Cathay Pacific Asia Miles - CX on A380

the 380 will not be in its fleet until it can fly LAX/HKG year-round without penalty. in the meantime, the 380 is still under the microscope

I was under the impression the A380 has the range to do that route w/o penalty? Or is it overweight?

Considering A380 is designed for hub-hub routes, and bearing in mind Hong Kong's strategic location as being in the center of the world, I don't see why they don't want to add to fleet.

Routes like
HKG-LHR
HKG-YVR
HKG-SYD
HKG-LAX
HKG-JFK

seems just perfect in my eyes, or am I missing something? At least they can consolidate two daily service into one and save significant costs. Competitors like SQ, QF, Virgin are all going to be using a380 on HKG-SYD routes.

And it's amazing how the "general public" are surprised and stunned by unveiling of a380. My girlfriend who could care less about aviation, saw that huge bird and insisted we fly on it one day.

I think a380 is much more valuable in the sense of marketing than actual operational costs

I believe the reason CX is holding out on the A380 is because they want to know if Boeing will go ahead with the 747-ADV… And if Boeing doesn’t do something about this, CX certainly will go for the A380…

I believe the reason CX is holding out on the A380 is because they want to know if Boeing will go ahead with the 747-ADV… And if Boeing doesn’t do something about this, CX certainly will go for the A380…

Hang on, r u talking about 7E7? Or are you referring to the 747 Stretch?

I think 747 strech has been wiped out, and so did the sonic cruiser.

7E7 me thinks is not too good for CX... it's a fuel efficient plane, but they need capacity on the heavy route.

Yes, as far as I know, Boeing tried to shop around their 747 stretch to a number of clients, but never got any firm interest. On the other hand, it's hard to believe that Asian hub carriers would not want the A380, since volumes are so high and landing slots so limited. It would appear that Boeing has ceded this part of the market to Airbus for the moment, unless I'm missing something? On the other hand, and maybe somebody has more info, I've heard that the A380 has limited cargo space, and big carriers make a lot of their revenue off of cargo, so this could be one potential issue. Normally, a big plane that is not full can still generate lots of revenue from the boxes in the bottom, but if the A380 is not full, and doesn't have much rooom for cargo, I wonder if this could end up being an expensive proposition for the airlines?

seems just perfect in my eyes, or am I missing something? At least they can consolidate two daily service into one and save significant costs. Competitors like SQ, QF, Virgin are all going to be using a380 on HKG-SYD routes.

However consider that collapsing such routes into one would reduce flexibility, which could put off customers. For example, the current SYD services all leave at different times of day. Same story for the LHR ex-England.

My guess is that CX will wait until the A380 is route-proved by their competitors before they commit. If the A380 should suffer some sort of initial problem, then CX will be able to capitalise on that, especially since so many of its rivals seem to have big plans for it.

Hang on, r u talking about 7E7? Or are you referring to the 747 Stretch?

I think 747 strech has been wiped out, and so did the sonic cruiser.




I'm talking about 747... It has been circulating that Boeing is going to start the project this spring… Basically customers like CX and others have been pushing Boeing to start it….

Boeing to build large 747 model, reportedly to begin development in spring

FRANKFURT (AFX) - Boeing Co is planning to build a larger and modernised version of its 747 Jumbo aircraft, to be called 747 Advanced, that could sport 450 seats and the new generation 7E7 model's engine and technology, Handelsblatt newspaper said in a report to be published tomorrow, citing Randy Baseler, head of Boeing's marketing division.

"We are the only ones who can currently fill the gap between 400 and 500-seaters," Baseler told the newspaper.

The newspaper cited industry sources as saying Boeing is bent on launching the project this spring.

Meanwhile, Boeing currently has no plans to build a new jet to compete directly with the superjumbo A380 of arch-rival Airbus, and said its tried and true 747 will satisfy limited worldwide demand for bigger planes, Agence France-Presse reported.

But if demand for large aircraft proves strong enough, it may consider developing its own super-sized jet, Boeing CEO Harry Stonecipher said in a German newspaper interview in November.
http://www.sharewatch.com/story.php?storynumber=69352

I would be interested to know if this actually comes off. Boeing seems to have spent a few years trying to generate interest in an upgraded 747, with little apparent success till now...I suppose if they can find a way to do so, it would be a huge help to them! Is there an intermediate market that they could tap into (bigger than the current 747, but smaller than the A380). I guess this is the million dollar question??

My guess is that CX will wait until the A380 is route-proved by their competitors before they commit. If the A380 should suffer some sort of initial problem, then CX will be able to capitalise on that, especially since so many of its rivals seem to have big plans for it.

AFAIK, thats the reason that CX didn't rush to buy the A380 like many of its rivals. There was an article about this in the Wedensday edition of the HK South China Morning Post (Jan. 19th).

Though many had pointed out that CX could use the A380 to consildate some of its routes. But then again, it would be a compromise between frequency and capacity. The A380 would be very suited to operate on the HKG-LHR, HKG-LAX and HKG-YVR thorugh flight consolidation, but routes like HKG-SIN or HKG-TPE, CX would rather have the frequency rather than capacity.

