Cathay Pacific Asia Miles - What aircrafts should CX buy in the coming years?

CX's competitors like SQ have ordered a lot of new/future aircrafts (eg.A380,787 &A350).I have been wondering if CX would buy/order some aircrafts a few years later.

I think CX should buy some A350-900s to replace the current A343s.To my knowledge, the 343s are consuming too much oil.CX must buy sth to replace their old 744s. More 77Ws, A350-10s or even 747-8s?

A380 should be another option too. My only concern of CX buying A380 is that they will have to redesign their seats since it would be a waste if CX uses 1-1-1 configuration for first class in the lower deck, and CX's current NF wouldn't fit 1-1-1 for upper deck or 1-2-1 for lower deck .

What do you guys think?:D

CX's competitors like SQ have ordered a lot of new/future aircrafts (eg.A380,787 &A350).I have been wondering if CX would buy/order some aircrafts a few years later.

I think CX should buy some A350-900s to replace the current A343s.To my knowledge, the 343s are consuming too much oil.CX must buy sth to replace their old 744s. More 77Ws, A350-10s or even 747-8s?

A380 should be another option too. My only concern of CX buying A380 is that they will have to redesign their seats since it would be a waste if CX uses 1-1-1 configuration for first class in the lower deck, and CX's current NF wouldn't fit 1-1-1 for upper deck or 1-2-1 for lower deck .

What do you guys think?:D
My guess is CX is in the early stage of revising F and J seats. Before this is done, I don't think CX will buy any new planes
Also buying larger planes like B747-8 or A380 will do a lot of changes to their business model. They didn't make good revenue last year, but their business model worked so well compared to other airlines and in given situation. They will not take the risk.

CX's competitors like SQ have ordered a lot of new/future aircrafts (eg.A380,787 &A350).I have been wondering if CX would buy/order some aircrafts a few years later.

I think CX should buy some A350-900s to replace the current A343s.To my knowledge, the 343s are consuming too much oil.CX must buy sth to replace their old 744s. More 77Ws, A350-10s or even 747-8s?

A380 should be another option too. My only concern of CX buying A380 is that they will have to redesign their seats since it would be a waste if CX uses 1-1-1 configuration for first class in the lower deck, and CX's current NF wouldn't fit 1-1-1 for upper deck or 1-2-1 for lower deck .

What do you guys think?:D

I think that 787s are too small for CX, so I prefer CX to buy some A350s/A380s in the following years,as well as some 748s.

Well,
If CX is going to buy A380, I hope CX will redesign the F Class suites to just like SQ did in their A380s, but it should be able to recline to 180 degree.

If CX is going to buy A380, I hope CX will redesign the F Class suites to just like SQ did in their A380s, but it should be able to recline to 180 degree.

If anything, SQ R is a perfect example of what CX should NOT do. Seats are unparalleled in comfort, and completely unmatched in the sky. However, none of that does any good when nobody can afford it and SQ flies R empty all the time.

You will probably have more people who want to talk about speculative aircraft purchases at www.airliners.net

CX still has a lot of aircraft on order, they have delayed the delivery now. So I don't think it makes sense to talk about what aircraft CX should/are going to order.

If anything, SQ R is a perfect example of what CX should NOT do. Seats are unparalleled in comfort, and completely unmatched in the sky. However, none of that does any good when nobody can afford it and SQ flies R empty all the time.
Then how about making the "A380 first suites of CX" to be more luxurious than current one in 747s/77Ws?
My knowledge tells me that if we fit the new F suites in 1-1-1 for the main deck of A380,it will waste some of the space.But it cannot fit in 1-2-1 for the main deck either.

You will probably have more people who want to talk about speculative aircraft purchases at www.airliners.net

CX still has a lot of aircraft on order, they have delayed the delivery now. So I don't think it makes sense to talk about what aircraft CX should/are going to order.
^

The 787 is too small for CX needs. Most likely they will order the A350. I find the A380 is too big for CX's routes, because CX prefers frequency over capacity. However, few years back, Tony Tyler did state that if they were to buy the A380, it will be the A380-900 version, not the 800 version due to the fact that the 800 version doesn't offer large amount of belly cargo space.
Although A343 isn't the best plane out there, CX is loving the A343 due to its cheap maintenance cost (somewhere I heard from airliners.net)
The A350 can replace all A330 and A340.
Also, some of you might notice that the CX livery doesn't work on the A380!!!

