Cathay Pacific Asia Miles - CX in the late '70s - L1011

I am wondering whether anyone knows where I can find a cabin photo from CX in the late '70s, preferably an L1011. I have looked on airliners.net with no luck.

My grandparents took a post-retirement world tour in 1977/1978 and in a letter to my aunt she references flying on a Cathay Tristar from Singapore to Hong Kong in March 1977. She said the plane had "about 350 seats, cologne towels, every service, roast turkey lunch, preceded by appetisers, etc." Knowing my grandparents I would be astounded if they flew anything but economy. I also have the menu from another CX flight of theirs that is similarly wondrous. I was re-reading the letters today and wondering if anyone can help me complete the picture.

[As an OT aside, they went to what now seem to me to be unimaginable places - north-western Pakistan and Tora Bora, Kabul, Kandehar, Tehran, Isfahan and other places. The descriptions of the pre-revolutinary buildings make them sound heart-breakingly beautiful.]

I don't have photos, but I've flown CX many times in the early- to mid-80's when I was growing up in Hong Kong.

CX's L1011 have pretty high density seating. 350 seats is about right, as it's 3-4-3 in coach (compared to 2-5-2 for Delta).

In coach, there is towel service, and then meal. But everything's on the tray, just like they are in coach today. If they have different courses served seperately, then it can't be in coach. And I think the Marco Polo Business Class was introduced in the early 80's. So, in 1977/8, there should be only coach and FC.

Sorry I don't have any photos, but....

I took CX713 back in the '80's on an L1011 from BKK-SIN in First Class. I remember it was 1 row of seats in F Class (6 seats) and they served fresh coconut juice in a real coconut with a straw.

They still operate 713 today, with a 744.

Those L1011 Tri-Stars were still around in the early 90s. I flew them to regional destinations in Asia when I was working in H.K. during that period.

IIRC, I may even have flown them to Beijing. That was before CX ceded the China market to then fledgling Dragonair, in exchange for some ownership and I believe management supervision of KA. Boy, was that a mistake or what! CX is just now inching its way back into the lucrative China market.

CX never operated the A300/310 or the B767. So, they basically jumped from the L1011 to the 330/777 for the regional fleet.

In fact, they were buying other operators' L1011 at least till 1989 (from Eastern), or maybe even later than that.

Duplicate post - deleted. Pushed submit button twice!

I have two official CX post cards of the L1011 of circa 1975, 1 in flight and 1 with the economy section interior. They were my personal collection on an inaugural flight from HKG to MNL. CX took delivery of 2 L1011 around 1975 I also recall a "bribery" scandal involving one high ranking CX management allegedly receiving a Jensen Intercepter sport car from Lockheed for siding with the L1011 selection.

Economy cabin config. was 9 abreast: 3 x 2 x 2 x 2. Yes, there is a partition separating the middle 4 seater row to make them 2 2-seaters. Also, no overhead bin in the middle. Seat pitch was probably 35". Very comfortable aeroplane.

Good old days. CX later squeezed an extra seat to make it 10 abreast!

Am I able to post these two post cards in a PDF on this Forum?

CX's L1011 have pretty high density seating. 350 seats is about right, as it's 3-4-3 in coach (compared to 2-5-2 for Delta).

In coach, there is towel service, and then meal. But everything's on the tray, just like they are in coach today. If they have different courses served seperately, then it can't be in coach. And I think the Marco Polo Business Class was introduced in the early 80's. So, in 1977/8, there should be only coach and FC.

L-1011s were 2-2/2-2 in the back during the '70s (as were DC-10s). No way it was 3-4-3 (if it was 3-4-3, it was a 747).

Marco Polo in the 742s was 2-4-2 in the early/mid '80s.

L-1011s were 2-2/2-2 in the back during the '70s (as were DC-10s). No way it was 3-4-3 (if it was 3-4-3, it was a 747).

Marco Polo in the 742s was 2-4-2 in the early/mid '80s.

No, it was 3 x 2/2 x 2 in the CX L1011 Y cabin. 2 class service, F and Y.

The same as the B747's of that era (1970's and early 1980's) except the B747's did not have the mini privacy partition in the middle 4-seater to make it 2 x 2-seater.

(compared to 2-5-2 for Delta).



UA still uses this ridiculous 2 x 5 x 2 configuration in its B777, probably its newest generation aeroplanes.

I pitty the poor folk who has to sit in the middle seat of the centre 5-seaters. Airline executives who approved these inhuman configuration should be ordered to eat the food that they cooked to sit in that horrible middle seat on a 10 hours intercontinental flight!

