babaero
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 4:39 am

CX A340-600 To SYD

Mon Mar 03, 2003 5:48 am

For those interested,especially the aussie spotters.

CX A340-600 start operating CX101 on 30th Mar 2003. CX101 will be operated every day with -600 aircraft as per summer schedule.

LAX service reverts back to 744
 
scottysair
Posts: 6442
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:07 pm

RE: CX A340-600 To SYD

Mon Mar 03, 2003 8:06 am

That was very interesting thing for CX aircraft changes sked from HKG-LAX by the Airbus A346 to B744 aircraft again. What is exactly will have planned going on on the Airbus A346 aircraft to SYD? Well, talk ya later!

Regards!

Scott W.
 
boeing767-300
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 11:23 pm

RE: CX A340-600 To SYD

Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:37 pm

Amazing,

makes no sense to me. Surely the A346 is more suited to HKG LAX with its range and swapping to 744 and placing A346 to SYD seems silly


 
User avatar
CCA
Posts: 770
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 7:29 pm

RE: CX A340-600 To SYD

Mon Mar 03, 2003 5:41 pm

I'm afraid it's bums on seats and the Airbus with only 288 in the winter (lower loads) with the strong headwinds is the more economical A/C, while the 400 in summer with a full load of 343-389 and weaker headwinds makes it the better A/C.
P1 in A330, A340, A346, B742, B744, B748.
 
cx773
Posts: 359
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 12:46 pm

RE: CX A340-600 To SYD

Mon Mar 03, 2003 6:07 pm

It does make sense with changing to HKG-SYD. the fact is A340-600 can't make money on HKG-LAX route. so CX is not going to use this plane to fly HKG-JFK for sure!

 
B-HXB
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 12:04 pm

RE: CX A340-600 To SYD

Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:39 pm

Boeing 767-300: My thoughts exactly! I can understand why they might not choose to use it for HKG LAX but what about HKG LHR which is sometimes operated by an A340-300? Isn't the A346 designed to be an efficient, ultra long-haul aircraft?
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: CX A340-600 To SYD

Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:52 pm

CX773-

I find that comment very hard to make. The schedules they're carrying out have ALWAYS been the plan. They aren't suddenly swapping planes.

Can you add some substance to your statement that the plane can't make money?

N
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: CX A340-600 To SYD

Tue Mar 04, 2003 1:12 pm

I can understand why they might not choose to use it for HKG LAX but what about HKG LHR which is sometimes operated by an A340-300?

It appears that CX is on the way to choosing the 773ER, despite the additional engine type, for Euro-flights in the near future.... as opposed to A346. They'll be [idiotically] reluctant to fly a twin over the water however, so they'll probably work the two together.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
AJ
Posts: 2295
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 3:54 pm

RE: CX A340-600 To SYD

Tue Mar 04, 2003 2:14 pm

I'm sure Cxflyboy can elaborate, but surely dispatching a twin over the high terrain between Hong Kong and Europe would be impossible due to single engine maximum operating altitudes at the high weights required for the route. A four engine aircraft only has to prove 3 engine operating altitudes.
 
fspilot747
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 1999 2:58 am

RE: CX A340-600 To SYD

Tue Mar 04, 2003 2:17 pm

"I'm sure Cxflyboy can elaborate, but surely dispatching a twin over the high terrain....."

Stop calling me shirly..  Smile/happy/getting dizzy I love Airplane the movie



FSP
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2470
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: CX A340-600 To SYD

Tue Mar 04, 2003 2:43 pm

AJ,

Hence the reason twins have a much higher thrust-to-weight ratio than quads. Many airlines operate Europe-HKG flights with twins, both with 777s, A330s, and at some times, 767s.

The only operational limit right now is flying directly over the Himalayas, and this restriction applies to ALL aircraft, not just twins.

Regards,

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
AJ
Posts: 2295
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 3:54 pm

RE: CX A340-600 To SYD

Tue Mar 04, 2003 3:38 pm

I'm aware of twin certification, particulary as I fly the B767, however at max weight the single engine ceiling is still in the low twenties. The higher thrust to weight is mainly to meet second segment climb criteria. It is the Himalayan routes in Chinese airspace I am referring too, that being the most efficient at some times of the year. What percentage of Cathay's flights operate on these routes?
The Himalayan operational limit on a Boeing 747-400 is related to oxygen capacity southbound, with jumbos on L888 for example carrying extra oxygen in the passenger cabin. It can only be flown southbound as aircraft are too heavy northbound to maintain the LSALT engine out.
 
boeing767-300
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 11:23 pm

RE: CX A340-600 To SYD

Tue Mar 04, 2003 3:39 pm

One would have thought that the ideal route for CX 346 would be HKG LAX loaded long range fuel efficient type of leg Cathy envisaged for 346.

Yet they take it off that and place on a route HKG SYD that is within the range of almost anything else 330s 744 773s 772 767s when the larger capacity 744 has proven ideal.

Whats going on here. Does Cathay know something about 346 that we don't.

Could CX be a little disappointed in there 346s thusfar and maybe they are genuinely interested in this brute GE engines and all


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King

 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: CX A340-600 To SYD

Tue Mar 04, 2003 3:50 pm

It was always planned to go to SYD at this point. The LAX part of the schedule did have a planned end date.

Maybe cxflyboy can be more specific.

N
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6040
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: CX A340-600 To SYD

Tue Mar 04, 2003 5:05 pm

It is correct that SYD was always in the plan. The 744 carries 100 more pax than the A346, so they are not competing aircraft. The A346 however does carry a lot of freight and that is what they needed more of in Sydney.

I obviously don't have data for the 777-300ER. However for the 773 in our configuration, MTOW is 263tonnes. Our data for Engine INOP max alt shows at 300 tonnes up to ISA+10 we can maintain FL140. We don't use full TO rating at the moment, but if we did, I believe our MTOW would be around 300tonnes, or certainly towards it. At these weights we cannot clear some of the highest terrain on our European routes. We would definately use different routes, namely the more northern routes over Mongolia rather than the route south of that over Urumqi. Air France currently flies 772s HKG-CDG, but not sure which way they go, north or south.
 
GuyBetsy1
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 4:00 am

RE: CX A340-600 To SYD

Tue Mar 04, 2003 8:29 pm

I think the A333 that flies that route regularly is due for maintanence and the B747 that flies to SYD is also probably due to be retrofitted with the New Business Class, hence the aircrat swapping.

CX is still refurbishing their aircrafts with the new Business Class seats, hence there will always be confusion as to what aircraft flies where. And whenever each aircraft goes in the hanger, it disappears for a month and that void has to be filled out somehow by replacement aircraft. So a 346 that normally flies the long haul can take the flak for a semi-long haul flight for a while.

All the Airbus A340-300s will be refurbished by this year. The B747-400s are halfway done with the remaining 8 to be completed by Feb 04. So in the meantime, there will be plane charades!

Who is online