Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA And The 787  
User currently offlineeire123 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2011, 44 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 23976 times:

Anyone got an idea of how the 787 has fitted into BA? Have they had many teething problems as the other airlines with the 787? I know they have seen flight delays operating the 787 with the refueling taking longer..

69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1718 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 23727 times:

Quoting eire123 (Thread starter):
Anyone got an idea of how the 787 has fitted into BA? Have they had many teething problems as the other airlines with the 787? I know they have seen flight delays operating the 787 with the refueling taking longer..

The 787 utilisation has been a lot lower than their A380 utilisation so that indicates that they have been having some teething problems, just like most other airlines have.

It will be interesting to see some figures but I am sure their talented engineering guys and Boeing will come up with a solution.



Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319-BA), OSL-LHR (319-BA), LHR-IAH (744-BA), MSY-LGA (319-DL), JFK-LHR (744-BA)
User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7479 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 23709 times:

See Reply 66 here:

How Has The 787 Been Performing Lately? (by sankaps Sep 17 2013 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlineGSTBA From UK - England, joined Apr 2010, 465 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 23017 times:

Quoting eire123 (Thread starter):
Anyone got an idea of how the 787 has fitted into BA? Have they had many teething problems as the other airlines with the 787?

BA have experienced a small number of technical issues since the aircraft entered service. BA plans for the introduction of the 787 were completely changed during the period of time the 787 was grounded and were further changed due to the number of problems technical problems encountered by other 787's.

BA will have available to them 4 787's for the W13 schedule. However only 3 flights a day are scheduled to operate on a 787. BA have decided that the 4th aircraft will be used as a standby aircraft. The standby will be used as cover for one of the other 3 787's should they go tech. The standby aircraft will be a quick standby aircraft meaning that it will only need to have a fuel top up and will need to catered.


User currently offlinebastew From Australia, joined Sep 2006, 1028 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 22890 times:

The 787 looks set for Chengdu from S13 -

http://buyingbusinesstravel.com/feat...view-jamie-cassidy-british-airways


User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 22833 times:

Maybe Boeing should sell the 787 as Twinkies... coming in pairs, just in case one goes tech.

I think that maybe mods should make a 787 megathread, about "problems" because frankly the large ammount of threads about it are getting boring.

I really hope Boeing get their act together, I was right in saying that the media would put this aircraft in the spotlight for a long time after the grounding, but this is bordering on the ridiculous.


If BA fails on having a reliable 787 fleet, the 787 is doomed, because no amount of PR will save Boeing´s face with such a prestigious carrier.

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2742 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 22607 times:

Seriously? Another thread? You guys are on a roll. 

Suggest making a 787 Problems/Failure megathread.   



View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7131 posts, RR: 57
Reply 7, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 22193 times:

Seriously? Another problem? Boeing are on a roll.


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 888 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 22170 times:

The 787 is problematic. Operators are having issues. The same members say the same thing over and over again in every 787 thread. We got it.

Mods - since there are 4 "The 787 is the worst plane ever and it's going to be the end of Boeing" threads up - suggest deletion.


User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2742 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 22086 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 7):
Seriously? Another problem? Boeing are on a roll.

Indeed Boeing are, and it's really disheartening to see as an aviation enthusiast! It must very incredibly disappointing for the airlines, too. No doubt they have to take the blame for a lot of this. I think the majority of users would agree with that, save a handful of passionate users.  

My point of saying the above was to make a point that usually, the same group of users continually hunger to post any problems at any given opportunity. I bet they would be absent the moment any problems occurred with another OEM's planes. You get the feeling they believe nothing can ever go amiss for the world's premier aircraft manufacturer.

Just look at this thread. Honest question posed, yes, but as you can already tell it's gonna be another 90% smear, and 10% factual crapfest.   

Hopefully Boeing can turn things around sooner than later, because their reputation is certainly taking a hit. Airbus looks perfect in comparison.   



View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7479 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 22037 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 1):
The 787 utilisation has been a lot lower than their A380 utilisation so that indicates that they have been having some teething problems, just like most other airlines have.

It is certainly true that BA's utilisation of their 787s has been lower than that of their 380s. However BA introduced the 787 on the LHR-ARN-LHR BA780/81 rotation on 9 August. This flight was then operated by a 787 every day with no exceptions until 31 August. The first aircraft delivered, G-ZBJB, operated 10 of these flights. The second BA 787, G-ZBJA, operated 13 of these flights. This flight was operated by 'JA on 17, 18 and 19 August. Otherwise neither aircraft operated the flight on more than two consecutive days.

The first BA long-haul revenue rotation, LHR-YYZ-LHR (BA093/92) was operated by 'JB on 9 August. Since then this flight has been operated every day by a 787. The frequency was increased to ten 787 rotations a week on 15 September.

Prior to the above revenue flights BA operated a series of training flights . 'JA flew out of LHR on 29 July. It operated MSE-XCR (BA9160T) and XCR-MSE (BA9153T) on 30 July. On each of the next six days (31 July to 5 August) it flew MSE-XCR (BA9160T), XCR-CHR (BA9161T), CHR-XCR (BA9162T) and XCR-MSE (BA9163T). After completing these flights on 5 August it flew an engineering test flight (MSE-MSE, BA9170E). The following day it flew an eighty minute training flight (MSE-MSE, BA9160T) flying north to overfly Preston before returning to its temporary training base at MSE. In this extended period it was continuously away from the airline's maintenance bases operating in and out of third-line airports. There is no evidence of any significant technical problem.

On 8 August 'JA flew from MSE to NCL (BA9150P) making a low pass in formation with two RR Griffon powered Supermarine Spitfires over the Rolls Royce Derby factory on the way. It then flew on to EDI (BA9151P) before returning to LHR (BA9152P) and BA Maintenance Heathrow for the first time in ten days. On 11 August this aircraft then flew its first revenue flight to ARN - see above.

The above programme is reasonably intense although BA has had one 787 in reserve at LHR at all times. While it is probable that any engineering problem would be immediately addressed by substituting this reserve aircraft at LHR, it is clear that any problems away from LHR have been quickly addressed as no aircraft has failed to complete a rotation as planned.

It is worth noting that BA has extensive experience of operating new aircraft.. It was the launch customer for the 757-200, the RR powered 767-300 and the 777-200A. So it is likely that much of what has the appearance of a relatively smooth 787-8 introduction may at least in some way be down to experience and good planning.

It is worth noting the first BA 787 revenue flight did not take place until 43 days after the first aircraft arrived at LHR and that the first scheduled revenue flight was another 22 days later. Compare this with the BA 380. Its first revenue flight was 30 days after the first aircraft arrived at LHR. It was another 53 days before BA's first scheduled 380 revenue flight. So the 787 entered scheduled revenue service 65 days after delivery, the 380 83 days. However the longer period leading to the first scheduled BA 380 revenue flight is almost certainly due to the much longer period between the delivery of the first and second aircraft of that type. So the more intense use of the 380 could simply be because there was, for an extended period, only one delivered while BA had three 787s in service by 7 September.

Overall it is quite likely that BA have had some teething problems with the 787. However with the period of more than a week away at MSE away from any significant BA maintenance facility and with all training, testing and revenue rotations including 23 to ARN and 28 to YYZ completed as planned any such problems were likely minor .


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5414 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 21703 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10):
So it is likely that much of what has the appearance of a relatively smooth 787-8 introduction may at least in some way be down to experience and good planning.

  

I'm absolutely positive they've had their issues. They have done what is necessary to work around them, as any experienced operator would with a new type, and they obviously have not had any showstoppers comparable to the GE90 engine issues they had at 777-200 EIS. The type of scheduling they've done is reasonable for a new type and will become more efficient as they gain operational experience.


User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2336 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 21715 times:

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 5):
If BA fails on having a reliable 787 fleet, the 787 is doomed, because no amount of PR will save Boeing´s face with such a prestigious carrier.

Funny, and BA are about to order 18 more...



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently onlinewilld From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 238 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 20785 times:

Quoting KPDX (Reply 9):
My point of saying the above was to make a point that usually, the same group of users continually hunger to post any problems at any given opportunity. I bet they would be absent the moment any problems occurred with another OEM's planes. You get the feeling they believe nothing can ever go amiss for the world's premier aircraft manufacturer.

Just look at this thread. Honest question posed, yes, but as you can already tell it's gonna be another 90% smear, and 10% factual crapfest.   

The type of thing you are complaining about is not limited to just limited to Boeing. I recall some of the utter rubbish that was written on here about the 380 before and after it went into service, in particular when Airbus announced delivery delays. Airbus was really flamed mainly by posters from the Boeing side of the pond. Its all swings and roundabouts really!


User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2742 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 20520 times:

Quoting willd (Reply 13):
The type of thing you are complaining about is not limited to just limited to Boeing. I recall some of the utter rubbish that was written on here about the 380 before and after it went into service, in particular when Airbus announced delivery delays. Airbus was really flamed mainly by posters from the Boeing side of the pond. Its all swings and roundabouts really!

