6 777-300er's china airlines
Dec 19, 2012, 1:36 am
#31
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2012
Programs: Dynasty Frequent Flyer (Elite Plus),Accor Platinum
Posts: 1,866
Yes lets hope. A couple of my friends in taipei refuse to fly them for this reason. I never think about this as its still safer than driving a car. Plus i tend to against popularity. So i read they were trying to improve .
Dec 19, 2012, 12:58 pm
#32
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LAX
Programs: AA Plat, DL, AS, UA, IHG Plat
Posts: 2,406
I am no ariplane expert and here are some of my guess/thoughts...
.
At one point, CI had the 767s. Then it ditched them for the A300s. I am not sure if it was due to economic/technical or political reasons. (The thing that peopel in TW talked about was the CI bought all the French planes and BR ended up getting CDG.)
If the reason was technical, maybe that somehow worked against the 777 - even though they are very different planes from different eras?
Or, the whole thing could be political - Boeing got the 747s and Airbus got the 340s. CI, being government owned, had to do some of these things that complicated their fleet. I think this practice lasted until the 1990s?
I guess another reason for the 747s was cargo. With a lot of manufacturing moving away from Taiwan, the numbers probably no longer work?
Another reaons might be that the 777-300 ERs are performing better than expected. When BR ordered the 777s, some were for the LR. Then they realized the 300ERs can do TPE-NYC...
.
At one point, CI had the 767s. Then it ditched them for the A300s. I am not sure if it was due to economic/technical or political reasons. (The thing that peopel in TW talked about was the CI bought all the French planes and BR ended up getting CDG.)
If the reason was technical, maybe that somehow worked against the 777 - even though they are very different planes from different eras?
Or, the whole thing could be political - Boeing got the 747s and Airbus got the 340s. CI, being government owned, had to do some of these things that complicated their fleet. I think this practice lasted until the 1990s?
I guess another reason for the 747s was cargo. With a lot of manufacturing moving away from Taiwan, the numbers probably no longer work?
Another reaons might be that the 777-300 ERs are performing better than expected. When BR ordered the 777s, some were for the LR. Then they realized the 300ERs can do TPE-NYC...
During CI's first fleet renewal program in the modern era, they evaluated both A300-B4 and 767-200 to replace the 707 in regional routes and decided to go with A300 because it had better cargo capacity. CI placed an order for 12 frames (I think) with Airbus and thought that was the end of it. Boeing wasn't very happy of course and sent their lobby to the US Congress to tried to force CI to buy 767. It was strongly suggested that CI should buy American jet liners or the US Govt will not be as open minded with request to buy F-16 A/B.
In the end, the RoC Civil Aviation Administration purchased 2x 767-200 from Boeing with funding provided by US Import-Export bank. The main reason given for the purchase was to "offset trade surplus with the US". The RoC Govt took delivery of the 2x 767-200 and leased them to CI. But for all intent and purpose, CI was forced to operate the 2 planes as a token gesture for a number of years. They flew mostly to KUL/SIN/BKK/HKG and rotated with the rest of the A300 fleet. After 4 years, CI returned the plane to the owner, which was now a private equity fund controlled by the ruling party KMT. The 2 planes were sold to Air New Zealand in 1989 and NZ operated them for many more years.
As for why CI didn't buy 777-200ER the first time around, it had lots to do with ETOPS to North America, which CI did not want to take on (expensive process). Note that most other Asian airlines with long haul operations came to the same conclusion and ordered MD-11: SQ (later cancelled), KE, JL, MU, CA, TG... not to mention BR. Also, CI couldn't overfly a lot of counties on its way to Europe so it was taking lots of detours overland, which also reduced the need for ETOPS 180.
As for why CI didn't buy 777 the 2nd time around when everyone else jumped ship to 777-300ER, I don't know. CI still didn't have any long haul twins at that time (the A333 IGW would come later) so ETOPS may still be on their mind. But to be fair, the operating advantage of 777-300ER was not clear to CI because the plane was not yet in service when the A340-300 order was placed. But other airlines (e.g. SQ/CX/KE/NH) was able to do better math I guess.
BR didn't order 300ER until pretty late in the game so they knew what the plane was capable. They were the launch customer for 200LR because Boeing gave them a great deal. BR had intended to use the LR for heavy cargo lift instead of ultra long haul, basically to replace the 747-400M combi. But their strategy changed (the cargo division was separated from the passenger business) and they switched to 300ER instead for more passenger lift.
Last edited by bzcat; Dec 19, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Dec 19, 2012, 11:59 pm
#33
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BKK
Programs: Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,088
I know some here don't like people harping on CI's safety records.
I think a lot of the fear is on the passenger side. Hopefully (knock on wood) CI has passed the "curse". There are still people in Taiwan who refuse to fly CI - a lot fewer now than say 10 years ago but still...
The poor safety record lasted a long time and it will take a long time for people to feel as comfortable with CI as with other carriers with better records.
I think a lot of the fear is on the passenger side. Hopefully (knock on wood) CI has passed the "curse". There are still people in Taiwan who refuse to fly CI - a lot fewer now than say 10 years ago but still...
The poor safety record lasted a long time and it will take a long time for people to feel as comfortable with CI as with other carriers with better records.
CI's safety history pretty much mirrors KE. Aside from lazy and poor fixes that caused some flights to disintegrate mid-air, many of the accidents were also caused by indifference from the co-pilots, who in accordance with the ideas of Confucianism, refused to override the captain's mistakes despite noticing them.
Read that chapter in the book. I bet you guys will love it.
Dec 20, 2012, 1:49 am
#34
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Programs: AA EXP 1MM, UA Silver, HH Gold, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 794
BR didn't order 300ER until pretty late in the game so they knew what the plane was capable. They were the launch customer for 200LR because Boeing gave them a great deal. BR had intended to use the LR for heavy cargo lift instead of ultra long haul, basically to replace the 747-400M combi. But their strategy changed (the cargo division was separated from the passenger business) and they switched to 300ER instead for more passenger lift.
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...e_000627a.html
Dec 20, 2012, 4:18 am
#35
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2012
Programs: Dynasty Frequent Flyer (Elite Plus),Accor Platinum
Posts: 1,866
Just read 24hrs ago china airlines will lease 4 777-300er's from 2014. So it seems these will be temporary until full delivery of both 777 and 350 is complete. Which routes you think the initial 777's will take? Surely a340 routes? So it will be interesting. Will the later 777's have the first class configuration?
Dec 20, 2012, 9:51 am
#36
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: bay area
Posts: 172
I must say that iv been on Ci 's 767 on a number of occasions and i liked them a lot. I think if Ci had stayed with the 767 the A300-600 crashes they had in Nagoya and TAipei would not have happened. It became known later that the man/machine interface with Airbus was the cause of many an Airbus crash. Although it was apparently not a factor in the Taipei crash.
There was no man/machine interface problems with the 767 in all its years of service with many airlines, that I know of anyway.
The 767 proved itself a very capable bird and a pleasure to fly. Passengers liked them and pilots as well.
Ci is never allowed to forget its accidents and with over 50 years of history its had a lot of time to make them.
Understand Ci of today is much better then even just ten years ago.
edit: p.s. Poor Ci having over 50 years of history , people will never allow it to forget its accidents. But all in all, its a different Ci today then it was just ten years ago.
In the Nagoya crash, the copilot inadvertently switched on the TOGA switch and that fact was not known to the flight crew while they tried to descend. The A300-600 "protection systems" did not allow full crew control and the stabilizer finally stayed in full UP position for an unknown reason. The pilots fought that plane all the way to the ground. This was considered pilot error but the fact that the airbus did not allow full control was a contributing factor.
In the TAipei crash , it seems the altimeter was incorrectly set at departure from BAli and they were about 1000feet too high on approach. The captain possibly went TOGA too late to bring the speed up after the decision to go around was made and the plane stalled into the ground.
This latter accident was mainly attributed to the crew being overworked and not at their best by the time they were landing in Taipei and they allowed the plane to go too slow and stall.
The captains wife and daughter were onboard (his whole immediate family) and died along with everyone on the plane and several on the ground IIRC.
I still think the 767 wouldve been a better choice for Ci back then. Even though the A300B4 served for many many years with no major incidents, but the 600s were jinxed.
There was no man/machine interface problems with the 767 in all its years of service with many airlines, that I know of anyway.
The 767 proved itself a very capable bird and a pleasure to fly. Passengers liked them and pilots as well.
Ci is never allowed to forget its accidents and with over 50 years of history its had a lot of time to make them.
Understand Ci of today is much better then even just ten years ago.
edit: p.s. Poor Ci having over 50 years of history , people will never allow it to forget its accidents. But all in all, its a different Ci today then it was just ten years ago.
In the Nagoya crash, the copilot inadvertently switched on the TOGA switch and that fact was not known to the flight crew while they tried to descend. The A300-600 "protection systems" did not allow full crew control and the stabilizer finally stayed in full UP position for an unknown reason. The pilots fought that plane all the way to the ground. This was considered pilot error but the fact that the airbus did not allow full control was a contributing factor.
In the TAipei crash , it seems the altimeter was incorrectly set at departure from BAli and they were about 1000feet too high on approach. The captain possibly went TOGA too late to bring the speed up after the decision to go around was made and the plane stalled into the ground.
This latter accident was mainly attributed to the crew being overworked and not at their best by the time they were landing in Taipei and they allowed the plane to go too slow and stall.
The captains wife and daughter were onboard (his whole immediate family) and died along with everyone on the plane and several on the ground IIRC.
I still think the 767 wouldve been a better choice for Ci back then. Even though the A300B4 served for many many years with no major incidents, but the 600s were jinxed.
Last edited by tommy525; Dec 20, 2012 at 10:07 am
Dec 20, 2012, 10:47 pm
#37
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CAN, LAX, TPE
Programs: AA, AS, CI, DL, UA
Posts: 2,898
Just read 24hrs ago china airlines will lease 4 777-300er's from 2014. So it seems these will be temporary until full delivery of both 777 and 350 is complete. Which routes you think the initial 777's will take? Surely a340 routes? So it will be interesting. Will the later 777's have the first class configuration?
I hope those 77Ws will have First Class, but who knows. If there's First Class, I expect the plane to be at service in New York or Los Angeles. If there's no First Class, I expect the plane to be at service in New York or Vancouver.
Dec 20, 2012, 11:28 pm
#39
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CAN, LAX, TPE
Programs: AA, AS, CI, DL, UA
Posts: 2,898
Nope, New York.
There are First Class passengers in JFK given the price CI used to charge, just not as many as LAX and SFO. If 77W comes to service with First Class, I expect the number of seats to be decreased, so JFK should be serviceable with First. Fully expect TPE-JFK v.v. to be reinstated to compete with BR and complement the current TPE-KIX-JFK v.v. service.
I actually don't know what CI is going to do with TPE-SFO v.v. If they replace the 744 with 77W, there won't be enough seats. If they add another flight, there will be extra seats. UA might take away some passengers and hopefully that will be the key for CI to down-gauge the flight to 77W with First.
There are First Class passengers in JFK given the price CI used to charge, just not as many as LAX and SFO. If 77W comes to service with First Class, I expect the number of seats to be decreased, so JFK should be serviceable with First. Fully expect TPE-JFK v.v. to be reinstated to compete with BR and complement the current TPE-KIX-JFK v.v. service.
I actually don't know what CI is going to do with TPE-SFO v.v. If they replace the 744 with 77W, there won't be enough seats. If they add another flight, there will be extra seats. UA might take away some passengers and hopefully that will be the key for CI to down-gauge the flight to 77W with First.
Dec 20, 2012, 11:47 pm
#40
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BKK
Programs: Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,088
Looking forward to this non-stop service to JFK. Kind of tired transferring from Osaka but it beats transferring out of Anchorage any day. Whenever I traveled during the summer, I would weep for the airport workers who wearing parka in July. I would also get pissed that the immigration officers in ANC would always stamp my passport in the pages where the Alaska totem poles are. One of thought it would be funny to put the stamp over the damn bear eating the salmon so that I don't have enough room in my passport to get stamps anymore!