Anyway, it would be a while before we would see an A380 painted in CX colours....

Anyway, it would be a while before we would see an A380 painted in CX colours....

Perhaps a repainted one pre-owned by SQ? :p

I'm in HK this week and read the same article as well as a couple of others.

The media is reporting that the initial 380's are coming in heavier than projected. Airbus is claiming that this problem is being addressed and will be corrected, once that has been resolved than the 380 should have better performance and be able to do LAX-HKG re-round unrestricted. Until then it can't quite...



AFAIK, thats the reason that CX didn't rush to buy the A380 like many of its rivals. There was an article about this in the Wedensday edition of the HK South China Morning Post (Jan. 19th).

Though many had pointed out that CX could use the A380 to consildate some of its routes. But then again, it would be a compromise between frequency and capacity. The A380 would be very suited to operate on the HKG-LHR, HKG-LAX and HKG-YVR thorugh flight consolidation, but routes like HKG-SIN or HKG-TPE, CX would rather have the frequency rather than capacity.

Anyway, it would be a while before we would see an A380 painted in CX colours....

I'm in HK this week and read the same article as well as a couple of others.

The media is reporting that the initial 380's are coming in heavier than projected. Airbus is claiming that this problem is being addressed and will be corrected, once that has been resolved than the 380 should have better performance and be able to do LAX-HKG re-round unrestricted. Until then it can't quite...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aYyWS2Tt9AWY&refer=europe

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050118/wl_nm/transport_airbus_dc_1

Unless CX needs additional capacities on routes such as HKG-LAX,SYD,LHR, etc. I could see the A380 being used. But as said earlier, it's the frequencies that count on these routes. That's what people value.

The postion of the 747 has been challanged, however, as a freighter it still reigns supreme. The A380 cannot lift up its nose. This means that for volume one might go for the A380F, but for a all-round freighter the 747 is still on top.
If Boeing keeps its freighter order book filled for the 747, I am quite sure they will come up with a newer version/ update.
That is then an opportunity to do a pax version too.

If this strategy will yield results remains to be seen, but the 747 will be with us for a few more years.

Will it make 40 years in production?

However consider that collapsing such routes into one would reduce flexibility, which could put off customers. For example, the current SYD services all leave at different times of day. Same story for the LHR ex-England.

My guess is that CX will wait until the A380 is route-proved by their competitors before they commit. If the A380 should suffer some sort of initial problem, then CX will be able to capitalise on that, especially since so many of its rivals seem to have big plans for it.

Well they can use different aircraft on the routes. for eg. instead of the 2X744 and 1X34C service on the HKG-LHR-HKG route, they can do 1X380 and 2X34C (oh no! Please do not feed this into CX's mind! I really don't like the 34C or any 34X when compared to 744, however 380 should be interesting)

As for the argument that CX should wait, I think it might not be the best decision considering SQ and QF will be flying them pretty soon. The longer you wait the more potential of loss revenue (given the rumours of the increased comfort on the 380)

Well they can use different aircraft on the routes. for eg. instead of the 2X744 and 1X34C service on the HKG-LHR-HKG route, they can do 1X380 and 2X34C (oh no! Please do not feed this into CX's mind! I really don't like the 34C or any 34X when compared to 744, however 380 should be interesting)

As for the argument that CX should wait, I think it might not be the best decision considering SQ and QF will be flying them pretty soon. The longer you wait the more potential of loss revenue (given the rumours of the increased comfort on the 380)

newcx12345, I agree with your first point. I think LHR, LAX and YVR flights can be consolidated together (especially to LHR as two B744 departs within 60 mins of each other).

However, I can't see how the longer they wait, the more they will lose their potential revenue. Actually, I think it is a fairly good move by CX to adopt a wait-and-see approach and let other airlines to sort out all the little 'glitches' and 'bugs' before they order them.

Yes, I know with this approach, the best production slots would have been taken and it would be a long time before any delivery to CX (if they choose to order the A388), but I guess CX is more focused on growth at the moment (especially in mainland China) as well as receiving over 10-15 aircraft with the next few years to support this. With this in mind, IMHO, this will offset any potential loss revenue.

newcx12345, I agree with your first point. I think LHR, LAX and YVR flights can be consolidated together (especially to LHR as two B744 departs within 60 mins of each other).

However, I can't see how the longer they wait, the more they will lose their potential revenue. Actually, I think it is a fairly good move by CX to adopt a wait-and-see approach and let other airlines to sort out all the little 'glitches' and 'bugs' before they order them.

Yes, I know with this approach, the best production slots would have been taken and it would be a long time before any delivery to CX (if they choose to order the A388), but I guess CX is more focused on growth at the moment (especially in mainland China) as well as receiving over 10-15 with the next few years to support this. With this in mind, IMHO, this will offset any potential loss revenue.


