Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Or B747-8i? CX Weighs Up Its Options  
User currently offlineBogi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 26296 times:

“As for double deckers, nothing is excluded, it’s more a question of whether or not on selected routes there’s a need for a double decker” says Toby Smith, Cathay Pacific’s General Manager, Product.

http://www.ausbt.com.au/airbus-a380-...thay-pacific-weighs-up-its-options

109 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3380 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 26221 times:

Quote:
“As for double deckers, nothing is excluded, it’s more a question of whether or not on selected routes there’s a need for a double decker” Smith tells Australian Business Traveller.

“For example, we now have four flights a day to Sydney. Would we go to five? Well actually we haven’t got any more rights – that’s still being looked at – so potentially that could be one market where you might see them, but it’s not on the horizon.”

Any order for either 748 or A380 is years away, it seems. And it sounds like CX is more interested in getting an extra slot at Sydney than using higher capacity aircraft.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 26090 times:

I thought we decided a couple weeks ago that CX wasn't going to spring for either aircraft?

User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10645 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 26062 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
I thought we decided a couple weeks ago that CX wasn't going to spring for either aircraft?

Tactics to get a better price I would say.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8864 posts, RR: 75
Reply 4, posted (10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 25892 times:

Quoting art (Reply 1):

Operating a 744 today to SYD as 138.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):

That was people putting words into Ivan's mouth. They have not ruled out anything, including the 787.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6406 posts, RR: 39
Reply 5, posted (10 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 25673 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 4):
Operating a 744 today to SYD as 138.

Yeah well that's surely got to be more to do with the typhoon than anything else (plus I feel for those in Y!). Although I'd love to see them start using the 77W to SYD to increase capacity. I partly expected them to be the launch customer for the 777X but LH beat them to that.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2916 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 25535 times:

If SYD was doing that well for them, I would have expected larger aircraft by now. But hey, in future, at this rate many routes will need more capacity and given the impasse on building additional capacity in some cities, the only way will be larger aircraft.

Theres a few routes they could use larger aircraft on, but I guess its all up to what works.


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3736 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (10 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 25403 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 4):
That was people putting words into Ivan's mouth.

In their defense, it's been pretty easy to get fooled by reading the not so subtle message between the lines.
CX has been pretty vocal about its passionate love for twins lately, and everything led to believe that they weren't interested at anything bigger and especially not with more engines.

Still, you'd have to be blind not to see a place for a VLA in CX.
The risk of operating a relatively small fleet could be easily hedged by the number of 2, 3, 4 or even 5 daily destinations they already operate.

Or could that be the proverbial foot in the door for the 748i interim lease rumor?



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8280 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 25001 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Cathay is facing an Aussie frequency probalem as they have a 70 flight limit per week. They are already at their 70 flight limit with A330 flying the routes. With 5 flights daily to London, 4 to JFK, 3 to LAX and 2 to SFO the question of bigger is arriving. Bigger may not be better but it may be inevitable.

User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6406 posts, RR: 39
Reply 9, posted (10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 24911 times:

I also wonder if they're waiting for more data on the A380HGW. HKG-JFK is a long flight and it's crucial that they can fly fully loaded out of there. LHR, LAX and JFK are 3 routes which could utilise the A380. SYD could also be added to that but I think they would want to retain frequency rather than merging two flights into an A380.


It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineKengo From Japan, joined Apr 2013, 183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 24882 times:

I have nothing against the A380 and I believe it's a fantastic plane. However, if and when CX decides to order VLA, my hope is for the 748i as having one more customer will ensure longer flying life for the Queen.

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 24741 times:

Quoting Kengo (Reply 10):
I have nothing against the A380 and I believe it's a fantastic plane. However, if and when CX decides to order VLA, my hope is for the 748i as having one more customer will ensure longer flying life for the Queen.

Me too, though I think it is a VERY long shot...  


User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1037 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 24622 times:

No 748i unfortunately I think (and I love the 747). I mean, with the 779, why? LH has gone 779 and they already own 748's. A380 has a meaningful capacity difference, so worth considering. I think they 779 is the end of the line for the Queen. The 77W was bad enough competition for the 748, the 779 means finito......

User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 24530 times:

Quoting Kengo (Reply 10):
I have nothing against the A380 and I believe it's a fantastic plane. However, if and when CX decides to order VLA, my hope is for the 748i as having one more customer will ensure longer flying life for the Queen.

I think Boeing has hit the final nail in the 748i coffin with the 777-9. The real choice is between more big twins or the A380, and so far it's the former that is winning.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineAzure From France, joined Dec 2012, 610 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 24265 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
With 5 flights daily to London, 4 to JFK, 3 to LAX and 2 to SFO the question of bigger is arriving

You can add to your list 2 daily flights to CDG (CX 261/260 - CX 279/278).




Quoting francoflier (Reply 7):
Still, you'd have to be blind not to see a place for a VLA in CX.
The risk of operating a relatively small fleet could be easily hedged by the number of 2, 3, 4 or even 5 daily destinations they already operate.

  



I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things - A. de Saint Exupery
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30564 posts, RR: 84
Reply 15, posted (10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 24074 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
Cathay is facing an Aussie frequency probalem as they have a 70 flight limit per week. They are already at their 70 flight limit with A330 flying the routes.

The A350-1000 or 777-300ER would provide a significant capacity boost over the A330-300 on those frequencies. Heck, the A350-900 would increase Economy seating if that is where the demand is.



Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
With 5 flights daily to London, 4 to JFK, 3 to LAX and 2 to SFO the question of bigger is arriving.

And yet they've rolled back from the 747-400 to the smaller 777-300ER on most, if not all, of those frequencies.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8280 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 24033 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The VLA question a Cathay is one of being prudent. Thai and Malaysian purchased A380's to keep up with "Singapore Air". Cathay doesn't need to prove anything. The 77W hauls more frieght then an A380 could and maybe cargo is more important then an extra 150 passengers per flight. Even Air China has not purchased A380, they have a ton of 777's. IF the flagship China airline doesn't have A380's, should Cathay ?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30564 posts, RR: 84
Reply 17, posted (10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 24003 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 16):
Even Air China has not purchased A380, they have a ton of 777's.

And five (soon to be seven) 747-8 Intercontinentals.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17339 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 23892 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
Cathay is facing an Aussie frequency probalem as they have a 70 flight limit per week. They are already at their 70 flight limit with A330 flying the routes.

If they're capacity constrained why are they operating all flights on their smallest equipment?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineHiFlyerAS From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 924 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 23781 times:

Quoting na (Reply 3):
Tactics to get a better price I would say.

IF they actually choose either one instead of a twin they're going to get a hell of a price. AB and BA are both desperate for sales of their VLA's. Myself I'm rooting for the 747-8i...would hate to see the 747 line come to an end.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30564 posts, RR: 84
Reply 20, posted (10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 23628 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting HiFlyerAS (Reply 19):
IF (CX) actually choose either one instead of a twin they're going to get a hell of a price. AB and BA are both desperate for sales of their VLA's.

I do not see Boeing offering CX a greater-than-50% discount on the 747-8 if they can secure a 777-9 order at a less-than-50% discount. Otherwise, I would have expected LH to exercise their 747-8 purchase rights as opposed to buying the 777-9.

IMO, the 747-8 was a bad idea and it's poor execution only made it worse. They should have just closed the line last decade and focused on the 777neo.


User currently offlinenicoeddf From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1099 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 23429 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 16):
Thai and Malaysian purchased A380's to keep up with "Singapore Air".

So your argument is to not do what the competitor does "just for the sake of it" when it comes to buying A380.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 16):
IF the flagship China airline doesn't have A380's, should Cathay ?

But when it comes to NOT buying the aircraft, it is relevant and justified to "just do what the competitor does"?

Interesting argumentation...  


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10645 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 23176 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
IMO, the 747-8 was a bad idea and it's poor execution only made it worse. They should have just closed the line last decade and focused on the 777neo.

From an economical standpoint the 748I might be flawed as Boeing and especially GE did a bad job (I´d have wished they would have done bad on the 77W and overdeliver on the 748i but that ship has sailed). From a passenger standpoint the 748I is a great plane and the 777-9X simply cant do better as the 748 interior architecture is superior than any 777 could ever be.
The freighter has its justification also in the long term. It has no competition. That it currently doesnt sell is due to the bad market, look at the 777F and A330F which are also selling badly.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 961 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 22951 times:

Quoting na (Reply 22):
That it currently doesnt sell is due to the bad market, look at the 777F and A330F which are also selling badly.

Boeing has sold nearly as many 777F as it has 763F and 744F/744ERF, despite the latter two models being on offer for far longer.

777F - 127 units (Launched 2005)
763F - 130 units (Launched 1993)
744F/744ERF - 126+40 = 166 units (Launched 1989/2001)

I'd say that's about as well as one would hope for a widebody freighter, especially given the market conditions you noted.


User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1294 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 22842 times:

This seems to be a small repeat article of topic already well discussed.

Cathay Pacific COO: No VLA Needed (by LAXintl Jul 29 2013 in Civil Aviation)


Also last weeks 777X order pretty clearly points to where CX is going.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30564 posts, RR: 84
Reply 25, posted (10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 23926 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting na (Reply 22):
From a passenger standpoint the 748I is a great plane and the 777-9X simply cant do better as the 748 interior architecture is superior than any 777 could ever be.

I have found the 747 family to be far poorer in terms of internal cabin design compared to the 777. The 747-8 addresses that failing rather well thanks to the adoption of 787 design aesthetics, but the 777X will surely have those design aesthetics as well and therefore should execute them even better.



Quoting na (Reply 22):
The freighter has its justification also in the long term. It has no competition. That it currently doesnt sell is due to the bad market, look at the 777F and A330F which are also selling badly.

The trick is will that market recover sufficiently? More and more cargo is being moved by sea because the latest generation of cargo ships are getting faster and their ton-mile costs are significantly lower than air freight. And once Panama widens the locks, that is going to reduce transit times from Asia to Europe.

Based on comments to the media, Cathay Pacific is making use of the extra payload weight the 747-8F has and Cargolux is cubing out their 747-8Fs, so I can understand why CX swapped out their 777F order for more 747-8Fs and why Cargolux is an all-747 freighter operator.

But then you have customers like Emirates Sky Cargo, who first re-sold their 10 747-8F delivery positions to Dubai Aerospace Enterprises for lease-back on delivery and then subsequently cancelled those plans in favor of ordering the 777F, forcing DAE to cancel their order.

Singapore Airlines Cargo doesn't feel the extra performance of the 747-8F is of use to them and one wonders how long they'll operate an independent freighter fleet considering the belly space their 777s, A350s and 787s (will) offer.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4692 posts, RR: 14
Reply 26, posted (10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 23522 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 16):
Even Air China has not purchased A380, they have a ton of 777's. IF the flagship China airline doesn't have A380's, should Cathay ?

Given the degree of "central" control of the Chinese airlines, that doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot. Whether they have, or want, a particular aircraft type is not under the full control of the management of the main Chinese airlines especially the "flagship".


User currently onlineTriple Seven From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 530 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 24059 times:

748i is definitely not out of the question. CX business decision might also hinge on the 748F factor as well. Is the 747 product dead with the 777-9??? Don't think so but maybe for 748i. In due time we will probably see a 747-9i (a likely remake of the 747-600X) and this commitment of sort will probably play a role into any airlines decision to buy into a so call 'dead product'. The 747 isn't dead yet as the aircraft's growth and maturity potential has not reach its limit.

User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10645 posts, RR: 9
Reply 28, posted (10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 23963 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25):
I have found the 747 family to be far poorer in terms of internal cabin design compared to the 777.

I am of a totally opposite opinion.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 23):
777F - 127 units (Launched 2005)

The 748F was launched later and did sell similarly well, and one shouldnt forget the 777F covers a larger part of the market, while the 748F just covers the top.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4704 posts, RR: 38
Reply 29, posted (10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 23840 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25):
The 747-8 addresses that failing rather well thanks to the adoption of 787 design aesthetics, but the 777X will surely have those design aesthetics as well and therefore should execute them even better.

I think so too.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25):
Based on comments to the media, Cathay Pacific is making use of the extra payload weight the 747-8F has and Cargolux is cubing out their 747-8Fs, so I can understand why CX swapped out their 777F order for more 747-8Fs and why Cargolux is an all-747 freighter operator.

Yes, it is all a matter of economics and operational issues.

I still think CX will in the end order A380's. Or maybe they are one of the first potential customers for an improved A380 which might see the light of day and could have an EIS around 2020-2022 or so.  .


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 30, posted (10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 23572 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 23):
777F - 127 units (Launched 2005)

Despite its impressive backlog I think only 5 have been delivered this year. That underpins customer's lack of current demand for freighters.

Quoting Triple Seven (Reply 27):
In due time we will probably see a 747-9i (a likely remake of the 747-600X) and this commitment of sort will probably play a role into any airlines decision to buy into a so call 'dead product'.

I cannot envision any environment where a further stretch of the 747 is likely. The head of the program stated a year or two ago that it is certainly possible and 'it needs to wait its turn' but I just do not see how that is possible when there is so little demand for this the -8i.

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30564 posts, RR: 84
Reply 31, posted (10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 23625 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Triple Seven (Reply 27):
In due time we will probably see a 747-9i (a likely remake of the 747-600X) and this commitment of sort will probably play a role into any airlines decision to buy into a so call 'dead product'.

  

At 76m, the 747-8 is at the lower end of Boeing's various extended-length 747 concepts (the 747-400X Stretch and the 747-500X were both 78m, the 747X Stretch was 79m and the 747-600X was 85m). And the original 747-8 was to be 74m. So Boeing clearly felt that 76m was the maximum they could take the airframe and longer lengths are not possible without major modification.

Besides, if Boeing did decide to push beyond 80m with the 747, Airbus would follow with the A380 and the 747-9 would be just as uncompetitive against the A380-900/A380-1000 as the 747-8 is today against the A380-800.



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 29):
I still think CX will in the end order A380's.

If they do not order the 777-9, I agree.


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 23450 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25):
I have found the 747 family to be far poorer in terms of internal cabin design compared to the 777.

It's certainly subjective. I love the 747 inside, by far my favorite place on any plane is the nose of one.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30564 posts, RR: 84
Reply 33, posted (10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 23491 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 32):
It's certainly subjective.

Yes it is (see below).  
Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 32):
I love the 747 inside, by far my favorite place on any plane is the nose of one.

See, I hate the nose. Since I am fortunate to fly First when I fly, I go out of my way to avoid booking 747s because I have to sit in the nose, though that policy does not apply to LH's 747-8s because they only put eight suites in there (so I do not feel claustrophobic) and the extra noise insulation they added makes it (subjectively) much more quiet.


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 255 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 23196 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 32):
It's certainly subjective. I love the 747 inside, by far my favorite place on any plane is the nose of one.

I'm with you on that. Having been lucky enough to work for people who've been happy for me to travel up front, my favourite cabin has always been the 747 nose cabin (preferably seat 1A or 1K). So much more peaceful without the 'through traffic' that you get on every other aircraft.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3384 posts, RR: 26
Reply 35, posted (10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 22836 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 13):
I think Boeing has hit the final nail in the 748i coffin with the 777-9. The real choice is between more big twins or the A380, and so far it's the former that is winning.

I agree, however rather than see the nail in the 747-8i as an unintended action by idiots, I believe overlapping products in the short term (10 years) is an essential part of a long range marketing/production plan.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24829 posts, RR: 46
Reply 36, posted (10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 22617 times:

777-9 is in Cathay's future ---

CX Talks: Africa Routes, 77W & 777-9X, LCCs, Cargo (by LAXintl Sep 12 2013 in Civil Aviation)

CEO has now multiple times said the VLA is unlikely



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10702 posts, RR: 30
Reply 37, posted (10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 22382 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 24):
This seems to be a small repeat article of topic already well discussed.

Indeed, I thought this horse has been beaten to death?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 36):
CEO has now multiple times said the VLA is unlikely

But what a CEO says today can change tomorrow. Airlines re-evaluate their strategies from time to time.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKengo From Japan, joined Apr 2013, 183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 22315 times:

Quoting Triple Seven (Reply 27):
Quoting Triple Seven (Reply 27):
In due time we will probably see a 747-9i (a likely remake of the 747-600X)

My first flight as a passenger was on a JAL 747-100 when I was 7 years old and to this day, I remember walking into the 747 with amaze in my eyes. It was truly something special and after 40 years, the 747 still impresses me the most among all commercial aircraft. The sky over Japan used be full of 747s and it was a moment to remember when JAL ended their last 747 passenger flight two years ago with service from HNL to NRT. I travel a lot to Hawaii for business and pleasure, and my choice has always been with flights served with 747s. Not sure how long CI, DL and UA will continue to serve HNL from NRT with their 747s but as long as they do, I'll fly with one of them until their last flight. I too wish to see the 747 continue as a 747-9i but like most here think, I too think that the 747 days with the current pax variant is numbered. The Queen has a good run over 40 years and I think she can rest in peace knowing she was loved by many.

[Edited 2013-09-23 08:48:58]

User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17339 posts, RR: 46
Reply 39, posted (10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 21972 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 37):

But what a CEO says today can change tomorrow. Airlines re-evaluate their strategies from time to time.

Anything is possible, but CX has said VLAs are unlikely several times this year alone. I really don't see a need for them in CX' network anyway, other than *maybe possibly* 1-2 destinations, and that's hardly a good business case for a small subfleet of new planes.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
IMO, the 747-8 was a bad idea and it's poor execution only made it worse. They should have just closed the line last decade and focused on the 777neo.

   I suppose it killed the 380F, but judging from the combined pax/cargo sales of the 380/748, that's not much of a win.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30564 posts, RR: 84
Reply 40, posted (10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 21890 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 39):
I suppose it killed the 380F, but judging from the combined pax/cargo sales of the 380/748, that's not much of a win.

The A380-800F was a non-starter, IMO, so I view the 747-8F as a wasted effort.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12408 posts, RR: 37
Reply 41, posted (10 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 21041 times:

The only way I could see the 747-8 coming into CX's passenger fleet would be where CX finds that it needs a capacity bridge for the six years until the 779 enters pax service; in that case, perhaps Boeing would offer CX the 748i for a lease of 6-8 years.

It really is a pretty slim chance, but given that CX already has 748Fs, it might be a possibility.

If not with CX, might it work with other carriers? The aircraft could then be converted to freighters, although given the generally unsatisfactory reception of the 744BCF (with CX, for one), the attractiveness of this option might not be great.

There's very little difference in size between the 748i and 779, so it could work as a good "bridge" until the 779 is available.

The question for Boeing is: would this be worth its while, particularly if - as seems evident - CX is happy enough to use 77Ws as a 744 replacement. They could be left with several barely used 748s which might not be economical to convert to freighters (due to lack of market interest) and being part of a wider deal, they would sold at a very considerable loss. There comes a point when Boeing has to say "let's kill this thing before it loses us any more money".

On a side note, has anyone seen any evidence that Boeing has taken on board comments regarding the 777's cabin noise; is it likely to incorporate improvements into the 778/9 to address this?


User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4336 posts, RR: 19
Reply 42, posted (10 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 20898 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
They are already at their 70 flight limit with A330 flying the routes. With

The key word is A330. If Cathay was truly hurting for capacity to Australia, they'd deploy more 777s.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 43, posted (10 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 20907 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25):
the latest generation of cargo ships are getting faster

The trend has turned and the latest ships are built to go slower and the existing ships are typically running slower than they used to.


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (10 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 20792 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
See, I hate the nose. Since I am fortunate to fly First when I fly, I go out of my way to avoid booking 747s because I have to sit in the nose, though that policy does not apply to LH's 747-8s because they only put eight suites in there (so I do not feel claustrophobic) and the extra noise insulation they added makes it (subjectively) much more quiet.

 

I love it mainly because there is zero pass through traffic (which is really the major reason), and in row 1 you can watch the entire landing pattern because of the curvature of the fuselage. I would say 1K on a CX 744 is probably my al time favorite seat in any plane in history.

Edit: Speedbored beat me to it!

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 34):
I'm with you on that. Having been lucky enough to work for people who've been happy for me to travel up front, my favourite cabin has always been the 747 nose cabin (preferably seat 1A or 1K). So much more peaceful without the 'through traffic' that you get on every other aircraft.


[Edited 2013-09-23 09:46:00]

User currently offlinepnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2226 posts, RR: 12
Reply 45, posted (10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 19352 times:

Companies exist to make money. Therefore it is better to sell seats at the highest possible amount and then when you have to, sell lower priced seats. Ignoring that customers will migrate to other suppliers, it is most profitable to sell out aircraft to 100% then to add too many seats and have to then sell them at a much lower amount with very little profit. The spread between expense and profit is very important. Making more money at a very low margin between expense and proift is very risky.

So as has been said above in the example of Sydney, that CX can upgrade the A330 to B77Ws now, and later to the A350 or 778/9 and add considerable numbers of seats, long before needing a VLA, either 748 or even more so the A380. And if there is an economic downturn/sars/terrorist attack, it would be much cheaper to redeploy the smaller aircraft, or even park them for a period, than redeploy an A380 ineffectively, or even park an A380. Failure to consider that risk differentiates the aviation enthusiast who wants to see their favourite plane everywhere, rather than a prudent business mind that takes all factors into effect.

Many airlines went out of business in the last waves of downturns, because they improperly planned that everything won't be all growth. Mergers have happened in part because there was a mass oversupply of seats. Beyond this there obviously is a lot more to the equation, but aviation enthusiasts totally misread marketing and consumer purchasing habits, and totally overplay the idea that whatever the competition has you have to have as well in their lust for VLA's. Airlines with the largest profit to expense ration will fare the best and be able to weather storms better.

Somehow all these proven principles of business go by the wayside and Anetters think CX is nuts for not jumping to add a VLA. Rather I think it says a lot that CX is holding off the "keeping up with Jones" trap. Good on them. If Anetters ran amock at the airlines the mass trauma during the next downturn would be quite something to witness.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8280 posts, RR: 7
Reply 46, posted (10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 19362 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 18):
If they're capacity constrained why are they operating all flights on their smallest equipment?

Cathay's options are A330 or 777. They have some 744 which are being phased out. The A333 may be their smallest plane but it doesn't have First Class and seats 242 passengers.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2992 posts, RR: 8
Reply 47, posted (10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 18767 times:

If a VLA is ordered, this one will definitely be Airbus's to lose, but only a small subfleet. I don't see over 10 of either being ordered.


"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 48, posted (10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 17750 times:

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 45):
Therefore it is better to sell seats at the highest possible amount and then when you have to, sell lower priced seats. Ignoring that customers will migrate to other suppliers, it is most profitable to sell out aircraft to 100% then to add too many seats and have to then sell them at a much lower amount with very little profit. The spread between expense and profit is very important. Making more money at a very low margin between expense and proift is very risky.

Many successful companies disagree. Look at Walmart, look at McDonalds, look at Aldi in Germany. Ryanair is a great example in aviation.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 45):
Airlines with the largest profit to expense ration will fare the best and be able to weather storms better.

There is a lot more to weathering storms. Operating profit certainly makes life easier but you need a lot more than that. I don't know why people insist on breaking things down to so few components it actually becomes bad rules.


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 17614 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 48):
Many successful companies disagree. Look at Walmart, look at McDonalds, look at Aldi in Germany.

There is virtually no parallel between these companies and airlines. These companies operate that way due to gigantic scale that no airline could ever achieve.

The Ryanair example is more apt, but they run a significantly different business model.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8280 posts, RR: 7
Reply 50, posted (10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17442 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting nicoeddf (Reply 21):
Thai and Malaysian purchased A380's to keep up with "Singapore Air".
So your argument is to not do what the competitor does "just for the sake of it" when it comes to buying A380.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 16):IF the flagship China airline doesn't have A380's, should Cathay ?
But when it comes to NOT buying the aircraft, it is relevant and justified to "just do what the competitor does"?

Interesting argumentation...

My argument is that Thai and Malaysia "only" reason was to keep up with Singapore Air, no really ggod reason other then that. Cadillac can make a $90,000 car with a V8 engine to compete with Mercedes & BMW but how may people will buy it ? Cathay is not buying that kool-aid.

Cathay is also not buying the A380 because Air China, a 40% cathay shareholder, is NOT buying. The two reasons are both for NOT buying the A380. CX's managers have clearly done a very good job of not failing into that "me too" mentality of there neighbors in Thailand and Malaysia. Cathay is one of the best run airlines in the world, SIA is too. Should we next argue if Air New Zealand should buy A380's because Qantas has them ?

[Edited 2013-09-23 13:00:17]

[Edited 2013-09-23 13:01:22]

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 51, posted (10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17275 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 49):
There is virtually no parallel between these companies and airlines. These companies operate that way due to gigantic scale that no airline could ever achieve.

What is so different?


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1552 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16987 times:

I can't believe CX's comments are even news. Despite the teasing headline, the article starts off with the statement that we shouldn't expect CX to order the 380 or 748 "anytime soon." The article then states that despite speculation, "the airline seems quite happy with its stretched single-deck twin-engine jets ...".
He then states that maybe, if CX can't get more frequency on a few selects routes - say to SYD - "potentially" that would be one route where a twin deck plane might be used, "but it's not on the horizon." I don't know how much more cold water the airline can toss on this subject.

Unless the guy is just outright lying, it doesn't appear that CX has any present intention of ordering either the 380 or 748.


User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4336 posts, RR: 19
Reply 53, posted (10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16631 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 52):
Unless the guy is just outright lying, it doesn't appear that CX has any present intention of ordering either the 380 or 748.

The business case for a double-decker VLA at CX has steadily vanished over the past decade:

1. For years, Cathay (including Dragonair) served as a shadow flag carrier for southern mainland China and for Taiwan -- and in connecting both regions to each other. Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese airlines have largely gotten their act together, and are growing to satisfy the air service needs to/from their local markets. Furthermore, with mainland and Taiwanese carriers able to fly extensive between the two areas, Cathay no longer benefits as much from the feed of cross-Strait travelers.

2. More than most Asian legacy carriers, Cathay recognizes the strategic upside of building up frequencies to win premium traffic and command yield premiums. There's no need for A380s into Kennedy, for example, when CX can basically send 77Ws at will, timing the flights to offer choice to the consumer and maximum connectivity to the rest of its HKG hub network.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 54, posted (10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16465 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 53):
Cathay recognizes the strategic upside of building up frequencies to win premium traffic and command yield premiums. There's no need for A380s into Kennedy, for example, when CX can basically send 77Ws at will

have you looked at the times of the 4 existing non-stop flights? Not a single one of them has a good schedule. It isn't a route where additional frequency will help because the times are not attractive.


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16311 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 51):
What is so different?

Walmart has as much revenue as the entire airline industry annually. There is no comparison in volume unless you posit there is going to be an airline that literally becomes the only airline flying. In 2012 Walmart had 4 times the revenue of the top 13 airlines in the EU combined.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 56, posted (10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15798 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 55):
Walmart has as much revenue as the entire airline industry annually. There is no comparison in volume unless you posit there is going to be an airline that literally becomes the only airline flying. In 2012 Walmart had 4 times the revenue of the top 13 airlines in the EU combined.

Is it that different? Walmart has about 11,000 stores giving about 40 MUSD revenue per store. Unites serve some 1,000 destinations giving about 34 MUSD revenue per destination.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10702 posts, RR: 30
Reply 57, posted (10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15614 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 39):
Anything is possible, but CX has said VLAs are unlikely several times this year alone. I really don't see a need for them in CX' network anyway, other than *maybe possibly* 1-2 destinations, and that's hardly a good business case for a small subfleet of new planes.

It's very clear that we won't see any VLA's in the CX fleet in the short term, or at least not before 2020.

As for possible routes, I think a A380 stretch might serve CX very well because:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 9):
I also wonder if they're waiting for more data on the A380HGW. HKG-JFK is a long flight and it's crucial that they can fly fully loaded out of there. LHR, LAX and JFK are 3 routes which could utilise the A380. SYD could also be added to that but I think they would want to retain frequency rather than merging two flights into an A380.

I don't think CX wants the A380HGW because the airframe is too small to replace 2 77W aircraft, and too big to replace 1 77W. However, a stretched A380 should be able to replace 2 77W aircraft in terms of seats (and with a decent amount of cargo), and might be useful on routes to LHR.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinenicoeddf From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1099 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15430 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 50):
Cathay is also not buying the A380 because Air China, a 40% cathay shareholder, is NOT buying. The two reasons are both for NOT buying the A380. CX's managers have clearly done a very good job of not failing into that "me too" mentality of there neighbors in Thailand and Malaysia. Cathay is one of the best run airlines in the world, SIA is too. Should we next argue if Air New Zealand should buy A380's because Qantas has them ?

There are a hundred reasons not to buy a specific aircraft, the A380 obviously included. But the fact, that one of your shareholder airlines is not buying a specific one is certainly silly.

The CX managers have not done a good job for not falling into anything - they do a good job because they decide for the needs of CX. Apparently for now without a VLA - very good. At some point the need might arise - or not. I couldn't care less, actually.

And to the ANZ & QFA...that was your argument - not mine.  


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 14831 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 56):
Is it that different? Walmart has about 11,000 stores giving about 40 MUSD revenue per store. Unites serve some 1,000 destinations giving about 34 MUSD revenue per destination.

Yes, completely different. As volume increases, margin can decrease.


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24817 posts, RR: 22
Reply 60, posted (10 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14181 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 32):
I love the 747 inside, by far my favorite place on any plane is the nose of one.

See, I hate the nose. Since I am fortunate to fly First when I fly, I go out of my way to avoid booking 747s because I have to sit in the nose, t

It's surprising how people's opinions differ. In my experience there's simply nothing to compare with the nose of a 747. By far the best place to fly on any aircraft.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 61, posted (10 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14089 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 59):
Yes, completely different. As volume increases, margin can decrease.

Airlines have a lot of volume.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6824 posts, RR: 46
Reply 62, posted (10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13729 times:

I expect CX to buy the 779, and forego both the A380 and 748i. I believe that CX has said the A388 has insufficient cargo space, and if they are looking for maximum cargo space the 779 is the bird to fly. Leaving passengers on the ground does not lose money, but flying empty planes does.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13305 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 61):
Airlines have a lot of volume.

Not even a blip compared to Walmart.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 64, posted (10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13093 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 63):
Not even a blip compared to Walmart.

Per product and location they do.

One of my projects was a stitching company selling bras to Walmart. We supplied 3 - 5 pcs per model/size and store. A lot of effort to handle so low volume. Much easier to have self loading cargo.


User currently offlinesolarflyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 981 posts, RR: 3
Reply 65, posted (10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12745 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 62):

I expect CX to buy the 779, and forego both the A380 and 748i. I believe that CX has said the A388 has insufficient cargo space, and if they are looking for maximum cargo space the 779 is the bird to fly. Leaving passengers on the ground does not lose money, but flying empty planes does.

I agree but the problem is they have those 744s that they can't punt in the meantime. What if the 779 gets delayed two years? They have to be bleeding cash on some of these 744 compared to their competitors.


User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 327 posts, RR: 3
Reply 66, posted (10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12743 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 55):
Walmart has as much revenue as the entire airline industry annually. There is no comparison in volume unless you posit there is going to be an airline that literally becomes the only airline flying. In 2012 Walmart had 4 times the revenue of the top 13 airlines in the EU combined.

In addition and I believe the primary difference btw the airlines and those companies is how the product stocks are dealt with regards to sales. Once the aircraft door closes, any empty seat on the aircraft is lost revenue which can never be recovered. Whereas with those other companies when the stores close, anything not sold that day can be sold the next day......hence with airlines, each seat should ideally be sold for as much profit as possible using sensible revenue management systems. Ryanair also does the same thing, just because they are an LCC doesn't mean they sell seats at a loss...they simply operate a different model based on higher BELF's and much lower yield than the FSC's.

Add to this that you can't compare the volumes btw Walmart and any airline....Walmart serves millions of customers a day, the larger airlines serve thousands of customers a day....difference is pax revenue is much higher than a typical grocery trip...hence the comparison of how much made per store or destination isn't exactly solid.

This is why they are different.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 67, posted (10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12753 times:

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 65):
I agree but the problem is they have those 744s that they can't punt in the meantime. What if the 779 gets delayed two years? They have to be bleeding cash on some of these 744 compared to their competitors.

The 747s will not be around that long and the 77Ws don't have that many less seats. The 26-A351s will give them a bump in 2017-2020 as well.

tortugamon


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24829 posts, RR: 46
Reply 68, posted (10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12632 times:

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 65):
I agree but the problem is they have those 744s that they can't punt in the meantime. What if the 779 gets delayed two years? They have to be bleeding cash on some of these 744 compared to their competitors.

744 are leaving the fleet -- matter of fact they are off the bulk of long-haul flying already in favor of the 77W.

Per CX, all pax 744s will be gone by 2016.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinelutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (10 months 5 days ago) and read 12521 times:

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 65):
I agree but the problem is they have those 744s that they can't punt in the meantime. What if the 779 gets delayed two years? They have to be bleeding cash on some of these 744 compared to their competitors.

As the reply above - CX will have got rid of the 747 passenger aircraft before B779 EIS anyway - replaced by B773/A350


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 70, posted (10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11941 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 66):
In addition and I believe the primary difference btw the airlines and those companies is how the product stocks are dealt with regards to sales. Once the aircraft door closes, any empty seat on the aircraft is lost revenue which can never be recovered.

A problem existing in just about every industry. An easy example is the restaurant business. Probably harder to understand is that it exists in pretty much every manufactured item too. The difference is that it is in the manufacturing process. Lose production time and the revenue is lost forever.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 66):
hence with airlines, each seat should ideally be sold for as much profit as possible using sensible revenue management systems.

That is a very indirect way of saying that you need to match margin and volume to produce largest amount of profit. Thing is, that isn't an equation with just one correct answer. The two most obvious methods is to to target smaller volume with higher margin feed by need or high volume lower margin feed by want. This works in all industries, including aviation. You don't need Walmart volume to be a volume driven company. Look at a dollar store franchise. Nothing close to Walmart volume yet all about volume, not maximum price per item.

Airlines do the same and most of them are on the higher volume lower margin side of the spectrum.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1552 posts, RR: 1
Reply 71, posted (10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11700 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 53):
The business case for a double-decker VLA at CX has steadily vanished over the past decade:


I agree, and this view has been widely discussed.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 66):
Add to this that you can't compare the volumes btw Walmart and any airline....

Walmart? Did I miss something? I thought this is a thread about CX mulling whether to choose the 380 or the 748.


User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 327 posts, RR: 3
Reply 72, posted (10 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11066 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 70):
A problem existing in just about every industry. An easy example is the restaurant business. Probably harder to understand is that it exists in pretty much every manufactured item too. The difference is that it is in the manufacturing process. Lose production time and the revenue is lost forever.

I will have to disagree there, this something unique to airlines. Restaurants can very well store left over unprepared food in the freezers and fridges, assuming the expected demand for the day did not materialise and the stock can be used for revenue the next day; same applies to most other industries. With airlines, there is no way to stock seats or cargo space. Once the door is closed and the aircraft takes off, the empty seats and cargo space is wasted revenue....there is a terminology for this but I cannot remember. As each revenue generating period is per flight, once a seat is unsold or cargo space unused it is revenue potential gone and cannot be saved for use on another flight. Other transport industries have this issue to a very limited extent, however they can stop and pick up pax @ bus stops, train stations etc. I need to find the terminology, i'm sure the definition does a better job @ explaining what I am trying to say.


Back on topic, "Don’t expect Cathay Pacific to place an order for the Airbus A380 or Boeing’s 747-8 Intercontinental any time soon." Were the very first words of the article, how this has managed to get to such a long thread is surprising. This is very much in line with a topic that has been discussed to a logical end way too many times this year. The chances of CX ordering a VLA is close to zero. They have built a network on frequency vs capacity and they don't seem to have any routes that are severly constrained by capacity which can't be over come by a present or future twin engined wide body.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 73, posted (10 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11046 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 72):
Restaurants can very well store left over unprepared food

An empty seat on a departing flight is not unlike an unused bed in a hotel or an unused seat in a non-full restaurant. In fact, full restaurants beget other full restaurants while full flights do not do the same. Do you want to go to an unpopular restaurant? Do you only fly airlines because they fill their aircraft? The analogy isn't terrible.

tortugamon


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 74, posted (10 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10973 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 60):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 32):
I love the 747 inside, by far my favorite place on any plane is the nose of one.

See, I hate the nose. Since I am fortunate to fly First when I fly, I go out of my way to avoid booking 747s because I have to sit in the nose, t

It's surprising how people's opinions differ. In my experience there's simply nothing to compare with the nose of a 747. By far the best place to fly on any aircraft.

I love the awesome crunch of the nose gear on takeoff, but on BA I prefer Club World upstairs; and of course LH's upper deck F has that empty sleeper seat next to you.

If you fly in the nose of VS, then be prepared to experience the dreaded herringbone where you basically stare at pax across the aisle for the entire flight.


User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 327 posts, RR: 3
Reply 75, posted (10 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10822 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 73):
An empty seat on a departing flight is not unlike an unused bed in a hotel or an unused seat in a non-full restaurant. In fact, full restaurants beget other full restaurants while full flights do not do the same. Do you want to go to an unpopular restaurant? Do you only fly airlines because they fill their aircraft? The analogy isn't terrible.

Whilst there are similarities....they are still very different. During breakfast, lunch, dinner service etc. Those seats can be re-used over and over again to generate revenue. Thanks to social media, you can fill your restaurants with the right incentives during those revenue generation periods. During a flight, a pax is not going to walk onboard @ 30000 ft to occupy an empty seat? An unused hotel bed is close, but they have a whole day as the period to generate revenue and fill those beds (anyone can walk up and check in to a room @ anytime) vs the time from when the plane departs and lands safely @ the other end because this is the service and until it is fulfilled, it isn't money in the bank for the airline so to speak.

Hmm reading what you wrote again, I am honestly not sure what point you were getting across...as I was trying to point out that airlines are in a rather unique position.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9977 posts, RR: 96
Reply 76, posted (10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10772 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 45):
If Anetters ran amock at the airlines the mass trauma during the next downturn would be quite something to witness.

And yet during the GFC, it was abundantly clear that the A380's being flown at the time experienced both more resilient load factors AND more resilient margins than the run-of-the mill twins did, presumably because they were a) deployed on the appropriate routes at the appropriate times and b) offered a differentiation in the minds of enough passengers to matter.
please stop painting a complex picture as black-and-white

Quoting waly777 (Reply 66):
Walmart serves millions of customers a day, the larger airlines serve thousands of customers a day

Meanwhile please can you explain why the principle in question differs.
High volume in an industry is related to volumes IN THAT INDUSTRY

Quoting cmf (Reply 70):
That is a very indirect way of saying that you need to match margin and volume to produce largest amount of profit. Thing is, that isn't an equation with just one correct answer

You should know by now cmf that when it comes to the A380 there absolutely is only one correct answer on A-net.

Rgds


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2213 posts, RR: 4
Reply 77, posted (10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10116 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
With 5 flights daily to London, 4 to JFK, 3 to LAX and 2 to SFO the question of bigger is arriving.

And yet they've rolled back from the 747-400 to the smaller 777-300ER on most, if not all, of those frequencies.

When it comes to LHR, I seem to recall that they had three or four daily flights a few years ago. And the day-time westbound flights were usually operated by an A343. So, the small airplanes flying on the day-time flights are gone, and the frequency has increased. Three frequencies were slightly downsized, one frequency was upsized, and one more frequency was added. They have clearly thrown a lot more capacity on that route during the past few years. I have no idea how much those extra LHR slots cost CX, but it's probably a significant number.

If CX wants to continue growing capacity on this route, they either have the choice of buying bigger airplanes, or buying more slots.

Concerning JFK, in the pre-77W days, I believe they had a single daily A346 nonstop, and a 744 one-stop via YVR. The one-stop has seen a slight capacity reduction to a 77W, but the nonstops have seen a huge capacity increase from a single A346 to three 77Ws.

I'm not sure about the numbers for LAX and SFO. But concerning JFK and LHR, the 77W is not an example of CX reducing capacity to improve yields, as some posters have suggested.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8864 posts, RR: 75
Reply 78, posted (10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9626 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 5):
Yeah well that's surely got to be more to do with the typhoon than anything else

Correct, upguaged to 4 destinations to clear the backlog. However on a regional level this happens daily, we do not cap the number of seats sold regionally. They just put a larger aircraft on the run if it requires more capacity.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
The A350-1000 or 777-300ER would provide a significant capacity boost over the A330-300 on those frequencies. Heck, the A350-900 would increase Economy seating if that is where the demand is.

The A333 is a 40t machine, the 77W a 60t machine. The number of occasions that we need 60t of payload out of Oz in a year you can count in a hand. The 77W burns significantly more fuel than a A330 on a medium haul flight, and with the ULH config is not that efficient.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 36):
CEO has now multiple times said the VLA is unlikely

Not really, he has been saying market conditions at the moment make it unlikely.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 42):
The key word is A330. If Cathay was truly hurting for capacity to Australia, they'd deploy more 777s.

I do not think so, just improve the load factors and yields.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 46):
The A333 may be their smallest plane but it doesn't have First Class and seats 242 passengers.

Used to have A330s with 6 F seats deployed to Oz, the demand to Oz was not there.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 52):
Unless the guy is just outright lying, it doesn't appear that CX has any present intention of ordering either the 380 or 748.

I think that observation is factual.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 57):
It's very clear that we won't see any VLA's in the CX fleet in the short term, or at least not before 2020.

I would change 2020 with 2015.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 67):
The 747s will not be around that long and the 77Ws don't have that many less seats.

Define what you mean by " don't have that many less seats".

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 68):
Per CX, all pax 744s will be gone by 2016.

Prob down to 3 for JNB by the end of next year.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10645 posts, RR: 9
Reply 79, posted (10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9550 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 60):
It's surprising how people's opinions differ. In my experience there's simply nothing to compare with the nose of a 747. By far the best place to fly on any aircraft.

I fully agree with you. How miserable and ordinary in comparison the walk-trough cabin in a 77W is! Not even the A380 can beat the nose section of a 747!
If CX cares for its passengers comfort, they must offer something better than the bread-and-butter 77W!


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6585 posts, RR: 55
Reply 80, posted (10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9378 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 79):
Quoting avek00 (Reply 42):
The key word is A330. If Cathay was truly hurting for capacity to Australia, they'd deploy more 777s.

I do not think so, just improve the load factors and yields.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 46):
The A333 may be their smallest plane but it doesn't have First Class and seats 242 passengers.

Used to have A330s with 6 F seats deployed to Oz, the demand to Oz was not there.

There are rumours of a first class product being offered on the SYD service at some point in the future with suggestions it would be a non-Airbus rather than reconfiguring some A330s. Whether this happens or not will remain to be seen.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 81, posted (10 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9179 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 72):
I will have to disagree there, this something unique to airlines.

I've been fortunate by having worked in a lot of different industries and in a lot of different countries. Just about every time someone told me they are unique and thus rules and methods working everywhere else doesn't work for them.

Reality is that all companies are very similar, because they all do the same thing; sell their products to customers. The reasons customers buy products are universal, a need, a want, or an opportunity to resell for profit. Whatever differences there are between industries are minute compared to this.

I have no idea how people can pretend you can't sell aviation on volume. I argue that volume is the basis for the entire industry. If it wasn't we would see small planes with just a few business class seats.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 73):
An empty seat on a departing flight is not unlike an unused bed in a hotel or an unused seat in a non-full restaurant. In fact, full restaurants beget other full restaurants while full flights do not do the same. Do you want to go to an unpopular restaurant? Do you only fly airlines because they fill their aircraft? The analogy isn't terrible.

  

Quoting astuteman (Reply 76):
You should know by now cmf that when it comes to the A380 there absolutely is only one correct answer on A-net.

I am sorry I forgot about the A.net paradox.


User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 327 posts, RR: 3
Reply 82, posted (10 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9132 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 76):
You should know by now cmf that when it comes to the A380 there absolutely is only one correct answer on A-net.

Oh please, enough of this constant a380 victim nonsense. @ no point was the a380 picked on, if you read from reply45 where this started off you would see the point he was making which applied to both VLA's.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 76):
Meanwhile please can you explain why the principle in question differs. High volume in an industry is related to volumes IN THAT INDUSTRY

The principle of volume does not differ, however this was not what was being looked at or questioned in that context.
The comparison btw the volumes of walmart and any airline is like night and day, the volumes walmart achieves enables ridiculous economies of scale plus that is a market governed by different and a much more stable operating environment.
Again, please follow the discussion that was being had before pulling out words of mine...reply 45, 48, 49 would be the start.

Definitely gone far off topic again.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 327 posts, RR: 3
Reply 83, posted (10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9036 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
I've been fortunate by having worked in a lot of different industries and in a lot of different countries. Just about every time someone told me they are unique and thus rules and methods working everywhere else doesn't work for them.

Reality is that all companies are very similar, because they all do the same thing; sell their products to customers. The reasons customers buy products are universal, a need, a want, or an opportunity to resell for profit. Whatever differences there are between industries are minute compared to this.

I have no idea how people can pretend you can't sell aviation on volume. I argue that volume is the basis for the entire industry. If it wasn't we would see small planes with just a few business class seats.

I haven't said or try to pretend that aviation isn't sold on volume, I do agree it is the principle however the circumstances surrounding it are unique to this industry as i've tried to explain

I respect your experience, but if you can show me any industry in the world that is anywhere near as cyclical with regards to profits and loss(look through the IATA website and you will see just how volatile it is), with ridiculously low profit margins (1.8% this year when I looked a few weeks ago) in the good years and still manages to double in size every 20 years, I will gladly accept that this is not a unique industry...however having worked in a few from the medical to real estate before settling down in the airline environment, I am very sure of what I am saying. You are of course free to disagree.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8280 posts, RR: 7
Reply 84, posted (10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9038 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 81):
There are rumours of a first class product being offered on the SYD service at some point in the future with suggestions it would be a non-Airbus rather than reconfiguring some A330s. Whether this happens or not will remain to be seen.

Now that the Qantas/BA partnership is done BA is code sharing with Cathay from HKG to Aussie cities, that may increase the need for an First Class cabin. The F cabin may arrive with the A350.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4704 posts, RR: 38
Reply 85, posted (10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8973 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 79):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 57):
It's very clear that we won't see any VLA's in the CX fleet in the short term, or at least not before 2020.

I would change 2020 with 2015.

That would be very interesting......


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9000 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 83):
Oh please, enough of this constant a380 victim nonsense. @ no point was the a380 picked on, if you read from reply45 where this started off you would see the point he was making which applied to both VLA's.

I was wondering where in the heck the A380 came into the discussion?   

[Edited 2013-09-24 05:20:34]

[Edited 2013-09-24 05:54:13]

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7987 posts, RR: 5
Reply 87, posted (10 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8979 times:

With LH now committed to the 777-9X, I'd put my money now on CX buying the 777-9X to essentially phase out the entire 747-400 fleet.

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8864 posts, RR: 75
Reply 88, posted (10 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8937 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 81):
There are rumours of a first class product being offered on the SYD service at some point in the future with suggestions it would be a non-Airbus rather than reconfiguring some A330s. Whether this happens or not will remain to be seen.

There are also rumours that Dragonair are starting SYD and CNS, rumours are rumours. If you look at the load factors, they would not support a 77W the way we have the configured. Besides I think there are far better yielding routes than Oz to send a 77W on.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 83):
The comparison btw the volumes of walmart and any airline is like night and day, the volumes walmart achieves enables ridiculous economies of scale plus that is a market governed by different and a much more stable operating environment.

Walmart does not open up in areas of low demand. The volume argument for large aircraft, ships, trains or any mode of transport is valid where the demand curve supports the volume.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 85):
The F cabin may arrive with the A350.

It is already a matter of public record that the A350 will be fitted with 3 & 4 class cabins.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 88):
With LH now committed to the 777-9X, I'd put my money now on CX buying the 777-9X to essentially phase out the entire 747-400 fleet.

The 744 pax fleet will be basically gone by the end of next year.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 89, posted (10 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8683 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 84):
I haven't said or try to pretend that aviation isn't sold on volume, I do agree it is the principle however the circumstances surrounding it are unique to this industry as i've tried to explain

You have not been able to describe what makes aviation fundamentally different meaning volume sales doesn't work. Especially not since many airlines use volume sales.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 84):
but if you can show me any industry in the world that is anywhere near as cyclical with regards to profits and loss

Have no idea how cyclical mean volume isn't a viable business model but I do think many other industries have equal or bigger cyclical issues? The entire tourism industry is closely affected by the same things affecting aviation. Construction is another highly cyclical industry and while they are pretty good at managing it their supply chain is pretty close to aviation.

If you reduce the cycle times I would argue consumer electronics is as cyclical with additional problems in that they have high development costs for short lived products.

I doubt there is any problem in aviation that isn't experienced in some other industry.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 90, posted (10 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8473 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 75):
I am honestly not sure what point you were getting across...as I was trying to point out that airlines are in a rather unique position.

I thought you were describing perishable-asset revenue management practices, and I was just saying that other perishable services deal with that all of that.

Quoting zeke (Reply 79):
Define what you mean

I was indicating that the 77W is not a terrible capacity replacement for a 747.

tortugamon


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8864 posts, RR: 75
Reply 91, posted (10 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8446 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 91):
I was indicating that the 77W is not a terrible capacity replacement for a 747.

Around 80 seats or 20% difference, or the other way to look at it is 4x74K services a day is still more capacity than 5x77H services.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 92, posted (10 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8323 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 92):
Around 80 seats or 20% difference

True but with 7 more in J (and the seat has more pitch), 8 more in W, and a wider seat in Y while carrying more cargo. 3 less in F though.

Not saying its a perfect replacement but I imagine its good enough.

tortugamon


User currently offlineflyinghippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 93, posted (10 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8319 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 54):
have you looked at the times of the 4 existing non-stop flights? Not a single one of them has a good schedule. It isn't a route where additional frequency will help because the times are not attractive.

There are only 3 non stop flights.

What's wrong with CX flight times? JFK-HKG route is a premium heavy route for CX, and they scheduled it to best suit business traveler's needs.

CX 845 JFK 0130 - HKG 0520+1 - Perfect for business travelers who can sleep in J and attend a full day's worth of meetings. Also good for connections out of HKG.

CX 841 JFK 1005 - HKG 1405+1 - Just in time for an afternoon tea/dinner, good for vacationers too.

CX 831 JFK 1455 - HKG 1855+1 - Attend morning client meetings in NY, have dinner with client or family in HK

CX 889 JFK 2200 - HKG 0640+2 - Same reasoning as CX 845 but with a rest in YVR.

And you can apply the same reasoning for a business traveler on HKG-JFK time slots as well.

Quoting na (Reply 80):
If CX cares for its passengers comfort, they must offer something better than the bread-and-butter 77W!

I don't think passenger's comfort is dependent on what aircraft CX flies. If they fly me HKG-JFK in a VIP BBJ, I think I'll be more comfortable than a F seat on their 77W.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3198 posts, RR: 1
Reply 94, posted (10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6497 times:

Quoting na (Reply 80):
If CX cares for its passengers comfort, they must offer something better than the bread-and-butter 77W!

I think Cathay does care for it's passengers and with respect, I know you love flying in the exclusive wee cabin in the nose, something most of us cannot afford to do, I would point out to you that there is no more "bread and butter" aeroplane than the Boeing 747, the airliner which brought long haul travel into a price range that most of us, and not just a very priviliged and rich elite could afford. A more honourble description of "bread and butter" you would be hard pressed to find. With respect...


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2596 posts, RR: 5
Reply 95, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5888 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting na (Reply 22):
From a passenger standpoint the 748I is a great plane and the 777-9X simply cant do better as the 748 interior architecture is superior than any 777 could ever be.

It's hard to fathom how you can make that statement when there have been no images, let alone mock-ups, of a 777X cabin.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 41):
The only way I could see the 747-8 coming into CX's passenger fleet would be where CX finds that it needs a capacity bridge for the six years until the 779 enters pax service; in that case, perhaps Boeing would offer CX the 748i for a lease of 6-8 years.

I would agree with that. But I also think that this is a very likely scenario. As the 744s are to be retired well before the 777-9X is ready to enter into service, I think it is a distinct possibility that the 747-8i will be leased to CX on a short term basis.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 45):
Somehow all these proven principles of business go by the wayside and Anetters think CX is nuts for not jumping to add a VLA. Rather I think it says a lot that CX is holding off the "keeping up with Jones" trap. Good on them. If Anetters ran amock at the airlines the mass trauma during the next downturn would be quite something to witness.

   Agreed.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 52):
Unless the guy is just outright lying, it doesn't appear that CX has any present intention of ordering either the 380 or 748.

On the whole, I agree with the statement you quoted. However, if Airbus released the A380-900 tomorrow, I am pretty sure that CX would be looking closely at it.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 57):

I don't think CX wants the A380HGW because the airframe is too small to replace 2 77W aircraft, and too big to replace 1 77W. However, a stretched A380 should be able to replace 2 77W aircraft in terms of seats (and with a decent amount of cargo), and might be useful on routes to LHR.

  

I believe that in ten years' time, CX's fleet would consist of A333, A359, A35J, 77W, 777-9X and A389 (A333s and 77Ws may still hang around until it's time for them to hit the desert).

Quoting na (Reply 79):
If CX cares for its passengers comfort, they must offer something better than the bread-and-butter 77W!

Passenger comfort has nothing to do with aircraft type, but everything to do with the airline's on board hard product.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2213 posts, RR: 4
Reply 96, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5560 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 95):
It's hard to fathom how you can make that statement when there have been no images, let alone mock-ups, of a 777X cabin.

I would venture a guess that he's thinking about such unique 747 features as the privacy of the nose and the upper deck. You don't need a mock-up of the 777X cabin to realize that it's basically nothing more than a 777 on steroids. Anything that can be put into the 777X in 2020, can probably be put into any other airplane type as well.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 95):
Passenger comfort has nothing to do with aircraft type, but everything to do with the airline's on board hard product.

Yes and no. What the airline will do with the cabin is extremely important, yes, but some airplanes will give you unique furnishing possibilities. Like what EK is doing with their A380 gates in DXB, where you can board straight from the lounge or upper floor of the terminal into the upper deck of the A380, so that premium passengers don't have to mingle with the cattle. Or sitting in the nose of the 747, with no through traffic. Or sitting in a relatively quiet Airbus A340 or A380, compared to a relatively noisy 777.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3736 posts, RR: 11
Reply 97, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5557 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 95):
Passenger comfort has nothing to do with aircraft type, but everything to do with the airline's on board hard product.

That said, there is nothing out there that will compare to the quietness and exclusiveness of the 747's forward cabin, especially when configured in Business or First.
But yes, apart from that, an aircraft cabin is an aircraft cabin...
I find CX's business cabin on the 77W way too long. It feels crowded. It could have done with an extra bulkhead to make smaller and cozier sections.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 95):
It's hard to fathom how you can make that statement when there have been no images, let alone mock-ups, of a 777X cabin.

In fairness, apart from cosmetic cabin enhancements and the few extra inches of width, we know pretty much exactly how it will look. It's still a 777, just longer.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8864 posts, RR: 75
Reply 98, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5238 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 97):
It's still a 777, just longer.

With an X after the 777, 777X. I think we will need to wait for a mock-up of the aircraft to see how that additional X really looks.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 99, posted (9 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4710 times:

Something that came up in the 747-8 production thread after an inquiry by CX Flyboy concerning production slots in 2014 was this:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 159):

Well I must stress that this is only a rumour. Equally I heard a rumour months ago that we had already ordered A380s which has obviously so far proved untrue. We have many rumours and many turn out to be untrue and in fact there are so many rumours that eventually one of these 'guesses' of course has to turn out to be correct - but a lucky guess.

This latest one is that Boeing is offering a lease deal for CX to take 12+ 748i asap, and in return buy some of our old 744s as a trade in. The second part of this rumour is that the 748i is only a stop gap until the 779X arrives at CX, at which point Boeing will take the 748i fleet back.

There was a short discussion following this rumour, we could discuss it in this thread if necessary however.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30564 posts, RR: 84
Reply 100, posted (9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4320 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 99):
There was a short discussion following this rumour, we could discuss it in this thread if necessary however.

Does CX need the extra capacity of the 747-8? They have sufficient 777-300ERs on order to more than replace the remaining 747-400s in service.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10645 posts, RR: 9
Reply 101, posted (9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4277 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 95):
It's hard to fathom how you can make that statement when there have been no images, let alone mock-ups, of a 777X cabin.

The basic architecture will be the same. Ordinary square compartments in a row like everywhere except on 747 and less so A380. Boeing.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 95):
Passenger comfort has nothing to do with aircraft type, but everything to do with the airline's on board hard product.

Not that moot argument again. Of cause it has, as the room that is being furnished and its location are also very important. And there the 777 cant compete due to it generic boring layout. The 747 has an intimate upperdeck, and a triangular nose section, much better than any 777XYZ could ever deliver.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10702 posts, RR: 30
Reply 102, posted (9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4214 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 99):
There was a short discussion following this rumour, we could discuss it in this thread if necessary however.

Perhaps zeke can tell us something about this rumor?



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineB-HOP From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2000, 623 posts, RR: 1
Reply 103, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3762 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 100):

Does CX need the extra capacity of the 747-8? They have sufficient 777-300ERs on order to more than replace the remaining 747-400s in service.

They do need the seats both in some regional routes that have limit rights or not feasible yet for another flight, e.g KIX/CTS/DPS or when demand warrants it as different public holiday at different countries appears at different part of the year. Whilst for longhaul, some departure time are simply more popular, like double overnight flight to LHR or double midnight LA back to HKG, those might need further reinforcement as s lots are more scarce, beside a new runway would not be complete by 2022 and it is increasingly difficult to add more flight (in popular hours at least!!).

My guess would be 10 748I which would do longhaul till around 2018-20 when 779X takes over, with B takes over the first 7 773 and/or 772 which would be 20 years old. The other few might be replace by 351 and expand the regional 'large capacity' fleet. By 2022, it would be 3510 and 748 to do popular regional flights

JUst my guess

Kev



Live life to max!!!
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 104, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3531 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 99):
The second part of this rumour is that the 748i is only a stop gap until the 779X arrives at CX, at which point Boeing will take the 748i fleet back.

'Interesting times.'  

I think myself, looking at the world market, that there are two possible 'outcomes.' On the one hand, the 779X (and later, presumably, the 'A350-11' or whatever) will reduce B748/A380 sales. On the other, they could possibly put both the big fours out of business?

[Edited 2013-09-30 23:45:43]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 914 posts, RR: 12
Reply 105, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3301 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 89):
Quoting waly777 (Reply 84):
I haven't said or try to pretend that aviation isn't sold on volume, I do agree it is the principle however the circumstances surrounding it are unique to this industry as i've tried to explain

You have not been able to describe what makes aviation fundamentally different meaning volume sales doesn't work. Especially not since many airlines use volume sales.

With Wal-Mart you have volume (and the associated cost of delivery economics) and one stop shop convenience meaning smaller retailers have problems competing.

For airlines opportunity cost and cost of delivery are probably the two most important factors with there being large deviations between (types of) airlines. Where CX has a current advantage is established market and route network. This can change very quickly. For example Wal-Mart can't pull up a store and plant in the next suburb if it is more advantageous for them do so where airlines can pull a plane from a route, change the size of plane, change the seat configuration, etc if there is opportunity in doing so.


I think the airline industry is way too dynamic to compare to Wal-Mart.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 100):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 99):
There was a short discussion following this rumour, we could discuss it in this thread if necessary however.

Does CX need the extra capacity of the 747-8? They have sufficient 777-300ERs on order to more than replace the remaining 747-400s in service.

I have done a quick cost and revenue model on the 777-300ER, 777X, 747-8i and A380 and from my numbers a 747-8i would command a similar yield (but 2% lower) to the 777-300ER.

The 777-9X (from my numbers) will have trip costs approximately 6% lower than the current the 777-300ER, but with substantially higher revenue opportunity. From what I have calculated any advantage the 747-8i might have is going to be very short lived.

Quoting B-HOP (Reply 103):
They do need the seats both in some regional routes that have limit rights or not feasible yet for another flight, e.g KIX/CTS/DPS or when demand warrants it as different public holiday at different countries appears at different part of the year. Whilst for longhaul, some departure time are simply more popular, like double overnight flight to LHR or double midnight LA back to HKG, those might need further reinforcement as s lots are more scarce, beside a new runway would not be complete by 2022 and it is increasingly difficult to add more flight (in popular hours at least!!).

My guess would be 10 748I which would do longhaul till around 2018-20 when 779X takes over, with B takes over the first 7 773 and/or 772 which would be 20 years old. The other few might be replace by 351 and expand the regional 'large capacity' fleet. By 2022, it would be 3510 and 748 to do popular regional flights

JUst my guess

Kev

I like that guess. One of the advantages the 747-8i does have is that is an incremental size larger than a 777-300ER and has similar seat costs. If there is revenue and profit opportunity by increasing seats flown on a route, the 747-8i could be a relatively low risk option (up till 2020 -24 period).


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30564 posts, RR: 84
Reply 106, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2597 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting B-HOP (Reply 103):
My guess would be 10 748I which would do longhaul till around 2018-20 when 779X takes over

Assuming 2015-2016 deliveries for all 10 frames, that would be a usable period as little as five years (assuming 777-9 deliveries start in 2021)!

Would CX be able to profitably operate the type for such a short period?

And would Boeing be confident they could quickly shift that many 747-8 quickly?


User currently offlineB-HOP From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2000, 623 posts, RR: 1
Reply 107, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2369 times:

There are slot for CA as soon as next year, along with unassigned slot discussed earlier and one that LH didn't take. 5-7 years would a stop gap, well CX did that with 346 and they could still use it for regional afterward and they have a 748F fleet too.


Live life to max!!!
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12408 posts, RR: 37
Reply 108, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2327 times:

Don't forget that CX will require a significant fleet of 779s, not all of which would be delivered in 2019-2020. They would likely be phased in over a 2-3 year period. It's still a short lifespan for a 747-8, but I can't help wondering if that would make sense for Boeing? 10 748s is about $3b worth of aircraft, which would have to be provided at a very considerable discount, as part of a deal for another aircraft. And again, given the experience of the 744BCF (which hasn't gone down that well, particlarly with CX), would the 747-8 have a future as a converted freighter? (Could Boeing fix the problems which led to the 744BCF being regarded as a disappointment and apply those lessons to an -8BCF?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30564 posts, RR: 84
Reply 109, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2305 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kaitak (Reply 111):
Could Boeing fix the problems which led to the 744BCF being regarded as a disappointment and apply those lessons to an -8BCF?

The problem with the 747-400BCF is the high price of Jet A so to fix that problem, Boeing would need to score a significant new source of crude.  


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...
A380 At Taipeh + CI : A380? Or 747-8I? posted Fri May 4 2007 13:03:32 by FCKC
The 777X Or A340? Will Qantas Make Up Its Mind? posted Wed Mar 1 2000 18:50:10 by Boeing 777
Maybe A Larger B747-8i To Compete With A380? posted Tue Nov 20 2012 16:13:31 by mitris
Turkish Airlines Close To A380 - B747-8i Decision posted Tue Oct 12 2010 19:09:57 by PanAm_DC10
Heavyweight Bout For BA. The A380 Or The 747-8i posted Mon Jun 11 2007 20:45:22 by WINGS
Etihad Weighs Up Options For New Widebody Types posted Mon Aug 7 2006 17:43:59 by Leelaw
LH B747-8i New Destination: MEX posted Thu Aug 8 2013 10:29:12 by wilco737
Does Airbus Have An A350-1100 Up Its Sleeves? posted Sat Jul 6 2013 06:48:42 by A380900
Any Chance PR Will Order The A380 Or B748? posted Sun Feb 24 2013 00:49:42 by Mortyman
Why No 747, A380 Or A340 For Air Canada? posted Sun Nov 13 2011 09:00:48 by kl692