Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5718827/

Topic: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-03-19 16:52:56 and read 19464 times.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_03_19_2013_p0-560396.xml

I haven't seen this posted yet but this is a direct quote "Walsh also says it is “unlikely” that BA would take additional Airbus A380s or look at the Boeing 747-8 even as it contemplates a fleet replacement for about 30 747-400s and, eventually, the 46 777-200ERs in operation."

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-19 17:01:30 and read 19436 times.

Quote:
“Based on what I have seen, it is almost inevitable that it is an aircraft that we will have in our fleet at some stage,” Walsh told Aviation Week during a March 18 interview. “It looks like a perfect fit for some of what British Airways [BA] would require.”

Walsh says BA is likely to opt for more than one type of aircraft for the fleet renewal. “We have a lot of six- to 10-hour sectors in our North America network, and then we have a lot of 12- to 13-hour sectors. You are not going to get all of that into a single aircraft type, so different aircraft sizes make sense to us,” he says.

I expect Randy Tinseth is having some physical and CG models of the 787-10 and 777-9 made in BA's livery as part of a sales pitch.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-03-19 17:18:36 and read 19259 times.

On the A380, he also goes on to say that he can “see a case for increasing that, but we think 12 is a good [fleet] size.”


On the 747 replacement he states that the choice is likely to be between the 777-9X and the Airbus A350-900 and -1000.

Looks like he doesnt consider the current 777 as up there against the 350 or 777X “as good an aircraft as the 777 is, it is going to be overtaken by the next generation of aircraft, the A350-1000, the 777-9X or versions of the 787.”


So, now we know the shape of the argument.

The hot and high question from Iberia - what aircraft are more suited to that? The 350 or the 77x?
I can imagine that 20% of the iberia fleet that cannot be flown with one fleet will be basically a BA subfleet.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-03-19 17:25:41 and read 19204 times.

Quoting waly777 (Thread starter):
Walsh also says it is “unlikely” that BA would take additional Airbus A380s or look at the Boeing 747-8 even as it contemplates a fleet replacement for about 30 747-400s and, eventually, the 46 777-200ERs in operation.

That should squelch quite a few threads here on a.net!  

Now, if Boeing could stop stepping on their dingus and start building the darn thing!

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-19 17:30:43 and read 19150 times.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 2):
The hot and high question from Iberia - what aircraft are more suited to that?
AviationWeek had a number of articles about how IB was being down-sized (5 A340s and 20 A320s) and what new long-haul aircraft being added are A330-300s, which are slated to replace additional A340-300s.

That being said, if the A330-300 works as an A340-300 replacement for IB, I cannot see how a 787-9 or 777-9 can't so that would allow IAG to standardize on an A380, 777X and 787 fleet for their widebody needs and an A320(neo) fleet for their narrowbody.

[Edited 2013-03-19 17:31:35]

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-03-19 17:32:32 and read 19124 times.

Well that's a downer that BA is ruling out the 748. Would have loved to see her at PHX.

Looks like the 77X is going to be gracing PHX's presence in the future.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-03-19 17:36:27 and read 19089 times.

Haven't BA said more than once in the last decade or two they don't plan on being launch customers for any new product?

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-19 17:41:37 and read 19045 times.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 6):
Haven't BA said more than once in the last decade or two they don't plan on being launch customers for any new product?

Well I guess it's how you define "launch". They did order the A380 and 787, though they were a bit down the line in terms of deliveries. So they may decide on the 777X, but allow EK, for example, to take the early deliveries and "work out the bugs".

On the flip side, the 777X is a derivative of the 777 and BA has plenty of experience with that family.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-03-19 17:58:06 and read 18911 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
That being said, if the A330-300 works as an A340-300 replacement for IB,

What about the other 20% of the routes - the hot and high routes?

What is more suited to these 20% - as a I see these as the tipping point for the BA order too.

It also seems that BA sees one aircraft performing better over the 'shorter' routes, whilst the other performs better on longer segments.

Interesting times ahead for the carriers.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
That should squelch quite a few threads here on a.net!

Not good news for the 748. Looks like BA sees maybe a few more A380s a few years out with the 777/350 taking the slack in the other direction.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-03-19 18:01:49 and read 18899 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
They did order the A380 and 787, though they were a bit down the line in terms of deliveries.

They weren't anywhere near the front of the line in terms of when the orders were made on those ones!

How much "commonality" will the 77X have with the old generation? I suspect even less than the 747-8 and the 744.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Asiaflyer
Posted 2013-03-19 18:09:19 and read 18831 times.

Quoting waly777 (Thread starter):
Walsh also says it is “unlikely” that BA would take additional Airbus A380s or look at the Boeing 747-8


The 748i was almost dead when she was borne, and the 777-9X with new engine technology will kill her off completely. It is out of question for BA.
Also the A380 starts to suffer from larger and more efficient twin WBs competition. Airbus has missed a great opportunity to sell more A380 due to the very slow production ramp-up. Current generation of A380 engines starts to be out dated and would need an upgrade to XWB engines to be able to stay firm against A350-1000 and 777-9X as future 744 replacement.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: LH707330
Posted 2013-03-19 20:38:31 and read 18358 times.

Couldn't Iberia just use one of the shrink variants of the 777X/350 with uprated engines? I could see a 789 with 71k engines doing the hot/high runs, and the 7810 doing the North Atlantic for BA.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2013-03-19 21:04:09 and read 18230 times.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 9):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):They did order the A380 and 787, though they were a bit down the line in terms of deliveries.
They weren't anywhere near the front of the line in terms of when the orders were made on those ones!

You seem upset by this news?

Whether BA takes A350's or 777X's, they are still going to be getting newer generation airframes. They could always lease some additional 77W's to bridge the gap, exercise options on 787's, order additional A380's, etc. I don't see why it matters what they've done in the past necessarily?

-Dave

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: SCAT15F
Posted 2013-03-19 21:56:13 and read 18047 times.

The only chance the 748 Intercontinental has is if they do a "simple stretch" to a full 80 meters, adding 34 seats plus adding another 12 by using the upper deck galley stowage option.

513 seats steers it well clear of the 779X and improves casm. Of course, with the 7810 and 777X in the works, it would be hard to pull off...

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-03-19 22:01:08 and read 18034 times.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 10):
The 748i was almost dead when she was borne, and the 777-9X with new engine technology will kill her off completely. It is out of question for BA.

This fits in with my timeline for BA.

When people were talking about BA's replacement for the 744, they looked to the A380 and 777 only and said "Boeing doesn't necessarily need a 747 sized aircraft." But they do. As a carrier with the largest 744 fleet, it's unlikely that the entire fleet was the wrong size. Some were bought for size and some for range/payload, and thus the 77W can fulfill some of the missions, and they can upsize to the A380 on some routes, but some routes actually do need a 747 sized aircraft.

And by 2018/2019, the final group of 747s at BA, the newest, will need to be replaced, and they can be replaced 1 for 1 now with the 779 because they are the same size. So before then, the planes that weren't really needed for size are gone and replaced with the 77W (12-15), the planes that could be upsized are upsized to the A380 (about 12, it seems). That leaves 20-30 to be replaced directly with the 779. With 23 744s delivered 1997 or later, if BA can secure a lot of delivery positions, they could replace the remaining 744s before 2020.

It was the same argument for the 748, in that BA could put off making the decision on the final 744 replacement for quite a while. I got blowback saying "no, BA said the 787 and A380 would replace the 747s" and that simply was a company not wanting to project their fleet planning 10-15 years into the future if they don't have to. Similar to UA's claims the A350 would replace the 744. It was something to say to satisfy investors and not show their cards to the competition.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: ba319-131
Posted 2013-03-19 22:57:33 and read 17859 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 5):
Well that's a downer that BA is ruling out the 748.

- This was ruled out when the ordered the A380's some years back, the 748 was never going to happen in the pax fleet.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-03-20 03:49:11 and read 16819 times.

An interesting interview.

1) Bad news for the A380, which isn't going to be the main replacement of their remaining 744 fleet.
2) Good news for the 777X
3) The rest of the WB requirements will probably be met with a mixture of the various versions of the 787 and A350. 787-10 for east coast transatlantic routes from LHR for example?
4) Nothing for IB until their issues are sorted out...

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-03-20 04:04:42 and read 16639 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 16):
1) Bad news for the A380, which isn't going to be the main replacement of their remaining 744 fleet.

The A380 will get orders over time, but not now.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 16):

2) Good news for the 777X
3) The rest of the WB requirements will probably be met with a mixture of the various versions of the 787 and A350. 787-10 for east coast transatlantic routes from LHR for example?
4) Nothing for IB until their issues are sorted out...

Not so sure the 77X is a foregone conclusion - BA (BA) is forcing BA (Boeing) into a decision, as they want the manufacturers to fight over their business

The IB issue will be rolled into the fleet decision - nobody yet knows the performance of either aircraft in Hot and High - and that will be bonus points on top of any plan.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-03-20 05:04:44 and read 16068 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 12):
You seem upset by this news?

Whether BA takes A350's or 777X's, they are still going to be getting newer generation airframes. They could always lease some additional 77W's to bridge the gap, exercise options on 787's, order additional A380's, etc. I don't see why it matters what they've done in the past necessarily?

My only point is BA in recent history has indicated they don't want to be an early launch customer for a new project and while I agree the 777X is a great replacement for many of their 744s I don't see, unlike others, they will be among the blue chip launch customer for any 777X version. They will get them eventually, just like they did the A380 and 787, but they won't be the first few customers to order or take delivery. Someone else can take the "risk".

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Bthebest
Posted 2013-03-20 05:26:45 and read 15787 times.

Remember, the Iberia A346 fleet is still relatively young (10 years for the oldest). They can afford to hold out on that decision for a while and focus on the 744/772 renewal.

A343s are already starting renewal through the A333.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Darksnowynight
Posted 2013-03-20 05:38:52 and read 15654 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 5):
Well that's a downer that BA is ruling out the 748. Would have loved to see her at PHX.

Why? The 779 will do that job much better.

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 13):
513 seats steers it well clear of the 779X and improves casm.

Maybe, but not anything like enough to make a difference. CASM would have to be double digits better (and that will never happen) for a quad to be worth looking into. Operations costs encompass a great deal more than that, so the savings would have to not only be less ambiguous, but also a lot less elastic than they are. Remember, CASM only matters at all when comparing full planes, and, not or, when yields are high. This is why a lot of the 380s are either leaving the factory, or being refitted with larger premium sections at the cost of an absolute higher seat count.

While a 749i would be great to see, it would need some type of savior operator, a la EK & the 380, to really work out. A 749f might work well though, especially considering that AN is considering restarting 124 production...

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: BestWestern
Posted 2013-03-20 06:08:11 and read 15345 times.

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 19):
Remember, the Iberia A346 fleet is still relatively young (10 years for the oldest). They can afford to hold out on that decision for a while and focus on the 744/772 renewal.

A343s are already starting renewal through the A333.

Good point - wonder if we see the 350-1000 order replacing the 747's first, and then a 77x order replacing the 772/767/346s , and an eventual 787 fleet replacing the 330?


In ten years, The IAG fleet could end up like this:

A380
350-1000
777-900
787

With short haul being an all A320 / e190 operation.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-03-20 06:19:05 and read 15215 times.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 2):
On the A380, he also goes on to say that he can %u201Csee a case for increasing that, but we think 12 is a good [fleet] size.%u201D

So no increase to be expected any time soon. But then again, they still have to start their operations with their A380's.  .

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 5):
Well that's a downer that BA is ruling out the 748. Would have loved to see her at PHX.

Not really, when they decided to go for the A380 they ruled out the B748i. Both were competing for the one BA order.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 10):
Current generation of A380 engines starts to be out dated and would need an upgrade to XWB engines to be able to stay firm against A350-1000 and 777-9X as future 744 replacement.

Not really, the A380 is still CASM-King with quite a big margin. And the improvements keep on going, so the efficiency benchmark is still a moving target. The A350-1000 and B777-9 will get (very) close. Airbus has already stated so regarding the A350-1000. But to surpass the A380 on CASM takes even more from competitors. Of course CASM is by far not the only aspect to look at when deciding to purchase an airliner. But it is an important factor.

And when the B777-X-program hits the market, we could be looking at the A389 with further improvements and the latest engine technology (which we will then no doubt see introduced on the A388 as well). Again shifting the benchmark even further out.  .

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 12):
Whether BA takes A350's or 777X's, they are still going to be getting newer generation airframes.

I guess they will take both.  .

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 16):
The rest of the WB requirements will probably be met with a mixture of the various versions of the 787 and A350.

  

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Darksnowynight
Posted 2013-03-20 07:19:31 and read 14545 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
Not really, the A380 is still CASM-King with quite a big margin.

Only because the 787 is not currently flying*. It's CASM is in fact lower in std configuration. I would be very, very, very surprised if the A359 is not better still.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
Of course CASM is by far not the only aspect to look at when deciding to purchase an airliner.

This however, is very true. It typically comes in around 9th or 10th place there, as opposed to it being the only factor, which is apparently what A.net believes. So therefore,

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
But it is an important factor.

This is also not true. In fact, CASM ranks behind landing fees at most airlines. As I mentioned above, the differences involved need to be in double digit percentages to be relevant, and this will likely never be the case.
To put that into perspective, that would be not so much the difference between an A380 & big twin, but more like an A380 and say, a Comet. Nobody's going to build a plane so fuel inefficient that they'll lose sales over it. That proof is in the numbers.

Part of the reason CASM matters a lot less in the real world vs here is that it is a elastic figure, and dependent on a number of other things going perfectly right, all the time. In fact, most airlines don't measure their costs this way, but rather with straight Operational Cost, since that allows a more realistic assessment of what's happening and for cargo as well. CASM is window dressing, and totally glosses over the 388's real value anyway.



* the A388 can in theory recover a CASM advantage over the 788, but it requires a trip of over 6000mi to do so. In fact, it may interest you to know that the 388 is among the worst CASM players until you get over about 4000mi or so on a trip.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: jayunited
Posted 2013-03-20 07:30:00 and read 14435 times.

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 13):
The only chance the 748 Intercontinental has is if they do a "simple stretch" to a full 80 meters, adding 34 seats plus adding another 12 by using the upper deck galley stowage option.

I don't see Boeing doing any more stretches to the 748i and I think the 748i is dead but the freighter version will stick around for some time.

The majority of airlines are not interested in the 748i, but they are salivating over the proposed 779x and I still believe Airbus will see renewed interest and a lot more orders for their A350-1000. Boeing would be wasting their money by stretching the 748i even more. With the exception of the few airlines that have ordered the 748i the reality is once the other airlines start retiring the 744's in massive number the 747 passenger variant will be on the endangered species list so enjoy it while you can because it will soon be replace by the 779x and the A350-1000.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: jumpjets
Posted 2013-03-20 07:48:04 and read 14709 times.

The engine manufacturers must also be watching this selection debate keenly. With the 777X only coming with GE [according to a current a.net thread] and the A350 only with RR they both have a lot to play for.

As we know BA was traditionally an RR customer - but that didn't stopped them going with GE for early 772s [but was that more to do with the sale of the BA engine overhaul plant in South Wales to GE] and of course the 773 - but has taken the RR option for 787and A380.

Iberia meanwhile has selected GE over RR for its A333s, whilst its A340-600s of course have RR engines.

So it seems likely/possible as far as the longer term future shape of the fleets we'll end up:

RR
Airbus A380 [BA]
Boeing 788/9/10 [BA]
A350 [IB - and poss BA?]

GE
Airbus A333 [IB]
Boeing 777X - and the 773s [BA]

What do we think?

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-03-20 07:59:20 and read 14570 times.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 23):
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
Not really, the A380 is still CASM-King with quite a big margin.

Only because the 787 is not currently flying*. It's CASM is in fact lower in std configuration. I would be very, very, very surprised if the A359 is not better still.

To me that sounds as highly unlikely. Do you have any numbers to back that up? I admit I do not have the numbers myself available (here at work) but I do remeber Airbus making an statement that on CASM the A350-1000 will get very close to the A380.

So it is therefore highly unlikely that the A359 and all B787's will have lower CASM.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: GDB
Posted 2013-03-20 08:01:24 and read 14810 times.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 6):
Haven't BA said more than once in the last decade or two they don't plan on being launch customers for any new product?

If there was a mood to change that, the 787 saga will have ended that idea.
(We look at that and think 'thank god we are not ANA or JAL').

As stated, the 748i has been out of the running since 2007 when the A380 was picked.

Worth noting also that BA has stopped the evaluation for new big twins, until they think the financial climate is better.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-03-20 10:54:27 and read 13017 times.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 21):
In ten years, The IAG fleet could end up like this:

A380
350-1000
777-900
787

This doesn't make sense to me. Why would they not go something like this:

787-8
787-9
787-10
777-9X
A380-800

What's the purpose of the A350-1000 in the mix. No where near the lift of the 779. The 351 is not even a great 346 replacement. And now that BA has the 787 coming into service, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't replace 333s, 77Es and 343s with 787-10s. Same lift. Lower cost.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 21):
With short haul being an all A320 / e190 operation.

I'd hope that in due course (in the next decade or so), that they move to the CSeries and 321NEOs. Given the number of CRJs that IB has on order and the number of 319s and E-Jets that BA flies, a single family across the spectrum would improve efficiency. I see IB replacing its CRJs, 319s and some 320s with CS100s and (a future) CS500s. Ditto for BA with its 319s, 319s, 320s, E-Jets, and 734s. 321NEOs will be reserved for high demand routes, longer narrowbody routes, or narrowbody routes with higher cargo demands.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: rutankrd
Posted 2013-03-20 11:00:54 and read 12940 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 28):
Given the number of CRJs that IB has on order

That will be none then !

Air Nostrum are an independent franchise and not a subsidiary of IAG

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-20 11:10:38 and read 12851 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 28):
What's the purpose of the A350-1000 in the mix. No where near the lift of the 779. The 351 is not even a great 346 replacement. And now that BA has the 787 coming into service, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't replace 333s, 77Es and 343s with 787-10s. Same lift. Lower cost.

You are forgetting the range, the 787-10X won't have the same range as the 77E & A343. This would look better:

787-8
787-9 - 767 replacement
787-10 - A330 replacement
A359 / A35J - 77E / A343 replacement
777-9X - 747 / 77W replacement
A380-800 - 747 replacement

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-03-20 12:02:07 and read 12257 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 30):
You are forgetting the range, the 787-10X won't have the same range as the 77E & A343.

Does BA or IB really need the added range? Boeing is now saying 7100nm with a full pax load for the 787-10X. This only 700nm less than the 77E today. Assuming that 5500nm is the practical range for the 787-10X taking into account winds, cargo loads, etc.:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=5500nm@LHR&MS=wls&DU=mi

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=5500nm@...%0D%0A&MS=wls&DU=nm&SG=0.8&SU=mach

That's enough range for BA to reach HKG and IB to reach EZE. There are few locations where IAG needs more range. I would suggest that to these few locations the 777-8LX is ideal, given that the 777-9X will be in service anyway.

I don't think BA operate the 77E because they need the full range of the 77E. They just needed more than what the A330 offered in 1995. Add to that, a general preference for Boeing for long-haul. The 787-10 will fulfill virtually all of the 77E missions for BA, and offers increased capability for IB (over the 333).

The A350 family would have made sense if they hadn't already ordered the 787. But now that they have the 787, why not move up to the 787-10 and use the 777-X family for high loads (779) or where range is required (778)?

[Edited 2013-03-20 12:08:39]

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: yellowtail
Posted 2013-03-20 13:24:03 and read 11268 times.

what about a small subfleet of 748s for IB hot and high...and then the rest A358/9/10 or 77X and 788/9

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: GDB
Posted 2013-03-20 14:50:42 and read 10393 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 31):
The A350 family would have made sense if they hadn't already ordered the 787. But now that they have the 787, why not move up to the 787-10

They've got to launch and build the thing first.
Though Walsh was speaking from an IAG rather than purely BA perspective, while he might have aiming to encourage Boeing to launch a new 777 version, IMHO it was a bit unwise.

I've not really commented on the biggest civil aviation news story this year - or for some years now - but anyway here goes.
787, three years late, now grounded,
All that hubris in the development, all that crap about how they were going to have a mere 8 month flight testing - in 2007/8 remember?
Numerous statements during all that long development that were, to be polite, less than frank.

In that context the last thing Boeing needs is someone like Walsh tickling their tummy, if only for when the time comes to get a decent deal out of them.
Sadly that's all too often not been 'the BA way'.

While the 787 I'm sure will become a very valuable part of the BA fleet, while the addition of some 777-300ER's has been a real boost too, we were right to pick the 787, I see the A350-1000 as an ideal replacement for our older 777's which will be hitting 20 years of age in the next few years.
Maybe beyond that requirement too.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Boysteve
Posted 2013-03-20 15:49:59 and read 9803 times.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 17):
1) Bad news for the A380, which isn't going to be the main replacement of their remaining 744 fleet.
The A380 will get orders over time, but not now.

Is this not a bargaining positioning? Try to get a better deal out of Airbus for a 'top up' order?

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: BA0197
Posted 2013-03-20 16:23:55 and read 9500 times.

I've been following the BA fleet replacement programme for quite some time now. This is what I envision for IAG

BA currently have (in active service) the following wide bodied aircraft:

767-336ER- 21, 14 of which are relevant to this discussion
777-236 (A version)- 3
777-236ER- 43
777-336ER- 6
747-436- 52

BA have on order the following:

787-8 - 8
787-9 - 16
(With a combined options on 28 additional aircraft)
777-336ER- 6
A380-800- 12 (With an option for 7 additional aircraft)

I can see BA taking up their remaining A380 options eventually, but they seem to be rather conservative about the giant aircraft for some reason. 7 LH 767s, 3 777-236s and 12 747-436s will be retired by 2015. We know this for a fact. The 787 and A380 deliveries will make up for the slack in the fleet. BA also need to begin retiring the remaining if its 747s and the older 777s before 2020 as well. The LH 767s will be gone by this point, well as the vast majority (if not all) 747s and around half of the current (or perhaps more) 777 fleet. According to this, BA have their work cut out for them. They need a lot of aircraft in a relatively short time span. They are facing the consequences of delaying their decision for so long on fleet renewal.

BA do not have the need of an ultra LH aircraft. Most of their destinations are within 12 hours from London (with the vast majority under 10). So I do not think tht range will be a great influence in an IAG order for BA. I know that BA do not like to be the launch customers if aircraft, but the need of several aircraft within a short time span will, in my opinion, force them to make an early decision on a new aircraft, either the 77X or the A350.

I believe that BA will be in favour of the 77X for some reasons. Firstly, BA are Boeing for LH, no question about that when looking at its history. It seems that the range of the 77X-9 is suitable enough for BA and its proposed capacity could mirror those of its high-J 744s. The 77X-8 could be the replacement of its mid-J 744s (and 4 class 772s). They could also have a subfleet to replace its 3 class 772s. Some areas for concern are present however. The fact that BA is a RR user is worrying, as Boeing announced today that GE would be the sole engine operator for the aircraftand BA have committed to purchase 96 engines from RR ( or so I've read). The use of GE is however not an uncommon thing in the BA fleet. The early 777s are fitted with them (although this could be due to the deal BA got when they sold their Engine overhaul facility in Wales to GE) and their 777-336s have them too (abeit with no other option available on the aircraft). Wild BA willingly choose GE? Might this persuade BA to choose the A350 (where RR is the sole engine operator)?

In any case BA need about 100 LH aircraft within 10 to 15 years. They need to act fast.




IB currently have (in active service) the following wide bodied aircraft:

A330-300- 2
A340-300- 13
A340-600- 17

IB have the following on order:

A330-300- 6 ( with an option of 8 aircraft)


Based in the above, the A330s will replace some of the oldest A340s. That does not leave a lot to be replaced, and I honestly feel that IAG will simply top up what will essentially be a BA order to save a little more on the individual price of the aircraft. This could also being fleet commonality to IAG for the first time, and possibly save in joint maintained cost.


I have really only one recommendation to IAG. Suck up your pride, be a launch carrier, and act fast.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-03-20 16:53:50 and read 9283 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Walsh says BA is likely to opt for more than one type of aircraft for the fleet renewal. “We have a lot of six- to 10-hour sectors in our North America network, and then we have a lot of 12- to 13-hour sectors

An awful number of A.netters overlook that European carriers have relatively short time sectors. It is good to see one of the major carriers spell that out.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 30):
You are forgetting the range, the 787-10X won't have the same range as the 77E & A343

No it will not, but quoting Walsh and his 13 hr. sector a -10X set up in typical BA fashion of about 295 seats is going to haul about 35t for 13-hrs. That is full passenger in that layout plus ~ 7 or 8t of cargo

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: justloveplanes
Posted 2013-03-20 16:55:02 and read 9262 times.

Quoting GDB (Reply 33):
I see the A350-1000 as an ideal replacement for our older 777's which will be hitting 20 years of age in the next few years.
Maybe beyond that requirement too

The A359 was aimed square on at the 77E market, so hard to ignore it for any fleet that has a large number of them. That 77E market is where the A359 is succeeding in sales, so maybe that is more likely than a 3510.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Darksnowynight
Posted 2013-03-20 19:57:40 and read 8853 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 26):
To me that sounds as highly unlikely. Do you have any numbers to back that up? I admit I do not have the numbers myself available (here at work) but I do remeber Airbus making an statement that on CASM the A350-1000 will get very close to the A380.

Just what we have at work; it's pretty easy to come to these conclusions when you see actual DX load/fuel numbers. If, for example, an SQ 388 is doing LAX-NRT with 377,000lb of fuel, and a UA 788 is doing the LAX PEK (not the same run, but in fact 800mi further) on 171,000lb of fuel, we can assume that something is not adding up on those claims. For reference, the seat counts are 471 & 219, respectively.

If you have it, you can try that out on Piano X. The conclusion will be pretty similar to that.

Airbus may say the 35J will be close, but I think it will only be worse with an extreme low density 35J (and what would be the point of that when an airline could just use a 359 instead, right?) vs the configuration AirAustral had for their 388s, with over 800 seats. If you have, say, an SQ or KE 388 with a seat count in the very low 400s, vs a 35J in the upper 350s, there is no way 50-odd seats would make up for two extra engines, and lots of extra airframe.


Though your mileage may vary, claims to being a CASM "champ" are largely for advert purposes, and this case are probably fictional. In any case, airlines are finding that the strength of the 388 is the ability to add lots of premium space in crowded markets. In that sense, it does play by its own rules, but for straight CASM to be a thing, you would need close to its max-out capacity to break even, since CASM does also not take MX & Acquisition costs (which are much higher for the 388) into consideration.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-03-20 22:37:22 and read 8695 times.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 23):
Only because the 787 is not currently flying*. It's CASM is in fact lower in std configuration. I would be very, very, very surprised if the A359 is not better still.

Airbus are on record as saying an A350-1000 in 10-abreast configuration may beat the current A380 on seat-mile costs

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 26):
I do remeber Airbus making an statement that on CASM the A350-1000 will get very close to the A380.

correct

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 38):
Though your mileage may vary, claims to being a CASM "champ" are largely for advert purposes, and this case are probably fictional.

Bear in mind that fuel isn't the only constituent of CASM. You point out yourself that there are many variables involved in the equation.

If you know airbus's aircraft better than they do ....

Rgds

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-03-20 22:47:45 and read 8671 times.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 38):
Just what we have at work; it's pretty easy to come to these conclusions when you see actual DX load/fuel numbers. If, for example, an SQ 388 is doing LAX-NRT with 377,000lb of fuel, and a UA 788 is doing the LAX PEK (not the same run, but in fact 800mi further) on 171,000lb of fuel, we can assume that something is not adding up on those claims.

For reference, by the way, 171k lb of fuel for the 788 is c. 1.3m2 of cabin space per 1k lb of fuel. 377k lb of fuel for an A380 is 1.46m2 of cabin space per 1k lb of fuel - i.e. about 11% better.

Accepting that the 787 figure takes the plane 800Nm further.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 38):
since CASM does also not take MX & Acquisition costs (which are much higher for the 388) into consideration.

Doesn't it? You have to have those things in order to have "available" seats

Rgds

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: flightsimer
Posted 2013-03-20 23:22:34 and read 8617 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 30):
Quoting ytz (Reply 28):
You are forgetting the range, the 787-10X won't have the same range as the 77E & A343. This would look better:

787-8
787-9 - 767 replacement
787-10 - A330 replacement
A359 / A35J - 77E / A343 replacement
777-9X - 747 / 77W replacement
A380-800 - 747 replacement


The 787-8 will be the 767 replacement as it is already carrying 25 more seats in the same configuration density.

The 787-9 can easily be their 777-200ER replacement in their four class layout with maybe just a very slight reduction in overall capacity and will easily be a replacement for IB's A340-300's.

The 787-10 Will give them a nice replacement for their three class 777's, seating nearly the same if not even a little more and will be an excellent replacement for IB's A330-300's

777-8X/LX will allow them to replace any 777 that the 787 is not a best replacement for and will be a good replacement for the A340-600's

777-9X will be 747's replacement

I personally don't see any need for any A350 model in their fleet if they say they are interested in the 777-9X.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: GDB
Posted 2013-03-21 00:34:53 and read 8532 times.

Quoting BA0197 (Reply 35):
Firstly, BA are Boeing for LH, no question about that when looking at its history.

Choosing the A380 over the 748 broke that mould.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Darksnowynight
Posted 2013-03-21 04:16:42 and read 8244 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 39):
Airbus are on record as saying an A350-1000 in 10-abreast configuration may beat the current A380 on seat-mile costs

I'm sure they did say that. But again, I would very surprised if the 359 wasn't at least that good.

This part's my opinion, but I think Airbus has picked up Boeing's old habit (which, unfortunately it seems, they've kind of forgotten how to do) of under-promising. Everything I've seen and read about the 350 points to it being this generation's equivalent of the 777.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 39):
Bear in mind that fuel isn't the only constituent of CASM. You point out yourself that there are many variables involved in the equation.

In the manner that A.net (and increasingly Flightglobal) use it, it really is. Which is a big part of why I disagree with it being used as a valid metric.

And in fairness, I can sort of understand why that came about. It's a lot easier to quantify this than everything from corporate overhead, to crew costs, ramp fees, MX, leases, etc, that, as we agree, are as necessary as anything else to get that plane off the gate.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 39):
If you know airbus's aircraft better than they do ....

Lol, I doubt it. But I do work on them (with the notable exception of the A310, A400 & Beluga if we're being technical) just about everyday, and have for years. I like to think I know what I'm doing,  
Quoting astuteman (Reply 40):
For reference, by the way, 171k lb of fuel for the 788 is c. 1.3m2 of cabin space per 1k lb of fuel. 377k lb of fuel for an A380 is 1.46m2 of cabin space per 1k lb of fuel - i.e. about 11% better.

It actually may be better than that in favor of the 380. I used an SQ example of 471 seatcount. However, it is entirely possible that they fly their 409 seaters here as well. Even more so, we can expect denser (than a 217 seat count at any rate) 788s, which would undoubtedly reduce further the space per PAX, per k lbs of fuel burned.

In any case (you're probably already aware of this), the 388 does indeed feature more space per PAX than just about anything flying (if you don't count Corporate/GA stuff). Obviously this gives the 388 an enormous advantage in markets where Premium Seats matter, which again goes back to why calling a it CASM mega-bus doesn't really tell the story all that well.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 40):
Doesn't it? You have to have those things in order to have "available" seats

Not really, no. As I mentioned above, the term as it's used here and in a lot of brochure literature really only does compare fuel burn. While lower is indeed always better in that regard, it really doesn't help much if seats are going out empty or discounted.

MX, lease costs, staffing and other overhead usually aren't factored there, and if they were, the picture would be different. Most of the Airlines (well the ones where I know how they add these things up at any rate) look at total operation costs, since not only does that contain a lot more of the information we've discussed, but gives a much clearer revenue target as well for the boffins in fleet and route planning.

Part of why I favor big twins as much as I do is that there's really no getting around the fact that powerplants are far and away the most expensive items to maintain on an Aircraft. In addition to the pure cost, it's worth remembering that powerplants have a much lower percentage of MEL-able items. For that alone, adding two more engines is unlikely to be made up for by adding 40% or so more Y class seats over, say a 77W. However, having C & Y class sections in with 90 seats, as EK does, adjusts that outcome considerably.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: VV701
Posted 2013-03-21 05:45:57 and read 8076 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 14):
And by 2018/2019, the final group of 747s at BA, the newest, will need to be replaced

The last BA Annual Report before its merger into IAG stated that its 744 fleet was being depreciated to a residual value over 25 years. With their six newest 744s having been delivered in 1999 this would suggest that they may not need to be replaced until 2024 or later. This likelihood is substantiated by history. For example the first 741 delivered to BOAC, G-AWNA, arrived at LHR on delivery on 21 April 1970. It was retired by BA on 31 October 1998 more than 28 years later

Quoting trex8 (Reply 18):
My only point is BA in recent history has indicated they don't want to be an early launch customer for a new project

Certainly any airline will not order any aircraft until it needs to reserve delivery positions. However it is a common myth that BA has been any slower in ordering new types than other airlines:

77W: First ordered 7 August 2008 in a deal with Boeing relating to delay in delivery of 787 - the exception to the rule.

787: Ordered 27 September 2007. First flight of type 15 December 2009. Ordered 26 months before first flight.

380: Ordered 27 September 2007. First commercial flight October 2007. Ordered in front of in-service date.

772: Ordered August 1991 after BA was one of eight airlines consulted by Boeing on this aircraft's specification. First commercial flight (by UA) almost four years later in June 1995. First BA aircraft line number 6 with first flight on 2 February 1995 four months before in-service date.

763: Ordered August 1987. First aircraft built for BA (G-BNWA) line number 265 first flew 23 May 1989. Retained for testing and development by Boeing until delivery to BA on 25 April 1990 as this was the first RR powered 763.

752: Launch customer (with EA) as announced in August 1978. First flight of type 19 February 1982. In service (with EA) 1 January 1983

732: First BA aircraft was Line Number 599. However this aircraft (G-BGDA) that first flew on 12 September 1979 was not delivered until 4 December 1981. This was because it was the first 737 equipped for Category III operations and so was retained by Boeing for development and testing.

320 family: First order August 1998 but first delivery of line number 6 (G-BUSB) 30 March 1988.

The record therefore clearly shows that when BA has needed to order aircraft back as far as its formation in 1972, it has always looked at and usually ordered the most advanced types available in the market place at that time.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: justloveplanes
Posted 2013-03-21 05:59:06 and read 8029 times.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 43):
Everything I've seen and read about the 350 points to it being this generation's equivalent of the 777.

It should be. The A359 was designed expressly to replace the 77E market. The 787 is the next gen 767/A330.

Still seeing how the top end will work out, that's more convuluted. Probably pretty even when all is said and done

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Darksnowynight
Posted 2013-03-21 06:25:42 and read 7955 times.

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 45):
It should be. The A359 was designed expressly to replace the 77E market. The 787 is the next gen 767/A330.

Lol, I think I may have said that wrong. Of course this is true, but I meant in a more general, less literal sense. The 777 did as well as it did for a number of reasons, but most simply put, an airplane with capabilities beyond expectations was the result.

The top end probably will be somewhat even. It won't be the lopsided 77W v A346 result, again. But I still suspect the 779X will have a significant advantage there given it can replace 773, 77W, and existing 747s effectively, whereas the 35J falls between the current 77E & 77W. Beyond that, there really is just the 388.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2013-03-21 07:02:52 and read 7874 times.

When BA orederd 787 and 380 they said they wanted all their LH aircraft to be able to fly any of their LH routes. The 767 could not do that, whereas the 788 can and would be ideal as a pathfinder aircraft for new LH routes.

If the 7810 can do that, then I think they will order it to replace 772s, if not they will order 359s.

The 779x fits nicely under the 380 to jointly replace all 744s. But that leaves a gap between 7810 or 359 and 779, which the 3510 would better fill than the ULH 778x given that IAGs longest routes are LHR to SIN / EZE.

IF 359 replaces 772, then 3510 is a cert to plug this gap, but not necessarily so if 7810 replaces 772.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-03-21 08:38:19 and read 7720 times.

The 777-9X would be a perfect 744 replacement for all airlines still flying it. Not that I feel warm about the 777, but it is one marvel of airplane. It just got everything right in one airframe at the right time.

Sad to see the 747 era over but hey life has to go on.

The 777-8X would be to replace 77Ws if there is no need to up size from say 340-350 seats. I do wonder how well a 9X compares to the typical 77W currently flying.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: cv990coronado
Posted 2013-03-21 09:12:25 and read 7613 times.

There are many comments referring to BA favouring Boeing for Long Haul. They also favoured Boeing for short haul previously, but this seems to have changed completely since the 320. Maybe their perceived good experience with the Airbus 320 family would make them more inclined to consider the 350. In addition despite their public support for the 787, it seems unlikely to me that their experience so far would help Boeing's cause. Could Willie Walsh's uttering be a ploy to help BA get better terms and and delivery positions for the 350? How much crew commonality is there between the 350 and the 320?. Also behind the scenes, unofficially of course, it must be remember that the wings are built in the UK. The RR factor with the 350 will also be a big factor, especially with the current economic climate in the UK.
A combination of 787 and 359/3510 would be a safe and flexible way to go. It would also be more likely to keep A and B honest.

I think the 77W has shown BA that the few less Y class seats it has compared to the 744 are not worth too much. When you take into account the much lower fuel,maintenance and airport charges. On many routes the replacement of the 744 with the 3510 or 77W would result in the loss of a few low fare fill up economy sales of little value. BA would probably be happy to give these pax to EK,QR or TK. Where many more seats are required without frequency then the 380's work well or the last of the 744's until retirement..

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: phxa340
Posted 2013-03-21 09:27:44 and read 7556 times.

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 34):
Quoting cv990coronado (Reply 49):

With due respect to both of you , I find it interesting how many of you are attempting to read WW comments as a way to battle down Airbus on A350 and A380 prices. Is it possible that WW literally means BA is good on A380s right now and BA thinks that the 777x will be perfect for their network? Anyways I expect a BA to be a A380, 777X, and 787 carrier. I don't see the A350 in their fleet.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-03-21 11:20:50 and read 7360 times.

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 50):
With due respect to both of you , I find it interesting how many of you are attempting to read WW comments as a way to battle down Airbus on A350 and A380 prices. Is it possible that WW literally means BA is good on A380s right now and BA thinks that the 777x will be perfect for their network? Anyways I expect a BA to be a A380, 777X, and 787 carrier. I don't see the A350 in their fleet.

On the other hand it would be a curious way of negotiating to say to Boeing 'we love your 777X, we 'd be so grateful if you'd be so kind to sell us some, pretty please'

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-03-21 11:26:31 and read 7454 times.

Replacing all those 772s with another type would cost a lot of re training crews?

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-03-21 12:06:51 and read 7374 times.

One more question, how much does it cost to re train a crew for a new aircraft typ? Say you go from a 767 to a A330.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Sassiciai
Posted 2013-03-21 12:27:32 and read 7327 times.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 41):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 30):
Quoting ytz (Reply 28):
You are forgetting the range, the 787-10X won't have the same range as the 77E & A343. This would look better:

787-8
787-9 - 767 replacement
787-10 - A330 replacement
A359 / A35J - 77E / A343 replacement
777-9X - 747 / 77W replacement
A380-800 - 747 replacement


The 787-8 will be the 767 replacement as it is already carrying 25 more seats in the same configuration density.

The 787-9 can easily be their 777-200ER replacement in their four class layout with maybe just a very slight reduction in overall capacity and will easily be a replacement for IB's A340-300's.

The 787-10 Will give them a nice replacement for their three class 777's, seating nearly the same if not even a little more and will be an excellent replacement for IB's A330-300's

777-8X/LX will allow them to replace any 777 that the 787 is not a best replacement for and will be a good replacement for the A340-600's

777-9X will be 747's replacement

I personally don't see any need for any A350 model in their fleet if they say they are interested in the 777-9X.

Nice to find objectivity is alive and well on this site!

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: phxa340
Posted 2013-03-21 12:42:59 and read 7310 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 51):

I don't think BA has to worry about getting favorable pricing from either Boeing or Airbus. Thus I don't think that statement WW has anything to do with negotiating.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-03-21 16:34:34 and read 6919 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 51):
On the other hand it would be a curious way of negotiating to say to Boeing 'we love your 777X, we 'd be so grateful if you'd be so kind to sell us some, pretty please'

An even more curious way of negotiating would be public/press comments. It's only a.nutters who think that these public comments actually impact negotiations in any way.

The only that impacts negotiations are dollars and cents.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-03-21 16:41:42 and read 6918 times.

Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 54):
Nice to find objectivity is alive and well on this site!

It's actually quite an objective opinion. My only quibble is that I can't see the point of BA operating 789s. I should think that BA will end up with 788s and 7810s.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-21 17:00:39 and read 6894 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 51):
On the other hand it would be a curious way of negotiating to say to Boeing 'we love your 777X, we 'd be so grateful if you'd be so kind to sell us some, pretty please'

Well it has to be built to be sold, so if BA is willing to be a launch customer to get Boeing to commit to the program, a public display of support is not a bad way to do it.

If you want to make a public statement of "shut up and take my money!" when it comes to aircraft launches, you need to at least match AA's CEO's statement that he'd buy the first three years of Sonic Cruiser production just to keep it out of anyone else's hands. :P

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-03-21 17:01:27 and read 6902 times.

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 50):
and BA thinks that the 777x will be perfect for their network?

Except, that's not what Walsh said.  

Quote:
It looks like a perfect fit for some of what British Airways [BA] would require.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-03-21 17:33:25 and read 6840 times.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 44):
787: Ordered 27 September 2007. First flight of type 15 December 2009. Ordered 26 months before first flight.

380: Ordered 27 September 2007. First commercial flight October 2007. Ordered in front of in-service date.

They weren't by most peoples definitions a "launch " customer recently as I had said!

there were in fact 25+ 787 customers before BA's order and 15 A380, definitely not a launch customer.

early adopters in the last century perhaps.

[Edited 2013-03-21 17:46:27]

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: VV701
Posted 2013-03-23 08:04:39 and read 6120 times.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 60):
They weren't by most peoples definitions a "launch " customer recently as I had said!


I am sorry that you viewed my comments as suggesting that your comments were wrong. I was simply trying to ensure that others would not consider that they supported what I described as the often repeated myth that BA does not order types unproved in commercial service. So I think it is fair to point out that the BA orders for both the B787 and A380 were placed before either aircraft had been operated in-service by any other airline. Note also that they were ordered on the same date. This tends to support my two contentions that:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 44):
Certainly any airline will not order any aircraft until it needs to reserve delivery positions.

as both types were ordered on the same day and

Quoting VV701 (Reply 44):
However it is a common myth that BA has been any slower in ordering new types than other airlines:


BA was the actual launch customer for the 752 and the 772ER - see below - and the next best thing to being the launch customer for the 772A and 744 - also see below. I also think that BA had little if any actual additional performance data when they ordered the 787 in September 2007 than launch customer NH had had when its order was announced three and a half years earlier on 26 April 2004.

Note here that the one aircraft that has been ordered for the British Airways Fleet that I did not mention before was the 744. Here BA ordered sixteen in August 1986. It was the sixth airline to order the type (after NW, CX, KL, LH and SQ). Its order was placed less than 10 months after the 744 launch date, 22 October 1985. It was also placed two and a half years before its in-service date of 9 February 1989.

It is also worth noting that BA was the actual launch customer for the 777 200ER. Already an operator of the 772A, the first 772ER to be delivered to a customer was BA's G-VIIC (Line Number 53) on 6 February 1997. Again the first two 772ERs to be built for BA, G-VIIA (LN 41) and 'IB (LN 49) were both retained by Boeing for development and testing and were delivered to BA somewhat later in July and May 1997 respectively.

In summary BA have been the launch customer for the 752, the RR powered 763ER, the GE and the RR powered 772ER and a very early customer for the 744 and 772A. It ordered the 787-8, 787-9 and A380 before they had either flown for the first time or before they entered commercial service. This only leaves the 77W amongst all long-haul types that have ordered that cannot be classified as an "early-order". Which are the other airlines have an equal or greater "early-order" record?

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-03-23 10:04:06 and read 5956 times.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 61):
I am sorry that you viewed my comments as suggesting that your comments were wrong. I was simply trying to ensure that others would not consider that they supported what I described as the often repeated myth that BA does not order types unproved in commercial service. So I think it is fair to point out that the BA orders for both the B787 and A380 were placed before either aircraft had been operated in-service by any other airline

No need for an controversy, IMHO. BA has publicly said they prefer to not be a "launch customer" which has a specific meaning in the business. I have not seen any statement where they say they do not "order types unproved in commercial service". Of course the unfortunate delays in both A380 and B787 show that one can't predict at order time when an a/c will actually go into commercial service, all you can do is make sure others are in line ahead of you so they have to deal with the inevitable early service glitches (see QF, JAL, ANA) or give you an option to bail out if the type doesn't make sense economically (see Concorde).

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-03-23 10:06:29 and read 5943 times.

Your point is well taken that in the last century BA was an early adopter and I agree that is generally accepted. This century they have not been an early adopter and they have said they don't want to be. They may have ordered before EIS on the 787 and A380 but when you are not in the first few or even dozen airlines to order and there were delays in EIS it hardly suggests they were jumping on the bandwagon and having a me first attitude. I have no doubt the 777X will find a place in BAs fleet eventually. Just wouldn't put too much money on them being in the Boeing announcement for a "launch" order.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: phxa340
Posted 2013-03-23 10:26:32 and read 5896 times.

[quote=scbriml,reply=59]

Whatever. No single plane is ever perfect for an entire part of a carriers network. The point is that BA sounds like they have seen the 777x on paper and really really like it - end of story.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-23 10:32:44 and read 5894 times.

Even if BA have stated in the past that they prefer not to be a launch customer, they may have subsequently realized allowing their competition to acquire new aircraft families before them have put them at a competitive disadvantage and they therefore now feel it more prudent to be an early customer.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-03-23 12:31:23 and read 5761 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 65):
Even if BA have stated in the past that they prefer not to be a launch customer, they may have subsequently realized allowing their competition to acquire new aircraft families before them have put them at a competitive disadvantage ...

Indirectly Walsh is implying this in his statement quote.........“if I’m honest, the regret I have is that we did not get the 777-300ERs earlier.” ....unquote.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-03-29 14:35:19 and read 4937 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 31):
The A350 family would have made sense if they hadn't already ordered the 787. But now that they have the 787, why not move up to the 787-10 and use the 777-X family for high loads (779) or where range is required (778)?

Because you still have a gap between the 787-10X (320 seats, 7100nm) and the 777-9X (407 seats, 8100nm) which an A350-1000 might nicely fits in.

There is now a new article on http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/AW_03_25_2013_p39-561017.xml
To quote:

Quote:
The decision will probably come down to the 777-9X or the A350-900/-1000. Walsh is pleased with the performance of the 777-300ERs BA has integrated at a relatively late stage and says, “If I'm honest, the regret I have is that we did not get the 777-300ERs earlier.” BA is operating the -300ER in a 297-seat configuration; its 747-400s only have two additional seats. On the other hand, Walsh believes that “as good an aircraft as the 777 is, it is going to be overtaken by the next generation of aircraft—the A350-1000, the 777-9X or versions of the 787.” Walsh points out that BA is likely to go for more than one type. “We have a lot of 6-10-hr. sectors in our North America network and then we have a lot of 12-13-hr. sectors—you are not going to get all of that into a single aircraft type, so different aircraft sizes make sense to us.”


They are probably looking at the 777-9X, the A359/A35J and the 787-10X and I wouldn't be surprised if they order all of them.

[Edited 2013-03-29 14:39:01]

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-03-29 15:04:35 and read 4872 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 66):
Indirectly Walsh is implying this in his statement quote.........“if I’m honest, the regret I have is that we did not get the 777-300ERs earlier.” ....unquote.

They were a late to the 77W for sure but that doesn't imply they want to be first in line either. They may even be in the first handful of customers but it doesn't mean they want the first aircraft and the occasional problems which go with being such an early customer.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-03-29 18:24:25 and read 4680 times.

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 64):
Whatever. No single plane is ever perfect for an entire part of a carriers network. The point is that BA sounds like they have seen the 777x on paper and really really like it - end of story.

And no Boeing is every even adequate for some posters.

Anyway, that statement that he quoted uses the word perfect. People don't usually throw around perfect very much, especially CEOs. That it's only perfect for some routes isn't a diss, it's a DUH! BA isn't going to replace all IB and BA aircraft with 77Xs, but it sounds like they really do like the aircraft for some of the network, and feel it will arrive at a time when they would be looking for aircraft of that size.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-03-29 23:34:23 and read 4534 times.

BAs 787-10 would not have 320 seats I guess so range would be no problem. I think this 787 version will sell in larger numbers than the 788 that got off to a bad start.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-03-30 04:54:58 and read 4256 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 67):
Because you still have a gap between the 787-10X (320 seats, 7100nm) and the 777-9X (407 seats, 8100nm) which an A350-1000 might nicely fits in.

True, but will BA need to fill that gap with another aircraft type? They didn't see the need to fill the gap between their 772's and 744's either.

BA has a lot of aircraft to replace (30 747s and 46 772s), and that fact alone will certainly make sure BA will consider an A350 order even if they choose 787-10s and 777-9s (and neither has been launched, which we shouldn't forget!). But like LH, I bet BA would like as less different aircraft types as possible.

Since the 30 744s need to be replaced first, the first battle will be between 777-9 and A350-1000. Later, BA will decide which aircraft to replace their 772s, 787-10 or A350-900 or 1000. Either of these orders could be split between Boeing and Airbus, but as I said, I believe BA would likely prefer not to.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-30 09:02:46 and read 4002 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 67):
Because you still have a gap between the 787-10X (320 seats, 7100nm) and the 777-9X (407 seats, 8100nm) which an A350-1000 might nicely fits in.

The 787-10 is about 3m shorter than the A350-1000, which is about 1.5m shorter than the 777-9.

In my opinion, that is too small to warrant adding the A350-1000 should BA decide on the 787-10 and the 777-9.

BA operated large gaps in total seating between their 767-300ERs, 777-200ERs and 747-400s when all were in three classes (FIRST, Club World, World Traveller). That continues to this day with their four-class birds - 224 seats in the 777-200ER, 297 seats in the 777-300ER and 469 in the A380-800.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-03-30 09:03:49 and read 4017 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 71):
BA has a lot of aircraft to replace (30 747s and 46 772s), and that fact alone will certainly make sure BA will consider an A350 order even if they choose 787-10s and 777-9s (and neither has been launched, which we shouldn't forget!). But like LH, I bet BA would like as less different aircraft types as possible.

This. Sure they have to consider the A350. But realistically, given the right financing and delivery schedule, I can't see why BA would choose the A350. The A350-1000 is simply too small to replace the 744. And the A350-900 is too much capability to replace the 772/77E.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-04-01 13:03:53 and read 3534 times.

News is coming in of IAG ordering A350 aircraft; A35J's to replace the 747 and A346 models plus A359 aircraft to replace the 772 and A343 models.

IAG To Order A351 And A359 (by Carls Apr 1 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: motorhussy
Posted 2013-04-01 14:34:26 and read 3353 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 74):
News is coming in of IAG ordering A350 aircraft; A35J's to replace the 747 and A346 models plus A359 aircraft to replace the 772 and A343 models.

IAG To Order A351 And A359

So with the forum title being IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network, there's either: not enough parts of the network it's perfect for; a 777X order is still to come, or; the A35J is just more perfect.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-01 16:38:36 and read 3155 times.

Based on the WSJ article, the 787-10 and 777-9 might still be part of the IAG's fleet replacement.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-04-02 00:23:22 and read 2968 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 76):
Based on the WSJ article, the 787-10 and 777-9 might still be part of the IAG's fleet replacement.

The article says nothing about the 787-10 and frankly is somewhat dismissive about the 777X. IMHO, saying "Boeing is not out of the running for a later order" is hardly going to generate warm and fuzzy feelings in Chicago.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-04-02 02:45:59 and read 2723 times.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 75):
the A35J is just more perfect

That, and probably a far smarter offer for the A350. Don't forget the 777X and 787-10X have no formal ATO yet, and Airbus might have given BA an offer they couldn't refuse before Boeing could give a formal offer...

Quoting scbriml (Reply 77):
"Boeing is not out of the running for a later order" is hardly going to generate warm and fuzzy feelings in Chicago.

No, certainly not. If BA will have more 747s and 777s to replace with a later order, A350s and A380s should be favourite.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-04-02 06:15:08 and read 2441 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 78):
If BA will have more 747s and 777s to replace with a later order, A350s and A380s should be favourite.

Well this thread's article noted that Walsh stated he thought it "unlikely" BA would order more A380-800s, but he could be lying about that just as he could be lying about the 777X being a "perfect fit" for part of their network so as to get John L. to knock another zero off his offer before Walsh signs a 100+ frame combined order for A350s and A380s.

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: blueshamu330s
Posted 2013-04-02 06:21:41 and read 2404 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 79):
he could be lying about that just as he could be lying about the 777X being a "perfect fit" for part of their network so as to get John L. to knock another zero off his offer before Walsh signs a 100+ frame combined order for A350s and A380s.

Now look what you've gone and done; you'll get the fanboys all in a frenzy !  

For the record, I'm suspect you're spot on the money.

Rgds

Topic: RE: IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2013-04-02 07:01:49 and read 2291 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 79):
Well this thread's article noted that Walsh stated he thought it "unlikely" BA would order more A380-800s, but he could be lying about that just as he could be lying about the 777X being a "perfect fit" for part of their network

Of course he wasn't lying, but IMO it shows how smart Walsh was in getting a great deal for A350s. Yes, the 777X could be a perfect fit for part of its network, but Airbus'offer for the A350-1000 was probably just as perfect for the bigger part.
And no, I don't think IAG will order A380s together with this one for A350s. But, since "Boeing is not out of the running for a later order", there could be another order in a few years time to replace the last delivered 747s and 777s, where the 777X will have to battle against the A35J again, and IMO, additional A380s (BA has options on 7 more). That will be even harder for the 777X as BA already has A350s and A380s on order.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/