The 787 is too small for CX needs. Most likely they will order the A350. I find the A380 is too big for CX's routes, because CX prefers frequency over capacity. However, few years back, Tony Tyler did state that if they were to buy the A380, it will be the A380-900 version, not the 800 version due to the fact that the 800 version doesn't offer large amount of belly cargo space.
Although A343 isn't the best plane out there, CX is loving the A343 due to its cheap maintenance cost (somewhere I heard from airliners.net)
The A350 can replace all A330 and A340.
Also, some of you might notice that the CX livery doesn't work on the A380!!!

Agree with that,787 is too small. I still think that they will replace the 343s with A350-900s. CX might like 340s because of their low maintenance cost, but the high oil price should level it. Moreover, CX will only have 10 343s left after the 5 34Cs return to the lessor starting 2010. This shows that the 343s aren't in their future plans. You can tell that they like 77Ws and 333s more by looking at the orders they made for the two types aircrafts. What about the 744s which are more than 20 years old(30?)? Are they ignoring them? They should replace them with 747-8s.

Agree with that,787 is too small. I still think that they will replace the 343s with A350-900s.

Nah, I disagree. Although the 787 would present a new pooling for cockpit crew, I think that it's a perfect fit for Dragonair, especially the 787-3. It's got a significantly lower MTOW that the -8, thus saving costs, whilst retaining the same capacity. It'll be a good bridge between the 321s and the 333s (172 -> 284~315 seats). The 787-3 would seat around 210~230 seats in 3-class and around 270 2-class. They'd be great for the declining HK-Taiwan market as well and short regional routes like HK-China, HK-Vietnam, MNL, FUK, etc. For example, it'll allow KA to boost DAC to daily from 5xWeekly, providing roughly the same number of seats whilst boosting cargo capacity but lower operating costs.

In the short term I'd love to see CX/KA take on some 332s to open new markets like HKG-BUD/AMM-MAD, which could potentially be very good for transit traffic with OW members, especially AMM for RJ's excellent ME connections and their unique and lucrative Iraq market, something which I think many mainland companies would love to invest in like they are doing in Africa (BBC Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7086777.stm)).

It'll also be nice to see KA acquire a fleet of 320/321s dedicated for longer range flying, similar to a BMed operation, flying to places like Almaty, Krasnoyarsk and Novosibirsk, plus other places. It would offer the energy and mining sectors better connections to these cities, especially those based in Asia, Australia and the Western seaboard of N.A.

I believe that if there was a modern version of the A310/300 or more efficient 767, they'd be great for CX/KA to provide numerous new routes.

I believe that if there was a modern version of the A310/300 or more efficient 767, they'd be great for CX/KA to provide numerous new routes.

The modern version of the A310/A300 is the A330. When the A330 came out, the A300 sales went downhill and all the ones made after that were freighter versions. The 767 is a big problem for CX. The main problem is the payload. Not only does it carries fewer passengers than the A330, but also it can only fit the smaller pallets in the belly. The A330 has a wider fuselage and thus carry standard LD-3 side by side whereas the 767 can only carry LD-3 in a single row.

Nah, I disagree. Although the 787 would present a new pooling for cockpit crew, I think that it's a perfect fit for Dragonair, especially the 787-3. It's got a significantly lower MTOW that the -8, thus saving costs, whilst retaining the same capacity. It'll be a good bridge between the 321s and the 333s (172 -> 284~315 seats). The 787-3 would seat around 210~230 seats in 3-class and around 270 2-class. They'd be great for the declining HK-Taiwan market as well and short regional routes like HK-China, HK-Vietnam, MNL, FUK, etc. For example, it'll allow KA to boost DAC to daily from 5xWeekly, providing roughly the same number of seats whilst boosting cargo capacity but lower operating costs.



