Airliners.net

IAG have apparently converted 18 options to orders for the 787 for BA.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...s-iag-boeing-idUSBRE9320YD20130403

As usual, this article is a mess. Replacing 747s with 787s? I also doubt IB would be taking in an order of 748s given the Airbus order just announced.

Hopefully we'll get a release from BA or a more knowledgeable wire service about this order.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 1): I also doubt IB would be taking in an order of 748s given the Airbus order just announced.

They announced an order? Where? Oh, the press article where they were reported to be in talks for the A350?. Fair enough, there is no smoke without fire. But here on a.net, we love to split hairs  

Interesting news from BA. I would have thought orders would hold off until everything has settled with the dreamliners.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 1): Replacing 747s with 787s?

I have to admit I found it a little odd as well. Jon Ostrower from the WSJ did say the same thing though. Maybe they think they can right size some routes this way.
Pat

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 3): Maybe they think they can right size some routes this way.

That is also how I read it. Its the only way it makes sense.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...787-order-with-iberia-set-for-more

With a quote from Willie Walsh, this seems legit... Congrats to BA and Boeing.

I would expect they would be flexible on subtype in the contract language. Given they are stated to replace the 744s, they would likely be the -1000 type when it's finally offered.

Quoting seansasLCY (Thread starter): IAG have apparently converted 18 options to orders for the 787 for BA.

Were the options initially for 788 or 789?

Quoting blrsea (Reply 7): Were the options initially for 788 or 789?

Options don't normally lock in a sub type. They should be read as flexible and convertible to slots for production of the -8, -9, or -10 once offered.

Would that mean that BA is planning to start some obvious destinations on US East Coast out of MAN or BHX ? 787 seems to be the right fit for such city pairs, in addition this would free up some slots at T5?

Quoting ely747 (Reply 9): Would that mean that BA is planning to start some obvious destinations on US East Coast out of MAN or BHX ? 787 seems to be the right fit for such city pairs, in addition this would free up some slots at T5?

Those are very unlikely for the foreseeable future, they have quite a few 767 and 777 aircraft to replace in the coming years.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 10):

Why is BA so Heathrow centric actually?

Quoting ely747 (Reply 11):

Little or no premium traffic from anywhere else....

Quoting edina (Reply 12):

If my memory serves me well VS were able to fill up a 747 on MAN-LAS though it was leasure market for the most part, but then again CO, AA or US seem to be doing quite well and are confortable at MAN.

Quoting edina (Reply 12): Little or no premium traffic from anywhere else....

EK has done well at airports other than LHR. BA's focus is LHR with connecting traffic. Its unlikely they'll take the chance on P2P flights such as to MAN to North America.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 14):

Sorry wrong topic

[Edited 2013-04-03 17:26:23]

Quoting ely747 (Reply 9): Would that mean that BA is planning to start some obvious destinations on US East Coast out of MAN or BHX ? 787 seems to be the right fit for such city pairs, in addition this would free up some slots at T5?

UA and AA fly to these destinations using 757s. These are the perfect size aircraft for these small long haul markets.
And as others have stated, some of the 767s are over 20 years old and are in need of replacement.

Quoting KaiTak747 (Reply 16):

I think the market is there even for 3 class 763 (club world, world traveller + and world traveller) but aircraft rotation / utilization could become problematic and not efficient respectivelly, adding extra costs to move labor out of its LHR base. Just my thought.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 14): EK has done well at airports other than LHR. BA's focus is LHR with connecting traffic. Its unlikely they'll take the chance on P2P flights such as to MAN to North America.

A few other airlines can do well with flights to airports outside London - KL serves more British airports than BA.

But for BA, with their TATL partner AA they can leave these routes to be served by AA instead and BA can use their aircraft for London routes. I don't see them venturing back to non-London flights.

Quoting ely747 (Reply 11): Why is BA so Heathrow centric actually?

Quoting ely747 (Reply 13): If my memory serves me well VS were able to fill up a 747 on MAN-LAS though it was leasure market for the most part, but then again CO, AA or US seem to be doing quite well and are confortable at MAN.

