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, 4423 posts, RR: 6
Posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17624 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)

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 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17568 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, 31130 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17516 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, 862 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 17252 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, 6621 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16938 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, 8437 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16884 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, 862 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16805 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, 5070 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 16700 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, 9176 posts, RR: 76
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 16664 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, 5070 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 16611 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, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 15877 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 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 15642 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, 638 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 15519 times:

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

User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12673 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 15509 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, 4815 posts, RR: 40
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 15487 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 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 15344 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 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 15056 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, 2517 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 14707 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 onlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2648 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 14572 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 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14381 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, 838 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14171 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, 742 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 14095 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, 12245 posts, RR: 34
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 14029 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, 644 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13459 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, 8437 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 13235 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.


User currently offlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 838 posts, RR: 14
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 13606 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © wangpaul



Good view of the A380 aft cargo without the crew rest unit.



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 offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6621 posts, RR: 55
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 13380 times:

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 reconfigured to have premium economy, there will not be a 300+ seat long haul aircraft in the CX fleet (Although there is no announcement on the 350-1000 config yet), and in my opinion there is a definate need for a 300+ seater in the fleet. A 400 seater would fit fairly well on a number of longhaul and short haul routes when demand is high.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 14):
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. .

Actually the air cargo industry is seeing a shift away from dedicated freight aircraft. Passenger airlines like CX who operate full freighters are asking themselves how to plan their fleet requirements for the future and many see a possible reduction in the number of dedicated freighters. Airlines that only fly freight like Cargolux, Air Bridge Cargo etc are struggling more and more, partly because of the high fuel prices and bad economy but also from increased pressure from passenger aircraft that have a much better freight carrying capacity than the aircraft of the old days.


User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3232 posts, RR: 9
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 11844 times:

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...

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 JFK/EWR-HKG with a belly full of valuable cargo and two cabins full of pax sounds like a winner to me for CX.

Love to see what CX would do with their first-class cabin.



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9176 posts, RR: 76
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11212 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 26):
Actually the air cargo industry is seeing a shift away from dedicated freight aircraft. Passenger airlines like CX who operate full freighters are asking themselves how to plan their fleet requirements for the future and many see a possible reduction in the number of dedicated freighters. Airlines that only fly freight like Cargolux, Air Bridge Cargo etc are struggling more and more, partly because of the high fuel prices and bad economy but also from increased pressure from passenger aircraft that have a much better freight carrying capacity than the aircraft of the old days.

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 cargo a much lower cost than underfloor on a passenger aircraft. The caveat being, not on long haul flights, it in on short to medium haul where long haul aircraft are being operated as pseudo combi aircraft. The 777 on a long haul flight is not a good freighter, it is good for the carriage or passengers and fuel. I would think one dedicated freighter HKG-ANC-JFK would carry more freight than 20+ 77Ws flying direct.

The reasons for Cargolux, Air Bridge Cargo etc have strains to their fiscal positions has little to do with what you suggest, it is more to do with the global change in trade directions. Last reports I saw showed HKG shipping more international freight than any other airport in the world.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2517 posts, RR: 12
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11084 times:

Quoting workhorse (Reply 19):
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

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 take a quality airline and direct competitor like SQ (all data from seat guru):
SQ 77W: 278 seats
SQ 388v1: 409 seats (12 + 86 + 311)
SQ 388v2: 471 seats (12 + 60 + 399)

CX 77Wv1: 299 seats (6 + 57 + 236)
CX 77Wv2: 350 seats (40 + 28 + 282)
CX 77Wv3: 340 seats (40 + 32 + 268)
CX 77Wv4: 275 seats (6 + 53 + 34 + 182)

Since you chose the most premium CX 77W in your examples, I'll also use the most premium seatings. I'll determine the SQ 388/77W ratio, and apply this ratio to CX 77W. Which should give us a rough idea of what a CX 388 total seating number could look like.

SQ 388/77W = 409 / 278 = 1.47

CX 388 = CX 77W * 1.47 = 275 * 1.47 = 405

So accounting for 500 pax on 388 and only 275 for 77W, is skewing the numbers not really in favour of the 388. The 275 seat 77W is very premium heavy. A similar premium heavey 388 would certainly not seat 500.

Using 405 pax / 25 paxbags per LD3 = 405/25 = 16.2. So that leaves 21 - 22 LD3 for freight (38 LD3 total as per your earlier post). That's 5 - 6 more than their current 744's. Not too shabby.



Off course a big problem for the 388 would be crew rest area, which will most likely be required especially for premium heavy HKG-USA flights.. This is a big big advantage of the 77W as that is all overhead, and won't consume any pax of LD3 capacity. Taking that into account, your numbers could be pretty accurate after all . . .  


Rgds,
PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11045 times:

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..


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31130 posts, RR: 85
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 11028 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PW100 (Reply 29):
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).

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.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12526 posts, RR: 35
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10930 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 31):
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.

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 operate it in a 4 class layout. Initially, it would be used on premium routes, i.e. where there is First Class demand - London, LAX, YVR, JFK. Thereafter, it'll probably go to routes where there is less premium demand and at that stage, there will be scope for different configs, e.g. with three class layouts. At that stage, we would probably see seat numbers climb up to the 500 mark. Of course, a lot depends on the success of J Class (will it eat into F class demand) and the success of Y+ (which has apparently been a little disappointing initially).

Bear in mind also that the third runway at HKG will probably not be available until early the next decade and even now, there are slot restrictions. Having 5 flights a day at HKG, with some of these departures v. close to each other simply does not make sense.


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6621 posts, RR: 55
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 10583 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 28):
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 26):
Actually the air cargo industry is seeing a shift away from dedicated freight aircraft. Passenger airlines like CX who operate full freighters are asking themselves how to plan their fleet requirements for the future and many see a possible reduction in the number of dedicated freighters. Airlines that only fly freight like Cargolux, Air Bridge Cargo etc are struggling more and more, partly because of the high fuel prices and bad economy but also from increased pressure from passenger aircraft that have a much better freight carrying capacity than the aircraft of the old days.

Not true in many respects.

CX is not a passenger airline, it is two airlines, a passenger airline and a cargo airline.

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 to offer lower freight rates because of increased cargo capacity. Airlines which did not take freight seriously have now realised that cargo can contribute significantly to their bottom line and are now carrying more cargo. Freight from smaller airports where dedicated freighters made the occassional visit can now get away in the bellies of passenger aircraft. Have a look at our own figures of how much cargo is carried in the bellies of passenger aircraft these days. There will always be a need for a few dedicated freightes between the largest hub cities but the pressure on yields and competition from passenger carriers is making things difficult for cargo airlines.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 29):
CX 77Wv1: 299 seats (6 + 57 + 236)
CX 77Wv2: 350 seats (40 + 28 + 282)
CX 77Wv3: 340 seats (40 + 32 + 268)
CX 77Wv4: 275 seats (6 + 53 + 34 + 182)

CX actually only has three versions of the 77W, and after reconfiguration we will only have two and both will be less than 300 seats. This is due to the introduction of the premium economy.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9176 posts, RR: 76
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 10399 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 33):
Have a look at our own figures of how much cargo is carried in the bellies of passenger aircraft these days.

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 to long haul, that is where the 747 freighters come in. For example, CX has around 13 passenger services a day to North America, the total freight capacity available on those aircraft with a full passenger load is approximately the capacity of a single 747 freighter. CX flies in addition to these flights 5+ 747 freighters a day to North America. The majority if the freight capacity is in on the 747 freighters at a ratio of approximately 5:1. During peak times additional charter flights for freight are dispatched, during slow times, flights are consolidated.

The design ranges I provided above for the 77W, 747-8i, and A380 only include passengers and baggage, it assumes no freight.

When airlines go shopping for a VLA passenger aircraft, they are signalling to the market that they are looking for passenger capacity. I am not suggesting any route a VLA is deployed on will only have a VLAs, there will be room for multiple type over the various frequencies as CX has already done in the past.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6621 posts, RR: 55
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 10378 times:

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 increasing pressure from airlines carrying more and more cargo these days and lowering yields. The previous poster had said that there was a shift to more freight being carried by pure freighters and less carried by passenger aircraft, which is inaccurate.

Quoting zeke (Reply 34):
When airlines go shopping for a VLA passenger aircraft, they are signalling to the market that they are looking for passenger capacity.

I'm not sure it is that simple and at the end of the day I am sure that whatever 'signals' being sent out are unintended and irrelevant. CX themselves have always said that they have their own requirements for choosing any new aircraft types and because we rely on cargo to a much higher extent than other carriers, our resulting requirements in a VLA or other aircraft will be different to that of other airlines. Sure CX is looking for additional capacity if they buy a VLA but I don't think the signal they are sending is ONLY that they are looking for passenger capacity. You know as well as I that freight capacity is part of the equation. Your mentioning passenger capacity but not freight in the same sentence is not a lie, but you are deliberately missing out part of the sentence to misconstrue a view.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9176 posts, RR: 76
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 10248 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 35):
The previous poster had said that there was a shift to more freight being carried by pure freighters and less carried by passenger aircraft, which is inaccurate.

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 ship with new generation containers. I have also been reading of a train service they are trying to put together to connect China with Europe.

What is misleading in a lot of the freight statistics is that air mail is often not included, and that will go on a passenger aircraft. The other shift is some high yield shipments that used to go by express freight companies are now being picked up by CX like our Pharma LIFT product. That is not something we see on every passenger flight.

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 35):
Sure CX is looking for additional capacity if they buy a VLA but I don't think the signal they are sending is ONLY that they are looking for passenger capacity. You know as well as I that freight capacity is part of the equation.

Sure it is part of the equation, it is a big P and small f, it is not a 50/50 consideration. As you know, even the 77W to and from JFK is limited on freight, the emphasis is on passengers (hence multiple frequencies). 300 passengers and around 5t of catering for them only leaves a small fraction for cargo, hence we have dedicated freighters servicing the port. The restriction on the 77W carrying more cargo is not a volume/LD3 issue, it is a weight and fuel volume issue. More weight would be available on a VLA, however as a percentage of the total payload, it is less assuming a full passenger payload.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinemichi From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9852 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 22):
Is it possible to place the crew rest area in the belly of the A380?

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 position has a better influence on the CG of the aircraft.

However I don't know how large it is in terms of LD 3 positions.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4815 posts, RR: 40
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9788 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 35):
The previous poster had said that there was a shift to more freight being carried by pure freighters and less carried by passenger aircraft, which is inaccurate.

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 such a shift could be part of the equation. I did not stated it to be a fact, so there was nothing inaccurate in my post. I will repeat the post below:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 14):
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.

I hope that clarifies what I stated earlier.

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
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 ship with new generation containers. I have also been reading of a train service they are trying to put together to connect China with Europe.

What is misleading in a lot of the freight statistics is that air mail is often not included, and that will go on a passenger aircraft. The other shift is some high yield shipments that used to go by express freight companies are now being picked up by CX like our Pharma LIFT product. That is not something we see on every passenger flight.

And that is exactly what I meant. You have written it more complete then I could, but the real long haul operations rarely see a lot of cargo on board. And that is not a thing specific for CX. All airlines do operate in the same way when real long distance routes are addressed.


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6621 posts, RR: 55
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9516 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 38):
I hope that clarifies what I stated earlier.

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 downplaying the role of aircraft like the 777 taking freight away from pure freighter operations on longhaul flights. I'm not disagreeing totally, just saying that the yields are down as a result of this increased belly capacity and that pure freight operators are having a think about future fleet requirements and whether the fundemantals of the pure freighter part of the industry are changing forever.
Now having said that, this magazine also predicted a possible large increase in sea-shipping rates for transpacific shipments for this coming year with a figure of up to 50% higher prices possible. This would help air freight yields and demand. Hopefully this comes true!

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
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 ship with new generation containers. I have also been reading of a train service they are trying to put together to connect China with Europe.

What is misleading in a lot of the freight statistics is that air mail is often not included, and that will go on a passenger aircraft. The other shift is some high yield shipments that used to go by express freight companies are now being picked up by CX like our Pharma LIFT product. That is not something we see on every passenger flight.

Forgive me but I am not entirely sure what your point is. Are you refuting something I said or is this a new point to say that there is pressure on air cargo? (Which I totally agree with.)


User currently offlinecloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks ago) and read 9424 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
the emphasis is on passengers

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 else once the floodgate is opened) starts in 3 months' time.

You can run freighters in the middle of the night but passenger schedules will always follow the local body clock for O/D passengers. If capacity is constrained, passenegr planes can only get bigger. We won't go 3-runway ops until 2023 at the earliest so we'll probably run the airport like Kaitak for a number of years. Freighter schedules will become second priority.



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 838 posts, RR: 14
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks ago) and read 9294 times:

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 will be 4 class 275 seat A/C.



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 offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6621 posts, RR: 55
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 9233 times:

Quoting CCA (Reply 41):
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 will be 4 class 275 seat A/C.

You are correct. I erroneously wrote previously that all would be sub-300 seaters.


User currently offlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 838 posts, RR: 14
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8610 times:

Interesting story on the -8 production rate.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...med-747-8-production-slots-382245/



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 offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6621 posts, RR: 55
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8134 times:

Quoting CCA (Reply 43):
Interesting story on the -8 production rate.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...med-747-8-production-slots-382245/

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 would love to operate more 748Fs but I am sure that pricing is a major issue. Cathay could replace their 747-400Fs with more 748Fs and eventually the 747-400ERFs as well, although this will be much further down the line than next year!


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