CF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 1053 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4860 times:
I wouldn't be so hasty as to rule out the 767-400 for BA. Sure, the A330-200 has a better lift capability overall, but it appears that CO is making perfectly good use of the 767-400 on both the North Atlantic and to South America. On the basis of range, is the -400 ruled out for LHR-DFW (for example) or other routes to the interior of the US? The -400 has cockpit commonality with the 777 and could be used on a seasonal basis quite nicely to fill in when big brother is too large, or to increase frequencies.
BA has been rather tepid about using the 767-300 on the Atlantic but I have the impression that the RR-powered variant had less range than the GE/Pratt variant, and this may have muted BA's enthusiasm in that market.
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4845 times:
The A330-200 might be too big for BA on short haul european routes, LHR-AMS/CGD/ZRH etc. The only plus point is it would have fleet commonality with the rest of the A320 family fleet, but not sure how much of a factor that would be in replacing the 763's. This is where i think Airbus could develop something to replace the A300/A310, a 200 seater.
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7370 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4841 times:
BA used to have a fleet of 3 767s based away from LHR/LGW in the early 1990s: G-BNWN, G-BNWO & G-BNWU if I remember correctly. Two were based at MAN (for the JFK & LAX* runs) and the other at BHX (for their JFK-YYZ run).
I pretty sure that they have operated the 767 from LHR & LGW to the US but I don't know which destinations.
* They operated this non-stop - something like 10 hours travelling time?
Currently they (or should I say BA CitiExpress) have got G-BNWH on a piece of elastic flying between MAN and JFK (when it's not gone tech).
CF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 1053 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4822 times:
David_itl, off the top of my head I think that EWR, PHL, PIT and perhaps ATL received 767-300 nonstops out of LHR/LGW at one time or another. Possibly BOS as well? They were mainly east coast, but it was interesting to know of the MAN-LAX segment. Yes, that would tax one's derriere, sitting there all that time (the 767 is rather pokey). I don't recall IAH or DFW ever receiving them, and the DEN and PHX,SAN routes came along after BA was whittling the 767 fleet down.
DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8897 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4754 times:
I believe the 767-400 ER would be a good addition for BA. First off, the 764 has basically the same flight deck (at least on Delta) as the 777, with the only difference between them being that the 777's backup attitude, altitude and airspeed indicators are digital, while the 764 has the conventional gauges. But before any new order is announced from BA, there are several other priorities, which include making money, the LGW "hub", and the short-haul network, as well as finding room at LHR.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4695 times:
Well, IF they were going to order one or the other, I'd say they'd go with the A330-200 as apposed to the B767-400ER. Because of the range, BA wanted the point to point from LHR, where loads won't be as high as flying to a hub, especially ultra-long haul which 764 can't provide. Thats what I'd say.
However I like BA's fleet how it is (Airbus short haul, Boeing long haul).
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4684 times:
Efficient/inefficient is all relative. Although the 764 is a modern efficient airliner, it is not (it pains me to say this) as efficient as the A332 from what I have read. The 332 is now used on routes like SEL-AMS which is outside of the 764s range.
EGGF, It's even funnier when Europeans argue that the A333/A340 are better than the 777s.
Brons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3013 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4633 times:
The main problem as I see it is the lack of range with the 764. Rangs is 5,645 nm. Whereas with the A332, range is 6,650 nm at the highest offered MTOW. That's 1000nm farther...you can go a long ways on that. These figures are both at max pax and not pax+cargo of course.
One interesting thing, the 764 carries only 23,980 US gallons of fuel. The A332 carries US 36,750 gallons. Therefore, fuel consumption at max range is 4.24 gallons/mile for the Boeing and 5.52 gallons/mile for the Airbus. Of course, this does not account for the cargo carrying capability of the planes, which I'm guessing the Airbus' capability is higher.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
Aamd11 From UK - Wales, joined Nov 2001, 1059 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4605 times:
i do believe they reduced the order to just 6 A318s, and replaced the other six firm orders with orders for 4 A321 for the main fleet [as opposed to the fleets of GB Airways and BMed.]
as for next new type, i say 773 maybe for early 744s [it was discussed a long time ago, way back in April last year i think there was mention of it.]