No doubt. I do not disagree, and was going to mention it wasn't much different than the whole period of A380 issues.   

I have no problem with people criticizing Boeing in this case, as a lot of it is probably well deserved, but the posters that flame and make silly comments just for the sake of being snarky on a daily basis get really annoying and repetitive!



View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently offlineTigerguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 934 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 20434 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10):
So it is likely that much of what has the appearance of a relatively smooth 787-8 introduction may at least in some way be down to experience and good planning.

Don't let the people in the Norwegian 787 thread see you say that.   



Flying friendly for a while, but is that a widget I see in the rear-view mirror?
User currently offlinevhtje From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 372 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 19632 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10):

Thank you for a very detailed, informative and considered post.


User currently offlineAA94 From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 16200 times:

It's rather tiring to see comments such as the following appear on various threads around the site (all real comments):

Quote:
This all smells like a ticking time bomb to me. Boeing WAS the last great hope of manufacturing in America. And now they've completely ruined the image of American manufacturing with the LemonLiner.
Quote:
All in all a good try again defending the indefensible, bashing the airline for problems wholly in the realm of the air framer.
Quote:
This suggestion may be completely idiotic but at some point Boeing would have to consider free leases to carriers with the bad frames


***

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10):
So it is likely that much of what has the appearance of a relatively smooth 787-8 introduction may at least in some way be down to experience and good planning.
Quoting VV701 (Reply 10):
The above programme is reasonably intense although BA has had one 787 in reserve at LHR at all times. While it is probable that any engineering problem would be immediately addressed by substituting this reserve aircraft at LHR, it is clear that any problems away from LHR have been quickly addressed as no aircraft has failed to complete a rotation as planned.

  

Are you listening, Norwegian?

While BA has had its share of issues, adequate planning has ensured that the impacts are minimal. I don't think that any poster on this site is doubting that the 787 has its share of problems. But the airlines that are getting the most out of the 787 are the ones that have planned carefully and properly for its deployment.



Choose a challenge over competence / Eleanor Roosevelt
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 15353 times:

Quoting KPDX (Reply 9):
Indeed Boeing are, and it's really disheartening to see as an aviation enthusiast! It must very incredibly disappointing for the airlines, too. No doubt they have to take the blame for a lot of this. I think the majority of users would agree with that, save a handful of passionate users.  

I love Boeing products, and 2 months ago I was so happy to see the brand new Jetstar 787 in Everett, also AM and a lot of new airliners, but since I work in the services industry, I am always on the side of the customer, and no matter what the 787 program has had lots of hiccups to put it as softly as I can. So if some users here are as old as me or older they must remember the A380 wars of 2005, and also as recent as last week there is a huge thread here why the A380 will fail. So criticism goes both ways, in this case and my humble opinion the 787 is undercooked and has a lot of small details to work out to become the world beater Boeing sold 8 years ago.... I hope they will ASAP but in the mean time its impossible to deny all the troubles.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10):
It is worth noting that BA has extensive experience of operating new aircraft.. It was the launch customer for the 757-200, the RR powered 767-300 and the 777-200A. So it is likely that much of what has the appearance of a relatively smooth 787-8 introduction may at least in some way be down to experience and good planning.

Hence my comment that if BA cant launch it in an orderly maner and with little delays, no one will.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 12):
Funny, and BA are about to order 18 more...

They may order it but in my view its way too soon, amybe they know something we don't.

Quoting willd (Reply 13):
The type of thing you are complaining about is not limited to just limited to Boeing. I recall some of the utter rubbish that was written on here about the 380 before and after it went into service, in particular when Airbus announced delivery delays. Airbus was really flamed mainly by posters from the Boeing side of the pond. Its all swings and roundabouts really!

amen to this... just ask UDO

Quoting Tigerguy (Reply 15):
Don't let the people in the Norwegian 787 thread see you say that.   

In fact BA is the yardstick, if they can't work out problems even with parts on their base, no one will.

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4964 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 15011 times:

I hate to be the bearer of good news in a thread that started off with an honest question and quickly denigrated into innuendo and bias. After all why bother to search out the facts.
The LHR-YYZ -LHR BA092/093 service started Sept. 1st Until and including today 8 flights went out on schedule or within 15 mins of it, 8 flights within 30 min and 10 flights within 45 min. These times include any ground delays which for a 2,15PM scheduled departure can be 20 min. or more. The latest flight was delayed about 2hr 15 min and there was only one flight this far out.
From YYZ-LHR the performance is pretty good, no spare aircraft on the ground there ! On 11 days the flight arrived early and 12 were on time or within 30-min thereof. Latest delayed east bound was 2hr 5 min. and again only one flight.
The data is from Flight Aware.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7131 posts, RR: 57
Reply 20, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 13580 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 19):
The LHR-YYZ -LHR BA092/093 service started Sept. 1st Until and including today 8 flights went out on schedule or within 15 mins of it, 8 flights within 30 min and 10 flights within 45 min.

An on time performance of... 30% This compares to a January - December OTP of the route from a Heathrow end of 61.4% arriving and departing.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4472 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 13233 times:

Quoting GSTBA (Reply 3):
The standby aircraft will be a quick standby aircraft meaning that it will only need to have a fuel top up and will need to catered.

FYI, Jet Transports are not like your car, they are rarely 'topped up' and may not be able to carry a full load of passengers and cargo if they are.


Making a profit on many routes means carrying as little fuel as can be safely provided for.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2336 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 13191 times:

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 18):

They may order it but in my view its way too soon, amybe they know something we don't.

Well, id expect airlines to know more than we do, dont you think?  



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 23, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 12321 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 21):
FYI, Jet Transports are not like your car, they are rarely 'topped up' and may not be able to carry a full load of passengers and cargo if they are.

I suspect GSTBA means it would be topped up as required. When I top up a drink, for example, I don't fill the glass to the brim... certainly not if it's for someone else.


User currently onlineCapt.Fantastic From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 12230 times:

I concur with those who have pointed out the duplicate nature of this thread.
This has been discussed and is still being discussed- there's no need for another thread.
Respectfully,
jj


