anstar From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 4848 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 18002 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.
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!
B747forever From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16575 posts, RR: 11 Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 17676 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?
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6631 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 17615 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:
Speedbird2155 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 847 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 17609 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.
teme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1149 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 17350 times:
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.
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 14289 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.
FlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1965 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12902 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
LazialeMKD From Macedonia, joined Oct 2009, 143 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12746 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?
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, RR: 8 Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12472 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.
YULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2111 posts, RR: 6 Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11128 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.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6631 posts, RR: 17 Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11100 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.
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2559 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10984 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.
CXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2704 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 10258 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?
musang From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 755 posts, RR: 7 Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 8469 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
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 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...
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 834 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1177 posts, 
From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1149 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 4848 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2704 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16575 posts, 
From Macedonia, joined Oct 2009, 143 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2559 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
