to a lower MTOW to fulfill medium haul missions to replace the 777-300, though. I would imagine that such an arrangement would allow the operator the flexibility of re-rating it to a higher MTOW should the need arise, thus the need for a dedicated very large mid hauler is no longer present.
neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 346 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2202 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 12): zeke specifically noted that CX did not want customers switching between long-haul and regional aircraft from noticing the hard product was different.
I would take anything he said concerning Boeing with (cfrp) barrels of salt.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, RR: 83 Reply 20, posted (6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2199 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 19): They can still keep a "common Economy Class hard product experience" by using 8-across seating in the 787-10. I think the fact that they didn't for smaller 787 variants is that the cost per seat equation doesn't add up. That's where the extra size of the 787-10 comes in.
I would expect the 787-10 at 8-abreast would seat less than the A350-900 at 9-abreast so I'd be interested to see how the CASM argument works out.
That being said, if CX did fly the 787-10 at 8-abreast, it would be the most comfortable regional airframe in operation with any airline - more comfortable than SQ's A350s and TZ's 787s. More comfortable than JQ's 787s and QF's A330s. More comfortable than NH's and JL's 787s. And significantly more comfortable than Air Asia's A330s and A350s.
So perhaps CX is hoping a class-leading product will result in class-leading fares and therefore the RASM will outweigh the CASM.
The old regional business is in the process of being pulled out across the fleet. Not many aircraft remain, the regional economy is not the long haul economy either. The priority was with the long haul product, all of the long haul 77Ws have now been converted with the new long haul product.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
mogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (6 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2196 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 21): The old regional business is in the process of being pulled out across the fleet. Not many aircraft remain, the regional economy is not the long haul economy either. The priority was with the long haul product, all of the long haul 77Ws have now been converted with the new long haul product.
The "new" regional business is still ... well, regional. It's a nice premium economy seat with extra legroom. They should've went with a product comparable to SQ's new regional.
flylku From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 721 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (6 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2188 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 20): That being said, if CX did fly the 787-10 at 8-abreast, it would be the most comfortable regional airframe in operation with any airline - more comfortable than SQ's A350s and TZ's 787s. More comfortable than JQ's 787s and QF's A330s. More comfortable than NH's and JL's 787s. And significantly more comfortable than Air Asia's A330s and A350s.
What would make it more comfortable than NH's 8 abreast 787 configuration? Is NH the only airline that has or plans for 8 abreast 787 configuration?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, RR: 83 Reply 25, posted (6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2718 times:
Quoting flylku (Reply 23): What would make it more comfortable than NH's 8 abreast 787 configuration?
The 8-abreast configuration is meant for long-haul services to the US and EU, I believe. Yes, they are using it on flights to HKG (or at least were during the route proving), but I believe the regional airframes will be 9-abreast and I believe NH is planning to reconfigure the 8-abreast domestic birds to 9-abreast.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7721 posts, RR: 73 Reply 27, posted (6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3006 times:
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 22):
The "new" regional business is still ... well, regional. It's a nice premium economy seat with extra legroom. They should've went with a product comparable to SQ's new regional.
SQ does not really have a new regional product or for that matter aircraft that are used only for regional routes. That is their medium haul product, it is not a flat (it goes to an angle) and used on overnight flights to Australia etc where CX provides a lie flat long haul product. Where CX has the premium economy seat installed, they have flat long haul business class seats.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
rcair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 917 posts, RR: 25 Reply 28, posted (6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2705 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
Quoting Stitch (Reply 9): due to the narrower cabin of the 787 not allowing a "common Economy Class hard product experience" across CX's future widebody fleet.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 12): zeke specifically noted that CX did not want customers switching between long-haul and regional aircraft from noticing the hard product was different.
Frankly - I think this is a non-issue for most of the flying public. They think "I'm on a different airplane - it is different" if they think about it at all. Probably they don't think about it.
That means - the decision is one of economics and perhaps CX is realizing that. So - if the plane makes sense from an economics standpoint - then it makes sense.
Oh - BTW - yes. Customer experience is part of the economics of course. However, to the level we are talking about here (noticing subtle differences in hard product), it is a 3rd or 4th order effect (IMO)
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7721 posts, RR: 73 Reply 29, posted (6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2705 times:
Quoting rcair1 (Reply 28): They think "I'm on a different airplane - it is different" if they think about it at all. Probably they don't think about it.
That is your view, our frequent travelers which there are a lot of, do notice the difference.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
CX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6337 posts, RR: 56 Reply 30, posted (6 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2678 times:
Quoting rcair1 (Reply 28): Frankly - I think this is a non-issue for most of the flying public. They think "I'm on a different airplane - it is different" if they think about it at all. Probably they don't think about it.
Remember the really frequent travellers treat planes as their second homes and many will spend more time in a CX plane than in their own beds. They get to know the cabin crew even though you would think that with 7000+ of them, you wouldn't meet the same crew more than once let alone get to know them. These travellers know exactly which seats in the cabin are the best, they know the menus even so yes these travellers definately know when they step on board a cabin that's different. Granted the majority of passengers are not frequent in that sense of the word but it is tr frequent travellers who are the most valuable to the airline.
AF185 From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2012, 117 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (6 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2657 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 12): zeke specifically noted that CX did not want customers switching between long-haul and regional aircraft from noticing the hard product was different.
To date, the difference between long haul and some regional planes is quite noticeable for most frequent CX travellers. But in the end, the old regional Y seats are much more comfortable than the hard shell long haul seats, IMO.
The PTV system would be the most noticeable "downgrade" from Long Haul to the old Regional configuration.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, RR: 83 Reply 32, posted (6 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2687 times:
As a heavy United Business Class traveller in the mid-2000s, I didn't notice the difference between the 21" wide seats on the 777-200 and 20.5" wide seats on the 747-400, but I did indeed notice the difference when in the 19" wide seats on the 767-300.
Lutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 696 posts, RR: 1 Reply 33, posted (6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2668 times:
When CX said that the A350/787 debate had been settled for the A350, I think they were talking very specifically about that RFP - which was for A340 replacement, and long haul aircraft for growth
This would be a new campaign, for the replacement of A market B777's and medium range A330, to serve flights under 8 hours or so.
Is the 787-10X in with a chance? I would think very much so.
CW:35 (2-3-2), WT+:25 (2-3-2), WT:154 (3-3-3). Making a total of 214.
Hmm ... disappointing. I'm sure I had read somewhere that BA was originally going to go 8 abreast. I guess the sums just didn't add up. I wonder if this was a factor in SQ's decision to transfer the 789s to Scoot; the longer airplane, the greater the cost differentials (i.e. more rows); SQ, had they kept the 789, would definitely want to have gone 8 abreast in Y, but they may have come to the conclusion that the figures looked much better in 9 abreast, but this would deny pax a level of comfort they were used to (and result in unfavourable comparisons with other types) and therefore, the decision was taken that it was best to transfer them to Scoot.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, RR: 83 Reply 39, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2346 times:
Quoting kaitak (Reply 38): I'm sure I had read somewhere that BA was originally going to go 8 abreast.
Yes, the original configuration was believed to be 2-3-2 in WT+ and 2-4-2 in WT.
Quoting kaitak (Reply 38): I wonder if this was a factor in SQ's decision to transfer the 789s to Scoot...
3-3-3 on the 787-9 will be no less comfortable than 3-4-3 on the 777-200ER so TZ's customers should not notice any difference as the 77Es are phased out.
However, does this mean SQ will go 2+4+2 on the A350-900 or will they choose 3+3+3?
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11948 posts, RR: 37 Reply 40, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2317 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 39): However, does this mean SQ will go 2+4+2 on the A350-900 or will they choose 3+3+3?
Hmm .... hard to tell, the future is! I tend to think they'll go for 3-3-3.
The cabin widths of the various models are as follows, in ascending order:
A330/340 17'4"
787 18'
A350 18'4"
777 19'3"
Going from the A330/340, you basically have an extra foot to play with, so you could fit an extra one abreast, albeit with a marginally narrower seat.
If you were to assume that aircraft aisles are about 20" wide (too generous?), we can work out some figures. Let's just work with 20" for now, which means 40" for two aisles (ah, my mathematical skills!)
