Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6257 times:
I'm still a bit skeptical regarding BA getting the A380, but if they were to acquire some A380's, what routes would they be used on?
I was looking at the BA route schedules and I see that JFK/SYD rank among BA's most flown routes......I could see them using an A380 on those routes...but there aren't too many routes where BA have 4-5 flights...so far BA have done a good job with their slot resources..but if the A380 performs up to specs and does offer a significant cost savings over the 747, I could see a few routes where instead of having 2-3 744's flying, BA could have 1-2 A380's and a B777 flying.....
that being said, I personally believe BA will decide to purchase B747ADV and B777-300ER first......
The argument that BA won't buy the 747ADV/B777-300ER because of engines alone is rubbish..they already have a large enough of a GE-based fleet..and if they need a large upgrade, there won't be a problem with adding GE engines..yes they had problems with the GE's early on, but GE's engine reliability have been 2nd to none......
not to mention, the supposed "outcry" of not buying British-based engines is rubbish also, as BA is a publicly traded company and they have to look out after their shareholders and debt holders first........then the general public.
Back to the post..what routes would BA use the A380 on if they purchased The WhaleJet?
LifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1815 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6211 times:
A big sidenote with this issue. You are looking at the CURRENT amount of flights being carried out by BA. If they order the A380, the plane won't be there for at least 5 years to come. In 5 years LHR will be even more slot restricted and the amount of passengers will be grown. These pax need to go to their destination, but BA can't offer more flights due to the slot restrictions. The only way to serve the passenger demand is by bigger planes.
It's the same with the orders for the Middle-Eastern airlines. We can't compare the need for those planes today with the need for these planes in lets say a decade. Who knows what's needed in 5 years to come?
We can't look in the future, we can only guess, and for all the real airline CEO's, it up to them to predict their airlines growth rightly.
Speedmarque From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 666 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6200 times:
Hi
If they get it I think BA will use the 380 on JFK, SIN,BKK and SYD.
Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter): I could see a few routes where instead of having 2-3 744's flying, BA could have 1-2 A380's and a B777 flying.....
I think you are right although cutting the number of services to use larger aircraft does not always suit the customer. They sometimes like more choice of when they fly and more departures on smaller a/c could do this.
Would love to see a BA 380 although I would have no interest in working on it!!!
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6147 times:
Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 2): A big sidenote with this issue. You are looking at the CURRENT amount of flights being carried out by BA. If they order the A380, the plane won't be there for at least 5 years to come. In 5 years LHR will be even more slot restricted and the amount of passengers will be grown. These pax need to go to their destination, but BA can't offer more flights due to the slot restrictions. The only way to serve the passenger demand is by bigger planes.
you bring up an interesting argument, and that's Airbus' primary argument..but it seems that BA is slow in terms of adding pax..thus I can see them with adding the 747ADV and/or 777-300ER ...
also, we would have to know what the growth rate has been say the past 5-10-15 years for BA...if the new runway is built (so he says sarcastically), that would certainly ease some slot restrictions I think...but don't quote me on that..
Quoting Avianca (Reply 4): BOS, LAX, JFK, NRT, PVG, HKG, SYD, JNB, DEL, MIA and maybe GRU/EZE and MEX...
I don't think BOS would see the A380 in BA colours....
Udo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6051 times:
Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 6): BA is making nice profits with the enlarged 777 fleet, the A380 does not fit into their plans so I would say no routes
How do you know their future plans ten years from now?
1MillionFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6000 times:
Quoting Udo (Reply 9): How do you know their future plans ten years from now?
If you understand the route structure that BA has established and how they are making their money right now, then you would see they have no need now or in the future for the A380.
Udo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5987 times:
Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 11): If you understand the route structure that BA has established and how they are making their money right now, then you would see they have no need now or in the future for the A380.
And as you seem to know exactly their route structure and plans for the next 20 years, you could rename into Nostradamus.
GARPD From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2102 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5984 times:
Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 11):
If you understand the route structure that BA has established and how they are making their money right now, then you would see they have no need now or in the future for the A380.
