Surf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1969 times:
"Services to Rio de Janeiro, which fly on to Sao Paolo, will also transfer from Gatwick to Heathrow.....
The airline said it believes profits on this route can be substantially improved through this transfer. Daily Boeing 777 flights will replace the current five 747 flights a week, serving both destinations in Brazil.....
At Gatwick, BA plans to "delink" the current daily Boeing 747 service to Phoenix and on to San Diego, with both destinations served with their own direct daily 777s, subject to final agreements....
Also from Gatwick, frequencies to Buenos Aires will be increased - from five 747-400s a week to six 777s....
From Heathrow, British Airways will suspend all services to Kuala Lumpur from the start of next summer season, because of the poor commercial performance of the route..........
The summer 2001 flying programme will require two fewer 747-400s than British Airways has at present - mainly as a result of the Heathrow-Kuala Lumpur suspension. Two more 747-400s will become surplus the following winter, with further unprofitable flying reductions anticipated.....
As a result, BA has decided to dispose of these four aircraft during the year ahead. Expressions of interest have been received from a number of parties, and negotiations are now at the final stage.....
British Airways has the largest Boeing 747-400 fleet in Europe, with around 20 more of the aircraft than any of its European competitors. It currently operates 57 Boeing 747-400s in an overall mainline fleet of more than 260 aircraft. Its longhaul fleet also includes 36 Boeing 777s. The airline currently holds firm orders for nine more of these twinjets, with options on a further 16."
The above paraphrased from Airwise International.
Reducing the 747 fleet by four, while increasing the 777 fleet by 9 with an option for 16 more.....
Dvk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1058 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (14 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1905 times:
Although perhaps less dramatic, wouldn't the situation at United be similar, where they are retiring their last 747-200's, but have no more 747-400's on order currently? It appears that they'll be using the 777 on the former 742 routes.
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.
Republic From Canada, joined Dec 2012, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1860 times:
How do you explain Virgin's offer for the 4 744 BA is looking to sell? Airlines with long haul, high capacity routes to/from Asia are looking to go larger, while in the US and now with BA, seeking more economical, higher frequency flights. Which makes one ask the question: will the Singapores and Qantases be enough to sustain the A3XX? On this I'm not so sure. I don't doubt the assumptions on which the A3XX is based. I wonder, though, is Airbus being too optimistic in its forecast for the A3XX demand?
AussieErj145 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (14 years 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1821 times:
Qantas too is looking at replacing some or all of it's 'classic' 747's with a new type possibly the
777-200LR or A340-500. The new aircraft are to be used where the 747 is simply to large an aircraft and load factors justify a smaller capacity.
I'm sure many airlines are using the 777 this way.
The A3XX or A350 or whatever is different. It's use will be on routes where the 747 is not enough. Hypothetical example with Qantas operating three daily services between SYD and LAX with 744's, perhaps this could also be just two A3XX services. But in any case the A3XX in not the issue here.
Tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1607 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (14 years 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1805 times:
This is going to be a long guys so bear with me but it's been brewing up for a while.
The proposition that the world cannot have both a successful VLA market for aircraft such as the A3XX and 747 as well as a booming mid size market for planes such as the 777 and A340 has consumed gigabytes on this site but seems to me to be the aviation equivalent of assuming that you can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
Both markets are different and both are needed. They are not mutually exclusive.
The world aviation market is growing at a phenomenal rate and will continue to do so for the forseeable future. Even a high oil price cannot dampen this. Accordingly we need more planes to satisfy this growth. In the VLA v 777 debate the question arises as to whether this growth will be in existing city pairs or new pairs. This whole argument seems spurious as there is no doubt the growth will be in both.
As the market grows new city pairs will become viable and planes such as the 764, 777, A330 and A340 are ideal in servicing these markets. Exactly which plane is best suited obviously depends on a number of factors but it is fair to say that there is a viable market for each of these types, just not all in the same fleet.
At the same time there is a market for the 747 and A3XX. Whilst there is growth in new city pairs there is no proof that this will lead to a falling off in demand for the high volume routes of the world currently serviced principally by the 744 or high frequency 763 services. These include routes such as JFK-LHR, SYD-LAX, SIN-LHR, HKG-LHR, JFK-NRT etc. In fact it could be argued that many of these airports are already at capacity and future growth in pax numbers has to be via bigger planes because there are no more slots. You can't build more airports or runways as there is no land and it is politically tricky even if there was. You can't fly in extended hours as the many of these airports have curfews and even if they didn't not many people would be keen about getting to the airport at 2.30am for a 4am departure.
The upshot of all this is the argument as to whether people want frequency or capacity on these super routes is a fallacy. There is no option for increased frequency only increased capacity so there is a market for VLA. As to whether these VLA end up with inflight hairdressers etc or are loaded to the gills with Y class seats is undecided but the lack of airport space will eventually mean the latter is more likely.
There is an argument that over-supply may never be a problem for Airbus and Boeing. It could be the reverse and there may be a shortage of production slots at Seattle and Toulouse. As well as catering for this booming world aviation growth there will soon come a time when the ageing world fleet has to be replaced. Many of the aircraft flying in the world today are much older than their designers ever intended them to get. Safety concerns such as the wiring problems in just about everything made more than 10 years ago, environmental concerns such as the noise produced by the older planes and economic concerns that the thirstier older planes are fast becoming unviable all conspire to suggest that the need for new planes will continue to grow. The question as to how some of these less well off airlines will afford their new fleets is another question.
So the upshot of all this is there is a market for both the medium size planes and the large planes.. as well as just about every other size you can think of. The question as to whether the dominant manufacturer ends up being Boeing or Airbus is probably also irrelevant and owes more to nationalism than anything else. Both will be viable as they are the only established players in a market where the barriers to entry are higher than just about anything else (maybe excluding PC operating systems).