If we apply that to the aircraft listed above, we're talking about 208" fuselage width for the A330/340; take away 40" for the aisles, divide by 8, = 21". (Now I know that's just a tad too generous) and I'm not allowing for armrest width.
For the 787, if we apply the same measurement, it's 22" at 8 abreast, but 19.5" at 9 abreast (still not bad).
For the A350, just under 22.5" at 8 abreast, but 20" at 9 abreast.
For the 777, it's 21" at 9 abreast, but 19" at 10 abreast.
Now, from the above, it appears that an A350 at nine abreast gives you an extra inch in seat width, vs. the 777 at 10 abreast; I've flown in the 777 at ten abreast and even though my proportions are often described as "generous" (also "voluminous" and some others, less charitable), I find it ok, so I think 9 abreast in the A350 will be perfectly fine; even 9 abreat in the 787 is a little wider than the 777 at ten abreast).
I also think that the issue that airlines are worried about is not just the 788 itself, but future models. The 787 is a relatively chubby machine compared to its future stablemates; the 789 will be at extra 7-8 rows longer, the 787-10 another few rows extra too; at those extra lengths, the difference in revenue in extra seats per row will make a pretty big difference to the aircraft's economic attractiveness.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, RR: 83 Reply 41, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2310 times:
Quoting kaitak (Reply 40): Going from the A330/340, you basically have an extra foot to play with, so you could fit an extra one abreast, albeit with a marginally narrower seat.
At 2+4+2 on the 787, the seat cushion width is 18.5" with a 21.5" aisle
At 3+3+3 on the 787, the seat cushion width is 17.2" with a 18.0" aisle
To fit 3+3+3 with an 18" seat cushion width on the 787 would reduce the aisles to 14.4"
At 2+5+2 on the 777, the seat cushion width is 18.5" with a 19.3" aisle
At 3+4+3 on the 777, the seat cushion width is 17.0" with a 17.0" aisle
To fit 3+4+3 with an 18" seat cushion width on the 777 would reduce the aisles to 12.5"
At 2+4+2 on the A350, the seat cushion width is 19.3" with a ~20" aisle
At 3+3+3 on the A350, the seat cushion width is 17.5" with a 18.4" aisle
To fit 3+3+3 with an 18" seat cushion width on the A350 would reduce the aisles to 16.1"
Figures from the 787-8 ACAP (December 2011) | 777-300ER ACAP (May 2011) | A350-900 ACAP (July 2011)
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21448 posts, RR: 24 Reply 42, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2298 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 25): Quoting flylku (Reply 23):
What would make it more comfortable than NH's 8 abreast 787 configuration?
The 8-abreast configuration is meant for long-haul services to the US and EU, I believe. Yes, they are using it on flights to HKG (or at least were during the route proving), but I believe the regional airframes will be 9-abreast and I believe NH is planning to reconfigure the 8-abreast domestic birds to 9-abreast.
All their seat maps on their website show 8-abreast. Why would a carrier taking delivery of a new aircraft type plan to change the seating so soon after entry into service? Seems like a huge waste of money. If they were considering 9 abreast, why not do it right away?
JAL is also 8-abreast on their 787s. I can't believe NH would change to 9-abreast unless JL does.
sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3945 posts, RR: 4 Reply 44, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2294 times:
From another thread.. I can see the 787-10 being attractive to a carrier like CX in an 8-across configuration .
Quote.........
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 160):
I would guess that they hadn't considered doing the same with the 787-8 or 787-9 is that the cost per seat equation in an 8-abreast layout isn't quite to CX's liking, whereas the larger size of the 787-10 would lower that number somewhat, despite the 8-abreast economy layout.
From Piano-X; on the assumption that a 8-abreast in economy 787-10 has 297-seats , max. range with a 297 seat passenger load is ~ 7122nm. For this distance the fuel burn /seat is 279.4kg. For the same distance the 789 with 280-seats with 9-abreast in economy has a fuel burn of 275.28kg/seat or about a 1.5% spread. There are probably savings to be had based on the extra 17-seats . Thus I would think an 8-abreast layout 787-10 could be very attractive for some of the premium carriers
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21448 posts, RR: 24 Reply 45, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2288 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 43): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 42):
All their seat maps on (NH's) website show 8-abreast.