Hmm, I'm not sure.
Yes, BA have a good strategy, and their commanding position on LHR slots gives them a long time to be able to evaluate the A380. They have no need to rush in and get it to protect their service.
However, LHR will never be able to increase slots by any significant margin. And BA will only carry more and more people as time goes on. So there will likely be need for the A380 in the fullness of time.
But right now, I believe their current fleet is doing a sterling job.
B742 From Spain, joined Mar 2005, 3754 posts, RR: 25 Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5967 times:
I wonder if BA would choose use the A380 to cities such as SEA, as it currently only has one daily 744 service, adding a A380 means a slight increase would happen, without adding a second flight!
I think the A380 would serve: JFK, LHR, HKG, PEK, NRT, DEL/BOM, BKK, SYD and maybe DXB....
Personaly, I would like to see the 747-ADV and A380 added to the BA fleet!
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 61 Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5958 times:
If BA was to go for the A380, it would operate primarily on flights from LHR to Asian cities such as SIN, BKK, HKG, PEK and maybe continue on to SYD and MEL. The reasoning is that there are limited time "windows" for such flights that result in a reasonable departure time and a sensible arrival time - pax really dont want to arrive or depart in the middle of the night and there are also connection possibilities at both ends of the segment to think about. If you look a the schedules, frequently flights between London and Hong Kong depart and arrive within an hour or so of eachother. High demand routes such as these is where the A380 makes the most sense.
Other possible destinations include NRT (LHT-NRT is slot restricted on both ends), JNB (large demand) and a handful of other cities. I always thought that the A380 would be well suited for the high-demand routes from London to India, but with all of the increased competiton on those routes, the A380 is now probably would be overkill between LHR and Dehli and/or Bombay.
Over the Altantic, the A380 will not be a major factor - BA has done well moving to multi-frequency service from many US cities to London - this allows lots of choice for pax (which premium pax especially appreciate) and lots and lots of easy connection possibilities. BA does very well, for example, on the JFK-LHR route with up to 7 or 8 departures per day - its unlikely that they would revise the schedule from seven 777/744s per day to four or five A380s - and adding more seats without frequency reductions with the A380 would kill yeilds. LHR-LAX and LHR-MIA are possibilities for the A380, due to high demand and less of a need for multiple frequencies (ie, AF has stated that it plans to use the A380 on CDG-MIA in the future).
All of that being said, I still think that BA would prefer to update its longhaul fleet with a mix of 744Advanceds for higher demand and/or low frequency routes and 773ERs for lower demand and/or high frequency services......but first Boeing must commit to the 747Adv project.
GARPD From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2102 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5947 times:
Quoting B742 (Reply 14): I wonder if BA would choose use the A380 to cities such as SEA, as it currently only has one daily 744 service, adding a A380 means a slight increase would happen, without adding a second flight!
Seems silly to do that if they can't even fill that 744.
How do we know if the route would support an A380?
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12356 posts, RR: 83 Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5928 times:
All this 'expert' opinion, any of it from inside BA?
GE engines, the appalling management of the former BA engine overhaul facility in Wales probably won't influence BA's future choices, but it should, why reward poor service?
It's true that LHR will become more slot restricted, BA will feel that pressure, whether this amounts to a case for A380 on it's own is not likely, but that won't be the only factor.
But don't expect BA to be a launch customer for 747ADV, not going to happen, anyway 744 replacement is not top priority.
Some of BA's main competitors out of LHR will be A380 users (who as major airliners funnily enough don't see A380 as any kind of 'novelty'), if once in service BA pax start to migrate to these, won over by improved cabin facilities as part of aggressive marketing campaigns, BA will take notice.
Again, on it's own this would not be a deciding factor.
I agree you cannot look at BA's pax numbers and routes now, then make a decision, BA will have to decide what best suits replacing some 744 with a new long range 4 engine type.
But all this is speculation, BA won't be ordering for quite some time yet, they will play Boeing and Airbus off against each other.
