A350 general discussion

    Hide Wikipost
Old Mar 3, 19, 9:09 pm   -   Wikipost
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been on FT for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: winnipegrev
Wiki Link
This thread is for specific A350 discussion.

For discussion regarding the A350-1000 please discuss here:
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/cath...iscussion.html

Seating Guide
A350 Seating Guide

Routes to be serviced by A350:
Cathay Pacific full fleet and route guide (search for 35G for A350): Cathay Pacific Fleet, Route and Configuration Guide
Useful thread: New route speculation for Cathay

Already operating or confirmed (date of commencement)
Amsterdam
Auckland
Barcelona
Brisbane
Brussels
Capetown
Christchurch
Dublin
Frankfurt (March 31, 2019)
London Gatwick
Madrid
Manchester
Melbourne
Newark
Paris
Perth
Rome
San Francisco
Seattle (March 31, 2019)
Tel Aviv
Vancouver
Washington DC
Zurich (March 31, 2019)
​​​​​​

Existing routes, speculated future equipment change to A350
Milan
Los Angeles

Speculated future routes
Print Wikipost

Reply

Old Nov 6, 17, 12:29 am
  #886  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,514
Originally Posted by G-CIVC View Post
Per a local forum, it seems that CX was a bit optimistic on the plane hitting EWR. Seems like there was a recent 899 that flew back with an empty belly (all bags offloaded)!

(feeling happy about anything that hints at lesser chance of ORD getting 350...hehehe)
Interesting to hear more on that. A359 should be able to make that with room to spare, providing they didn't offload the bags at the expense of some sort of cargo.
1010101 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 17, 12:32 am
  #887  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: CX, UA, Shangri-La, Hyatt, Starwood
Posts: 7,327
Originally Posted by G-CIVC View Post
Per a local forum, it seems that CX was a bit optimistic on the plane hitting EWR. Seems like there was a recent 899 that flew back with an empty belly (all bags offloaded)!

(feeling happy about anything that hints at lesser chance of ORD getting 350...hehehe)
ha! I'm pleased to see this comment just based on some coincidental thinking. I was going to come and ask if CX was load restricting the plane and I saw your post. I've seen some operating data for CX's A350s and.....was wondering how the hell they were doing A359 back from EWR with these flying times. Now I know!!!! "Sorry your baggage allowance for this flight is: Zero." I wonder if EWR will switch back to 77G. What a disappointment for CX.

->Prediction: CX will take the additional A359s they just swapped for (from the -1000) as the A350-900ULR. That's the variant designed for SQ's relaunch of EWR and LAX nonstop and coming next year, but Airbus is making all A359 orders and birds eligible for the up-gauge early next year. I believe even all regular A350-900s delivered from a certain date quite soon will be able to be up-gauged to the ULR version relatively easily. The Airbus guys were explaining it to me and it sounds like the airlines can make the decision relatively late in the game or even up-gauge an existing / eligible (aka delivered after a certain date) A350-900.
QRC3288 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 17, 12:45 am
  #888  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Never home.
Posts: 2,943
Originally Posted by G-CIVC View Post
Per a local forum, it seems that CX was a bit optimistic on the plane hitting EWR. Seems like there was a recent 899 that flew back with an empty belly (all bags offloaded)!

(feeling happy about anything that hints at lesser chance of ORD getting 350...hehehe)
There was one flight (the inaugural) which suffered a reduction in passengers due to CX dispatching an aircraft with a spoiler MEL'd. All flights since then have hauled a consistent payload of over 35t, which means cargo is getting on the flight as well.

The A350-900 has no issue with full pax and bags to any city CX flies.

Originally Posted by QRC3288 View Post
ha! I'm pleased to see this comment just based on some coincidental thinking. I was going to come and ask if CX was load restricting the plane and I saw your post.
The 359 is MTOW restricted on the route, as is the 77W. But as with the 777 only on additional cargo.

