CX Placed An Order For 21 777-9X

flythere · Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:40 am

On 20th December 2013, CPAS and Boeing Company entered into the Purchase
Agreement, pursuant to which CPAS has agreed to purchase the Boeing Aircraft
(being 21 Boeing 777-9X aircraft) from Boeing Company.

http://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/list.../sehk/2013/1220/LTN20131220491.pdf

Just some quote from the document.

Payment and delivery terms:
The consideration for the purchase of each of the Boeing Aircraft is payable in cash
in six instalments, with the first five instalments to be paid prior to delivery of each
aircraft and the balance, being a substantial portion of the consideration, to be paid
upon delivery of the aircraft. The Company is expecting to take delivery of the
Boeing Aircraft from 2021 to 2024.

Reasons for, and benefits of, the Transaction
The Boeing Aircraft will replenish and expand the fleet capacity of the Company.
They will principally serve long-haul destinations in North America and Europe. The
Company expects that the Boeing Aircraft will deliver improved payload range
capability at competitive operating costs whilst providing high standards of passenger
comfort and safety. The Directors consider that the terms of the Transaction are fair
and reasonable and in the interests of the shareholders as a whole.

Stitch · Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:45 am

Many expected this order, but nice to see it (becoming) official.

scouseflyer · Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:48 am

Wow they've got a lot a planes on order now, if I've got this correct:

8 * A333
22 * A359
26 * A35J
13 * 773

and now 21 779X

KarelXWB · Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:51 am

Thus no 747-8i deal after all, pity.

scouseflyer · Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:21 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3):

Thus no 747-8i deal after all, pity.

Yes the 748I would of suited their colours but was unlikely, I see this as probably the end to lingering ideas of a A380 order too for CX 90 wides is probably enough for the time being order wise.

PVG · Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:25 am

Wouldn't they benefit from a small fleet of say 20 787’s to serve some smaller markets non-stop? Say Zurich, Munich, Milan, Manchester, Stockholm or Copenhagen? It seems to me that is something that they can try to counter some the ME competition.

KarelXWB · Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:26 am

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 4):
Yes the 748I would of suited their colours but was unlikely

A few months ago, an official Boeing 747-8i render in Cathay livery was leaked to the internet, suggesting the airline was in talks to buy the 747-8 airplane. Another rumor claimed they would buy 20 copies.

[Edited 2013-12-20 02:27:22]

NZ107 · Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:29 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3):
Thus no 747-8i deal after all, pity.

No.. But maybe it could still be an option if they wanted rapid growth within the next 3-5 years? With the 779 expected between 2021-4, maybe there's still a very slim chance of it.. But I've resigned to never seeing a CX 748i.

Quoting PVG (Reply 5):
Wouldn't they benefit from a small fleet of say 20 787’s to serve some smaller markets non-stop?

That's possibly one reason why they bought the A350.

Azure · Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:35 am

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 2):
Wow they've got a lot a planes on order now, if I've got this correct:

8 * A333
22 * A359
26 * A35J
13 * 773

and now 21 779X

I find it interesting that airlines order both the A350J and the 779X.
Others will likely follow.

sturmovik · Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:38 am

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 4):
I see this as probably the end to lingering ideas of a A380 order too for CX 90 wides is probably enough for the time being order wise.

Yup, as much as I'd like to see CX operating an A380, I'd agree that it looks likely that the A380 campaign has come to an end, at least for now.

kengo · Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:39 am

Didn't happened during the Dubai airshow, as expected, but nonetheless, congrats to Boeing and CX.

Quoting PVG (Reply 5):
Wouldn't they benefit from a small fleet of say 20 787’s to serve some smaller markets non-stop? Say Zurich, Munich, Milan, Manchester, Stockholm or Copenhagen?

The A359s should work in the cities you've mentioned and this can done sooner with the A359s than if CX were to order 788s or 789s for those routes.

KarelXWB · Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:40 am

Quoting Azure (Reply 8):
I find it interesting that airlines order both the A350J and the 779X.

Those are completely different aircraft.

