kaitak wrote:

737max8 wrote:

Thank goodness, hope the A350-1000 to LAX is true. Anything to avoid 10 across 777s

You have to wonder if airlines will begin recognising this - not just those with A350s and 777s (at 10 abreast), but also those with 787s (at nine abreast - which is all but one). If the operate both 777s and A350s on particular routes, won't they start seeing a trend of passengers selecting one type over another, or of discussions on forums/social media, advising people to select one type over another. And that being the case, what does it mean for the 777-9? Sure it will be quieter and maybe a little wider (will they be able to bring cabin altitude down to 787 levels?), but if it's still 10 abreast, won't pax continue to prefer the A350?

I know there are those who say that passengers don't really notice the differences between one plane and another, but I reckon that those choosing airlines on long haul routes do more homework, particularly those willing to pay more than the baseline fare.

No one I know of. With close ties to the Filipino community in my corner of Europe, I know a lot of people travelling with family to the Philippines. They search on the internet for good fares, they might take into account excessive stopover waiting times but not much more than that. If they had a bad experience with an airline, they might avoid that particular airline and tell others about it, but a cramped cabin will be associated with the airline, not the type of aircraft. And even more probably the sardine can style will be seen as something inevitable.

In a few years, when the 350:s are 10 across and the 777x:s are 11 across, we will long for the good old days with a 10 across 777W.

Lingon wrote:

kaitak wrote:

737max8 wrote:

Thank goodness, hope the A350-1000 to LAX is true. Anything to avoid 10 across 777s

You have to wonder if airlines will begin recognising this - not just those with A350s and 777s (at 10 abreast), but also those with 787s (at nine abreast - which is all but one). If the operate both 777s and A350s on particular routes, won't they start seeing a trend of passengers selecting one type over another, or of discussions on forums/social media, advising people to select one type over another. And that being the case, what does it mean for the 777-9? Sure it will be quieter and maybe a little wider (will they be able to bring cabin altitude down to 787 levels?), but if it's still 10 abreast, won't pax continue to prefer the A350?

I know there are those who say that passengers don't really notice the differences between one plane and another, but I reckon that those choosing airlines on long haul routes do more homework, particularly those willing to pay more than the baseline fare.

No one I know of. With close ties to the Filipino community in my corner of Europe, I know a lot of people travelling with family to the Philippines. They search on the internet for good fares, they might take into account excessive stopover waiting times but not much more than that. If they had a bad experience with an airline, they might avoid that particular airline and tell others about it, but a cramped cabin will be associated with the airline, not the type of aircraft. And even more probably the sardine can style will be seen as something inevitable.

In a few years, when the 350:s are 10 across and the 777x:s are 11 across, we will long for the good old days with a 10 across 777W.

Yes, sadly I doubt most customers realize. They don't even know what the aircraft types are.

Only us avgeeks

1 or 2 777s will be sold to wilmington

Will this have an impact of the 777 based pilots in LAX?

Lingon wrote:

kaitak wrote:

737max8 wrote:

Thank goodness, hope the A350-1000 to LAX is true. Anything to avoid 10 across 777s

You have to wonder if airlines will begin recognising this - not just those with A350s and 777s (at 10 abreast), but also those with 787s (at nine abreast - which is all but one). If the operate both 777s and A350s on particular routes, won't they start seeing a trend of passengers selecting one type over another, or of discussions on forums/social media, advising people to select one type over another. And that being the case, what does it mean for the 777-9? Sure it will be quieter and maybe a little wider (will they be able to bring cabin altitude down to 787 levels?), but if it's still 10 abreast, won't pax continue to prefer the A350?

I know there are those who say that passengers don't really notice the differences between one plane and another, but I reckon that those choosing airlines on long haul routes do more homework, particularly those willing to pay more than the baseline fare.

No one I know of. With close ties to the Filipino community in my corner of Europe, I know a lot of people travelling with family to the Philippines. They search on the internet for good fares, they might take into account excessive stopover waiting times but not much more than that. If they had a bad experience with an airline, they might avoid that particular airline and tell others about it, but a cramped cabin will be associated with the airline, not the type of aircraft. And even more probably the sardine can style will be seen as something inevitable.

In a few years, when the 350:s are 10 across and the 777x:s are 11 across, we will long for the good old days with a 10 across 777W.

You can't have comfort and cheap fares! It simply doesn't make sense and customers have already shown the market that 9-across simply isn't worth the premium.

Businesses need to make as much money as they can; after all, they still have an obligation to the shareholders.

