Here we go again. Just from an interview from Sydney, John Solsar told ATW that in the next two years CX would consider the viability of very large aircraft e.g. A380 or B747-8, however he did remind us that the 777-300ER and A330 are perfect for CX at the moment.
I know that CX is going round in circles again telling us about the A380 and B747-8, at least we've got a range of time that we could expect the order.

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...7-8i-a380-0601
Cathay Pacific Airways CEO John Slosar told ATW in Sydney that the airline will examine the viability of very large aircraft for its network over the next two years. He said the airline�s prime focus was on frequency but conceded that an increased capacity aircraft, above the Boeing 777-300ER, might be needed on some routes.

"Sometime in the next two years we will have a good look at the large aircraft, the 747-8I and A380," he said, noting that an ideal route for a larger aircraft would Hong Kong-London Heathrow service, where two of the airline's four daily flights from HKG leave within 30 min. of each other.

However he emphasized that "It's important for our customers not to have to think about whether we have a flight or not when they want to travel. We don't want them to have to think about the schedule," Slosar said. "We have the perfect aircraft types in their category right now in the 777 and A330�.They are the ultimate in efficiency." He added, "Frequency is so important; we want four or five flights a day so we cover the clock.�

He also clarified recent statements to media about a potential A350 delay: "We are working closely with Airbus and are happy with the way the aircraft is proceeding and expect it to be delivered to us late in 2015. Airbus will have the first A350 structurally completed later this year."

Go with 748I, It goes better with existing 744 crews anyways!

The A380s doesn't have the looks of the 744s, and it can't really fly into a lot of airports..

A380 is gate compatible with B744, and the airport only need to touch up are the taxiways for some of the lights clearance.

I think the core destinations that are potential CX A380 gateways are already A380 compatible.

indeed. JFK and LHR, perhaps SYD and LAX as well... short haul destinations like PVG and SIN should be capable too (NRT too, if the demand comes back)

If CX does justify a 747/A380 purchase from a business perspective....

From a comfort point of view, if F stays like it is now with the seat/suite open configuration (versus the full enclosed suites you get on SQ), I prefer the 747 for the purposes of flying F class. The nose is such a private environment, and the lack of FA traffic makes a big difference in my opinion, especially if the seat/suite is open like on CX's F. I'm in the camp of people who have been disturbed by the FAs who, on occasion, turn the 77A aisles into a highway. I have been disturbed both when in J (seemed to notice it most in the mini-cabin, maybe because they stop to fiddle with the partition) and in F. I've also been awoken in F on 77A to FAs chatting with pilots in the galley (the cockpit rest area entrance is right by the front left entrance to 77A). I have not yet had the nerve to tell the pilots and crew to keep it down, and granted it has only happened twice out of a rather large sample size, but I wasn't pleased to be woken up by the cockpit crew member who was loudly flirting with the cabin staff. With the pilots upstairs far away from the galley, I've never once encountered this situation on the 747.

QRC3288, the Suites on SQ are, as SQ advertised, "a class beyond First". So you're comparing apples and oranges there. I've flown in the Suites once before, and boy was I impressed. The A380 is a very quiet plane, and coupled with the fact that you won't see anybody else I'll gladly say that SQ's Suites are miles ahead of CX F. I doubt anyone could top their product for a good 5-10 years.

If you want to compare CX F to SQ F, then it's a no brainer. The F cabin on SQ's 77Ws lacks privacy and the seat is very uncomfortable in its lounging position. CX's hardware is vastly superior in that regard. The software, though, is another story.

It is a matter of taste; I've flown EK/SQ/QF in their A380 F suites, and prefer QF over SQ over EK. The QF A380 suite is somewhat similar to CX, fwiw, and solves all the negatives in the 744 F cabin ... really well done. SQ gives the appearance of privacy without any real privacy (pretty much the same as QF in reality), while having the drawback of a somewhat claustrophobic cabin.