AirInsight has a good article about the economics of those two aircraft:

http://airinsight.com/2013/11/08/the...in-battle-a350-1000-versus-777-9x/

Quoting Azure (Reply 8):
Others will likely follow.

Others already did: Qatar (25x 779, 37x A351) and Etihad (17x 779, 9x 778, 20x A351).

[Edited 2013-12-20 02:45:10]

na · Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:41 am

I am very dissappointed with this airline. CX is really having a boring passenger fleet soon.
So they are already retiring the 77W in the early 20s not to be left behind when the major competition does the same thing. Question remains when will they order a decent VLA?

Stitch · Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:48 am

Quoting PVG (Reply 5):
Wouldn't they benefit from a small fleet of say 20 787’s to serve some smaller markets non-stop?

CX performed an RRP between the 787 and A350 and chose the A350. So those types of missions, if undertaken, will be flown with A350-900s.

Quoting na (Reply 12):
I am very dissappointed with this airline. CX is really having a boring passenger fleet soon.

May be boring, but it will likely be profitable.

[Edited 2013-12-20 02:49:29]

817Dreamliiner · Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:53 am

Congrats to CX and Boeing for this order.

I hope they'll be more announcements before the end of the year

kengo · Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:59 am

Quoting na (Reply 12):
Question remains when will they order a decent VLA?

Maybe after Boeing terminates the 747-8i.

CXB77L · Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:04 am

Quoting flythere (Thread starter):

Thank you for the link. I couldn't be happier with this order. Congrats to Boeing and CX

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3):
Thus no 747-8i deal after all, pity.

That would have been nice, but it was always going to be a remote chance. I think that now that the 777-9X has been launched, the need for the 747-8i has disappeared. They might still lease some if they needed a short term solution between the retirement of the 747-400 and the EIS of the 777-9X, though, so I wouldn't rule it out altogether.

Quoting na (Reply 12):
So they are already retiring the 77W in the early 20s

They have not published any retirement plan for their 77Ws, so I fail to see how you can speculate that it will be retired in the early 2020s.

Quoting na (Reply 12):
Question remains when will they order a decent VLA?

They just did. It's called the 777-9X.

[Edited 2013-12-20 03:12:37]

KarelXWB · Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:07 am

Quoting na (Reply 12):
I am very dissappointed with this airline.

I know you want to have a decent seat width, but thanks to the wider cabin on the 777X, 10-abreast on the 777X will be almost the same as on the 747-8.

KarelXWB · Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:44 am

Story on Flightglobal:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...der-for-21-777-9x-aircraft-394342/

[Edited 2013-12-20 03:49:45]

speedygonzales · Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:27 pm

Does this mean that they will revert the plans for common seat width across the fleet? I don't see any sense in operating the -9X in 9-abreast next to the A350-1000.

CXB77L · Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:32 pm

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 24):
Does this mean that they will revert the plans for common seat width across the fleet? I don't see any sense in operating the -9X in 9-abreast next to the A350-1000.

They never had a common seat width across the fleet. The 747-400's seats are narrower than those on the A330 or 777. I'm not sure that the plans for having a common seat width across the fleet was ever "real", and even if it were, the economics of the 777-9X must have persuaded them to change that view. The 777-9X should be able to fit the same 17.2" seats as on the 747-400, thanks to the increase in cabin width.

kengo · Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:21 pm

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 24):
Does this mean that they will revert the plans for common seat width across the fleet? I don't see any sense in operating the -9X in 9-abreast next to the A350-1000.

CX did say that the 779s will be used on routes where demand for both cargo and pax are high, so I think there is a possibility of 9-abreast 779s on routes where cargo demand is greater than pax but both big enough that the A35J will not work without weight restriction.

lightsaber · Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:22 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3):
Thus no 747-8i deal after all, pity.

Agreed. I had hopes...

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 11):
AirInsight has a good article about the economics of those two aircraft:

Very interesting link, thank you.

Quoting na (Reply 12):
Question remains when will they order a decent VLA?

