Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Post IAG/BD Deal - IAG Aircraft Order.  
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8147 times:

The likely outcome of the IAG/BD deal in the short-term is for British Airways to use the slots for short-haul and long-haul routes. Under a scenario of half the slots being used for short-haul flights and half for long-haul flights, British Airways would increase its weekly capacity at Heathrow by 23%.

With the deal recently becoming more likely is there a wide-body aircraft order also likely in the not too distant future ?

(After completion)

I would of thought IAG will want to start capitalizing on their investment asap ?

I always thought 12 A380's seemed a bit on the conservative side for BA's LHR ops even without the BD deal ?


Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7435 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8123 times:

Given that LHR is slot limited, then ideally the bigger the better.

In other words, the A380.

I assume that the 2 A330 will go to Iberia, at least in the short term.


User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7979 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 1):
Given that LHR is slot limited, then ideally the bigger the better.

In other words, the A380.

Exactly, especially if they are able to make good use of them on JFK which was recently reported.

They have also got 7 options though on the A380 ? 19 still doesn't seem like over-cooking it to me though.....?



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offline1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7589 times:

I think any order would be a more even split between A380s and 787s if BA wants to add new routes with the BMI slots. Also in the meantime they can always hold off aircraft retirements when they get the existing orders to give them some extra capacity.

User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7538 times:

I can't help but think that it will be a mixture of A380s and 77Xs. While the new 777 is practically a gift to EK, I believe it is also ideal for BA, DL and UA who have sizable existing 777 fleets and a chunk of 744s which will need to go over the next decade.

Maybe some more 77Ws in the meantime?



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8273 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7475 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A future BA order is for replacing the 744 fleet, it may take 10 years, so A380 and 777-300ER are very likely as well as some 787-9's.

User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2853 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7419 times:

I'm one in the camp which believes the 77Ws are nothing more than a stop gap.

After the merger dust has settled, I wouldn't be surprised to see quite a few orders to accomodate the natural organic growth of BA's current routes and also a roll over of some of the older NB fleet.

My own expectations would be:

Convertion of the 7 A388 options and, over the decade, top up orders to take the total to around 35. These will take over the role of BA's long haul workhorse

Not if, but when, the A389XWB is launched, an order for 12 + 6 options for slot/capacity/time zone restricted destinations.

35 A321NEO
60 A320NEO

I wouldn't be surprised if the A320NEO ended up being the smallest aircraft in the mainline fleet.

The 787 v 350 debate has raged long and hard on here previously for the B772 replacement, but I do believe, in the interests of keeping both OEMs honest and competitive at BA, the 787 may have the edge whilst Iberia will get XWBs; time will tell. I just can't see BA as a company going all Airbus.   

From what I have been privvy to in the past, I will tentatively wager on future variants of the B777 not being part of the future.

[Edited 2012-03-06 04:09:07]


So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7392 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 6):
From what I have been privvy to in the past, I will tentatively wager on future variants of the B777 not being part of the future.

Considering the gargantuan competiiton on the Kangaroo route can you not see a variant capable of operating LHR/SYD ?

Regards premium anyway that would def put BA/QF/VS back in pole position on that route ?



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2853 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7263 times:

But does ULH really, and I mean REALLY work for an airline?

I'm not convinced of the financial case; afterall, what else is left of the original true nonstop ULHs other than the SIA EWR-SIN?

Equally, from a passenger perspective, whilst it may be fine in F and J, I'm of the belief that the further you travel without a break, the more the passenger demands in terms of space, amenities and ability to stretch their legs, which is inevitably going to push the ticket price up above that being charged by carriers who do not go nonstop ULH. With that equation, the appeal of nonstop UK-AUS becomes more of an ordeal than a pleasure for Y travellers, and is there sufficient demand in the F & J cabins to compensate for that?

I'd be interested to know the actual figures, by cabin, for passengers travelling straight through as opposed to stopping off. Would be quite fascinating I believe.   

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7216 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 8):

LHR/SYD is 'only' 19 hours !

Like you said no big deal in F and J. (even premium economy)

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 8):
I'd be interested to know the actual figures, by cabin, for passengers travelling straight through as opposed to stopping off. Would be quite fascinating I believe.

I'm no expert but I believe it all boils down to the viabilty of carrying all that fuel but I'm sure that problem will be overcome in the not too distant future.

Besides, when I've flown the route down the back (not for many years now thank gawd) it's awful having to get back on a plane for another 7/8/9 hours without a freshen up. I'd much rather just get on with it !!