Another A350-1000 route has been added:

Cathay Pacific to fly A350-1000XWB aircraft on Hong Kong – Tel Aviv route from 03OCT18

https://twitter.com/Airlineroute/status ... 5073106945

More reports of HKG-CPT to be announced soon:

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/econ ... -cape-town

Kashmon wrote:

for an airline that historically kept aircraft for 20 years, 10 years is young.
CX flies only to 50 destinations- not 75 - cargo only does not count
oh and they cancelled Dusseldorf and Beijing
look at how many aircraft SQ,QR,EK have on order- CX will lose without scale

also A330's, A320's are also leaving not just 777's

Why an airline that normally keeps its plane for 20 years CAN'T retire planes at 10 years old? Since when did anyone tell you that how businesses operated 20 years ago IS the way it should operate TODAY? Business management 101, if you can't adapt to the market, you die.

Look at how many a/c competitors on order is fine, but you also have to consider how many aircraft they're RETIRING. SQ's retiring a lot of 777s and A330s, EK has started retiring 77Ws as well. Expansions put your financial tight and you never earn money purely from expansion itself, in fact it's the exact opposite that you can burn your cash up pretty quickly with expansions without thorough analysis, exactly what you've done right here. I don't think I need to list the number of airlines that failed due to expansion.

And, since when did CX cancel PEK? Enlighten me with proof. GDS still shows 3x daily from CX for the rest of the year, KA excluded.

Michael

grjplanes wrote:

More reports of HKG-CPT to be announced soon:

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/econ ... -cape-town

CX is now not selling HKG - CHC tickets for next NW season - perhaps the CHC frame will be used for CPT now, instead?

Cheers,

C.

HKG-CPT is going to happen

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/econ ... -cape-town

eamondzhang wrote:

And, since when did CX cancel PEK? Enlighten me with proof. GDS still shows 3x daily from CX for the rest of the year, KA excluded.

Michael

I believe it was rumored to be cancelled along with DUS when CX announce BRU, CPH, and DUB. Nothing ever comes from that, though.

On the other hand, if CX "cancelled" PEK it will just be CX transferring more A333 to KA and let KA take over all the flights. I believe CX kept their flights around in the first place b/c they need the additional capacity (i.e. Regional 773) once every so often.

zakuivcustom wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

And, since when did CX cancel PEK? Enlighten me with proof. GDS still shows 3x daily from CX for the rest of the year, KA excluded.

Michael

I believe it was rumored to be cancelled along with DUS when CX announce BRU, CPH, and DUB. Nothing ever comes from that, though.

On the other hand, if CX "cancelled" PEK it will just be CX transferring more A333 to KA and let KA take over all the flights. I believe CX kept their flights around in the first place b/c they need the additional capacity (i.e. Regional 773) once every so often.

When CX took over flights, it's more of KA's lacking a/c availability at the time that made them to transfer the flights. KA was short of A333s when they took over the Malaysian routes from CX. This is especially true for the newest CX331/2 (among the three times daily that CX operated).

Michael

eamondzhang wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

And, since when did CX cancel PEK? Enlighten me with proof. GDS still shows 3x daily from CX for the rest of the year, KA excluded.

Michael

I believe it was rumored to be cancelled along with DUS when CX announce BRU, CPH, and DUB. Nothing ever comes from that, though.

On the other hand, if CX "cancelled" PEK it will just be CX transferring more A333 to KA and let KA take over all the flights. I believe CX kept their flights around in the first place b/c they need the additional capacity (i.e. Regional 773) once every so often.

When CX took over flights, it's more of KA's lacking a/c availability at the time that made them to transfer the flights. KA was short of A333s when they took over the Malaysian routes from CX. This is especially true for the newest CX331/2 (among the three times daily that CX operated).

Michael

are there more A330s transitioning from CX to KA, or have the last of them moved over?

Obzerva wrote:

are there more A330s transitioning from CX to KA, or have the last of them moved over?

My rumour fields goes more A330s to KA, potentially bringing most of the regional birds over. But remember that's just a rumour, we have to wait and see.

Michael

CXGabriel wrote:

I'm not buying the dine on demand either.

Well, this was explicitly mentioned by the CEO (previous one, not the Hogg) as something they were considering. But I would say, if you are asleep on a longhaul flight during the meal service and wake up later, I've always had the CX crew offer me a meal even in coach. That's kind of 'dine on demand' no?

