eire123
Topic Author
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:54 pm

BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:18 am

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..
 
User avatar
SKAirbus
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:18 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:25 am

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 (738), OSL-CPH (320), CPH-LHR (321), LHR-HEL (359), HEL-LHR (359)
 
vv701
Posts: 5805
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:27 am

See Reply 66 here:

How Has The 787 Been Performing Lately? (by sankaps Sep 17 2013 in Civil Aviation)
 
GSTBA
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 3:20 am

RE: BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:04 pm

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.
 
bastew
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:21 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:17 pm

 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3081
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:24 pm

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.
 
KPDX
Posts: 2374
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:04 am

RE: BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:04 pm

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
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:22 pm

Seriously? Another problem? Boeing are on a roll.
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
phxa340
Posts: 987
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:07 am

RE: BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:26 pm

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.
 
KPDX
Posts: 2374
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:04 am

RE: BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:34 pm

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
 
vv701
Posts: 5805
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:40 pm

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 avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:59 pm

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 avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3272
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:00 pm

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...
Please let me know... If you know this is the end of the world, Let me know... If you know the truth...
 
willd
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:38 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:50 pm

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!
 
KPDX
Posts: 2374
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:04 am

RE: BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:02 pm

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 avatar
Tigerguy
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:28 am

RE: BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:07 pm

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.   
Good night, and keep watching the skis. Uh, skies.
 
User avatar
vhtje
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:40 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:57 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10):

Thank you for a very detailed, informative and considered post.
I only turn left when boarding aircraft. Well, mostly. All right, sometimes. OH OKAY - rarely.
 
AA94
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:37 am

RE: BA And The 787

Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:47 pm

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.
If you can't take the heat, you best get out of the kitchen
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3081
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:14 am

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.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5073
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:00 am

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.
 
BestWestern
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:16 am

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.
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
Max Q
Posts: 5695
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:03 am

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 avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3272
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:06 am

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?  
Please let me know... If you know this is the end of the world, Let me know... If you know the truth...
 
David L
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:58 am

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.
 
Capt.Fantastic
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 1999 4:01 am

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:09 am

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
 
Max Q
Posts: 5695
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:25 am

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.
 
bluesky73
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:36 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:24 am

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!
 
flyingcello
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:31 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:58 am

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...  
 
WAC
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:31 am

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:29 am

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.
 
bastew
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:21 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:54 am

I think a more interesting topic about the BA 787 is what passengers think of the Y class cabin - and the seating in particular.  
 
brilondon
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:18 pm

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!!
 
vv701
Posts: 5805
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:23 pm

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.
 
bluesky73
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:36 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:23 pm

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?
 
CXfirst
Posts: 2924
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:13 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:27 pm

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
 
vv701
Posts: 5805
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:16 pm

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.
 
flyingcello
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:31 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:33 pm

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

Correct...hence the "or"!
 
Max Q
Posts: 5695
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:19 pm

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.
 
David L
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: BA And The 787

Sun Sep 29, 2013 8:34 am

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.
 
bluesky73
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:36 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:29 am

G-ZBJD on her way, just over Lake District, 40 mins away from LHR  
 
Max Q
Posts: 5695
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:24 am

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.
 
vv701
Posts: 5805
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA And The 787

Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:15 pm

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.
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3134
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: BA And The 787

Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:46 pm

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"
 
vv701
Posts: 5805
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA And The 787

Sun Sep 29, 2013 3:37 pm

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.
 
flyingcello
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:31 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:24 pm

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...
 
Max Q
Posts: 5695
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Sun Sep 29, 2013 8:25 pm

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.
 
hotelmode
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:31 am

RE: BA And The 787

Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:16 pm

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]
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: BA And The 787

Mon Sep 30, 2013 2:07 am

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]
 
Max Q
Posts: 5695
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Mon Sep 30, 2013 2:14 am

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.
 
jumpjets
Posts: 1142
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:17 pm

RE: BA And The 787

Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:36 am

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.
 
vv701
Posts: 5805
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA And The 787

Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:46 pm

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.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos