Richardw From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 3746 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2325 times:
In the far off future is it likely that BA could go for a single widbody type for all its long haul routes from LON-NYC to LON-SYD, assuming one stop, or is the possible loss in revenue more than the saving in simplification?
Star_world From Ireland, joined Jun 2001, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2235 times:
There are very few airlines that adopt this approach, precisely because most airlines fly routes that vary significantly in the frequency required and number of pax that need to be carried. For example, BA operate a single daily flight MAN-JFK using just a 767 and 7-8 daily flights LHR-JFK using mainly 747s with occasional 777s. They have these multiple a/c types to fit this mixture of capacity and frequency.
Of course there would be benefits to only having a single type of aircraft, but the disadvantages would far outweigh them.
BA380 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1466 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2188 times:
with (I think) 112 or so long-haul a/c (57 744s, 43 777s and around a dozen long-haul 767s), BA have more than enough a/c to operate multiple types at scale. Their 744 and 777 fleets on their own are bigger than many airlines' total long haul fleets.
If they were to do this, I suspect it would be the 773, but personally, I don't see any pressing need to move to a single fleet - the 773 would be too big for many 772 routes and unnecessarily remove capacity from 744 routes with good loads.
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2159 times:
No way. BA has a huge fleet. The only benefit from single types is the commonality and simplification of fleet-wide operating costs. The costs associated with the operating a type is amortised over the fleet. BA's fleet is so large that these costs are relatively low per frame. The loss of flexibility in having only a single type is orders of magnitude more significant than the gains in simplification, which are minor given the numbers of each type they have.