Hi all....with BA now having retired their 767's, and the incoming A321NEO's not having the seat capacity of the 763's they are replacing, I'm wondering if BA should reconfigure a few 788's to operate those routes the 763's were mostly used for.
ANA uses the 788's successfully on main domestic and regional routes so why can't BA ?
Feel free to discuss...

Wouldn't have thought they'd need reconfiguring, they use the 777 to Madrid daily and if you're lucky this occasionally (and I mean rarely, maybe once a month) gets swapped out for a 787 and it works.

B788 seems to be too premium for european route.
I think A332 (Level configuration) is most suitable wb of B763 replacement though there is 20% seat increase

I imagine BA would not want to use the 788's on short-haul/domestic as it wouldn't be the most cost effective use of the aircraft. The 788 is useful on long thin markets from Heathrow and I suspect is much more profitable on them than domestic/euro routes.

I realise that the 763's were useful to move cargo from the likes of EDI, FRA, AMS & IST to LHR for onward connections, and any time I flew on the EDI shuttle down to LHR they were always close to full. However BA have lots of flights to the likes of EDI at other times of the day that are not so full. The low fare paying passengers will be more flexible with their travel times and book services later in the day if the price is right. This will leave the A321 to take over on the 'rush-hour' flights for premium fare paying passengers.

For example, next Wed 5th Dec BA have departures from EDI to LHR at 0710 (A320), 0840 (A319), 1035 (A321), 1135 (A321), 1350 (A320), 1640 (A321), 1715 (A321), 1855 (A321), 1950 (A319). Although most flights are on A321's there are some that could be up-gauged with the additional A321N's coming on-line. This would cover the passenger carrying capacity of the 763's.

chunhimlai wrote:

B788 seems to be too premium for european route.
I think A332 (Level configuration) is most suitable wb of B763 replacement though there is 20% seat increase

Yes, in their current configuration, that's why I suggest reconfiguring some 788's to something like 20J 250Y. Can't see BA using A332's a la Level at LHR. MAD/BCN/NCE/LCA/IST/ATH/DME and the peak time GLA & EDI shuttles would surely see high loads justifying reconfigured 788's.

From an enthusiast point of view, yes, they should! Sadly management probably think otherwise.

I think if they reconfigured some into a 767 style domestic set up then yes the GLA/EDI shuttle routes could probably support it on similarly busy times within the schedule. The cargo shifting capability of a 787 versus an A321 is also a consideration. The 772 has been used on these routes too on the odd occasion and both 787-8 and 9 have been used to GLA in the past to cover for narrow body maintenance periods.

Sometimes they use B788/789 to Moscow-DME.

I’d argue the 787 as an aircraft is too expensive to have it fly around in Europe with a European configuration. Using a long haul 787 for a quick rotation before a long flight then that’s different.

The 777 to Madrid is purely for cargo purposes - a 4-class -200 is usually used and has fewer seats than a shorthaul A321. The 767s with 259 seats are being replaced with 321NEOs with 220 seats - not a huge decrease in capacity though cargo capacity will obviously decrease. I’m sure BA knows what it’s doing

senatorflyer wrote:

I’d argue the 787 as an aircraft is too expensive to have it fly around in Europe with a European configuration. Using a long haul 787 for a quick rotation before a long flight then that’s different.

Well, ANA seem to use the 788's almost exclusively on services to Shanghai, Taipei and Seoul which from HND/NRT are 2 - 3 hr sectors so why can't BA ? In fact, I don't think ANA use the 788's at all long-haul, that's covered by their 789 fleet.

A321Lufthansa wrote:

Sometimes they use B788/789 to Moscow-DME.

That's because it has a lot of premium traffic and to attract premium pax you need a good premium product. Even though the ex-bmi A321 fleet has this, it won't always provide the right capacity.

I don't agree on "premium" necessity on such short haul routes.
Times have changed and big companies also try to save money.
For example, my Company does not pay Business class seats anymore to anyone but the CEO / CCO / CFO, for EU and trans-atlantic routes.

WW disagrees. He has stated short haul should be narrow body, and densified.
Japan is not Europe, outside of MAD-LHR for cargo, the future is the NEO.

TC957 wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

I’d argue the 787 as an aircraft is too expensive to have it fly around in Europe with a European configuration. Using a long haul 787 for a quick rotation before a long flight then that’s different.

