SonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1178 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 34506 times:
I would've thought that SAN would be a 787 at least during the winter months but if not, that means traffic and cargo yields are healthy enough to keep the IGW 777's flying there, nice!
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2234 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (5 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 33620 times:
Quoting jporterfi (Reply 10): This would also help with the 747 retirement at BA. They could do 5x 747, 7x 787, and 7x 77W if they needed different capacities for different days.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6631 posts, RR: 17 Reply 12, posted (5 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 33385 times:
Quoting sciurusmdg (Thread starter): Specifically interested if it will be used to replace the 777-200s without First used down to Latin America?
Unlikely. As has already been stated BA have announced that they will replace their 763s and not any 772s with the 787s. This means they will almost certainly first enter service on one or more of the following long haul 763 destinations::
boeingorbust From Canada, joined Oct 2011, 157 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 31922 times:
Friend that works for BA in YYC said he heard rumors of LHR-YYC very soon after 787 deliveries start. Loads have been very strong with sold out flights almost daily. this would make a great strong route for the 787 with heavy loads to replace the 763 currently flying the route daily.
Ratypus From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 176 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (5 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 29117 times:
I think the 767 replacement refers to the long-haul 767s (used to Africa and a few other places) rather than to the European 767s configured with Club Europe rather than Club World...doubt we will be seeing any 787 in regular service within Europe
Geo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 497 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 28527 times:
Initially the 787 will replace those Longhaul configured 767s that are not having a cabin refresh. They will almost certainly fly to the exact same places that are currently served by Longhaul 767s as mentioned earlier.
As for shorthaul operation - it would only be for adhoc flights, much like the 777s and 747s sometimes do at the moment.
Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/7/8,B741/2/4,B752,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,1-11
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6631 posts, RR: 17 Reply 19, posted (5 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 28497 times:
Quoting VCy (Reply 14): Will they fly any short haul routes?
Quoting Rara (Reply 15): If they replace the 767 one-to-one, they will. BA still operates the 767 into, say, FRA and CDG.
The current announced plans show sixteen 787s delivered by end 2015 and thirteen out of fourteen long haul 763s retired by the same date. So it looks like an almost one-for-one replacement. See Chart 17 here:
In this chart the seven short haul configured 763s are still in service and are hidden in the "Short haul - Other" numbers. However it is likely that some short haul routes will be flown very early in the life of BA;s 787s to maximise the number of rotations during flight crew training.
So current published plans are for BA to operate their short-haul 767 fleet at least into 2016. Here it is worth noting that these aircraft are currently being refurbished. Four aircraft are back in service after refurbishment, one is currently undergoing refurbishment and three are still flying with their old cabins awaiting their new cabins.
It is also worth noting that the BA short haul fleet includes the two oldest 763s in BA;s fleet but, more relevantly, five of their six youngest aircraft:
G-BNWA delivered May '89. 50,811 hrs as at 31 Dec 2011
G-BNWB delivered Nov '89. 49,541 hrs as at 31 Dec 2011
G-BNWX delivered Mar '94. 47,948 hrs as at 31 Dec 2011
G-BNWZ delivered Feb '97. 36,070 hrs as at 31 Dec 2011
G-BZHA delivered May '98. 34.330 hrs as at 31 Dec 2011
G-BZHB delivered May '98. 34.133 hrs as at 31 Dec 2011
G-BZHC delivered Jun '98. 34.951 hrs as at 31 Dec 2011
So four are still relatively young. Further being amongst the very few RR powered 763s, their market value is probably low particularly when compared to their operational value. But the final fate of QF's RR 763, VH-ZXB, (formerly G-BNWF with BA) that they retired on 1 December and is now parked at ROW might give further clues.
RWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2167 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (5 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 27870 times:
Quoting ANA787 (Reply 7): PDX-LHR has been rumored for some time. Hopefully it becomes a reality.
I always love your pro-PDX posts, I'd be way happy to see BA at PDX, but with up to 2x daily 744 or 777 to SEA, and a great connection partnership with AS, I doubt BA will look at PDX for a while longer. I have heard the rumor too, but if BA had wanted to come here, they would have tried a 767 at some point, or as a tag from YVR or SEA. I think LH's departure shows that PDX is just not big enough to keep multiple daily Europe flights, too bad as well, PDX is an awesome facility.
If this ULH route ever happens, I'd expect HA with their A350's or VS with whatever they get next with ULH capacity. The thought is ULH leisure routes do not work well, even with a lower fuel burn, they still would be hard to remain profitable.