At this point, they won't. CX only has a few destinations where they need a VLA. IMHO, they decided they couldn't justify the sub-fleet. I believe CX should have bought a VLA, but this decision shows the momentum is against such an option.

It will take an A389 for CX to buy a VLA. Nothing else will have a low enough CASM to justify the sub-fleet. However, this order is just large enough to justify a sub-fleet of 779s! (IMHO, 17 is the minimum widebody subfleet for utilization, spares, and other economics.)

Quoting scbriml (Reply 23):
With 70 commitments this year, the A380 will be in production for quite some time yet.

I suspect the delivery timeframes worked against the A388.

Quoting na (Reply 12):
CX is really having a boring passenger fleet soon.

How is profitable boring? CX is wise to turn over their fleet.

Lightsaber

kengo · Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:25 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 26):
*) real VLA
**) kind of VLA

Maybe we should classify 77W, 779 and A35J as VLA, and 748i and A380 as Ultra-VLA for sake of argument.

a380787 · Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:00 pm

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 2):
8 * A333
22 * A359
26 * A35J
13 * 77W

and now 21 779X

With so many planes on order, I really hope CX can start expanding their network breadth : MAD, ZRH, MUC (or DUS), SEA, CHC, and make JED/Riyadh nonstop.

NYC777 · Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:06 pm

Is this a firm order?

American 767 · Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:12 pm

Everyone says it's a pity they haven't yet ordered the 747-8i, if they ever will. I think so too. I was also hoping CX would be the next customer for the 747-8i after LH and KE. But don't forget that they do have the 747-8F.

Congrats to Boeing and CX!

KarelXWB · Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:17 pm

The press releases are online:

http://www.cathaypacific.com/cx/en_H...eliveries-to-commence-in-2021.html
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2013-12-...ways-Announce-Order-for-21-777-9Xs

High-res computer render:

http://www.cathaypacific.com/content.../2013/20121220/Boeing%20777-9X.JPG

zeke · Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:25 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 6):
A few months ago, an official Boeing 747-8i render in Cathay livery was leaked to the internet, suggesting the airline was in talks to buy the 747-8 airplane. Another rumor claimed they would buy 20 copies.

The rumors were they were Boeing offered -8is as interim lift between now and the 777X.

LAXintl · Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:32 pm

Good let this end all the speculation of the VLA at CX.

I guess folks refused to believe both the COO and Chairman even after they repeatedly said VLA was unlikely to be in the cards for the carrier.

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

=

jfk777 · Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:34 pm

Quoting Azure (Reply 8):
I find it interesting that airlines order both the A350J and the 779X.
Others will likely follow.

The A350-1000 are better for Europe and the 777X is better for America, especially the east coast. JFK has turned out to be a huge winner for Cathay, they have more flights there then many of the European airlien that have been flying there for 70 years.

mercure1 · Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:39 pm

Congrats Boeing and CX

But was there any doubt in this one?

The CEO called the 777-9X near perfect, and said it hit the sweet spot in capacity and performance for the carrier.

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

BlueSky1976 · Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:45 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 31):
One order does not bring the 747 to an imminent death. What are you talking about?

This:

Quoting zeke (Reply 35):
The rumors were they were Boeing offered -8is as interim lift between now and the 777X.

Then there's a scuttlebutt going around that Lufthansa will not firm up its 747-8i options. And the one that apparently JAL and ANA that said "no, thank you" to Boeing's "name your price for 747-8i" offer.

See... it is NOT one order.

It's four of them already. And counting. Fact is: any 777-9 sale is lost 747-8i sale. People need to accept the fact so-called queen is dying slow and painful death. There is very little or no market for it. The only ones buying it are the airlines who need it ASAP, those who do not will wait until 777-9 is available.

Oh, and BTW: the ultimate 747 basher is no longer a member of this forum. His legacy, however, will live on.

KD5MDK · Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:50 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 28):
(IMHO, 17 is the minimum widebody subfleet for utilization, spares, and other economics.)

Would you mind expanding on this a little bit? How much does the presence of other family members count? Do the following scenarios meet your rule of thumb?

Examples:
40 77E
8 77W

11 A332
9 A333

6 788
6 789
6 78J

ytz · Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:58 pm

Quoting na (Reply 12):
Question remains when will they order a decent VLA?

What nonsense. The 747-400 had a 416 pax 3-class layout. The 777-9X has a 407 pax 3-class layout. And we won't even talk about cargo.

Explain to me why the 777-9X isn't a "decent VLA". What's the threshold for "decent VLA"? By the logic used here, the 747-400 wasn't a decent VLA.

[Edited 2013-12-20 09:01:20]

CXB77L · Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:04 pm

Quoting YTZ (Reply 41):
What nonsense. The 747-400 had a 416 pax 3-class layout. The 777-9X has a 407 pax 3-class layout.

Explain to me why the 777-9X isn't a "decent VLA".

The original "VLA" was the 747-100. The 777-300ER is longer, heavier, more powerful, has a larger wingspan and has far better payload-range capabilities than the 747-100. The 777-9X will be bigger still.

SXDFC · Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:05 pm

Maybe when the new 777-9's arrive, CX will finally update its color scheme!

Norcal773 · Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:21 pm

Ooh boy, this will drive Zeke crazy

lightsaber · Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:39 pm

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 40):
Would you mind expanding on this a little bit? How much does the presence of other family members count?

HB-IWC has done a series of analysis of the fleets of EK, AA, and KLM. From those analysis, I noticed it took 17 aircraft to always have one spare on standby. Since it is *very* expensive to have a spare lying about and it is even more expensive to have a spare not ready... that comes to my numbers.

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 40):
Examples:
40 77E
8 77W

Yes. Crew, pilots, and (many) parts are interchangeable. Downside of that 8 77Ws if one of them goes down and a 77E is substituted, there is major cost to accommodate missed passengers and luggage.

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 40):
11 A332
9 A333

Almost... While the A333 and A332 are very related, an A333 doesn't have the range to sub for an A332 and an A332 doesn't have the seats to sub for an A333. It can be done, but there will be more aircraft down time to have the right spare available.

Now if this is QR/EY/EK where their A332s are flying A333 length missions, this works very well except for those few passengers left behind when the A332 subs for the A333.

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 40):
6 788
6 789
6 78J

Almost... Do the 78Js have the range to sub for the 788 or 789 or are their missions longer? Apply the same logic as the A333 vs. A332. Its all about the cost of the spare.

Now, if aircraft dispatch reliability improves, that will reduce the number for an economic subfleet.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 46):
Ooh boy, this will drive Zeke crazy

Where is that popcorn smilie?

Lightsaber

CXGabriel · Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:02 pm

Congrats to CX and Boeing for this order!

Just a few points, thoughts & questions:

1. Although they didn't say it out loud, the -9X will be for expansion and replacement, sort of like the 77W with the 744.
2. The 77W remained on order is 12, not 13.
3. 747 passenger aircraft may be on its last days for Boeing, but the freighter version is still going strong. I think we'll see the 747 freighters (i.e. 747-8F) survived
4. Question for Zeke: does CX really need an interim lift (such as 747-8i) between now and 2021? Am I missing something? Also, are KA's A333s going to be replaced with A359?
5. Will we see a narrowbody order for KA's A320 family coming? (737MAX vs A320NEO)

KD5MDK · Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:05 pm

So this is really about having a wide body capable of flying the route than specific fleet members. I wonder where this puts DL's 77L routes. Not a lot of spares there.

neutronstar73 · Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:44 pm

Wonder why they took so long? I guess the A380 is a no-go at CX.

[Edited 2013-12-20 11:50:39]

Azure · Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:23 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 11):
AirInsight has a good article about the economics of those two aircraft:

http://airinsight.com/2013/11/08/the...7-9x/

Thanks for the link, interesting article indeed. Though I would have enjoyed to learn more about the cargo capability of each aircraft.
I was aware their seat counts were different, but nominal range and CASM are very comparable. This is why these mixed orders of A35J and 779X are interesting IMHO : with ever increasing fuel costs and competition, airlines have to strictly control capacity to optimize yields.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 11):
Others already did: Qatar (25x 779, 37x A351) and Etihad (17x 779, 9x 778, 20x A351).

