Rogers99 wrote:PolarRoute wrote:jfk777 wrote:The reason Cathay needs Medium Haul planes is their A330-300 fleet is old with some planes over 20 years old. The A330 has been around 30 years. 787-10 are better regional hauler than the A330-900, CX doesn't need all that range the A339 provides.
The same can be said about the 781's capacity at CX though, especially in the context of 333 replacement. The 781 might have an upper hand in CASM, but trip cost wise 339 wins out. I's say for 333 replacement purposes, the 339 is more suitable, with the extra range giving CX some flexibility; capacity can't be broken down into pieces to provide flexibility.
Re. the possible regionally configured 359. How does the aircraft fare against the 781? They burn about the same amount of fuel AFAIK, and since the 781 have more cabin floor space it'll also have lower CASM. But is the CASM gap large enough to warrant a whole new aircraft type?
We've seen JL deciding to 'abuse' the 359 for domestic operations and SQ going for both 359 and 781 in their regional network. So I have to wonder, what's the 359's performace like in short missions?
By the time look at compensation credits, the 787 package might look very attractive.
Then convert 779 to 778F. Lufthansa showed us earlier in the year what compensation credits can really do for you
You have 21 777Xs on order, you won’t need more than 14 really all of which will have first class. Use on major European cities. LHR, CDG, FRA the rest on North America: JFK, LAX etc
Convert the remaining to 778F.
Use your credits for 787-10. Is it bigger than the 330neo? Yes but also carries way more cargo which I imagine is big in the apac region. The fuel burn difference is tiny. If not 787-9, still has far more productivity with still better cargo capability than the 339 and more flexibility
Boeing will be very willing to do that if it means their order book can be more solid.
Sure, they do have that compensation credit, but I'd have thought their current predicament, which puts them in the position to consider exercising those credit toward swapping 777X orders to 781s' in the first place, was something temporary rather than permanent. In which case CX would need those 777Xs anyways, so why change orders and waste that credit and add a new type when they can order what they have a good amount of experience on, and infrastructure pertinent to the operation of such.
Just kick the can down the line for a bit and go for what you're familiar and confident with. Heck, the 777X has already been delayed beyond 2025. CX could have already recovered by that time and in need of such capacity.
jfk777 wrote:Regional in Asia and Japanese domestic are two different things, JAL's A350 domestic operation is often no more than two hours and often one hour from Haneda to Itami. Singapore does operate some very short sectors to Jakarta and KL, Regional in Asia is also a 5 hour flight to India or 7 hours to Korea and Japan.
On which sectors the 781 is still the king of, no? I get that 'domestic' and 'regional' are two different things, but nevertheless both of them still fall short of the first kink on the 781's payload-range chart.
So what I'm intrigued by is that in a comparable sense, how does the 359 perform on those relatively short sectors? Because if the numbers are good enough, I also see CX topping up 359s for regional use as well.
For cargo, 777-8 seems like a natural choice in view of their 777-9 order. For medium-haul, more 321N's seem a given. But the A330s replacement will be an interesting one.
This was my first thought. With money tight and the need to reduce short/medium term CAPEX, converting some of their existing A333s and 77Ws to freighters seems like a prudent medium term solution.
