Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific Airways, Asia’s fourth-largest carrier by market capitalisation and Asia’s largest international airline, posted a worse-than-expected 60.8% fall in its 2011 full-year net profit of HK$5.5 billion (US$705.3 million) from 2010’s record-breaking full-year profit of HK$14.08 billion (US$1.8 billion), dent by soaring gross fuel costs which rose by HK$12.5 billion, or 44.1%, net of fuel hedging gains in the past year, as well as a 9-month consecutive decline in the world’s biggest cargo carrier’s freight traffic that began in April 2011.

The 2011 net profit of HK$5.5 billion was below analysts’ consensus of an earning of HK$5.82 billion, according to Reuters’ compilation of analysts estimates. The oneworld alliance member recorded a 2011 second-half profit of HK$2.7 billion (US$348 million), a steep 63% fall from 2010’s HK$7.2 billion second-half profit, primarily owing to the fact that the typical uptick in cargo traffic during the fourth quarter did not materialise in 2011. Profit margin plummeted dramatically from 15.7% to just 5.6%.

Revenue increased by 9.9% to HK$98.4 billion (US$12.6 billion) from HK$89.5 billion in the prior year, however, this was dwarfed by a 17.9% increase in the Cathay Pacific Group’s total operating expense to HK$93.7 billion from a year ago. Earnings per share (EPS) plunged by 60.9% from HK$3.571 a share in 2010 to HK$1.398 in 2011.

“We faced a number of major challenges in 2011 and we are still operating in a very challenging environment, particularly for our cargo business. However, the Cathay Pacific Group has a clear strategic focus and we are moving ahead with a number of initiatives that will make our airlines stronger and provide a better experience for our customers. For example, the Group is taking delivery of 19 new aircraft in 2012; we are introducing a new premium economy class product, new long-haul economy class seats and continuing with the rollout of our acclaimed new business class; we are improving our lounge facilities; and we are building one of the world’s most sophisticated cargo terminals in Hong Kong that is on track to open early in 2013. For Dragonair, we will add more aircraft, launch new products and introduce new destinations this year, all of which will improve connectivity and boost Hong Kong’s role as one of the world’s premier international aviation hubs,” Cathay Pacific chairman Christopher Pratt said.

However, these financial results masked Cathay Pacific’s strong underlying performance during 2011, and despite 2012 looks destined to be an even more challenging year than 2011, with surging fuel prices and softening economy class yields, Cathay Pacific is holding on tight and stands to benefit the most from a potential global economic recovery once it is on a self-sustained path as well as an increase in air travel demand buoyed by the burgeoning Chinese and Asia/Pacific economies.

For instance, the 2010 results were skewed by a HK$3.03 billion non-recurring gain from the sale of shares in Hong Kong Air Cargo Terminals Limited (Hactl)  and Hong Kong Aircraft Engineering Company Limited (HAECO) and an exceptionally strong cargo demand as a result of inventories replenishing activities following the 2007-2009 global financial crisis. Had there not been these non-recurring gains, the company would have recorded a 50.1% fall in profits attributable to shareholders instead of a 60.8% fall being recorded.

Image Courtesy of Cathay Pacific

Passenger revenue rose by 14.2% from 2010’s HK$59.4 billion to 2011’s HK$67.8 billion, on a 5.1% increase in passenger traffic, measured in revenue passenger kilometres (RPKs) to 101.6 billion and a 2.9% increase in the number of passengers carried to 27.6 million passengers. Capacity, measured in available seat kilometres (ASKs), rose by 9.2% to 126.3 billion, thereby leading to a 3% drop in the passenger load factor to 80.4% in 2011. The performance of passenger yields in 2011, measured in revenue per RPK, was superb with an 8.7% gain to a record-high of HK66.5 cents, even outperforming 2010’s HK61.2 cents and the second-highest passenger yield of HK63.5 cents recorded in 2008, despite capacity growth outstripping passenger traffic growth and a weakening yield picture in the economy class cabin, as well as a tampering off in the growth in premium traffic yield towards the end of the year.

On the cargo front, in the meantime, cargo revenue rose by 0.3% to HK$25.98 billion against a backdrop of plunging freight traffic for 9 months in a row, with freight traffic, measured in freight tonnage kilometres (FTKs), declining by 5.2% to 9.65 billion from a year ago whereas capacity, measured in available cargo and mail kilometres, increased by 6.9% to 14.4 billion, thereby leading to a 8.5% drop in cargo load factor to 67.2%. Remarkably, cargo yield increased by 3.9% to HK$2.42 per tonnage kilometre, second only to 2008’s record of HK$2.54 per tonnage kilometre.

Separately, Cathay Pacific finance director Martin Murray revealed in an analysts’ call the airline recorded a start-up loss of HK$1.7 billion for Shanghai-based Air China Cargo (ACC), in which Cathay Pacific has a combined 49% economic interest in the cargo joint venture.

In addition, Cathay Pacific has done a superb job in controlling cost, surging fuel costs notwithstanding. Cathay Pacific’s unit cost, measured in cost per available tonnage kilometre (CATK) without fuel, has stayed stagnant at HK$2.01, versus 2010’s HK$2.02 and 2009’s HK$2.00. This result was remarkable considering the airline’s passenger and cargo growth and Hong Kong’s 2011 inflation rate of 5.3%, Cathay Pacific’s unit cost has declined by at least 8.2% in constant terms over the last three years.

Premium economy to help improve profitability
Since unveiling its premium economy class in addition to its new long-haul economy class, Cathay Pacific has already sold more than 5,000 premium economy seats over the last few weeks, chief operating officer (COO) Ivan Chu told Bloomberg.

The premium economy class seat is a real upgrade over the economy class product, with wider seat pitch at 38 inches versus 32 inches for the new long-haul economy class seats, as well as 8 inches of recline versus 6 inches for the economy product. The design of Cathay Pacific’s premium economy seat was derived from Weber Aircraft’s model 6810, which was also the baseline design for American Airlines and Delta Air Lines’ regional first class and Korean Air’s regional business class, according to an Australian Business Traveller report.

“This is a business class seat for single-aisle aircraft which we’ve modified to suit widebody planes like the 777 and A330. Most premium economy seats are economy scaled up, but this is a true business class seat,” Zobiac Seats, Weber Aircraft’s parent company, vice president (VP) of sales and marketing Robert Funk was quoted as saying.

Moreover, a quick planned rollout of Cathay’s premium economy seats on its long-haul fleet should help improve its profitability by capturing the additional incremental revenue extracted.

Cathay Pacific plans to fit the premium economy class seats onto 48 aircraft by the end of this year, including 23 Boeing 777-300ERs, 17 Airbus A330-300s and 8 Boeing 747-400s; by the end of 2013, 87 aircraft, including 36 Boeing 777-300ERs and 26 Airbus A330-300s will feature the premium economy products.

Most importantly, the premium economy product bodes very well for Cathay Pacific’s profitability since the oneworld alliance member could utilise its strong revenue management system (RMS) coupled with price discrimination to extract consumer surplus from those who are willing and able to pay for a real upgrade to the premium economy product with better seats, food, beverages and services at a 50%-80% higher price than an economy class seat, but unwilling to pay for a business class seat that typically costs as much as 4 times the price of an economy seat.

Furthermore, Cathay Pacific could also employ its revenue management system (RMS) to limit any down-trading from business class while encouraging upgrading from economy class to premium economy class for those economy passengers who pay the standard full-fare. After all, premium economy class is designed for passengers with a higher price elasticity of demand against those price-inelastic business class passengers and the incremental revenue gain would offset any revenue loss from a trade-down from business class, as a price-elastic demand schedule implies a decrease in price would lead to a proportionately larger increase in the quantity demanded of the premium economy product.

“I think the yield improvement of premium economy won’t be the same by every week. So if you average it out in order to make it make sense, I think we need to have premium economy fares of about 1.5, but I think we’ll see a lot, in some cases we’ll see double the economy fares and some cases we may see very marginal gains. And the reasons for that in some markets the premium economy product is well-established, say to London where our competitors have it and it’s already a known well-established market, in some places where that product does not exist at all, it’s going to take some time for us to establish the market for premium economy,” Cathay Pacific director of corporate development James Barrington said in an analysts’ call discussing the full-year 2011 financial results.

“But my gut feeling is on long-haul, ultra long-haul flying, there’ll be a tremendous incentive to trade up from economy to premium economy for a small surcharge and very little concern from our point of view about people trading down. So we see minimal dilution from the business class cabin and a segmentation of the economy class cabin where we’ll pull out all the high-yielding stuff and be able to charge more than a lot of efficiency in our economy class seats,” Barrington reiterated.

Image Courtesy of Cathay Pacific

And the “intelligent misuse” of long-haul aircraft, as Cathay executives put it on situations where long-haul aircraft are deployed on regional routes instead of sitting on the ground before their deployments on long-haul routes the next trip, would ensure Cathay Pacific capture the growing middle class in China and Asia/Pacific as their incomes soar and these Asian economies continue to grow despite an anaemic global economic recovery.

“Premium economy was obviously designed to give extra comfort for long-haul passengers to trade people up at a surcharge yet to be determined by the market, but 30% of our long-haul capacity operates in the region, so we’ll be operating a significant quantity of premium economy product in the region. We haven’t yet worked out how to price that, but I think if you look at the way which ancillary revenue works with both us and our competitors, everybody has moved away from one price for every seat and we offer, if you’re flying to London in an all-economy configuration, there’s a significant premium people are prepared to pay for exit-row seats and for aisle seats, and I think we’ll probably try to operate that kind of model for premium economy in the region. But we haven’t determined that yet. So at the moment, in the short term you’re going to ride the premium economy at probably economy rates, but I think beyond the very short term, you should expect to pay some kind of premium whether it’s through Asia Miles or through price, it’s yet to be determined,” Barrington commented.

Meanwhile, settling on 4-class and 3-class layouts onboard the carrier’s Boeing 777-300ER fleet enables Cathay Pacific to optimise the use of its fleet and deploy the right aircraft to the right market. In doing so, not only could Cathay boost its revenue streams by removing first-class seats that have low local demand and earning incremental revenue from the business and premium economy classes instead of having a low first-class uptake rate, it could also enable Cathay to deploy the 3-class 777-300ERs to new destinations in the emerging economies first while giving it a tremendous amount of flexibility to up-gauge it to a 4-class 777-300ER later as the market evolves and matures.

Cathay Pacific’s 3-class 777-300ER with its New Business Class, Premium Economy and New Economy Class features 340 seats, dubbed “77D” in the global distribution system (GDS) and which comprises 40 New Business Class seats, 32 Premium Economy Class seats and 268 New Economy Class seats, whereas its 4-class 777-300ER with the first-class product, dubbed “77H” in the GDS, will feature 6 First Class and 53 New Business Class seats, as well as 34 Premium Economy and 182 New Economy Class seats, according to an Airline Route report.

“The plan is to keep first class, in simple terms, that’s not quite like simple as this: but I think half of our 777 long-haul fleet will have 4 class: First, Business, Premium Economy [and Economy] and half of it will be 3 class. There’s clearly market demand for first class, New York, London, Los Angeles and clearly there’s some markets that don’t and then there’re those in the middle,” Barrington said.

“At the moment the plan is roughly 50:50, there’s no plan to get rid of First Class. And we definitely plan to be a full service, 4-class operator to all the markets where there’s sufficient demand for first class but the ones in the middle will, places like Toronto, Chicago, possibly San Francisco, Vancouver, we’ll just sort of wring out the benefit of fleet simplicity, versus matching exact supply with demand,” Barrington stressed.

On the Boeing 747-400, dubbed “74K” in the global distribution system (GDS), it will feature 4-class in a 359-seat configuration, comprising 9 First Class seats, 46 Business Class seats, 26 Premium Economy Class seats and 278 New Economy Class seats, an Airline Route report said, whereas the 3-class A330-300 with the New Business Class, Premium Economy Class and New Economy Class, dubbed “33G”, will feature 38, 28 and 175 seats in the respective cabins, Airline Route said..

On the other hand, Cathay Pacific said it plans to have the New Economy Class on 63 aircraft by the end of 2013, which is a significant improvement over the airline’s existing fixed-back shell seats with additional cushioning, a touchscreen in-flight entertainment system (IFE) with Wi-Fi trials to be conducted later this year, as well as a bigger seat width at 18.1 to 18.5 inches versus 17.45 to 18.5 inches on the existing shell seats, more recline at 6 inches and a nice, small hook for storing personal items below the personal television screen.

The airline said it is currently reviewing options on economy class seats on its regional fleet, which Aspire Aviation‘s sources at the Asia’s biggest international carrier said is very likely to retrofit the regional fleet with the fixed-back shell seats coming from the long-haul retrofitting programme, thereby providing a renewal of the carrier’s regional product at minimal investment.

“We are reviewing our options for the CX regional fleet and we will make a proper announcement when more concrete details are available,” Cathay Pacific spokeswoman Carolyn Leung said.

Separately, the airline said it will have 50 aircraft retrofitted with the New Business Class seats by the end of 2012 and 63 by the end of 2013, which the well-received New Business Class products are already featured on 15 aircraft at the end of 2011.

Image Courtesy of Cathay Pacific

Outlook, Asian focus
After having a challenging year in 2011 with the devastating Japanese earthquake in March, the flood in Thailand, the Middle East political upheavals, 2012 looks even more challenging with soaring fuel costs and the weak cargo demand, while stabilised, may not pick up again until the second half of this year, contingent upon the global economic recovery and the resolution regarding the bottomless European sovereign debt crisis, of which a combination of the €440 billion (US$575 billion) temporary European bailout fund, the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the permanent one, the €500 billion European Stability Mechanism (ESM) would create a war chest sufficient in calming global financial markets.

Cathay Pacific currently plans for a 7% growth in passenger capacity, measured in available seat kilometres (ASKs), against an anticipated 6% growth in passenger traffic, measured in revenue passenger kilometres (RPKs), its finance director Martin Murray told industry analysts.

This enables Cathay Pacific to retain flexibility in future growth in its passenger business, as adding capacity later once the global economic recovery is on a self-sustaining path would not be fast enough to realise the revenue gains from the astounding pace of growth spurred by a burgeoning Chinese economy, primarily owing to the inelastic nature of supply in the airline business.

Make no mistake, growing capacity, while lowering the unit cost by reaping the benefits from economies of scale, growing it much faster than the growth in passenger traffic would put undesirable pressure on passenger load factor and hence yields, as the law of diminishing marginal products dictates.

However, the anticipated 1% shortfall between the growth in passenger traffic and passenger capacity is a comfortable scenario which balances the need of capacity discipline and the retaining of flexibility in future growth nicely.

Furthermore, Cathay Pacific’s strategy on focusing on Asian growth for the time being before the European economy eventually recovers and launching routes to secondary European destinations such as Munich, Barcelona on the Airbus A350-900 whose first delivery is scheduled to take place in late 2015, is unquestionably the sound and correct one.

For instance, Dragonair, Cathay Pacific’s wholly-owned subsidiary, plans to add 4 new Airbus A320s and 2 Airbus A330-300s aircraft this year, as well as restoring routes to Xian and Guilin, and is likely to launch routes to new destinations in Thailand and South Korea such as Busan “very soon”, Aspire Aviation‘s sources at Cathay Pacific said.

“Asia’s economies are better than the rest of the world’s at the moment. Traffic around the Asian points is good, we think that’s a pretty good strategy for this year,” Cathay Pacific chief executive John Slosar said in a Bloomberg interview.

Meanwhile, Cathay Pacific’s strong balance sheet enables it to enjoy relatively cheap loans at low interest rates for its fleet renewal programme, with its balance sheet remaining extremely healthy despite a 0.15 times increase in its net debt-to-equity ratio from 0.28 times in 2010 to 0.43 times in 2011.

Cathay Pacific still has 14 aircraft for delivery for the remainder of this year at press time, comprising 3 747-8Fs, 5 Airbus A330-300Es, 4 777-300ERs and 2 Airbus A320-200s, excluding another 2 A320s which Cathay agreed to lease in January. Cathay Pacific has 96 aircraft orders on its backlog.

However, due to skyrocketing fuel prices, Aspire Aviation believes Cathay Pacific will withdraw the 21 gas-guzzling Boeing 747-400s and 11 Airbus A340-300s in its fleet much faster, of which the de facto 747-400 replacement, the 777-300ER, burns 22% to 24% less fuel per tonnage kilometre than the 747-400s, yet has a considerably larger revenue cargo volume. While retiring its 747-400 and A340-300 fleets faster would lead to a spike in the depreciation and maintenance cost items on Cathay Pacific’s balance sheet, the benefits of doing so, with 22% less fuel burn and considerably larger revenue cargo volume, in addition to a smaller economy class cabin which enables Cathay to reduce discounting on the back-end of the aircraft, apparently outweigh the cost of doing so.

“Basically the 777s of which we’ll have a fleet of 50 and the 350-900 ordered that we’ve already announced are, by and large, a mixture of replacements for 747s and 340s, but also allowing us some opportunity for growth. The speed at which we phase out the 747s and 340s is still flexible and that puts us in quite a strong position, I think, to an event of high fuel price and a low market demand, phase the less fuel efficient aircraft out earlier or in the event of a low fuel price and high demand, keep them going for longer. So I can’t really be specific about the plan to exit them, but I think by 2016 and 17, I think you should assume that all of our 747s and 340s have pretty much exited the fleet and we have a fleet of 777s, 350-900s, and potentially -1000s as we already haven’t confirmed any orders for those yet, so that’s the fleet side of it,” Cathay Pacific director in corporate development James Barrington explained.

Image Courtesy of Cathay Pacific

Looking ahead, Cathay Pacific will start evaluating very large airplanes (VLAs), including the 747-8I Intercontinental and Airbus A380 later this year, with the 747-8I suiting Cathay’s frequency-based business model better, in addition to a larger revenue cargo volume, the sellable cargo space left after fully loading passengers’ luggage. The A380 has a total cargo volume of 5,875 cubic feet and a revenue cargo volume of 2,995 cubic feet, whereas the 747-8I has a total cargo volume and revenue cargo volume of 6,345 cu. ft. and 3,895 cu. ft., respectively (“Cathay Pacific stays on the course of expansion“, 2nd Jan, 12).

“We are going to look at the large aircraft again later this year. That’s the kind of flexibility premium customers value. Anything from one hour to 16 hours, we have the aircraft to do that. Now, after a certain point, you have done as much of that as you can do and it’s natural that down the line you will be looking at bigger aeroplanes,” Cathay Pacific chief executive John Slosar said in an Orient Aviation interview.

Crucially, Cathay Pacific has a lot of options regarding its future fleet, and need not rush to order any very large airplane (VLA) against a backdrop of economic volatility and declining profitability, and could easily exercise its purchase rights for 20 Boeing 777-300ERs for deliveries between 2015 and 2017, as well as options for 10 Airbus A350s to be exercised no later than 2016. This could enable Cathay obtain early availability for big twins such as 777-300ERs or A350-1000s, before deciding on bigger airplanes such as the 407-seat 777-9X that burns 21% less fuel on a per seat basis and has a 16% lower cash operating cost (COC) per seat than the 365-seat 777-300ER with a range of around 8,000 nm (nautical miles), or the 467-seat 747-8I Intercontinental and 525-seat Airbus A380 superjumbo (“Boeing develops 777X to challenge Airbus A350“, 9th Feb, 12).

“We focus on offering global connectivity and maintaining high flight frequency on trunk routes for maximum schedule flexibility to passengers. The fleet mix – A330s, 777-300ERs and future A350s – suits our business model perfectly,” Cathay Pacific spokeswoman Carolyn Leung said.

“The 777-300ER and the A350-900 will be at the core of our long and ultra haul fleet. We will continue to evaluate all available aircraft models for our fleet needs and are not ruling out larger aircraft, including A380s or Boeing 747-8, but this is subject to aircraft needs,” Leung elaborated.

On the cargo front, there is a glimmer of hope after 10 months of consecutive declines in cargo traffic since April 2011 which ended in February with a 2% increase in freight traffic, measured in freight tonnage kilometres (FTKs), as well as the commencement of sale of Apple Inc’s iPad 3. Cathay Pacific currently plans for a 7% growth in freight capacity, measured in available cargo and mail kilometres, downgraded from the 17% and 10% growth targets set at the end of 2011.

“On the cargo capacity, we currently got a planned 7% increase, we could go up as much as 17% increase, so there’s quite a lot of flex in our system. We don’t have any aircraft parked at the moment, so we got good flexibility in the system,” Cathay Pacific director in corporate development James Barrington said.

“In the event that the market picks up, we have got quite a lot of flex in our capacity to put more capacity on and in the event the market goes down, we’ve 30% of our cargo volume on the bellies of our passenger aircraft, and so we’ll simply match supply with demand by reducing the amount of flying of our freighters.

“But predicting what the cargo market, the air cargo market is going to do, it’s very difficult. But our fundamental belief is that Hong Kong and China will remain the production centre of the world. If you’re setting up a cargo business anywhere in the world, it’s pretty hard to find a better place than Hong Kong and also Shanghai where we have a JV cargo operation with Air China. And so when that cycle comes back, we’ll have the infrastructure with the new cargo terminal, joint venture with Air China and the underlying capacity to take advantage of a market that returns,” Barrington commented.

Image Courtesy of Cathay Pacific

Indeed, Cathay Pacific would be the biggest beneficiary once the now stabilised but still weak cargo market recovers, given its freight network connecting all the major worldwide cargo markets with all the interior points in China via Hong Kong, as well as via its Air China Cargo (ACC) joint venture (JV) in Shanghai. By limiting its cargo capacity growth to 7% while maintaining spare capacity of up to 17%, Cathay Pacific could respond to a potential cargo market upturn quickly and realise a handsome profitable growth in the cargo market.

And despite the aforementioned upfront start-up loss recorded at the Air China Cargo (ACC) joint venture (JV) in the competitive Shanghai cargo market with China Eastern’s China Cargo Airlines and HNA Group’s Yangtze River Express, the growth of manufacturing industries in the Yangtze River Delta, coupled with a dual cargo hub strategy with Cathay Pacific Cargo in Hong Kong capturing demand from the Pearl River Delta (PRD), this positions Cathay Pacific very well to reap the most benefits over the long term, despite the significant short-term challenges.

In the meantime, Cathay Pacific director in corporate development James Barrington said in an analysts’ call that the airline has yet to make a firm decision regarding the withdrawal of the Boeing 747-400 BCF (Boeing Converted Freighter) fleet, a decision of which will only be made upon the maintenance milestone is reached. Aspire Aviation thinks Cathay Pacific will eventually decide to replace its 747-400 BCF fleet with the 777-200F freighter fleet, primarily owing to the very significant cash outlays involved in the 747-400 BCF’s maintenance and its fuel inefficiency, which burns 24% and 15% more fuel than the 777-200F and 747-400F freighters on a typical 3,000 nautical miles (nm) trip, respectively.

The 777-200F freighter can perform the 747-400 BCF’s missions comfortably and efficiently, of which the former can fly 4,900 nautical miles (nm) with 102 tonnes of payload whereas the 747-400 BCF has a range of 4,091 nm with 107.8 tonnes of payload.

In conclusion, Cathay Pacific is ready for an eventual economic upturn, with its significant product investments in the roll-out of its New Business Class, Premium Economy Class and New Economy Class, lounge upgrades, a sparkling cargo terminal that will lower the cargo handling cost and boost the cargo handling efficiency when it enters into service in 2013. After all, in the difficult airline business where margins of error are as thin as the air in 40,000 feet, it is those who have the long-term visions with a prudent financial and operational management succeed. Cathay Pacific, an extremely well-managed airline, has achieved this before and it is going to surprise the sceptics and naysayers again in the future.

Comments made by Cathay Pacific’s executives in an analysts’ call >>
Cathay Pacific’s presentation slides of full-year 2011 results >>

23 Comments

  • Terry 2012 Mar 19 / 17:19

    Good effort with the report. Keep up the good work!

  • Trackback: 19MarCathay Pacific holding on tight for eventual economic upturn

  • Trackback: 19MarCathay Pacific holding on tight for eventual economic upturn

  • keesje 2012 Mar 19 / 21:37

    “I think you should assume that all of our 747s and 340s have pretty much exited the fleet and we have a fleet of 777s, 350-900s, and potentially -1000s as we already haven’t confirmed any orders for those yet, so that’s the fleet side of it,” Cathay Pacific director in corporate development James Barrington explained.”

    -> Slip of the tongue ? Cathay is considering the A350-1000.

    • Daniel Tsang 2012 Mar 19 / 22:47

      Keesje,

      Cathay Pacific indeed has options on its 38 A350-900 orders for converting them into A350-1000 orders.

      However, Cathay Pacific chief executive also commented that the airline would be very interested in the 777X as well.

      ““It was an absolutely strategic decision to order the A350s and it will be a great fit for us. We took a look at both the A350 and the 787, and the delivery position of the aircraft was crucial to the decision. We like what it gives us in terms of range and performance.”

      “When we take delivery of all of the 777-300ERs we have ordered, we will have 50 in total and that will make us the second largest operator of the aircraft. I think that clearly shows that we like the type, and that it is a good fit for the company.

      “We would be very interested if they decided to make it better. Boeing have reached out to all of the existing 777-300ER customers, and we have given them our input as well.”

      http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/01/02/cathay-pacific-stays-on-the-course-of-expansion/

      I think it’s just a general comment on the many options and flexibility that Cathay has on its fleet strategy.

  • Brian 2012 Mar 20 / 02:25

    Well said Daniel. I would be very surprised if Cathay committed to the A350-1000 before at least seeing what Boeing will offer with the 777x. Cathay’s consistent orders for the 777 affirm their comment that they very much like the type, and they do have a long history with the 777 program (they were one of the original “Working Together” group). Plus, the revenue cargo volume issue is always a plus for the 777, especially compared to the -1000, which has suffered a lot of criticism for its lower MTOW/payload.

    Cathay is one of 5 airlines on my personal preliminary watch list as big potential 777x customers when Boeing launches it around the end of the year. Not saying they’ll order it for sure, but Cathay will be one of the big A350/777x battlegrounds.

  • Trackback: a350-1000 - FlyerTalk Forums

  • keesje 2012 Mar 20 / 15:53

    I think the A350-1000 will have excellent seatmile cost and payload range.

    The critisim the A350-1000 got seems limited to 1 or 2 spoiled Arab princes that like to critisize everyone and the Boeing team repeating them.

    I expect the A350-1000 to replace many 777-200ER’s / A340s on long haul routes. Prospects could be Cathay, United, BA, QF, DL, LH, AF/KL, SQ operating the type in 300 seat 3-4 class configurations. A combination of new orders and -900 conversions.

    The 777X will be large, >2019, uncertain and still heavy. If you really need up to 400 seats long haul, its a great aircraft. The 787 and 747-8 showed new engines/wings aren’t a walk in the park..

  • OV-099 2012 Mar 20 / 16:06

    Cathay wants to use the same sized economy class seats as they are now using on their A330s, on their new A350s. That size won’t fit a 3-3-3 seating configuration on the 787 and a 3-4-3 seating configuration on the 777-9X. 787-9 is not competitive with the A350-900 when using a Y-class 2-4-2 seating configuration and the 777-9X will not be competitive with the A350-1000 when using a Y-class 3-3-3- seating configuration. Hence I cannot see Cathay ever buying the 777-9X. Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific will most likely never put 10 seats across on their 777s as Emirates is doing now on their 77Ws and 77Ls. What is the most astounding thing with Emirates is the significant difference in comfort flying their A380s in Y and their 777s in Y. Two different products IMO.

  • Brian 2012 Mar 21 / 06:11

    Emirates and Qatar are the -1000 launch customers, and they hold the majority of the orders for the type, so their criticisms do carry some weight. We already know that the -1000’s MTOW and passenger capacity will be far below any 777-9x, and I suspect Boeing will look to minimize the range difference. This lesser capacity is one of the specific things Emirates and Qatar have criticized, which also indicates there are airlines that want 400 seats for long haul. Historically speaking, greater capacity has always been a good move for an airframe, even if some skeptics initially thought they were oversized (see the A380, or the original 747).

    I don’t think the -1000 is going to replace 772s and the smaller A340s; that’s what the -900 is for, whereas the -1000 is specifically targeted at the 773 and the 345/346 replacement market. Furthermore, while the 777-9x may be “large, >2019, uncertain, and still heavy”, the -1000 is currently overweight, delayed >2017 with the prospect for more, and uncertain in many of its final specs, so there really isn’t much of an advantage there. I fully agree that recent history has shown that “simple upgrade” programs aren’t always so simple, however the A350 faces at least as many, if not more challenges.

    I understand the points being made about seating, but I don’t think that’s insurmountable. If Cathay or Singapore thinks they can fill a 777x in a 10Y configuration and make more money with it, they’ll buy the plane and figure out seat design later.

    Also, OV-099, the 789 doesn’t really compete with the 359, it competes with the 358, which it can definitely do in 8Y or 9Y.

  • John Lee 2012 Mar 21 / 14:37

    @OV-099: Your point is made moot by the fact that the maximum seat width that can be fitted on the A350 (9 abreast) with the same aisle width as A330 is 17.5 inches, 0.6 less than the A330. Cathay is not fitting the A350 (as far as I know) in a 8 abreast configuration, so why does it matter? The performance of the 777X range is not affected by staying with a 9 abreast configuration (compared to the 777-300ER), as only the interior width will be stretched, if at all.

    I personally see the 777-9X with more of a chance than its smaller version. Cathay would have then a direct replacement for the 777-300ER, the current “backbone” of the fleet. The A350-1000 does not have the significant time advantage (with all of the current and upcoming delays) that is needed for the choice to be feasible versus the 777X.

    The VLAs (either the 747-8i or the A380-800) in my view wil not be needed unless slots fill up at HKIA before 2022, the expected completion date of the third runway. If the slots do fill up beforehand, then I believe that the 747-8i will be a better choice as the cargo capacity is better, there is a significantly lower backlog and less costs involved in the training of a new crew just for the A380.

  • keesje 2012 Mar 21 / 18:13

    The 777s are relatively heavy, also the -200ER and 300ER. Hopefully /likely the new versions will be lighter per seat.

    A350-900 seems small to replace the 777-200ERs 1:1. Southwest is buying 737-800 to replace -300/500s, A330 replaced 767, 787 will replace 767s, A380s replace 747s. I think many A350-900s will be converted into -1000, like 787-8s are converted into -9s.

    I’m a dissapointed Airbus decided to say the A350-1000 seats 369 now. It is the same per seat efficiency game Boeing plays, e.g. saying the 747-8 is a 469 seat aircraft, burning less per seat then a 525 seat A380 (a A380 has 35% more cabin space).

    Personally I expect 3-4 major airlines to announce A350-1000s orders soon and the “A350-1000 aint good” articles been burried in internet archives forever (next to the many A380 is catastrophic, A330 is done, B will outsell A this yr and Boeing NSA will leap NEO quotes/articles).