Yes, 787-3 is perfect for KA(never thought of KA in the previous posts).787-3's maximum range is 4,650 – 5,650 km, which just fits for all the KA routes. Which aircraft do you think is a better replacement for 343s? 787-9, A350-900 Or maybe 787-10? 787s may not be a good choice for CX since if they use 2-4-2 for Y, it would waste some valuable of space and loose a lot of money. But if they use 3-3-3 for Y, the cabin would be cramped just like what EK did to their 777s by using 3-4-3.

The modern version of the A310/A300 is the A330. When the A330 came out, the A300 sales went downhill and all the ones made after that were freighter versions. The 767 is a big problem for CX. The main problem is the payload. Not only does it carries fewer passengers than the A330, but also it can only fit the smaller pallets in the belly. The A330 has a wider fuselage and thus carry standard LD-3 side by side whereas the 767 can only carry LD-3 in a single row.

So that is why CX chose A330s and they love them so much that they have to be the largest operators with A330s:D

The 787 is too small for CX needs. Most likely they will order the A350. I find the A380 is too big for CX's routes, because CX prefers frequency over capacity.
The A350 can replace all A330 and A340.
Also, some of you might notice that the CX livery doesn't work on the A380!!!

i agree the 787 is too small for CX.A380 for CX?? most likely it will be for long-haul routes to North America.
It is nearly impossible for the A350 to replace A330 because they still have A330 on orders !!

the A380 is too huge for CX livery thats true haha :D
But does CX have Enough money to buy A380 ?? thats the question !!

CX should replace all 343's with A350,those old 747-4 by 747-8.
Some 747-4 in CX fleet is over 20 year old !!!
buy more 77W in the near future.
And of course, Get rid of those old 772.

CX should replace all 343's with A350,those old 747-4 by 747-8.
Some 747-4 in CX fleet is over 20 year old !!!
buy more 77W in the near future.
And of course, Get rid of those old 772.

Great to see that someone is on the same wavelength with me.:D

The 772s will retire in May 2009:p

CX should replace all 343's with A350,those old 747-4 by 747-8.
Some 747-4 in CX fleet is over 20 year old !!!
buy more 77W in the near future.
And of course, Get rid of those old 772.

Unlikely CX has any plans to retire 747-400s anytime soon as they just completed conversion of all the 774/77J to 74A.

Personally, I feel old aircraft make no difference to the passenger. It's how they're done up from the inside that makes the difference and by that measure CX has one of the youngest (if not the youngest?) long-haul fleet out there.

Unlikely CX has any plans to retire 747-400s anytime soon as they just completed conversion of all the 774/77J to 74A.

Personally, I feel old aircraft make no difference to the passenger. It's how they're done up from the inside that makes the difference and by that measure CX has one of the youngest (if not the youngest?) long-haul fleet out there.

i do consider equipment when I book tickets.
For long haul, I prefer 77A>A346>74A
it's about stability, cabin noise etc.

For short haul, it's true that equipment won't make such a difference.

Personally, I feel old aircraft make no difference to the passenger. It's how they're done up from the inside that makes the difference and by that measure CX has one of the youngest (if not the youngest?) long-haul fleet out there.

Thats right,as long as they have regular maintainence it will be safe to fly in them.you cant really tell which 747-4 is the oldest and the youngest right ?
except for long-haul,because old plane will have more noise and not really that stable in the air you need to be comfortable with the plane , i prefer the 77A the best!!

i do consider equipment when I book tickets.
For long haul, I prefer 77A>A346>74A
it's about stability, cabin noise etc.

For short haul, it's true that equipment won't make such a difference.

Thats right , but i think almost all of CX fleet is very good.i flew 2 A330 SIN-HKG-SIN, the flight was 100% stable , never once struck with turbulence.
cabin noise was rather good either.
you can watch my video at
www.yotube.com/sealalula

cheers!:D

Unlikely CX has any plans to retire 747-400s anytime soon as they just completed conversion of all the 774/77J to 74A.
I am nit-picking: it should be 744/74J to 74A; but it doesnt matter :). IIRC rumour is that CX will be phasing out their 747s from 2013.

For long haul, I prefer 77A>A346>74A
it's about stability, cabin noise etc.
Actually it should be just 77A>74A because CX no longer have A346's! :) Unless you mean A343s.

I'm another one who considers aircraft in selecting flights. For me, on long hauls, 74A>77A. There's nothing like the front cabin of a 747. The F lavs in the 74A are also great, -- quite spacious and comfortable. Why didn't they use the same lavs in the 77A?

For me, they couldn't buy enough 747-8s.

The modern version of the A310/A300 is the A330. When the A330 came out, the A300 sales went downhill and all the ones made after that were freighter versions. The 767 is a big problem for CX. The main problem is the payload. Not only does it carries fewer passengers than the A330, but also it can only fit the smaller pallets in the belly. The A330 has a wider fuselage and thus carry standard LD-3 side by side whereas the 767 can only carry LD-3 in a single row.

If you read the line that you quoted me, you'd note that I was talking of opportunities in opening new routes, just like the just like the rest of my post. I was not referring to the A310/300 and 767 as replacement a/c, but rather an intermediate capacity a/c between the 321s and the 333s.

Also there's no comparison at all between the A310/300 and the 330. The A330 is an evolution of the A310/300 frame rather than a direct replacement. In fact the A310/300, is a niche a/c that can provide an airline with huge potential. Providing greater range and comfort than the A32S and 737s but less capacity than the larger modern widebodies like the 330s and 763/772.

Taking the A310/300 against the A330 we can see the following:

AA - A300 - Perfect for their Caribbean routes and a great cargo hauler, they could have easily replaced them with the 767 since they have a sizable fleet or the 330 but they didn't
EK - A310 - They retained a single 310 for a couple of years even after having retired the rest of the fleet and replacing them with 332s. It was used primarily on the Alexandria route as well as certain regional points. They finally decided to retire the remaining example and transition Alexandria to an A332 flight. Result was that it was just too big and they had to suspend the route.
JL - A300 - Has a 22 strong fleet and they'd rather wait for the delayed 787-3 than to replace them with A330s or even 767s
LH - A300 - They are finally retiring them this year, 16 years after the introduction of the A330! They have been operating the A340 since 1993 and the A330 since 2002, so they could have easily order the A330 to replace them but they didn't. Their current oldest flying example is 22 years old and in fact they acquired several A300-600Rs in 2002 from Emirates.
RJ - A310 - Another example of a small operator that does not need the capacity of the A330. In fact they are 1 of only 5 commercial operators of the venerable A342.
SQ - A310 - They made a deal with boeing to replace their A310 and A340 fleets with T7s and the end result was that the 772 was just too large for their former A310 routes, forcing them to transfer certain routes to Silkair and now ordering the A333 to replace some of the 772As


I'm not saying that the A330 isn't a replacement for the A310/300, however, there's just no substitute for their niche market potential.

i do consider equipment when I book tickets.
For long haul, I prefer 77A>A346>74A
it's about stability, cabin noise etc.

For short haul, it's true that equipment won't make such a difference.

I choose flights with the new products.It makes a big different in both J&Y.If I am in J, I would prefer a 74A with the upper deck or a 77A with the mini-cabin.

I am nit-picking: it should be 744/74J to 74A; but it doesnt matter :)

Yeah, that's what I get for hitting submit without proof reading :eek:

Of course you are correct.

except for long-haul,because old plane will have more noise and not really that stable in the air you need to be comfortable with the plane , i prefer the 77A the best!!

I've never minded the bit of turbulence here and there. Adds to the excitement of flying. Especially when the pilot attempts a landing in high crosswind and then has to abort and do it again :)

I realise that it's all very safe and all anyway, so it doesn't bother me much and adds a bit of excitement.

So far, in my lifetime of travel I've only experienced one aborted takeoff and one aborted landing. I bet others here have experienced more.

Aborted takeoff I can't remember where, possibly HKG but I don't remember for sure. We started zooming down the runway and pilot then stopped and declared some irregularity in some equipment he wanted to recheck. Rechecked and it seemed OK so he went around and took off.

Aborted landing was flying into MDW (Chicago Midway airport), on a 737. Very high crosswind and small aircraft so pilot had to come in low and fast and last second decided it was a no-go so came around and got it right the second time.

Sorry, I digress from the topic :)

I've never minded the bit of turbulence here and there. Adds to the excitement of flying. Especially when the pilot attempts a landing in high crosswind and then has to abort and do it again :)

I realise that it's all very safe and all anyway, so it doesn't bother me much and adds a bit of excitement.

