Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cathay Pacific Evaluating A380 And 748i Part 2  
User currently offlineiowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4364 posts, RR: 6
Posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 16863 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Due to length, please continue the discussion here if you so wish.

Previous thread: Cathay Pacific Evaluating A380 And 748i Again (by PlaneHunter Feb 1 2013 in Civil Aviation)


Next flights: WN DSM-LAS-PHX, US PHX-SJD. Return: US SJD-PHX, WN PHX-MDW-DSM
44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTheSultanOfWing From El Salvador, joined Dec 2012, 140 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 16807 times:

So, let's just assume CX will choose the "new" VLA, (making use of the commonality with their Airbus fleet etc), will they be happy to wait for a few years and join the A380 queue at the back?
It would make sense considering the improvements A380 will enjoy in the years to come! In fact, they could perhaps convert their orders in A389 if that ever sees the light.

Or do you think they would push for earlier delivery slots?

FH



I feel like the A318 at times: I am probably worth more parted out than as a whole.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30537 posts, RR: 84
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 16755 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TheSultanOfWing (Reply 1):
Or do you think they would push for earlier delivery slots?

I don't expect Kingfisher to live and if they do, it won't be a carrier that needs an A380. So those five slots should be free. I also think Air Austral won't take their two.

So CX might be able to get delivery positions in the 2014-2016 range.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 16491 times:

Sweair
There seems to be a belief that VLAs are that wonder magic pill that would make everything so much better.".

I haven't seen any evidence of that. They address four issues that airlines need to make money.

CASM.
Slot restricted airports.
"Peak Hour" surges.
Distance.

They are a very common sight in Australia, for example. The Australian international market ticks those boxes.


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6582 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 16177 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
I don't expect Kingfisher to live and if they do, it won't be a carrier that needs an A380. So those five slots should be free. I also think Air Austral won't take their two.

Rumours are that Airbus are pushing for CX to take the Hong Kong Airlines A380 slots. Not sure when they are though.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8273 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 16123 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 3):
I haven't seen any evidence of that. They address four issues that airlines need to make money.

CASM.
Slot restricted airports.
"Peak Hour" surges.
Distance

Should Cathay plan its entire fleet because of LHR ? Does CX need the A380, well a 77W can have 60 J class seats too. One question has to be is the A380 a better 6,000 mile airplane or a better 8,000 mile plane ? For Cathay that is a big question since LAX, ORD, JFK & Toronto are important desinations. An A380 can get to LHR or any European city with no problems but from HKG to JFK could be a challenge for the whale jet. In 2020 Cathay's fleet will have 77W's, A350's and A330's; what is it these planes can't accomplish a bigger one will ? IF big twins work why mess with a successful formula.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 16044 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 5):
IF big twins work why mess with a successful formula.

We know big twins work, and we know VLA work too, as well as single aisle. It's all a matter of getting the balance right, and seeing how they fit in with your requirements and company. Asia is a big place, with a big population, and booming economies. I would be surprised if a VLA doesn't fit in. Emirates has already jumped ahead of competitors who didn't see this coming, or can't or aren't willing to adapt to a changing global market.

The VLA market will never be as big as the big twin market, and the big twin market will never be as big as the single aisle market. Over time, we will see how market forces sort out what is the correct weighting for each group.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4853 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 15939 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 5):
but from HKG to JFK could be a challenge for the whale jet.

I assume you mean JFK-HKG . This is not so, at least for the upcoming lighter 573t version. Assuming a 290t DOW it is good for 59t payload on a16hr sector which most days would work for JFK-HKG.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 15903 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 7):

I assume you mean JFK-HKG . This is not so, at least for the upcoming lighter 573t version. Assuming a 290t DOW it is good for 59t payload on a16hr sector which most days would work for JFK-HKG.

As far as I am aware, the design range of the A380 is greater than the 77W and 747-8i, somewhere in the order of
777-300ER - 7900 nm
747-8i - 8000 nm
A380-800 - 8300 nm

Should be noted that a new VLA will do the route quicker than a 77W.

I do not think anyone is suggesting any one route will be taken over by VLAs, and I do not think the addition of large twins on different routes has stopped CX from flying dedicated VLA freighters.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4853 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 15850 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 8):
A380-800 - 8300 nm

PIANO-X suggests that a 573t MTOW 284t OEW with a 2% improvement in SFC should get very close to 8500nm


User currently offlinewowpeter From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2006, 151 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 15116 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 7):
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 5):
but from HKG to JFK could be a challenge for the whale jet.

I assume you mean JFK-HKG . This is not so, at least for the upcoming lighter 573t version. Assuming a 290t DOW it is good for 59t payload on a16hr sector which most days would work for JFK-HKG.