No, it was 3 x 2/2 x 2 in the CX L1011 Y cabin. 2 class service, F and Y.

The same as the B747's of that era (1970's and early 1980's) except the B747's did not have the mini privacy partition in the middle 4-seater to make it 2 x 2-seater.

http://www.cathaytalk.com/showpost.php?p=7947&postcount=6

UA still uses this ridiculous 2 x 5 x 2 configuration in its B777, probably its newest generation aeroplanes.

I pitty the poor folk who has to sit in the middle seat of the centre 5-seaters. Airline executives who approved these inhuman configuration should be ordered to eat the food that they cooked to sit in that horrible middle seat on a 10 hours intercontinental flight!

OT, but isn't 2-5-2 the preferred coach configuration on a 9-across row. I definitely prefer it to a 3-3-3. The load has to be pretty high before those middle seats start getting filled.

OT, but isn't 2-5-2 the preferred coach configuration on a 9-across row.No - some of CX's 777s were configured as 2-5-2 originally, but strong negative customer feedback saw them reconfigured as 3-3-3. Except for some bad periods like those around SARS and 9-11, CX runs full enough for those middle seats to be used a lot of the time.

With airlines worldwide, the general concensus is that 3-3-3 is the preferred configuration. However, a number of mainly American airlines still maintain the 2-5-2 configuration and certain FFs like that very much due to the 2 seat window pairs.

Generally, if the average load factor is <80%, 2-5-2 is better.
If the average load factor is >80%, 3-3-3 is better.

http://www.cathaytalk.com/showpost.php?p=7947&postcount=6

We are talking about 1975. The seat map at this link is probably 10 years older circa 1985.

I was on CX's L1011 inaugural flight from HKG to MNL in 1975 and I know the seat configuration to be 9 abreast at 3 x 2/2 x 2, and I still have the souvenir post card to refresh my memory if needed.

Thanks for pointing out that the L1011 used to be 9-abreast in the 70's. I guess I was too young to remember. :) All I remember is how narrow the seats were in 10-abreast configuration. So bad that I need to squeeze my shoulders to use my knife and fork during meal time.

We are talking about 1975. The seat map at this link is probably 10 years older circa 1985.

I was on CX's L1011 inaugural flight from HKG to MNL in 1975 and I know the seat configuration to be 9 abreast at 3 x 2/2 x 2, and I still have the souvenir post card to refresh my memory if needed.

To be frank, I am not familiar with CX's seat map as of mid 1970s as I was not flying with them then. I don't know if you noticed, but the front Economy was 10 abreast while the back Economy was 9 abreast as you can see from the picture. Is it possible that you sat near the tail section at the time (3/2-2/2 there)?

Thanks for pointing out that the L1011 used to be 9-abreast in the 70's. I guess I was too young to remember. :) All I remember is how narrow the seats were in 10-abreast configuration. So bad that I need to squeeze my shoulders to use my knife and fork during meal time.

The B747's economy used to be 9 abreast too: 3 x 4 x 2 in the 1970's and early 1980's. Only chartered companies operated the "high density" version with 10 abreast (3 x 4 x 3) which is the standard today. The standard configuration in the now defunct Pan Am B747 fleet (first operator of the type) in the 1970's was 30 F and 343 Y. The upper deck was a lounge for F passengers. So go upstair for a drink! At dinner time, it's converted to a dining room with tables of 2 and 4, and you seat with your fellow F passengers for a chit-chat over the meal.

OT Quiz: Was it 5 abreast or 6 abreast in the Y section of CX's CV880?

UA still uses this ridiculous 2 x 5 x 2 configuration in its B777, probably its newest generation aeroplanes.

I pitty the poor folk who has to sit in the middle seat of the centre 5-seaters. Airline executives who approved these inhuman configuration should be ordered to eat the food that they cooked to sit in that horrible middle seat on a 10 hours intercontinental flight!

And stupid AA does what ever UA does so they also do 2x5x2
DL, AF, BA, CO, CX, SQ does 3x3x3 as mostly everyone else does

The 880 had a 2-3 layout. Fitting 3-3 in there would require very skinny people indeed!

OT quiz: What was the fastest plane ever flown by CX?

OT quiz: What was the fastest plane ever flown by CX?

Since CX never operated the 990 (or the Concorde), wouldn't the 880 be the fastest?

Thanks to everyone who replied, and especially Clipper801 who kindly offered to PM me the postcards in pdf. I had no idea that the L1011 was such a large aircraft - considerably bigger than a B777 or A330 it seems, and certainly nudging early B747 iterations. It seems like a lot of metal for what sound like "regional" flights. Was the frequency lower? Surely the pricing was not?!

No, it's significantly smaller than a 777. In fact, it's slightly smaller than the DC-10. I can't find a cabin width, but on the outside, the L1011's fuselage width is 5.97m, compared to 6.02m for the DC-10/MD-11, 6.2m for the 777 and 6.6m for the 747. That's why it was so cramped when CX put 3-4-3 seating in them.

Overall length is only about 54m for the -250 series. Not sure about CX's. A 777-200 is 63.7m while a 777-300 is 73.86m.

CX has only used widebody since phasing out the 880 and 707 mostly because of constraint at Kai Tak. Single runway, limited terminal space. Widebodies are more efficient for them, and other Asian airlines, there.

Sorry I don't have any photos, but....

I took CX713 back in the '80's on an L1011 from BKK-SIN in First Class. I remember it was 1 row of seats in F Class (6 seats) and they served fresh coconut juice in a real coconut with a straw.

They still operate 713 today, with a 744.

NO : CX F on the L-1011 had 2 rows of seats, but they were not lined up perfectly. 1AC were about a few inches more forward than 1HK, and 1DG were a few inches backwards because of the bulkhead service counter in the middle.
And I bet that it was at 42" legroom.

Thanks for pointing out that the L1011 used to be 9-abreast in the 70's. I guess I was too young to remember. :) All I remember is how narrow the seats were in 10-abreast configuration. So bad that I need to squeeze my shoulders to use my knife and fork during meal time.

Gosh, I remember the really tight seating on the Tristars, namely the tray table in the down position touching my lap (I'm not a particularly large or husky fellow).

Probably some of the Tristars taken out of service got handed off to KA for use for awhile.

I think the L1011's kicked off CX's long association and preference for Rolls-Royce aircraft engines---they got their 747's fitted with them and other airframes afterwards, except for perhaps the A340s?

L-1011s were 2-2/2-2 in the back during the '70s (as were DC-10s). No way it was 3-4-3 (if it was 3-4-3, it was a 747).

Marco Polo in the 742s was 2-4-2 in the early/mid '80s.


I flew BA Tristars twice in 1979- 3-4-3 in economy and Turkish Airlines' DC-10s were configured 3-4-3 in economy in 1974, presumably delivered in that high density configuration.

I think the L1011's kicked off CX's long association and preference for Rolls-Royce aircraft engines---they got their 747's fitted with them and other airframes afterwards, except for perhaps the A340s?

Yes and no.

The A340-300s are powered by CFM56-5C engines, the only poerplant available for that aircraft.

The A340-600s are powered by Rolls-Royce Trent engines.

Also, CX operates several (and is taking more) ex-SQ B744s with Pratt & Whitney PW4056 engines.

Yes and no.

The A340-300s are powered by CFM56-5C engines, the only poerplant available for that aircraft.

The A340-600s are powered by Rolls-Royce Trent engines.

Also, CX operates several (and is taking more) ex-SQ B744s with Pratt & Whitney PW4056 engines.

Correct - I remember in recent years CX had a particular aircraft type that was non-RR powered, and that was/is the A340 type. Didn't know they were taking on former SQ 744's with PW engines. I do remember CX bragging about their "all Rolls Royce powered fleet" back in the 80s' when they had just L1011s and 747s.

The CV880, B707 and L1011 (the main workhorse of the 1960's and 1970's)are absent from the Collectibles series at CX shop. It jumps from the DC4, DC6 and L188 of the 1950's and early 1960's to 1980's skipping the 1960's and 1970's. Any one knows why the 880, 707 and 1011 are not offered?

OT, but isn't 2-5-2 the preferred coach configuration on a 9-across row. I definitely prefer it to a 3-3-3. The load has to be pretty high before those middle seats start getting filled.

I certainly prefer 2-5-2.
In a 2-5-2 configuration, there is a maximum of 1 seat per row where a pax would have to move past 2 people.
But in a 3-3-3, there is a maximum of 2 seats per row where a pax would have to move by 2 people.

The CV880, B707 and L1011 (the main workhorse of the 1960's and 1970's)are absent from the Collectibles series at CX shop. It jumps from the DC4, DC6 and L188 of the 1950's and early 1960's to 1980's skipping the 1960's and 1970's. Any one knows why the 880, 707 and 1011 are not offered?


They are coming soon.

http://www.cathaypacific.com/intl/pretrip/cxcitement/0,,,00.html

:D :D :D :D