Originally Posted by QRC3288 View Post
Prediction: CX will take the additional A359s they just swapped for (from the -1000) as the A350-900ULR. That's the variant designed for SQ's relaunch of EWR and LAX nonstop and coming next year, but Airbus is making all A359 orders and birds eligible for the up-gauge early next year. I believe even all regular A350-900s delivered from a certain date quite soon will be able to be up-gauged to the ULR version relatively easily. The Airbus guys were explaining it to me and it sounds like the airlines can make the decision relatively late in the game or even up-gauge an existing / eligible (aka delivered after a certain date) A350-900.
All post-2020 359s will be 280t, 5t more than current. There is no point in the ULR model for CX unless they are fuel load restricted, which they are not. The total fuel loaded on 899 is just under 100t (30 less than a 77W) and the current standard A359 is capable of maxing around 108t of fuel.

Last edited by winnipegrev; Nov 6, 17 at 12:50 am
winnipegrev is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 17, 1:05 am
  #889  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: CX, UA, Shangri-La, Hyatt, Starwood
Posts: 7,327
Originally Posted by winnipegrev View Post
There was one flight (the inaugural) which suffered a reduction in passengers due to CX dispatching an aircraft with a spoiler MEL'd. All flights since then have hauled a consistent payload of over 35t, which means cargo is getting on the flight as well.

The A350-900 has no issue with full pax and bags to any city CX flies.



The 359 is MTOW restricted on the route, as is the 77W. But as with the 777 only on additional cargo.



All post-2020 359s will be 280t, 5t more than current. There is no point in the ULR model for CX unless they are fuel load restricted, which they are not. The total fuel loaded on 899 is just under 100t (30 less than a 77W) and the current standard A359 is capable of maxing around 108t of fuel.
thank you for the clarification!
QRC3288 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 17, 10:01 pm
  #890  
Hyatt Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ORD + HKG
Programs: CX Diamond, AA ExPlat, BAEC Gold, HH Diamond, Hyatt Explorist, Starriott Gold, GE
Posts: 2,669
Many of the people on that forum work for CX and its related businesses, and it's a great resource for learning some technical knowledge related to planes. I don't see why they would have to make things up if that wasn't true. Not sure if you also work for CX, but well, inconsistency is a huge part of CX culture

There is a Chinese saying, rumors don't surface out of nothingness. I guess time will tell.

(from someone NOT excited at all about flying 35g long haul for the first time next week)
G-CIVC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 17, 11:28 pm
  #891  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Never home.
Posts: 2,943
Originally Posted by G-CIVC View Post
Many of the people on that forum work for CX and its related businesses, and it's a great resource for learning some technical knowledge related to planes. I don't see why they would have to make things up if that wasn't true. Not sure if you also work for CX, but well, inconsistency is a huge part of CX culture
I'm not too interested in trying to convince the internet one way or the other. Believe who you want.

But if it were true that people consistently weren't getting their bags or getting left behind themselves on a CX flight, the SCMP would be screaming bloody murder.
Arbeysix likes this.
winnipegrev is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 17, 2:21 am
  #892  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,514
Originally Posted by G-CIVC View Post
Many of the people on that forum work for CX and its related businesses, and it's a great resource for learning some technical knowledge related to planes. I don't see why they would have to make things up if that wasn't true. Not sure if you also work for CX, but well, inconsistency is a huge part of CX culture

There is a Chinese saying, rumors don't surface out of nothingness. I guess time will tell.

(from someone NOT excited at all about flying 35g long haul for the first time next week)
To add to @winnipegrev the A359 range specs are hardly a trade secret, Airbus will happily share them. Obviously each airline specs theirs slightly differently but the A359 can do EWR with close to 40t, which is 5-10t more than passengers + baggage.
Arbeysix likes this.
1010101 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 17, 3:04 am
  #893  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: CX, UA, Shangri-La, Hyatt, Starwood
Posts: 7,327
Originally Posted by 1010101 View Post
To add to @winnipegrev the A359 range specs are hardly a trade secret, Airbus will happily share them. Obviously each airline specs theirs slightly differently but the A359 can do EWR with close to 40t, which is 5-10t more than passengers + baggage.
just out of curiosity, what kind of flying time, circling and secondary airport range are you building in?