Dec 21, 2012, 4:20 am
#41
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2012
Programs: Dynasty Frequent Flyer (Elite Plus),Accor Platinum
Posts: 1,866
hmm
I hate to burst peoples expectations. But for the planes to go to on the American routes they will need to substitute the 747 planes back to the European routes. And in 20 days they will be putting the a340 on almost only European routes. Yet this is the plane that CI wishes to replace asap and is the oldest in the fleet where their 747's are 4-5 years younger.
Dec 21, 2012, 8:40 am
#42
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: SFO/SJC/OAK
Posts: 522
Official release from CI: http://www.china-airlines.com/en/new...wsen000804.htm
Ah, okay.
I don't know if UA would actually take away that many passengers from CI; they keep flip-flopping between having direct SFO-TPE service or having a 1-stop SFO-NRT-TPE route. I find the timing amusing, too, since EVA's joining their alliance soon. Hopefully CI's beancounters look at the viability of TPE-SJC; they could always look into sending a 77W to SFO and an A359 to SJC (although, truth be told, the A359 is probably too large for that flight anyway, so I'm clearly just fantasizing here).
The introduction of the Boeing 777-300ER will boost the operational efficiency of China Airlines long-haul, high-capacity routes. Combined with superior passenger comfort, 777-300ER will offer improved operational flexibility and economic benefits.
Nope, New York.
There are First Class passengers in JFK given the price CI used to charge, just not as many as LAX and SFO. If 77W comes to service with First Class, I expect the number of seats to be decreased, so JFK should be serviceable with First. Fully expect TPE-JFK v.v. to be reinstated to compete with BR and complement the current TPE-KIX-JFK v.v. service.
I actually don't know what CI is going to do with TPE-SFO v.v. If they replace the 744 with 77W, there won't be enough seats. If they add another flight, there will be extra seats. UA might take away some passengers and hopefully that will be the key for CI to down-gauge the flight to 77W with First.
There are First Class passengers in JFK given the price CI used to charge, just not as many as LAX and SFO. If 77W comes to service with First Class, I expect the number of seats to be decreased, so JFK should be serviceable with First. Fully expect TPE-JFK v.v. to be reinstated to compete with BR and complement the current TPE-KIX-JFK v.v. service.
I actually don't know what CI is going to do with TPE-SFO v.v. If they replace the 744 with 77W, there won't be enough seats. If they add another flight, there will be extra seats. UA might take away some passengers and hopefully that will be the key for CI to down-gauge the flight to 77W with First.
I don't know if UA would actually take away that many passengers from CI; they keep flip-flopping between having direct SFO-TPE service or having a 1-stop SFO-NRT-TPE route. I find the timing amusing, too, since EVA's joining their alliance soon. Hopefully CI's beancounters look at the viability of TPE-SJC; they could always look into sending a 77W to SFO and an A359 to SJC (although, truth be told, the A359 is probably too large for that flight anyway, so I'm clearly just fantasizing here).
Dec 22, 2012, 12:58 am
#43
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CAN, LAX, TPE
Programs: AA, AS, CI, DL, UA
Posts: 2,898
I hate to burst peoples expectations. But for the planes to go to on the American routes they will need to substitute the 747 planes back to the European routes. And in 20 days they will be putting the a340 on almost only European routes. Yet this is the plane that CI wishes to replace asap and is the oldest in the fleet where their 747's are 4-5 years younger.
They can integrate the routes like JFK direct, LAX, YVR, SFO, FRA with the 77Ws... with 744s to stay on AMS, KIX-JFK, NRT-HNL until 359 is in service. VIE may stick with 343 until 359 is in since 744 may be too big or share the 77W with FRA with reduced frequencies (3 to 2). 1 or 2 744s may retire first.
Other 343s can go to regional destinations or charters.
I don't know if UA would actually take away that many passengers from CI; they keep flip-flopping between having direct SFO-TPE service or having a 1-stop SFO-NRT-TPE route. I find the timing amusing, too, since EVA's joining their alliance soon. Hopefully CI's beancounters look at the viability of TPE-SJC; they could always look into sending a 77W to SFO and an A359 to SJC (although, truth be told, the A359 is probably too large for that flight anyway, so I'm clearly just fantasizing here).
Dec 22, 2012, 2:08 am
#44
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CAN, LAX, TPE
Programs: AA, AS, CI, DL, UA
Posts: 2,898
Boeing News made announcements on CI purchases.
To cut it short...
CI will retain 3-class but have over 350 seats in their 77W.
Emirates 77W seating sounds like the plan at the moment from the news.
1-2-1 First Suite (2 rows)
2-3-2 Lie Flat Business (6 rows)
3-4-3 Economy (31")
= 354 Seats
What a joy to be in those Economy seats unless CI is dumping First. Though it's most likely CI will keep First because they don't need to compete directly with BR, so...
CI First Suite
BR Royal Laurel
CI Business Lie Flat
BR Elite
BR Economy
CI Economy
If CI dumps First, then they can go CX route to fit 340+ seats.
CI Business Lie Flat = BR Royal Laurel
CI Economy Comfort
BR Elite
BR Economy
CI Economy
To cut it short...
CI will retain 3-class but have over 350 seats in their 77W.
Emirates 77W seating sounds like the plan at the moment from the news.
1-2-1 First Suite (2 rows)
2-3-2 Lie Flat Business (6 rows)
3-4-3 Economy (31")
= 354 Seats
What a joy to be in those Economy seats unless CI is dumping First. Though it's most likely CI will keep First because they don't need to compete directly with BR, so...
CI First Suite
BR Royal Laurel
CI Business Lie Flat
BR Elite
BR Economy
CI Economy
If CI dumps First, then they can go CX route to fit 340+ seats.
CI Business Lie Flat = BR Royal Laurel
CI Economy Comfort
BR Elite
BR Economy
CI Economy
Dec 22, 2012, 3:25 am
#45
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2012
Programs: Dynasty Frequent Flyer (Elite Plus),Accor Platinum
Posts: 1,866
Cool
Yeah I think that's how it could go down. The 777's first class only and the A350's do all the long distance with business and economy only.
I don't mind if Amsterdam gets the 744's back and the other positive is you might get lucky with a first class configuration if so.
Just I could not stand the thought of doing a 4+10-11hr flight from Taipei to Amsterdam on the A350 and paying business class like money for a sub par product which is not only a flat bed but also is more like a cradle. Though i am confused some say its a flat but to me from memory when i was on one it was only like the short range A330's (B-18301-B18309).
And well about adding routes. I am thinking about what they could add destination wise. 1 American route and 1 European route (Most likely London). I would have thought silicon valley and the whole east coast is serviced by Fransisco and LAX.
I mean they have 70 planes now so when in comparison to Cathay they are much smaller (135) so different expectations.
I would love to extra A330's ordered to increase services to Australia (Brisbane/Sydney with follow on to Auckland). But in the past the problem with Australian destinations is its more seasonal. Though i always see the Brisbane flight nearly full always in Business class (30 seats).
Anyway getting back to the 777's. More planes all I think is good for us members as more destinations and therefore more choice.
I don't mind if Amsterdam gets the 744's back and the other positive is you might get lucky with a first class configuration if so.
Just I could not stand the thought of doing a 4+10-11hr flight from Taipei to Amsterdam on the A350 and paying business class like money for a sub par product which is not only a flat bed but also is more like a cradle. Though i am confused some say its a flat but to me from memory when i was on one it was only like the short range A330's (B-18301-B18309).
And well about adding routes. I am thinking about what they could add destination wise. 1 American route and 1 European route (Most likely London). I would have thought silicon valley and the whole east coast is serviced by Fransisco and LAX.
I mean they have 70 planes now so when in comparison to Cathay they are much smaller (135) so different expectations.
I would love to extra A330's ordered to increase services to Australia (Brisbane/Sydney with follow on to Auckland). But in the past the problem with Australian destinations is its more seasonal. Though i always see the Brisbane flight nearly full always in Business class (30 seats).
Anyway getting back to the 777's. More planes all I think is good for us members as more destinations and therefore more choice.