I guess you are right, but CX have traditionally being using new aircrafts for so long and be leaders and launch customers in many aircrafts, their delay in ordering is just a bit strange. But not without a valid reason.
Also with the 2nd hand SQ 744, it really does not make CX look as good as it used to be (youngest and modern fleet).

I mean China market = important, but really does it require all the efforts to be focused there and neglect the rest of the world?

Ahh...I know this might be a little off-topic. But, newcx12345, CX is not really neglacting the rest of the world. Have a read at this thread (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1893671) over at Airliners.net if you are interested at CX's plans for 2005 (scroll down to reply 40).

AFAIK, CX brought the ex-SQ B744 because they were really cheap (the price of used B744 has dropped a lot since the launch of A388) and given they are similar age to CX's current fleet. I could see they could use them for expansion (while waiting for the A388?? :confused: )

I would not be surprised if SQ and CX actually have a done deal on the A380 somewhere in a drawer. They cooperate an awful lot on aircraft purchases. SQ, being financially accountable only to the almighty and opaque government of Singapore and the Missus at Temasek, keeps paying prime dollar for new aircraft which it then sells rather quickly to CX. If that doesn't sound fishy? My ex-colleage used to do due diligence for SQ and once mentioned that "planes were sold before they had been delivered" (hint: Singapore tax code). There is a lot going on we have no clue about. :)

on another note I do hear from a trusted source in southern France that the numbers 346 x 10 have been written on a napkin recently.

mhtaipei,

Always enjoy your great sources of market information! SQ made more money in the 90's by selling 2nd hand planes then flying them. It has however been a cold shower for them that this business dried up. The pinnacle performance for them was indeed to sell A343's to Boeing before they had been delivered by Airbus.
Given the sh*tstorm that they got exposed to for doing that I do not think they are going to do that again.

the 380 will not be in its fleet until it can fly LAX/HKG year-round without penalty. in the meantime, the 380 is still under the microscope
I'm speculating that should the 380 be introduced to the CX fleet, the HKG-LHR and HKG-YVR will be the first routes to get the 380 ahead of HKG-LAX. Just a speculation so don't take my words for it. Just my 2 cents.

the 380 will not be in its fleet until it can fly LAX/HKG year-round without penalty. in the meantime, the 380 is still under the microscope

The A380 can very well fly HKG-LAX non-stop year-round without weight penalty as it has an maximum range of 8000nm* / 14800 km with 555 passengers. Larger and longer range members of the family are anticipated in the basic design concept.

HKG-LAX is only 6309 nm.
For comparison purposes, HKG-JFK 7014 nm.


*The range shown is for a full passenger payload with baggage allowance. It takes into account fuel reserves and other typical airline operating rules as well as weather conditions, such as head and tail wind.

Source: A380 capabilities - Airbus
Great Circle Distances: Great Circle Mapper

The A380 can very well fly HKG-LAX non-stop year-round without weight penalty as it has an maximum range of 8000nm* / 14800 km with 555 passengers. Larger and longer range members of the family are anticipated in the basic design concept.

HKG-LAX is only 6309 nm.
For comparison purposes, HKG-JFK 7014 nm.


*The range shown is for a full passenger payload with baggage allowance. It takes into account fuel reserves and other typical airline operating rules as well as weather conditions, such as head and tail wind.

Source: A380 capabilities - Airbus
Great Circle Distances: Great Circle Mapper

bhqc, i'm aware of the range of the 380, but i was just referring to what i've read :)

The A380 can very well fly HKG-LAX non-stop year-round without weight penalty as it has an maximum range of 8000nm* / 14800 km with 555 passengers. Larger and longer range members of the family are anticipated in the basic design concept.

Yes.. although the published range for A380 is more than capable for CX to do HKG-LAX nonstop all-year round.. there has been no credible evidence from Airbus that it is true. The current A380 is reported to be 5% overweight but Airbus said the problem should be addressed by lighter structure within the wing. (“This 5% difference can save a million every year” quoted from my professor)

One example will be the A340-600… A340-600 has a published range of 7900 nm or 14700 km.. as opposed to HKG-JFK which is 7014 nm. When CX first received the two aircrafts, (B-HQA and B-HQB) the two aircrafts were plagued with several minor problem as well as performance problem. The A340-600 turned out to be not as good as what Airbus has promised making CX delayed the launch of HKG-JFK. In addition, the current HKG-JFK route still has a lot of weight penalty, making CX cannot carry 100% cargo in the belly.

To solve this problem, Airbus launched the A340-600HGW (High Gross Weight) which supposed to fly at the published A340-600 performance.

This is the dilemma of being the launch customer of a new aircraft. On the positive side, you can get the prestige of being the first to operate such an aircraft; the negative side might cause the company as much. So far, CX has been launch customer once, the B777-300.

I believe it is a common knowledge in the aviation industry that CX has become more conservative since SARS. The decision for CX to buy used B747-400 from SQ is certainly a surprise to me, especially those aircrafts are powered by different engine (PW for SQ as opposed CX’s Rolls Royce). However, from financial point of view, this is certainly a great decision and this year should be one of the fastest growing year for CX as the airline plans to add 9 aircrafts.