|
   |
Accueil >> Forum >> CX huge trouble on Feb 28!!!!!!!!! Forum Aviation civile
CX huge trouble on Feb 28!!!!!!!!!
Retour à l'index du forum - Poster un message à cette discussion
| |
Message de flylinefrontier - Envoyé le 28 Feb 21:26 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de Cathay Pacific - Envoyé le 28 Feb 21:41 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de red robbo - Envoyé le 02 Mar 17:13 |
|
| |
Not sure that this was a big problem - crew out of hours is a fairly common situation on extra long sectors, especially if facing strong headwinds. The second flight also diverting to ICH sounds as though it was a commercial decision in order to pick up passengers off the other flight!
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de flylinefrontier - Envoyé le 02 Mar 20:00 |
|
| |
I don't think the second flight was diverted because of picking passengers in ICH, because both flight was full of passengers. And the both flight were delayed in the JFK/YYZ. They were delayed about 3 to 4 hours.
This reminds me of a flight from LHR to LAX, the flight was delayed because the captain was gone... Passengers including me waited out side the gate for 4 hours, and then the crew begin checking into the plane for another 2 hour until the captain came. The crew cannot determine what took the captain so long.
So we took off. About few hours later, flying near almost into Canada, the crew said they were out of hour, and the other pilot was very tried... they have to land the plane into JFK, and have another group of crews come and pick us up to U.S.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de captain bill - Envoyé le 03 Mar 21:11 |
|
| |
They have also sacked a pilot who collected a new Boeing 777 at Boeing Field and did an unauthorised low level fly past skimming the field at around 250 feet. First officer has been suspended until further notice.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 04 Mar 1:46 |
|
| |
Seoul Incheon's code is ICN, not ICH.
Strong headwinds over the N.Pacific are typical in winter for west-bound flights. Every winter, I heard about some CX flights(My friends hv been on those flights) making unscheduled refuel stop in ICN or TPE on the LAX->HKG route especially when the flight is full+carrying near max payload. CX usually deploy 744 on that route meaning that it's flying near its max range @ max payload with not much margin for strong headwinds. Though, it's unusual for CX to suffer the same problem for JFK/YYZ->HKG as those routes typically are further away fm the N.Pacific and closer to the N.pole.
I understand those flights hv 2 crew(4 pilots) on board every flight anyway due to the long duration(14+hrs) even when the weather is normal. Pls correct me if I'm wrong but I believe each crew can fly a max of about 8-10hrs and this is std practice for CX(May also be union rules) and nearly all extra-longhaul carriers. When crew A is out of hrs, crew B can easily rotate in. Of course, if the wind was so bad that the flight lasted for 20+hrs, they'd still ran out of hrs. The big question then is, can anything in CX's fleet stay in the air for 20+hrs(Scheduled duration for JFK->HKG is about 16.5hrs in winter) in the 1st place??? Technically, I recall only the 77L and 345 hv that kind of capability and none of them are in CX's fleet.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de Cathay Pacific - Envoyé le 04 Mar 7:54 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 05 Mar 10:47 |
|
| |
Cathay Pacific:
Precisely! The longest range jet in CX's fleet is their new 77W and therefore, CX doesn't hv(And will not hv) anything in their fleet that can stay in the air for 20+hrs. This is why I believe CX most likely run out of aircraft range 1st before they run of pilot flying hrs on such full flights in extra-strong headwinds.
Carrying very light payload(Airlines rarely do this as they won't make $) with max fuel, a 77W can stay in the air for a max of about 18hrs. If U want to further reduce the possibility of those surprise fuel-stops, U need an ultra long range specialist jet like a 77L or 345.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de flylinefrontier - Envoyé le 06 Mar 20:48 |
|
| |
The strong winds might be one of the problem. You know how SIN did. Their SIN to Nemark have a differenent choice. They have a choice of going on top of Canada, or the other way, going over the Russia and Alantic ocean. They worked well on it (I think)
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 07 Mar 14:05 |
|
| |
Pls note SQ has 2 daily New York flights:
SQ21/22(Non-stop): SIN-EWR, possible(Meaning within aircraft performance capability in normal revenue service) air ways in use go over E.Russia(Siberia), Arctic sea near N.Pole and then into N.Canada. This is similar to CX's non-stop JFK flight paths. However, SQ only flies 345 on this route and therefore as I've said before, less likely need unscheduled refuel stops than CX's 77W even in very bad headwinds.