Sure it can go straight, but I've seen "credible" estimates on CX's birds that would indicate with 30 minutes circling time and 200nm range built in for a secondary airport diversion, EWR/JFK is indeed near the limit
QRC3288 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 17, 11:16 am
  #894  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Programs: CATHAY PACIFIC
Posts: 63
The birds that fly EWR route are B-LR[P-T], is it due to previous aircrafts have weight restrictions?
Raymond Lu is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 17, 5:17 pm
  #895  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: East Coast US
Programs: Hyatt: Diamond. Marriott: Platinum. AA: EXP 1MM. Delta: Silver. Etihad: Silver. Emirates Silver
Posts: 249
Just my $0.02 for whatever it's worth. I just had my first A359 flight on CX890 HKG-EWR, I was originally booked to fly to JFK a few months ago but received notification that the flight has been cancelled and I was rescheduled to the EWR flight. Wasn't too happy at first but decided to go with it.
I was in J and all I can say is that I was very satisfied overall. The aircraft is remarkably quiet and after a 14+ hour flight I got off less tired, dehydrated and jet lagged than I have been taking the 777's longhaul, and for that matter even better than the 787.

I am not a frequent traveller on CX but service in J was spotless. Food and drink was good and throughout the entire flight the FA's kept walking up and down the aisles frequently checking in to see if anyone wanted/needed anything. Overall I was impressed and would fly this flight again.
yabadoo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 17, 5:33 pm
  #896  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: Marco Polo Club, KF
Posts: 107
359

Originally Posted by yabadoo View Post
Just my $0.02 for whatever it's worth. I just had my first A359 flight on CX890 HKG-EWR, I was originally booked to fly to JFK a few months ago but received notification that the flight has been cancelled and I was rescheduled to the EWR flight. Wasn't too happy at first but decided to go with it.
I was in J and all I can say is that I was very satisfied overall. The aircraft is remarkably quiet and after a 14+ hour flight I got off less tired, dehydrated and jet lagged than I have been taking the 777's longhaul, and for that matter even better than the 787.

I am not a frequent traveller on CX but service in J was spotless. Food and drink was good and throughout the entire flight the FA's kept walking up and down the aisles frequently checking in to see if anyone wanted/needed anything. Overall I was impressed and would fly this flight again.
I agree. It is a terrific aeroplane. I take it regularly on a combination of short, medium and long haul CX routes across all 3 classes.

Issues with the Zodiac fit-out aside IMO the main criticisms are: (i) Y seat generally and in particular lack of insulation in lower back area resulting in a lot of interference from passenger behind; (ii) poor placement of Row 11 in J. The PEY seat is fantastic IMO.
Arbeysix is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 17, 5:37 pm
  #897  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Some hole
Posts: 2,783
Originally Posted by Arbeysix View Post
Issues with the Zodiac fit-out aside IMO the main criticisms are: (i) Y seat generally and in particular lack of insulation in lower back area resulting in a lot of interference from passenger behind; (ii) poor placement of Row 11 in J. The PEY seat is fantastic IMO.
Y and PEY seats are by B/E Aerospace.

Zodiac are the J seats.
maortega15 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 17, 10:40 am
  #898  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Programs: CX MPC DM
Posts: 214
Originally Posted by yabadoo View Post
I just had my first A359 flight on CX890 HKG-EWR, ....
I just returned last night on CX890 to EWR, also my first flight on the A359. I was seated in J, 12K. I agree with the cabin noise being far less.

I've been flying frequent long hauls on the 77G out of EWR for the last few years, split between PEY & J. The flight on 11/13 was very quick, just over 14 hours in the air. For some reason, we took a polar route back to EWR rather than the usual route across Alaska. After the plane flew along Japan it went north over Russian airspace rather than the typical westerly heading. We arrived in EWR around 8:20. I would have been out of the terminal before 9, except for nearly 1 hour delay in getting the baggage out.

I've seen comparisons about the air in the A359 being less dry than the 777, but I don't know if I felt that. I did drink over 4 bottles of water during the flight in addition to soft drinks, tea and water as part of normal service. I did feel dehydrated, but that may have been due to eating the salty prepared food in Pier J lounge. I usually have some nasal congestion on the 77G, but did not experience any on the A359. That may be attributed to the more humid cabin.

