george77300 wrote:

The 18 High-J config (14F/86J/30W/145Y) can't be matched with anything realistic except possibly the B779X. They will almost certainly order it at some stage. They simply need the space for all those J seats especially as a new seat is coming next year with the A350 and then the B77W. This seat won't be smaller than the current so they need the floor space the larger planes offer to match this configuration effectively.

Bear in mind, the new J seat is being developed, and the layout presumably optimised for, the A35K and 78X that are on order. The additional width of the 779 may not help here. Also, the F cabin will almost certainly be smaller, and I would also add that Airbus has quite a few options beneath the main deck for galleys and crew rest areas. All of which means, IMO, the A35K/78X combination is still more likely to be the replacement for BA's remaining 744s.

TedToToe wrote:

george77300 wrote:

The 18 High-J config (14F/86J/30W/145Y) can't be matched with anything realistic except possibly the B779X. They will almost certainly order it at some stage. They simply need the space for all those J seats especially as a new seat is coming next year with the A350 and then the B77W. This seat won't be smaller than the current so they need the floor space the larger planes offer to match this configuration effectively.

Bear in mind, the new J seat is being developed, and the layout presumably optimised for, the A35K and 78X that are on order. The additional width of the 779 may not help here. Also, the F cabin will almost certainly be smaller, and I would also add that Airbus has quite a few options beneath the main deck for galleys and crew rest areas. All of which means, IMO, the A35K/78X combination is still more likely to be the replacement for BA's remaining 744s.

Currently the plan is two configs on the A35K, one four class and the other 3 class (no F). Also the A35K is wider than the 787 and the product will go in the A380 which is both wider than the 777X and narrower than all the wide bodies on the upper deck and it will have to fit all of them. I think the seat is going to be very similar layout wise to the current ones with possible staggering for window seats to have direct aisle access and some new bits and pieces and other kit etc... No solid rumors yet though on the seat other than delivered on the A35K/B78J and the 3 new 77W will be delivered with it (2 in 2019, 1 in 2020) and the 77W are first on the refits to have a standard layout in all. 4 class for definite and 10 abreast in y with the new WT seats with updated IFE currently in the 772 at LGW.

george77300 wrote:

The A35K are sort of a replacement and the B78J certainly are not. The 18 High-J config (14F/86J/30W/145Y) can't be matched with anything realistic except possibly the B779X. They will almost certainly order it at some stage. They simply need the space for all those J seats especially as a new seat is coming next year with the A350 and then the B77W. This seat won't be smaller than the current so they need the floor space the larger planes offer to match this configuration effectively.

With big airlines, it's more useful to look at total capacity. BA is unusually attached to strictly planned 1-for-1 replacements, but even so you have to think in terms of how multiple fleets might fly missions.

You could absolutely configure a 78X with a very-high-J config, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly what happens, because every single route that really requires very high J is within 78X range.

That said, I think if the 78X could fully replace all of the remaining 744 fleet, we would already have seen a top-up 78X order. Boeing has been dealing on 787s as it tries to fill the 14x/month pipeline and create uncertainty for the A330neo. So I expect BA does have something with more capacity than a 789 and longer range than a 78X in mind for the remaining 744 replacement. That pretty much means 35K or 779. And I think the factors BA will weigh in deciding between the two are 1) for the A350, fleet commonality with already-ordered A350s; 2) for the 779, higher J capacity that can result from the wider cabin; and 3) cost.

TedToToe wrote:

george77300 wrote:

The 18 High-J config (14F/86J/30W/145Y) can't be matched with anything realistic except possibly the B779X. They will almost certainly order it at some stage. They simply need the space for all those J seats especially as a new seat is coming next year with the A350 and then the B77W. This seat won't be smaller than the current so they need the floor space the larger planes offer to match this configuration effectively.

Bear in mind, the new J seat is being developed, and the layout presumably optimised for, the A35K and 78X that are on order. The additional width of the 779 may not help here. Also, the F cabin will almost certainly be smaller, and I would also add that Airbus has quite a few options beneath the main deck for galleys and crew rest areas. All of which means, IMO, the A35K/78X combination is still more likely to be the replacement for BA's remaining 744s.