Next Flights: AS PDX-SEA-KOA on DH4/738 in F, HA KOA-OGG on 717 in Y, AS OGG-PDX on 738 in F
sandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 873 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 27525 times:
Quoting eastern023 (Reply 1): LHR-SCL. Is it true that BA is buying some LHR slots from Ryanair??
Ryanair don't hold any slots at LHR. MOLs nose would bleed if you even talked to him about the cost to operate from there.
Quoting rutankrd (Reply 9): Its a complex deal around current Aer Lingus slot holdings in event Ryanair are successful in their take over attempt of the Shamrock.
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3019 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (5 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 26768 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 19): The current announced plans show sixteen 787s delivered by end 2015 and thirteen out of fourteen long haul 763s retired by the same date. So it looks like an almost one-for-one replacement. See Chart 17 here:
This plan is notable for two things, firstly the 2015 figures for the 747 and 767 have a box round them mentioning operational flexibility, in simple terms some could have their life extended if the market picks up and slots are available.
the other thing is that this was a November 2011 presentation just before the possibility of buying BMI, this probably makes quite a difference, one aspect being that BA now operate more A320 series planes in 2012 than the projection for 2015 !
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6631 posts, RR: 17 Reply 24, posted (5 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 23722 times:
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 22): This plan is notable for two things, firstly the 2015 figures for the 747 and 767 have a box round them mentioning operational flexibility, in simple terms some could have their life extended if the market picks up and slots are available.
It also means that some could have their life shortened if the market fails to meet expectations by implementing early retirements.
This is the sort of flexibility that is required when forecasting the overall economic situation four years out is so very, very difficult. It is not therefore surprising that the presentation also additionally says on Chart 18:
"Further flexibility possible with contractual ability to defer new deliveries"
On this chart it also presents the median forecast position together with both optimistic and pessimistic forecasts for the combined BA and IB fleet growth, Here it shows a base line "fleet growth" of around 14 per cent, This does not jibe with the base line aircraft fleet growth of 8 per cent shown on Chart 17. This may be because the "fleet growth" figure could be passenger seats and not aircraft numbers.
Chart 18 also shows an optimistic growth scenario of about 31 per cent and a pessimistic contraction of 12 per cent. I take this to mean that looking forward IAG has the flexibility to cope with anything between a 31 per cent growth and a 12 per cent decline in business (presumably excluding the impact of BD) over the period from the fourth quarter of 2011 to the end of 2015. So the box around the 747 and 767 (and the IB A330/340) aircraft needs to be viewed with this in mind and the possibility of early and postponed retirements, lease extensions and deferral of new aircraft deliveries.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3183 posts, RR: 1 Reply 25, posted (5 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 23210 times:
So we should expect the 787 in to YYZ maybe? I don't see it going to YVR as the 747 is usually quite full when I fly it to London. Not a big fan of BA but it is the best connection to get to LHR.
GSTBA From UK - England, joined Apr 2010, 400 posts, RR: 1 Reply 29, posted (5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 21612 times:
Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 13): Friend that works for BA in YYC said he heard rumors of LHR-YYC very soon after 787 deliveries start. Loads have been very strong with sold out flights almost daily. this would make a great strong route for the 787 with heavy loads to replace the 763 currently flying the route daily.
I think he might be right
The main reason I say this is because the changes BA made to there YYC schedule for S13. The changes show a drop in flight time from mid July (Westbound from 9 hrs 15 mins to 8 hrs 45 mins / Eastbound 8 hrs 55 mins to 8 hrs 15 mins ) however not yet to the aircraft type. This change would indicate a yet to be announced change to the operating aircraft.
The 787's cruising speed will be faster than the 767 and the configuration of the 787 would fit the YYC route well.
BA103 LHR 17:35 YYC 19:20 767 D from 16JUL13
BA103 LHR 17:35 YYC 20:00 767 D until 15JUL13
BA102 YYC 21:35 LHR 13:00 767 D until 15JUL13
BA102 YYC 22:15 LHR 13:00 767 D from 16JUL13
SANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 4721 posts, RR: 15 Reply 30, posted (5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 20774 times:
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 4): I would've thought that SAN would be a 787 at least during the winter months but if not, that means traffic and cargo yields are healthy enough to keep the IGW 777's flying there, nice.
Quoting flyyul (Reply 26): The 787 will go where BA doesn't offer F on some or all flights:
So candidates [include]:
San Diego
I'd like to weigh in here with a couple of thoughts. Back in 2010, when they did not serve SAN, BA specifically mentioned our airport as a very viable candidate for 787 service once the new airplane joined their fleet.
Once the ATI/JBV was approved between BA and AA (and IB), BA jumped at the SAN-market, announcing service on Oct 6, 2010, not waiting around for the Dreamliner to arrive in-house. Daily T7 service commenced June 1, 2011, and remains unchanged throughout this winter season.
Most everyone I've talked to and read about feels that the SAN-service has been an outstanding success. LFs in the summer months reach 95% with the months of April thru Sept consistently seeing LFs exceeding 90%; Jan and Feb (last year at least) saw LFs in the low 70%-range. Cargo has apparently been the real (positive!) surprise although I have not seen any specific and official numbers on the amount carried. This makes it clear that the performance of the 777 has created no issues at all at Lindbergh Field and the 787 would not be an improvement for SAN (operationally speaking.)
Of course yields are unknown to me so perhaps the 787 would be able to improve the bottom line, even while creating a loss of capacity, especially in the summer. I certainly could see BA replacing the T7 with the Dreamliner between say November and February but this is based only on limited (one year's) pax data. My guess would be that they are probably in no big hurry to make that decision.
ytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1444 posts, RR: 23 Reply 31, posted (5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 20711 times:
Any ideas why BA got a mix of 788s and 789s? I wonder why they didn't stick with just 788s as 763ER replacements and pick up the 7810 for 772/77E replacements.
GSTBA From UK - England, joined Apr 2010, 400 posts, RR: 1 Reply 32, posted (5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 20419 times:
Quoting ytz (Reply 31): Any ideas why BA got a mix of 788s and 789s? I wonder why they didn't stick with just 788s as 763ER replacements and pick up the 7810 for 772/77E replacements.
I am not sure if the 787-10 was even available for BA to order when it made it's initial order. I am not sure if it is even available to order now.
Yay! So BA 068/069 will likely be replaced with one of these birds.
Wasn't this flight operated with a 772, and flights 066 and 067 a 747 roughly 6 years ago or so? Too bad, but it's nice to see widebody service like this at PHL.
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
ANA787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 90 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18121 times:
Quoting RWA380 (Reply 20): I always love your pro-PDX posts, I'd be way happy to see BA at PDX, but with up to 2x daily 744 or 777 to SEA, and a great connection partnership with AS, I doubt BA will look at PDX for a while longer. I have heard the rumor too, but if BA had wanted to come here, they would have tried a 767 at some point, or as a tag from YVR or SEA. I think LH's departure shows that PDX is just not big enough to keep multiple daily Europe flights, too bad as well, PDX is an awesome facility.
since when does BA fly to SEA 2x daily? If BA does have interest in adding more capacity to the northwest, perhaps they do it from PDX.
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, RR: 12 Reply 38, posted (5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 17793 times:
Quoting ANA787 (Reply 37): since when does BA fly to SEA 2x daily?
I dont think they do anymore. In summer '07, it was 10 weekly. It got bumped up to 13 weekly in '08 due to EU/US openskies, In '09, went back down to 10 weekly. In 2010, it went down to 7 weekly.
Thenoflyzone
[Edited 2012-12-21 03:13:46]
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
RWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2167 posts, RR: 4 Reply 39, posted (5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17722 times:
Quoting ANA787 (Reply 37): since when does BA fly to SEA 2x daily? If BA does have interest in adding more capacity to the northwest, perhaps they do it from PDX.
I was using it as an extreme example, from summers a few years back, sorry if you feel mislead. I'd love to see BA here at PDX with a 787, I think the 787 is the right size for the market, and my response was genuine in case you read it any other way, I do love your pro-pdx posts, I'm as pro-pdx as they come, I'm sure my rants about PDX tire those who don't love this place as much as I do. keep up the good work!
Next Flights: AS PDX-SEA-KOA on DH4/738 in F, HA KOA-OGG on 717 in Y, AS OGG-PDX on 738 in F
HUYfan From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 1372 posts, RR: 3 Reply 40, posted (5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17760 times:
BA has expressed an interest in opening up new US destinations. Portland is undoubtedly top of the list. Rumblings of San Antonio and San Jose. Also Orlando from Heathrow in addition to LGW.
usairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3100 posts, RR: 8 Reply 43, posted (5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 17379 times:
Quoting steeler83 (Reply 33): Wasn't this flight operated with a 772, and flights 066 and 067 a 747 roughly 6 years ago or so? Too bad, but it's nice to see widebody service like this at PHL.
At one point ~12 years ago BA was 2x 742s I believe, then it was 2x 772s, then 1x 744 1x 722, for a brief time it was 2x 744s, then it dropped back to 2x 772s and now it was been 1x 772 1x 763 for at least 5 years.
I think this route may be up in the air depending on US/AA.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 44, posted (5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 17286 times:
Quoting jporterfi (Reply 35): To YVR? Not a chance, I'm afraid. I would hope BA has more sense than to place A380s on routes for which 787s are being considered.
Capacity is capacity, particularly in a market like Europe-West Coast where there's only a narrow range of commercially viable flight times.. 10x 744 could translate into 7x 388 just as easily as it could translate into 7x 772 + 7x 788.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
FCAFLYBOY From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 476 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (5 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 15783 times:
What does anyone think the likelihood of something less obvious? I can see potential for HKT/SGN/HAN and a possible tag-on to DPS. Possibly SEZ too?
I'd love to see BA launch KUL too, but with 2 x MH A380's per day I'd doubt it. Either way it will be unlikely to see BA open up many new routes for at least 2 years I think.
steeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 8817 posts, RR: 19 Reply 48, posted (5 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 15708 times:
Quoting usairways85 (Reply 43): I think this route may be up in the air depending on US/AA.
So there's a possibility of AA picking this up and BA dropping it? I guess that would make sense. I guess BA would look at that as redundant and have really nothing else to add to the PHL-LHR-PHL market. I guess there isn't enough traffic to warrant any 747 service in addition to whatever metal AA would consider for this route. As you indicated, BA hasn't flown a 747 into PHL for several years...
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
usairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3100 posts, RR: 8 Reply 51, posted (5 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 14783 times:
Quoting steeler83 (Reply 48):
So there's a possibility of AA picking this up and BA dropping it? I guess that would make sense. I guess BA would look at that as redundant and have really nothing else to add to the PHL-LHR-PHL market. I guess there isn't enough traffic to warrant any 747 service in addition to whatever metal AA would consider for this route. As you indicated, BA hasn't flown a 747 into PHL for several years...
It is very much up in the air. But if US/AA does happen it is very likely they stick with OW. If that happens I can see PHL-FRA back to 1x daily and PHL-LHR up to 4x day between US&AA/BA
Sketty222 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1772 posts, RR: 4 Reply 54, posted (5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 14424 times:
The 787's are due to replace the LH 767's so I would be looking at the airports already served by these aircraft. I reckon EWR could be one as well as YYZ now that the 767 operates the BA93/4 flight. Who knows if they will offer SH flights to start with to introduce service.....I certainly hope so
DolphinAir747 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 220 posts, RR: 0 Reply 55, posted (5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 14381 times:
Quoting FCAFLYBOY (Reply 47): What does anyone think the likelihood of something less obvious? I can see potential for HKT/SGN/HAN and a possible tag-on to DPS. Possibly SEZ too?
I do not have much hope for yields. Perhaps BA is better off codesharing with CX and QR, instead operating its own metal to higher-yielding destinations like HKG qnd then transferring traffic.
steeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 8817 posts, RR: 19 Reply 56, posted (5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 14345 times:
Quoting usairways85 (Reply 51):
It is very much up in the air. But if US/AA does happen it is very likely they stick with OW. If that happens I can see PHL-FRA back to 1x daily and PHL-LHR up to 4x day between US&AA/BA
Do you also forcee LH axing FRA service? That would be a bit of a blow to PHL in my opinion...
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21507 posts, RR: 24 Reply 58, posted (5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 13574 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 57): Quoting liftsifter (Reply 52):
Any chance of ORD on the new 788's? I recall BA using 767's into ORD when they removed 744 capacity into ORD.
Wasn't ORD just a point of entry for the 763 LHR-(ORD)-IAH flight in Bermuda 2 days when LHR-IAH direct was not allowed?
No, while they did operate that routing for a whiile, ORD was a significant BA destination for years earlier. I recall flyiing on BA 747s ORD-LHR-LHR in 1974 and both flights were close to full and didn't originate/terminate at Houston.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6631 posts, RR: 17 Reply 59, posted (5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 13541 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 58): No, while they did operate that routing for a while, ORD was a significant BA destination for years earlier. I recall flyiing on BA 747s ORD-LHR-LHR in 1974 and both flights were close to full and didn't originate/terminate at Houston.
No. I am pretty sure that BA never ever operated the 763 as a stand alone LHR-ORD flight but only with the all-important ORD-IAH tag-on. If my recollection is correct this flight only operated in the last couple of years before the Open Skies agreement superseded the Bermuda 2 agreement. That agreement had until then prevented IAH being a gateway city for any flight by any airline from LHR. Prior to the start of their LHR-ORD-IAH service I believe that the BA LHR-IAH 763 flight had operated LHR-BWI-IAH.
I am a bit baffled by the relevance of a 747 LHR-ORD flight, particularly one made sixteen or so years before BA even took delivery of their first 763. Indeed such a flight seems to me to confirm that the 787 is the wrong (too small) aircraft to operate LHR-ORD for BA.
In summary becase the BA 763 flight to ORD was operated only with the IAH tag-on and because that flight was consolidated with the pre Open Skies LGW-IAH direct service into the current LHR-IAH direct flight I think the chances of BA operating the 787 into ORD are pretty well near zero.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21507 posts, RR: 24 Reply 62, posted (5 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12528 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 59): I am a bit baffled by the relevance of a 747 LHR-ORD flight, particularly one made sixteen or so years before BA even took delivery of their first 763.
Sorry, missed your reference to the 763. Thought you were referring to ORD as a stop en route to IAH on all BA services.
The main reason I say this is because the changes BA made to there YYC schedule for S13. The changes show a drop in flight time from mid July (Westbound from 9 hrs 15 mins to 8 hrs 45 mins / Eastbound 8 hrs 55 mins to 8 hrs 15 mins ) however not yet to the aircraft type. This change would indicate a yet to be announced change to the operating aircraft.
The 787's cruising speed will be faster than the 767 and the configuration of the 787 would fit the YYC route well.
BA103 LHR 17:35 YYC 19:20 767 D from 16JUL13
BA103 LHR 17:35 YYC 20:00 767 D until 15JUL13
BA102 YYC 21:35 LHR 13:00 767 D until 15JUL13
BA102 YYC 22:15 LHR 13:00 767 D from 16JUL13
The above quote would make sense and falls in line with what I've heard from BA employee's. It seems like people keep disregarding YYC due to bigger cities. Remember that the 787 wont necessarily start flying into a major city or major airport in the world. BA will likely fit the most operationally efficient city. Pretty sure YYC is the longest flying route currently serviced by BA's 763's no?
FlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1965 posts, RR: 3 Reply 66, posted (5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12027 times:
Quoting BCA2005 (Reply 65): One of the longest; but LHR-LUN, LHR-HYD (Summer only) and LHR-DAR are all longer.
But these routes don't have direct competition on non-stop to LHR like LHR-YYC does, so switching that route to the 787-8 would help improve the yield for BA. It's also a route that can easily be operated with a single aircraft given that it's a daily service. It will be interesting to see what other routes get the 787-8 in 2013, and perhaps LHR-HYD could be one given the frequency and distance.
Sheridan125 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2012, 25 posts, RR: 0 Reply 67, posted (5 months 19 hours ago) and read 11617 times:
My guess is that as soon as the second aircraft is delivered the 787 will take over a daily service from the 767. This will I think either be YYC or BWI. The displaced 767 will then be used to increase frequencies on other 767 routes. EBB, DAR, FNA frequencies are all likely. I do not think that any 767's will be retired before 2016 and therefore all 787 deliveries before then will be used to expand the route network either by frequency increaszes or through new routes. My guess is that most of the new routes will be in Asia with Vietnam high on the list. BSB is also likely IMHO
PITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2692 posts, RR: 3 Reply 68, posted (5 months 19 hours ago) and read 11595 times:
Quoting HUYfan (Reply 40): BA has expressed an interest in opening up new US destinations. Portland is undoubtedly top of the list. Rumblings of San Antonio and San Jose.
I'd be surprised to see any of those before CLE and STL, which lack any Europe service at all. And I don't think even those two will see a BA 787 anytime soon.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3183 posts, RR: 1 Reply 70, posted (5 months 17 hours ago) and read 11439 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 58): No, while they did operate that routing for a whiile, ORD was a significant BA destination for years earlier. I recall flyiing on BA 747s ORD-LHR-LHR in 1974 and both flights were close to full and didn't originate/terminate at Houston.
BA use to fly to DTW then onward to IAH. It was weird that you would see a BA aircraft land early in the afternoon at DTW and then see it leave after only an hour or so, only to show up at DTW for a late night departure back to LHR. This was made unnecessary with the expiration of the Bermuda II agreement. It was actually a terrible schedule as you would not get into LHR until later in the morning. This made it tough to get any real business done. I can see why they discontinued the DTW diversion.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6631 posts, RR: 17 Reply 71, posted (5 months 12 hours ago) and read 11149 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 70): It was weird that you would see a BA aircraft land early in the afternoon at DTW and then see it leave after only an hour or so, only to show up at DTW for a late night departure back to LHR. This was made unnecessary with the expiration of the Bermuda II agreement. It was actually a terrible schedule as you would not get into LHR until later in the morning. This made it tough to get any real business done.
Thought it was timed like that to allow transfer to the late afternoon and evening flights from LHR to the "oil" destinations in Africa, the Middle East and central Asia. If anything it arrived a bit too early as most onward flights were/are quite late. But I guess that if it had had been timed to arrive any later at LHR the departure out of DTW would have been unacceptably late.
I believe that DTW and then ORD were selected as the US gateway cities as they are the nearest gateways allowed under Bermuda 2 to the LHR-IAH great circle route.
sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3955 posts, RR: 4 Reply 72, posted (4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10602 times:
I dont know if this thread still has life in it but I would like to explore the comparative seating of the BA 788 and the 3-class 767 which is the version that we see in YYZ for example. According to SeatGuru this version of the 767 is setup at 24-J; 24 Y and 144-Y . The only report I have seen on the 788 gives a layout of 42-J, 51-Y1 and 90 Y. Quite different than the 767. Is this for real?
UA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 291 posts, RR: 0 Reply 74, posted (4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10604 times:
I would expect to see YYC, maybe Latin America, and China. In the US (overall, not just 788) SAT won't happen until after CLE or STL. Maybe SJC or PDX but probably not both. Maybe MSP or DTW, and IND or CVG. But with all these possible cities, only 2 or 3 will have service in the next few years, if that.
steeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 8817 posts, RR: 19 Reply 80, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9437 times:
Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 74): I would expect to see YYC, maybe Latin America, and China. In the US (overall, not just 788) SAT won't happen until after CLE or STL. Maybe SJC or PDX but probably not both. Maybe MSP or DTW, and IND or CVG. But with all these possible cities, only 2 or 3 will have service in the next few years, if that.
When did BA last serve CLE? I know CO last served LHR with a 757 a few years back before dropping it. What is the potential for BA considering flying a 788 or anything for that matter into CLE? It would be great if it happened, but I doubt it. Of that list, I'd go with DTW and/or MSP. The rest, at least to me, are iffy at best...
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3955 posts, RR: 4 Reply 81, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9180 times:
The 788 will bring significant payload improvements over the 767. Based on typical passenger belly cargo densities the 788 will haul ~ max 34t ( ~13t volume limited freight included) on 13hr plus sectors.This might give city pairs with good freight traffic an edge over others. LHR-YYZ would be such a pair.
Ok. Then it looks as if 2 other routes will see 787 operation from LHR before YYC.
Quoting GSTBA (Reply 29): BA103 LHR 17:35 YYC 19:20 767 D from 16JUL13
BA103 LHR 17:35 YYC 20:00 767 D until 15JUL13
BA102 YYC 21:35 LHR 13:00 767 D until 15JUL13
BA102 YYC 22:15 LHR 13:00 767 D from 16JUL13
I have noticed similar reductions in flight time on three other flights currently operated on the 767. Based on this onfo it looks as if the 787's will enter longhaul service as follows
steeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 8817 posts, RR: 19 Reply 84, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9060 times:
I believe they launched service back in 1985 with a Concorde. How long did the service last? I know they launched PIT service the same year, and regularly scheduled service lasted until 1999...
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
I guess pou can hardly operate a specific aircraft type into a specific station if the operational staff at that station do not know how the aircraft is configured. You certainly could not operate a check-in without such information. So I think it implies that a BA 787 could well operate into YYZ in the not too distant future.
SANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 4721 posts, RR: 15 Reply 89, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7811 times:
Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 85): a friend at YYC just told me they got 787 configuration information today...
The question this statement raises to me is, was YYC the only BA station to receive this information? After all, this is a brand new airplane entering a world-wide major carrier's fleet so is it not likely that the config was not sent to ALL BA stations? I would expect that the airline would want all its employees becoming familiar with their 787's details for future considerations, diversions, general education, etc.
This doesn't seem like any real "proof" of anything at this point but have any other BA folks at various stations received this information as well?
UA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 291 posts, RR: 0 Reply 90, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7815 times:
The configuration info means that BA wants to be prepared to start 788 service to YYC fairly soon after they start revenue flights. It means that for them, just like us armchair CEOs, YYC is near the top of the pile.
YYC would be at the top of the list anyway. All ops across the Atlantic with 767s will be replaced by 788s. The configuration on this airplane is meant for destinations where F is not offered - so;
YYC/YUL/DEN/SAN/BWI/EWR/YYZ/IAD are all candidates
flyyul From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4930 posts, RR: 53 Reply 93, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7524 times:
DEN is flown with 3 class 777s (as is YYZ (summer)/YUL (summer)/DEN/SAN). One could assume that these could be candidates should BA want to use 3 cls 777s for more expansion into India, South East Asia or South America.
steeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 8817 posts, RR: 19 Reply 94, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7408 times:
Right. The Concorde was used as its official launch of service. They did the same thing when the launched PIT service that same year which was offered at least daily with regularly scheduled 747/L1011 and eventually 767 equipment. If you read the rest of my post, my question was what aircraft did they use after that initial Concorde flight, and how long did BA fly this route before dropping it.
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22077 posts, RR: 51 Reply 95, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7390 times:
BA country manager to Turkey in an interview stated BA would operate the 787 to Istanbul in 2014.
We posted this in the Turkish aviation thread a couple months back. Turkish Aviation October 2012 (by TK787 Sep 30 2012 in Civil Aviation)
=
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Sketty222 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1772 posts, RR: 4 Reply 97, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7052 times:
Quoting flyyul (Reply 93): DEN is flown with 3 class 777s (as is YYZ (summer)
BA will start operating extra flights to YYZ as of 31st March 2013. These aircraft will be operated by a 767 aircraft which, for me, will probably increase the likelihood of a 787 operating there at some point in the near future
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 8): Quoting DolphinAir747 (Reply 6):
787 to Vancouver? That seems strange to replace a 10x weekly 747...
It would make total sense if 10x 747 turned into 7x 747 (or 77W or 772) and 7x 787.
Quoting ER757 (Reply 11): Quoting jporterfi (Reply 10):
This would also help with the 747 retirement at BA. They could do 5x 747, 7x 787, and 7x 77W if they needed different capacities for different days.
Or 7 x A380
Quoting jporterfi (Reply 35): To YVR? Not a chance, I'm afraid. I would hope BA has more sense than to place A380s on routes for which 787s are being considered
Even in winter, YVR is always 744. I have "heard" that YVR may be a fairly early A380 destination, but now could be subject to what impact VS arrival on the route has - from what I can tell, they impacted AC more than BA (and will only continue to do so without the BD Star connection and VS's own domestic connections). Once the 744 is retired en masse, I could see a daily A380 & 787 in summer, but no Dreamliner until then at YVR and even then I could see two daily 777-10X/A3510 or whatever BA order instead.
Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 85): Alright so a friend at YYC just told me they got 787 configuration information today...
Heard the same - 787 will be great for cargo yields which are strong ex YYC. Also heard the 787 is due on YYC, YUL & YYZ routes within 2013, but not YVR.
SANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 4721 posts, RR: 15 Reply 99, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6847 times:
Quoting flyyul (Reply 91): YYC would be at the top of the list anyway. All ops across the Atlantic with 767s will be replaced by 788s. The configuration on this airplane is meant for destinations where F is not offered - so;
YYC/YUL/DEN/SAN/BWI/EWR/YYZ/IAD are all candidates.
Generally speaking, true. But BA would be taking a serious hit on capacity by switching LHR-SAN to a 787 -- at least during 6-8 months out of the year! LFs and yields are certainly two different matters -- and I don't know anything about the latter -- but I can't imagine the Dreamliner being flown to SAN more than maybe 3 or 4 months at the most, if at all.
boeingorbust From Canada, joined Oct 2011, 157 posts, RR: 0 Reply 100, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6607 times:
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 98):
Heard the same - 787 will be great for cargo yields which are strong ex YYC. Also heard the 787 is due on YYC, YUL & YYZ routes within 2013, but not YVR.
Yes YYC is huge for cargo ops right now. This would help increase the massive cargo hauls BA currently has into YYC.
Quoting SANFan (Reply 99): Quoting flyyul (Reply 91):
YYC would be at the top of the list anyway. All ops across the Atlantic with 767s will be replaced by 788s. The configuration on this airplane is meant for destinations where F is not offered - so;
YYC/YUL/DEN/SAN/BWI/EWR/YYZ/IAD are all candidates.