Maybe it has more to do with this:

a) Does CX want to be a passenger airline more?
or
b) Does CX want to be both pax and cargo airline more?

Clearly, the A380 can carry the pax over a long distance but don't have enough space for enough cargo (limited volume, even though it can carry the weight), so it is a good people hauler...

Where, the 777 can carry pax over long distance plus having the cargo space but occassionally, it will be weight restricted (I have seen subload pax being offloaded from Toronto and New York where the airplane is weight restricted, even though flight is not full).

The 747-8i will partially solve that issues that the 777 will have, being able to carry the pax over long distance, plus having the weight to actually carry the cargo over that same distance as well.

At the end of the day:

If CX is looking for pure pax capacity, then there is not questions about the A380... but if CX deem cargo to be just as important (which seem like that's the case), then the 777 and 747-8i makes more sense... But who knows... aircraft acquisition cost can easily swing this one way to another as well... so we will have to wait and see...


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 14881 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 202):
The more I think about it the more it feels like 'VLA' is just a stupid term.

I agree. Presumably a 747 with or without a stretched upper deck is a VLA but a 77W isn't. It's certainly open to interpretation, at best.

Quoting wowpeter (Reply 10):
Clearly, the A380 can carry the pax over a long distance but don't have enough space for enough cargo (limited volume, even though it can carry the weight), so it is a good people hauler...

Surely this is not an issue for HKG-JFK.

I still wonder if CX won't continue to try to get Airbus to launch the A389.


User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 611 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 14758 times:

the last and highest mtow for the a380 is 575t. And marketed range is 8500 nm i think

User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12374 posts, RR: 47
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 14748 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting thegeek (Reply 11):
I still wonder if CX won't continue to try to get Airbus to launch the A389.

Even if they do, I don't see the -900 being available before 2020.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 14726 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting wowpeter (Reply 10):
If CX is looking for pure pax capacity, then there is not questions about the A380... but if CX deem cargo to be just as important (which seem like that's the case), then the 777 and 747-8i makes more sense... But who knows... aircraft acquisition cost can easily swing this one way to another as well... so we will have to wait and see...

I would like to add to the quoted section of your post that a shift in cargo transport (maybe more volume carried by dedicated freighters) and less volume carried by predominantly passenger carrying airplanes could also be part of the equation.  .


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 14583 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 13):
Even if they do, I don't see the -900 being available before 2020.

Sounds like the perfect time for Airbus to get moving on the -900 then. All the -800s already sold should be delivered by then. And for CX waiting another 5 years after 2015 won't be the end of the world. Perhaps some HGW A388s could be useful for CX too.


User currently offlineworkhorse From France, joined Jul 2005, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 14295 times:

As discussed in the other thread (about CX launching 5th daily HKG-LHR), to make a better guess, we would need to know cargo loads that CX regularly has to LHR, SFO, YVR and JFK (most likely VLA destinations).

The 744 has 32 LD1/LD3 positions of which 16-17 can be used for freight

The 388 has 38 LD3 positions of which 17-18 can be used for freight

The 748I has 40 LD3 positions of which 22-23 can be used for freight

The 77W has 44 LD3 positions of which 33 can be used for freight

So if the 77W's are flying most of the time with their bellies full, there's little hope for a 748I or a 388 in CX colors.

If cargo loads are more like in the 744 era, then it makes sense to replace the original 744 flights with 748I's or 388's (depending on pax demand).

If it's somewhere in between, it makes more sense to mix 388's and 77W's to the same destination (hauling most of the pax with the 388 and most of the cargo with the 77W).

Of course, the decision will also have to take into account the introduction costs for the 748I and the 388 (obviously higher for the latter) and fuel costs (on a per trip basis, about the same as the 744 for the 748I, a bit higher for the 388, lower for the 77W).


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 13946 times:

Quoting workhorse (Reply 16):
The 744 has 32 LD1/LD3 positions of which 16-17 can be used for freight

The 388 has 38 LD3 positions of which 17-18 can be used for freight

The 748I has 40 LD3 positions of which 22-23 can be used for freight

The 77W has 44 LD3 positions of which 33 can be used for freight

So, according to your numbers:



a 744 uses 15-16 LD3 for luggage

a 748i uses17-18 LD3 for luggage

a 388 uses 20-21 LD3 for luggage

a 77W uses 11 LD3 for luggage

Are you really saying a 388 carries almost double the number of passangers as a 77W? Not sure how that adds up. Something is skewed in the pax ratio (class wise) somehwere, so is this then a fair comparison?



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2596 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 13811 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting TheSultanOfWing (Reply 1):
will they be happy to wait for a few years and join the A380 queue at the back?

Given that their plan is to retire their 747-400s by 2016, I don't think they would mind waiting a few years for an A380 if they decide to order them.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 5):
Should Cathay plan its entire fleet because of LHR ? Does CX need the A380, well a 77W can have 60 J class seats too.

Agreed. I recall reading somewhere that CX did in fact consider buying the 747-400ER so that they can operate LAX-HKG year round with less weight restrictions and minimise the possibility of an unplanned fuel stop. They decided against such an order.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 5):
In 2020 Cathay's fleet will have 77W's, A350's and A330's; what is it these planes can't accomplish a bigger one will ? IF big twins work why mess with a successful formula.

  

Quoting scbriml (Reply 13):
Even if they do, I don't see the -900 being available before 2020.

I don't see that as too much of a problem. CX are managing high demands and increasing traffic by putting more frequency on routes that require it. As such, I do not believe they urgently require a "VLA" for its capacity.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineworkhorse From France, joined Jul 2005, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 13620 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 17):
So, according to your numbers:a 744 uses 15-16 LD3 for luggagea 748i uses17-18 LD3 for luggagea 388 uses 20-21 LD3 for luggagea 77W uses 11 LD3 for luggage

Well, these numbers come from our discussion with Stitch in the other thread. They are based on:

275 pax for the 77W (CX 4-class config) 275/25=11 LD3's

359 pax for the 744 (current CX 4-class config) 359/25=14.36 rounded up at 15 LD3's

~410 pax for the 748I (added 50 pax to the 744) 410/25=16.4 rounded up at 17 LD3's

~500 pax for the 388 : 500/25=20

In 3-class that would make 297 pax for the 77W, 379 pax for the 744, ~430 pax for the 748 and ~525 for the 380, so basically you add 1 LD3 everywhere.

Maybe the pax number for the 388 is a bit too high, you're right. Singapore has 278 pax in the 77W, and 479 in the 388, so let's add one more freight LD3 to the 388.



[Edited 2013-02-10 03:05:02]

User currently offlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 827 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 13410 times:

Quoting workhorse (Reply 19):
~410 pax for the 748I (added 50 pax to the 744) 410/25=16.4 rounded up at 17 LD3's

A 748I in CX's 4 class config would be around 385-395 pax so 16 LD3s leaving 24 for freight.

I'd guess 450-480 for a A380 in CXs 4 class.

There is one glaring problem that's been missed, the crew rest unit, it's either in the cargo taking up valuable space or on the main deck taking seats. CX uses the underfloor unit on their A340s.

Say 38 - 18 (bags) - 2 (crew rest) leaving 18 for freight.

[Edited 2013-02-10 03:45:32]

[Edited 2013-02-10 03:49:44]


C152 G115 TB10 CAP10 SR-22 Be76 PA-34 NDN-1T C500 A330-300 A340-300 -600 B747-200F -200SF -400 -400F -400BCF -400ERF -8F
User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13334 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 7):
I assume you mean JFK-HKG . This is not so, at least for the upcoming lighter 573t version. Assuming a 290t DOW it is good for 59t payload on a16hr sector which most days would work for JFK-HKG.

An A380 with a 59t payload should be good for 500 pax, using 20LD positions for bags with about 9t left for payload using a further 18-20 LD postions.

A 77W with a 35t payload (similar to what EK carries on LAX-DXB) should be good for 300 pax using 12LD positions for bags plus another 5t of cargo using about 10 LD positions.

This indicates to me that the A380 may be the best solution to use on the JFK route when there is a capacity increase required. 200 extra pax plus 5t extra freight, only CX know if that sort of capacity jump is useable, or if it is a good idea to replace 3 x 77W's with 2 x 380's on any routes. If anyone has better numbers, please update my figures.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13268 times:

Quoting CCA (Reply 20):
There is one glaring problem that's been missed, the crew rest unit, it's either in the cargo taking up valuable space or on the main deck taking seats. CX uses the underfloor unit on there A340s.

Good one. Is it possible to place the crew rest area in the belly of the A380? I know the crew rest area on the EK A380s are in the back of the plane.



/edit

Already found the answer by myself.



[Edited 2013-02-10 03:55:49]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 634 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 12698 times:

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 21):
An A380 with a 59t payload should be good for 500 pax, using 20LD positions for bags with about 9t left for payload using a further 18-20 LD postions.

A 77W with a 35t payload (similar to what EK carries on LAX-DXB) should be good for 300 pax using 12LD positions for bags plus another 5t of cargo using about 10 LD positions.

This indicates to me that the A380 may be the best solution to use on the JFK route when there is a capacity increase required.