SQ25/26(1-stop): SIN-FRA-JFK, air ways in use go over S.Russia, E.Europe, stop in FRA and then ALWAYS cross the Atlantic into JFK. SQ flies 744 on this route and both segments are well within range even when flying max payload in very bad headwinds. This flight does not serve Newark.
I think this is what U meant by SQ's DIFFERENT CHOICE and therefore, why THEY WORKED WELL.
CX also has a DIFFERENT CHOICE daily 1-stop NewYork flight HKG-YVR-JFK with 744 that works well for them. Similar to SQ25/26, they never hv range problems on this flight due to strong headwinds in both segments.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de flylinefrontier - Envoyé le 07 Mar 15:20 |
|
| |
What I think CX should do is to order an aircraft that can fly really long. Like the B77W, it is almost going on the limit, really dangerous. They reject B787 order last year summer. Boeing introduce the new B787, but CX had rejected them, because of safety concerts, a very small plane, they do not have B767 (B787 replace B767).
They also didn't order A380: Too big, no need to have that big, safety etc...
A lot of friend says that CX should order more A346 or A345 or B77L to help the long North America flight going!
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de EI-DUB - Envoyé le 10 Mar 9:21 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de captain bill - Envoyé le 10 Mar 10:24 |
|
| |
Yes what do you mean by DANGEROUS and SAFETY
At the end of the day this is Cathay Pacific we are discussing who have a very good safety record and do everything in their power to maintain the passengers safety.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de Cathay Pacific - Envoyé le 10 Mar 13:00 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 12 Mar 15:18 |
|
| |
flylinefrontier:
Really interesting comments. However, U may also want to know that:
1. 77W is designed to carry 365pax in typical 3-class to fly a max range of over 14,500km with max fuel but little cargo.
2. All CX 77Ws are configured to carry only 301pax in low density 3-class so it'll always hv a lighter than typical pax load. Therefore, it can carry more than a little cargo even when flying with max fuel.
3. HKG-JFK is only 12,990km(YYZ is a bit shorter).
4. In addition to a pure cargo CX flight, CX has 3 daily pax flights on HKG-JFK that can carry cargo in the belly. There's little need to carry completely full cargo in their 77Ws' belly.
5. Including NORMAL winter headwind range allowance and based on 2., 3. and 4., it's perfectly reasonable and well within safety limits for CX to deploy their 77Ws on HKG-JFK/YYZ.
6. North+East China suffered ABNORMALLY bad winter weather+high wind this yr(If U care to check the news). The HKG-JFK/YYZ route passes near PEK and North+East China.
7. Weather is unpredictable even for well experienced longhaul airlines which operate with reasonable safety margins. It's fair to make unscheduled refuel stops in ABNORMAL condition.
8. Pls cite which source U heard CX rejected 787 for SAFETY CONCERNS due to size. I hv never heard any airlines(Including CX) raising such concern. In contrast, I hv heard CX and some other top airlines rejected 787 because it's too small for their mkt strategy(e.g. 3 or 4-class, cabin space requirement for large premium seats, high traffic routes focus, etc.).
9. Gee, if 767/787 are VERY SMALL planes and THEREFORE unsafe, then:
a) The Int'l aviation authorities which certified the 767 and certifying the 787 for long range ops must hv been fooling around doing nothing.
b) The flying public must be crazy travelling on thousands of A320/737NGs everyday.
c) Reputable carriers with excellent safety records like AC, QF, NZ, CO, BA and NH must be playing with pax's lives flying hundreds of longe range(8hrs or more) 767 flights everyday.
10. 346 won't help CX's N.American flight in terms of range performance. Do some homework(i.e. Check their specs) and U'll find 346 has less range+payload than 77W - Exactly why CX switched fm 346 to 77W on HKG-JFK.
Ok, if U say AA is unsafe because 1 of their 767s has an ACCIDENT and hit the World Trade Center, I hv no further comment......
************
Cathay Pacific:
In extra-long range mkts(i.e. over 12hrs and beyond the range of CX's smallest jet, the A333), CX has been moving away fm lower demand non-biz heavy routes. Check their new services added over the past 2-3yrs, there's a clear trend towards adding frequencies to high traffic premium biz-heavy mkts. None of the 6 cities U mentioned can be described as high-traffic biz-heavy mkts(Except may be Moscow) for CX fm HKG when compared with JFK,SFO,LHR,YYZ,SYD,MEL,NRT,etc.(All received added CX frequencies during the past 1-2yrs).
While the 345 sales is pretty much dead(Just check how many hv been ordered since its birth) due to less performance/poorer economcis than 77L, I don't rule out CX ever ordering the 77L. But unless they expand into longer-distance key SouthEast U.S. mkts such as DFW(Possible as AA is OneWorld) and ATL(Unlikely as DL is not OneWorld), there're few key U.S. cities they can't reach fm HKG with their 77Ws in NORMAL op conditions. Obviously, the fact that 77L has higher op cost per seat(Can kill a long range route easily given the fuel prices nowadays) and less cabin space for CX to play with their new space-consuming, cabin product strategy also make the 77W a lot more attractive. According to Boeing's order book, 77W outsold 77L over 7.5 to 1.....
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de flylinefrontier - Envoyé le 19 Mar 23:00 |
|
| |
FLX: Last summer, there is news in TV in Hong Kong, saying that CX did not order because of the size of it and some safety concerts.
Safety concerts: As you see in CX's history, there is no huge accident because of their parts or anything that is not working, even their pliots are trained to fly safe. There is also books that is about Cathay Pacific, and their pliots, their concerts are safety.
Boeing also, just pass the one of the crash testing, but havn't finish all of them. Cx is still looking and waiting for those results.
EI-DUB and Captain Bill: May be my words confused you, I said it is dangerous, because the plane is using the limit of its flyling range. Like FLx has been mention, the head winds, the storms strikes all the time in asia, plus they are flyling with lots of passenger and with heavy loads, they might ran out of fuel...
Cathay Pacific: I agreed u, I think CX should order some B77L or any long range for future expention!.
Over all, Cathay Pacific can fly safely from and to JFK/YYZ and HKG because they caculated it. Plus by the time they ran out of fuel, they are already over lands. Like from JFK/ YYZ to Hkg, by the time they ran out of fuel is when they are over PEK or near PVG. By the time this flight, HKG- JFK/YYZ ran out of fuel, they are over Canada.
Those company are not allow to fly to somewhere using their limit, accoding to FAA and any aviations, company are not allow to fly to a area using the limit. Like if this plane can fly only 12990, the company are only to fly to areas that are may be liitle bite over 12500, because the company need to have over 2000 or more km of extra fuel in case of emergency.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 19 Mar 7:40 |
|
| |
flylinefrontier:
Pls cite exactly which NEWS IN TV IN HONG KONG. If U can't find it, at least let me know exactly which date in summer07 so I can search the Internet myself. I'm really interested to learn if CX indeed hv made such public statement or is it just an uninformed interpretation by a general local news media(We all know typically how little they understand about the global avaition industry....).
As I stated earlier, I'm not surprised CX did not ordered 787 because it's too small TO FIT THEIR MKT STRATEGY. CX hv nothing that small since they retired their 342(Sized similar to 789, the biggest 787 variant) something like a century ago. Today, CX's smallest longhaul jet is the 343(Still got more space than 342 or 789) configured to carry 243pax in 3-class with older+smaller F/C-class seats. With their new gen bigger F/C-class seats, CX will be lucky if they can fit about 200 seats in a 789 - a mkt capacity territory where CX has left since their 707 retired a million yrs ago!
I can even accept that CX may be concerned about 787 safety due to its large % of CFRP construction or bleedless system. These 2 are truly revolutionary tech change in aerospace design and a cautious approach fm some potential customers is normal.
