jj243

TerryK

Internet is full of rumors started by armchair CEOs.

Austin787

CI also operates the A350, which would be more ideal for SJC-TPE.

bocastephen

NH operates a 787 - it's not like the airport never sees large widebody flights.

wlau

Sorry, it was CI adding the Ontario flight, it wasn't BR - my mistake/confusion. Though I kept hearing a direct flight to SJC from TPE (I am in SJC). It makes sense. SJC now has direct flight to PEK, PVG, LHR, NRT... TPE, ICN, and HKG are the only 3 missing gateways.

As far as using an Asian gateway to connect strategy is concerned, TPE/HKG/MNL are all flawed. You overfly by at least 2 hours versus connect via NRT/ICN/PEK... PVG is the southern most that makes sense --- if you want a central gateway into all over Asia.

Most of the long haul at SJC are using B787, so the airport can definitely support it. SJC has been a divert airport for SFO. I've seen A380 B747 landed here...

TerryK

787 should work for SJC. Neither CI nor BR currently operates 787 though. A350 may work but I don't know enough to judge one way or the other.

Diversion airport doesn't mean much. Many airports can land A380 as diversion. They cannot support A380 take off with full load. A380 taking off from SJC can only land in nearby airports due to load restriction. This is not an issue during diversion but cannot work with scheduled longhaul flights.

ms2488

Has anyone heard anything about an ATL-TPE flight? In November, I was in the Delta lounge at NRT and was talking to the rep how much i missed Delta’s NRT-TPE service and was told that they were looking at an ATL-TPE direct. That would be terrific as I go to TPE often and refuse to go to LAX or SFO then onward on CI for the long flight. For me, CI is miserable with bad service , food, and most of all, the seats are small/uncomfortable with limited video selections. I do the NRT-TPE leg on CI under protest.

wlau

Errrr@CI. Those new CI 777 has the narrowest seats in 10-abreast config. They also like their seat cushion hard like their mattress. I lost the count of my times my rear became numb just 2-3 hours into the flight...it's a torture - i flat refuse to fly CI unless i have absolutely no choice. I'd fly to ATL to go to TPE on DL

BenA

east_west

BR has several 787s on order (both -9 and -10 variants), with deliveries starting in 2018.

ChiefNWA

I flew on CI's 77W TPE-HAN-TPE in economy and had no problems with it, Sure it's tight at 10 across in Y, but outside of DL right now, who doesn't have their 777s configured like that? I also flew their A350 TPE-PVG. I enjoyed the IFE which I found to be quite good, the seats were as comfortable as any other Y seat and I found the staff to be excellent. I would have no problem, based on those experiences, flying on CI to/from the US if I had to. Additionally, the J product on the 77Ws and 350s are both excellent, very well appointed and modern. Again, I'd have no problem at all flying that.

Are you sure (ms2488) that you aren't thinking of China Eastern??

wlau

How can you use a short hop from Taiwan to Vietnam as benchmark? Try 14 hours on those 777 seats.. I was fortunate enough to sit in the mid-front and front on several occassions, every seat is rock hard, just like Asian mattress. I am Asian and don't have much of a butt, and those seats were hurting my back and tailbone. IFE is newer and bigger than the old Panasonic system on DL but the contents are the same... I think SkyTeam license their contents on a collective agreement. DL/CI/MU all have nearly the same content. Even MU has softer seat than CI... I do like the food better on CI due to ample Asian flavors but CI is very limited with alcohol choices, even in J. They are also very stingy with their pours.

The short hop intra-Asian routes use very very old planes. Much much older than DL's main fleet. There are even aircraft with no IFE and power! You got lucky due to routing or equipment swap. BenA is right, they used new aircraft for NA and EU flights. China, Japan, Korea, etc are mostly based on very old aircraft... Outside of DL, I fly most with CI due to lack of choices.