I have to be honest, I find this topic about BA being LHR-centric to be rather humorous every time it comes up. My question would be how is it any different than what most other airlines do?

With regards to the US airlines listed above, all are flying to their respective hubs (EWR, ORD, PHL etc.). Hub to spoke. In BA's case, LHR is the hub and MAN is the spoke. AF, KL, AZ, SQ, and yes, even EK (DXB) centralize their flights into their respective hubs. Point to point only really works well if there is a lot of O&D traffic or if you have a very low cost base. Even with a large amount of O&D, it may be too cost prohibitive to run outlying flights. That's why you see airlines try to build their hubs with the right mix of O&D and connecting traffic to fill the planes.

Just my   .

Anyway, back on topic, I certainly think that BA will be able to put these aircraft to good use if these options have in fact been picked up. Does anyone know if BA plans to replace the 777 fleet at LGW with 787's? If so, what variant would they likely use for these routes?

Cheers.

Quoting blue100 (Reply 19):

It is slightly different since it is the fattest TATL route. Multiple hub system works fine for LH. If MAN manages to attract more direct services which will and not only to North America, then BA is going to lose out. Businesses need direct links. Surley one cannot ignore greater Manchester area.

[Edited 2013-04-03 18:39:15]

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 5): Congrats to BA and Boeing.

And RR...  

The 787 will work nicey for BA

Quoting ely747 (Reply 20): Multiple hub system works fine for LH.

Ah that old chestnut of comparing the apple of the UK to the orange of Germany, a common favourite of the MAN fanboys in these monotonous threads. Do some research on the economics, geography, population distribution and inbound tourism of Germany compared to that of the UK and you may realise why they have more success at a 'multiple hub system' than BA or in fact any other airline in Europe.

I'll help you out, answer these four questions...

Where is the most densely populated region of Germany? And the UK?
Where is the financial centre of Germany? And the UK?
Where is the most visited region of Germany for international visitors? And the UK?
What is the most visited city of Germany? And the UK?

I too do not get the BA and MAN push. It failed before and was not good for MAN anyway. The 1-11's have gone!! BA and OW are shrinking at MAN. MAN's future is much brighter without BA, and BA future is much brighter without MAN.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 6): I would expect they would be flexible on subtype in the contract language. Given they are stated to replace the 744s, they would likely be the -1000 type when it's finally offered.

Since this hasn't officially been launched, these orders can't be for the -10 model. I'm guessing these are for -9s exclusively.

That brings BA's 787 firm orders to 42, of which eight are 787-8s. They still have purchase rights on a further ten.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 25): Since this hasn't officially been launched, these orders can't be for the -10 model. I'm guessing these are for -9s exclusively. That brings BA's 787 firm orders to 42, of which eight are 787-8s. They still have purchase rights on a further ten.

Unless BA is terrible at negotiating, they will have flexibility to change the sub type up to a certain point before scheduled delivery for a certain slot. Keep in mind these slots are four ish years down the road. They must have language which allows them to chose any variation of the 787 including the -10.

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 18): KL serves more British airports than BA

...and BA serve more airports in the Netherlands (excluding Netherlands Antilles) than KL. That's how hub and spoke works.

I'm surprised that BA want more 787s, especially as a 744 replacement. I assume it they will be -900 or -1000, which could potentially be a replacement for the 772s, but replacing 744s with them is a big drop in capacity, which needs to be high on most longhaul routes out of LHR. Would they possibly configure some for shorthaul ops like the 767? Or a replacement of the LGW longhaul fleet maybe?

Quoting eljas (Reply 27): ...and BA serve more airports in the Netherlands (excluding Netherlands Antilles) than KL. That's how hub and spoke works.

Not entirely correct if you count KLs codeshare on AFs RTM-LCY as a KL flight.

This is a big boost for Boeing, after reports BA is set to order a huge number of A350s (favouring it over the 777X). It will take the number of 787s for BA to 42, not that far from the number of 777s they operate. Didn't really expect this, to be honest.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 25): They still have purchase rights on a further ten.

Will these be the delivery slots they negotiated for IB? Or does this mean even more?

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 26): Unless BA is terrible at negotiating, they will have flexibility to change the sub type up to a certain point before scheduled delivery for a certain slot. Keep in mind these slots are four ish years down the road. They must have language which allows them to chose any variation of the 787 including the -10.

   Could very well be converted to the 787-10, it would be an excellent replacement for 744s on transatlantic routes.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 29): it would be an excellent replacement for 744s on transatlantic routes.

To be honest, I'm guessing that's partly what the A350-1000s will be for.

Quoting PM (Reply 30): Quoting frigatebird (Reply 29):it would be an excellent replacement for 744s on transatlantic routes. To be honest, I'm guessing that's partly what the A350-1000s will be for.

Oh, on those routes TA routes that require a bit more capacity than the 787-10, for sure. But I would say the A350-1000 would be best on longer routes like Asia or South America.

Fascinating timing, with Boeing desperate for some positive PR for the stricken programme, I imagine BA got a very nice deal!

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 32): Fascinating timing, with Boeing desperate for some positive PR for the stricken programme, I imagine BA got a very nice deal!

Lol talk about being melodramatic. No, it had absolutely nothing to do with that BA is making decisions on long haul fleet replacements...oh no, the programme is stricken and desperate for PR is why BA would spend billions...smh.

It is a B747 replacment

"International Airlines Group (IAG) has reached agreement with Boeing for new long-haul aircraft to replace the older Boeing 747s in the British Airways fleet between 2017 and 2021."

and IB will be getting B787's

"IAG has also reached agreement with Boeing to secure commercial terms and delivery slots that could lead to an order for 787s for Iberia when it has restructured and reduced its cost base and is in a position to grow profitability."

From the IAG web site:

"International Airlines Group (IAG) has reached agreement with Boeing for new longhaul aircraft for the group's fleet.

"IAG plans to convert 18 existing Boeing 787s options into firm orders for British Airways. They will be used to replace some of the airline's Boeing 747-400 aircraft between 2017 and 2021.

"For Iberia, IAG has reached agreement with Boeing to secure commercial terms and delivery slots that could lead to an order for Boeing 787s. Firm orders will only be made when Iberia has restructured and reduced its cost base and is in a position grow profitably.

"British Airways' 787s will be powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines. The engine order includes a comprehensive maintenance package with total care agreement."

The perception that you need to replace a 744 with a similar sized or larger aircraft is not necessarily correct. Here it is worth remembering that BA went down the 744 route in August 1986. Then they ordered 16 and took out options on a further 12. It is possible that range and not size was the single biggest determinant in that order. Today things are very different. Range is no longer a major factor in the decision making process.

[Edited 2013-04-04 04:48:49]

Not surprised by the order and it's good to see BA renewing the Long-Haul fleet further.

GCPET

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 1): Replacing 747s with 787s?

It does make some sense for BA who have a very large LHR-US/CAN network of p2p routes. 747's are simply too big in this day and age of JV's and high frequency p2p routes.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 35): "For Iberia, IAG has reached agreement with Boeing to secure commercial terms and delivery slots that could lead to an order for Boeing 787s. Firm orders will only be made when Iberia has restructured and reduced its cost base and is in a position grow profitably.

Should we interpret from this that 787's for IB are basically a given (sounds almost like an LOI). If so, this comes as a surprise as many were expecting an A359/351 Combo for IB...

For IB, I think we'll see the 359 or 351 for larger routes and the 788 for smaller ones. This will bring IB down to two a/c types for long haul routes. Airbus should continue to be the supplier for short haul a/c.

I'm guessing IB is not having problems filling their A340-300s, since they're taking delivery of A330-300s and not A330-200s, so I would think the 787-8 would be too small for them.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 38): Should we interpret from this that 787's for IB are basically a given (sounds almost like an LOI).

BA had 28 options for the 787, so it's possible that the 10 remaining options have been novated to Iberia.

Quoting LHRFlyer (Reply 41): BA had 28 options for the 787, so it's possible that the 10 remaining options have been novated to Iberia.

The Businessweek article states "IAG said it has also secured an unspecified number of additional delivery slots for future Iberia needs", so I guess these will be supplemental to the existing options.

If IB actually order he 787, it would allow fleet commonality within IAG.

BA should definetely start looking at the 7810. It is simply the right airplane for all those thinner TATL routes for which BA uses the 747 suboptimally with a low seat density. 789s would replace the bulk of the 772 fleet and 788s wiil replace the 763. For the higher capacity routes I think BA will top up the a380 order and deploy them on routes like LHR-JFK/HKG/LAX, give up some frequencies and make a few 777s or 787s available for other routes. The capacity gap between the 380 and the 7810s should be covered by either the 350 or the 777X but not both at the same time.

As for IB, they will do fine with just one widebody family (787 ideally). When Boeing start offering the 7810, IAG should make a joint order and buy it for both carriers. Iberia would also need the 789 for those routes where they cant fill that many seats or they need more range. For IB's thicker routes like EZE or MEX they will have to add frequencies. Sadly, the cost of incorporating a bigger aircraft like the 748 for a few routes is not justifiable. I say sadly cos the 748 would look stunning on IB livery.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 1): As usual, this article is a mess. Replacing 747s with 787s?

Considering the fact that when the 744 came out it was the only plane with the range it had, it stands to reason that airlines that did a lot of long haul flying would have bought a bunch of them (and BA at one time had the largest 747 fleet in the world.) Now that smaller planes have the same or greater range, some of the 744's will undoubtedly be replaced with smaller planes. In fact, Boeing said sometime years ago that more customers bought the 747 for its range than for its capacity.

Quoting edina (Reply 12): Little or no premium traffic from anywhere else....

Dont know why people keep on saying this without knowing the actual facts especially for a market like MANCHESTER where EK and EY in particular have literally got the entire GCC/Austral-Asia premium market all nicely wrapped up for themselves.

In 2012, the top long & medium haul 20 business class market segments out of Manchester were as follows:

DXB 16,082
SIN 12,357
HKG 11,455
JFK 11,453
IST 10,032

PVG 9,209
PHL 9,136
BKK 8,952
ORD 8,644
DEL 6,877

EWR 6,541
JNB 6,372
BOM 6,181
PEK 5,843
IAH 5,335

SYD 5,286
ISB 5,087
NRT 4,555
LHE 4,461
YYZ 4,399

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 44): In fact, Boeing said sometime years ago that more customers bought the 747 for its range than for its capacity.

Actually, that was Airbus. Though to my knowledge, Boeing never disputed the statement. I'll have to look up my old collection of AW&ST's, but I believe it was @ 1988 or so that Airbus stated that ~60% of all 747 sales had been based on that planes range capability than it's seating capacity. Of course, this was also during the height of the A340 sales pitch, so take it for what it's worth. I never saw stats either refuting or confirming the claim.


Hamlet69

Quoting behramjee (Reply 45): Dont know why people keep on saying this without knowing the actual facts especially for a market like MANCHESTER where EK and EY in particular have literally got the entire GCC/Austral-Asia premium market all nicely wrapped up for themselves.

Very interesting figures, but where is AUH on this list?

I think the reason that it makes sense for KLM to fly to more British airports than BA is that it makes more sense to fly to Amsterdam from places like Birmingham, Norwich etc than to London because to get to London there are plenty of other options like driving or taking the train. Also, Amsterdam has plenty of capacity for services with small regional aircraft whereas at Heathrow slots cost a fortune and it is best to use these for more lucrative services (long haul, high capacity).

Quoting kaitak (Reply 47): Very interesting figures, but where is AUH on this list?

both DOH and AUH J class travel to MAN was less than 3,000 hence did not fall in the top 20 medium/long haul market segments