For Skycruiser or any CX afficionado

The only experience I can offer is that before we sterted operating our 777 we forund out that the figures quoted form Boeing were met and even exceeded. This is also the case of the new 777-300ER. But, the 340-600 didn’t.

I am not starting an Airbur Vs Boeing thread, some posts seem to be going this way. I am stating facts from our airline.

Just read this again, jeeps, my typing is bad. 😀

The only experience I can offer is that before we sterted operating our 777 we forund out that the figures quoted form Boeing were met and even exceeded. This is also the case of the new 777-300ER. But, the 340-600 didn’t.

I am not starting an Airbur Vs Boeing thread, some posts seem to be going this way. I am stating facts from our airline.

Just read this again, jeeps, my typing is bad. 😀

The only experience I can offer is that before we sterted operating our 777 we forund out that the figures quoted form Boeing were met and even exceeded. This is also the case of the new 777-300ER. But, the 340-600 didn’t.

I am not starting an Airbur Vs Boeing thread, some posts seem to be going this way. I am stating facts from our airline.

Facts is all I want. Despite folks thoughts to the contrary

The only experience I can offer is that before we sterted operating our 777 we forund out that the figures quoted form Boeing were met and even exceeded. This is also the case of the new 777-300ER. But, the 340-600 didn’t.

I am not starting an Airbur Vs Boeing thread, some posts seem to be going this way. I am stating facts from our airline.

Facts is all I want. Despite folks thoughts to the contrary

I’m not Pro A or anti B , I’m just objective.
How the hell do you know that Boeing Always met the numbers????
Do you have any insider in Boeing Co?

When Sky says that CX is disppointed with the 346 , I believe him because that’s a specific case.
However there is NO point to say that Boeing ALWAYS meet the goals as you say.

The only experience I can offer is that before we sterted operating our 777 we forund out that the figures quoted form Boeing were met and even exceeded. This is also the case of the new 777-300ER. But, the 340-600 didn’t.

I am not starting an Airbur Vs Boeing thread, some posts seem to be going this way. I am stating facts from our airline.

I’m not Pro A or anti B , I’m just objective.
How the hell do you know that Boeing Always met the numbers????
Do you have any insider in Boeing Co?

When Sky says that CX is disppointed with the 346 , I believe him because that’s a specific case.
However there is NO point to say that Boeing ALWAYS meet the goals as you say.

The only experience I can offer is that before we sterted operating our 777 we forund out that the figures quoted form Boeing were met and even exceeded. This is also the case of the new 777-300ER. But, the 340-600 didn’t.

I am not starting an Airbur Vs Boeing thread, some posts seem to be going this way. I am stating facts from our airline.

Ian,

When are we going to have some banter over a cold beer????

Ian,

When are we going to have some banter over a cold beer????

Besides.. SARS was a unique unforseeable event, no one could plan for that type of crisis.
If thats the only event where the A340-600 shines… I pity its owners

I agree. An unforseeable event isn’t really worth talking about. No airline plans to lease or buy an aircraft so in the event of another 9/11 or SARS it might be better than another type.

Besides.. SARS was a unique unforseeable event, no one could plan for that type of crisis.
If thats the only event where the A340-600 shines… I pity its owners

I agree. An unforseeable event isn’t really worth talking about. No airline plans to lease or buy an aircraft so in the event of another 9/11 or SARS it might be better than another type.

So where did all that pax carrying capability get Cathay during the SARS crisis? In deep pooh that’s where. When only freight would fly on the route we didn’t have cargo 744’s operating while pax aircraft cost money sitting around or operating with no passengers on them. We could operate the A346 with much more freight than a conventional 744 and make a profit with no need to carry a single passenger.

What about 9/11 impact on Virgin, in the SH@T aswell. Using SARS is a bit lame. 😉 Come on Ian.

In fact we still carried cargo in the 744 pax aircraft and yes it was running at a profit. For your information we still made 1.7 billion profit during 2003, so during SARS we still made a healthy profit. I bet most airlines would have folded had they been in our shoes, thank god for the best management team in the industry. We are also on target to make a massive profit this year.

So where did all that pax carrying capability get Cathay during the SARS crisis? In deep pooh that’s where. When only freight would fly on the route we didn’t have cargo 744’s operating while pax aircraft cost money sitting around or operating with no passengers on them. We could operate the A346 with much more freight than a conventional 744 and make a profit with no need to carry a single passenger.

What about 9/11 impact on Virgin, in the SH@T aswell. Using SARS is a bit lame. 😉 Come on Ian.

In fact we still carried cargo in the 744 pax aircraft and yes it was running at a profit. For your information we still made 1.7 billion profit during 2003, so during SARS we still made a healthy profit. I bet most airlines would have folded had they been in our shoes, thank god for the best management team in the industry. We are also on target to make a massive profit this year.

So where did all that pax carrying capability get Cathay during the SARS crisis? In deep pooh that’s where. When only freight would fly on the route we didn’t have cargo 744’s operating while pax aircraft cost money sitting around or operating with no passengers on them. We could operate the A346 with much more freight than a conventional 744 and make a profit with no need to carry a single passenger.

Still doesn’t make up for the fact that the plane does not measure up to Airbus’ claims.
Thats the point of this thread.

Besides.. SARS was a unique unforseeable event, no one could plan for that type of crisis.
If thats the only event where the A340-600 shines… I pity its owners

So where did all that pax carrying capability get Cathay during the SARS crisis? In deep pooh that’s where. When only freight would fly on the route we didn’t have cargo 744’s operating while pax aircraft cost money sitting around or operating with no passengers on them. We could operate the A346 with much more freight than a conventional 744 and make a profit with no need to carry a single passenger.

Still doesn’t make up for the fact that the plane does not measure up to Airbus’ claims.
Thats the point of this thread.

Besides.. SARS was a unique unforseeable event, no one could plan for that type of crisis.
If thats the only event where the A340-600 shines… I pity its owners

So where did all that pax carrying capability get Cathay during the SARS crisis? In deep pooh that’s where. When only freight would fly on the route we didn’t have cargo 744’s operating while pax aircraft cost money sitting around or operating with no passengers on them. We could operate the A346 with much more freight than a conventional 744 and make a profit with no need to carry a single passenger.

So where did all that pax carrying capability get Cathay during the SARS crisis? In deep pooh that’s where. When only freight would fly on the route we didn’t have cargo 744’s operating while pax aircraft cost money sitting around or operating with no passengers on them. We could operate the A346 with much more freight than a conventional 744 and make a profit with no need to carry a single passenger.

I don’t know about you, but I have only heard about the A340’s not really matching up with figures…the rest of the a/c have been pretty spot on..or there abouts.

Apparently the A319 didn’t quite match up when first entering service.

Something to do with the range… I think thats why the wing tip fences were introduced.

The A300 and A310 also had range issues. This I read in one book which I’ve now lost. It was all about commercial aircraft, from the first boing pax aircraft to the then very new A320 (at time of publishing) … haven’t verified it in another book yet.

I don’t know about you, but I have only heard about the A340’s not really matching up with figures…the rest of the a/c have been pretty spot on..or there abouts.

Apparently the A319 didn’t quite match up when first entering service.

Something to do with the range… I think thats why the wing tip fences were introduced.

The A300 and A310 also had range issues. This I read in one book which I’ve now lost. It was all about commercial aircraft, from the first boing pax aircraft to the then very new A320 (at time of publishing) … haven’t verified it in another book yet.

I’m not Pro A or anti B , I’m just objective.
How the hell do you know that Boeing Always met the numbers????
Do you have any insider in Boeing Co?

When Sky says that CX is disppointed with the 346 , I believe him because that’s a specific case.
However there is NO point to say that Boeing ALWAYS meet the goals as you say.

CX is not a specific case!
IB and VS also said to have found the A340-600 unable to meet the numbers specified by Airbus.
China Eastern are also reportedly not to happy with its performance out of LAX. A situation very similar to CX.

Please don’t get me wrong I’m not saying the A340-600 is a bad aircraft, VS have found a niche for them and it works well. IB… well they’re unhappy with the performance but are bound by contract. This comes from an A340 Pilot as was spoken about a great deal at the time.

I know boeing always met their targets because history tell us this. I also read a lot into Boeing. Figures and targets for past aircraft are no secret.

I’m not Pro A or anti B , I’m just objective.
How the hell do you know that Boeing Always met the numbers????
Do you have any insider in Boeing Co?

When Sky says that CX is disppointed with the 346 , I believe him because that’s a specific case.
However there is NO point to say that Boeing ALWAYS meet the goals as you say.

CX is not a specific case!
IB and VS also said to have found the A340-600 unable to meet the numbers specified by Airbus.
China Eastern are also reportedly not to happy with its performance out of LAX. A situation very similar to CX.

Please don’t get me wrong I’m not saying the A340-600 is a bad aircraft, VS have found a niche for them and it works well. IB… well they’re unhappy with the performance but are bound by contract. This comes from an A340 Pilot as was spoken about a great deal at the time.

I know boeing always met their targets because history tell us this. I also read a lot into Boeing. Figures and targets for past aircraft are no secret.