As for A332/764 i say dont rule either of them out, for simple reasons in both cases, they can quite easily integrate them into an existing fleet [A320 family or 777 a/c], and IF they do order 773s to replace a few 744s [the original number was to replace about 12 a/c] i wouldnt be suprised if Boeing tried to flog them some 764s at the same time, and if the prices are favourable then they will take some.
QatarAirways From Qatar, joined Sep 2008, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4593 times:
Another advantage the A330-200 has on long hauls over the B767 according to a GF employee is that the A330-200's wings are quite large and create a lot of lift. The extra size and hence weight is a disadvantage on shorthauls but is an advantage on longer routes because since the A330-200's wing creates a lot more lift than the B767's wings and so the engines run with a lower throttle setting compared to the B767 and therefore reducing fuel consumption.
I don't really know if this is true or not but I hope someone here can elaborate more on this.
"Of course, this does not account for the cargo carrying capability of the planes, which I'm guessing the Airbus' capability is higher."
The A330-200 has 4800ft3 cargo hold volume compared to 4580ft3 for the B767-400ER and the A330-200 also has higher payload capabilities. The real advantage though is that the A330-200's use LD3 containers which are interchangeable between the A330-200 and the B747-400, B777 and A32X aircraft in BA's fleet.
One last advantage is speed. The A330-200 cruises at M0.82 while the B767-400ER cruises at M0.80 it is not a large difference but is something that some people love to point out when comparing the A340 and the B777.
Basically the A330-200 is beating the B767-400 in all the criteria that the B777 is beating the A340 (classics).
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 23, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4537 times:
In the past, BA has looked at all of the different versions of the A330 and passed......it just doesn't fit into their fleet plans. It is also unlikely that BA will order the 764, again, not the right aircraft for them. Almost all of BA's long haul services are out of crowded LHR, only a handfull of long-haul services fly out of LGW (mainly to the USA and due to B 2), they need capacity and the 777 is ideal for these routes. The 772 and 744 will handle almost all of the long-haul BA routes, with maybe the 773 added in the future. The 763 may stay around for some high-density European routes and a few medium-range thin routes, but the type will be slowly phased out and not directly replaced.
BA, with its 4-class long-haul strategy and home-based in crowded LHR needs big planes with lots of seats and versatility, for this reason I think that the 772 will be the smallest of BA's future long-haul fleet.
Crosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2598 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4509 times:
I think the choice of B767-300 replacement (should there be one any time soon) will depend on what British Airways want more.
The B767-400 runs out of range for long-thin routes, the main strength of the A330-200. Conversely the B767-400 would be much better suited to short-haul routes, where the longer-legged A330-200 becomes an overkill (cf Lufthansa)
I would predict that given BA's problems with it's short-haul network profitability and capacity reductions, they will retain younger B767-300s to serve higher density European routes. I can't see why BA would have an interest in anything larger than the B767-300 for European flights. As the A318/319/320/321 fleet grows, whats left of the current 757/767 fleet should be able to handle high-density Euro flights.
On long-haul roues I believe the A330 will be very attractive for long-thin routes, with very little case to be made for the B767-400. The A330 offers a range well beyond that of the B767-300, increased freight capacity, A32X flightdeck commonality and similar engines to the B777. A capacity increase shouldn't be too much of a problem here as long-haul routes are where BA has traditionally made money, plus an A330-200 configured in the new FCWY/CWY layouts would probably seat the about the same or even possibly fewer than the old configured FCY/CY B767s.
: Dutchjet you raise a good point about the congestion in LHR but I would think that the A330-200 would be perfect for starting new point to point servi
: Another interesting point, Boeing was working on a 764LR (note I said LR not ER) for Kenya Airlines but they decided to switch to the 772ER instead...
: Hi Brons2, You're correct, Boeing had launched the B767-400ERX, with orders from Kenya Airways for the type powered by RR Trent engines. However, it w
: Yay! Kenya Airways, I fly them on Sunday . Just thought you'd like to know is all...
: Why did they cancel the 764ERX? Was the expected performance (range/weight) outside of technical possibility? I looked at the airplane performace char
: Don't remember the exact reason for the cancellation of the 764ERX, but would assume it was due to the overall poor sales performance of the 764, and
: BA are trying to reduce capacity on European routes and are doing this by replacing 752s and 763s with A32Xs so an order for 764 or A332 is unlikely.