Chris7217 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2002, 169 posts, RR: 9 Posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3419 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
I know there were posted quite a few topics about G-YMMM since the incident in January 2008 but I got a question about a possible substitution for the plane which I'm not sure if this had already been mentioned. If so I'm sorry to bring up this topic again.
Most probably the plane will be a total loss and eventually won't see the skies anymore so I'd be interested to know if BAW is planning to lease/buy another B77E for G-YMMM's replacement. As BAW uses only the RR powered B777s for their routes to Asia they might need another plane or maybe they will upgrade to one of their B744s. I guess they are using already a B744 for the daily service to Beijing.
Your comments and opinions are highly appreciated.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7531 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3292 times:
BA already had an order in place for four RR powered 772s for delivery in the first half of next year. These were meant to be for route expansion.
Additionally and separately BA have said that their move to T5 at LHR would have the equivalent affect of adding 'two short haul and one long haul' aircraft to their fleet. This is because all arriving aircraft can taxi to T5 and all departing aircraft can taxi from T5 without having to queue to cross an active runway in a slot bound airport. (Currently either all aircraft departing T4 or all aircraft arriving at T4 - depending upon which runway is being used for departures, which for arrivals - must cross an active runway.)
So, since nothing has been said about a replacement aircraft I am beginning to believe that BA will not directly be looking for one. If they did one of the two &&2As that they returned to Boeing and were operated by Varig is, I believe, parked in the desert. How much it would cost to return to service is, however, unclear. (The other 772A has been scrapped.)
As an aside the improved efficiency obtained through a greater proportion of air traffic movements arriving and departing from stands between the two runways at LHR and a consummate reduction in the proportion using T4 to the south of both runways means that slightly less fuel will be burnt per air traffic movement at the airport leading to lower carbon emissions per air traffic movement.
Rivet42 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 818 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days ago) and read 3176 times:
I think you'll find had there been a need for a replacement, it would have been an issue immediately after the accident, rather than several months later, by which time schedules/maintenance rosters etc will have been tuned to take account of the gap in the fleet.
Whilst one might assume the aircraft in question is a write-off, I haven't seen any detailed report of the damage to confirm that, nor to suggest otherwise (I'm sure that's been discussed ad nauseam in other threads, so I don't really want to open up that debate again).
I would be interested to know how BA's 777/747 op's have been modified as a result of being one 777 down.
As to VV701's point about CO2 emmissions, there may be a slight reduction for BA, but for LHR as a whole, assuming that T4 returns to near-capacity after BA's departure, the overall amount of CO2 produced will see little reduction at all, most likely an increase as the number of flights inevitably increases (due not to more runways but greater utilisation of the existing runways by improved/enhanced ATC procedures).
Aisak From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 763 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3118 times:
Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 2): I would be interested to know how BA's 777/747 op's have been modified as a result of being one 777 down.
That's extremely hard to see, at least on a 1-to-1 basis as you pretend. Airlines always tweak their schedules for the upcoming summer/winter seasons. Several changes have been implemented during last change:
And probably more I don't remember...
Also MIA's B747s can be used more efficiently as they are no longer operating from an isolated area (T3).
And we'll have to wait and see if new routes/carriers under the new open skies agreement affect BA's current routes.
LHR27C From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 1279 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2951 times:
From what I understand the loss of YMMM has not impacted BA's timetabling, as there was sufficient leeway in the schedules to allow for one less aircraft. However, it will mean the introduction of NCW onto the 777s occurs at a slower rate than hoped for, and may impact future expansion plans.
They are now, but only because they have moved onto the summer timetable - the flight was operated by 777s until the end of March.
Quoting VV701 (Reply 1): As an aside the improved efficiency obtained through a greater proportion of air traffic movements arriving and departing from stands between the two runways at LHR and a consummate reduction in the proportion using T4 to the south of both runways means that slightly less fuel will be burnt per air traffic movement at the airport leading to lower carbon emissions per air traffic movement.
As Rivet42 said, I suspect by the time terminal musical chairs are finished and SkyTeam is installed in T4 the overall difference will be negligible.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 4): So does having both engines shut down at 600 AGL, but then again all those "first responders" did make a lot of CO2.....
Sorry to be a pedant but neither engine was shut down on BA038, both were operating at above idle power when YMMM hit the ground.
Once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned forever skyward
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7531 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2746 times:
Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 2): As to VV701's point about CO2 emmissions, there may be a slight reduction for BA, but for LHR as a whole, assuming that T4 returns to near-capacity after BA's departure, the overall amount of CO2 produced will see little reduction at all, most likely an increase as the number of flights inevitably increases (due not to more runways but greater utilisation of the existing runways by improved/enhanced ATC procedures).
Almost certainly T4 will operate close to design capacity after BA's departure. However the significant saving in both BA's and overall emissions at LHR will be because T4 has been operating at over twice its design capacity in recent years. The most obvious way this has effected operations is the frequent breakdown in the baggage handling system in the terminal and the tents that BAA erect outside the departure level of the terminal to shelter passengers as soon as some problem (like increased security checks) slows the flow of passengers through the terminal.
Clearly once all the LHR terminal changes have occurred T4 will not be so heavily used as in the recent past. Hence
Quoting VV701 (Reply 1): the improved efficiency obtained through a greater proportion of air traffic movements arriving and departing from stands between the two runways at LHR and a consummate reduction in the proportion using T4 to the south of both runways means that slightly less fuel will be burnt per air traffic movement at the airport leading to lower carbon emissions per air traffic movement
As to the suggestion that we can expect to see an increase in CO2 emissions due to 'greater utilisation of existing runways by improved/enhanced ATC procedures' this is not that likely.
First there is currently a legal restriction on air traffic movements (ATMs) at LHR of 480,000 a year. Current levels of use are at around 476,000 a year. The small difference of around 4,000 ATMs is not realisable in practical terms as it is usual for approaching this number of movements to be cancelled each year due to, for example, weather, operational cancellations, security outrages and other incidents such as the recent T5 problems.
Second the historic increase in ATMs at LHR (including the increased use of slots at times of low demand such as on Saturday afternoon and evenings and Sunday mornings) has not been that great. In the summer of 2004 there were 9,338 authorised ATMs per week. In summer 2005 the number was ALSO 9,388 (+0.0%) with 9,440 (+0.6%) in 2006. In summer 2007 this number grew further to 9,490 (+0.5%) and for the current season it is 9,516 ATMS (less than 0.3%). Clearly the increased carbon emmisions due to such small increases in the number of movements is far outweighed by the reductions due to the use of more efficient engines on the average mix of aircraft.
There are efforts in progress to try to get the British government to permit mixed mode operations, particularly for runways 27L and 27R, at LHR. In theory this would allow the airport's operational capacity to increase by approaching 15 per cent. However those who are lobbying the government for this change do not see it as a way of increasing the number of air traffic movements. Presumably this is because of the current legal restrictions on air traffic movement numbers. Rather they see it as a means of increasing operational efficiency.
So in their submission to the government on mixed mode operation BA has claimed that at LHR in 2006 air traffic control restrictions on arrivals often due to weather including high winds occurred on 276 days with 'a total short haul delay' of 280,000 minutes'. On the other hand they point out that at LGW less than 50 miles away where there is just one operational runway continuously used in mixed mode similar arrival restrictions only occurred on 52 days 'with a total short haul delay of 21,000 minutes'. Their report concluded 'Heathrow's short-haul operation is less than twice the size of Gatwick's yet its aggregate delays were 13 times worse' before they went on to claim that mixed mode operations at LHR could cut delays due to weather by up to two-thirds.