CX's future ULR fleets?
 

While reading airliners.net the other day, I saw a discussion about how CX's currently reviewing their future ultra-long range aircrafts. Anyone know what's their plan? 772LR/773ER? A345? Just for curiosity, what places they want to fly now but couldn't do so with their current fleets? And since HKG is kind of in the middle of most European and NA destinations, it makes me wonder why they'd consider new "ultra" long rangers when their current fleets can get them anywhere they wanted. Any comments or thought? :)

Unfortunately it will be 744, 744 and mor4 744 and worst of all it is 2nd hand!

I don't think we will see any new long haul aircrafts in CX within the next 2-3 years!

Their current fleet can get them anywhere in the world?

Well, they only have three A340-600 to do HKG-JFK, and YYZ is a one-stop while AC flies non-stop. LAX->HKG often has to make a fuel stop at ICN or TPE in the winter. So, they can't even support their CURRENT route network, let alone expand to new destinations in N. America.

No idea why they're not going to ORD with their 744, but DFW would definitely need new aircrafts.

It has been known for quite a while in industry circles that CX has had positions on the 777-200LR, along with other airlines. Two of them recently converted these to actual commitements or Orders (AC and AI). Look for either CX or SQ to be the next ones to do so.
The problem is/was that since airlines got burnt so badly on the 345 (and it was the first ultra long haul jet) that they were extremely skittish about the 777-200LR. These jets are the most expensive in the world and this is not an investment that you make lightly (especially after the 345 fiasco). So they wanted to wait for the launch of the 777-200LR to see its performance and reliability metrics. While the first flight only happened a month ago, enough airlines are beginning to feel confident that you are now beginning to see official orders.

What aircrafts are in CX's current fleet? Is it a primarily Boeing fleet or Airbus fleet? Not that it matters since a number of big Airbus operators (ie: AC and NW) have opted for new Boeing aircrafts. Anyways, I have heard rumors that CX can potentially be a launch customer for Boeing's proposed B747ADV. Any news on that front? What about the B787, would CX be interested?

LAX

CX is interested in the 787. As far as the 747ADV goes, they are (along with BA and possibly Virgin) going to the launch customers. In fact, it can be safely said, that Boeing had pressure from BA and CX to develop this aircraft. Odd!

What was the A340-500 fiasco?

The 345s (in every fleet that they were placed) had a low (sub 95) reliability, had lower than promised pax loads and much lower than expected cargo loads. Every operator is losing money on this aircraft. SQ is supposedly so unhappy that they are in active talks with Boeing to trade/sell their entire ULR Airbus fleet and replace it with the 777-200LR.

I wonder if this is why SQ has them fitted out in Premium Economy throughout the plane.

Yes, that is exactly why. This issue has been discussed extensively in many boards. SQ is an industry leader and they took a risk. As with risks, some pay off, some dont. SQ was expecting to have a larger cargo load to even break even. It did not work out for them. Look for them to phase out the 345 within 2 years. Their partner company (Virgin, of whom they own 49%) is still very Airbus friendly (Branson loves Airbus for domestic reasons. He likes that they are local and bring employment to Britain). So, a placement/trade their is possible. However, when I last heard about it, Boeing was proposing to take them and dispose of them independently.

The other things that are telling are 1) SQ originally announced the 345 would carry 200 pax (vs. 181 as final), 2) IIRC there was going to be a FC cabin, and 3) the 345 have a FC galley which is not really used adding deadweight.

The FC cabin would have probably used enough space to result in less pitch than what economy now gets.

Good for the pax in the back but not for SQ.

Boeing claims the 772LR will do the same mission as the 345 for EWR-SIN or v-v with 300 pax and quite a few tonnes of cargo in both directions.

A mixed dog's body: 744s, 343s, 346s, 772 & 773s (all none ERs), and 333s. The 777 fleet is used for "regional" ops though this can mean all the way from HKG to the middle east with a stop. 333s and 343s are for thinner long haul routes (333s see a lot of Australia and also NZ?)

Some story has it that CX wouldn't consider a twin, or non-RR powered, a/c for long haul flights. The 747Adv will only come with GE engines.

The 2nd hand 744s CX got from SQ are built with PW4084 engines.

And aren't 343 come with CFM-56s only? [I may be mistaken about this, but CX also has a few 2nd ones from SQ, which most likely don't come with RR engines either.]

My problem with CX is this. They became a true world-class carrier, starting in the late 70's by taking risks, by being on the cutting edge. They flew HKG-LHR and HKG-YVR non-stops before anybody else. CX was the world-leader in ultra-longhaul routes. But where are they now? While consistently being one of the most profitable airlines in the world, they have not invested in ultra-longhaul fleets, and has become one of the most conservative airlines in the world. Maybe that makes the bosses and investors happy, I don't know. But where's the innovation? They now fall WAY behind bankrupt or once-bankrupt carriers AC and CO in providing non-stops to the E. Coast of N. America. That's so disappointing.

I also don't get why they need to follow others in ordering new variations of planes that they already fly. Once upon a time - say 2002 - they were one of the first carriers to take delivery of the 346; and in 1998 they were the first operator of the 773. So, what's the excuse?

Good points. I do believe the used 744s will be used for freighters (747-400SF) and not passengers? 343s come with IAE2500 and CFM56s. I think the IAE2500 has some RR involvement (CFM is GE and SNECMA). Have no idea which version CX has. At any rate, CX quite routinely publicises the fact that it has its (pax) a/c are RR-powered.


Could well be. CX is owned by 2-3 groups with the odd public shareholder. There's the Swire group which manages but doesn't have the largest, let alone majority, shareholding. The other big shareholder(s) is CITIC and some other Chinese entity. So who knows what these group want (someone does but I don't know any of them that well).


To be fair, CX did reply to Co for HKG-NYC n/s service. Maybe CX sees YYZ as a less-attractive market not worthy of providng n/s service (a trajecture of there being no FC offered on this route.)

The 346 has apparently been not too good to CX. Reportedly the 3 are early versions overweight in the wings. The 773s were more economical replacements for 742s used on regional routes. I'd say it's hardly a daring innovation. CX's whole 772 and 773 fleet can be seen as respectively replacing the L-1011s and 742s that used to ply the regional routes.

One of the biggest fallouts of the 345 and 346 fiasco was the non launch of the HKG-DFW service. CX was all set to launch this is 2004. They had acquired gates, signed a preliminary contract with the airport etc. etc. But after the dismal peformance of the 346, they could not justify the route for the (comparitively) small pax load. Thus the non-stop service got pushed back (all of this is subject to change) to 2007. I would assume that this means that they have positions on 777-200LR deliveries in 2007.

BTW, this was a huge blow to DFW. CX was going to be a marquee addition to the new Terminal D. For those in the know, in 2003, the director of DFW airport had huge CX models displayed in his office and had already talked about the plans "off the record" to the media (of course that did not stop the Dallas Morning News from leaking that).

As it stands now DFW has lost (since 9/11) Air France, Sabena, Swiss Air and a daily JAL flight. It hoped to make up (by now) with Air India, CX, SQ and KLM. None of those happened.