redflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4179 posts, RR: 30 Reply 4, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4575 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 2): 2018 was the last number I heard provided they get an avionics update.
What does the update consist of? When is it supposed to start?
workhorse From France, joined Jul 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4515 times:
CX has at least 4 routes (FCO, AKL, JNB some days of the week, second CDG flight some months of the year...) where the 333's range is not enough and the 77W's capacity is a bit too big; also, the Arab Gulf routes, while within the range of the 333, seam to always get the 340's (hot?), so I guess it means that they are safe up until the 350's arrive (that can't be said about the 747's, unfortunately).
CX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6341 posts, RR: 56 Reply 6, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4477 times:
Priority is to retire the 747-400s first. Once the A350s start arriving in 2015 or 2016 onwards, the A340s will start to be retired. The four that already left were leased from ILFC and the opportunity to return them came at a time when the financial crisis meant that Cx had that option, especially with new 777-300ERs arriving.
workhorse From France, joined Jul 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3804 times:
Quoting Fuling (Reply 7): CX also takes the A343 to DME and PVG
I know, but you can do DME and any place in Asia and in Australia with a 333 too, while FCO, CDG, AKL and JNB really require a 343, so I guess these routes are what makes them stay in the fleet. Unfortunately, the 744's (my second-favorite craft in CX's fleet) are too easily replaced by 77W's.
CX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6341 posts, RR: 56 Reply 10, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3411 times:
Quoting workhorse (Reply 8): Quoting Fuling (Reply 7):
while FCO, CDG, AKL and JNB really require a 343, so I guess these routes are what makes them stay in the fleet
Those routes don't require an A340 and the reason they remain in the fleet isn't just to service those routes. The reason they remain is because the priority now is to get rid of the 744. In this day and age any 4 engined plane carries an in-built disadvantage especially in the smaller widebody category. If CX could click their fingers and have fleet renewal overnight, the 744s and A340s would all be gone and replaced with 77Ws, A333s and maybe a handful of VLAs.
NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 5672 posts, RR: 40 Reply 11, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3396 times:
Quoting workhorse (Reply 5): the 77W's capacity is a bit too big
I dispute that - the older 77W (77A) configuration had just as many seats as the A343 but was just too premium for the likes of AKL. Now that they have the 77H, I believe that they could send those to AKL, especially over the southern summer when CX has in the past sent a 744 and A343 daily/12ish times per week.
CX A330s only have chemical O2 generators, to do DME with an A330, they need to have bottled O2 for the passengers as the escape routes require the aircraft to level off above 10,000 ft due to the terrain. The a340 have bottled O2 for the passengers.
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 10): Those routes don't require an A340 and the reason they remain in the fleet isn't just to service those routes.
The A340s were due to remain in the fleet for some time, it is not some new decision. Removing the ILFC aircraft from the fleet also was not a new decision in response to the GFC, it was in the annual reports years prior.
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 10): If CX could click their fingers and have fleet renewal overnight, the 744s and A340s would all be gone and replaced with 77Ws, A333s and maybe a handful of VLAs.
I think that is wishful thinking on your part, the A340/A350 decision was made a while ago.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3321 posts, RR: 14 Reply 14, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3057 times:
Does that mean the 77W will be the only Boeing passenger model left in the fleet once the 744 leaves? I'm not sure they still fly the 772. I think we can assume they won't order the 747-8i, unfortunately, but you never know.
Ben Soriano
"Aimer jusqu'a l'impossible, c'est possible". Tina Arena.
But how would you do a HKG-FCO or a HKG-CDG with a 333?
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 10): If CX could click their fingers and have fleet renewal overnight, the 744s and A340s would all be gone and replaced with 77Ws, A333s and maybe a handful of VLAs.
The 744 one of the most iconic aircraft in CX fleet, as the L1011 was before. The 343 is (arguably, I know) one of the most beautiful (as the C880 was before). It will be a sad day for aviation enthusiasts to see them go.
Quoting NZ107 (Reply 11): I dispute that - the older 77W (77A) configuration had just as many seats as the A343 but was just too premium for the likes of AKL. Now that they have the 77H, I believe that they could send those to AKL, especially over the southern summer when CX has in the past sent a 744 and A343 daily/12ish times per week.
I guess this will all depend on how the new partnership with NZ pans out. Will it mean an increase in CX flying between New Zealand and Hong Kong or the contrary?
