[Rumor] CX considering cancelling 777X order

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Apr 25, 2020, 6:12 am

#61

garykung

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Aug 2009

Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG

Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓

Posts: 13,811

Quote:

Originally Posted by boybi

Too small to serve as 777 replacement

Actually not that small.

UA 78X capacity is 318 with full international long-haul configuration. Given CX uses B773 as regional (2-class), CX may not be able to fix almost 400, but 350 should not be an issue.

Also - it does not have to be a B773 replacement. It can be for A330 as well.

Apr 25, 2020, 7:55 am

#62

londonexpert

Join Date: Oct 2018

Posts: 481

Quote:

Originally Posted by garykung

freight capacity?

Apr 25, 2020, 7:59 am

#63

cx4ever

Original Poster

Join Date: Mar 2017

Posts: 116

Quote:

Originally Posted by garykung

I'd argue the 787-10 in a regional config (assuming the new regional J is not lie-flat) could hold 390. BR holds 308Y + 34J (lie flat), without lie-flat could probably squeeze 5 more Y rows.
789 in a regional config would be a better direct replacement for the A333 – could hold ~350 which is an increase of ~33 seats or ~10.4% growth over the 317 seat regional A333.

789 holds 36 LD3, 78X holds 40. A333 only holds 32 (I think).

Apr 25, 2020, 8:39 am

#64

CS300

Join Date: Jun 2015

Programs: MR Platinum

Posts: 80

Quote:

Originally Posted by boybi

Too small to serve as 777 replacement

Given that demand for air travel isn't likely return to pre-COVID19 levels for quite some time, is a 777 sized replacement necessary?
Recall CX replaced 744s (nearly 400 seats) with 77Ws (275 and 340 seats).

Apr 25, 2020, 9:14 am

#65

percysmith

Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau

Join Date: May 2009

Location: HKG

Programs: Non-top tier Asia Miles member

Posts: 19,799

My thoughts exactly - CX (or any airline) don’t want the capacity, and cannot afford to pay Boeing at present

Apr 25, 2020, 9:16 am

#66

sbs2716g

Join Date: Jun 2017

Posts: 2,279

Also based on SQ stats, A 787-10 which carried more paxes (SQ config as 36J/301Y) have 26% better fuel efficiency than a A330 which carry less paxes.

Apr 25, 2020, 9:31 am

#67

percysmith

Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau

Join Date: May 2009

Location: HKG

Programs: Non-top tier Asia Miles member

Posts: 19,799

Maybe fine to replace A330s with 787-10s if 787-10s cost nothing, but clearly not true.

Buying fuel at spot's a pittance, anyway.

Apr 25, 2020, 10:17 am

#68

ctb213ctb213

Join Date: Oct 2012

Posts: 89

If they don't want the 777x, maybe they can make the 350-1000 be their flagship aircraft and config it to 4 class to make it the 77w replacement.

Apr 25, 2020, 3:03 pm

#69

garykung

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Aug 2009

Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG

Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓

Posts: 13,811

Quote:

Originally Posted by CS300

Given that demand for air travel isn't likely return to pre-COVID19 levels for quite some time, is a 777 sized replacement necessary?

It may not. However, CX's fleet has a foundational issue - it does not have any narrowbodies. And CX is not always passing the less-than-ideal routes to KA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by percysmith

Buying fuel at spot's a pittance, anyway.

CX always loses on fuel. So how cheap now still will not help CX.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctb213ctb213

If they don't want the 777x, maybe they can make the 350-1000 be their flagship aircraft and config it to 4 class to make it the 77w replacement.

Unfortunately 77W are not being replaced. Based on all the speculation, 77X was originally purchased to replace 773.

Apr 25, 2020, 7:42 pm

#70

boybi

Join Date: Feb 2015

Location: CRK MNL

Programs: CX Gold

Posts: 1,285

Wasn’t the new F hard product to be launched together with the 777X?

Apr 25, 2020, 10:20 pm

#71

londonexpert

Join Date: Oct 2018

Posts: 481

Quote:

Originally Posted by garykung

I77X was originally purchased to replace 773.

Not true

FlyPointyEnd and Reply1984 like this.

Apr 25, 2020, 11:38 pm

#72

bagold

Join Date: Oct 1999

Location: Don't know....

Programs: BA LTG, SQ TPPS, CX DMP, AA EXP, Bonvoy LTT, ALL PLT, Hilton DM

Posts: 4,010

Quote:

Originally Posted by boybi

Wasn’t the new F hard product to be launched together with the 777X?

Yes, that was the plan but who knows what they are thinking now.

Apr 28, 2020, 1:27 am

#73

CS300

Join Date: Jun 2015

Programs: MR Platinum

Posts: 80

Quote:

Originally Posted by garykung

It may not. However, CX's fleet has a foundational issue - it does not have any narrowbodies. And CX is not always passing the less-than-ideal routes to KA.

Don't think it matters whether CX operates NBs or not as they fully own KA/UO.

Apr 28, 2020, 2:15 am

#74

garykung

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Aug 2009

Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG

Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓

Posts: 13,811

Quote:

Originally Posted by CS300

Don't think it matters whether CX operates NBs or not as they fully own KA/UO.

Then it tunes to another problem - CX still continues to serve many routes that are supposed to be served by NB, resulting excess capacities.

Apr 30, 2020, 6:22 pm

#75

djsflynn

Join Date: Aug 2007

Location: Sydney, Australia

Posts: 1,844

Quote:

Originally Posted by boybi

Wasn’t the new F hard product to be launched together with the 777X?

Yes, and also new J. I've received some interesting internal speculation on a possible direction for the new J seat, but nothing solid enough to share.