However, I'll be extremely surprised if CX actually declared that 787 is small AND THEREFORE, they're concerned about its safety. If that's true, then CX must know something which all these blue chip 787 customers with equal or better safety reputation than CX don't know:
QF,AC,NH,NZ,CO,BA,SQ
But does CX know? I highly doubt CX understand more about 787 safety under longhaul/ETOPS 180 rules than these airlines because:
a) Except SQ, all hv been operating 763s for decades on longhaul/ETOPS 180 routes. If small=unsafe, they would've known it 1st and would never ordered the 787 which is a bit bigger.
b) When did CX 1st flew a twin jet for a scheduled non-stop flight lasting over 10hrs? 3mths ago when they 1st deployed their 77W on HKG-JFK. That's when CX really began to accumulate ETOPS 180 experience.
c) With their huge fleet of 772ER+77W, even SQ has a lot more ETOPS 180 experience than CX.
d) QF alone has 115 firm order+option+purchase rights on 787 - an enormous investment in a single widebody type by any airline. Such a commitment simply won't be made before QF analyzed 787 completely and feel EXTREMELY comfortable with its safety when most QF Int'l flights now and in the future will be longhaul/ETOPS 180.
Also, I hope U're not assuming that running out of fuel over land is better than overwater. On HKG-JFK, chances of surviving a forced landing in the barren snowland in N.Canada/Siberia is as low as in the Arctic Sea. ETOPS 180 specifies suitable alternate airports along the route where in Siberia/N.Canada, only a few hv rwys long enough for 77W or bigger jet to land safely.
Also, ...RAN OUT OF FUEL means zero fuel in the tank. I think U meant ....used up most of the fuel....
Finally, aircraft max range # quoted by makers or airlines typically is the still air(No head nor tailwind) range BEFORE using any emergency reserve(e.g. Enough to stay in the air for 1hr or something). That 2,000km worth of fuel, more or less, on top of the actual distance between airports is known as weather+traffic fuel allowance which individual captain decide exactly how much to bring right before departure. It's based on many actual/est. factors such as payload, headwind/tailwind, traffic, routing, flight profile, etc. which vary in every flight even on the same route. In other words, each jet, regardless of its max range performance, seldom fly with absolutely full tank.
All:
I did mentioned ABNORMALLY bad weather over China last winter which didn't mean ...HEAD WINDS, THE STORMS STRIKES ALL THE TIME IN ASIA...as flylinefrontier intended. That's NORMAL bad weather and I don't believe it occurs only in Asia. It's the same everywhere and airlines hv already accounted for them when planning flight ops carrying full pax+cargo. What all airlines(Not just CX) cannot foresee/plan for is ABNORMALLY bad weather. As an example, in really really ABNORMALLY strong+persistent headwind, some high altitude air corridors over China may be closed(With little advance notice and in typical P.L.A. military air traffic control style) leaving just a few lower altitude air corridors(Better wind conditions) for use. For a long range jet overflying China, that usually means mixing with vast # of domestic/shorter range flights in the remaining congested air corridors and consume more fuel than planned due to inefficient cruise altitude+speed+indirect routing. In such case, a CX 77W fm JFK may still show sufficient fuel(Ex emergency reserve) to reach HKG based on all new calculations. However, a CX captain may still decide to change course and do unscheduled stop in ICN because enroute emergency alternate airport in China capable to comfortably handle 77W(Realistically, that means PEK+PVG only) may be congested or completely closed later, again, both due to ABNORMALLY bad weather. This decision may be made long before this CX 77W reach China and still has nothing to do with ....PLANE IS USING THE LIMIT OF ITS FLYING RANGE.... or something like that. It's purely judgement fm an experienced CX captain thinking ahead and planning for unexpected emergency(Although unlikely to happen) during those rare ABNORMAL weather conditions. The same captain will probably do the same thing in the same circumstances even if U put him/her in the cockpit of a 77L or 345.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de EI-DUB - Envoyé le 19 Mar 11:22 |
|
| |
flyfrontier,
Yes planes are flying to their limit, but they always have alternates and procedures in place so that if they encounter weather or conditions that burn heavy levels of fuel, they can divert safely, so to say it is dangerous in my opinion is a vast exaggeration.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 19 Mar 15:49 |
|
| |
The thing is how often does this happen to CX? Probably 2-3 times a yr on that route - a rate way below those airlines flying tons of 752s non-stop across the N.Atlantic. Also, this is CX's 1st winter season flying that route with not only a new type, but a new class of jet(extra-long range twin) for them. In ABNORMALLY bad headwind, of course, they'll be extra cautious even when the 77W inflight computer is telling them that it'll be fine without stopping!
Later on, it's entirely possible that CX will gain more op experience+confidence and minimize unscheduled stop further.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de flylinefrontier - Envoyé le 20 Mar 23:03 |
|
| |
If u want to me to porve the news. thats fine, but you have to wait, the news is from last summer....