Forget any imagined preferences in the past, how many expected BA to go Airbus in 1998 when renewing the short haul fleet?
AAFLT1871 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2331 posts, RR: 19 Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5863 times:
Quoting Avianca (Reply 10): in the moment they have 3 daily flights ex LHR....
As does IAD, but it does not mean they would drop service to accomadate an A380 to save a slot or 2 at LHR. AF has added an additional daily flight to IAD on top of the 2 daily 777 flights, again it does not mean they will fly in the A380.
Karan69 From India, joined Oct 2004, 2708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5761 times:
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 15): I always thought that the A380 would be well suited for the high-demand routes from London to India, but with all of the increased competiton on those routes, the A380 is now probably would be overkill between LHR and Dehli and/or Bombay.
It still is a well suited aircraft as despite have 7x daily departures from BOM-LHR on certain days and every day from Oct 05 it is nearly immpossible to get a ticket in Eco or Biz on BA's 0200 am departure out of BOM as it is excellently timed red eye flight for London Bound passengers and provides excellent connections to EU cities and other UK/USA/Canada and S.American cities.
Competition will always be there but BA has one of the most loyal customer base atleast in BOM/DEL.
Trolley Dolley From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5604 times:
I think there is a valid case for the A380, or 747ADV, in the BA fleet from many aspects.
Currently BA's home base is a slot restricted airport. They have a smaller proprtion of slots than other airlines at home hubs and will probably be made to open up to even more competition than others. They will be one of the main carriers to the 2012 Olympic Games. Growth is a very real prospect.
The UK is one of two European countries to be meeting its Kyoto protocol targets. Demand for fuel and production techniques mean that there can be no certainty of lower prices returning. My rough calcualtions based on the data from Airbus and Boeing sites indicates that by operating one return A380 flight per day instead of a return 747 and 777, BA could save up to 22Million litres of fuel per annum. I must stress that this is 22Million litres per route. Mutliple this over 7-8 routes and one can see the potentials for massive savings. This would help minimise the costs to the company and the environment. The A380 is also quieter than the 744. These aspects might end up negating the genuine desire for BA to offer the customer more frequent services.
From a marketing perspective, BA has been at the forefront of many innovations. The A380 might give them a new platform to boost this aspect of their offerings.
As already mentioned there are a number of routes that are crying out for larger aircraft. HKG, JNB and Australian services all depart within a very short time space for example.
BA380 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1466 posts, RR: 11 Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5580 times:
given my username, I feel I should add my view - I reckon BA will continue to avoid this issue for a year or three. They are in no urgent need to replace the 744s yet and can afford to wait and see how SIA and EK get on with theirs. I still see every liklihood thta they will ultimately add a fleet of 388s or 747Advs.
Anyhow, assuming they bought some, I woudl have thought JFK, poss LAX, MIA, BOS, and perhaps SIN, NRT HKG as they have multiple flights to these destinations that fly almost in convoy.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 5852 posts, RR: 15 Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 5209 times:
Congratulations Dutchjet. It seems to me - repeat 'seems to me' - that your analysis is the only one so far that is in line with BA's business strategy.
Today I see just two routes where the A380 would be really beneficial to BA, LHR-HKG-LHR and LHR-JNB-LHR. There might be others in five years time.
BA is focused on premium class traffic. So I believe it aims to offer frequent services utilising the slots it has (and any additional slots it can buy) at LHR. I think BA would be concerned at losing business customers if it reduced current schedules on important routes like LHR-JFK-LHR.
Let us assume that traffic grows at a healthy rate over the next five years (and that there is not a recession in airline travel because of, for example, high fares reflecting sustained very high aviation fuel prices). Let us also assume that BA does not order the A380 for the few routes where I think it would be of real value to them. Where would that leave BA? I think it would result in them increasing the size of their premium class cabins, reducing the number of economy class seats and increasing yields and profitability.
If we assume that traffic does not grow at a healthy rate over the next five and we again assume that BA does not order the A380 it will leave BA without a whale hanging round its neck.
While growth is an almost essential element of an successful business plan, it is important to recognise that the 'best' growth for an airline business may not be number of passengers or revenue ton kilometers. It could just be yield per passenger or ton kilometer.
Misbeehavin From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 914 posts, RR: 5 Reply 25, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4655 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 24): Today I see just two routes where the A380 would be really beneficial to BA, LHR-HKG-LHR and LHR-JNB-LHR. There might be others in five years time
Not necessarily. BA flies several routes where capacity trumps frequency. There's plenty of opportunity to reduce the number of flights to many destinations without losing out on premium traffic.
Those that come to mind are those that have at least 2 daily departures, including LHR-LAX, LHR-JNB, LHR-HKG, LHR-SIN-SYD, LHR-IAD, LHR-ORD, LHR-YYZ, LHR-MIA, LHR-BOS, LHR-NRT.
Many of these flights are very long and their departures are often timed within an hour or two of each other. In most cases it really should not matter if a flight gets in at 5 am or 7 am.
BA can't have a single daily flight to all of these cities of course. But the 3 daily flights to IAD for example can be consolidated into 1 380 and 1 772/744.
Much frequency reduction on LHR-JFK on the other hand is really not an option. Perhaps 1 or 2 daily 380s is more than enough.
Jyatlantic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 27, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4325 times:
LHR-SFO would be an excellent route as well. Currently there are two daily afternoon flights. BA could use a 744 for the first and the 380 for the second.
Geo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 479 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4136 times:
One thing that is very apparant at BA is that there is a very high proportion of business and first passengers in relation to the number of economy passengers. The A380 may well be quite difficult to fill based on those economics. I know you can change cabin layout but I think it will be difficult to make it so that there are 130 business and 25 first seats and still fill them in one go. The passengers who use these seats at the moment have a choice of times and don't necessarily go for the ticket because it's the cheapest, they go for it because it's the most convienient.
Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/7/8,B741/2/4,B752,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,1-11
Oly720man From United Kingdom, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 6081 posts, RR: 12 Reply 30, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3861 times:
You've forgotten the shuttle flights, from MAN for example!!
Man City p3 w3 d0 l0 f4 a0 P9 - hey it may never happen again!
Shenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1661 posts, RR: 2 Reply 31, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3802 times:
Quoting Udo (Reply 12): And as you seem to know exactly their route structure and plans for the next 20 years, you could rename into Nostradamus.
Ouch... thought this was a "what if" thread, therefore everyone could be renamed.
ZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1341 posts, RR: 9 Reply 32, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3680 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 24): Today I see just two routes where the A380 would be really beneficial to BA, LHR-HKG-LHR and LHR-JNB-LHR. There might be others in five years time
Absolutely, particularly in the case of JNB, which is served with 2 daily 744s, both nearly always full. There will definitely be a consistent increase in capacity on that route, and BA will be reluctant to add another flight because it would mean another one of their 744s or T7s sitting on the ground in JNB all day. With an A380 capacity would be increased without wasting aircraft utilization.
Atco2b From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 1114 posts, RR: 9 Reply 34, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3472 times:
If BA did go ahead with the A380 project, how would they recruit pilots for it? Would some move off the 744 fleet and onto the 380, or would others move from the current Airbus fleet (319/320/321?)
Hey, you want to go out for pizza and some sex? What, you don't like pizza?
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 35, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3305 times:
Gee..it does seem there are many potential routes for BA.......I'm beginning to think that if the A380 does as expected (or promised by Airbus) and Boeing doesn't go with the 747ADV, then we will see The WhaleJet in BA colours....but if the 747ADV is launched and performs as expected, I still believe BA will go with that first.
BA has a philosophy of incremental growth...and the move from a 747-400 to a A380-800 is a bit large...but a move from a 747-400 to a 747ADV might be fine for BA for the next 5-10 years.
LifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1815 posts, RR: 10 Reply 36, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2808 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 5): also, we would have to know what the growth rate has been say the past 5-10-15 years for BA...if the new runway is built (so he says sarcastically), that would certainly ease some slot restrictions I think...but don't quote me on that..