Quoting zeke (Reply 13): CX A330s only have chemical O2 generators, to do DME with an A330, they need to have bottled O2 for the passengers as the escape routes require the aircraft to level off above 10,000 ft due to the terrain. The a340 have bottled O2 for the passengers.
Oh, I see, so it means sometimes you fly via the Tibetan plateau! It has always been my dream to fly this route but somehow each time I have ended up on the Northern route, almost over Beijing / Zhangjiakou.
NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 5672 posts, RR: 40 Reply 17, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2809 times:
Quoting workhorse (Reply 16): I guess this will all depend on how the new partnership with NZ pans out. Will it mean an increase in CX flying between New Zealand and Hong Kong or the contrary?
Nothing yet but the sentiment is that NZ may pull out one day leaving CX with a monopoly on the route but maybe the A351 will be online by then and things may have changed.
psimpson From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 280 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2739 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 13): Its an ADS-B upgrade as it is being made compulsory by 2014ish in a number of places the aircraft are being deployed.
I always wondered why Cathy Pacific A340-300s were not ADS-B equipped.
The only Cathy Pacific A343 that i saw with ADS-B was B-HXL which is now flying with Sri Lanka.
Fortunately i can view the Cathy Pacific A343s thanks to the wonderful Planeplotter MLAT, and have seen them the past few Saturdays on the Planeplotter MLAT operating into LHR on the CPA257 flight.
ecbomberman From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1964 times:
I think the 343 does have a role in airline fleets, namely long and thin routes. The next biggest longhaul plane CX has is the 77W, which might be an overkill in some of the routes they fly into.
Quoting zeke (Reply 13): CX A330s only have chemical O2 generators, to do DME with an A330, they need to have bottled O2 for the passengers as the escape routes require the aircraft to level off above 10,000 ft due to the terrain. The a340 have bottled O2 for the passengers.
I'm surprised that CX didn't choose to opt for bottled O2 from the beginning as the 744's and the 343 at that time did. BTW, did the A333 came first or the A343?
I'm also surprised that they didn't opt for that for later batch of longer ranged 333's. Is it because of the cost of chemical generated O2 is cheaper than bottled O2?
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 10): If CX could click their fingers and have fleet renewal overnight, the 744s and A340s would all be gone and replaced with 77Ws, A333s and maybe a handful of VLAs.
I'd still think that CX would still need a plane for a long and thin aircraft. Maybe a few SQ 77E would be handy??
CX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6341 posts, RR: 56 Reply 21, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1852 times:
Quoting workhorse (Reply 16): Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 10):
Those routes don't require an A340
But how would you do a HKG-FCO or a HKG-CDG with a 333?
You don't...you do them with a 77W or A350.
Quoting ecbomberman (Reply 20): Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 10):
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 10):
If CX could click their fingers and have fleet renewal overnight, the 744s and A340s would all be gone and replaced with 77Ws, A333s and maybe a handful of VLAs.
I'd still think that CX would still need a plane for a long and thin aircraft. Maybe a few SQ 77E would be handy??
Well I am talking about right now with what is available today, CX would want more 77Ws and 333s if they could retire all the 744s and 343s overnight. Unrealistic obviously as you have all the crewing issues etc...just giving an indication of what plane CX wants in it's fleet today. They cannot sing the praises of the 77W high enough and have been quoted as saying they can't join the fleet fast enough.
One of our managers has said that the A340s do not make any money for CX (Generalization I realise), but that operating them at a loss is cheaper than parking them, or returning them early to the leasing company so for now they continue with the cheaper option and that is to operate them inefficiently.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2185 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1846 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting Fuling (Reply 7): I think on the occasion PER sees the A343, but it might have gone all A333 now.
It's only an A343 if there's an unexpected substitution. PER gets the latest A333 with the new J, premium economy and new economy now. None of the A343s are in that configuration.
Quoting LY777 (Reply 19): I have always wondered why CX ordered A343s instead of 772ERs
The A333. CX's first A333, VR-HLA, was delivered in March 1995 while its first A343, VR-HXA, was delivered in June 1996.
I would imagine that one of the reasons why oxygen bottles aren't fitted to the A333s is because it wasn't envisaged to fly the routes which requires them.
frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1196 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1777 times:
IIRC, AMS will get the A343 instead of the 744 pretty soon as well. I guess the 744 is too uneconomical (too big, too many premium seats). Wonder if AMS could go 77W if CX will have enough of those without first class cabin.
Edit: just checked, AMS already is served by A340...
CX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6341 posts, RR: 56 Reply 24, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1739 times:
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 23): IIRC, AMS will get the A343 instead of the 744 pretty soon as well. I guess the 744 is too uneconomical (too big, too many premium seats). Wonder if AMS could go 77W if CX will have enough of those without first class cabin.
Edit: just checked, AMS already is served by A340...
AMS is slated to be changed to the 77W within the coming year.
American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3321 posts, RR: 14 Reply 25, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1792 times:
I think the perfect A340 replacement would be the 787-9 or even the 787-10 for long thin routes, depending on capacity needed. If those can fly under ETOPS-180 min rule or better, then ETOPS should not be an issue.
Some routes I can think of the 787 would be a good fit:
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26718 posts, RR: 83 Reply 26, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1667 times:
Quoting American 767 (Reply 25): I think the perfect A340 replacement would be the 787-9 or even the 787-10 for long thin routes, depending on capacity needed.
workhorse From France, joined Jul 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1490 times:
Quoting American 767 (Reply 25): I think the perfect A340 replacement would be the 787-9 or even the 787-10 for long thin routes, depending on capacity needed. If those can fly under ETOPS-180 min rule or better, then ETOPS should not be an issue. Some routes I can think of the 787 would be a good fit: HKG-SFO HKG-SEA HKG-SAN HKG-ZRH HKG-CPH HKG-FCO HKG-MXP HKG-HEL HKG-YVR
Are you kidding? HKG-SFO is probably the busiest long haul route in the network after LHR, it has been speculated as a future A380 destination, should it ever be ordered. Almost the same thing can be said about YVR (huge traffic from HKG).
MXP is already 77W, so even a 359 would be a downgauge there.
Quoting American 767 (Reply 25): The A350 and 77W would fly on higher capacity routes such as HKG-LHR HKG-LAX HKG-FRA (or maybe a 787-10) HKG-JFK
LAX and JFK are already 77W routes, LHR and FRA are mainly 744 and will become 77W (and some day hopefully 388 or at least 748).
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 28, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1142 times:
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 21): Well I am talking about right now with what is available today, CX would want more 77Ws and 333s if they could retire all the 744s and 343s overnight. Unrealistic obviously as you have all the crewing issues etc...just giving an indication of what plane CX wants in it's fleet today
That is not true, the 77W is way to big for a lot of markets, and too small for others.
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 21): They cannot sing the praises of the 77W high enough and have been quoted as saying they can't join the fleet fast enough.
You would be talking about the 777 fleet office, it is not universal.
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 21): One of our managers has said that the A340s do not make any money for CX (Generalization I realise), but that operating them at a loss is cheaper than parking them, or returning them early to the leasing company so for now they continue with the cheaper option and that is to operate them inefficiently.
The A340s do make money. If there is a flight the A340 is not making money, they would make a larger loss with a 77W, that is an extra 2+t an hour of fuel, plus a lot more capital tied up. Airlines need to operate slots or they get reallocated. A340s get the job of the long thin routes, often the off peak schedules, operating the 77W during those times is a good way to bleed cash.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 1784 posts, RR: 57 Reply 29, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1072 times:
Quoting American 767 (Reply 25): I think the perfect A340 replacement would be the 787-9 or even the 787-10 for long thin routes, depending on capacity needed. If those can fly under ETOPS-180 min rule or better, then ETOPS should not be an issue.
If the A350 come in as expected the trip fuel difference between a 789 and 359 will be minimal, a long haul we are talking 1 to 2 tons of fuel per trip out of 70-90 ton consumed. The reason is; though 10t heavier then a 789 the 359 enjoys one generation later engines which are 2% more economical, thus you might as well standardize on a 359. The 7810 is about 2% more economical on fuel per seat then a 359 and it carries 2 more seat rows and a bit more cargo, this might warrant an existence besides the 359 but I doubt it. You also have the problem of a seat with difference as described when CX choose the 359 instead of the 789.
Sponsor Message: 
From France, joined Nov 2005, 2448 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7348 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2011, 187 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 5672 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 280 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1196 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