NH will operate the 787-8 domestically in two configurations:
Thanks. The 9-abreast one must be fairly new. They also have 2 other 8-abreast configurations for international flights which would seem to indicate that the majority of their fleet will be 8-abreast. How many aircraft are intended for the high-density domestic operations?
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7721 posts, RR: 73 Reply 46, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2173 times:
Quoting Lutfi (Reply 33): When CX said that the A350/787 debate had been settled for the A350, I think they were talking very specifically about that RFP - which was for A340 replacement, and long haul aircraft for growth
They didn't say that, they said the A350 would " "form the backbone of Cathay Pacific's future mid-sized wide-body fleet". The A350s will replace a lot more than the handful of A340s.
Quoting kaitak (Reply 38): I wonder if this was a factor in SQ's decision to transfer the 789s to Scoot; the longer airplane, the greater the cost differentials (i.e. more rows); SQ, had they kept the 789, would definitely want to have gone 8 abreast in Y, but they may have come to the conclusion that the figures looked much better in 9 abreast, but this would deny pax a level of comfort they were used to (and result in unfavourable comparisons with other types) and therefore, the decision was taken that it was best to transfer them to Scoot.
SQ are not the only ones, QF look like they will have the 787s with Jetstar. Everyone seems to forget that Cathay purchases aircraft for a number of airlines in the group.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 43): NH will operate the 787-8 domestically in two configurations:
Is that correct ? last time I looked at their website, they had the 8 abreast on their domestic website, and the 8 abreast on their international website. Sure they may use the long haul aircraft between trips domestically, however I do not think that is their primary role.
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 44): From Piano-X; on the assumption that a 8-abreast in economy 787-10 has 297-seats , max. range with a 297 seat passenger load is ~ 7122nm. For this distance the fuel burn /seat is 279.4kg. For the same distance the 789 with 280-seats with 9-abreast in economy has a fuel burn of 275.28kg/seat or about a 1.5% spread. There are probably savings to be had based on the extra 17-seats . Thus I would think an 8-abreast layout 787-10 could be very attractive for some of the premium carriers
For a premium carrier the seat count is much reduced from that again.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7340 posts, RR: 7 Reply 47, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2152 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 46): They didn't say that, they said the A350 would " "form the backbone of Cathay Pacific's future mid-sized wide-body fleet". The A350s will replace a lot more than the handful of A340s
The A350-900 always looked as the A330 replacement. With 50 77W and about 50 A350-900/1000 where is Cathay going to fly all these planes. Cathay has an extensive European system and a six cities in North America. Their service to the USA has a few more cities that could support its service but all the obvious ones are served alraedy. Cathay alwasy surprises me, never thought they would have as many flights to JFK as LAX.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7721 posts, RR: 73 Reply 48, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2116 times:
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 47): The A350-900 always looked as the A330 replacement.
That is your observation not mine. I do not recall any announcement to suggest that is the case. CX is still taking delivery of new A330s.
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 47): With 50 77W and about 50 A350-900/1000 where is Cathay going to fly all these planes.
They are your numbers not mine, I am not going to either agree or disagree with them. The A350 will allow CX to fly to times/places where a 77W is not viable.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7427 posts, RR: 2 Reply 51, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1934 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 13): Boeing news release that came out last week saying they are now able to talk to airlines about it, they have been. I did not see the point of it.
Boeing PR, like the Chinese government, issues press releases as an involuntary reaction to their own fears and anxieties. The truth can be found elsewhere.
That image and the configuration are from an NH press release on their website that was linked on a.net sometime earlier this year, if I recall correctly. Therefore, I can only assume it is correct and at some future point,NH will take delivery of a 787-8 with that configuration (hence my use of the word "will").
Sponsor Message: 
From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 706 posts, 
From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 2778 posts, 
From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 622 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9599 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1194 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11948 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2012, 346 posts, 
From China, joined Sep 2000, 696 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21448 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3945 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