I know the A359 is only 9 inches narrower than the 77G, but the J seat felt a bit narrower and just a bit shorter when fully reclined. Still very comfortable, but feeling just a bit more cramped. I missed having the storage compartment below the armrest. I liked putting my shoes in there. I didn't find a good use for the seat extension flap. I'm a large man, but it didn't help to give me additional room. It also took a little time for me to get used to the control buttons. I like the new feature with one-push for full recline and back to seated position, but it took a few times to remember to push again to stop instead of holding the button. I also felt the seat sits a little higher in it's recline position. Seems to me that the zodiac seats on the 777 is lower when fully reclined. I didn't feel that the seat was any more comfortable than the older seat. Padding seemed about the same.

The IFE is better. I'm not sure about the numbers, but the screen resolution is much better and of course the screen is bigger. Controls on the IFE took a bit of getting used to, since the IFE on the 777 is burned into my brain. I found the touch screen to be a little finnicky. I found the new remote to be less useful. I did not use the screen in the remote at all and the control buttons were not as intuitive. The new favourite feature is much more useful than the old playlist, easier to manage. After I board and get settled, I like to scroll through the selection and pick movies to watch. Getting the the favorites section is much improved and it's easier to see the thumbnails and descriptions. I don't know if the headphones are a newer model, but they did feel more comfortable.

I did miss the big lavatory near the galley on the 77G. All the lavs I tried in J were very small. The big lav on the 77G is much more comfortable, even the smaller lavs up front seem bigger than the lavs on the 359.

I did miss the location of the water bottle, snack box area. I looked around but couldn't find it. On the 777 it's in the main J galley off to the side between the two J cabins. After looking around the cabin for it, I returned to my seat and rang the bell. The ISM came and I asked her, she said she'd bring it to me. But I prefer walking around and grabbing my own snacks.

Mid-flight, I took a tour through the plane, especially to check out the PEY cabin since I use it frequently. I usually sit in 30A/K. I noticed that the flight info/magazine rack is different. On the 77G, it's a soft leather-ish pouch. On the 359 it's seems like hard plastic. I usually take out all the papers and use the pouch as an additional footrest, even with the extended footrest in the front row of PEY. I will miss that when I fly PEY.

For some reason, I did not sleep the entire flight. I tried to sleep around 4-5 hours into the flight, but just couldn't. I usually fall out around this time. I gave up after an hour of trying and started another movie. I was definitely as comfortable, if not more, than being on 777. When we landed, I did not feel particularly exhausted or fatigued. I just felt as if I had been awake for over 24 hours, which I was.

I know I might sound negative on the A359. I am not. Overall it was a very pleasurable flight and comparable to the 777. However, I didn't feel that it the whole experience was better. Aesthetics were similar, with the A359 being new and a bit more polished with a slightly updated design.

I've been flying CX890/899 on the 77G regularly for 2 years now. I know the 77G doesn't get a lot of love here, but I definitely preferred the PEY cabin to 77H, even without the dedicated lavatory. I'll see over the next few flights how the differences pan out with PEY and E being smaller, how that might translate to op-ups. I anticipate my next flight will be in PEY sometime in December and I'll be able to compare that experience.
synthkeys is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 17, 9:00 pm
  #899  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Never home.
Posts: 2,943
Originally Posted by Raymond Lu View Post
The birds that fly EWR route are B-LR[P-T], is it due to previous aircrafts have weight restrictions?
No weight restriction on any, they're all 275T and within a few hundred kg of each other empty.

The heavier empty weight early production 359s went to Qatar IIRC.
winnipegrev is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 17, 12:15 am
  #900  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Programs: Executive Club
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by Raymond Lu View Post
The birds that fly EWR route are B-LR[P-T], is it due to previous aircrafts have weight restrictions?
Not all of the A350s are equipped yet for polar operations and the extended ETOPs certification that Cathay recently gained, hence the reason a few dedicated tails doing the polar routes to EWR. In time all of the A350 aircraft will be equipped to handle the polar missions and the increased diversion time ETOPs.
drivingflyingwalking is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread