KA receiving "new" planes?

Old Apr 12, 19, 3:10 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Programs: NA
Posts: 31
KA receiving "new" planes?

Some KA A330 are already very old and have to retire soon. Will CX transfer some more of their A330 to KA, as there are enough planes in CX currently?
A330343X is offline  
Old Apr 12, 19, 3:34 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: MNL
Programs: CX MPO DM, Le Club Accor Platinum, World of Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 2,223
I heard that CX will transfer a couple 330s to KA.
FlyPointyEnd is offline  
Old Apr 12, 19, 4:14 am
  #3  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Programs: NA
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by FlyPointyEnd View Post
I heard that CX will transfer a couple 330s to KA.
Looks like HLA/B/C/E/G/J/K are time to retire. But it seems feasible for CX to transfer only B-HLM/N/O/T/U/V since the remaining are too old too and have to return to lessor?
A330343X is offline  
Old Apr 12, 19, 5:12 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: CX, UA, Shangri-La, Hyatt, Starwood
Posts: 7,695
KA A321neo deliveries start next year too. I'm not sure how that factors into the equation.
QRC3288 is offline  
Old Apr 12, 19, 5:59 am
  #5  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Programs: NA
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by QRC3288 View Post
KA A321neo deliveries start next year too. I'm not sure how that factors into the equation.
I thought those are replacing all A320 and A321 only. But nothing has been acquired to replace the very old A330.
A330343X is offline  
Old Apr 12, 19, 6:31 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 111
Originally Posted by A330343X View Post
I thought those are replacing all A320 and A321 only. But nothing has been acquired to replace the very old A330.
KA doesn't have anywhere near 32 A320/A321ceos. Some will obviously be for growth but I remember them saying somewhere they can optimise frequencies by flying multiple A321neos instead of an A330. So they could afford to retire a few A330s I think
cx4ever is offline  
Old Apr 12, 19, 7:05 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: Marco Polo Club, KF
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by A330343X View Post
Looks like HLA/B/C/E/G/J/K are time to retire. But it seems feasible for CX to transfer only B-HLM/N/O/T/U/V since the remaining are too old too and have to return to lessor?
It would make more sense for CX to continue to do as it has been doing and transfer some of the more recent 330s in its fleet ie. LB series/late LA series. As you say quite a few of the CX 330s are also getting quite old. I understand a significant portion of the fleet is owned and not leased. Incidentally, I flew on 3x early LA series birds fitted with the medium-long haul product in J earlier this week and noticed just how tired the fit out has become. I assume they are due for a refit, transfer to KA or retirement/return to lessor soon.

The interesting question IMO is which aircraft is going to form the backbone of the regional CX fleet going forward into the future. Unless a new type is ordered, retirement of the 330s will see the fleet made up solely of LH specialists in the form of the 350 and 77W (it is assumed the 773 fleet will also need to be retired within a decade). The question is whether CX's freight payload, the 77W conversion to 10 abreast in Y plus the capex/opex savings by not ordering/operating a different regional fleet type can offset the cost of operating the 350/77Ws on short haul routes where I assume (as a layperson) they operate at a cost disadvantage relative to say the 787, 330 neo, NMA etc. Given the number of owned aircraft in the fleet and poor secondary market my guess is that CX will look to maximise the longevity of the 77W by rotating them onto s-haul having been replaced on l-haul by the 350 (supplemented by orders over and above the existing) and the modest number of 77X scheduled to join the fleet.
Arbeysix is offline  
Old Apr 13, 19, 5:01 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Programs: BA SL, CX GR, IHG Plat
Posts: 444
Originally Posted by Arbeysix View Post
It would make more sense for CX to continue to do as it has been doing and transfer some of the more recent 330s in its fleet ie. LB series/late LA series. As you say quite a few of the CX 330s are also getting quite old. I understand a significant portion of the fleet is owned and not leased. Incidentally, I flew on 3x early LA series birds fitted with the medium-long haul product in J earlier this week and noticed just how tired the fit out has become. I assume they are due for a refit, transfer to KA or retirement/return to lessor soon.

The interesting question IMO is which aircraft is going to form the backbone of the regional CX fleet going forward into the future. Unless a new type is ordered, retirement of the 330s will see the fleet made up solely of LH specialists in the form of the 350 and 77W (it is assumed the 773 fleet will also need to be retired within a decade). The question is whether CX's freight payload, the 77W conversion to 10 abreast in Y plus the capex/opex savings by not ordering/operating a different regional fleet type can offset the cost of operating the 350/77Ws on short haul routes where I assume (as a layperson) they operate at a cost disadvantage relative to say the 787, 330 neo, NMA etc. Given the number of owned aircraft in the fleet and poor secondary market my guess is that CX will look to maximise the longevity of the 77W by rotating them onto s-haul having been replaced on l-haul by the 350 (supplemented by orders over and above the existing) and the modest number of 77X scheduled to join the fleet.
I share the same view about the future regional fleet. While the 333 are being phased out (return to lessor, transfer to KA or retirement later) and 773 are aging, there’s no new order for its regional arm. Perhaps this may be good news for pax as it may mean more LH substitute with LH J, it does not seem sustainable for CX to fly short haul with a large J cabin especially those 6F 53J 77W. There are already enough op-ups for such 77W regional flights (once op-up from Y to J on a reward ticket).

Having said so, there doesn’t seem like a perfect replacement aircraft for CX regional.
SLGO is offline  
Old Apr 13, 19, 10:01 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 111
Originally Posted by SLGO View Post

I share the same view about the future regional fleet. While the 333 are being phased out (return to lessor, transfer to KA or retirement later) and 773 are aging, there’s no new order for its regional arm. Perhaps this may be good news for pax as it may mean more LH substitute with LH J, it does not seem sustainable for CX to fly short haul with a large J cabin especially those 6F 53J 77W. There are already enough op-ups for such 77W regional flights (once op-up from Y to J on a reward ticket).

Having said so, there doesn’t seem like a perfect replacement aircraft for CX regional.
I feel like there's a general misconception on how the 787-10 might be a worse contender than the A330-900 as a regional replacement because it might be "too much aircraft" so to speak. However, the 787-10's OEW is 298,700 lbs, and the A339's is 302,000 lbs. In addition, the A339 actually has a higher range than the 787-10, so it's more like the A339 is "too much aircraft". (Numbers from wiki, not very reliable I know).

Airbus says they can fit an extra 10 Y seats in the neo vs. the ceo due to some re-organization of the cabin, so this would be (24J, 303Y).
SQ's 787-10 has (36J, 301Y), but these are lie-flat. For comparison purposes, say CX had 30 (5 rows) of their current regional J seats installed (~same seat pitch as SQ, but 6/row instead of 4/row), they could probably fit an extra 45Y seats (5 rows) in a mini-cabin in front of Door 2. This would give a (30J, 346Y) config. 25% more J seats than A339, 14% more Y seats than A339.
I can't find 2019 list prices for the 787, so I'll use 2018 list prices instead. 787-10 list price: $325.8 million A339 list price: $296.4 million. So the 787-10's list price is about exactly 10% more expensive, which means it's cheaper on a per seat basis. This makes the 787 more compelling considering its weight per seat must be drastically lower than the A330 (assuming numbers are correct. They're believable considering the 787 is built from composites).
When talking about cargo, the A339 can hold 33 LD3 containers, while the 787-10 can hold 40 (21% more). Considering cargo is very important to CX, this is a major boost for the 787.
Again, list price isn't the whole story. Airbus can afford to sell at a cheaper price, and they're probably quite desperate for A330neo orders at this point. However, Boeing would really want to sell to CX. CX's fleet used to be around 55% Boeing a few years ago when it still had 747s and no A350s, if I remember correctly. If CX's new regional aircraft choice is the neo, the fleet would probably be around 70% Airbus after some leased 77Ws leave (11 leases are up by 2022, 16 by 2024) and the 773s leave after being replaced. (EDIT: Considering KA and UO are all Airbus too, Boeing would want to increase their share.)
The production backlog is also important to consider – how soon can CX receive the aircraft? The A330 family has 290 planes left to be delivered at a production rate of around 4-5/month (they only delivered 49 last year). The 787 family has 624 planes left to be delivered, with current production rates approaching 14/month (equivalent to 168/year). This means the A330 has 6 years worth of production left at this current rate, while Boeing has 3.7 years worth of production. The 787 production line must have more available slots then, leading to an earlier delivery slot.

I left out the NMA and the A359 simply because the A359 would seriously be "too much airplane" and the NMA would be smaller than the A330s so they wouldn't be a very fitting replacement in the high-volume market of SE Asia and East Asia.
Arbeysix likes this.
cx4ever is offline  
Old Apr 13, 19, 8:42 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: Marco Polo Club, KF
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by cx4ever View Post
I feel like there's a general misconception on how the 787-10 might be a worse contender than the A330-900 as a regional replacement because it might be "too much aircraft" so to speak.
Yes, and clearly this reflects the analysis SQ has done. Unfortunately it appears there remain continuing unresolved issues on the Trent 1000 (see new ANZ and SQ groundings). One wonders whether the thrust to weight ratios etc on the 787 power plants have simply been pushed too far...
Arbeysix is offline  
Old Apr 14, 19, 1:00 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 111
Originally Posted by Arbeysix View Post
Yes, and clearly this reflects the analysis SQ has done. Unfortunately it appears there remain continuing unresolved issues on the Trent 1000 (see new ANZ and SQ groundings). One wonders whether the thrust to weight ratios etc on the 787 power plants have simply been pushed too far...
It seems to be RR-specific issue? CX always goes for RR if they have a choice, but the GEnx will probably be a better choice for reliability reasons if they go for the 787. CX already has GEnxs powering their 748Fs anyway.
cx4ever is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: