I haven't seen this posted yet but this is a direct quote "Walsh also says it is “unlikely” that BA would take additional Airbus A380s or look at the Boeing 747-8 even as it contemplates a fleet replacement for about 30 747-400s and, eventually, the 46 777-200ERs in operation."
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26949 posts, RR: 83 Reply 1, posted (3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18101 times:
Quote: “Based on what I have seen, it is almost inevitable that it is an aircraft that we will have in our fleet at some stage,” Walsh told Aviation Week during a March 18 interview. “It looks like a perfect fit for some of what British Airways [BA] would require.”
Walsh says BA is likely to opt for more than one type of aircraft for the fleet renewal. “We have a lot of six- to 10-hour sectors in our North America network, and then we have a lot of 12- to 13-hour sectors. You are not going to get all of that into a single aircraft type, so different aircraft sizes make sense to us,” he says.
I expect Randy Tinseth is having some physical and CG models of the 787-10 and 777-9 made in BA's livery as part of a sales pitch.
BestWestern From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6509 posts, RR: 58 Reply 2, posted (3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 17923 times:
On the A380, he also goes on to say that he can “see a case for increasing that, but we think 12 is a good [fleet] size.”
On the 747 replacement he states that the choice is likely to be between the 777-9X and the Airbus A350-900 and -1000.
Looks like he doesnt consider the current 777 as up there against the 350 or 777X “as good an aircraft as the 777 is, it is going to be overtaken by the next generation of aircraft, the A350-1000, the 777-9X or versions of the 787.”
So, now we know the shape of the argument.
The hot and high question from Iberia - what aircraft are more suited to that? The 350 or the 77x?
I can imagine that 20% of the iberia fleet that cannot be flown with one fleet will be basically a BA subfleet.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10569 posts, RR: 21 Reply 3, posted (3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 17869 times:
Quoting waly777 (Thread starter): Walsh also says it is “unlikely” that BA would take additional Airbus A380s or look at the Boeing 747-8 even as it contemplates a fleet replacement for about 30 747-400s and, eventually, the 46 777-200ERs in operation.
That should squelch quite a few threads here on a.net!
Now, if Boeing could stop stepping on their dingus and start building the darn thing!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26949 posts, RR: 83 Reply 4, posted (3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 17815 times:
Quoting BestWestern (Reply 2): The hot and high question from Iberia - what aircraft are more suited to that?
AviationWeek had a number of articles about how IB was being down-sized (5 A340s and 20 A320s) and what new long-haul aircraft being added are A330-300s, which are slated to replace additional A340-300s.
That being said, if the A330-300 works as an A340-300 replacement for IB, I cannot see how a 787-9 or 777-9 can't so that would allow IAG to standardize on an A380, 777X and 787 fleet for their widebody needs and an A320(neo) fleet for their narrowbody.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26949 posts, RR: 83 Reply 7, posted (3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 17710 times:
Quoting trex8 (Reply 6): Haven't BA said more than once in the last decade or two they don't plan on being launch customers for any new product?
Well I guess it's how you define "launch". They did order the A380 and 787, though they were a bit down the line in terms of deliveries. So they may decide on the 777X, but allow EK, for example, to take the early deliveries and "work out the bugs".
On the flip side, the 777X is a derivative of the 777 and BA has plenty of experience with that family.
Asiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1030 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 17496 times:
Quoting waly777 (Thread starter): Walsh also says it is “unlikely” that BA would take additional Airbus A380s or look at the Boeing 747-8
The 748i was almost dead when she was borne, and the 777-9X with new engine technology will kill her off completely. It is out of question for BA.
Also the A380 starts to suffer from larger and more efficient twin WBs competition. Airbus has missed a great opportunity to sell more A380 due to the very slow production ramp-up. Current generation of A380 engines starts to be out dated and would need an upgrade to XWB engines to be able to stay firm against A350-1000 and 777-9X as future 744 replacement.
LH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 194 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17023 times:
Couldn't Iberia just use one of the shrink variants of the 777X/350 with uprated engines? I could see a 789 with 71k engines doing the hot/high runs, and the 7810 doing the North Atlantic for BA.
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4572 posts, RR: 28 Reply 12, posted (3 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 16895 times:
Quoting trex8 (Reply 9): Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):They did order the A380 and 787, though they were a bit down the line in terms of deliveries.
They weren't anywhere near the front of the line in terms of when the orders were made on those ones!
You seem upset by this news?
Whether BA takes A350's or 777X's, they are still going to be getting newer generation airframes. They could always lease some additional 77W's to bridge the gap, exercise options on 787's, order additional A380's, etc. I don't see why it matters what they've done in the past necessarily?
SCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 16712 times:
The only chance the 748 Intercontinental has is if they do a "simple stretch" to a full 80 meters, adding 34 seats plus adding another 12 by using the upper deck galley stowage option.
513 seats steers it well clear of the 779X and improves casm. Of course, with the 7810 and 777X in the works, it would be hard to pull off...
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21041 posts, RR: 60 Reply 14, posted (3 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 16699 times:
Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 10): The 748i was almost dead when she was borne, and the 777-9X with new engine technology will kill her off completely. It is out of question for BA.
This fits in with my timeline for BA.
When people were talking about BA's replacement for the 744, they looked to the A380 and 777 only and said "Boeing doesn't necessarily need a 747 sized aircraft." But they do. As a carrier with the largest 744 fleet, it's unlikely that the entire fleet was the wrong size. Some were bought for size and some for range/payload, and thus the 77W can fulfill some of the missions, and they can upsize to the A380 on some routes, but some routes actually do need a 747 sized aircraft.
And by 2018/2019, the final group of 747s at BA, the newest, will need to be replaced, and they can be replaced 1 for 1 now with the 779 because they are the same size. So before then, the planes that weren't really needed for size are gone and replaced with the 77W (12-15), the planes that could be upsized are upsized to the A380 (about 12, it seems). That leaves 20-30 to be replaced directly with the 779. With 23 744s delivered 1997 or later, if BA can secure a lot of delivery positions, they could replace the remaining 744s before 2020.
It was the same argument for the 748, in that BA could put off making the decision on the final 744 replacement for quite a while. I got blowback saying "no, BA said the 787 and A380 would replace the 747s" and that simply was a company not wanting to project their fleet planning 10-15 years into the future if they don't have to. Similar to UA's claims the A350 would replace the 744. It was something to say to satisfy investors and not show their cards to the competition.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 months 1 day ago) and read 15484 times:
An interesting interview.
1) Bad news for the A380, which isn't going to be the main replacement of their remaining 744 fleet.
2) Good news for the 777X
3) The rest of the WB requirements will probably be met with a mixture of the various versions of the 787 and A350. 787-10 for east coast transatlantic routes from LHR for example?
4) Nothing for IB until their issues are sorted out...
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
BestWestern From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6509 posts, RR: 58 Reply 17, posted (3 months 1 day ago) and read 15304 times:
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 16): 1) Bad news for the A380, which isn't going to be the main replacement of their remaining 744 fleet.
The A380 will get orders over time, but not now.
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 16):
2) Good news for the 777X
3) The rest of the WB requirements will probably be met with a mixture of the various versions of the 787 and A350. 787-10 for east coast transatlantic routes from LHR for example?
4) Nothing for IB until their issues are sorted out...
Not so sure the 77X is a foregone conclusion - BA (BA) is forcing BA (Boeing) into a decision, as they want the manufacturers to fight over their business
The IB issue will be rolled into the fleet decision - nobody yet knows the performance of either aircraft in Hot and High - and that will be bonus points on top of any plan.
Whether BA takes A350's or 777X's, they are still going to be getting newer generation airframes. They could always lease some additional 77W's to bridge the gap, exercise options on 787's, order additional A380's, etc. I don't see why it matters what they've done in the past necessarily?
My only point is BA in recent history has indicated they don't want to be an early launch customer for a new project and while I agree the 777X is a great replacement for many of their 744s I don't see, unlike others, they will be among the blue chip launch customer for any 777X version. They will get them eventually, just like they did the A380 and 787, but they won't be the first few customers to order or take delivery. Someone else can take the "risk".
Bthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 436 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (3 months 23 hours ago) and read 14452 times:
Remember, the Iberia A346 fleet is still relatively young (10 years for the oldest). They can afford to hold out on that decision for a while and focus on the 744/772 renewal.
A343s are already starting renewal through the A333.
Darksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1012 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (3 months 22 hours ago) and read 14319 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 5): Well that's a downer that BA is ruling out the 748. Would have loved to see her at PHX.
Why? The 779 will do that job much better.
Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 13): 513 seats steers it well clear of the 779X and improves casm.
Maybe, but not anything like enough to make a difference. CASM would have to be double digits better (and that will never happen) for a quad to be worth looking into. Operations costs encompass a great deal more than that, so the savings would have to not only be less ambiguous, but also a lot less elastic than they are. Remember, CASM only matters at all when comparing full planes, and, not or, when yields are high. This is why a lot of the 380s are either leaving the factory, or being refitted with larger premium sections at the cost of an absolute higher seat count.
While a 749i would be great to see, it would need some type of savior operator, a la EK & the 380, to really work out. A 749f might work well though, especially considering that AN is considering restarting 124 production...
Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
BestWestern From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6509 posts, RR: 58 Reply 21, posted (3 months 22 hours ago) and read 14010 times:
Quoting Bthebest (Reply 19): Remember, the Iberia A346 fleet is still relatively young (10 years for the oldest). They can afford to hold out on that decision for a while and focus on the 744/772 renewal.
A343s are already starting renewal through the A333.
Good point - wonder if we see the 350-1000 order replacing the 747's first, and then a 77x order replacing the 772/767/346s , and an eventual 787 fleet replacing the 330?
In ten years, The IAG fleet could end up like this:
A380
350-1000
777-900
787
With short haul being an all A320 / e190 operation.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3658 posts, RR: 36 Reply 22, posted (3 months 22 hours ago) and read 13880 times:
Quoting BestWestern (Reply 2): On the A380, he also goes on to say that he can %u201Csee a case for increasing that, but we think 12 is a good [fleet] size.%u201D
So no increase to be expected any time soon. But then again, they still have to start their operations with their A380's. .
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 5): Well that's a downer that BA is ruling out the 748. Would have loved to see her at PHX.
Not really, when they decided to go for the A380 they ruled out the B748i. Both were competing for the one BA order.
Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 10): Current generation of A380 engines starts to be out dated and would need an upgrade to XWB engines to be able to stay firm against A350-1000 and 777-9X as future 744 replacement.
Not really, the A380 is still CASM-King with quite a big margin. And the improvements keep on going, so the efficiency benchmark is still a moving target. The A350-1000 and B777-9 will get (very) close. Airbus has already stated so regarding the A350-1000. But to surpass the A380 on CASM takes even more from competitors. Of course CASM is by far not the only aspect to look at when deciding to purchase an airliner. But it is an important factor.
And when the B777-X-program hits the market, we could be looking at the A389 with further improvements and the latest engine technology (which we will then no doubt see introduced on the A388 as well). Again shifting the benchmark even further out. .
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 12): Whether BA takes A350's or 777X's, they are still going to be getting newer generation airframes.
I guess they will take both. .
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 16): The rest of the WB requirements will probably be met with a mixture of the various versions of the 787 and A350.
Darksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1012 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (3 months 21 hours ago) and read 13210 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22): Not really, the A380 is still CASM-King with quite a big margin.
Only because the 787 is not currently flying*. It's CASM is in fact lower in std configuration. I would be very, very, very surprised if the A359 is not better still.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22): Of course CASM is by far not the only aspect to look at when deciding to purchase an airliner.
This however, is very true. It typically comes in around 9th or 10th place there, as opposed to it being the only factor, which is apparently what A.net believes. So therefore,
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22): But it is an important factor.
This is also not true. In fact, CASM ranks behind landing fees at most airlines. As I mentioned above, the differences involved need to be in double digit percentages to be relevant, and this will likely never be the case.
To put that into perspective, that would be not so much the difference between an A380 & big twin, but more like an A380 and say, a Comet. Nobody's going to build a plane so fuel inefficient that they'll lose sales over it. That proof is in the numbers.
Part of the reason CASM matters a lot less in the real world vs here is that it is a elastic figure, and dependent on a number of other things going perfectly right, all the time. In fact, most airlines don't measure their costs this way, but rather with straight Operational Cost, since that allows a more realistic assessment of what's happening and for cargo as well. CASM is window dressing, and totally glosses over the 388's real value anyway.
* the A388 can in theory recover a CASM advantage over the 788, but it requires a trip of over 6000mi to do so. In fact, it may interest you to know that the 388 is among the worst CASM players until you get over about 4000mi or so on a trip.
Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
jayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 357 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (3 months 21 hours ago) and read 13100 times:
Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 13): The only chance the 748 Intercontinental has is if they do a "simple stretch" to a full 80 meters, adding 34 seats plus adding another 12 by using the upper deck galley stowage option.
I don't see Boeing doing any more stretches to the 748i and I think the 748i is dead but the freighter version will stick around for some time.
The majority of airlines are not interested in the 748i, but they are salivating over the proposed 779x and I still believe Airbus will see renewed interest and a lot more orders for their A350-1000. Boeing would be wasting their money by stretching the 748i even more. With the exception of the few airlines that have ordered the 748i the reality is once the other airlines start retiring the 744's in massive number the 747 passenger variant will be on the endangered species list so enjoy it while you can because it will soon be replace by the 779x and the A350-1000.
25 jumpjets: The engine manufacturers must also be watching this selection debate keenly. With the 777X only coming with GE [according to a current a.net thread] a
26 EPA001: To me that sounds as highly unlikely. Do you have any numbers to back that up? I admit I do not have the numbers myself available (here at work) but
27 GDB: If there was a mood to change that, the 787 saga will have ended that idea. (We look at that and think 'thank god we are not ANA or JAL'). As stated,
28 ytz: This doesn't make sense to me. Why would they not go something like this: 787-8 787-9 787-10 777-9X A380-800 What's the purpose of the A350-1000 in t
29 rutankrd: That will be none then ! Air Nostrum are an independent franchise and not a subsidiary of IAG
30 KarelXWB: You are forgetting the range, the 787-10X won't have the same range as the 77E & A343. This would look better: 787-8 787-9 - 767 replacement 787-
31 ytz: Does BA or IB really need the added range? Boeing is now saying 7100nm with a full pax load for the 787-10X. This only 700nm less than the 77E today.
32 yellowtail: what about a small subfleet of 748s for IB hot and high...and then the rest A358/9/10 or 77X and 788/9
33 GDB: They've got to launch and build the thing first. Though Walsh was speaking from an IAG rather than purely BA perspective, while he might have aiming
34 Boysteve: Is this not a bargaining positioning? Try to get a better deal out of Airbus for a 'top up' order?
35 BA0197: I've been following the BA fleet replacement programme for quite some time now. This is what I envision for IAG BA currently have (in active service)
36 sunrisevalley: An awful number of A.netters overlook that European carriers have relatively short time sectors. It is good to see one of the major carriers spell th
37 justloveplanes: The A359 was aimed square on at the 77E market, so hard to ignore it for any fleet that has a large number of them. That 77E market is where the A359
38 Darksnowynight: Just what we have at work; it's pretty easy to come to these conclusions when you see actual DX load/fuel numbers. If, for example, an SQ 388 is doin
39 astuteman: Airbus are on record as saying an A350-1000 in 10-abreast configuration may beat the current A380 on seat-mile costs correct Bear in mind that fuel i
40 astuteman: For reference, by the way, 171k lb of fuel for the 788 is c. 1.3m2 of cabin space per 1k lb of fuel. 377k lb of fuel for an A380 is 1.46m2 of cabin s
41 flightsimer: The 787-8 will be the 767 replacement as it is already carrying 25 more seats in the same configuration density. The 787-9 can easily be their 777-20
42 GDB: Choosing the A380 over the 748 broke that mould.
43 Darksnowynight: I'm sure they did say that. But again, I would very surprised if the 359 wasn't at least that good. This part's my opinion, but I think Airbus has pi
44 VV701: The last BA Annual Report before its merger into IAG stated that its 744 fleet was being depreciated to a residual value over 25 years. With their si
45 justloveplanes: It should be. The A359 was designed expressly to replace the 77E market. The 787 is the next gen 767/A330. Still seeing how the top end will work out
46 Darksnowynight: Lol, I think I may have said that wrong. Of course this is true, but I meant in a more general, less literal sense. The 777 did as well as it did for
47 JerseyFlyer: When BA orederd 787 and 380 they said they wanted all their LH aircraft to be able to fly any of their LH routes. The 767 could not do that, whereas t
48 sweair: The 777-9X would be a perfect 744 replacement for all airlines still flying it. Not that I feel warm about the 777, but it is one marvel of airplane.
49 cv990coronado: There are many comments referring to BA favouring Boeing for Long Haul. They also favoured Boeing for short haul previously, but this seems to have ch
50 phxa340: With due respect to both of you , I find it interesting how many of you are attempting to read WW comments as a way to battle down Airbus on A350 and
51 AirbusA6: On the other hand it would be a curious way of negotiating to say to Boeing 'we love your 777X, we 'd be so grateful if you'd be so kind to sell us s
52 sweair: Replacing all those 772s with another type would cost a lot of re training crews?
53 sweair: One more question, how much does it cost to re train a crew for a new aircraft typ? Say you go from a 767 to a A330.
54 Sassiciai: Nice to find objectivity is alive and well on this site!
55 phxa340: I don't think BA has to worry about getting favorable pricing from either Boeing or Airbus. Thus I don't think that statement WW has anything to do w
56 ytz: An even more curious way of negotiating would be public/press comments. It's only a.nutters who think that these public comments actually impact nego
57 ytz: It's actually quite an objective opinion. My only quibble is that I can't see the point of BA operating 789s. I should think that BA will end up with
58 Stitch: Well it has to be built to be sold, so if BA is willing to be a launch customer to get Boeing to commit to the program, a public display of support i
60 trex8: They weren't by most peoples definitions a "launch " customer recently as I had said! there were in fact 25+ 787 customers before BA's order and 15 A
61 VV701: I am sorry that you viewed my comments as suggesting that your comments were wrong. I was simply trying to ensure that others would not consider that
62 Revelation: No need for an controversy, IMHO. BA has publicly said they prefer to not be a "launch customer" which has a specific meaning in the business. I have
63 trex8: Your point is well taken that in the last century BA was an early adopter and I agree that is generally accepted. This century they have not been an e
64 phxa340: [quote=scbriml,reply=59] Whatever. No single plane is ever perfect for an entire part of a carriers network. The point is that BA sounds like they hav
65 Stitch: Even if BA have stated in the past that they prefer not to be a launch customer, they may have subsequently realized allowing their competition to acq
66 sunrisevalley: Indirectly Walsh is implying this in his statement quote.........“if I’m honest, the regret I have is that we did not get the 777-300ERs earlier.
67 KarelXWB: Because you still have a gap between the 787-10X (320 seats, 7100nm) and the 777-9X (407 seats, 8100nm) which an A350-1000 might nicely fits in. Ther
68 trex8: They were a late to the 77W for sure but that doesn't imply they want to be first in line either. They may even be in the first handful of customers
69 ikramerica: And no Boeing is every even adequate for some posters. Anyway, that statement that he quoted uses the word perfect. People don't usually throw around
70 sweair: BAs 787-10 would not have 320 seats I guess so range would be no problem. I think this 787 version will sell in larger numbers than the 788 that got o
71 frigatebird: True, but will BA need to fill that gap with another aircraft type? They didn't see the need to fill the gap between their 772's and 744's either. BA
72 Stitch: The 787-10 is about 3m shorter than the A350-1000, which is about 1.5m shorter than the 777-9. In my opinion, that is too small to warrant adding the
73 YTZ: This. Sure they have to consider the A350. But realistically, given the right financing and delivery schedule, I can't see why BA would choose the A3
74 KarelXWB: News is coming in of IAG ordering A350 aircraft; A35J's to replace the 747 and A346 models plus A359 aircraft to replace the 772 and A343 models. IAG
75 motorhussy: So with the forum title being IAG Says 777X A 'Perfect Fit' For Parts Of Network, there's either: not enough parts of the network it's perfect for; a
76 Stitch: Based on the WSJ article, the 787-10 and 777-9 might still be part of the IAG's fleet replacement.
77 scbriml: The article says nothing about the 787-10 and frankly is somewhat dismissive about the 777X. IMHO, saying "Boeing is not out of the running for a lat
78 frigatebird: That, and probably a far smarter offer for the A350. Don't forget the 777X and 787-10X have no formal ATO yet, and Airbus might have given BA an offe
79 Stitch: Well this thread's article noted that Walsh stated he thought it "unlikely" BA would order more A380-800s, but he could be lying about that just as h
80 blueshamu330s: Now look what you've gone and done; you'll get the fanboys all in a frenzy ! For the record, I'm suspect you're spot on the money. Rgds
81 frigatebird: Of course he wasn't lying, but IMO it shows how smart Walsh was in getting a great deal for A350s. Yes, the 777X could be a perfect fit for part of i
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 145 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26949 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6509 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5102 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1030 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3658 posts, 
.
Printer friendly format 
