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, 47 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 24457 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 offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1812 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 24208 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: LCY-DUB (E70), DUB-LHR (319), LHR-PHL (772), PHL-LAX (321), LAX-HNL (752), HNL-LAX (752), LAX-LHR (388)
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7737 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 24190 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 (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 23498 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, 1030 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 23371 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, 2329 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 23314 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, 2776 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 23088 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, 7303 posts, RR: 57
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 22674 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, 901 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 22651 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, 2776 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 22567 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 offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7737 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 22518 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, 5841 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 22184 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, 2598 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 22196 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 offlinewilld From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 21266 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, 2776 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 21001 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, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 20915 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, 380 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 20113 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, 605 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 16681 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, 2329 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 15834 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, 5220 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 15492 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, 7303 posts, RR: 57
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14061 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, 4780 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 13714 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, 2598 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 13672 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, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 12802 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 offlineCapt.Fantastic From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 751 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 12711 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


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4780 posts, RR: 19
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 12416 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 23):

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.

That makes no sense.


Topped up means full, that is the very meaning of the expression !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinebluesky73 From UK - England, joined Oct 2012, 344 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12254 times:

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 G-ZBJD that was due to be delivered last Thursday. Also can't wait for their first 789 to arrive, (whatever they decide to register 9s as G-ZBK*s?)

So the 787 hasn't had great PR to start with but there are quite a few doom'n'gloomers that love to jump on the 787bashing-bandwagon.

The 788s in BA livery look great!


User currently offlineflyingcello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12534 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 25):
Quoting David L (Reply 23):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.That makes no sense.Topped up means full, that is the very meaning of the expression !

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 you haven't got there yet!

Americans and Brits...seperated by a common language...  


User currently offlineWAC From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12429 times:

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 27):
If something is "topped up", it is either full to the brim, or to the level required.

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 brim? No
Would you top up a pint of beer to brim? Yes.
The difference is due to expectation.
Aircraft in the end is weight vs. what is needed or what is expected amount needed.


User currently offlinebastew From Australia, joined Sep 2006, 1030 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 12369 times:

I think a more interesting topic about the BA 787 is what passengers think of the Y class cabin - and the seating in particular.  

User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 12276 times:

Quoting bastew (Reply 29):

I think a more interesting topic about the BA 787 is what passengers think of the Y class cabin - and the seating in particular.

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 seats at the windows but other than a weird sensation that I get and the feeling of falling forward while travelling backwards. It just seems strange to me.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7737 posts, RR: 17
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 12281 times:

Quoting bluesky73 (Reply 26):
whatever they decide to register 9s as G-ZBK*s?)

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 have also reserved subsequent registrations..

After all G-BNLA to 'LZ, G-CIVA to 'VZ and G-BYGA to 'GG were the registrations used for their 57 744s, G-BWNA to 'NZ and G-BZHA to 'HC for their 28 763s, G-VIIA to 'IY (with G-RAES substituted for the inappropriate G-VIII) for their 24 GE powered 772s . . .

Indeed all BA's fleets occupy similar registration strings. So if 'JG and 'JH are reserved, it looks as if BA will register their 6 787-8 and the all 18 of their of their 767-9s with registrations between G-ZNJA and 'JY.


User currently offlinebluesky73 From UK - England, joined Oct 2012, 344 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 12042 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 31):
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 have also reserved subsequent registrations..

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 are G-EUO*/EUP*, 320s G-EUU*/EUY* that the 789s wouldn't be G-ZBJI-Y/Z but next sequence e.g something like G-ZBK*?

Maybe someone can confirm next sequences?


User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 12032 times:

Quoting AA94 (Reply 17):
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.

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 a large fleet, and likely will always have some sort of spare sitting around (large operations always seem to lead to some aircraft having downtime), and in addition have other types that can be used as spares. While, Norwegian is an LCC, which operationally need to keep each plane flying.

That is the big downside with purchasing from LCC's, it is the handling of delays, cancellations. Operationally, we expect the odd cancellation, major delay, however, none of this excuses Boeing from the large amount of 787 problems.

BA operations can afford to keep a plane on ground, DY cannot, but I suspect, BA aren't happy that they felt forced to do this.

Norwegian and Thompson are much more comparable, and they seem like they haven't had the same amount of problems.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7737 posts, RR: 17
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 11653 times:

Quoting bluesky73 (Reply 32):
There are 8 788s on order

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 - unless someone else knows differently.


User currently offlineflyingcello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 11540 times:

Quoting WAC (Reply 28):
To the brim and to required level is not the same

Correct...hence the "or"!


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4780 posts, RR: 19
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11128 times:

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 tank, whether it be on your car or an Aircraft you are filling it to the maximum capacity.
Everyone knows that !


And when I ask the fueler on the rare occasions it's required to give me the maximum fuel possible on my 757 and he or she asks for clarification I specifically say 'top up' to remove any doubt !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10459 times:

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 27):
Americans and Brits...seperated by a common language...

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 has a 787 standing by with a "significant" quantity of fuel which only needs to be "topped up" (in the British sense   ) to the required level when needed, in order to save time. It doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.


User currently offlinebluesky73 From UK - England, joined Oct 2012, 344 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10358 times:

G-ZBJD on her way, just over Lake District, 40 mins away from LHR  

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4780 posts, RR: 19
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10202 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 37):

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 has a 787 standing by with a "significant" quantity of fuel which only needs to be "topped up" (in the British sense ) to the required level when needed, in order to save time. It doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

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 that was the case in the UK perhaps you could explain to me why, on the occasions I require a full fuel load returning from there the fueler always asks me to verify I need it 'topped off'


I am from the UK, I know what the expression means !
No, language confusion, it's as simple as that.


On both sides of the Atlantic !

[Edited 2013-09-29 03:30:33]

[Edited 2013-09-29 03:31:23]


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7737 posts, RR: 17
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9982 times:

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 33):
BA operations can afford to keep a plane on ground, DY cannot, but I suspect, BA aren't happy that they felt forced to do this.

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 revenue flight to ARN and first BA 787 scheduled long-haul revenue flight to YYZ. For the 380 the period between the first BA 380 substitute short-haul revenue flight to FRA and the first BA scheduled long-haul revenue flight to LAX was significant longer at 83 days.

The greater interval for the 380 was "forced" on BA because their clear plan required the availability of a ready-for-service back-up aircraft before operating their first pre-announced scheduled flight. As there was a greater interval between the delivery of the first and second 380 than the first and second 787 BA were "forced" to fly substitute revenue flights with the 380 for the significantly longer period of 18 days.


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9883 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 39):
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.

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 liquid to a vessel that isn't completely full, it doesn't necessarily mean "fill to the brim"


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7737 posts, RR: 17
Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9540 times:

Everyone's right!

From "The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 2", Fourth Edition. p. 3340, arguably THE authority on the English Language:


"top up (a): fill to the top (a partly full glass or other container; fill up a partly full glass for (a person); (b) add to, bring (a number or amount) up to a certain level"


Clearly in

Quoting GSTBA (Reply 3):
meaning that it will only need to have a fuel top up


the second of these two definitions, namely "add to, bring (a number or amount) up to a certain level" was used as no one here on a-net would expect an airline to unnecessarily "fill to the top" the fuel tanks of an aircraft about to fly a certain route.


User currently offlineflyingcello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9299 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 42):
Everyone's right!

From "The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 2", Fourth Edition. p. 3340, arguably THE authority on the English Language:


"top up (a): fill to the top (a partly full glass or other container; fill up a partly full glass for (a person); (b) add to, bring (a number or amount) up to a certain level"

Well done 701...an authoritative view!

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 41):
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 liquid to a vessel that isn't completely full, it doesn't necessarily mean "fill to the brim"

Exactly Bongo, the meaning was clear!

Anyway, two questions...1) what is the story about fueling taking longer than planned, and 2) how long can BA sustain the 'spare', with Newark due to start soon? Would a 77E not be as good for covering, particularly given that with the number in the fleet, there must be some headroom...


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4780 posts, RR: 19
Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9091 times:

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 ambiguity, unlike here !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinehotelmode From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 460 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8743 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 44):

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 tanks.

I can't think of many occasions you'd fill an airliner to the top. I never have on my current type (Long haul jet) and did it maybe twice on previous (Short haul jet) and never on the one before that (Large turboprop). On my current type you'd have to be empty of any payload before full tanks would be under MTOW.

[Edited 2013-09-29 16:25:14]

User currently offlinepnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2296 posts, RR: 12
Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8530 times:

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 British view such a vital topic and will make dealing with the world as it is so much better.

I keep saying it, but that fellow Anetters should not believe everything they read, and when they do read comments, wonder whether the person has a giant axe to grind about any particular manufacturer, or not, and if they really could be a paid misinform-ant. Sounds awfully spy vs. spy but believe me large chunks of marketing budgets are now directed to social media that comprises Facebook, Twitter, blogging especially and other new media. Some are blatant and easy to determine that a page/post/or message is a corporate one, but many others are phrased as just another "Joe on the Street" type.

Frankly I think BA is doing a good job of beginning to incorporate a brand new aircraft into its fleet. Fully trained staff and gradual ramp-up. Makes sense to me. As much as love the up to the minute information from the web, I am nostalgic for the good old days when everything wasn't so micro dissected beyond reasonableness.

[Edited 2013-09-29 19:18:44]

[Edited 2013-09-29 19:19:38]

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4780 posts, RR: 19
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8508 times:

Quoting hotelmode (Reply 45):


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 tanks.

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 to the top and I am very familiar with the culture in the UK, it is where i'm from and I lived there for many years.

Quoting hotelmode (Reply 45):
I can't think of many occasions you'd fill an airliner to the top.

Try a B757 returning to the US against winter winds, not uncommon at all to 'Top up' the tanks even from the UK, when I want full tanks the fueler specifically asks if I want a top up to which I reply in the affirmative !



Doesn't seem to be any language issue there



Implying a top up is anything less than filling the tanks makes as much sense as being a little bit pregant..



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinejumpjets From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 892 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8144 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 47):
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.

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 really means.

Surely all that matters is that BA is planning the introduction of the 787 in a careful considered way and there is a spare 787 on stand by that helps keep down the risk of significant delays or substitutions.


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7737 posts, RR: 17
Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 7784 times:

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 43):
how long can BA sustain the 'spare', with Newark due to start soon?

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 at LHR with the LGW backup aircraft. These days a single aircraft is used as a back-up to both LHR and LGW operations. It is based at LHR. As a result there are not infrequent BA 772 ferry flights from LHR to LGW (and vice-versa).

In September these ferry flights were:

G-YMMR: Ferried LHR-LGW (BA9159P) 5 Sep to cover for 'MF damaged in ground accident

G-VIIS: Ferried LHR-LGW (BA9154P) 12 Sep to operate single LGW-BDA-LGW rotation before return to LHR

G-VIIX: Ferried LHR-LGW (BA91278E) to cover for G-YMMB (see below). Returned to LHR 20 Sep

G-YMMB: Ferried LHR-LGW (BA9152P) and returned to Gatwick Fleet

G-YMMS: Ferried LHR-LGW 24 Sep. Still operating from LGW as at 30 Sep

As the 787 fleet grows larger the need to have a back-up aircraft increases. However it seems to me that there is no absolute reason why that aircraft has to be a 787.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5220 posts, RR: 5
Reply 50, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7364 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 49):
These days a single aircraft ( 777 ) is used as a back-up to both LHR and LGW operations. It is based at LHR.

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 fleet that needs a backup.


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7303 posts, RR: 57
Reply 51, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7218 times:

Interesting to note that the vast majority of IAG shareholders (Me included) voted to approve the purchase of further 787 and A350 / A320 aircraft.

99.48% of shareholder votes were in favour of the 787 acquisition for BA
99.52% of shareholder votes were in favour of the A350 acquisition for BA
99.49% of shareholder votes were in favour of the A320 acquisition for Vueling

So, a vast majority of IAG have confidence that the 787 issue will be solved with satisfaction. Me included - less people believe I'm anti 787.

http://www.iairgroup.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=240949&p=irol-meeting



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7198 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 50):
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 fleet that needs a backup.

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 practice. I think most reasonable people understand the difference in the two situations.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 53, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 6931 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 52):
One backup in a fleet of 53 777s. Compared to one backup in a fleet of 2 or 3 787s. Do the math.

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 comparison can't really be made until BA has a significant fleet of 787s.


User currently offlinemutu From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6801 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 53):
To be fair, one complete aircraft is the minimum required to provide backup. A fraction of an aircraft probably wouldn't be much use.

Sir, I take my hat off to you. The comment of the deacde in my books!!


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 55, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6536 times:

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.

User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7303 posts, RR: 57
Reply 56, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6318 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 53):
A meaningful comparison can't really be made until BA has a significant fleet of 787s.

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 spare in 50 allows for more than enough coverage.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinehibtastic From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2013, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6230 times:

Just seen a tweet from BA saying that their second 787 will begin long-haul service to EWR today.

User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7737 posts, RR: 17
Reply 58, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6000 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 52):
One backup in a fleet of 53 777s. Compared to one backup in a fleet of 2 or 3 787s. Do the math.

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 maintain operations: one.


User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4069 posts, RR: 33
Reply 59, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5833 times:

Quoting hibtastic (Reply 57):
Just seen a tweet from BA saying that their second 787 will begin long-haul service to EWR today.

BJB had a status message and was replaced with the standby BJA which is on its way to EWR about 15 mins late.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 60, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5788 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 59):

Not a good way to start off its first ever service. Hope the flight goes smoothly from here on out.

tortugamon


User currently offlineflyingcello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5705 times:

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 787?


User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4069 posts, RR: 33
Reply 62, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5535 times:

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 61):
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 787?

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 flying the B787.

I have refuelled about 20 B787 here. I had no problems at all. Seemed a bit slow because the computor was balancing the tanks all the time. If one tank got ahead, the valve was closed until the other side caught up, and it was doing it all the time. But I have only used the wing tanks, they are enough for about 6 hr flight. But start early enough and no problem.


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 63, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5375 times:

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 61):
1. Why a 787 spare? Why not just a 777 to cover both 777 and 787 fleets

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 would be required from standby. I recall that crews can be qualified on up to three types, when BA longhaul was 767, 777 & 747 they could be qualified on all types, now however the longhaul fleet has 5 types.


User currently offlineJohnwaynebobbet From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2013, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5232 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 63):
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 would be required from standby. I recall that crews can be qualified on up to three types, when BA longhaul was 767, 777 & 747 they could be qualified on all types, now however the longhaul fleet has 5 types.

Certain legacy crew on BA are licensed on the 767, 777, 787 and 747.


User currently offlineflyingcello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5212 times:

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 they don't want to swap for a 777 because they want the 787 entry into service to seem faultless. And there will be customers who have chosen BA so that they get a 787 to YYZ.

If you look at 777 and 787 services from LHR and LGW, then logistically, a single 777 can cover both fleets...that's what makes me think this is more about PR. No bad thing either.

On the refueling...

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 62):
I have refuelled about 20 B787 here. I had no problems at all. Seemed a bit slow because the computor was balancing the tanks all the time. If one tank got ahead, the valve was closed until the other side caught up, and it was doing it all the time. But I have only used the wing tanks, they are enough for about 6 hr flight. But start early enough and no problem.

Thanks Steve, this is interesting! So the 787 is always 'thinking'...even when refuelling!


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 66, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5041 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 58):
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 maintain operations: one.

Reliability of the aircraft and probability of requiring the backup given reliability * fleet size is the factor you are missing in your over-simplified example. SQ started daily SIN-SYD A380 service with the first ever frame delivered with no backup.

Further, what happens if the aircraft goes tech in the outstation, not the base? That is an analogous situation to having a one aircraft fleet with no backup. Demonstrating again that it is aircraft dispatch reliability, much more than fleet size, that determine the need for backups.

Quoting David L (Reply 55):
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.

Thanks!  
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 63):
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 would be required from standby.

That shouldn't be a show stopper though... deploying a standby crew on a backup 777 or 767 is a whole lot cheaper than keeping one spare 787 in a fleet of 3 or 4 aircraft.



[Edited 2013-10-01 17:07:57]

User currently offlineAPYu From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 842 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4764 times:

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 aircraft visit without impacting the operation.

So the spare is actually doing more than covering the operation and filling a role which another aircraft type couldnt do.



We'd like to welcome in particular our Executive Club members and those joining us from our Oneworld alliance partners.
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7737 posts, RR: 17
Reply 68, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4429 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 66):
Reliability of the aircraft and probability of requiring the backup given reliability

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 airline operates five, fifty or one hundred frames of a single type. So reliability makes very little difference until reliability is way below the norm.


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2589 posts, RR: 13
Reply 69, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4324 times:

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 65):
But the standby 777, complete with 777 crew, can still substitute for a 787
Quoting sankaps (Reply 66):
That shouldn't be a show stopper though... deploying a standby crew on a backup 777 or 767 is a whole lot cheaper than keeping one spare 787 in a fleet of 3 or 4 aircraft

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 LHR to XXX will get one to three days of rest before flying back to LHR. So while it's easy and indeed cheap to have a standby crew on the outbound flight from LHR, once the type of plane is swapped, from 787 to say 777, the crew waiting at destination to fly the plane back, might not have the type rating of the replacement type. Having a standby crew at each outstation for each different type of plane is short to impossible.
Do note that this might work on very matured fleets, where a lot of cross training has been done and most, if not all crews have multiple type ratings. Not only cockpit crews, also cabin crews, and sometimes even ground crew off course.

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 65):
I wonder if BA are looking at the 'shine' factor with the 787...maybe they don't want to swap for a 777 because they want the 787 entry into service to seem faultless. And there will be customers who have chosen BA so that they get a 787 to YYZ

I think there are many real reasons far more important than this supposedly shine factor.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
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