As for airport readiness for A380, it takes several years for an airport to become A380 capable (in the case of LAX and SFO the cost is public record, and was over USD 100 million for each one!). So it isn't quite a simple matter of moving a few taxiway lights. After the JFK incident (A380 hitting the tail of a smaller plane and spinning it around), ground movement of A380s has become more cautious. At LAX they shut down one side of the airport when the A380s taxi, and escort it with several cars front/rear/each side, to be sure of the clearance. But I think all CX routes that would get A380 already have A380-capable airports, though CX may not have A380 capable gate access (or baggage claim, catering, etc.). Even the tow bar is special (the A380 flies with a tow bar in the cargo hold, in case it needs to divert to another airport; been used a few times already, e.g. at NAN for diverted LAX-SYD flights).

To me that says A380. There's just no point in replacing 2 744 or 744/340 with one 748. I've always been convinced that CX will sooner or later join the 380-club and I still am. The question really is would they consider the -800 or, as many people believe, wait for a -900 version.

CX is the only airline in the region that did not order the A380... eg
SQ, TG, MH, CA, KE....

SO perhaps they're just trying to justify it. But 2years is a long time.. !

I didn't know that and didn't think of it. Nice little fact, thanks!

KE is building their whole premium fare strategy based on the A380, and project >50% of their revenue will be from A380 premium fares once their fleet is delivered. So it isn't just a capacity thing, it is also service level (though I think the 747-8 could match the A380 in that respect).

Again I don't see it, and I think Slosar is just playing the PR card when he says CX is pursuing A380. The Bird-Flu scare and 2007 market crash have convinced CX that you can't buy planes that relies too heavily on pax volume, but it must have good cargo capacity as well. Which, unfortunately, A380 doesn't fit that bill. I can maybe see CX buying B748 in the future, but definitely not A380.

The capacity of the A388s are somewhat larger than 748I right?

Plus, I don't think such capacity is quite needed as of yet. So 748 is a more viable option given that it is very familiar with the 744, and not as chunky as the 388..

http://www.centreforaviation.com/new...-and-sia/page1
This link goes to a business model of SIA vs CX.

There was a small hint of John Slosar saying that the A380 is not CXs' choice of aircraft at the moment, does this leave the 747-8 for CX at the moment? Is the A380-900 still on the plate?

Mr Slosar hints of more orders, saying “we may not be finished yet”. But he insists that for now Cathay has decided not to follow SIA in acquiring A380s.Cathay to rethink A380s and 747-8s

In recent years Cathay has conducted several studies of new jumbo jets, including the A380 and B747-8, but Mr Slosar says Cathay prefers to stick with twin-engine widebody aircraft because it “really wants to offer a good schedule”. He cites specifically two of Cathay’s biggest markets, Hong Kong and Sydney, where the carrier now offers four daily flights and says Cathay’s schedule really helps its premium business as its frequent flyers know there is always a flight when they need one.

Looming capacity constraints at Hong Kong, however, could persuade Cathay to re-evaluate its requirement for widebody aircraft over the next few years. Hong Kong International Airport is now projected to reach capacity within the next seven to nine years. Community discussion of a third runway will begin this year. If the airport does not get the green light to construct the third runway, Cathay would need larger capacity aircraft to better utilise its existing slots. Mr Slosar acknowledges that in a couple of years Cathay will have “another look at the 747-8s and A380s”.

The 747-8 does kinda make sense for CX, its' cargo ratio is greater than the A380, the amount of fuel it uses is less than the A380 and the queue for the A380 is far greater and longer than the 747-8 order line; if they order soon they could recieve the 747-8 faster than waiting for a A380.
However if the proposed 3rd runway at HKIA is rejected would CX consider capcity over frequency, due to the fact that flight slots and space at the airport would be limited.
If the 3rd runway does happen would CX keep on choosing the 777-300ERs over the 747-8? Only time would tell.

Boeing really made 773ER such a great plane that there's really not an urgent need to switch to 748s. If HKIA really builds a third runway then I'm pretty sure the future planes CX will buy will be either more A350s or new orders of B787s, not A380/B748s