Based on comments from CX CEO, the next round of aircraft order is going to be freighters, possibly B747-8F. Then, they'll decide on B747-8I or A380. The A380 may be still too big for CX by then (2008-09 time frame).
The A350 seems to have the right size and timing for CX, so I think it is going to beat out B787.
There's still a lot of things can happen; ie, oil prices, market/economic condition, Chinese airlines integration, alliance/partners/ownership changes, etc. We will see!
Cathay Pacific Expansion
Moderator: Latest news team
CXRules wrote:Based on comments from CX CEO, the next round of aircraft order is going to be freighters, possibly B747-8F. Then, they'll decide on B747-8I or A380. The A380 may be still too big for CX by then (2008-09 time frame).
The A350 seems to have the right size and timing for CX, so I think it is going to beat out B787.
There's still a lot of things can happen; ie, oil prices, market/economic condition, Chinese airlines integration, alliance/partners/ownership changes, etc. We will see!
I would be disappointed if they order the 748I (pax version a design 1960 ) as opposed to A380.....emirates , sia , qantas .., sia , ba ..etc
will come at hong kong airport with A380..
[quote="A350XWB]
I would be disappointed if they order the 748I (pax version a design 1960 ) as opposed to A380.....emirates , sia , qantas .., sia , ba ..etc
will come at hong kong airport with A380..[/quote]
I know its silly but that's exactly the reasont i want Cathay to order A380s lol. But realistically speaking LAX and LHR seem to be the only routes where A380s will be favourable.
The A350-787 still is hard to call. the A350s would probably replace the 77Ws. So maybe like SIA, Cathay could order both.. 787s to replace A343s and open new routes up.. to strengthen HKG hub
I would be disappointed if they order the 748I (pax version a design 1960 ) as opposed to A380.....emirates , sia , qantas .., sia , ba ..etc
will come at hong kong airport with A380..[/quote]
I know its silly but that's exactly the reasont i want Cathay to order A380s lol. But realistically speaking LAX and LHR seem to be the only routes where A380s will be favourable.
The A350-787 still is hard to call. the A350s would probably replace the 77Ws. So maybe like SIA, Cathay could order both.. 787s to replace A343s and open new routes up.. to strengthen HKG hub
I certainly can see B787 in CX fleet; however, it is not likely to happen if everything else held constant (i.e. Dragonair flies regional and Chinese routes while CX focus on other major international destinations). The only way Boeing can get a CX order is to launch the B787-10. Otherwise, A350 is a better fit. The A350-800 is about the same size as the A333 and A343 while A350-1000 is closer to B777-300 and -300ER. If CX and KA become one, then B787 has a better shot since they may need something smaller like the B787-3 or -8 as well as the bigger variants.
I don't believe in 787-10. ..boeing is not clear ..CXRules wrote:I certainly can see B787 in CX fleet; however, it is not likely to happen if everything else held constant (i.e. Dragonair flies regional and Chinese routes while CX focus on other major international destinations). The only way Boeing can get a CX order is to launch the B787-10. Otherwise, A350 is a better fit. The A350-800 is about the same size as the A333 and A343 while A350-1000 is closer to B777-300 and -300ER. If CX and KA become one, then B787 has a better shot since they may need something smaller like the B787-3 or -8 as well as the bigger variants.
boeing is rather anxious to make The first to fly.. 787-800..
I think Boeing is being deliberately vague on this as long as they can get away with it.
With the uncertainty in the A350 program, I could see clauses in contract that not only read cancellation if they do not meet their performance figures, but if they don't meet the figures Boeing will come out with as well (wild speculation of course on that).
Just looking at th4eir fleet, the A330s are a prime directly replacement by the 787.
I am anxious to see the 787 fly as well. I need some reassurance!
With the uncertainty in the A350 program, I could see clauses in contract that not only read cancellation if they do not meet their performance figures, but if they don't meet the figures Boeing will come out with as well (wild speculation of course on that).
Just looking at th4eir fleet, the A330s are a prime directly replacement by the 787.
I am anxious to see the 787 fly as well. I need some reassurance!
What is uncertain about the XWB?
It is about half way through the design process, with approaching 300 orders/commitments.
Can anyone remember how many 787 orders/commitments were in place 12 months after launch, just for a comparison?
Airbus have always achieved their guarantee objectives as far as performance is concerned.
Even the overweight A380 was so aerodynamically sound, it met all its performance guarantees, even bettered some.
So, coming back to the XWB, just imagine what the lower thrust demands may do on existing guarantees. I t certainly will not jeopardize them in my opinion.
CX may very well for the first time buy an airplane early in its production life, the XWB-10.
Cheers
Achace
It is about half way through the design process, with approaching 300 orders/commitments.
Can anyone remember how many 787 orders/commitments were in place 12 months after launch, just for a comparison?
Airbus have always achieved their guarantee objectives as far as performance is concerned.
Even the overweight A380 was so aerodynamically sound, it met all its performance guarantees, even bettered some.
So, coming back to the XWB, just imagine what the lower thrust demands may do on existing guarantees. I t certainly will not jeopardize them in my opinion.
CX may very well for the first time buy an airplane early in its production life, the XWB-10.
Cheers
Achace
I would say that you cannot be half way through design when you have not even settled on final structural material and configuration. To contend that is shaky at best. The program has been re-designed 4 times now, and possibly a 5th.achace wrote:What is uncertain about the XWB?
It is about half way through the design process, with approaching 300 orders/commitments.
Can anyone remember how many 787 orders/commitments were in place 12 months after launch, just for a comparison?
Airbus have always achieved their guarantee objectives as far as performance is concerned.
Even the overweight A380 was so aerodynamically sound, it met all its performance guarantees, even bettered some.
So, coming back to the XWB, just imagine what the lower thrust demands may do on existing guarantees. I t certainly will not jeopardize them in my opinion.
CX may very well for the first time buy an airplane early in its production life, the XWB-10.
Cheers
Achace
The A350 program has been in place since 6 months after Boeing launched the 787. To say otherwise is attempting to rewrite history. The orders they got then, are mostly the same ones they have now (not to mention a major larger class change that many mysteriously have found they needed). And I do not go with Airbus numbers. They frankly are totally dishonest in how they account for them. Last I saw were maybe 200.
As for the A380, no one has said what its doing, just that its acceptable. As the early configurations are not going to normal pax load (the lower luxury path) they have not had to reveal just what the situation is. I will not argue that the numbers are good enough for BA to sign on, but just how good they are, I will wait until I seem some actual figures (some time off I suspect). Just because they can live with it, does not mean the same as meeting performance levels they promised initially, and current purchaser will of course have data and know if it works or not for them. They may well be paying penalties for the first orders they have not announced.
As for thrust needs, I will wait until I see an engine thrust level actually specified. As all those engines are higher rated than required, they can play with number and still be fine for what they need if it turns out to be higher Again, I want to see hard facts, not Airbus statements.
At this point I see no indication that Catch Pacific is going to change their approach. If they order the 787, it will be well proven by the time they put it into service.
They certainly have ordered no 747-8F, though they picked up the last slots for the 747-400ERF. That tells me they are still not willing to be out in front. Smart move, though the way the ordain business is going, you may have to order years in advance of flight to get the slot, knowing that others will have proven it by then. If it down not pan out as well as advertised, you have plenty of time to adjust (even change).
Worst case, you can see them putting in additional orders like they are for 767 and A330 to bridge the gap.
The lower thrust ratings for XWB are a matter of record, and contracted with Rolls Royce.
Maybe they should have given XWB the A360 type number to avoid confusion. Certainly all the original A350 design has been virtually scrapped, and XWB design started obviously ahead of its formal launch, or they could not have given performance figures, but probably only about 15/18 months ago.
As far as A380 performance is concerned, Emirates intend to configure some of their machines at over 600 pax. With Singapore, QANTAS, Qatar and Emirates adding to existing orders, it is fatuous to suggest that no hard performance figures exist. They have after all been conducting route proving flights for months.
A litle credit to Airbus where it is due I think!
Cheers
Achace
Maybe they should have given XWB the A360 type number to avoid confusion. Certainly all the original A350 design has been virtually scrapped, and XWB design started obviously ahead of its formal launch, or they could not have given performance figures, but probably only about 15/18 months ago.
As far as A380 performance is concerned, Emirates intend to configure some of their machines at over 600 pax. With Singapore, QANTAS, Qatar and Emirates adding to existing orders, it is fatuous to suggest that no hard performance figures exist. They have after all been conducting route proving flights for months.
A litle credit to Airbus where it is due I think!
Cheers
Achace
Have just been reading the definition of "Quota Count" one of the influential factors in the BA fleet decision.
This is not Airbus v. Boeing, but the Rolls engines generate up to almost 3 dBa which is half the noise of the GEnx.
Using this yardstick, it is hard to see Cathay buying the 747-8I, because it will have Heathrow issues. Same may apply to Emirates, although they have a lot of A380's, but I wonder what their noise level is like as they will use the GP, which is related to the GEnx.
Cheers
Achace
This is not Airbus v. Boeing, but the Rolls engines generate up to almost 3 dBa which is half the noise of the GEnx.
Using this yardstick, it is hard to see Cathay buying the 747-8I, because it will have Heathrow issues. Same may apply to Emirates, although they have a lot of A380's, but I wonder what their noise level is like as they will use the GP, which is related to the GEnx.
Cheers
Achace
I don't understand why it is always highlighted that Airbus is offering XWBs with a clause that customers can cancel it if it doesn't meet guarantees.. Isn't this standard procedure? I doubt airlines are ordering Boeing jets with no similar clauses..
The XWB is a response to customer, it is not shaky.. they were criticized for not listening to what customers want before, now it is modified in accordance with customers, i just dont' see the problem.. the same can be said otherwise: why isn't the 787 shaky? it was originally going to be the Sonic Cruiser, and they suddenly changed to something drastically different... shaaaky.
I see Emirates ordering 748I though, they will find a place to use them on, and anything is good for them. And depending on CX's plans, do they actually need something as big as a 748 or A380? If they are planning to increase frequency then they might as well use 2x773ER or 2xXWB-1000 rather than one A380, which seems to be their strategy for now. Even if they order it will be something like 10 at max, i mean what routes can they fly ~460 passengers at once?
CX has said before that the 787 at the moment is too small for them.. I wonder why they say that, given their A333/A343s are similar capacity (or even less capacity?).. Is it a hint that they do not intend to replace A333/A343s with 787s but probably replace their 772s and 773s? I mean the 789 cannot be 'too small' to replace A333s right?
The XWB is a response to customer, it is not shaky.. they were criticized for not listening to what customers want before, now it is modified in accordance with customers, i just dont' see the problem.. the same can be said otherwise: why isn't the 787 shaky? it was originally going to be the Sonic Cruiser, and they suddenly changed to something drastically different... shaaaky.
I see Emirates ordering 748I though, they will find a place to use them on, and anything is good for them. And depending on CX's plans, do they actually need something as big as a 748 or A380? If they are planning to increase frequency then they might as well use 2x773ER or 2xXWB-1000 rather than one A380, which seems to be their strategy for now. Even if they order it will be something like 10 at max, i mean what routes can they fly ~460 passengers at once?
CX has said before that the 787 at the moment is too small for them.. I wonder why they say that, given their A333/A343s are similar capacity (or even less capacity?).. Is it a hint that they do not intend to replace A333/A343s with 787s but probably replace their 772s and 773s? I mean the 789 cannot be 'too small' to replace A333s right?
It's true that the B787-9 is similar in size to the A333 and A343. What CX is trying to do is to push Boeing to launch the B787-10. So when CX says the 787 is too small, they're talking about the overall offering of the 787 isn't matching what CX would like compared to the A350. If CX can simplify its fleet into just a one general type, it can save them money on maintenance and training. Besides, a real competition between Airbus and Boeing for CX order is good for CX, especially if both can offer what they wanted.
As for engines, everyone knows CX is a loyal RR customer, and since both 787 and 350 offer RR engines, it's not going to be a factor as to which aircraft they'll go for.
As for engines, everyone knows CX is a loyal RR customer, and since both 787 and 350 offer RR engines, it's not going to be a factor as to which aircraft they'll go for.
CXRules: I think you miss the difference between the Airbus approach (we design you buy) and the Boeings approach.CX wrote:I don't understand why it is always highlighted that Airbus is offering XWBs with a clause that customers can cancel it if it doesn't meet guarantees.. Isn't this standard procedure? I doubt airlines are ordering Boeing jets with no similar clauses..
The XWB is a response to customer, it is not shaky.. they were criticized for not listening to what customers want before, now it is modified in accordance with customers, i just dont' see the problem.. the same can be said otherwise: why isn't the 787 shaky? it was originally going to be the Sonic Cruiser, and they suddenly changed to something drastically different... shaaaky.
Despite what Boeing says, they truly were hot on the Sonic Cruiser. The thought it offered something unique, and that Airbus could not match it.
When it was rejected (everyone thought it was cool but way too limited an offering) Boeing took the technology, and re-vamped it to meet the needs that were expressed during the discussions.
Airbus did not listen to anyone, nor did they pay attention initially when the 787 was selling nicely. When it became impossible to ignore (loyal customers asking them what the heck they thought they were not doing), they made a lot of nasty comments and offered up the A330+ (which I have come to believe would have been a ver good interim offer).
They did not ask the people buying the 787 why they liked it, they just blew it off.
They have repeated that approach 3 or 4 more times (and I suspect one last time as well) They did not listen to the customers, they had to be beaten with a stick to do something competitive, over and over again.