A new runway would not always mean more slots. Slots aren't only based on runway capacity, but also on noise and air pollution. In first you can grow, but the real thing is that you are only "spreading" the pollution more. With the tight Kyoto-protocol and EU-rules about a safe environment at your home, expansion can still be tricky.
We have the same problems here at AMS. We don't have 5 runways because we exactly need it for the capacity, but we need it so that we can spread the pollution better and therefore stick to the rules that apply. We also have 5 runways because AMS can suffer from very hefty weather conditions from time to time with winds blowing in one direction.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 37, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2791 times:
Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 36): A new runway would not always mean more slots. Slots aren't only based on runway capacity, but also on noise and air pollution. In first you can grow, but the real thing is that you are only "spreading" the pollution more. With the tight Kyoto-protocol and EU-rules about a safe environment at your home, expansion can still be tricky.
true, but I think the NIMBY's, govt, et.al are more concerned with noise pollution....and with more efficient engines (especially the 747ADV's and A380's), I think air pollution isn't too much of a concern now...
AMS is different due to its geography and wind conditions than LHR.
Birdbrainz From United States of America, joined May 2005, 430 posts, RR: 0 Reply 38, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2719 times:
Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 31): Quoting Udo (Reply 12):
And as you seem to know exactly their route structure and plans for the next 20 years, you could rename into Nostradamus.
Ouch... thought this was a "what if" thread, therefore everyone could be renamed.
Be careful. Any forecast other than blue skies and bright sunshine for the A380 are dealt with very harshly here.
Btw, just spoke with a load planner for BA who confirmed that BA has absolutely no plans for the 380. Of course, that can change, but it's consistent with what we've heard.
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 39, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2685 times:
Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 38): Btw, just spoke with a load planner for BA who confirmed that BA has absolutely no plans for the 380. Of course, that can change, but it's consistent with what we've heard.
Birdbrainz From United States of America, joined May 2005, 430 posts, RR: 0 Reply 40, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2643 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 39): Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 38):
Btw, just spoke with a load planner for BA who confirmed that BA has absolutely no plans for the 380. Of course, that can change, but it's consistent with what we've heard.
any word on any other kinds of aircraft?
No. This person seems a bit tired of the airline business, and doesn't really talk about it much. About the only other thing I've learned is that (for some reason) the loading of the 763's is more tricky due to CG and weight limits, and that BA loves the flexibility of the 744s and 777s. Btw, this person works for BA in South Africa.
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 41, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2615 times:
Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 40): the loading of the 763's is more tricky due to CG and weight limits, and that BA loves the flexibility of the 744s and 777s. Btw, this person works for BA in South Africa.
thanks for the info... ...
as I've been, 747ADV and 773's would be the best suited choice for BA...along with the 787..
those planes would give BA the largest amounts of flexibility without having to add a brand new kind of airplane to their fleet..!!
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 5852 posts, RR: 15 Reply 42, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2527 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 37): I think air pollution isn't too much of a concern now
Actually it is a major concern. The location of LHR immediately adjacent to the M4 (London to Cardiff) and M25 (London orbital) motorways means that the combination of car and aircraft exhaust fumes frequently pushes aerial pollution above EU acceptable limits (depending on the weather conditions). While there are other factors this is the number one factor why there are no immediate plans to build LHR's third runway. The third runway would be almost adjacent to and parallel with the M4 motorway and will add to the current atmospheric pollution levels.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 44, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2360 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 42): Actually it is a major concern. The location of LHR immediately adjacent to the M4 (London to Cardiff) and M25 (London orbital) motorways means that the combination of car and aircraft exhaust fumes frequently pushes aerial pollution above EU acceptable limits (depending on the weather conditions). While there are other factors this is the number one factor why there are no immediate plans to build LHR's third runway. The third runway would be almost adjacent to and parallel with the M4 motorway and will add to the current atmospheric pollution levels.
hmmm..interesting...do you have any source of info for this..i would like to read up on it!
Planesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4065 posts, RR: 15 Reply 45, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2309 times:
BA won't be buying A380's and i don't understand why there are so many topics on it.
Reasons:
1. All BA long haul fleet are relatively young, would be a waste of money to replace reasonably new aircraft
2. Barely any routes would suit the A380. East coast US routes maybe, however they are fine with 777's and 747's. By using these, the loads can be more flexible. For example, if the demand for New York went down over winter, they can take off one B777 or B747 route, and leave 6 more flights. However, if combined to 3 or 4 A380 flights a day, then taking on off would be taking away a lot of seats.
3. Maintenance facilities at Heathrow would need to be made bigger, which would cost a lot of money. The hangars would need to be made higher and wider. Not only would this cost money, but would cause inconvenience as all the other aircraft would have no facilities in the months it would take to build them
4. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I don't think that the T5 gates are being built large enough to handle the A380?
5. BA have an all Boeing long haul fleet, and have never really deeply
considered previous Airbus models.
6. Pollution issues, already discussed.
Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter): I was looking at the BA route schedules and I see that JFK/SYD rank among BA's most flown routes
JFK ok, but Sydney is not one BA's most flown routes. They have 2 daily flights to Sydney (+2 codeshared, operated by Qantas - This may have been what made you think it was among their busiest routes), one via Bangkok and the other via Singapore. They have more or the same amount of flights to:
New York
Newark
Toronto
Washington
Boston
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Miami
Chicago
Philadelphia
Johannesburg
Tokyo
Hong Kong
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 47, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2259 times:
Quoting Planesarecool (Reply 45):
JFK ok, but Sydney is not one BA's most flown routes. They have 2 daily flights to Sydney (+2 codeshared, operated by Qantas - This may have been what made you think it was among their busiest routes), one via Bangkok and the other via Singapore. They have more or the same amount of flights to:
you are correct, but you have listed quite a few number of flights....I would think a dozen + dozen options might be justifiable for an order......that being said, they will put off orders for the A380 until as long as possible...and they CERTAINLY won't be buying any A380s because their competition is..i.e. such as VS.
Boeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1258 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2236 times:
Planesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4065 posts, RR: 15 Reply 49, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2197 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 47): you are correct, but you have listed quite a few number of flights....I would think a dozen + dozen options might be justifiable for an order......that being said, they will put off orders for the A380 until as long as possible...and they CERTAINLY won't be buying any A380s because their competition is..i.e. such as VS.
Not sure you read what i put, i was listing the destinations that BA serve twice daily+ , as you said that Sydney was one of the top served destinations. BA won't get A380's, end of story!
AirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4470 posts, RR: 58 Reply 50, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2163 times:
So long as we're speculating here I might as well as $0.02 about LAX.
Having flown on BA between LHR and LAX for the last 12 years or so (except for last year when I flew VS) in Club World for the most part 3-4 times a year, the strong loads on the 282/3, 268/9 and 278/9 flights never cease to amaze me. (well, the 278/9 isn't scheduled year round).
Not only that, but AA, UA, NZ and VS fly the route as well, so there are what, 7 or 8 daily departures from LAX to LHR?
One would think BA could easily fill an A380 for the 282/283 flights but who knows if that is their strategy or not? That would be dumping a whole lot of capacity (particularly Y i imagine) onto the route which could hurt yields. Then again, it could help them with sale of premium tickets. Virgin for instance have downgraded the early LAX flight (VS 7/8) to a 346 and have kept the later flight as a 343. It seems to be scheduled that way for next summer as well. Perhaps they're looking for higher yielding traffic?
But if they want to reestablish the LHR-SAN service, could that cut away at demand for the LAX route?
There's also the issue of LHR-LAX-AKL service. There was a thread about this recently, if this is going to be a lucrative codeshare then perhaps there will be more demand for the LAX flights.
SunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3390 posts, RR: 1 Reply 51, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2137 times:
What would be the minimum fleet size that would make sense, economically in the BA environment?
It seems to me that BA operates significant numbers of each type that it owns. Thus does this provide a clue on their operational strategy?
Boeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1258 posts, RR: 0 Reply 52, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2125 times:
I'm afraid I can only allow 5x daily. Mrs Pepperhamsby of East Anglia and her nieces have planned quite a few trips this year to visit her mum who lives on the Welsh coast, so we'll have to have 2 of the 380s operating the busy Ipswich-Aberystwyth route 2x daily.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 53, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2093 times:
Quoting Planesarecool (Reply 49): Not sure you read what i put, i was listing the destinations that BA serve twice daily+
my point was there were many places where BA fly 2X-3X/daily...which could possibly allow them to switch to an A380 and 777's..and with slot restrictions, they might need a larger aircraft, say a B747ADV and A380 on a particular route...of course, all is just conjecture, and I think the bigger problem is the international economic imbalance which could cause havoc in future travel...
My personal guess is they won't go for the A380, but both sides bring up valuable points!
Quoting AirxLiban (Reply 50): But if they want to reestablish the LHR-SAN service, could that cut away at demand for the LAX route?
I think its time BA ordered the 787
Quoting AirxLiban (Reply 50): Not only that, but AA, UA, NZ and VS fly the route as well, so there are what, 7 or 8 daily departures from LAX to LHR?
there are over 1800 seats daily during the winter, and over 2000 seats (with AA adding another 777-200ER during the summer) between the two cities..that's a heck of a lot of seats....and if VS want to bring in the A380 to LAX, the will just increase the amount of seats available and kill yields....so you might be right on that call!
(Please note that the middle part of the above address should read 'news/main.jhtmh?xml=/news' but the system does not appear to like it or want to accept it!)
The thing that amazes me and explains a lot about overcrowded Heathrow (LHR) is that the last runway to be laid in South East England - that is anywhere near London - if the single short and very limited runway at London City Airport (LCY) is excluded was the London Gatwick runway that was converted from a grass strip as long ago as 1958. Since that date the only change in the runway population was the reduction that occurred when the short NE-SW runway at LHR was closed.
Since the LGW runway was laid - how can a single operational runway airport feature in the list of the world's ten busiest international airports? - plans have been published for new London Airports at Cublington / Wing (Buckinghamshire (late 60s), Foulness (Essex) (70s) and Cliffe (Kent) (00s) but, of course, nothing ever happens except the existing facilities get more and more overcrowded and the strain on air traffic controllers gets higher and higher as new ways of increasing the number of slots in busy two-runway (LHR) and one-runway (LGW) airports. So do not get too excited (or worried) about the current proposals. Nothing has happened for almost half a century and probably will not for anoither fifty years!
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 55, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1962 times:
(Please note that the middle part of the above address should read 'news/main.jhtmh?xml=/news' but the system does not appear to like it or want to accept it!)
thanks for the links.but I couldn't them to work..but I did find a bunch of articles from dft.gov.uk regarding LHR, so I'll be sure to check them out...
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7560 posts, RR: 6 Reply 56, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1946 times:
In my opinion, if BA does get the A380-800 they won't fly it to the USA. Because USA airports are far less slot-restricted and given that BA already owns the majority of the landing slots at LHR and LGW, BA will just assign more landing slots to USA-bound flights and continue to fly the 747-400 and 777-200ER to USA destinations for the foreseeable future.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 60, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1779 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 58): Sorry it does not because I did not notice my deliberate mistake! Hopefully this is better:
thanks for the link about govt. noise and air pollution..but I think "strengthening economic and market incentives" will over-ride anything else and this will allow BAA to build another runway @ LHR..lots of good stuff on that website...
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2102 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1815 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 666 posts, 
From Venezuela, joined Jan 2005, 5642 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Spain, joined Mar 2005, 3754 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2053 posts, 
From India, joined Oct 2004, 2708 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
, 6081 posts, 
...
From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 4957 posts, 
From France, joined Apr 2005, 406 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4470 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3390 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