25 Max Q : That makes no sense. Topped up means full, that is the very meaning of the expression !
26 bluesky73 : I actually think BA have had relatively good experience so far reading from posts and seeing the flights back and forth on FR24. I'm just waiting for
27 Post contains images flyingcello : Makes perfect sense! If something is "topped up", it is either full to the brim, or to the level required. If something is to be "topped up", then yo
28 WAC : To the brim and to required level is not the same. I think the debate is between the two. Would you top up a glass wine or dram of whiskey to the bri
29 Post contains images bastew : I think a more interesting topic about the BA 787 is what passengers think of the Y class cabin - and the seating in particular.
30 brilondon : This would be more interesting to me. I have flown it in their business class and found it to be pretty good. I still don't like the reward facing se
31 VV701 : I understand that G-ZBJG and 'JH are reserved for the first two. As no other aircraft have been registered in the G-ZBJx series I suspect that BA hav
32 bluesky73 : Aren't JG and JH are reserved for 2 x 788? There are 8 788s on order. As BA tend to change registration sequences depending on sub-models e.g 319s ar
33 CXfirst : Don't really think they are comparable. A fully-fledged premium airline vs an LCC operating a brand new long haul operation. BA, will eventually have
34 VV701 : Yes. Of course. My bad. Thanks. So we cannot know whether BA will stay with the same registration sequence or switch to a new one for the 787-9 - unl
35 flyingcello : Correct...hence the "or"!
36 Max Q : Definition of TOP UP: British : to make up to the full quantity, capacity, or amount No difference in language here ! Besides when you 'top up' a fuel
37 Post contains images David L : That seems to be the case here: "topping up" versus "filling up". It's quite an informal expression here. I think original post is fairly clear: BA h
38 Post contains images bluesky73 : G-ZBJD on her way, just over Lake District, 40 mins away from LHR
39 Max Q : Nonsense, topping up means top off, as in to the top. Otherwise (and most of the time) the required amount of fuel is ordered and specified. And if t
40 VV701 : Forced? I do not think so. They also did this with the 380. As I pointed out before there were 65 days between the first BA 787 substitute short-haul
41 Bongodog1964 : Totally disagree it was quite obvious from the start what was meant by the phrase "topping up" If anyone asks "do you want a top up" it means adding
42 VV701 : Everyone's right! From "The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 2", Fourth Edition. p. 3340, arguably THE authority on the English Language:
43 flyingcello : Well done 701...an authoritative view! Exactly Bongo, the meaning was clear! Anyway, two questions...1) what is the story about fueling taking longer
44 Max Q : Just to be clear, in Airline operations (which is what we are discussing) 'Topping up' means just that, fill to the top. The expression removes any am
45 hotelmode : Not here. It means fill to what's needed, which would be specified. You might. 'Top up' a ton or 2 for some reason but it certainly doesn't mean full
46 pnwtraveler : So glad I read this thread. I now have been fully briefed by top up. How fantasically more full my life will be now knowing how Americans and the Brit
47 Max Q : Disagree, you don't 'top up' a ton or two, unless that is what it takes to fill the tanks ! that expression makes no sense. To top up means to fill t
48 jumpjets : Having come to this thread late I am left with an overwhelming sense of irrelevance of the question about top ups and the banal analysis of what it r
49 VV701 : For ever if necessary. BA used to have a back-up 772 based at both LHR and LGW. With the loss of G-YMMM in the forced landing at LHR they replaced it
50 sunrisevalley : A number of posters to this thread will be chagrined to learn of this. It blows away their erroneous assumption that the 787 is the only type in BA's
51 Post contains links BestWestern : Interesting to note that the vast majority of IAG shareholders (Me included) voted to approve the purchase of further 787 and A350 / A320 aircraft. 99
52 sankaps : One backup in a fleet of 53 777s. Compared to one backup in a fleet of 2 or 3 787s. Do the math. Having a backup or two in a large fleet is standard
53 Post contains images David L : To be fair, one complete aircraft is the minimum required to provide backup. A fraction of an aircraft probably wouldn't be much use. A meaningful co
54 mutu : Sir, I take my hat off to you. The comment of the deacde in my books!!
55 Post contains images David L : Before it gets out of hand I'd better acknowledge that I twisted sankaps' words just a bit . His point wasn't all that different from mine.
56 BestWestern : You may find that BA do not have a 787 spare in the long term, as the 777 may cover both fleets. the 777 has a 99.3% dispatch reliability - so 1 spar
57 hibtastic : Just seen a tweet from BA saying that their second 787 will begin long-haul service to EWR today.
58 VV701 : OK. Here goes: Fleet of 46 772s. One goes tech. Back-op required to maintain operations: one. Fleet of 4 787s. One goes tech. Back-up required to mai
59 Tristarsteve : BJB had a status message and was replaced with the standby BJA which is on its way to EWR about 15 mins late.
60 tortugamon : Not a good way to start off its first ever service. Hope the flight goes smoothly from here on out. tortugamon
61 flyingcello : So back to my two questions! 1. Why a 787 spare? Why not just a 777 to cover both 777 and 787 fleets? 2. What's the story with "slow refueling" on the
62 Tristarsteve : One reason I can guess is that BA is operating the B787 as a separate fleet. Although the pilots are rated on both, for the first year they are only
63 Bongodog1964 : The thing that springs to mind is that whilst a 787 can always substitute immediately for another 787, if the crew aren't 777 qualified a new crew wo
64 Johnwaynebobbet : Certain legacy crew on BA are licensed on the 767, 777, 787 and 747.
65 flyingcello : But the standby 777, complete with 777 crew, can still substitute for a 787. I wonder if BA are looking at the 'shine' factor with the 787...maybe the
66 Post contains images sankaps : Reliability of the aircraft and probability of requiring the backup given reliability * fleet size is the factor you are missing in your over-simplif
67 APYu : Another good reason to have a spare 787 sat at LHR at the moment is so they can push loads of cabin crew through training and they can easily do their
68 VV701 : Even with 100 per cent reliability all aircraft require routine and, from time to time, heavy maintenance. And that is a fact of life whether an airl
69 PW100 : Off course the problem is not the standby crew in LHR. The problem is the crew flying the substitute plane back home. The crew flying the plane from
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...
Qantas And The 787 posted Sat Aug 17 2013 02:00:33 by dkramer7
Japan And The 787... posted Thu Jun 20 2013 16:56:52 by chris78cpr
BA And The Old 737-400 posted Wed Mar 6 2013 07:00:02 by na
Ethiopian And The 787 posted Tue Jan 15 2013 17:07:17 by dkny
BA And The Short-lived 737-300 posted Wed Aug 22 2012 10:33:25 by jetjack74
LOT And The 787's - When? posted Sat Jul 21 2012 03:52:02 by ZKOJH
Lufthansa And The 787-10 posted Tue Jul 10 2012 13:47:27 by columba
Question About Thomson And The 787 posted Fri Jan 13 2012 14:18:27 by LGWflyer
Orient Thai Airlines And The 787 posted Fri Dec 17 2010 17:29:03 by AirCanadaA330
Air Seychelles And The 787-900 posted Thu Jul 22 2010 05:27:16 by stephenfaure