Inaugural CX A359 HKG-EWR en route

FoxtrotSierra · Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:40 pm

Although unnoticed by many, CX commenced A359 service to EWR today, and it is now en route, scheduled for a 10:50PM arrival into EWR and 1:10AM departure. Any spotters in EWR out for the inaugural arrival and departure of CX's first A350 US destination?

HKG-EWR: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CPA890
EWR-HKG: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CPA890

MD80MKE · Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:45 pm

SFO inaugural also on the way. And I believe CX892 will land ealier than CX890.

https://www.flightradar24.com/CPA892/f5d6b76

maortega15 · Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:03 pm

It's been a while since the Buses have made their way into the U.S. It was my first time on the Airbus when JFK was an A343 via YVR in 2004 and A346 doing the nonstop.

ben175 · Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:05 pm

B-LRQ also operated the HKG-PER inaugural today. 3 new 359 routes on one day!

zeke · Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:41 pm

The EWR flight with the A359 is planned at over 33 tonnes less fuel and about half hour quicker than the 77W (over that range it lifts about 5 tonnes more total payload than a 77W). The SFO flight is 23 tonnes less fuel.

maortega15 · Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:44 pm

I hope you enjoy EWR and SFO when it's your turn zeke! :bigthumbsup:

(But Newark is not a place to be hanging around at night, so I'd make my way into Manhattan via ferry!)

zeke · Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:49 pm

My body clock never liked the east flights, I will avoid North America as much as I can.

MD80MKE · Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:56 pm

zeke wrote:
The EWR flight with the A359 is planned at over 33 tonnes less fuel and about half hour quicker than the 77W (over that range it lifts about 5 tonnes more total payload than a 77W). The SFO flight is 23 tonnes less fuel.

Wow that payload is impressive. It's a sure thing that fuel burn would be significantly reduced but how about outliftng 77W in terms of payload! Thanks for sharing the data.

ap305 · Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:03 am

I guess the return flight will be the first polar ops for the a350...

hz747300 · Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:36 am

Can't wait for the first HKG-PHX A350 flight ... :-)

ap305 · Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:41 am

The 77ws on similar routes and sector lengths are climbing to fl290-310 while the 359 has headed straight to fl370 :shock:

StTim · Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:53 am

zeke wrote:
The EWR flight with the A359 is planned at over 33 tonnes less fuel and about half hour quicker than the 77W (over that range it lifts about 5 tonnes more total payload than a 77W). The SFO flight is 23 tonnes less fuel.

Those are pretty impressive figures. Thanks for sharing.

FoxtrotSierra · Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:54 am

ap305 wrote:
The 77ws on similar routes and sector lengths are climbing to fl290-310 while the 359 has headed straight to fl370

Damn, that thing climbs!

LAX772LR · Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:29 am

MD80MKE wrote:
Wow that payload is impressive.

StTim wrote:
Those are pretty impressive figures.

...and just think: these are "only" 275-ton (or less) birds.

Imagine what the 280T A359s are gonna be able to do, in only a little over 2yrs or so. :eek:

FoxtrotSierra · Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:54 am

Anybody get pics?

Theseus · Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:14 am

zeke wrote:
The EWR flight with the A359 is planned at over 33 tonnes less fuel and about half hour quicker than the 77W (over that range it lifts about 5 tonnes more total payload than a 77W). The SFO flight is 23 tonnes less fuel.

Very, very impressive. And, as said above, updates to the 359 are coming with 280t version, and also with the new sharklets, etc... It will be interesting to watch!

Just out of curiosity, do you have the data to say how well (or not) would a 77L do ? (reason for asking: capacity wise it is a closer to the A359 and it is more specifically designed for ULR flights than the 77W).

maortega15 · Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:40 am

FoxtrotSierra wrote:
Anybody get pics?

In that kind of weather?!

Francoflier · Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:50 pm

zeke wrote:
(over that range it lifts about 5 tonnes more total payload than a 77W).

No question that it takes less time and much less fuel to get there, but I very much doubt that it can carry 5T more payload than a 77W...

CX's 77Ws routinely carried over 45T and would max out at over 48T of payload on that route. I doubt the A359 will ever carry more than 40T on that flight before maxing out (which is still very impressive for an aircraft that size).
Not to mention that the 359 carries less pax in a similar configuration... 60 less, in fact, for the 3-class 77W that CX sent vs the 3-class 350 that they send now.

The fuel figures are impressive, no doubt, and I'm sure that it is cheaper to carry a tonne of payload on the Airbus than the Boeing, but you just can't compare the 359 with the 77W in terms of overall capacity.

The 77W was simply too large on that route for CX. This is why they switched to the 359.
A more apt comparison will be with the 35J when it comes around and starts flying routes previously flown with Boeing metal.

StTim · Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:52 pm

Zeke should know...

raylee67 · Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:31 pm

EWR is a bit more seasonal than JFK. It carries quite some VFR traffic for NJ Asians. Would it switch back to 77W during Christmas or Lunar New Year peak?

cv990Coronado · Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:42 pm

zeke wrote:
The EWR flight with the A359 is planned at over 33 tonnes less fuel and about half hour quicker than the 77W (over that range it lifts about 5 tonnes more total payload than a 77W). The SFO flight is 23 tonnes less fuel.

Very impressive, does the A359 cruise at a higher speed or is the time saving due to it being able to get straight up to cruise altitude? Or maybe something else?
Thanks for sharing the info.

MrHMSH · Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:46 pm

cv990Coronado wrote:
zeke wrote:
The EWR flight with the A359 is planned at over 33 tonnes less fuel and about half hour quicker than the 77W (over that range it lifts about 5 tonnes more total payload than a 77W). The SFO flight is 23 tonnes less fuel.

Very impressive, does the A359 cruise at a higher speed or is the time saving due to it being able to get straight up to cruise altitude? Or maybe something else?
Thanks for sharing the info.

The A350, like the 747, 787 and A380 cruises at Mach 0.85, the 777 is a tad slower at Mach 0.84, and out of interest the A330 and A340 cruise at 0.82.

cv990Coronado · Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:16 pm

MrHMSH
Thanks, looks like the A359 will a great success.If Oil was more expensive I imagine the A350 & 787 would be replacing the 777 much more often. 33 tonnes is a lot of fuel & $.

MrHMSH · Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:24 pm

cv990Coronado wrote:
MrHMSH
Thanks, looks like the A359 will a great success.If Oil was more expensive I imagine the A350 & 787 would be replacing the 777 much more often. 33 tonnes is a lot of fuel & $.

Worth noting that the A359 is a fair bit smaller than the 77W, so the revenue will be a lot lower, but yes the A359 is proving to be a winner so far. We're now seeing a trend of some 77W routes being replaced by A359s, such as this one and other CX, SQ and TG routes. A fair few routes will be ripe for 'rightsizing' and the A359 and 789 look like they're going to take up a huge amount of long haul flying, lots of previously unserved routes but also taking over from larger predecessors.

RandWkop · Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:54 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
cv990Coronado wrote:
MrHMSH
Thanks, looks like the A359 will a great success.If Oil was more expensive I imagine the A350 & 787 would be replacing the 777 much more often. 33 tonnes is a lot of fuel & $.

Worth noting that the A359 is a fair bit smaller than the 77W, so the revenue will be a lot lower, but yes the A359 is proving to be a winner so far. We're now seeing a trend of some 77W routes being replaced by A359s, such as this one and other CX, SQ and TG routes. A fair few routes will be ripe for 'rightsizing' and the A359 and 789 look like they're going to take up a huge amount of long haul flying, lots of previously unserved routes but also taking over from larger predecessors.

While there is a 60 seat difference, that only tells part of the story. 77w seats / A359 Seats: 40 / 38 Business, 32 / 28 premium, 268 / 214 economy.
So the hit is taken on the lower yielding seats while the higher yielding seating remains pretty much the same. I don`t know if this leaves more or less room for cargo on the 359.

zeke · Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Francoflier wrote:
CX's 77Ws routinely carried over 45T and would max out at over 48T of payload on that route. I doubt the A359 will ever carry more than 40T on that flight before maxing out (which is still very impressive for an aircraft that size).

The 77W is limited to under 40 tonnes to the east coast and under 45 tonnes to the west coast. Need to remember the pantry codes and what they mean, you are looking at around 6 tonnes for that alone.

The A359 and 77W will lift near identical payload over 6500 nm, below that the 77W carries more, above that the A359 carries more. The reason for that is at the longer ranges with the higher fuel burn of the 77W more payload per hour needs to be offloaded for fuel than it does on the A359.

After around 6500 nm the 77W will burn around 5t more fuel than the A359 to the east coast, and that is why it carries less payload over that distance. That 5 tonnes additional fuel burnt displaces 5 tonnes of payload.

Both aircraft are MTOW limited over that range.

zeke · Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:03 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
The A350, like the 747, 787 and A380 cruises at Mach 0.85, the 777 is a tad slower at Mach 0.84, and out of interest the A330 and A340 cruise at 0.82.

Most airlines fly Econ speed based upon cost index and not a fixed Mach. The 744 is more like 0.845, the 77W 0.83, A330 0.81. The A350 even at cost index 0 is still close to 0.85, best climb speed is 0.85, LRC 0.85, turbulence penetration 0.85. It’s a bit different to other aircraft with the adaptive wing.

zeke · Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:12 pm

cv990Coronado wrote:
Very impressive, does the A359 cruise at a higher speed or is the time saving due to it being able to get straight up to cruise altitude? Or maybe something else?
Thanks for sharing the info.

Mainly by flying around 12 kts faster per hour over 14+ hrs, the 77 W is being flown ETDO 207 minutes, the A359 ETDO 240 minutes. If the A359 was flying at the same level as the 77W its fuel burn would be higher, the A359 is flying a few flight levels higher which is more efficient.

itisi · Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:16 am

Seems the 359 is not the best for this flight.... offloaded pax, no luggage and no cargo!!!

But they saved fuel..

zeke · Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:35 am

itisi wrote:
Seems the 359 is not the best for this flight.... offloaded pax, no luggage and no cargo!!!

But they saved fuel..

What do you mean ? The A359 can easily do HKG-MIA with full pax and some cargo.

tealnz · Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:32 am

zeke wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
CX's 77Ws routinely carried over 45T and would max out at over 48T of payload on that route. I doubt the A359 will ever carry more than 40T on that flight before maxing out (which is still very impressive for an aircraft that size).

The 77W is limited to under 40 tonnes to the east coast and under 45 tonnes to the west coast. Need to remember the pantry codes and what they mean, you are looking at around 6 tonnes for that alone.

The A359 and 77W will lift near identical payload over 6500 nm, below that the 77W carries more, above that the A359 carries more. The reason for that is at the longer ranges with the higher fuel burn of the 77W more payload per hour needs to be offloaded for fuel than it does on the A359.

After around 6500 nm the 77W will burn around 5t more fuel than the A359 to the east coast, and that is why it carries less payload over that distance. That 5 tonnes additional fuel burnt displaces 5 tonnes of payload.

Both aircraft are MTOW limited over that range.

The 359/77W comparison is quite an eye-opener. It will be particularly relevant for airlines with higher-density configurations and/or heavy cargo loads on longer routes looking to replace 77E and eventually 77W. I'm thinking of e.g. NZ, who decided against using their 789s in their original configuration on North American routes because they lacked payload/range. Great circle distance AKL-IAH is around 6500nm – and presumably westbound ESAD is a lot more than that. Hadn't imagined the 359 could outfit a 77W on a route like that but Zeke's numbers suggest it would. The difference would be even bigger on AKL-NYC or AKL-ORD, which seem to be on NZ's radar. Food for thought...

Francoflier · Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:53 am

zeke wrote:
The 77W is limited to under 40 tonnes to the east coast and under 45 tonnes to the west coast. Need to remember the pantry codes and what they mean, you are looking at around 6 tonnes for that alone.

Allow me to re-up as I've had a bit of time to find more data on the topic...

If we consider the DOWs (panties and pantry...), then on an average NY flight, the 77W will max out at around 41~42T of payload. The 359, flying for the same aforementioned operator (hence with a similar catering load per seat installed), will max out at 33~34 T.

On that 7000 NM gc trip, the 77W still carries more payload than a similarly configured 359. You are right in saying that the fuel burned / unit of weight is much higher on the 77W as flight length increases, but I suspect it would take a much longer trip for these payload figures to match.

There is no denying that the 359 returns impressive figures. On a flight that long, it burns 12 to 13% less fuel per tonne carried than the 777, and it gets there 30 minutes earlier.
Still, as I said, it is a smaller airplane and does not, as you claim, carry more payload than a 77W on that route and certainly not 40T.

ap305 · Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:06 am

I do not know if Will Horton is picking this up from itisi's post above....

http://twitter.com/winglets747/status/9 ... 0668856321

Any truth to the rumour Cathay A350-900 on Newark route is seeing passengers (and luggage?) offloaded and minimal/no cargo carried?

Highly unlikely any truth in it given what Zeke has told us.135t oew, 5.8-5.9t fuel burn per hour, 15.5hr block time worst case, 10t for catering and reserve gives at least 37-38t for pax,bags and cargo....

LAX772LR · Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:29 am

ap305 wrote:
Will Horton

...that's an unfortunate name. lol

zeke · Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:45 am

Francoflier wrote:
If we consider the DOWs (panties and pantry...), then on an average NY flight, the 77W will max out at around 41~42T of payload. The 359, flying for the same aforementioned operator (hence with a similar catering load per seat installed), will max out at 33~34 T..

That is not correct, the A359 will carry 5t more to the east coast

zeke · Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:49 am

ap305 wrote:
I do not know if Will Horton is picking this up from itisi's post above....

http://twitter.com/winglets747/status/9 ... 0668856321

Any truth to the rumour Cathay A350-900 on Newark route is seeing passengers (and luggage?) offloaded and minimal/no cargo carried?

Highly unlikely any truth in it given what Zeke has told us.135t oew, 5.8-5.9t fuel burn per hour, 15.5hr block time worst case, 10t for catering and reserve gives at least 37-38t for pax,bags and cargo....

That is correct on one flight, one aircraft was dispatched with a spoiler inop, and the MEL required additional fuel allowances and performance reductions based upon the worst case being the spoiler extends in flight. It was still less fuel than a 77W.

ap305 · Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:54 am

Thanks for that Zeke...

ZEDZAG · Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:31 am

zeke wrote:
itisi wrote:
Seems the 359 is not the best for this flight.... offloaded pax, no luggage and no cargo!!!

But they saved fuel..

What do you mean ? The A359 can easily do HKG-MIA with full pax and some cargo.

Nice, so could you enlighten us on this topic, regarding 359?

HKG-MIA is 7800nm, so if you say 359 can do the route with full pax and some cargo, how come SQ has to block seats on SIN-SFO, and that route is 7350nm? And to point out, their 359 seat less.

Or is all that talk about blocked seats a nonsense from 787 fans?

zeke · Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:37 am

Because you have not factored in the winds, the west bound trip in winter can have 300+ kt jetstreams.

ZEDZAG · Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:03 am

zeke wrote:
Because you have not factored in the winds, the west bound trip in winter can have 300+ kt jetstreams.

I did, but that is occasional.

People here tend to talk that the flight always has blocked seats.

Heck, how much of a hit would UA take on a LAX-SIN 787 flight in thesse conditions?

zeke · Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:10 am

No idea, but I can tell you at the moment CX890 (HKG-EWR) is being flight planned over a route that is just 50 nm shorter than the great circle distance from HKG-MIA (have a look on FlightAware and decode route).

Look at the differance between the great circle route sfo-sin (which passes just to the south of japan), compared to Mia-Hkg which is polar via Canada, Russia, and China.

As for you saying the headwinds are occasional, the atmospheric circulation which generates the subtropical jet is there year round, sfo-sin would fight headwinds.

Not that uncommon for our westbound flights to take a southern route closer to HNL to get out of the headwinds more.

itisi · Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:42 am

zeke wrote:
itisi wrote:
Seems the 359 is not the best for this flight.... offloaded pax, no luggage and no cargo!!!

But they saved fuel..

What do you mean ? The A359 can easily do HKG-MIA with full pax and some cargo.

Thats what I was told. The first flight from EWR had no freight, no luggage and pax offloaded to make it back to HKG.

ap305 · Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:44 am

itisi wrote:
zeke wrote:
itisi wrote:
Seems the 359 is not the best for this flight.... offloaded pax, no luggage and no cargo!!!

But they saved fuel..

What do you mean ? The A359 can easily do HKG-MIA with full pax and some cargo.

Thats what I was told. The first flight from EWR had no freight, no luggage and pax offloaded to make it back to HKG.

Look up thread...Zeke has explained why that occurred.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net