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 838 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7175 times:

I’ve often wondered why BA was never very enthusiastic about the 77W as it looks to be a great 744 replacement. The initial order for 6 with 4 options was heavily influenced by the 787 delays and although they are said to be very happy with its performance I believe they have still only converted 2 options.

I did read a while ago that BA had quite a few problems with the GE engines fitted to their early 772’s and historically they have always had a preference for RR powered aircraft. I have no idea how much of an influence this will have on their future fleet plans, but it’s certainly a happy co-incidence that the A350 is going to be RR powered.

I can also see BA increasing their A380 order, and should Airbus ever release a variant with the XWB engine then adding the A359/A35J would allow BA to have a common engine across a very large portion of their wide-body fleet – a similar situation to what has worked so well for them with the 767 and 744.

So all things considered, I see BA using the 787 to replace and perhaps expand the 767 fleet, and a combination of A380’s and A350’s to replace the early 777’s and 744’s.


User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2853 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7156 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 9):
LHR/SYD is 'only' 19 hours

I do AMS-MNL and v v normally 5 times a year. In the winter, the westbound is often 14 1/2+ hours. How long would AUS-UK be in winter?  Wow! Now, KLM's J class is what I'd call old style, functional, few frills, and I got tired of the arduous journey a long time ago. This is what lends me to wonder exactly how much would an airline have to provide a passenger in terms of space, comfort and distractions, all at an affordable price, to make it worthwhile if KLM struggle financially to make a 14 hour sector work? "Only" 5 hours more is USA to Ireland territory !

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 9):
Besides, when I've flown the route down the back (not for many years now thank gawd) it's awful having to get back on a plane for another 7/8/9 hours without a freshen up. I'd much rather just get on with it !!

And there is another factor...age ! We all loved travelling for hours, be it in a 747, a creaking old bus, or on the back of a wagon, when we were young and youthful. But those days, we were also hyper conscious of cost, almost always opting for the cheapest option. Can an airline offer VULH at a price to attract the back packers, or by their very demographic, aren't they going to prefer to hop on and off in their life changing trip around the world?
If Y isn't going to appeal to the youngsters, how are you going to get the young middle classes with their kids on board a 19 hour nonstop? Can you imaging the hell that would be for them and neighbouring passengers.
If not them, then there's zero chance of attracting the even more mature, slightly better heeled generation whose age demands a comfy seat and space to stretch out a little.

I'm not a convert to ULH in the context of time.

I'll wait for ULH when it refers to distance only, when ULH UK-AUS can be done in 3 hours !  

Rgds

[Edited 2012-03-06 04:57:06]


So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8273 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7094 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 10):
I’ve often wondered why BA was never very enthusiastic about the 77W as it looks to be a great 744 replacement. The initial order for 6 with 4 options was heavily influenced by the 787 delays and although they are said to be very happy with its performance I believe they have still only converted 2 options.

I did read a while ago that BA had quite a few problems with the GE engines fitted to their early 772’s and historically they have always had a preference for RR powered aircraft. I have no idea how much of an influence this will have on their future fleet plans, but it’s certainly a happy co-incidence that the A350 is going to be RR powered.

Whatever issues BA had in 1997 with their first GE powered 777 have long been solved, the world knows BA afinity for RR. That should not detract them from buying 77W if they are the best airplane for BA today or in 5 years. An A359-900 sounds wonderful but its not as big or capable as a 77W.


User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7066 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 11):
I do AMS-MNL and v v normally 5 times a year. In the winter, the westbound is often 14 1/2+ hours. How long would AUS-UK be in winter? Now, KLM's J class is what I'd call old style, functional, few frills, and I got tired of the arduous journey a long time ago. This is what lends me to wonder exactly how much would an airline have to provide a passenger in terms of space, comfort and distractions, all at an affordable price, to make it worthwhile if KLM struggle financially to make a 14 hour sector work?

Can't speak for others but SIN/EZE - LHR can be 14 hours. HKG/LHR used to go on forever 15+ hours before airllines could fly over China etc

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 11):
If Y isn't going to appeal to the youngsters, how are you going to get the young middle classes with their kids on board a 19 hour nonstop?

Carting your tired kids through Changi etc can't be much fun either ?

I understand your point I just think that it would be great to get on in London and get off in Sydney...even 19 hours non-stop.



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlineual777uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7037 times:

Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 3):
I think any order would be a more even split between A380s and 787s if BA wants to add new routes with the BMI slots.

I am with you there, I certainly see more and more A380s coming, more slots or not.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 9):
LHR/SYD is 'only' 19 hours !

That kind of trek in Y would be hell on earth unless as stated above there would be an area where Y passengers could stretch their legs but then prices would be rediculously high. It just wont happen IMHO.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 838 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6978 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 12):
An A359-900 sounds wonderful but its not as big or capable as a 77W.

No, but the A35J is.

Edit: And I agree that the problems with the GE777 have long since been solved, but should the 77X only be available with a new generation GE engine then it still may prove to be relevant.

[Edited 2012-03-06 05:24:37]

User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7561 posts, RR: 43
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3955 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 6):
A389XWB

XWB stands for Extra Wide Body if I am not mistaken. In this regard, there will not be an XWB-variant of the A380-800. If any, there will be a longer version to be called A380-900 that may have different or uprated engines, among other modifications.

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 8):
But does ULH really, and I mean REALLY work for an airline?
I'm not convinced of the financial case; afterall, what else is left of the original true nonstop ULHs other than the SIA EWR-SIN?

Yes, the SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX flights are interesting exceptions that seem to prove the rule that ULH does not work financially or otherwise for airlines and passengers... the all-business class cabin configuration is very telling and the fact that Singapore, Los Angeles and New York are high yield markets probably justifies these services.

In any event, I think one could possibly add QF's SYD-DFW/DFW-BNE, DL's ATL-JNB and and EK's DXB-LAX to this ULH flights' category (all are longer than 8,300 miles and longer than 16 hours as scheduled). I don't know if it is possible to find stats as to the profitability of these routes, but I would imagine that they all do or have the potential to turn a profit for their operating airlines.

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 8):
whilst it may be fine in F and J, I'm of the belief that the further you travel without a break, the more the passenger demands in terms of space, amenities and ability to stretch their legs, which is inevitably going to push the ticket price up above that being charged by carriers who do not go nonstop ULH. With that equation, the appeal of nonstop UK-AUS becomes more of an ordeal than a pleasure for Y travellers

I am bound to fly ATL-JNB-ATL next month in Y. I decided not to "upgrade" to Economy Comfort, as I was able to book an emergency exit row seat. I will let you know my thoughts about the flight in a month!!!



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2853 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3834 times:

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 16):
XWB stands for Extra Wide Body if I am not mistaken. In this regard, there will not be an XWB-variant of the A380-800. If any, there will be a longer version to be called A380-900 that may have different or uprated engines, among other modifications.

Yes, I was inferring the A389 will indeed have XWB engines.

And what an awesome piece of kit it will be too.

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5607 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3471 times:

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 16):

XWB stands for Extra Wide Body if I am not mistaken. In this regard, there will not be an XWB-variant of the A380-800.

XWB stands for (e)xtra Wide Body when you are talking about the A350. When you are talking about the RR Trent engine XWB refers to the engine RR is developing for the A350XWB. So A380XWB is a perfectly reasonable description for an A380 variant with the RR Trent engine, developed for the A350, installed.

It is possible that there will be an A380XWB, but in this case XWB refers to the engine NOT the wider bodied fuselage.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8273 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3247 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 7):
Considering the gargantuan competiiton on the Kangaroo route can you not see a variant capable of operating LHR/SYD ?

Regards premium anyway that would def put BA/QF/VS back in pole position on that route ?

Some will pay for nonstop but how much more are people willing pay to be in Sydney 2
or 3 hours sooner. With all the A380 pyling the routes fro LHR to Asia and Australia a nonstop has lots of competition. A nonstop would only work as an all J class flight.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2998 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 11):
"Only" 5 hours more is USA to Ireland territory !

But (to add a bit of perspective) DXB-LAX is what? 17.5 hours? Even with 10 abreast Y nobody seems to complain.

I don't think that LHR-SYD is likely given that it is one of the most competitive (and low yielding routes) in the world, but maybe with an SQ style all-premium configuration it might work...

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 6):
From what I have been privvy to in the past, I will tentatively wager on future variants of the B777 not being part of the future.

Without expecting you to reveal any closely guarded secrets, is there any reason for ruling out the 77X? I can't help but feel that BA could find themselves in a similar position to QF who have nothing between the 330 and 744, and are arguably therefore less competitive. Admittedly, the 787 is a true long-haul aircraft and many of the allegations thrown at QF relate to them not been able to fly anything smaller than a 747 to Europe or North America, but even so...



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3976 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 20):
But (to add a bit of perspective) DXB-LAX is what? 17.5 hours? Even with 10 abreast Y nobody seems to complain

Thats what I like about A-net. Really good statements that have absolutely no connection to the subject matter.

Anyway back to BA aircraft orders post IAG/BD deal.

The next order to be announced will be the LGW B734 replacement deal.
This has been worked on for ages, and if the board approves the plan, expect the order in Apr/May.
Needs a bit of urgency as the leases start to run out this year.


User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7382 posts, RR: 17
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2345 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 11):
How long would AUS-UK be in winter?

Elapsed time on BA and QF SYD-LHR flights is currently scheduled at between 23.5 and 24 hours.

BA have stated that the purchase of BD will enable them to add long haul services. If the split is 50-50 between long and short haul then we would be looking at perhaps 20 new long haul flights. Most if not all would likely be out on Day and back during Day 2. So BA would require about 20 additional long haul aircraft.

It has one 77W delivered but not yet in service.

It has firmed up two 77W options (to be delivered when?)

It has three 744s parked in the desert (VCV) that it could return to service.

It has orders for 24 787s that it had planned to use to create a small capacity increase with after replacing 21 763s on a one-for-one basis but which it could instead use to increase capacity by postponing the retirement of the 763s. Here I note that BD has the same number of 321s as BA has short haul configured 763s. So there is an admittedly outside chance that some or all of these 321s could be used to create more long haul capacity.

It has orders for 12 380s.

So discounting the short haul 763s but including the 787s with which BA had planned to replace them, BA have aircraft and orders to add an additional 42 long haul aircraft to its fleet to operate those additional 20 services. So, although I am sure they will order more long haul aircraft in the coming years, there is no urgency to do so. In the short to medium term they simply need to reschedule the planned retirement of some of their 763s and 744s.


User currently offlineAIR MALTA From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2486 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2316 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 21):
The next order to be announced will be the LGW B734 replacement deal.
This has been worked on for ages, and if the board approves the plan, expect the order in Apr/May.
Needs a bit of urgency as the leases start to run out this year.

I do not see much of an urgency there. Shorthaul at LGW has been dormant lately with many routes cancelled and others scaled down. I do not see a prospect of increasing services at LGW.



Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2282 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 22):
It has three 744s parked in the desert (VCV) that it could return to service.

Are they not even dusting them off yet ?

I know they delayed one return recently but with the BD slots hopefully coming you'd think they would want those birds back ?

Maybe after the complettion (hopefully) of the deal ?



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7382 posts, RR: 17
Reply 25, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2213 times:

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 23):
I do not see much of an urgency there. Shorthaul at LGW has been dormant lately with many routes cancelled and others scaled down. I do not see a prospect of increasing services at LGW.

Nevertheless BA have insufficient aircraft at LGW to cover for tech problems even in the less busy Winter Season. As an example LHR based 319, G-EUOH, temporarilly operated out of LGW from 19 February to 1 March to cover for out-of-service 734s.

So if 734 leases are about to expire and BA are not planning further reductions in services from LGW then they have a need for replacement aircraft, particularly in the busier summer season. However if they are planning to use some BD LHR slots for new long haul flights (assuming the BD purchase is approved) this should free up some BD short haul metal.


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...
Pegasus Plans 100-aircraft Order posted Wed Dec 21 2011 10:51:38 by Chiad
Lion Air Plans New Aircraft Order In February posted Fri Dec 16 2011 06:29:33 by mffoda
Avianca-TACA Joint Regional Aircraft Order posted Tue Apr 20 2010 11:17:02 by A388
QR To Place Large Aircraft Order In June posted Tue Mar 31 2009 13:38:59 by Stitch
How Is The LH / BD Deal Coming Along? posted Mon Feb 16 2009 11:14:15 by TFFIP
Etihad's Aircraft Order Largest Ever In History? posted Mon Jul 14 2008 10:47:36 by Fly2CHC
EK May Announce 100 Aircraft Order At Dubai posted Wed Nov 7 2007 06:33:39 by EI321
Air India Eyes Big Aircraft Order By Mid-2008 posted Thu Oct 18 2007 05:25:39 by Columba
New Unidentified Orders Lift Boeing Aircraft Order posted Tue Jul 24 2007 14:07:26 by WorldFlight
Lufthansa Nears Major Regional Aircraft Order ATW posted Fri Apr 13 2007 23:49:14 by LHStarAlliance