So far, in my lifetime of travel I've only experienced one aborted takeoff and one aborted landing. I bet others here have experienced more.

Aborted takeoff I can't remember where, possibly HKG but I don't remember for sure. We started zooming down the runway and pilot then stopped and declared some irregularity in some equipment he wanted to recheck. Rechecked and it seemed OK so he went around and took off.

Aborted landing was flying into MDW (Chicago Midway airport), on a 737. Very high crosswind and small aircraft so pilot had to come in low and fast and last second decided it was a no-go so came around and got it right the second time.

Sorry, I digress from the topic :)


looked like you had very nice experience flying :)
sad to say i dont fly that frequent, only like once a year ??well im just 14 years old........
so far i had not any aborted TO/Landing.
i will be flying SIN-HKG-YVR-HKG-SIN this month and next month on CX :D
cant wait to fly

Sorry,i disgress from the topic too :)

Actually it should be just 77A>74A because CX no longer have A346's! :) Unless you mean A343s.
Sorry i put it there because i flew the 3 equipment only for long hauls :P


I choose flights with the new products.It makes a big different in both J&Y.If I am in J, I would prefer a 74A with the upper deck or a 77A with the mini-cabin.
Hello, in Y, I will definitely pick 77A.

what do you think about the 74A upper deck and 77A mini-cabin? are they similar in any sense? which one feel more upscale/spacious?
when it comes to J, both options seems to be great.

Cathay Pacific should consider buying both Boeing 787 and the A380 for long haul because then they can service long-haul routes based on the passenger capacity and save some money. The Boeing 747-8 can be also a considerable choice as well.

It doesn't really matter to me what kind of aircrafts CX will buy, as long as they have a good safety record and good entertainment systems are in place, I'm fine with it. By the way, I enjoy inflight turbulence since it puts some sort of excitement in the flight.

Hello, in Y, I will definitely pick 77A.

what do you think about the 74A upper deck and 77A mini-cabin? are they similar in any sense? which one feel more upscale/spacious?
when it comes to J, both options seems to be great.

74A upper deck feels roomier than the main cabin of 77A(the one in front of Y).It is absolutely quiet.

Honestly, I have never been in the 77A mini cabin.I assume it is like the mini-cabin in 34C in which I feel very cosy since there are only 12 people (8 in 77A) in that cabin.The people in the mini-cabin are served first so I always got the meal I wanted when I got a seat in the mini-cabin.

When I am in the main cabin, I sometimes don't get what I want.I remember one time when my seat was on row 16 of 34C(row 11-12,15-17 are J), the flight attendant asked my choice for the main course of my breakfast. After my selection of an omelet, she said there was only one selection left for main course(so asking me was useless):mad:. I pretended to be very unhappy so she said that she would help me find if there were any omelets left in the mini-cabin.I guess I was in luck because she came back with a delicious omelet.:D

Great to see that someone is on the same wavelength with me.:D

The 772s will retire in May 2009:p

According to wiki some of them are going to Biman Bagladash...

Cathay Pacific should consider buying A380 for long haul because then it can service long-haul routes.

It doesn't really matter to me what kind of aircrafts CX will buy, as long as they have a good safety record and good entertainment systems are in place, I'm fine with it. By the way, I enjoy inflight turbulence since it puts some sort of excitement in the flight.

i dont think the A380 is suitable for CX,first of all the capacity its way too big for CX i think.Like you said its for long-haul, mostly CX have 100% capacity only during peak season,not whole year round.

Do you think CX should buy some A321/320/319/B737 so on.......??

Thats right :) as long they have safety record and great entertaiment onboard,it will be good enough.Well i dont mind some turbulence during TO/Landing.But not when crusing,imagine you being inside the toilet and suddenly turbulence struck your plane !!

i dont think the A380 is suitable for CX,first of all the capacity its way too big for CX i think.Like you said its for long-haul, mostly CX have 100% capacity only during peak season,not whole year round.

Do you think CX should buy some A321/320/319/B737 so on.......??

Thats right :) as long they have safety record and great entertaiment onboard,it will be good enough.Well i dont mind some turbulence during TO/Landing.But not when crusing,imagine you being inside the toilet and suddenly turbulence struck your plane !!