  • OV-099 2012 Mar 22 / 00:27

    The A350 cabin is designed to have the same seat width in a 3-3-3 layout as the A330 (17.7″) when the latter is configured in a 2-2|2-2 layout, but with the A350 having slightly narrower aisles (18.35″ vs 19″). However, the A350 is competing with the 787 and the 777, not the A330. Hence Airbus has made the A350 slightly less comfortable than the A330 aisle-wise when compared to the A330/A340 configured in a 2-2|2-2 seat layout in economy class. If the A350 cabin has 17″ aisles — same width as on the 777 in a 3-4-3 economy class layout — then seat width can be increased to 18″; or about the same width as the current economy class seats on Cathay’s A330s which are configured in a 2-4-2 economy class layout.

    The 3-3-3 economy class seat layout on the 787 has 18″ aisles and 17.2″ seats.
    The 3-4-3 economy class seat layout on the 777 has 17″ aisles and 17″ seats

    If the 777-8X/9X will outfitted with thinner fuselage frames around the windows, the cabin will be interiorly stretched by a maximum 4″. By retaining the 17″ aisle width, economy class seat width would now be 17.4″ when configured in a 3-4-3 layout.

    If the 787 would use the “new industry aisle width standard” of 17″ as well, economy class seat width in a 3-3-3 configuration on the 787 would be increased to 17.45″.

    So clearly, CX cannot use the current A330 seat width on either the 787 and the 777/777X when configured in respectively a 3-3-3 and a 3-4-3 layout in economy class.

    Again, one reason for CX choosing the A350 over the 787 was cabin width. Since the 777-9X can’t compete with the A350-1000 unless configured in a 3-4-3 economy class seat layout, I can’t see CX ever wanting to purchase the -9X. Also, CX could use a stretched A380 (A380-900), an aircraft that would be roughly double the size of the A350-1000. Hence an A350-1000/A380-900 combo would be a pretty efficient fleet for CX to have, in addition to, of course, the A350-900.

  • Brian 2012 Mar 22 / 13:04

    I strongly doubt that anyone is going to make any major orders for the -1000 before Boeing officially launches the 777x at the end of the year, and airlines can make a better head-to-head comparison. I think part of the reason the -1000 has sold so few compared to the other A350 variants has been the impending prospect of a 777x. The 777x is promising roughly a 15% increase in efficiency over a VERY popular and profitable plane, through a program that is undeniably simpler (that’s simplER, not simple) than the -1000. If Boeing can deliver that, the 777x (particularly the 9x) will be in a very good position. Ultimately, I think Airbus reached too far trying to compete with the 777 and the 787 in the same design; the -1000 is just too small and underpowered for what Airbus really wants it to do.

    Again, OV, I really don’t think those seating issues are going to matter as much as you think. Ultimately, seat comfort is only one means among many towards greater profits, and if a small disadvantage there will be outweighed by a plane’s other advantages, airlines will still buy the plane. No airline, not even CX, is going to say “well, this airplane would be a much better money-maker….but it can only fit 17″ instead of 18″ seats, so I still won’t buy it”. If the 777x has a money-making advantage over the A3510 (at least a decent possibility, based on what we’ve been reading), airlines will buy it and accept the smaller seats.

  • John Lee 2012 Mar 22 / 19:52

    The problem with the 777-9X is that if Cathay chooses a 9 abreast layout with the internal stretching, it will not be competitive with the number of airlines that will go to a 10 abreast layout on the 777, similar to what happened to the 747 many years ago. However, the A350-1000 will not have the right size to fit as the (potential) flagship of the fleet as the passenger capacity of the plane is smaller than the 777-300ER with both in a 9 abreast layout in economy class. That is why I believe that Cathay will buy the 777-9X regardless, as the A350-1000 does not suit Cathay Pacific as well as the to-be-updated 777, unless there is a significant advantage to the A350-1000 in terms of fuel burn and range.

  • keesje 2012 Mar 22 / 21:02

    Brian,

    “Ultimately, I think Airbus reached too far trying to compete with the 777 and the 787 in the same design; the -1000 is just too small and underpowered for what Airbus really wants it to do.”

    The A350-1000 has up to 97 k lbs engines. I think Boeing is looking at the same engines. And the 777X is significantly bigger and heavier. Who do you feel will be “underpowered” ?

    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ge-plans-10-fuel-burn-improvement-for-ge9x-engine-369242/

    Maybe the 300ER is “overpowered”?

  • Brian 2012 Mar 23 / 05:53

    And yet, even with those supposedly equivalent engines, the -1000 will still have 34 tons less MTOW than the 777x, and RR had to scrape together an upgrade package to even get that close. Like everything else in the A350 family, the engines were primarily optimized for the -900 size class, and A and RR are simply hitting the upper limit of what the XWB engine can do on the -1000. Airbus can’t make the -1000 big enough to compete with a new 777 on equal capacity terms, and that is exactly what the complaints are focusing on. That extra capacity will most likely allow at least the 777-9x to catch up in fuel burn and operating cost per seat, which means it will be a competition between a 350-seater and a 400-seater with roughly equal efficiency. I doubt the -8x will do as well, since A can bracket that variant with the -900 and the -1000 to avoid being forced to compete with a larger Boeing plane. Of course, if the 777x is good enough for the -8x to be a strong competitor even so, then the -1000 is truly DoA (but this is unlikely).

  • TC 2012 Mar 28 / 00:05

    I have to wonder if the A350-1000 or the 777X programs are wise investments. Sure they look at the 777-300ER and say that is a huge market. But does the past predict the future? The 777-300ER was a better value compared to the 777-200ER, the A340-600, and the 747-400, so basically it won the entire surrounding market. The A350-1000 and 777X will have to compete against the 787-9 and A350-900 on a value propostion basis. The 767-400 is a bigger and more modern aircraft than the 767-300, but the 767-300 is the only one that still sells, possibly because it is a better value.

    The future market for the 777-300ER will lose seats to the A380 and 747-8 from above and the A350-900 and 787-9 from below. For Boeing it is nice to have Emirates who will buy a few hundred 777x, but how many beyond that will they need to sell to get a return on investment. How many for Airbus and the A350-1000 which is probably a few billion dollar derivative with a modified engine, wing, and gear. Looks like an arms race to me. Is that the right place to invest a few billion or ten billion given the other options like an A380-900, a new replacement narrow-body, or a new small twin aisle?

  • Scratch 2012 Mar 28 / 11:59

    Few points worth mention…

    Those who think CX is primarily concerned with the economy class layout do not understand their business model. Premium seats (F,B,and now PY) and cargo capacity are far more important to CX than the economy (EY) offering. Frequency is also critically important which is why you will probably never see an A380 in CX colors (and the fact that it carries almost no revenue cargo with full passengers).

    Try telling 777 pilots that the 300ER is overpowered when operating out of Jo-burg in the summer or on a snowy runway in North American winter. I think not! I cannot imagine how exasperated that will be on the A350-1000. Remember the last underpowered plane from Airbus (A340-300)? Not so popular with most operators.

    Anyone who thinks that the A350 in any of its variants will be brought to market anywhere near on-time must be kidding themselves. We are a long way off from seeing that airplane in revenue service. My guess is closer to 2020 than 2016. I suppose the same should be said of the new Boeing offerings (787-9/10 / 777X). In that sense, it is really between the A330, B773, B748, and A380 for this decade anyways.

    Cathay had to order the A350. They were too late to the game for timely orders on the 787 (perhaps fortuitously) and will not order the A380 for reasons already stated. CX would never allow themselves to be beholden to one aircraft manufacturer, so the A350 was a necessity and certainty from that standpoint. In that sense, I am not sure the order expresses any real confidence in the airplane. CX has been burned by Airbus more than once before, the early A330 engine debacles and the A340-600 performance shortfalls.

    The absence of the B748I in this conversation is interesting and typical. While the aircraft did fall short of its specified performance on initial builds, the wing is far more efficient and capable than previously thought. This more than compensates for the excess weight of the aircraft which will be shed over time. The engines are the real culprit on fuel burns, and the GENx PiP1 will make up most of the shortfall next year and the rest the in the following year (PiP2 in 2014). So this presents a real airplane available now to fill the void between the 773 and the A380 with a substantial cargo capability. That combined with the fact that CX already operates the aircraft in the freighter variant makes it tough to pass up unless CX want to wait for the 777X which will still be short seats for peak travel periods and performance in challenging airport conditions.

  • Brian 2012 Mar 29 / 03:20

    Interesting point, TC. I hadn’t thought much about this issue for both the A350 and 777x. Just from gut opinion, I think there is still a substantial market for planes in each size class, simply because airlines get maximum efficiency from using planes closest in size to the traffic they expect on each route. That said, it will be interesting to see how it turns out for the new 300-400 seaters; you may well be right. By the way, while I know Airbus would like to stretch the A380 at some point, I really don’t see them undertaking that project until the A350 is out the door, so I very much doubt we’ll even see an A389 launch before 2017, or EIS before 2023.

    Scratch, I definitely agree with most of your points, particularly that there are far more important factors than economy seat width to any airline making a purchase. In keeping with what you said about premium seating, the 777x would give Cathay a significant boost in premium economy. Based on OV-099’s calculations, the internal stretch on the 777x would allow Cathay to go 9-wide in premium economy with a 19.3 inch seat, only slightly narrower than their new Y+ seat. That’s a genuine revenue boost that would more than offset any small loss of business from the economy seat being a bit narrower.

    I also fully agree, and have said in the past, that I think the A350 will suffer more delays (my guess is 1-2 years on the currently-stated EIS for each variant). I do think it’s strange that the 748 wasn’t mentioned much in this article, particularly considering the previous article about Cathay did cover that aspect of their fleet planning. That article did discuss the anticipated VLA order for Cathay, and concluded it would most likely choose the 748i for the exact reasons you mentioned.

  • John lee 2012 Mar 29 / 16:49

    @Brian: The 777X definitely cannot do 9 abreast in Y+. From discussions and rumours, it seems the internal diameter will be 234″. Having 4.5 inches of shoulder space per person (2″-5″-2″ armrests for a twin seat) makes the width required for 19.3″ seat 252.7 inches, more than the Airbus A380.

    • Brian 2012 Mar 30 / 02:55

      I checked some seat configurations, and you’re right. Even on the 747 main deck, Qantas can only go 8 wide with a 19.5 inch seat. Good call, my mistake.

  • Trackback: Planned Routes with new 777-300ER/A333 Business Class Product (aka Cirrus) - Page 31 - FlyerTalk Forums

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply