Home » Commercial » Airbus » A380 » What happened to the Cathay Pacific A380?

Cathay Pacific hinted at the prospect of them operating the Airbus A380 in their fleet. In this video, we’ll discuss why this rumor was squashed by the airline and the path they ultimately decided to take.

Subscribe & hit the notification bell for more content on the aviation world! 🙂

Want to support the channel? A simple donation of £1 will help me grow the channel with new equipment/software, which will increase the production quality. Donate at: paypal.me/navgeekaviation

Social Media:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/navgeekaviation/
Business/enquires: [email protected]

Airbus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdiIpd4vaOc
Cathay Pacific: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ6IXHlcfrI
Cathay Pacific: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLskBTrhGek
Cathay Pacific: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHHzmT7JZY0

“The Sky Is Our Home”
Navgeek Aviation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    • I was talking about cargo capacity in the Airbus A380 not meeting the airline’s expectations which lead Cathay Pacific ordering the Boeing 777-300ER instead of the Airbus A380 and Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental.

  • I loved the 380. Flew on it a few times. 3 times on the upper level. Also on the 74 upper deck. 380 seemed like a more stable aircraft. Flying on the 748 in the rear you could feel the aircraft moving slightly from side to side. A very uncomfortable flight.

  • " The Airbus A380 has proven to be a success if you execute the flight optimization correctly"

    This was never in dispute. The obvious facts, obvious even before the A380 project was initiated, is that such optimization will not be desirable, or even possible, for the great majority of airlines and so there never was any reason – other than "fuselage envy" – to build the plane.

    You might as well argue that "If you want to fly, all you have to do is flap your arms fast enough".

  • Cathay Pacific was right….the A380 was just a huge miscalculation by Airbus. They built a plane that cost hundreds of millions to airports in upgrades and is environmentally unfriendly. A superb engineering design, a disaster for Airbus.

  • Airlines are run by bean counters, but they do not appreciate that passengers are motivated to fly on certain types of aircraft. British Airways for instance has a huge commercial advantage on US routes, as no American carrier operates the A380.

    In the 1960’s BOAC flew the VC10 across the Atlantic. It was more expensive to operate than a B707, but BOAC customers preferred the quiet cabin and the smooth flight, where the 707 had a tendency to Dutch roll and yaw in the cruise.The A380 is much quieter inside than a B777, B747 or B787. Four engines will always be safer than two.

    • Victor the A380 is only a advantage if they can fill it. Otherwise it's a liability. 90% of passengers dont care what type of plane they fly on. Most dont even know if it's a A380 or a CRJ700.

  • Cathay could have ordered it. Its home HK Airport is capable of handling them despite the current 3-runway expansion is underway. Cathay most likely will use it on int'l routes, like HK to N America routes. Looking at Cathay's fleet (Excl Cathay Dragon), they are down to 3 aircraft types from 5: A330, A350, B777 (The retirement of A340, B747). Not to mention that HKG rated top 10 on World Airport Awards, wouldn't be ideal to purchase bigger planes to operate flights in and out of its world class recognition home? I believe where there is more A380, there is more world attention.

    • More like the size of the aircraft is too big since HKIA is design to accommodate 747 only and 380 requires 2 gates, given that gate and apron demand is so high it just make it stay away from 380s

    • likely to be used as a B747-400 replacement if ordered. Just look at Korean Air on how they replaced the B747-400 on ICN-JFK with A380 & B777-300/ER from 2009-2011.

    • Good point and if ordered likely replacing the B747-400 on routes that use them which is JFK-HKG via YVR or HKG-LAX & HKG-LHR. Just look at how their rival Korean Air replaced B747-400 on ICN-JFK with A380 B777-300/ER & B747-8 from 2009-2017/2018.

    • if replacing 747 there is a other possibility of HKG-TPE-NRT/KIX/ICN route and it will do better than poor china southern A380s since HKG-TPE is the busiest international route and operating with wide body aircraft like 330 with basically one flight per hour so i really can see the possibility for A380

    • @Thomas Chui what about Hong Kong to Manila too. Keep in mind CX is the only airline to operate wide-body on that route because it's competition Philippine Airlines tend to use a mix of single-aisle and wide-body. A380 would fit that too

  • Cathay Pacific is one of my favorite airlines, given they retired there 747 fleet, it seemed unlikely they would buy another four engine aircraft. I do miss the 747, they were used a lot on short haul flights.

  • What happened to lion air's 737 MAX?
    What happened to B777X fuselage when tested?
    What happened to B747-8i order?
    Why boeing plane orders reduced this year?
    You will never talk about these topics.
    Boeing geek!
    Topic is about a380 but we see B777.
    B777x is a paper plane.Doesnt exist.

  • I don’t know does this really work but can’t just a person that works in CX operates A380 for CX?
    So is like, you work for CX(Cathay pacific) and since Cx doesn’t want to buy A380 cuz of reasons. Since you are like really rich and works for CX at the same time. Why not help CX to operate A380s? But all the maintenance and training for the A380 will not be involved with Cx but only you. Since you are just helping CX to operate A380.

  • I mean I would really love to see a A380 in CX(Cathay pacific)’s fleet. But because for reasons. Plus right now in HK(akaCX hub) is having a huge protest which means is gonna effect the airline’s ridership?(I hope I said that right) and i don’t know are they losing money or not but yea is kinda a wise option to not buy the A380. Because the A380 needs a lot of money to operate.
    Heck plus, if the route between HK and London Heathrow has only 5 B777-300ERs operating the route that equals only 3 A380s.
    Why don’t they just buy like 5 of the A380 then??
    If they want Flexibility on flights then I suggest they should buy a few A380s to operate on only 1 route?
    Please reply!!

  • No, it would have been a mistake for Cathay Pacific. In fact, they're filling Boeing 777-300s (non-Er) on ~5HR routes around asia, turning a profit on a 20yo aircraft hauling nearly 400 people on mostly full flights. Perfect example, HKG-DPS, which goes totally full, to and from in a 24hr cycle. Why fix what isn't broken, and their system works, it works well, and it works without the A380.

  • While I don't like CX's onboard service, I am always amused by their frequency. While HKG-JFK/EWR is no longer impressive in terms of distance, I can't think of any other carriers are operating up to 5 daily departures for that length. Almost all destinations have daily departures, and they can do 10~14 weekly while others have only 1 daily.
    A380 does not work well for their high frequency model.

  • Also, because of the location of Hong Kong's airport at Chep Lap Kok, it allows for essentially 24-hour operations with a lot more landing/takeoff slots available. That reduces the need for the A380, so as Cathay Pacific started to retire their 747-400 fleet, they were replaced by 777-300ER's, which is now started to be supplemented by A350XWB-1000's.

  • Cathay do cargo very well , 777-300,a330-300 ,now a350-900 as well as the 747-8f into Sydney
    A380-800 are useless for cargo, as even emirates use a 777-200 freighter for cargo

    • Agreed, Airbus aircraft are basically useless after their passenger life, except for some. while most Boeing can be converted into freighters and start a new life, which is definitely a good way to make sure that the aircraft is used to its real full potential

    • @Joey Apdian its only alive as freighter, had there not been an a380 we would have seen a few more ywars of passenger 747s

  • As a passenger I love to fly the A380. Unfortunately the model for which it was designed for is no longer predominant. Now most airlines need smaller and more economical aircrafts such as the Boeing 787 to fly directly between smaller cities. Of course it still makes sense for some airlines such as Emirates but even them know that this model will soon become obsolete.

  • CX prefers 5x A350 (300 passengers per plane) to 3x A380 (500 passengers per plane), because the former plan gives CX more flexibility on flight schedule.

  • CX, EK and SQ, only 3 all-wide-body tranditional airlines in the World. EK and SQ are state subsidiary, while CX is a private company. CX cannot compete with EK nd SQ in hub transport services.

    Alternatively, CX is strong in Cargo. A380 is not good choice for Cargo transport.

    Now, CX has 3 subsidiary airlines : Air Hong Kong (Cargo, close relationship with DHL), Cathay Dragon (Regional, mainly mainland China flight), HK Expess (LCC, mainly Japan fligjt). None of them need A380.

  • Another reason for failure of A380 :

    Now aeroplane engines are more reliable and dual-engine plane is fully support long-haul flight under ETOPS. 4-Engine A380 consume much more fuel in order that Airlines abandon them.

  • The same reason U.S. Carriers were not interested. Customers are interested in frequency. Four engines are of no interest to most carriers now. However Airbus's other current line up in aircraft will be around a long time and seem to be making many right decisions. Boeing had better get it together , I smell another government bail out. Yay, we the us workers get to bail out another greedy , poorly managed , and basically corrupt company with our tax dollars.

  • Yes, it should have ordered the A380. Just to be able to say they have them on the fleet. Maybe use them on high-density long-haul flights as the season demands.

    Beyond the numbers, Cathay must realize that, as a passenger, emotions factor into the choice of carriers. I get that the A380 is not efficient; however, like the video said, can you really compete at the top tier of premium carriers without it? It's like a car service that's all Mercedes but only C and E classes when the competition is offering Maybachs.

    Again, I have nothing against efficiency, but Cathay is a premium brand. Luxury and perception matters, and that is not helped by the econo-carrier strategy.

  • They would be in trouble if they had the 380 now because of the recent decline in connecting passengers and tourists travelling to Hong Kong

  • Did I hear it correctly that Boeing wants to deliver the first 777X in 2021? How about the fuselage accident? Can they still keep the schedule?

  • If it's too large and you can't fill it all the time your going to lose money, also you cant have aircraft just sitting and waiting for peak hours.

  • Cost of Maint. of A380 is considerably higher than time tested B777 of any variant. Also, not readily reported, A380 involved in numerous ground tail strikes of other terminal parked aircraft during taxiing close to terminals. I wish Lockheed would bring back the TRISTAR L1011 and USA Congress leave them alone. It was a superior aircraft.

Log In