By the way, when CX gave the routes to KA for Malaysia, at the time it was rumored because of a crew shortage at CX. Transferring the routes freed up CX crew. Makes sense.

First A350-1000 regional routes have been announced:

Cathay Pacific in this week’s schedule update filed planned regional operation by the new A350-1000XWB aircraft, set to enter service on 01AUG18. First flight on individual regional route, as of 25JAN18, as follows.

Hong Kong – Bangkok 02OCT18
Hong Kong – Manila 01AUG18 (Inaugural is CX907/906)
Hong Kong – Taipei Taoyuan 01AUG18 (First flight on 01AUG18 is CX472/473)

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -aug-2018/

hz747300 wrote:

Well, this was explicitly mentioned by the CEO (previous one, not the Hogg) as something they were considering. But I would say, if you are asleep on a longhaul flight during the meal service and wake up later, I've always had the CX crew offer me a meal even in coach.

First class has been dine on demand for ages, I think they did some trials for dine on demand in business last year. Don’t remember being on any flight I operated.

The rumour on CX secrets of buy your meals onboard has be quashed by the company.

zeke wrote:

hz747300 wrote:

Well, this was explicitly mentioned by the CEO (previous one, not the Hogg) as something they were considering. But I would say, if you are asleep on a longhaul flight during the meal service and wake up later, I've always had the CX crew offer me a meal even in coach.

First class has been dine on demand for ages, I think they did some trials for dine on demand in business last year. Don’t remember being on any flight I operated.

The rumour on CX secrets of buy your meals onboard has be quashed by the company.

I don't know if I should be pleased, or insulted, but often times in business class once everyone has been served, they'll offer me a second main course (I suppose because otherwise it would go to waste).... I'm sure it comes from a good place. And, I should add that I am on the tubby side.

CX plans to add A350-1000 on SYD-HKG by the end of the year. CX110/111 currently operated by A333 will be upgraded to A350-1000. All additional routes to Australia will be see upgraded to A350-900, A350-1000 and 77W by 2020

https://www.ausbt.com.au/cathay-pacific ... ource=hero

Is the first delivery still planned for April, if the EIS is in August?

kaitak wrote:

737max8 wrote:

Thank goodness, hope the A350-1000 to LAX is true. Anything to avoid 10 across 777s

You have to wonder if airlines will begin recognising this - not just those with A350s and 777s (at 10 abreast), but also those with 787s (at nine abreast - which is all but one). If the operate both 777s and A350s on particular routes, won't they start seeing a trend of passengers selecting one type over another, or of discussions on forums/social media, advising people to select one type over another. And that being the case, what does it mean for the 777-9? Sure it will be quieter and maybe a little wider (will they be able to bring cabin altitude down to 787 levels?), but if it's still 10 abreast, won't pax continue to prefer the A350?

I know there are those who say that passengers don't really notice the differences between one plane and another, but I reckon that those choosing airlines on long haul routes do more homework, particularly those willing to pay more than the baseline fare.

Yes and no. I think the 777 has certainly started to build a bad rep among many, not just because of seat width, but because of noise, and number of pax in close proximity. I think the 787's slightly narrower seat issues are offset by the fancy PR and new cabin features, whilst staying so quiet.

In terms of booking preference, I think many tourism travelers are fairly ignorant to the issue, but you also have to remember the number of business passengers whose flights are often booked on their behalf (whereby timing will play a far greater role)...

I just flew Cathay's A35G (in J) from YVR-HKG, and the experience vis a vis the 77W or other aircraft is just night and day.

JamesCousins wrote:

I think the 777 has certainly started to build a bad rep among many, not just because of seat width, but because of noise, and number of pax in close proximity. I think the 787's slightly narrower seat issues are offset by the fancy PR and new cabin features, whilst staying so quiet.

Good thing for the airlines that 90%+ of pax probably wouldn't know whether they were *actually* on either.

LAX772LR wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

I think the 777 has certainly started to build a bad rep among many, not just because of seat width, but because of noise, and number of pax in close proximity. I think the 787's slightly narrower seat issues are offset by the fancy PR and new cabin features, whilst staying so quiet.

Good thing for the airlines that 90%+ of pax probably wouldn't know whether they were *actually* on either.

Sadly, you're not wrong There's the odd to unique case, such as TUI here in the UK who tend to be more expensive on long-haul over competitors, justifying it partly with the 'Dreamliner' (in contrast to Thomas Cook's A330s).

