Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Official - BA Will Not Buy A380  
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13747 posts, RR: 19
Posted (14 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3196 times:

News Update soon

Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlineKLM747 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2001, 669 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (14 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3017 times:

Wow, I thought BA would be a great airline for it, well I'll wait until you get more info.  Wink/being sarcastic

KLM747 Big grin

User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13747 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (14 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3009 times:

BA says Airbus jet not viable: Won't order A380
Financial Post - Canada; Feb 22, 2001

GENEVA - British Airways PLC said it has decided against buying Airbus Industrie's new A380 because it thinks there are too few routes that require very large jets and because the aircraft would have a low resale value.

BA spent several months studying the possible uses for the 550-seat plane before concluding it wasn't viable, said Dick Wyatt, head of fleet planning for Europe's largest airline.

"We are not ordering the A380," Mr. Wyatt told aircraft finance bankers at a conference. "There's very few routes that suit large aircraft and we believe that markets will continue to fragment."

The decision is a setback for the European aircraft maker, which has included BA on its list of potential A380 customers.

"No question it's a blow to Airbus," said Doug McVitie, managing director of Arran Aersopace, a consulting company in Scotland. "But the program won't be affected because Airbus already has put together a launch base with blue-chip customers like Singapore Airlines, so other airlines are bound to follow."

Virgin Atlantic, Air France, Qantas, Emirates Airlines, FedEx Corp. and International Lease Finance Corp. have agreed, along with Singapore Air, to buy a total of 60 superjumbos. Airbus is negotiating with Lufthansa AG and others for further orders for the plane, which cost US$12-billion to develop.

Airbus declined to comment.

BA has been reducing the size of its planes, moving from Boeing Co.'s 747s to smaller 777s, so it can concentrate on higher-paying business travellers and stop carrying as many economy-class passengers. But the congested airports in many Asian cities and at its Heathrow International hub made it necessary to consider the A380.

Mr. Wyatt said BA looked at using the plane on Singapore-to-London routes, where it competes against Singapore Air(It's Airlines!), which has ordered as many as 25 A380s. But under the scenarios put together by a group of BA managers, the numbers just didn't work. (Ah! Shame, pity!)

BA also would have been leery of making an investment six years before the expected entry of the plane into service, he said, because of the "rapidly changing" airline environment.

All Material Subject to Copyright

(My bold and comments in italic and brackets!)

Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (14 years 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2971 times:

"where it competes against Singapore Air(It's Airlines!)"


Says someone with the username Singapore Air!

Hehehe  Big grin  Big grin

Sorry, but I couldn't help this comment. I just had to make it.

PS: Thanks for the news. It is interesting to hear that BA doesn't want the A380.

User currently offlineRabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 1029 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (14 years 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2957 times:

if BA does not need it, Lufthansa hardly would. LH has even less high density routes than BA.

The argument that used A380 will be hard to sell is an interesting one. Why wouldnt charter airlines be eager to stuff their pax in such big ones? Normally, they have the least problems filling even the last seat. So they could really profit from low seatmile costs.


User currently offlineWorldTraveller From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 624 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (14 years 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2938 times:

Sorry, but I just have the impression that BA can't make up its mind these days...

Increase capacity...cut capacity, 3 classes...4 classes etc.

And, because of the "rapidly changing" airline environment, how can they predict now that they won't need the A380 in 2006?

OK, BA has done its evaluations and they say no to the A380 at the moment. Accept that.

Virgin, Singapore, Qantas, Air France, Emirates have done the math too and ordered the A380.

Well, we'll see who are the lucky winners in a couple of years...

BTW, the BA announcement is definately a blow to Boeing too, since I can't see BA ordering the B747X now, they'll order B772/B773 in order to cut capacity.

Best regards
the WorldTraveller

User currently offlineJAL From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 5093 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (14 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2882 times:

I'm hoping that BA will operare both the 777 and
the 747X.

It would be great!!!!!!!

Work Hard But Play Harder
User currently offlineAp305 From India, joined Jan 2000, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (14 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2869 times:

Imho this is nothing more than BA trying to get the a380 on suitable terms.I would not be suprised if BA changes it's mind after further studies(basicaly Airbus agreeing to the price BA wants to pay).Despite all the 777/747 swapping that is going on now i belive that BA needs a large capacity aircraft if it wants to take on the ever-growing Virgin.