CX doesn't need short-haul aircraft, most of those routes are taken care of by KA (Dragonair). Still, the A380 doesn't need to be used long-haul, it can be used on short haul flights like how SQ uses it's A380s. I admire those Youtube videos of people filming their A380 experiences.

CX doesn't need short-haul aircraft, most of those routes are taken care of by KA (Dragonair). Still, the A380 doesn't need to be used long-haul, it can be used on short haul flights like how SQ uses it's A380s. I admire those Youtube videos of people filming their A380 experiences.

yes, that make sense too ;)
try seeing my youtube channel

www.youtube.com/sealalula

:p:p

Well i dont mind some turbulence during TO/Landing.But not when crusing,imagine you being inside the toilet and suddenly turbulence struck your plane !!

It brings me up something. I remember that there is this sign saying " Return to seat" in the toilet and is on when there is turbulence. Sometimes it got me thinking, what seat are they talking about? The loo? My seat? haha

I actually enjoy turbulence. And I'm still hoping for a aborted landing/takeoff.
Hopefully, when I fly in August, there could be a tropical storm in HK.

It brings me up something. I remember that there is this sign saying " Return to seat" in the toilet and is on when there is turbulence. Sometimes it got me thinking, what seat are they talking about? The loo? My seat? haha

I actually enjoy turbulence. And I'm still hoping for a aborted landing/takeoff.
Hopefully, when I fly in August, there could be a tropical storm in HK.

Haha,nice joke.
i enjoy turbulence but not so much like the whole journey !!!!!
if im on CX 777-300ER i dont mind aborted landing/takeoff cause it gives me more time to enjoy the plane , if im on a old 340-300 i dont want that to happen.

imagine if the whole plane got food poisoning and the pilot doesnt know about it the toilet will be smelly and jammed !!!!

Haha,nice joke.
i enjoy turbulence but not so much like the whole journey !!!!!
if im on CX 777-300ER i dont mind aborted landing/takeoff cause it gives me more time to enjoy the plane , if im on a old 340-300 i dont want that to happen.

imagine if the whole plane got food poisoning and the pilot doesnt know about it the toilet will be smelly and jammed !!!!

I think at that point its time to declare emergency. One time, I was on this Air China flight long-haul PEK-YVR. We were on this old 767-300ER, and half of passengers weren't feeling very well after finishing dinner. Half of the passengers jammed into the old dirty washrooms, that was the only long-haul trip that I never even got near a washroom. That was also my last time that I'd even think about taking Air China ever again.

I think at that point its time to declare emergency. One time, I was on this Air China flight long-haul PEK-YVR. We were on this old 767-300ER, and half of passengers weren't feeling very well after finishing dinner. Half of the passengers jammed into the old dirty washrooms, that was the only long-haul trip that I never even got near a washroom. That was also my last time that I'd even think about taking Air China ever again.

Great... I'm taking China Eastern to Chengdu in the summer because Cathay Pacific is all booked out (I'm taking 10 people with me on a big trip and Cathay can only confirmed 4). I really hope China Eastern is better than Air China.

Great... I'm taking China Eastern to Chengdu in the summer because Cathay Pacific is all booked out (I'm taking 10 people with me on a big trip and Cathay can only confirmed 4). I really hope China Eastern is better than Air China.

I despise all mainland Chinese airlines. Unlike Cathay, they REALLY need to upgrade both their interior and exterior of their aircrafts. You always have this cramped feeling in Economy section which makes you want to jump out of the airplane. Paint jobs are needed badly, they look like they are post-Soviet/1980s aircraft. Even their upcoming delivery of the Boeing 787 won't save them. Now, ending my rant against those airlines.

As I occasionally fly on YVR-HKG and vice versa, I think Cathay should order both Boeing 787 and Airbus A380 for this route. One for high frequency of passengers and the 787 for the midnight CX889 trip.

As for the turbulence discussion, it rarely happens since you're 40,000 feet in the air.

I despise all mainland Chinese airlines. Unlike Cathay, they REALLY need to upgrade both their interior and exterior of their aircrafts. You always have this cramped feeling in Economy section which makes you want to jump out of the airplane. Paint jobs are needed badly, they look like they are post-Soviet/1980s aircraft. Even their upcoming delivery of the Boeing 787 won't save them. Now, ending my rant against those airlines.