LAX772LR wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

I think the 777 has certainly started to build a bad rep among many, not just because of seat width, but because of noise, and number of pax in close proximity. I think the 787's slightly narrower seat issues are offset by the fancy PR and new cabin features, whilst staying so quiet.

Good thing for the airlines that 90%+ of pax probably wouldn't know whether they were *actually* on either.

I Was on a 787 the other day and my seat mate was adamant it was an A350. The only aircraft i feels stands out to people is the A380/747.

How come A350-1000 deliveries are taking so long? There is still only one A35K in service with QR flying DOH-LHR-DOH. Sum Ting Wong?

I wonder when CX is going to consider a 4-class configuration for the A35K, so that it can take over the B77W's flying on routes such as to LHR and JFK? This aircraft seems to make much more sense than a B77W as it's much lighter.

CRJ900 wrote:

How come A350-1000 deliveries are taking so long? There is still only one A35K in service with QR flying DOH-LHR-DOH. Sum Ting Wong?

Hahahaha wow that is so wrong. I was gonna respond with Wi Tu Lo but... (oh crap I guess I just did)

Was there a significant cost differential for British 707 vs VC10? Could they fill specific routs with one type JFK all VC10 BOS ORD JNB all 707
There may be other reasons than just popularity.

Not sure if this was mentioned before, but according to CX' Marketing & Sales manager Benelux AMS will also be served with the A350-1000 as per December 1. Current 77W was going to be replaced with an A359, but I'm glad it wil be the -1000! The newly configured 10 abreast Y 77W always seemed a bit too much capacity for the HKG-AMS route, the A359 perhaps not enough. Very pleased with this develepment at my home airport

Arion640 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

I think the 777 has certainly started to build a bad rep among many, not just because of seat width, but because of noise, and number of pax in close proximity. I think the 787's slightly narrower seat issues are offset by the fancy PR and new cabin features, whilst staying so quiet.

Good thing for the airlines that 90%+ of pax probably wouldn't know whether they were *actually* on either.

I Was on a 787 the other day and my seat mate was adamant it was an A350. The only aircraft i feels stands out to people is the A380/747.

You could have just pointed to the safety card.

Swadian wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Good thing for the airlines that 90%+ of pax probably wouldn't know whether they were *actually* on either.

I Was on a 787 the other day and my seat mate was adamant it was an A350. The only aircraft i feels stands out to people is the A380/747.

You could have just pointed to the safety card.

He eventually believed me after telling him I'd already been on an A350 and I said i saw "dreamliner" written on the fuselage.

oldannyboy wrote:

kaitak wrote:

737max8 wrote:

Thank goodness, hope the A350-1000 to LAX is true. Anything to avoid 10 across 777s

You have to wonder if airlines will begin recognising this - not just those with A350s and 777s (at 10 abreast), but also those with 787s (at nine abreast - which is all but one). If the operate both 777s and A350s on particular routes, won't they start seeing a trend of passengers selecting one type over another, or of discussions on forums/social media, advising people to select one type over another. I know there are those who say that passengers don't really notice the differences between one plane and another, but I reckon that those choosing airlines on long haul routes do more homework, particularly those willing to pay more than the baseline fare.

This exact thing was happening at BOAC back in the '60s, with people electing to fly on the quieter, smoother VC10 over the 707, on the few routes these two types were competing on. VC10 flights used to go fully sold, and on the same days the 707s were going out at say 60%..... but that didn't stop BO from getting more 707s and not ordering more VC10s sadly..

But nowadays the majority of revenue come from either in the belly or the front cabin... they couldn't care less about the economy class, they would bring on 11 abreast if they are allowed to do so.

CRJ900 wrote:

How come A350-1000 deliveries are taking so long? There is still only one A35K in service with QR flying DOH-LHR-DOH.

Two more getting delivered this month. At least one in July, if not two. Things are moving now.

So what’s gonna happen with CX 888/889 flights with tag-on YVR-JFK? Are we getting 3-4-3 77W or will it be A350? As of now, for 889 they are using 77W that comes from HKG directly. Same is happening with aircraft operating CX888 - it goes back to HKG non-stop.

HKG-ZRH will be an A350-1000 from ST19, too.

Brgds,
Ka.

Will BOS see the A359 or A350-1000 in the near future? It appears the 77W has worked well for them on their HKG-BOS-HKG route.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I wonder when CX is going to consider a 4-class configuration for the A35K, so that it can take over the B77W's flying on routes such as to LHR and JFK? This aircraft seems to make much more sense than a B77W as it's much lighter.