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8289 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (14 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2866 times:

BA will be forced to get the A380 eventually. I also predict a sing back to carrying more low-yield passengers. Here's why: students and young people fly a lot and if they have the chance to sample an airline a few times they will develop a certain loyalty which continues as they get older and fly for business when they give up their Marxist ideals and become corporate raiders. If a person's flying experience revolves around Virgin or SQ or whatever, they will be more likely to think of them again. If BA reduce their Economy capacity then I think it's fair to say that awareness of them in the marketplace will be reduced because less people will have the chance to experience their service.

It makes sense to me, BA are already the most expensive choice in Economy and as a result I haven't flown them for ten years. I don't tend to travel in Business Class or at other people's expense but even when someone else is paying (work etc) it never occurs to me to choose them, I choose the airlines I know, ie Virgin, Emirates, Gulf Air, Cathay et al.

Airliners.net contributors are unusual in that we tend to want to fly airlines we haven't flown before, but 99% of travellers stick to what they know and there is no reason why those patterns don't begin as soon as they start travelling for the first time, ie as a backpacking discount low-yield fare.

My last flight with Virgin weren't that hot but BA have never shown much intelligence in their plannng decisions and this focus on high yield is no exception.

fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineDatamanA340 From South Korea, joined Dec 2000, 547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (14 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2855 times:

Nothing special. BA just cannot see any optimistic point, and Virgin or SQ not. Does any carrier sees routes that 380 is really needed? No. I haven't heard that any route is operated solely by cramped 747, or had load factor of almost 100%. Usage of 380 or other VLAs is to make, not to be prepared.

Na said well. BA is pessimistic and on the decline. And if one carrier doesn't need 380s, it doesn't need 747X too.

User currently offlineNotarzt From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 642 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (14 years 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2830 times:

Well... considering the "big silence" following Airbus' launch of the A380, I am really wondering about the future of the program. Not to be underestimated that FedEx signed a LoI only.


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8289 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (14 years 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2816 times:

Dataman, actually there are loads of 747 routes that are always full - most of them to Heathrow. Every trans-Atlantic route between June and the end of September, Japan and SE Asia esp Singapore and Hong Kong, Australia. Plus many routes within SE Asia.

The increase in capacity is only 25%, whereas the 707 to 747 leap in capacity was more like 150%.

fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (14 years 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2806 times:


What "big silence" are you referring to? Do you think that Airbus could sell (or produce) 10 A380 planes every month? We know that there are several airlines that are relatively likely to place orders for the plane this year:

Atlas Air
Cathay Pacific

If they order 20-30 planes among themselves, it's already very food for Airbus, since first flight will still be ages away and the order books are already fat.

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (14 years 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2812 times:

I think right now BA does not see a need for a plane as big as the A380-800. The reason is simple: they're going after premium passengers with their upgraded First Class, Club World and World Traveller seating sections, and they don't need a plane as big as the A388 to do this. BA has enough 747-400's and 777-200ER's to cover this class of passenger.

I do think that BA will order the A388, but they won't get their first planes until around 2010 or so. The BA A388's will primarily be used on their busiest routes: LHR to NRT, HKG, SYD via SIN, JNB, JFK, LAX and SFO.

User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13747 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (14 years 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2774 times:

"Picture this, we were butt naked on the shower or something" Never mind, just a song

Picture this, BA744 flies to SIN, SQ388 flies to SIN.

People are going to choose the A380 no matter what airline (in a sense you know what I mean!) as it's more luxurious? Are BA shooting themselves in the foot? I hope so, but if they see no need for the aircraft they won't buy it and as Mr Wyatt said, BA numbers don't add up when using the A380 on the LHR - SIN route where it directly competes with... Singapore Airlines - A Great Way To Fly!!... and so, is there only space for one A380? ( it is big enough!)

i think leave BA to it. If they don't need it fine. Or maybe, Airbus' price is too high? Or maybe BA is just following it's business plan of being a business airline with low capacity.

And my user name! I use Singapore_Air as Singapore_Airlines doesn't fit. Never mind. But nice of you to think of me Ikarus

Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineWpr8e From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (14 years 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2735 times:


Are you an idiot?

1) How do you know that the A380 is more luxurious?
2) Taking your conclusion to the end, why would anyone fly the 777 or A340 over a 747? Just cause it is bigger doesn't make it nicer.
3) This plane is a bie ego boost. Let's face it, yields are falling and they are going to put more capacity on their networks. You are going to make more money filling smaller planes with higher yields than filling large planes with too many seats with junk. Take a look at AA, DL, CO, and BA they have got it right.

Singapore Airlines has some of the lowest yields in the business. They have very long haul flights with low fares. The farther you go does not translate into proportional higher fares.

User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (14 years 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2728 times:

Here is a very good post made by an individual on another website, but on the same topic:

"BA is chasing yield, which is FAR more profitable than chasing pure numbers, as most american airlines have found out. That means they are after the business man. that five percent of the pax pay more than 40 percent of the revenue on average. The business man wants to go NOW, not in 4 hours, so the fact that that they have multiple departures between a city pair is a good thing not a bad thing. Its a sign of a money making route. If they do it with smaller airplanes is a sure sign of a moneymaker.
The only case where it would make a difference is if there were SIMULTANEOUS departures, then there would be a case for a larger aircraft. There are a couple of city pairs that have this, but its less than 10 I think.

Ideally to chase the businessman you want to go no less frequently than hourly service. As the economy becomes more global airservice will continue to develope in that pattern.

Take Newyork to Dallas. American airlines runs hourly service from both Laguardia AND Newark to DFW. They do it with MD80s mostly. They could very easily do it every 2-3 hours with a 777, and you would think that it would be more efficient, and it would be. The costs would go down, but the YIELD would go down even further and American would make less money, not more.

An airline makes its money on yield, not pax count, as BA learned 2 summers ago when the aircraft were still full and they lost big dollars. The US airlines learned that in the early 90s, you can fill an aircraft and still lose money."

User currently offlineN766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (14 years 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2723 times:

Well, this is cause for celebration! Looks like they're going to go with Everett's superior product Big grin

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (14 years 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2715 times:

I think the reason why BA doesn't need the A380-800 is simple: they're already doing extremely well with their upgraded First, Club World and World Traveller full-fare classes.

Think about it: how airlines in the world have cubicle-like seating with fold-flat beds for their Business class travellers? How about ONE? I mean, does the Business class seating on AA, AF, CO, DL, JL, KE, LH, NW, OZ, QF, SQ, UA and VS offer anything akin to Club World?

BA is cutting their 747-400 fleet because they realize they don't NEED 50 744's. They can get by with about 38-40 744's and buy more 777-200ER's when their priority is going after First and Club World passengers.

User currently offlineArchie Bunker From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (14 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2696 times:

How did Continental (CO) become profitable?

By chasing after the "suits" rather than the "sandals and backpackers" (or Europeans, only jokin'  Big grin)....meaning, high yield passengers.

User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (14 years 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2698 times:

Archie Bunker

We are only too aware of THOSE types of pax. I believe they are known as the "bucket and spade brigade" on this side of the Atlantic! Big grin


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13747 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (14 years 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2684 times:

Wpr8: I've just noticed your post

I am not an idiot, repeat, i am not an idiot

Secondly, Singapore Airlines may have a low yield. However, it came fifth in the world's airlines for net profit in the 1999 year! Above the airlines you mentioned, except for AA, I think I'll have to check that out.

Anyway, I'll rephrase for you to keep you happy

The A380 has the biggest potential out of all the airliners to be the most luxurious.


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineGearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (14 years 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2672 times:

It's official.........today!
This time next year or 6 months from now, who knows? It seems that BA are going in circles. Of this you can be sure: Sometime in this decade BA WILL be flying the A380 or Boeing 747X. I would not get too worked up about this press release because with the firing of a few executives and the hireing of new ones, everything can change. This announcement only improves their chance of getting the deal of the century from Airbus or Boeing.

I have no memory of this place.
User currently offlineBoeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (14 years 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2634 times:

Some of you critisize BA for this decision, the only statement I have for that is , Don't you think BA knows more about what they need more than you do?

Back on topic, Ba has made a basic decision, to stick with Boeing. They seem to like Boeing widebodys better than Airbus, but just like United, have a hige fleet of small Airbus's.

Here's a list of airlines not to expect to order A380: (in my opinion)

British Airways
Atlas Air
Southwest (LOL)

User currently offlineDatamanA340 From South Korea, joined Dec 2000, 547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (14 years 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2633 times:

None of us said 'BA needs 380s'. As I mentioned, 'need' is not to exist, but to make. ** IF BA EVEN MAKES ITSELF AS 'IMPERIAL' AIRWAYS BY REPLACING ALL FLEET BY SMALLER AND LONGER-RANGE AIRCRAFTS, WHO WILL BLAME IT? Just leave BA and take Virgin or others with cheaper tickets. BA makes money by higher yield, and others make money by more pax. Singapore sells so cheap tickets, but it makes money for 25 380s and 60+ 777s.

Which way one carrier takes, anyone won't care.

postscript. If BA doesn't need 380s and buys 747Xs or other VLAs, BA just lied to you all. This official comment is not good to Boeing, either. Boeing lost one of the most expected 'launch costomer' for 747Xs.

25 G-KIRAN : When the 747 was launched in 1969 there was lots of hype about inflight bars,gyms and offices and all that kind of stuff,but did that ever come about?
26 RayChuang : I still think that if Boeing has NOT launched the 747X project by this time next year both UA and NW may be serious candidates to buy the A380-800. Th
27 Singapore_Air : Travel agents are tellingm e to buy my tickets return to SGN a year in advance! A YEAR! THey say it's because they can't get me on the LHR - SIN - LHR
28 Donder10 : BA have like 8 heathrow-kennedy flights a day--all 747-400's.If they got a 380 then they could use say 1 380 for 2 744 flights!They could still get th
29 Caravelle : The time is here: You have to decide. You can decide right, or you can decide wrong. Who's to judge? We'll have to wait a few years. My opinion: BA is
30 Capt.Picard : Some people are missing the point here; the fact is that BA appears to WANT multiple flights a day to high-yield destinations, and DOESN'T want to sub
31 Wingman : Some people aren't so hot at mathematics. How do you replace two 744s with one 380? Two loaded 744s carry 840 passengers. One loaded 380 carries 550 p
32 V1-Rotate : Capt Picard, Thank-you.You've saved abroken cpu and a bruised hand. Does anyone else have the slightest idea about why airlines do what they do ? YIEL
33 DatamanA340 : Point to Point once again. Do you really think that an airline which can only operate in LHR establish a real PTP network? Everyone must fly to LHR, a
34 Capt.Picard : Of course they have a PTP network (doesn't have be to long-haul). What are all those BA a/c doing in BHX, MAN, GLA and EDI then, not to mention LGW, w
35 DatamanA340 : HA, was PTP so? So, what's the problem for 380 and PTP? Everyone knows London-New York can feed even hourly 380 service. And no one would order to ope
36 RayChuang : Folks, I think it will be interesting to see what happens when the Bermuda II agreement is replaced by a new air rights agreement between the USA and
37 Wingman : Dataman, What is 5 X 550? 2750 What is 8 X 420? 3360 So what happens to the extra 610 passengers? What happened to the explosive growth problem? What
38 DatamanA340 : So, BA's 747s carry 420 pax? I believed it was 380 or around, but maybe it's wrong. Don't remained as not knowing that 380 has 1.5x or more deck area
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why BA Will Purchase The A380 posted Sun Oct 15 2006 15:13:45 by B707Stu
El-Al Will Probably Will Not Buy Airbus - Again posted Tue Jun 6 2006 20:05:28 by An225
Walsh: BA Will Not Tolerate Further Strikes posted Wed Nov 23 2005 07:53:07 by Scotron11
Prediction: BA Will Order The A380 posted Fri May 20 2005 12:28:19 by Scotron11
Its Official: Swiss Will NOT Join OneWorld posted Thu Sep 23 2004 11:31:40 by Nwfltattendant
Will CathayPacific Buy A380 Or B747X posted Sun Dec 24 2000 13:46:12 by VH-ANA
LH Will Not Buy A3XX Before 2007 posted Thu Dec 14 2000 18:09:01 by Das Flugzeug
Will British Airways Buy A380's posted Tue May 16 2006 12:27:52 by Nicolasdec
BA To Australia Will NOT Use LHR T5 posted Tue Apr 18 2006 18:38:52 by TLVFred
Why Will BMI Not Buy Any More A330's? posted Wed Jan 11 2006 12:57:16 by Gilesdavies