Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
British Airways A380's & 787's - When?  
User currently offlinevirginblue4 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 20751 times:

I just wondered if any one has a rough schedule of A380 deliveries to British Airways? Also the same for their 787's?

Thanks  

[Edited 2011-11-19 03:59:42]


The amazing tale of flight.
42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinebmibaby737 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1811 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 20764 times:

Both G-XLEA & G-ZBJA are due next year

User currently offlinelhr380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 20605 times:

Entry to service early 2013

User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 20410 times:

First A388 delivery Apr 2013
First B788 delivery Feb 2013
First B789 delivery 2015 (specific month tbd).



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlinetonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1437 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 20124 times:

Quoting bmibaby737 (Reply 1):
Both G-XLEA & G-ZBJA are due next year

Any idea where you got this info from cos Iv been hearing a few similar crewmours!



My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
User currently offlineteme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 19931 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It would be real show stopper if they would get them in Q1 in 2012!


Flying high and low
User currently offlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5245 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19742 times:

I know the 380 was delayed until after the olympics - which I thought was kind of strange. And I believe in the IAG presentation a few weeks ago 2013 was mooted for 787 EIS.

User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3069 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19741 times:

Quoting teme82 (Reply 5):
Q1 in 2012!

Not gonna happen!

2012 might be possible (although I highly doubt it), but not Q1! If you see the production threads of the A380, you'll see that it simply isn't possible!

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17066 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19416 times:

Quoting bmibaby737 (Reply 1):
Both G-XLEA & G-ZBJA are due next year

Which birds will get those regs? Is that the new range for the 788 and A388?



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3069 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19404 times:

Quoting B747forever (Reply 8):
Which birds will get those regs? Is that the new range for the 788 and A388?

G-XLEA is the A380, and I'm assuming G-ZBJA is for the 787.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7542 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19355 times:

Quoting anstar (Reply 6):
I know the 380 was delayed until after the olympics - which I thought was kind of strange.

Deliveries were delayed by BA.

Originally the schedule called for the delivery of 6 380s in 2012/13 and 6 in 2013/14 (the old BA financial year being from 1 April to 31 March).

In May 2010 BA announced that they had delayed the deliveries. 4 were to be delivered in 2013/14, 3 in 2014/15, 3 in 2015/16 and 2 in 2016/17. See Slide 30 here:

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_.../01_ID_2010_Full_presentations.pdf


User currently offlineSpeedbird2155 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 878 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19349 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 3):
First A388 delivery Apr 2013
First B788 delivery Feb 2013

That is the current expectation, but there have been some uncertainty around the 787 might be later and that isn't going down well.


User currently offlineteme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19090 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 7):
2012 might be possible (although I highly doubt it), but not Q1! If you see the production threads of the A380, you'll see that it simply isn't possible!

Yeah I know that. That's why I said it would be a show stopper if they would get them before the Olympics.



Flying high and low
User currently offlineLazialeMKD From French Polynesia, joined Oct 2009, 151 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 16173 times:

Where do they plan to send the A380 once they have them? Is JFK one of the options for 1st destination for their A380?

User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 16031 times:

Quoting LazialeMKD (Reply 13):
Where do they plan to send the A380 once they have them? Is JFK one of the options for 1st destination for their A380?

BA likely wont release destinations until perhaps 6 mos prior to service entry. Reasonable guesses are SIN to compete against SQ and other long haul high volume markets such as Jo'Burg, HKG, JFK. The usual suspects.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlinelhr380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 15965 times:

Quoting LazialeMKD (Reply 13):

Personally I dont see it going to JFK for a while, as JFK is more about Freq then seats avail


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 15628 times:

Quoting lhr380 (Reply 15):
Personally I dont see it going to JFK for a while, as JFK is more about Freq then seats avail

I don't disagree. They could run 1x daily A380 thru JFK for prestige if the 380 skeds permit between longer flights.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2091 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 14642 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 16):
Quoting lhr380 (Reply 15):
Personally I dont see it going to JFK for a while, as JFK is more about Freq then seats avail

I don't disagree. They could run 1x daily A380 thru JFK for prestige if the 380 skeds permit between longer flights.

JFK might be an initial route for crew familiarisation, given it could do a return trip daily. MIA might be another candidate.

Longer term I think the A380 will be used on the likes of HKG, SIN, JNB, SFO and LAX. However, like the 77W schedules, there may be a mid-haul flight scheduled in there that fits well amongst the longer haul trips.



With regards to the registrations, I know BA quite likes the out of sequence registrations. I'm making a guess that G-XLEA stands for eXtra Large European Aircraft, but what does G-ZBJA stand for? At a push ZB could be said to look like 78 (just like the BA 77As were registered G-ZZZ* because ZZZ is supposed to look like 777), but what would the JA part of the registration stand for?

For info, other out of sequence registrations BA has used include: -

747-436 G-BNLA - Brand New Large Aircraft
767-336ER G-BNWA - Brand New Widebody Aircraft
BAe ATP G-BTPA - British TurboProp Aircraft
A320 (ex-BCal order) - G-BUS* as in AirBUS
G-CIV* 747-436 - IV being the roman numerals for 4
G-VII* 777-236ER - VII being the roman numerals for 7
G-RAES 777-236ER - Royal AEronautical Society (Would have been G-VIII, but that's roman numerals for 8!)
G-YMM* 777-236ER - Year 2000 (first deliveries in thsi year), with MM being roman numerals for 2000
G-ZZZ* 777-236 - Because at a distance looks like 777



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineLazialeMKD From French Polynesia, joined Oct 2009, 151 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 14486 times:

Do they plan to place at least one A380 at LGW? Is LGW A380 ready?
Do they consider to configure one of their A380 in high density configuration for leisure destinations out of LGW?


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 14212 times:

Quoting LazialeMKD (Reply 18):
Do they consider to configure one of their A380 in high density configuration for leisure destinations out of LGW?

How many leisure destination out of LGW could fill up such a bird, and how many of the leisure destination are A380 ready?
One thing I would not expect to see A380's doing in the early years is multiple destinations or tag on's, lotta a/c for those shorter flights.


User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2179 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 12868 times:

Quoting lhr380 (Reply 15):
Personally I dont see it going to JFK for a while, as JFK is more about Freq then seats avail

Still, JFK is 6x DAILY, and probably the world's busiest intercontinental route. Five of these flights are run by a 744. + 4x 777 daily by AA.
Having the 380 on some of the flights makes plain sense to me. It's not just a matter of capacity, but also about offering a premium product for a premium route. I think nobody disagrees that the A380 is unequaled in terms of passenger comfort, and that's what high-yield passengers are going to ask for.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 16):
I don't disagree. They could run 1x daily A380 thru JFK for prestige if the 380 skeds permit between longer flights.

I rather see at least 2, and certainly not just for prestige, but for the reasons above.



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7542 posts, RR: 17
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 12840 times:

It seems to me unlikely that LHR-JNB will be a launch route for BA's 380s.

With an LHR departure on the evening of Day 1 both the current flights arrive at JNB early in the morning of Day 2. The aircraft operating these flights then spend 13 hrs 30mins and 5 minutes under 12 hrs sitting unproductively at JNB. They then depart for LHR late on Day 2. Both arrive back at LHR in the early morning of Day 3.

The elapsed time between departure from and return to LHR is 34 hrs and 35 hrs 25 mins for the two flights. The productive flying time is scheduled at 22 hrs. The unproductive parked-up time at JNB is 12 hrs and 13 hrs 25 mins. To these figures must be added the unproductive time at LHR before and after the JNB rotations. This will vary with the preceding anf following flights assigned to the aircraft.

If BA did operate this route early on I think they would need to operate the 380 to JNB more than once a week. This is because if a crew flew out of LHR late on Day 1 they could not return to LHR until early on Day 10. This is not only a high cost option in terms of layover costs but requires a higher number of qualified crew to be able to start to operate such a service than needed to operate the 380 only to destinations where the aircraft returns to LHR in a shorter elapsed time. So ~I do not see the option BA chose for the 77W ~(where they operate a different route each day of the week) as a likely option for the 380. Otherwise the initial flight crew requirement will be numerically high and costly.

For the same reasons I also am not so convinced as others that BA will ever operate this route with 380s while it has a relatively small fleet. If a 380 is a good selling feature to passengers (as it seems to be) then BA will be looking to obtain much better aircraft utilisation. This can be achieved by operating on many alternatives to the routes where the operating aircraft does not return to base the following day. Of BA's many long haul routes this only applies to flights to EZE, GRU, JNB and SYD on their current timetables.

The natural inclination to suggest that routes where BA currently operates more than one 744 flight within a short period of time (like JNB) may be favoured for an early 380 introduction could possibly be wide of the mark. But I guess we will have to wait and see.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 12724 times:

Quoting LazialeMKD (Reply 13):
Is JFK one of the options for 1st destination for their A380?
Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 20):
Having the 380 on some of the flights makes plain sense to me. It's not just a matter of capacity, but also about offering a premium product for a premium route. I think nobody disagrees that the A380 is unequaled in terms of passenger comfort, and that's what high-yield passengers are going to ask for.

It comes down to the configuration. If they configure these birds with 12F/50J upstairs, then have 420+ W/Y seats downstairs with the intention of running them on routes like JNB/CPT/MIA etc then we definitely won't see them in JFK. If they configure them with an all J upper deck, F downstairs then W/Y behind (for around 400 seats in total), then we will...

Quoting VV701 (Reply 21):
For the same reasons I also am not so convinced as others that BA will ever operate this route with 380s while it has a relatively small fleet. If a 380 is a good selling feature to passengers (as it seems to be) then BA will be looking to obtain much better aircraft utilisation.

I tend to agree, but QF flies their A380s with long periods on the ground. They have one bird sitting all day at LHR and another there for 6 hours (both will be there all day from next year), and 2 in LAX from the early morning till late at night (12-16 hours on the ground). Though I do think the A380 will be a bit like the 77W at launch, with BA schedule planners testing capacity and configurations on different routes while there are only a few in the fleet.

[Edited 2011-11-19 19:00:11]

User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3069 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 11998 times:

Quoting teme82 (Reply 12):
Yeah I know that. That's why I said it would be a show stopper if they would get them before the Olympics.

Ok. Maybe BA could get Airbus to paint one of their test aircraft in the BA livery and have a fly over.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 17):
, but what does G-ZBJA stand for? At a push ZB could be said to look like 78 (just like the BA 77As were registered G-ZZZ* because ZZZ is supposed to look like 777), but what would the JA part of the registration stand for?

7 8 Jet Aircraft? or Z Boeing Jet Aircraft?

In the latter, I don't know what the Z would be.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlinemusang From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 864 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10209 times:

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 17):
747-436 G-BNLA - Brand New Large Aircraft
767-336ER G-BNWA - Brand New Widebody Aircraft
BAe ATP G-BTPA - British TurboProp Aircraft
A320 (ex-BCal order) - G-BUS* as in AirBUS
G-CIV* 747-436 - IV being the roman numerals for 4
G-VII* 777-236ER - VII being the roman numerals for 7
G-RAES 777-236ER - Royal AEronautical Society (Would have been G-VIII, but that's roman numerals for 8!)
G-YMM* 777-236ER - Year 2000 (first deliveries in thsi year), with MM being roman numerals for 2000
G-ZZZ* 777-236 - Because at a distance looks like 777

Fascinating. Was this actually intended by BA or (and I mean no disrespect) your assumption? Reminds me of KLM, DC-9s were PH-DN*, DC-8s 'DE*, DC-10s 'DT* and I'm sure a Dutch speaker can tell us about the significance of "U" in the 747 sequences.

Regards - musang


25 BrianDromey : It's well documented as fact. The only correction is with the G-CIVx sequence on the 744s. CIV is roman numerals for 400, as in 747-400
26 skipness1E : All A380s will be LHR based, LGW has no stands at either terminal set up for the A380. They can park and use LGW on diversion, but remote parking and
27 caribillo : CIV = 104 CL = 400
28 FlyCaledonian : Actually CL = 150 whereas CD = 400 (C being 100 and D being 500. When a lower value precedes a higher value, then it is subracted from the higher one
29 777way : Does anyone from BA know if they will paint the engines blue or will they remain white as recommended, although some people have said its at the custo
30 Post contains images CXfirst : Wonder if BA just got the numerals wrong there, or if they ment C (100) x IV (4), or if it has some other meanings. It's obvious that BA register the
31 airbazar : But how many more daily frequencies does BA/AA need on this route? I think JFK is a no brainer in order to increase the number of seats in the higher
32 kl5147 : Not intending to hi-jack this post, so I might better start a new topic on this. In general in KLM regi’s the first letter refers to the builder. A
33 david_itl : Maybe the relevant block wasn't fully available, just odd registrations.
34 1stfl94 : A couple more for you, the A320s BA bought from GB Airways G-TTOB and 'OE, originally the reg was supposed to stand for Three Two O, the GB 321s were
35 qf002 : Can't hurt to ask! If you don't want to then I will!
36 A388 : I was never aware of the stories behind those BA registrations, nice!!! I guess I will need a spotting trip to LHR in 2014 to see all the A380's and
37 skipness1E : I think G-BYGA actually just an in sequence registration, as oddly enough were G-BNL* and G-BNW*, I am not sure whether they intended them to stand fo
38 fcogafa : In spite of the hype Heathrow is small fry for A380s - surely Dubai will be by far the busiest?
39 Babybus : I really am looking forward to seeing those BA A380s. I've always found BA long haul a bit of a squeeze in Y and the A380 will correct that, making lo
40 richardw : Probably for those that belong to EK, the interesting airport for me would be the busiest with based aircraft and visiting airlines.
41 A388 : Okay, to clarify my post: In terms of number of A380 movements, than yes, DXB will be the largest but in terms of airline variety using the A380, DXB
42 qf002 : How? The seat space will probably be the same... I think airport like SIN and HKG will be strong contenders to LHR in terms of variety...
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...
British Airways And The A380 posted Tue Jan 5 2010 04:47:15 by SKAirbus
British Airways: "could Imagine 10-15 A380" posted Tue Apr 10 2007 11:16:08 by Flying-tiger
Will British Airways Buy A380's posted Tue May 16 2006 12:27:52 by Nicolasdec
British Airways & The Airbus A380 posted Mon May 12 2003 04:09:59 by Teahan
British Airways 767-300s At LGW posted Sun Nov 6 2011 13:19:48 by JosephJarvis
British Airways Voted UK's Favourite posted Tue Oct 18 2011 07:14:24 by kdhurst380
British Airways Operating Frankfurt-Chicago 10/15 posted Sat Oct 15 2011 06:54:30 by jetskipper
British Airways Gatwick On Sky1 posted Tue Oct 4 2011 15:42:29 by jet72uk
British Airways 'retro' 757 To Fly One Last Time. posted Mon Sep 26 2011 10:07:05 by MANfan
British Airways Ceased Routes LGW posted Fri Sep 16 2011 20:13:47 by JosephJarvis