I remember they initially planned a 4 class 35K but then changed their minds, the 779’s are planned as 4 class and will likely replace the 77W’s on those premium routes from 2021.

Manchester will also be changing to the A350-1000 later in the year.

I heard that fellow SWIRE firm, HAECO, is making the coach class seats for the A350-1000 for CX. The seats are designed to allow easy use of personal devices, like phones & tablets--so I would be curious to see how much they differ to the 77W seats--which I don't mind at all.

See starting on page 20 on this link for more details on the A350-1000 as it is for CX: http://downloads.cathaypacific.com/cx/p ... ourney.pdf

Edited to change the start page to 20 from 22.

lydh wrote:

I just flew Cathay's A35G (in J) from YVR-HKG, and the experience vis a vis the 77W or other aircraft is just night and day.

Does this mean the A350 is better in your opinion, or the others are?

hz747300 wrote:

I heard that fellow SWIRE firm, HAECO, is making the coach class seats for the A350-1000 for CX. The seats are designed to allow easy use of personal devices, like phones & tablets--so I would be curious to see how much they differ to the 77W seats--which I don't mind at all.

See starting on page 20 on this link for more details on the A350-1000 as it is for CX: http://downloads.cathaypacific.com/cx/p ... ourney.pdf

Edited to change the start page to 20 from 22.

CX is refurbishing all 77W with new Y cabins and updated tech in all other cabins

Kashmon wrote:

CX is refurbishing all 77W with new Y cabins and updated tech in all other cabins

Definitely not true.

zeke wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

CX is refurbishing all 77W with new Y cabins and updated tech in all other cabins

Definitely not true.

Which part is definitely not true? The new Y cabins or the updated tech in other cabins?

The attached link from CX (http://downloads.cathaypacific.com/cx/p ... ourney.pdf) clearly states all 65 777's (which I assume refers to their 773 and 77W aircraft) will have the new densified economy by the end of 2019. Leaving just their 772's with the original configuration. So I think it's safe to assume all the 77W's will have the new densified Y cabin.

Or are you referring to the 'updated tech in other cabins' part? The same document also notes that "In the coming months, Wi-Fi equipment and modem points will also be added and all aircraft will have gate-to-gate Wi-Fi by 2020." In addition, the document also refers to an "IFE upgrade". So it also seems that updated tech in the form of Wi-Fi access and improved IFE is being retrofitted across all 773's and 77W's as well. Unless there is something i'm missing?

zeke wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

CX is refurbishing all 77W with new Y cabins and updated tech in all other cabins

Definitely not true.

this guy claims to be part of CX yet has no idea what is going on in his own airline....

lol

yes ZEKE
all of this is part of a major SWIRE fake news plot....
https://www.businesstraveller.com/busin ... nomy-seat/

fake cabins, fake planes....

"Definitely not true"

DeltaB717 wrote:

lydh wrote:

I just flew Cathay's A35G (in J) from YVR-HKG, and the experience vis a vis the 77W or other aircraft is just night and day.

Does this mean the A350 is better in your opinion, or the others are?

The A350 is way better. 77W seat feels beaten and battered, monitor is tiny, controls sluggish.

Kashmon wrote:

yes ZEKE
all of this is part of a major SWIRE fake news plot....
https://www.businesstraveller.com/busin ... nomy-seat/

fake cabins, fake planes....

"Definitely not true"

As far as I am aware CX owns less than 20 777s, a number of them are going to be returned to lessors as A350s and then 77Xs come into the fleet. As far as I am aware there is no plan to do a multi million dollar upgrade on all leased frames and then return them to the lessor.

So my comment was in response to your statement where you said all are to be reconfigured, which is not my understanding.

You will note in the annual report that a number of 777s leases are to expire.

zeke wrote:

As far as I am aware CX owns less than 20 777s

From the latest annual report, CX owns 36 777's. They have another 5 frames coming in from Emirates.

zeke wrote:

You will note in the annual report that a number of 777s leases are to expire.

Of the 11 777's that are on lease, only 3 will have their lease expire before 2021.

Granted, these numbers still fall short of the 65 777's CX says will undergo retrofitting so I'm not sure quite what's going on unless CX has acquired additional frames since the latest annual report (Dec 2017).

Sorry for the confusion, if you look up I was responding to a comment that “CX is refurbishing all 77W with new Y cabin”

Of the 50+ 77Ws, less than 20 are owned. All of the 772/773 frames are owned. 5 772s are being disposed of being replaced by 5 773 purchased from a lessor. They are not owned by the airline you mentioned.