So, yes I am skeptical of the A350. Very skeptical. The 787 is having its problems for sure , but its a complete design at this point. The weight came close to Boeings estimates. The engines are ready to go. Flight testing will tell us if its a bit better or worse than specification, but its going to be very close, if not better.
No one has ever done a composite panel, composite stringer fuselage. Until they build test articles, and then actually test them, they won't know for sure how much it weighs, how many fasteners are required, if the design tools are at all accurate, as they have no real world basis to assess. Its all new territory.
Boeing has been working with composites in entire aircraft for a long time. Their design tools are proven, and the proof is that they came close (and it appears that the vendors beefed things up a bit as they wanted to add their safety factor to Boeings. Boeing thinks they can get it under their specification (and if they are not lying, they have met the delivery guaranteed, just not quite their internal target, i.e. their usual effort to exceed what’s been guaranteed).
I do not say Boeing is lily white. But they obvio7sly work with the customers and listen to them. Airbus has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. That does not bode well for what they are doing. Would you rather buy an aircraft someone was forced ob build it the way you wanted, or get one from someone who wanted to build it the way you wanted?
When Airbus actually has a plane assembled, then we will have some idea of what they actually did. Keep in mind, the A340 (500?) was 7 tons over weight and they did not tell the customer, and the A380 was reportedly 5.5 tons over (and there is suspicion that the 2 year delay had as much to do with getting the weight out as the wiring issue.
In any other industry, the vast majority of customers would have quit dealing with Airbus completely. When you only have two choices, you have to live with and make the best of a bad second choice.
OK so those few hundred 787 orders before the 787 was assembled, those airlines were idiots because Boeing has not built the frame yet so they don't know how much it weighs? I don't know what computers or simulations are for if that's the case.
Airbus DID not listen before, but they do now.. you have been saying that they would be doing quite well had they launched the A330++ but by doing that, it means they have to not listen to the industry.. quite conflicting.
I really wonder what you will say IF, IF EK do decide to take 100 XWBs. As for Cathay, if what they want is a consistent type over its fleet, it seems like the XWB is more suited because the 787-8 is too small for them.. but they seem to be pretty profitable operating A330/340s and 777s together.
Airbus DID not listen before, but they do now.. you have been saying that they would be doing quite well had they launched the A330++ but by doing that, it means they have to not listen to the industry.. quite conflicting.
I really wonder what you will say IF, IF EK do decide to take 100 XWBs. As for Cathay, if what they want is a consistent type over its fleet, it seems like the XWB is more suited because the 787-8 is too small for them.. but they seem to be pretty profitable operating A330/340s and 777s together.
What I find fascinating is why CX, or Emirates for that matter is considering the 747-8I, when they can get the better fuel performance with an A380 with the same seat capacity. The Dubai Air Show will answer my question in any case. I for some reason do not see CX ordering the 747-8, maybe the A380. The A350 on the other hand is a very good possibility for the long haul plans, especially their vhhh route to jfk.
Cathay and Dragonair combined passengers number for Sep 2007 up 7.2% to 1.89m from a year earlier.
http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx ... 19011.html
Load factor of 79.0, not unusual for Cathay but very healthy.
and speculation that Cathay Paicific is eyeing Shenzhen Airlines as potential acquisation following the proposal to build railway service between HKG and Shenzhen.
http://www.etravelblackboardasia.com/ar ... 45&nav=109
http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx ... 19011.html
Load factor of 79.0, not unusual for Cathay but very healthy.
and speculation that Cathay Paicific is eyeing Shenzhen Airlines as potential acquisation following the proposal to build railway service between HKG and Shenzhen.
http://www.etravelblackboardasia.com/ar ... 45&nav=109
The joint venture of a Shanghai-based cargo carrier between CA and CX won't happen until next year at the earliest. Finding freighters is a problem...
http://www.cargonewsasia.com/secured/ar ... icle=14293
http://www.cargonewsasia.com/secured/ar ... icle=14293
-
keen_watcher
- Posts: 31
- Joined: 23 May 2006, 00:00
In another occassion being questioned by reporters recently, Tony Tyler suggested that supply of airframes for the CX/CA cargo JV was "tricky".
However, my 2 cents would be rather on, in view of the global seller's market of aircrew, and given the current sour working relationship between cockpit crew community and CX management , to find enough crew to support the JV is even more "tricky".
However, my 2 cents would be rather on, in view of the global seller's market of aircrew, and given the current sour working relationship between cockpit crew community and CX management , to find enough crew to support the JV is even more "tricky".