And because, I lived in HK for more than 15 years, I knew that the weather always change due to their location... which is newar the sea, those winds or rains... I am saying in Asia, because CX hubs is to Hong Kong.... I knew that storms can create any where!!! But China, Hong Kong, or tapiel have more chance of storms, or rains in a short giving amount because the sea is beside them!
And also, what I meant for The plane is already above land thosn't mean they will crash on land, what I mean is, they have more chance of landing in any aiport below it. Like in Asia, there is Beijing, PVG... etc. Those pilot will know it because they do lots of caculation and computers have warnings!!! Thats what I meant above!!!.... They are over lands, why don't they divert to someplaces, china or Canada have lots of airports, and I knew that!!! Of course any other airplane, any pilot will do the same, one of my parents is a pilot!
Of course plane can fly on their limit, pilots are trained make sure they are on the right track. Companys will have plans for any nearest airports, if not, that route are not a good choice to fly with that aircraft.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 20 Mar 9:46 |
|
| |
flylinefrontier:
Looking forward to hear fm U again re news about CX claiming 787 is unsafe due to its small size.
Again, I disagree with a lot of comments U've just made.
1st, I totally disagree that China, HK and Taipei hv more chances of sudden storms or rains than the rest of the world because they're located close to sea/ocean. Check cnn/weather.com right now, U'll see Singapore has been having unpredictable thunderstorms over the past few days. No surprise as it's in a tropical monsoon region but far away fm HK,China or Taiwan. Japan is not just nex to the sea+ocean, it's surrounded by them. More typhoons pass through Okinawa every yr than HK+China combined and any pilots will tell U how ridicously strong sudden gusts can be near NRT or HND. Both places are in ASIA where CX hv frequent flights. Beyond Asia, the world famous & powerful gulfstream regularly spawns unpredictable & strong hurricanes in the Carribeans and SE U.S. which seriously affect wind conditions all the way upto the N.Atlantic disrupting West-bound transatlantic flights. Unpredictable bad weather of the U.K. is world famous and pax(Including many on this forum) often scream how sudden bad weather turn LHR(Possibly the most important hub in Europe) and its nearby transatlantic air corridors(Nearly all EU-U.S. flights use these) into complete gridlock/chaos. If 1 of your parents is a COMMERCIAL pilot, he/she should know these so check with him/her.
A serious problem in a region you lived in doesn't mean equally serious(Or even worse) problem doesn't occur elsewhere on earth. Before I say my A has more than your B, I always learn about both A and B 1st. Finally, in case U wonder, I've lived in HK, on & off, for 22yrs and is in fact currently typing this msg @ Pacific Place, Admiralty, HK.
2nd, U're still assuming whenever a pilot has to make unscheduled refuel stop, fuel tank must be nearly empty and therefore it's an emergency. Well, that only happen due to very bad piloting or some kinda of system malfunction. That CX 77W JFK->HKG flight was unlikely in such emergency and was simply making unscheduled refuel stop purely due to weather or traffic problems. This happens to flights every wk around the world. Typically, they land with fuel level very far above the emergency reserve level. Sometimes, they even hv to dump fuel in the air so the jet won't exceed MLW(Max Landing Weight) upon landing.
3rd, U're still assuming 77W can land in any airports in China/Canada anytime its pilot wants to in non-emergency. Are U sure all these airports....
a) Hv sufficient rwy+taxiway length/width so a 77W won't overrun or fell off the concretes?
b) Hv sufficient clearance space so a 77W won't hit a hangar, terminal or other fixed objects in the airfield while taxing?
c) Hv concretes designed to support heavy jets like 77W(Highest loading per wheel than any other jet including A388) and won't crack and sink the 77W?
d) hv gate/space to park a 77W without disrupting other traffic normally using this airport?
e) Hv refueling equipment available/compatible with 77W?
f) Are not congested and hv landing slot available with little advance notice fm the pilot(Remember this is a non-emergency unscheduled stop and other scheduled flights always hv priority) even when they're affected by the same ABNORMAL weather in the same region?
g) Are not closed even when they are affected by the same ABNORMAL bad weather in the same region?
h) Hv air corridor slot available for the 77W to fly on to reach the airport fm its present position?
When U start checking each airport on your CHINA OR CANADA HAVE LOTS OF AIRPORTS list against all 8 points I mentioned above, U will begin to see less and less airports in China/Canada on your list can allow an inflight CX 77W to make unscheduled refuel stop.
CX often use ICN for unscheduled refuel stop because that airport nearly always met these 8 conditions and close enough to CX's major air routes to N.America. For longhaul Eastern U.S.-Asia flights(Not just Cx's) that need to do unscheduled refuel stop, Chinese airports are not ideal mostly because along the routes, the few big ones(e.g. PEK,PVG,SHA) are always congested and the smaller ones can't handle heavier/bigger jets properly(A few such as HGH and CTU are physically capable but they lack experience in handling unscheduled refuel stop quickly).
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de flylinefrontier - Envoyé le 20 Mar 20:43 |
|
| |
1st of all: I already mention above, I am saying Taipel, HK because CX's flight 826,827,828,829,831 etc between YYZ/JFK and HKG is flyling above that area, and thats an example!!!!!!!!!
2nd: I am just saying that they can have safe landing. Those statment does not include that they only refuel when it is emergency.
And yes, my friend agree with me that CX has that news in summer of 2007.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 26 Mar 4:44 |
|
| |
Does YOUR FRIEND AGREE WITH (You) means your friend has better info source than U because he/she:
a) is the official PR/spokesperson of CX?
b) works in TV media and was directly involved in the summer 07 news report re CX officially stating they hv deemed the 787 unsafe MAINLY due to its smaller size?
If a) or b) is true, pls ask your friend to cite the exact news article re that story. Otherwise, YOUR FRIEND AGREE WITH (You) has absolutely no meaning to me and represent just personal opinions, definitely not a CX public statement.
A fact is not a democracy and does not depend on how many people believe in it.....
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de flylinefrontier - Envoyé le 27 Mar 23:09 |
|
| |
I don't know why this thread changed from CX's trouble to B787 problem, but oh well.
Eventuallly the news is last summer, lots of them has error, except for this following.
http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/viewthread.php?tid=248775
It said 國泰係有計劃B787或者A350XWB... 不過要過多兩年先會訂... 睇定少少先...
That means CX had some interest on 787 or A350XWB, but they have to wait 2 more years...
Here's another one, I searched on that news paper company
http://search.singtao.com/Cx_Fleet_expend_B787_35546367=$5234_6879039962
There is one English site that wal working...
http://tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/685908/
FLX: stop being a gay guy, face it, this area, in Airfleets is not an area for u to put comment on people, specially you are now starting comment on my friend. That is not nice. Forum is an area for people to put question, answers, news, info. It is not a comment area. If thats in the news, face it buddy! If u want to correct people, use a better kind of word. And if people like me actuallly heard the news from the local area, you cannot just say those are lies, CX did actually concerts about safety on passengers. If u know somepeople like my friend who worked for CX, you can't say they lied. There is probablity on CX concerts on safety. May be you won;t if u are the boss, but the truth is, CX does.
And also, those news might not be real for you, but for thosands of HK citizen, they read all about it. If u want to correct me, use better word.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de captain bill - Envoyé le 27 Mar 7:49 |
|
| |
Gentlemen Gentlemen Gentlemen I think the time has come for us to stop this thread in it's tracks before war breaks out around the world. CathPac know their business much better than we do so let them get on with running their first class airline and we will shake hands and move onto further threads and enjoy the conversation one with the other.
I try not to get too involved as sometimes I do get upset about situations and say things I regret latter so I think we can rest assured that CX will do nothing to endanger the lives of their passengers and continue to offer the quality service they have provided since I was a boy when they flew Convair 880's. Them were the days !!!!
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 27 Mar 8:55 |
|
| |
flylinefrontier:
Actually, U were the one who originally brought up CX's safety concern re 787 so U can ask yourself why. This thread changed from CX's trouble to B787 when U made a statement on 07 Mar 15:20 about<Boeing introduce the new B787, but CX had rejected them, because of safety concerts, a very small plane,787 safety> and I wish to clarify if that's official CX position or is it only a personal comment/feeling of non-CX individuals. My interest in 787 safety is due to:
1. 787 will be the next widebody jet enters into service around Early 09. Pax will fly on it very soon.
2. 787 is by far the best-selling wide-body jet in history and many airlines(Including my usual carriers) plan to deploy it in regions I usually travel around today. This mean chances of flying on 787 will soon be very high.
3. CX maintains 1 of the best safety record in the business. IF they're uncomfortable with the safety of a new type, I sure will listen and try to learn more about the specific concerns.
Your 1st weblink is another public forum on CX's 77W order and I checked all comments there including their weblinks to Boeing and CX. There are 1 to 2 comments about the possibility of 787 orders may happen in 2yrs but absolutely NO COMMENTS made about 787 safety, let alone any related CX public statement.
Your 2nd and 3rd weblinks do not work.
Does asking me to<...stop being a gay guy...> counts as <...put comment on people...>???? 1st, as an early warning for U, calling someone by their sexual preference can get U into a lot of serious legal trouble faster than U can imagine. 2nd, why do U assume I'm a guy? U seem to be setting a lot of rules about how to use this forum. Are U suggeting girls or gays cannot use this aviation forum?
On the other hand, what exactly did I comment on your friend? What did I said that is not nice about your friend? I kept requesting U to provide some kinda of info source about this issue and then U only replied about your friend agree with U re what CX said about 787 safety. Since U still couldn't cite any other info source, naturally, I assume your friend may be your info source to support your statement. I agree your friend may be a reliable info source if he works for CX or for the news media reporting CX deemed 787 unsafe. That's why I asked U about fm what position your friend is agreeing with U, perhaps he/she is connected to CX/news media? Otherwise, why would U mentioned about your friend agreeing with U? What purpose does it serve? Your friend agree with U, THEREFORE, your statement is confirmed for everyone else? What kinda of logic is that?
Yes, forum is an area for people to put news/info. But whenever, major news/info is quoted without a shread of proper reference or cannot be backed up by info source when requested, people will ask whether is true or just personal comment. Imagine if I tell people in this forum<CX said their aircrafts will only use biofuel fm 2009 and you should trust people like me actually heard the news fm the local area and you cannot just say those are lies.....U should just trust me because I know and I hv friends working there and CX is actually concern about the environment...>. How would U feel/react? Face it buddy, if U can't support your statement, it is only your/your friend's personal point-of-view/comment. That's how unsupported rumors start. I hv tons of friends working for CX and even they were sometimes wrong about what their company's final strategic decisions/moves. That's why there's something known as an official public statement by a company. That's why whatever we said here on this forum, if true, can always be backed-up/supported by reliable info source. Also, if CX truly deemed the 787 unsafe, why did they only informed the local news media and indirectly, as U said, thousands of HK citizens? Only HK citizens travel on CX?
Finally, U're wrong, I don't aim to correct anyone. I just want to differentiate between personal comments and true facts. I hv no problem for U or your friend or anyone in this forum to comment here that they feel 787 is unsafe due to small size and therefore CX should not order it. That's a perfectly fine personal view and this forum is the perfect place to express/discuss them. But I hv problem with anyone claiming/reporting CX officially determined and stated the 787 is unsafe due to small size BUT cannot
provide source of that info when requested. The issue is not about 787 is safe or not. The issue is U're telling us CX made an important statement to the public last yr but U cannot provide nor let us know how to find that same CX statement today(Strange, given that safety is important to CX as U said).
Now, lets really get personal and let me COMMENT on U since U started it now. Overall, I find your comments are typically very sensational/exaggerted but nearly always without facts to back them up. U don't seem like doing any research 1st to back-up your claim or statement so all your comments appear like well, only your personal gut feelings but expect others to just believe it as the truth. All these point to immaturity. Pls stop being an immature guy.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster un message à cette discussion
|
|
Les messages doivent uniquement être rédigés en anglais. Tout message écrit dans une autre langue sera supprimé.
Les messages ne doivent concerner que des sujets liés à l'aviation civile et ne doivent contenir aucune publicité. Votre IP est conservée.
Les balises de format de texte pouvant être utilisées sont
[B]Votre texte[/B] : Texte en gras
[I]Votre texte[/I] : Texte en italique
[U]Votre texte[/U] : Texte souligné
[S]Votre texte[/S] : Texte barré
Pour inclure une photo Airfleets.net dans votre message, utilisez la synthaxe [P]Numéro de la photo[/P] |
|