The only thing the wider cabin footprint will do for BA on the 777X is provide comfortable 10Y seating.

TedToToe wrote:

george77300 wrote:

The 18 High-J config (14F/86J/30W/145Y) can't be matched with anything realistic except possibly the B779X. They will almost certainly order it at some stage. They simply need the space for all those J seats especially as a new seat is coming next year with the A350 and then the B77W. This seat won't be smaller than the current so they need the floor space the larger planes offer to match this configuration effectively.

Bear in mind, the new J seat is being developed, and the layout presumably optimised for, the A35K and 78X that are on order. The additional width of the 779 may not help here. Also, the F cabin will almost certainly be smaller, and I would also add that Airbus has quite a few options beneath the main deck for galleys and crew rest areas. All of which means, IMO, the A35K/78X combination is still more likely to be the replacement for BA's remaining 744s.

The only thing the wider cabin footprint will do for BA on the 777X is provide comfortable 10Y seating.

seabosdca wrote:

george77300 wrote:

The A35K are sort of a replacement and the B78J certainly are not. The 18 High-J config (14F/86J/30W/145Y) can't be matched with anything realistic except possibly the B779X. They will almost certainly order it at some stage. They simply need the space for all those J seats especially as a new seat is coming next year with the A350 and then the B77W. This seat won't be smaller than the current so they need the floor space the larger planes offer to match this configuration effectively.

With big airlines, it's more useful to look at total capacity. BA is unusually attached to strictly planned 1-for-1 replacements, but even so you have to think in terms of how multiple fleets might fly missions.

You could absolutely configure a 78X with a very-high-J config, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly what happens, because every single route that really requires very high J is within 78X range.

That said, I think if the 78X could fully replace all of the remaining 744 fleet, we would already have seen a top-up 78X order. Boeing has been dealing on 787s as it tries to fill the 14x/month pipeline and create uncertainty for the A330neo. So I expect BA does have something with more capacity than a 789 and longer range than a 78X in mind for the remaining 744 replacement. That pretty much means 35K or 779. And I think the factors BA will weigh in deciding between the two are 1) for the A350, fleet commonality with already-ordered A350s; 2) for the 779, higher J capacity that can result from the wider cabin; and 3) cost.

Gentlemen, may I do some nasty nitpicking?

The IATA codes for Airbus A350-1000 and Boeing 787-10 are 351 and 78J.
The ICAO codes are B78X and A35K.

There is no such thing as 78X or B78J or 35K.

I know, there's no logic here, but that's what folks at IATA and ICAO have done.

Sorry for that.

Arion640 wrote:

The only thing the wider cabin footprint will do for BA on the 777X is provide comfortable 10Y seating.

Comfortable? It will still be worse than on the A350 and even on the B747.

]

george77300 wrote:

The A35K are sort of a replacement and the B78J certainly are not. The 18 High-J config (14F/86J/30W/145Y) can't be matched with anything realistic except possibly the B779X. They will almost certainly order it at some stage. They simply need the space for all those J seats especially as a new seat is coming next year with the A350 and then the B77W. This seat won't be smaller than the current so they need the floor space the larger planes offer to match this configuration effectively.

I would bet handsome money that we are not going to see another BA aircraft with even close to 14 F seats again. That frees up a chunk of cabin space for a start.

workhorse wrote:

Gentlemen, may I do some nasty nitpicking?

The IATA codes for Airbus A350-1000 and Boeing 787-10 are 351 and 78J.
The ICAO codes are B78X and A35K.

There is no such thing as 78X or B78J or 35K.

I know, there's no logic here, but that's what folks at IATA and ICAO have done.

Sorry for that.

Of course, what doesn't help here on a.net is that for Airbus types (for obvious reasons) we generally include the 'A', so following ICAO. While, for Boeing types (again, for obvious reasons) we generally do not include the 'B', so following IATA.
In a.net terms, therefore, an A350-1000 is an A35K and a Boeing 787-10 is a 78J.

But, feel free to nitpick further!

workhorse wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

The only thing the wider cabin footprint will do for BA on the 777X is provide comfortable 10Y seating.

Comfortable? It will still be worse than on the A350 and even on the B747.

The 777X is supposed to be at least 18 inches in 10 across (or at least thats what the plan was) so about as good as a 9 Across A350.

Arion640 wrote:

workhorse wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

The only thing the wider cabin footprint will do for BA on the 777X is provide comfortable 10Y seating.

Comfortable? It will still be worse than on the A350 and even on the B747.

The 777X is supposed to be at least 18 inches in 10 across (or at least thats what the plan was) so about as good as a 9 Across A350.

With all due respect, this is impossible.

The 777X has the same external fuselage width as the current 777.

777 fuselage width is 244 inches / 620 cm. A350 fuselage width is 234.6 inches / 596 cm. So, the 777 fuselage is only 9.45 in / 24cm wider while it has one more seat. Even if the so much hyped "thinner walls" of 777X were atom-thin, it wouldn't have same cabin width as the A350.

TedToToe wrote:

workhorse wrote:

Gentlemen, may I do some nasty nitpicking?

The IATA codes for Airbus A350-1000 and Boeing 787-10 are 351 and 78J.
The ICAO codes are B78X and A35K.

There is no such thing as 78X or B78J or 35K.

I know, there's no logic here, but that's what folks at IATA and ICAO have done.

Sorry for that.

Of course, what doesn't help here on a.net is that for Airbus types (for obvious reasons) we generally include the 'A', so following ICAO. While, for Boeing types (again, for obvious reasons) we generally do not include the 'B', so following IATA.
In a.net terms, therefore, an A350-1000 is an A35K and a Boeing 787-10 is a 78J.

But, feel free to nitpick further!

I always like to include `B` for Boeing & the `A` for Airbus, but I`m always open to be `nitpicked`, doesn`t matter does it?!
On topic, I`m of the opinion BA will order more A350-1000`s due to it`s versatility & known quantity, but wouldn`t be surprised
if they ordered some B777-9`s. I still don`t understand why BA haven`t done a deal on some further A380`s, they want them
& need them by all accounts, & a deal could have been done IMHO with an order for more -1000`s in the offing.

workhorse wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

workhorse wrote:

Comfortable? It will still be worse than on the A350 and even on the B747.

The 777X is supposed to be at least 18 inches in 10 across (or at least thats what the plan was) so about as good as a 9 Across A350.

With all due respect, this is impossible.

The 777X has the same external fuselage width as the current 777.

777 fuselage width is 244 inches / 620 cm. A350 fuselage width is 234.6 inches / 596 cm. So, the 777 fuselage is only 9.45 in / 24cm wider while it has one more seat. Even if the so much hyped "thinner walls" of 777X were atom-thin, it wouldn't have same cabin width as the A350.

With all due respect, when Boeing does manage to put in an 18” wide seat on the 77X, will you recant your statement?

FriscoHeavy wrote:

With all due respect, when Boeing does manage to put in an 18” wide seat on the 77X, will you recant your statement?

You have seen the numbers. The only way you can put the same seat in the 777X as in the A350 is by reducing aisle width. The flight attendants thank you very much for that.

workhorse wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

workhorse wrote:

Comfortable? It will still be worse than on the A350 and even on the B747.

The 777X is supposed to be at least 18 inches in 10 across (or at least thats what the plan was) so about as good as a 9 Across A350.

With all due respect, this is impossible.

The 777X has the same external fuselage width as the current 777.

777 fuselage width is 244 inches / 620 cm. A350 fuselage width is 234.6 inches / 596 cm. So, the 777 fuselage is only 9.45 in / 24cm wider while it has one more seat. Even if the so much hyped "thinner walls" of 777X were atom-thin, it wouldn't have same cabin width as the A350.

According to an old A.net thread, the 772/773 interior cabin width is 19 feet, 3 inches and the seats are 17 inches wide on a 3-4-3 configuration. The 778/779 interior cabin width is 20 feet. So, 9 inch wider cabin and 10 inches are taken up by the wider seats. I doubt anyone will notice a 0.5 inch narrower aisle.

workhorse wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

With all due respect, when Boeing does manage to put in an 18” wide seat on the 77X, will you recant your statement?

You have seen the numbers. The only way you can put the same seat in the 777X as in the A350 is by reducing aisle width. The flight attendants thank you very much for that.

Somewhere here the numbers have been posted, but @ 18 inches on the 77X, it takes minuscule shrinking of the aisle to accomplish. Under an inch if I remember. But on this site, a 1/2 inch is enough reason for some to never fly a 737, so maybe under an inch is still significant for some.

osupoke07 wrote:

workhorse wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

According to an old A.net thread, the 772/773 interior cabin width is 19 feet, 3 inches and the seats are 17 inches wide on a 3-4-3 configuration. The 778/779 interior cabin width is 20 feet.

Yes, that looks magic when you compare it to the "old" 777. And if you compare it to the competition?

workhorse wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

right now there are only 12 or so 744s without designated replacements, and this order is probably what will replace them.

How do you count that? My count is 18: 36 744s in the fleet, 18 351s coming (351s have been explicitly presented by BA as 744s replacement).

Or maybe you count the 78Js as 744s replacement too, than it must be 6 (since only 12 78Js are ordered).

Every November IAG does a presentation to investors and analysts, they call it their Capital Markets Day, and publishes the information.
In November 2017 the projected fleet plan showed 12 744s still in service after all the 787-10s and A350-1000s currently on order had been delivered by early 2022.
But by February 2024 the last 744 was to leave the fleet.
That's where the 12 comes from, an official statement by the company itself.
And in fact it is 34 planes that need replacements, because two are scheduled to leave the fleet in December this year, long before any 787-10s or A35Ks will have been delivered. They have been replaced indirectly by the two 789s delivered earlier this year, but retained until December due to the Rolls Royce 787 engine issues and the 772ER cabin refurbishments

Andy33 wrote:

Every November IAG does a presentation to investors and analysts, they call it their Capital Markets Day, and publishes the information.
In November 2017 the projected fleet plan showed 12 744s still in service after all the 787-10s and A350-1000s currently on order had been delivered by early 2022.
But by February 2024 the last 744 was to leave the fleet.
That's where the 12 comes from, an official statement by the company itself.
And in fact it is 34 planes that need replacements, because two are scheduled to leave the fleet in December this year, long before any 787-10s or A35Ks will have been delivered. They have been replaced indirectly by the two 789s delivered earlier this year, but retained until December due to the Rolls Royce 787 engine issues and the 772ER cabin refurbishments

Andy, you are the best source about everything BA that I know. Thanks a lot!

GeeDee wrote:

kaitak wrote:

I think, in fairness to this pilot, it has been forecast for some time and I would expect an order for 777Xs (most likely the -9; can't see them having much use for the -8) within the next 3-6 months.

Incidentally, BA converted the order it had o/s for 2-3 789s to 788s; anyone know the logic behind this. It surprised me, because -9 would have better seat mile costs than the -8.

Finally, is there any update on delivery dates (or even configs?) for the 787-10 and A35K?

The order was converted to bring the 788 fleet size up to the minimum of 12.

Understand, but what specifically makes 12 a minimum for the 788 fleet given the existing 789 fleet and coming 781 fleet?

Plenty to feast on here, with huge influx of new aircraft , many of which have not been ordered yet ...

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.Fi ... 7686116875

Geoff

Page 167 onwards talks about fleets, but is IAG totals rather than BA. Lots of 'to be decided's

Geoff1947 wrote:

Plenty to feast on here, with huge influx of new aircraft , many of which have not been ordered yet ...

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.Fi ... 7686116875

Geoff

fcogafa wrote:

Page 167 onwards talks about fleets, but is IAG totals rather than BA. Lots of 'to be decided's

Geoff1947 wrote:

Plenty to feast on here, with huge influx of new aircraft , many of which have not been ordered yet ...

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.Fi ... 7686116875

Geoff

Yes the totals are at Corporate IAG level.

A net increase of 173 aircraft with about 350 new deliveries.

Orders for 172 not yet decided , including 44 widebodies.

Is this all possible by 2023 ?

Geoff

Depends on your options and on the types you desire. A330NEOs for example should be possible.

Should have said that 172 of the deliveries are for aircraft not yet ordered. Presumably there will also be orders for aircraft to be delivered after 2023.

Geoff

Looks like they are taking 4 777-300ERs in 2020? Are they new builds? Used aircraft coming off of leases? The previous news from IAG said they were taking 3, and not 4.

Also, is it certain all A350s are going to BA? Looks like some could go to Iberia to replace their A340s. (-300s and -600s).

kaitak744 wrote:

Also, is it certain all A350s are going to BA?

Definitely not the numbers are for the whole group including A350s for BA and Iberia, maybe even AirLingus (unlikely).
At least 3 777s are confirmed newbuilds, not sure where the 4th came from...

BA currently has 12 77W. How many are owned and how many leased?

osupoke07 wrote:

workhorse wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

The 777X is supposed to be at least 18 inches in 10 across (or at least thats what the plan was) so about as good as a 9 Across A350.

With all due respect, this is impossible.

The 777X has the same external fuselage width as the current 777.

777 fuselage width is 244 inches / 620 cm. A350 fuselage width is 234.6 inches / 596 cm. So, the 777 fuselage is only 9.45 in / 24cm wider while it has one more seat. Even if the so much hyped "thinner walls" of 777X were atom-thin, it wouldn't have same cabin width as the A350.

According to an old A.net thread, the 772/773 interior cabin width is 19 feet, 3 inches and the seats are 17 inches wide on a 3-4-3 configuration. The 778/779 interior cabin width is 20 feet. So, 9 inch wider cabin and 10 inches are taken up by the wider seats. I doubt anyone will notice a 0.5 inch narrower aisle.

If they are 'shaping' the walls but the barrel of the fuselage is the same, then whatever was there on the 77W won't be on the 77X. I would assume that is insulation of a kind, if that is correct then they are going to make an already noisy aircraft even worst. Hopefully, this is not the case as I find the 777 much noisier than the 787 or 747 and any Airbus.

Geoff1947 wrote:

fcogafa wrote:

Page 167 onwards talks about fleets, but is IAG totals rather than BA. Lots of 'to be decided's

Geoff1947 wrote:

Plenty to feast on here, with huge influx of new aircraft , many of which have not been ordered yet ...

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.Fi ... 7686116875

Geoff

Yes the totals are at Corporate IAG level.

A net increase of 173 aircraft with about 350 new deliveries.

Orders for 172 not yet decided , including 44 widebodies.

Is this all possible by 2023 ?

Geoff

44 is exactly the number of options IAG has on the A350 and 787: 32 and 12 respectively.
Regarding new narrowbodies, we should see options on A32Xneo converted. Although 172 aircraft to be ordered sounds a lot, there will be no surprises (like a 777X order) I don’t think....

frigatebird wrote:

Geoff1947 wrote:

fcogafa wrote:

Page 167 onwards talks about fleets, but is IAG totals rather than BA. Lots of 'to be decided's

Yes the totals are at Corporate IAG level.

A net increase of 173 aircraft with about 350 new deliveries.

Orders for 172 not yet decided , including 44 widebodies.

Is this all possible by 2023 ?

Geoff

44 is exactly the number of options IAG has on the A350 and 787: 32 and 12 respectively.
Regarding new narrowbodies, we should see options on A32Xneo converted. Although 172 aircraft to be ordered sounds a lot, there will be no surprises (like a 777X order) I don’t think....

Agreed. I don't see any B779 orders, and no new A388 orders either. Top sizes will be the B77W and A350-1000, with a shedload of B789/X and A359's underneath. And no Project Sunrise plane either.

cv990Coronado wrote:

osupoke07 wrote:

workhorse wrote:

With all due respect, this is impossible.

The 777X has the same external fuselage width as the current 777.

777 fuselage width is 244 inches / 620 cm. A350 fuselage width is 234.6 inches / 596 cm. So, the 777 fuselage is only 9.45 in / 24cm wider while it has one more seat. Even if the so much hyped "thinner walls" of 777X were atom-thin, it wouldn't have same cabin width as the A350.

According to an old A.net thread, the 772/773 interior cabin width is 19 feet, 3 inches and the seats are 17 inches wide on a 3-4-3 configuration. The 778/779 interior cabin width is 20 feet. So, 9 inch wider cabin and 10 inches are taken up by the wider seats. I doubt anyone will notice a 0.5 inch narrower aisle.

If they are 'shaping' the walls but the barrel of the fuselage is the same, then whatever was there on the 77W won't be on the 77X. I would assume that is insulation of a kind, if that is correct then they are going to make an already noisy aircraft even worst. Hopefully, this is not the case as I find the 777 much noisier than the 787 or 747 and any Airbus.

Boeing are probably relying on GE to make the 9X much quieter than the GE90.

Maybe a silly question, but is there already an indication when an order might be expected?

RandWkop wrote:

cv990Coronado wrote:

osupoke07 wrote:

According to an old A.net thread, the 772/773 interior cabin width is 19 feet, 3 inches and the seats are 17 inches wide on a 3-4-3 configuration. The 778/779 interior cabin width is 20 feet. So, 9 inch wider cabin and 10 inches are taken up by the wider seats. I doubt anyone will notice a 0.5 inch narrower aisle.

If they are 'shaping' the walls but the barrel of the fuselage is the same, then whatever was there on the 77W won't be on the 77X. I would assume that is insulation of a kind, if that is correct then they are going to make an already noisy aircraft even worst. Hopefully, this is not the case as I find the 777 much noisier than the 787 or 747 and any Airbus.

Boeing are probably relying on GE to make the 9X much quieter than the GE90.

Also if it is insulation. Thinner doesn't necessarily mean worse. It could be much thinner with nw materials making it much quieter. Also the GE9X will be noticeably quieter than the GE90/T800

RandWkop wrote:

cv990Coronado wrote:

osupoke07 wrote:

According to an old A.net thread, the 772/773 interior cabin width is 19 feet, 3 inches and the seats are 17 inches wide on a 3-4-3 configuration. The 778/779 interior cabin width is 20 feet. So, 9 inch wider cabin and 10 inches are taken up by the wider seats. I doubt anyone will notice a 0.5 inch narrower aisle.

If they are 'shaping' the walls but the barrel of the fuselage is the same, then whatever was there on the 77W won't be on the 77X. I would assume that is insulation of a kind, if that is correct then they are going to make an already noisy aircraft even worst. Hopefully, this is not the case as I find the 777 much noisier than the 787 or 747 and any Airbus.

Boeing are probably relying on GE to make the 9X much quieter than the GE90.

I'm far more armchair airline CEO than aerospace engineer but won't lower thrust of the GE9X help in that regard vs. the GE90?

I am amused by posts that assume that every airline needs to replace retiring fleets 1 for 1 with a type that offers as close to the same range and seating as possible. The his ignores the fact that the variety of ranges and capacities greatly exceeds what was available when the fleet being retired was ordered. While BA is in a somewhat unique situation in that its main hub is probably the most slot-restricted in the world, it does not necessarily follow that they need more seats on all routes. When their existing fleets were introduced the smallest long-range plane available was the A343, which was only slightly smaller than the 772. And to go up from these you had to go to the 744. Now, there is a whole smorgasbord of long range planes available from the 788 to the A388, with several in between. And all of them offer similar CASM, meaning that airlines have a much bigger opportunity to match the right capacity plane to each route than ever before. Of course the economy of minimizing the number of types in the fleet also exists. So there are many more possibilities than there were in the 90s.

cv990Coronado wrote:

If they are 'shaping' the walls but the barrel of the fuselage is the same, then whatever was there on the 77W won't be on the 77X. I would assume that is insulation of a kind, if that is correct then they are going to make an already noisy aircraft even worst. Hopefully, this is not the case as I find the 777 much noisier than the 787 or 747 and any Airbus.

Remember that both the engine and the wing of the 77X will be entirely new. The noise footprint of the 77X will be quite different, regardless of cabin insulation, from that of existing 777s.

Arion640 wrote:

The only thing the wider cabin footprint will do for BA on the 777X is provide comfortable 10Y seating.

You mean, less "uncomfortable" seats! (No, I'm not a militant anti 17.2 inch seat guy, but let's face it, economy is tough on just about every airliner -- especially long haul).

JAAlbert wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

The only thing the wider cabin footprint will do for BA on the 777X is provide comfortable 10Y seating.

You mean, less "uncomfortable" seats! (No, I'm not a militant anti 17.2 inch seat guy, but let's face it, economy is tough on just about every airliner -- especially long haul).

10Y on the 777X shouldn’t be any different to any other aircraft in Economy.

Interesting that they mention introducing the new CW to 2 777s in 2019 (page 113), and accelerating the upgrades starting 2020. Doesn't seem very efficient that they are re-configuring 777s right now but keeping the old seats, but at least they are finally getting rid of the current CW.

george77300 wrote:

JAAlbert wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

The only thing the wider cabin footprint will do for BA on the 777X is provide comfortable 10Y seating.

You mean, less "uncomfortable" seats! (No, I'm not a militant anti 17.2 inch seat guy, but let's face it, economy is tough on just about every airliner -- especially long haul).

10Y on the 777X shouldn’t be any different to any other aircraft in Economy.

Surely 10Y on the 777X will be different to 10Y on the A380, and not in a good way?

BA already has orders for the A350-1000 and the B787-10. They are probably getting some great intell on the A350-900 from Iberia. I could see BA order A350-900 to replace there entire B772 fleet over time.

smartplane wrote:

george77300 wrote:

JAAlbert wrote:

You mean, less "uncomfortable" seats! (No, I'm not a militant anti 17.2 inch seat guy, but let's face it, economy is tough on just about every airliner -- especially long haul).

10Y on the 777X shouldn’t be any different to any other aircraft in Economy.

Surely 10Y on the 777X will be different to 10Y on the A380, and not in a good way?

The 777X is supposed to have a wider cabin footprint.

As I understand it the 787-10 will take over some of the 772 roles when it arrives.So I am not sure whether there will be a place for the 359.Its only advantage (commercially) is it's longer range.But due to BA's geographical positioning (London) I am not sure that additional range is required.But I may be wrong.

parapente wrote:

As I understand it the 787-10 will take over some of the 772 roles when it arrives.So I am not sure whether there will be a place for the 359.Its only advantage (commercially) is it's longer range.But due to BA's geographical positioning (London) I am not sure that additional range is required.But I may be wrong.

An additional point regarding range... BA's low-density cabin configurations mean that their jets often have more real-world range than the brochure ranges. I don't know of any BA routes that are outside the range of the 787-10 normally (perhaps the ones to South America may be a little too demanding though, especially if the airport is hot/high?). In addition, I think the 787-10 has slightly more seats (only a handful) more than the A350-900 in most configurations.

So yeah... I don't see why BA would need an A350-900. The 787-10 fits that size category with what seems to be sufficient range and lower CASM. The A350-1000 fits in a similar size category to the 777-300ERs and seems destined to be the ultimate replacement for them (at least ex. Heathrow... I wouldn't be surprised if the densified 777-300ERs become the new Beach Fleet).

It looks like BA is slowing down the retirement of the 747 over the next couple of years. There'll be five more 747s in service by 2020 than was planned last year.

I guess this could allow some 777s to be cascaded to Gatwick. Alex Cruz said yesterday that pairing cities with LHR destinations worked well, like having Fort Lauderdale from LGW and Miami from LHR.

I wonder whether the delay in announcing an aircraft orders depends on whether they think IAG will ultimately acquire Norwegian's aircraft orders?

Arion640 wrote:

smartplane wrote:

george77300 wrote:

10Y on the 777X shouldn’t be any different to any other aircraft in Economy.

Surely 10Y on the 777X will be different to 10Y on the A380, and not in a good way?

The 777X is supposed to have a wider cabin footprint.

Wider than the A380 cabin??

Arion640 wrote:

smartplane wrote:

george77300 wrote:

10Y on the 777X shouldn’t be any different to any other aircraft in Economy.

Surely 10Y on the 777X will be different to 10Y on the A380, and not in a good way?

The 777X is supposed to have a wider cabin footprint.

Does anyone know if Boeing will make this available as a retrofit for current 777 models? Might be interest by carriers with newer 777W fleets when it's time for an interior refresh.

PA727 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

smartplane wrote:

Surely 10Y on the 777X will be different to 10Y on the A380, and not in a good way?

The 777X is supposed to have a wider cabin footprint.

Does anyone know if Boeing will make this available as a retrofit for current 777 models? Might be interest by carriers with newer 777W fleets when it's time for an interior refresh.

As it requires changes to the structure I very much doubt it.