As I occasionally fly on YVR-HKG and vice versa, I think Cathay should order both Boeing 787 and Airbus A380 for this route. One for high frequency of passengers and the 787 for the midnight CX889 trip.

As for the turbulence discussion, it rarely happens since you're 40,000 feet in the air.

Yes thats right.Cathay Pacific is the best compared to all mainland chinese airlines.I cant imagine how suffering it is to be in those old cramped plane.Lucky cathay has seats for me from SIN all the way to YVR, if not i thought of flying with Eva or even China Eastern !!!!!
Cathay is the best in my mind so far , of course not to forget SIA , 2nd on my list :)

im sure for may/june 09 HKG-YVR-HKG is almost fully booked , my flight doesnt have seats already(i think) they should use a A380 for this route, or at least 838 and 839 change to a 777-300ER as well, not a old A340-300.

you dont usually get turbulence when you're cursing, only during TO/Landing/Climbing/Descent

im sure for may/june 09 HKG-YVR-HKG is almost fully booked , my flight doesnt have seats already(i think) they should use a A380 for this route, or at least 838 and 839 change to a 777-300ER as well, not a old A340-300.



A380 would be good for CX in the HKG-YVR route.But another problem of A380 apart from the new seat problem I mentioned before is that CX only has a few routes which have enough passengers for an A380(that is peek season too).

They can use an A380 for destinations in which they have more than 3 flights daily,eg. LHR,Beijing,NRT,but after the peek seasons,I doubt they will have that much passengers.Moreover we must pay attention that CX is considering to buy A380-900 and not -800 so they must have to have a huge amount of passengers on the routes which they use A380. :D

A380 would be good for CX in the HKG-YVR route.But another problem of A380 apart from the new seat problem I mentioned before is that CX only has a few routes which have enough passengers for an A380(that is peek season too).

They can use an A380 for destinations in which they have more than 3 flights daily,eg. LHR,Beijing,NRT,but after the peek seasons,I doubt they will have that much passengers.Moreover we must pay attention that CX is considering to buy A380-900 and not -800 so they must have to have a huge amount of passengers on the routes which they use A380. :D

But i dont think CX will buy any A380 in the next few years, but maybe after 5 years? they can consider buying them as a new generation of fleet.
Really hope that for HKG-YVR-HKG on 838,839 will be a 77A , if not it would be suffering on old 34D,34C. :eek::eek:

The only viable route for an A380 that I can think of is just LAX, SFO, and LHR.

The only viable route for an A380 that I can think of is just LAX, SFO, and LHR.

There are many problems for A380, logistics first:

1) the airport needs to have runways that can land this thing. A380 needs longer runways as they take longer to slowdown on arrival.

2) The airport needs to refit their gates to accept their gigantic wingspan

3) (this is non crucial but nice), the gates need to have extended double doors to allow more passengers off, or else the passengers in the back are known to wait at least 30 minutes to wait till their turn to get off the plane.

Not to mention it is a gas sucker. The best choice for Cathay is Boeing 7E7 (it has a new name, forgot what it is), it uses only 2/3 of gas of the comparative aircraft.

There are many problems for A380, logistics first:

1) the airport needs to have runways that can land this thing. A380 needs longer runways as they take longer to slowdown on arrival.

2) The airport needs to refit their gates to accept their gigantic wingspan

3) (this is non crucial but nice), the gates need to have extended double doors to allow more passengers off, or else the passengers in the back are known to wait at least 30 minutes to wait till their turn to get off the plane.

Not to mention it is a gas sucker. The best choice for Cathay is Boeing 7E7 (it has a new name, forgot what it is), it uses only 2/3 of gas of the comparative aircraft.

1 & 2) Most international airports are now being configured to service the A380

3)The Airbus A380 has an excellent exit time as most airports use 4 gateways on the aircraft, 2 on the bottom and two at the top.

Due to technological advances, the A380 is not a gas sucker since it uses less fuel than the Boeing 747-400, it is also cleaner since it contains no sulphur thus maintaining local air quality.

Note- I think you are referring to the new Boeing 787.