Generally speaking, true. But BA would be taking a serious hit on capacity by switching LHR-SAN to a 787 -- at least during 6-8 months out of the year! LFs and yields are certainly two different matters -- and I don't know anything about the latter -- but I can't imagine the Dreamliner being flown to SAN more than maybe 3 or 4 months at the most, if at all.
bb
Exactly... And it would make sense that BA will be using the 787 on the longer routes first to increase yields. YYC at this point is I think the furthest 767 destination that BA services.
ankaraflyjet From Turkey, joined Mar 2007, 226 posts, RR: 1 Reply 102, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6355 times:
BA is also planning to utilize 787 to IST that is hard to get slots due to congestion at IST. TK is using a mix of 321, 737, 340 and 330 on the route with 4 daily return trips between LHR and IST (5 in summer timetable). BA has only two daily trips to IST so TK is overwhelmingly dominant. TK has immediate plans to reinstate LHR ESB soon as well.
sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3955 posts, RR: 4 Reply 103, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6274 times:
Quoting boeingorbust (Reply 100): This would help increase the massive cargo hauls BA currently has into YYC.
Is LHR- YYC cargo volume strong in both directions? As stated in reply 81 the 788 can haul a volume limited cargo load of ~13t on this sector. The 788 available cargo volume is some 20% more than the 767 so it has a significant advantage . On this sector the 788 stuffed full will burn 42.48t of fuel . The 767 with some 4t less payload will burn ~47t of fuel. Quite an operating advantage.
boeingorbust From Canada, joined Oct 2011, 157 posts, RR: 0 Reply 104, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5737 times:
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 103):
Is LHR- YYC cargo volume strong in both directions? As stated in reply 81 the 788 can haul a volume limited cargo load of ~13t on this sector. The 788 available cargo volume is some 20% more than the 767 so it has a significant advantage . On this sector the 788 stuffed full will burn 42.48t of fuel . The 767 with some 4t less payload will burn ~47t of fuel. Quite an operating advantage.
I imagine there's more cargo in to YYC from LHR than there is the other direction.
BA217/BA216 - Operates Daily using 6 x 744 Hi-J (70J) config & 1 x 744 Mid-J (52J) config weekly
BA265/BA264 - Operates Daily using a 763
BA293/BA292 - Operates Daily using a 772
Quoting flyyul (Reply 91): YYC would be at the top of the list anyway. All ops across the Atlantic with 767s will be replaced by 788s. The configuration on this airplane is meant for destinations where F is not offered - so;
YYC/YUL/DEN/SAN/BWI/EWR/YYZ/IAD are all candidates
You are correct the first batch of 787 deliveries will be used to replace some of the older 767's in the fleet. You are probably right they are likely to be used to operate routes to north america that are usually served by a 767. Although it is yet to be confirmed.
The 767 is planned to operate (according to ba.com) the following flights for S13
Until any official announcement is made it is fair to say that any of these flights could end up being 787 operated.
BA plan to retire 6 or 7 of the longhaul 767's by end of 2014 and plan to have the whole fleet retired by sometime in 2016.
BA will complete the 767 cabin refurbishment program on 7 of the longhaul 767's in mid Feb. So far 6 aircraft have been refurbished (G-BNWM, BNWS, G-BNWT, G-BNWV, G-BNWW & G-BNWY) and 1 (G-BNWI) aircraft is currently in CWL being refurbished and is due back in service about the 2nd week of FEB. These aircraft are expected to be retired from the fleet from late 2015.
The 7 non refurbished aircraft (G-BNWC, G-BNWD, G-BNWH, G-BNWN, G-BNWO, G-BNWR & G-BNWU) will start to be retired from the fleet this summer with the the last of this batch of 7 being retired in mid to late 2014.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6631 posts, RR: 17 Reply 106, posted (4 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4447 times:
Quoting GSTBA (Reply 105): The 767 is planned to operate (according to ba.com) the following flights for S13
Thanks for that.
If stage length were the only criteria (on the basis that the longer the stage length the greater the value of the fuel saved by operating the significantly more efficient 788) the first destinations to see the BA 787 would have a strong African bias. The top six would be:
1. LUN
2. HYD
3. DAR
4. YYC
5. NAS
6. EBB
They would be followed by a whole group of east coast North American destinations:
7. IAD
8. BWI
9. YYZ
10. PHL
11. EWR
North Africa, the Middle East and Russia would bring up the rear:
Sponsor Message: 
From Argentina, joined Apr 2012, 53 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 803 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3694 posts, 
From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Sep 2000, 1986 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2001 posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2234 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2011, 157 posts, 
From Cyprus, joined Dec 2012, 208 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1829 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 873 posts, 
From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4930 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Apr 2010, 400 posts, 
From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1056 posts, 
From China, joined Aug 2012, 306 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21507 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2011, 46 posts, 
From India, joined Sep 2005, 246 posts, 
From Turkey, joined Mar 2007, 226 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