This makes sense - you cannot fill a 77W with a full load of pax, bags, and realistically heavy LD3s and still expect it to fly max range!!


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8273 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 12474 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting workhorse (Reply 16):
The 744 has 32 LD1/LD3 positions of which 16-17 can be used for freight

The 388 has 38 LD3 positions of which 17-18 can be used for freight

The 748I has 40 LD3 positions of which 22-23 can be used for freight

The 77W has 44 LD3 positions of which 33 can be used for freight

77W is 11 containers/ A380 with 17 containers, is proportional given that most 77W seat about 325 passengers and most A380 seat about 500. We all know the A380 is a dog for carrying cargo but it was never designed to be a good freighter, it was designed to carry 500 people in comfort. Airbus has a good freighter, its the A330-200 F.


25 Post contains links and images CCA : View Large View MediumPhoto © wangpaul Good view of the A380 aft cargo without the crew rest unit.
26 CX Flyboy : I personally do believe that there is room for either the 380 or 748i in the CX fleet. When the 744s are all gone and the 77Ws have all been reconfigu
27 motorhussy : Or from the 'glass half full' perspective, the A380 can carry cargo with a more dense mass IE heavier cargo for the space available. So an A380 on JF
28 zeke : Not true in many respects. CX is not a passenger airline, it is two airlines, a passenger airline and a cargo airline. A dedicated freighter moves ca
29 Post contains images PW100 : I still feel that the number of fax for a hypothetical CX 388 are overstated (note that this will be very benificial to seat mile cost). So let's tak
30 sweair : Thinking about it in the old days the crown space was wasted space and has become an advantage in some way now. The 747 has a huge crown space..
31 Stitch : My original analysis was for a 275-seat 777-300ER and a 550-seat A380-900. I would project an A380-800 as being around 450-475 seats.
32 kaitak : That was roughly my own estimation, in the last thread. The thing is that as the A388 is the "top end" of the fleet, it's more likely that they will
33 CX Flyboy : I read an Air Cargo Management magazine article about it. They were claiming that pressure from passenger airlines all over the world are being able
34 zeke : This is over the short to medium haul sectors which is what I already stated above, regionally CX does move a lot of cargo under floor. When it comes
35 CX Flyboy : I agree Zeke. I was just refuting your saying that my other post was incorrect 'in many aspects', when saying that overall, pure freighters are under
36 zeke : Not entirely, over long haul routes this is true, and not all of it is going by air. Some shipments that used to go by air a decade ago now go by shi
37 michi : There is one more belly/underfloor cabin crew rest option that is not on the diagramm you found. It is located in the forward cargo compartment. This
38 EPA001 : I guess you are referring to my post written earlier in this thread. if so, then you have misread or misinterpreted my post. I specifically said that
39 CX Flyboy : You and Zeke are very clear. I am just saying that this article I read seems to suggest the opposite of what you are both implying. You are both down
40 cloudyapple : The emphasis will even more so be on passengers as day time slots at HKIA become rare commodity in a few years' time. Quicker if Jetstar (and whoever
41 CCA : I thought CX was consolidating its 77Ws around the following. 4 class - 275 3 class - 340 (no first class) No where have I seen that all CX's 77Ws wil
42 CX Flyboy : You are correct. I erroneously wrote previously that all would be sub-300 seaters.
43 Post contains links CCA : Interesting story on the -8 production rate. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...med-747-8-production-slots-382245/
44 CX Flyboy : Interesting. Without going off topic too much I do believe that Boeing do have a few more opportunities out there. There are a number of carriers who
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 New Premium Y And Y (pics) posted Mon Feb 27 2012 14:57:33 by alaskaqantas
Cathay Pacific - Seating Arrangements And Regos posted Sun Mar 28 2004 16:30:28 by Glennstewart
Cathay Pacific 747/400 And A340 Req Info posted Thu Sep 7 2000 14:03:59 by CX-QF
Cathay Pacific Former HKG To ARN And IST Flights posted Tue Jan 29 2013 13:24:54 by airlittoralguy
Finnair And Cathay Pacific To Deepen Co-operation? posted Fri Dec 21 2012 03:57:25 by okAY
Alaska And Cathay Pacific Plan Codeshare posted Tue Sep 7 2010 11:16:56 by LAXintl
Cathay Pacific And The A340-600 posted Fri Sep 25 2009 10:36:01 by CF-CPI
Cathay Pacific New F And J Seats (With Photos) posted Fri Apr 27 2007 06:42:42 by YLWbased
Thai (TG) "May" Cancel A380 And Studying 748i posted Tue Nov 21 2006 14:50:19 by YLWbased
Iberia And Cathay Pacific Start Code Share posted Mon Jul 5 2004 03:18:11 by N754pr