Yes, I know. My point is more airlines are likely to consider mixed orders of A350-1000 and B779X. It will be interesting to follow, as if this trend is confirmed, it could make the business case of an A350-1100 even more obvious for Airbus

.

Quoting na (Reply 12):
CX is really having a boring passenger fleet soon.

Boring as opposed to quads I assume ?
I agree with you, these quads have a nostalgic beauty that the twins can't match. Be prepared to get very bored then, the quads will obviously become proportionally rarer over the time...

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 47):
I noticed it took 17 aircraft to always have one spare on standby.

Which translates to a spare ratio of approx. 6%, a low figure in the transportation industry. It shows the extreme reliability of these birds

The lower this ratio, the more efficient a fleet.
May I recommend this article on the calculation of an ideal spare ratio : http://www.kelroy.ca/services/images...ocument%20Leve%20lDraft%201%20.pdf (page 16, §4.1.4).

KarelXWB · Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:07 pm

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 51):
Wonder why they took so long?

The 777X launch was only 1 month ago?

PW100 · Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:01 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 26):
*) real VLA
**) kind of VLA

Quoting Kengo (Reply 29):
Maybe we should classify 77W, 779 and A35J as VLA, and 748i and A380 as Ultra-VLA for sake of argument

May I offer VLT*) for 35J, 77W, 777X?
So the VLTs are creeping up into VLA territory!

*) Very Large Twin.

In my book, a 10 abreast 77W with 36 LD-3(?) cargo positions is pretty much a Very Large Aircraft, so for me there is no question about the 777X.

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 4):
I see this as probably the end to lingering ideas of a A380 order too for CX 90 wides is probably enough for the time being order wise

Off course there is this other little airline that has 150 777X on order, and another 70 350 series . . . surely 220 wides is probably enough for the time being order wise

PW100

sunrisevalley · Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:02 pm

Quoting Azure (Reply 52):
Though I would have enjoyed to learn more about the cargo capability of each aircraft.

The A35J has 44 LD3 positions and the -9X 48- positions. After baggage assuming full passenger loads the A35J has 31 positions and the -9x has 33- positions. At typical passenger belly cargo density this translates into ~27t and 29t respectively. Now carriers don't use LD3's for cargo , usually PMC pallets which are not quite as volume efficient so the actual loads will be a little less.

747megatop · Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:18 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3):
Thus no 747-8i deal after all, pity.

The 747-8i is definitely toast. It is a plane that nobody (except LH & KE) wants. Unlike the A380 which somebody majorly wants (EK) and quite a few combined (BA,LH,SQ,QF,KE, AF etc.) want a sizable number. With the remaining 747-400s being retired at an increasing pace i don't see a future for 747-8F either.

7BOEING7 · Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:31 pm

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 46):
Unlike the A380 which somebody majorly wants (EK) and quite a few combined (BA,LH,SQ,QF,KE, AF etc.) want a sizable number

Of that list only SQ and QF have what I would vaguely call sizeable at 24 and 20 respectively -- everybody else listed has less than 14 on order/delivered and some of those numbers have been decreasing -- so I wouldn't say the A380 is in good shape.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 46):
With the remaining 747-400s being retired at an increasing pace i don't see a future for 747-8F either.

I don't see what retirements of 744's have to do with 748F's, nobody is interested in 744BCF's these days -- not efficient enough at any price.

scbriml · Sat Dec 21, 2013 12:05 am

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 47):
I don't see what retirements of 744's have to do with 748F's, nobody is interested in 744BCF's these days -- not efficient enough at any price.

Well it seems like nobody's interested in the 748F either - just 11 sold in the last six years.

EPA001 · Sat Dec 21, 2013 12:05 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Many expected this order, but nice to see it (becoming) official.

Not a surprise, but still a very good win for the B777-9 and good for CX for sure.

.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 14):
Congrats to CX and Boeing for this order.

Those are indeed in place.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net