Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
drdisque wrote:First point - I think that is still up in the air. I imagine they will be in the new T6/T7, but that's not certain. It also depends whether they will be able to stay in T7 during the renovation or if T7 is being totally demolished before anything new is built, meaning they'd have to go to T4 or T8.
It's possible that AA could pick up the slack by operating more flights on 77W's and BA sticking with the 777 for all flights. I'm not sure how BA's 77W's are currently deployed but it's possible they could be assigned to cover some of the current B744 JFK flights. It appears BA does have 14 more 77Ws on order, so that's where the extra lift could come from as well.
LondonXtreme wrote:BA will gradually retire its B747 fleet in next couple years. If BA still cannot deploys A380 on JFK route, will they add more frequencies?
LondonXtreme wrote:-B6 will rebuild T6/T7, so where will BA go? new T6/T7 or T8?
-BA will gradually retire its B747 fleet in next couple years. If BA still cannot deploys A380 on JFK route, will they add more frequencies?
Samrnpage wrote:BA will use twins in the future with similar J capacity and lower the Y capacity to make it more profitable.
clrd4t8koff wrote:Since B6 won the bid for T6/T7 and will now be BA’s landlord, why can’t B6 work out some kind of sweetheart deal with BA that in return for reduced rent, prime space in T7 for a new lounge and their pick of gates that BA then gives B6 a few slots at LHR as it’s no secret B6 wants to enter the TATL market. It feels like B6 could leverage this to their advantage, no?
gsg013 wrote:Dont understand why you are saying that BA wouldnt want to put the A380 on one or a few of the JFK rotations. It has 14 F and 97 J seats. They need the premium capacity on the route so it seems to be their most premium heavy aircraft. JFK is no stranger to having A380's all day long the only issue might be modding a gate or 2 for BA to use 3 jetbridges for the A380.
WPvsMW wrote:aemoreira1981, are the JFK taxiway issues for the whalebus weight or width issues?
FlyCaledonian wrote:clrd4t8koff wrote:Since B6 won the bid for T6/T7 and will now be BA’s landlord, why can’t B6 work out some kind of sweetheart deal with BA that in return for reduced rent, prime space in T7 for a new lounge and their pick of gates that BA then gives B6 a few slots at LHR as it’s no secret B6 wants to enter the TATL market. It feels like B6 could leverage this to their advantage, no?
Or BA goes speaks to JV partner AA about building out T8, complete with new lounges and dedicated gates and keeps its LHR slots without gifting a competitor access into the JFK-LHR market.
clrd4t8koff wrote:FlyCaledonian wrote:clrd4t8koff wrote:Since B6 won the bid for T6/T7 and will now be BA’s landlord, why can’t B6 work out some kind of sweetheart deal with BA that in return for reduced rent, prime space in T7 for a new lounge and their pick of gates that BA then gives B6 a few slots at LHR as it’s no secret B6 wants to enter the TATL market. It feels like B6 could leverage this to their advantage, no?
Or BA goes speaks to JV partner AA about building out T8, complete with new lounges and dedicated gates and keeps its LHR slots without gifting a competitor access into the JFK-LHR market.
So what’s BA supposed to do until T8 gets built out. Is that even approved?
Seems like whether they like it or not B6 has a head start on T6/T7 and BA will be their tenant. I understand your theory about BA not wanting to gift their competitor slots, but then they have to ask how important is JFK if B6 is In control and until anything with T8 gets done?
clrd4t8koff wrote:So what’s BA supposed to do until T8 gets built out. Is that even approved?
CRJ900 wrote:I thought the B787-10 was earmarked for LHR-JFK - big plane but lower weight and less range than the B77W and A35K.
BA777FO wrote:CRJ900 wrote:I thought the B787-10 was earmarked for LHR-JFK - big plane but lower weight and less range than the B77W and A35K.
Spot on. The A350 is "too capable" to be put on the JFK run. It's the type of flight the 787-10 is designed for (BOS, JFK, IAD, ORD, PHL, ATL etc.) and precisely the stage length BA want to utilise the aircraft on. The A350 is much more likely to fly the 11+ hour legs. Think of the A350 as more of the mid-J jumbo replacement and the 787-10 as the super hi-J jumbo replacement.
Turnhouse1 wrote:BA777FO wrote:CRJ900 wrote:I thought the B787-10 was earmarked for LHR-JFK - big plane but lower weight and less range than the B77W and A35K.
Spot on. The A350 is "too capable" to be put on the JFK run. It's the type of flight the 787-10 is designed for (BOS, JFK, IAD, ORD, PHL, ATL etc.) and precisely the stage length BA want to utilise the aircraft on. The A350 is much more likely to fly the 11+ hour legs. Think of the A350 as more of the mid-J jumbo replacement and the 787-10 as the super hi-J jumbo replacement.
Indeed, a 787-10 is 18' longer than a 787-9, which is conveniently 3 rows of Club World seating. So keeping everything else equal in BA's config it would be F8, J63, W39, Y127. Losing a row each of W and Y would give 70J.
FlyCaledonian wrote:Why would BA use an A380 to JFK? There is not not difference in the premium capacity versus the Hi-J 747s and all they end up doing is chucking a load of World Traveller seats into the market. With a lot of competition on the route, and the likes of Norwegian picking off price sensitive passengers, if anything BA wants less World Traveller seats in the market. This is why, as others have said, BA ordered the 787-10. It will be a premium heavy aircraft with less World Traveller seats (I suspect).
Turnhouse1 wrote:BA777FO wrote:CRJ900 wrote:I thought the B787-10 was earmarked for LHR-JFK - big plane but lower weight and less range than the B77W and A35K.
Spot on. The A350 is "too capable" to be put on the JFK run. It's the type of flight the 787-10 is designed for (BOS, JFK, IAD, ORD, PHL, ATL etc.) and precisely the stage length BA want to utilise the aircraft on. The A350 is much more likely to fly the 11+ hour legs. Think of the A350 as more of the mid-J jumbo replacement and the 787-10 as the super hi-J jumbo replacement.
Indeed, a 787-10 is 18' longer than a 787-9, which is conveniently 3 rows of Club World seating. So keeping everything else equal in BA's config it would be F8, J63, W39, Y127. Losing a row each of W and Y would give 70J.
tkoenig95 wrote:Wasn't the A380 made for markets like NYC-LON high density? I would think this aircraft would be perfect considering the amount of seats offered compared to the 772 service they offer.
clrd4t8koff wrote:
So what’s BA supposed to do until T8 gets built out. Is that even approved?
Seems like whether they like it or not B6 has a head start on T6/T7 and BA will be their tenant. I understand your theory about BA not wanting to gift their competitor slots, but then they have to ask how important is JFK if B6 is In control and until anything with T8 gets done?
ldvaviation wrote:clrd4t8koff wrote:
So what’s BA supposed to do until T8 gets built out. Is that even approved?
Seems like whether they like it or not B6 has a head start on T6/T7 and BA will be their tenant. I understand your theory about BA not wanting to gift their competitor slots, but then they have to ask how important is JFK if B6 is In control and until anything with T8 gets done?
Except at DAL, that is not how things work.
The airport board will find BA the gates it needs to operate all of its flights.