Well, ANA seem to use the 788's almost exclusively on services to Shanghai, Taipei and Seoul which from HND/NRT are 2 - 3 hr sectors so why can't BA ? In fact, I don't think ANA use the 788's at all long-haul, that's covered by their 789 fleet.

Comparing the European air market with the Far East is like comparing apples and oranges. They are entirely different markets and there will be a large number of factors that contribute to making a 788 viable on routes between Tokyo - Shanghai/Taipei/Seoul. Population is one such factor:

Tokyo - 13.84 million
Shanghai - 24.18 million
Taipei - 2.67 million
Seoul - 9.84 million

If you compare that to the destinations that BA used to send the 763's to:

London - 8.825 million
Edinburgh - 0.46 million
Amsterdam - 0.85 million
Frankfurt - 0.73 million
Athens - 0.66 million
Madrid - 3.2 million
Larnaca - 0.059 million
Istanbul - 15.03 million

Although there are a couple of big markets that the 763 used to fly for BA, most of them are actually quite small when you compare them to the destinations you suggested in Asia. Therefore the comparison between distance and flight time is largely irrelevant.

The only destination there that would warrant BA sending a 788 is perhaps Istanbul, however I feel that TK are rather dominant in that market with several daily widebodies into LHR. Madrid is another larger market and is catered for by the IB 330/340/350 and BA 772.

747fly wrote:

The 777 to Madrid is purely for cargo purposes - a 4-class -200 is usually used and has fewer seats than a shorthaul A321. The 767s with 259 seats are being replaced with 321NEOs with 220 seats - not a huge decrease in capacity though cargo capacity will obviously decrease. I’m sure BA knows what it’s doing

And how does it work with the 4-class 772? Who sits where? Do they allow people to sit in First?

TC957 wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

I’d argue the 787 as an aircraft is too expensive to have it fly around in Europe with a European configuration. Using a long haul 787 for a quick rotation before a long flight then that’s different.

Well, ANA seem to use the 788's almost exclusively on services to Shanghai, Taipei and Seoul which from HND/NRT are 2 - 3 hr sectors so why can't BA ? In fact, I don't think ANA use the 788's at all long-haul, that's covered by their 789 fleet.

The furthest 767 destination was Larnaca. I doubt that BA would think it would make commercial sense to send a European configured 787 there. All other 767 routes were between 1h00-1h40. If you go and do the math, take the price difference between an A321 and a 787. And that just to have 40 seats more. Furthermore add all other related costs to run the route on a 787 instead of an A321.

MoKa777 wrote:

747fly wrote:

The 777 to Madrid is purely for cargo purposes - a 4-class -200 is usually used and has fewer seats than a shorthaul A321. The 767s with 259 seats are being replaced with 321NEOs with 220 seats - not a huge decrease in capacity though cargo capacity will obviously decrease. I’m sure BA knows what it’s doing

And how does it work with the 4-class 772? Who sits where? Do they allow people to sit in First?

Sometimes First will be opened. Depending on demand.

Perhaps with the shortage of big twins at BA, some UK/EU flights will hopefully fall to the remaining 744's while they are still around. There seem to be plenty spare at LHR most days on long layovers.

BritishB747 wrote:

TC957 wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

I’d argue the 787 as an aircraft is too expensive to have it fly around in Europe with a European configuration. Using a long haul 787 for a quick rotation before a long flight then that’s different.

Well, ANA seem to use the 788's almost exclusively on services to Shanghai, Taipei and Seoul which from HND/NRT are 2 - 3 hr sectors so why can't BA ? In fact, I don't think ANA use the 788's at all long-haul, that's covered by their 789 fleet.

Comparing the European air market with the Far East is like comparing apples and oranges. They are entirely different markets and there will be a large number of factors that contribute to making a 788 viable on routes between Tokyo - Shanghai/Taipei/Seoul. Population is one such factor:

Tokyo - 13.84 million
Shanghai - 24.18 million
Taipei - 2.67 million
Seoul - 9.84 million

If you compare that to the destinations that BA used to send the 763's to:

London - 8.825 million
Edinburgh - 0.46 million
Amsterdam - 0.85 million
Frankfurt - 0.73 million
Athens - 0.66 million
Madrid - 3.2 million
Larnaca - 0.059 million
Istanbul - 15.03 million

Although there are a couple of big markets that the 763 used to fly for BA, most of them are actually quite small when you compare them to the destinations you suggested in Asia. Therefore the comparison between distance and flight time is largely irrelevant.

The only destination there that would warrant BA sending a 788 is perhaps Istanbul, however I feel that TK are rather dominant in that market with several daily widebodies into LHR. Madrid is another larger market and is catered for by the IB 330/340/350 and BA 772.

You didn't exactly make an apples-to-apples comparison above. Taking the city proper numbers for EDI, AMS and FRA vs the metropolitan or catchment area totals distorts the picture. AMS' catchment is more like 8 million for example.

Absolutely! With 3-3-3 seating, any long-haul is torture so short-haul is the way to go with these planes.

uta999 wrote:

Perhaps with the shortage of big twins at BA, some UK/EU flights will hopefully fall to the remaining 744's while they are still around. There seem to be plenty spare at LHR most days on long layovers.

OK please stop, this thread just jumped the shark.
The competitive marketplace will not support this, not by a country mile. This not likely. It won't happen. It's mad, crazy, bonkers.
There is no call for Club World to Glasgow, none, zero, squat diddly.
The only wide body BA short haul is for cargo, frieght, heavy containers.
The passenger competition is easyJet and Ryanair, and to match this, BA have ordered the dense seating version of the A321NEO where the business product is....well you get the lounge!

So please understand, unless they're recovering from IRROPS, BA won't be flying B747-400s with a First Class cabin up against EZY on LON-AMS.
That's insane. Literally. Just take cash out back and set fire to it, that level.

senatorflyer wrote:

MoKa777 wrote:

747fly wrote:

The 777 to Madrid is purely for cargo purposes - a 4-class -200 is usually used and has fewer seats than a shorthaul A321. The 767s with 259 seats are being replaced with 321NEOs with 220 seats - not a huge decrease in capacity though cargo capacity will obviously decrease. I’m sure BA knows what it’s doing

And how does it work with the 4-class 772? Who sits where? Do they allow people to sit in First?

Sometimes First will be opened. Depending on demand.

It's sold as Club Europe overflow, you can sometimes pick an F seat if you get a 4 class B777 and you have high enough status.
FIRST is not sold as such, it is not offered. On most flights, I believe the cabin is not even used and closed off.

senatorflyer wrote:

I’d argue the 787 as an aircraft is too expensive to have it fly around in Europe with a European configuration. Using a long haul 787 for a quick rotation before a long flight then that’s different.

To be clear, the B787-8 was ordered and is being used for opening new long haul routes and on maintaining the thinner ones.
LHR-ICN, AUS, BWI,YUL, EWR, HYD etc.
The A321NEO, first one just arrved will be used for short haul, it in CY220 config compared to the B788 which is in CWY214.
So you are suggesting competing against EZY on price, (that's the IAG strategy!!) with a more capable and less comfortable, heavier long hayul aeroplane that costs way more to fly and crew but you need to charge the same fares as EZY using A321NEOs that you have, but won't use?

Or if you reconfigure the B788s for short haul, what on earth replaces them on the long thin long haul? Or are you suggesting a new fleet of expensive B788s that will fly half empty against A320NEOs for much of the day? WHAT?
I need a lie down

TC957 wrote:

chunhimlai wrote:

B788 seems to be too premium for european route.
I think A332 (Level configuration) is most suitable wb of B763 replacement though there is 20% seat increase

Yes, in their current configuration, that's why I suggest reconfiguring some 788's to something like 20J 250Y. Can't see BA using A332's a la Level at LHR. MAD/BCN/NCE/LCA/IST/ATH/DME and the peak time GLA & EDI shuttles would surely see high loads justifying reconfigured 788's.

BA shorthaul planes have the same seats front to back, no J at all. The only operational difference between J & Y is that they leave the middle seat vacant on J and the cabin divider is moved to distinguish between J & Y

As to the economics of using a nearly new 788 on shorthaul, just not going to happen, a 321 is miles cheaper both to purchase and operate, far outweighing the 10% seat loss.

It might, just might be different in a few years time, a depreciated high time but low cycle 788 could then find a place on shorthaul where the high cycle count would be ok.

One problem with the BA 777 to MAD is that IB has no Boeing products so if there is a tech issue it can get sideways fast. I had a delay that should have been no more than an hour turn into a 5 hour ordeal for a burst tire since they had issues sourcing it. (though not complaining about the EU261 compensation)

Ziyulu wrote:

Absolutely! With 3-3-3 seating, any long-haul is torture so short-haul is the way to go with these planes.

Indeed....I just flew BA LHR-NRT on a 9 across 789 and back HND-LHR on a 9 across NH 77W and that was miles nicer seating.
Some interesting comments, thanks for all the replies, interesting too that JL & NH, and others use 788's & A330's mainly locally and not have high-frequency 738's or A320's doing the trunk routes every hour or two.
There would be awful lot of slots available at LHR if BA adopted that here !
But I suppose then they'd open up to competitive airlines so BA would loose out.

FatCat wrote:

I don't agree on "premium" necessity on such short haul routes.
Times have changed and big companies also try to save money.
For example, my Company does not pay Business class seats anymore to anyone but the CEO / CCO / CFO, for EU and trans-atlantic routes.

It's a fact though, not my opinion. While it is less common nowadays, there is still the need for widebodies on the route. The same goes for TLV and CAI which BA already operates the 777/787 on. While slightly longer, these are still arguably short haul routes.

The bottom line is that aside from this, there is no need to use the 787 on short haul for the reasons given. With the likes of MAD having high cargo demand, the 777 can carry the same, if not more cargo and still have lower operating costs.

LupineChemist wrote:

One problem with the BA 777 to MAD is that IB has no Boeing products so if there is a tech issue it can get sideways fast. I had a delay that should have been no more than an hour turn into a 5 hour ordeal for a burst tire since they had issues sourcing it. (though not complaining about the EU261 compensation)

Don't BA have their own Engineering cover at MAD? Fair few BA vans on the ground I think?

skipness1E wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

I’d argue the 787 as an aircraft is too expensive to have it fly around in Europe with a European configuration. Using a long haul 787 for a quick rotation before a long flight then that’s different.

To be clear, the B787-8 was ordered and is being used for opening new long haul routes and on maintaining the thinner ones.
LHR-ICN, AUS, BWI,YUL, EWR, HYD etc.
The A321NEO, first one just arrved will be used for short haul, it in CY220 config compared to the B788 which is in CWY214.
So you are suggesting competing against EZY on price, (that's the IAG strategy!!) with a more capable and less comfortable, heavier long hayul aeroplane that costs way more to fly and crew but you need to charge the same fares as EZY using A321NEOs that you have, but won't use?

Or if you reconfigure the B788s for short haul, what on earth replaces them on the long thin long haul? Or are you suggesting a new fleet of expensive B788s that will fly half empty against A320NEOs for much of the day? WHAT?
I need a lie down

I didn’t suggest anything lol

skipness1E wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

MoKa777 wrote:

And how does it work with the 4-class 772? Who sits where? Do they allow people to sit in First?

Sometimes First will be opened. Depending on demand.

It's sold as Club Europe overflow, you can sometimes pick an F seat if you get a 4 class B777 and you have high enough status.
FIRST is not sold as such, it is not offered. On most flights, I believe the cabin is not even used and closed off.

Aaah ok. So some lucky people on those short flights.

Thanks senatorflyer and skipness1E

skipness1E wrote:

WW disagrees. He has stated short haul should be narrow body, and densified.
Japan is not Europe, outside of MAD-LHR for cargo, the future is the NEO.

WW doesn't dictate, customers have.

For short flights I drive (the TSA and rental car delays changed the equation).
For flights 3 hours or less, I always cheap out.
For TCON and longer, I do a price/benefit.

My employer pay for Y sub 8 hours.
As others have already noted, you have to be high up to warrant space. So high up my employer often just uses our extensive fleet to fly private so that in flight meetings may occur.

Lightsaber

BA's incoming A321neos have 235 seats.. that's only a difference of 10 or so seats from the 767s?

FatCat wrote:

I don't agree on "premium" necessity on such short haul routes.
Times have changed and big companies also try to save money.
For example, my Company does not pay Business class seats anymore to anyone but the CEO / CCO / CFO, for EU and trans-atlantic routes.

So it is time to abolish the Y class business setting, and implement limited proper business class seats to sell them at higher price to those how is entitled.

Then, you see airlines like BA enjoy the flexible to push A321 Club Europe to row 10 sometimes. It means the premier market is huge.

jghealey wrote:

BA's incoming A321neos have 235 seats.. that's only a difference of 10 or so seats from the 767s?

The A321neos have 220 seats, with the refitted ceos having 218.

Some people cannot get over the fact that BA replaced its 767s with 321s...

TC957 wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

I’d argue the 787 as an aircraft is too expensive to have it fly around in Europe with a European configuration. Using a long haul 787 for a quick rotation before a long flight then that’s different.

Well, ANA seem to use the 788's almost exclusively on services to Shanghai, Taipei and Seoul which from HND/NRT are 2 - 3 hr sectors so why can't BA ? In fact, I don't think ANA use the 788's at all long-haul, that's covered by their 789 fleet.

They have a subfleet of 787s that exclusively fly domestic trunk routes within Japan.

Don't BA have their own Engineering cover at MAD? Fair few BA vans on the ground I think?

After JFK, the largest outside the UK. They have about 22 staff and handle many customer airlines.

chunhimlai wrote:

B788 seems to be too premium for european route.
I think A332 (Level configuration) is most suitable wb of B763 replacement though there is 20% seat increase

A change in direction here now see these are the type of things that we expect from you rather than your usual nonsenical four worded posts or ridiculous 6 runway mega hub ideas, I look forward to more of them!

If they should they would.

WAC wrote:

If they should they would.

With a totally nonsensical post like that your not related to chunhimlai are you!

Nah, A321NEO are easier to fill and higher yielding on intra-european routes.

BA is not short on LHR slots. If they need more capacity than an A321neo can provide, they have the option of sending 2x A319 or A320. Once you add in the opportunity cost of not having a 787 available for a long-haul route, 2x narrowbodies are almost certainly cheaper.

I'm sure Boeing is trying to sell IAG the 797. I also expect it may be a hard sell given (1) how committed IAG is to the A321neo and (2) how few opportunities there are for either BA or IB, both based in megahubs on the European side, to fly thin TATL routes.

A321Lufthansa wrote:

Sometimes they use B788/789 to Moscow-DME.

In the context of BA operations, DME is considered a long haul route. It often sees 777s and the mid-haul ex BD A321s. This is why you will see Dreamliners doing the run sometimes.

Trintocan.

If BA were able to sell most seats on the B763 at high prices I'm sure they would have dedicated some B788 in Euro-config to keep their market share. If many seats were sold very cheap just to fill seats, then smaller aircraft makes sense.

220 seats is a lot on an A321NEO. 10 years ago we were aghast that Thomas Cook had 211 seats in their A321, now premuim carriers like SWISS have 219 seats and now BA 220 in CY-config.

If the BA A321NEO doesn't have ACTs there should be some decent space for hold cargo, many passengers travel with just one carry-on suitcase, even on longer flights.

Bongodog1964 wrote:

TC957 wrote:

chunhimlai wrote:

B788 seems to be too premium for european route.

As to the economics of using a nearly new 788 on shorthaul, just not going to happen, a 321 is miles cheaper both to purchase and operate, far outweighing the 10% seat loss.

It might, just might be different in a few years time, a depreciated high time but low cycle 788 could then find a place on shorthaul where the high cycle count would be ok.

Not a 788 but BA does have the 3 777-200s which must be low cycle aircraft and fully written down. Have to be refitted though, 14 F seats might just be a few too many!

Those three GE powered B777s are not long for British Airways fleet and are to be withdrawn from service once the deliveries of the A350 start in October 2019 so no chance of that.

CRJ900 wrote:

If BA were able to sell most seats on the B763 at high prices I'm sure they would have dedicated some B788 in Euro-config to keep their market share. If many seats were sold very cheap just to fill seats, then smaller aircraft makes sense.

220 seats is a lot on an A321NEO. 10 years ago we were aghast that Thomas Cook had 211 seats in their A321, now premuim carriers like SWISS have 219 seats and now BA 220 in CY-config.

If the BA A321NEO doesn't have ACTs there should be some decent space for hold cargo, many passengers travel with just one carry-on suitcase, even on longer flights.

British Airways short haul is fairly competively priced and the airline wasn't necessarily selling high prices for those B767 flights they were at the same price whether it was a A319/320/321.

British Airways short haul prices are not always that more expensive than the average price of an easyJet flight and sometimes they can be cheaper, it's a total misconception that most believe that British Airways are more expensive, sure they are on the majority of euro flights but if you do a quick search and find an equivalent day flight and destination with easyJet with booked seat, checked baggage and the total price can invariably cost slightly more than if you had booked an equivalent flight with British Airways with baggage included and free seat selection upto 48 hours before departure, even the hand baggage only fare with British Airways can often be cheaper than Easyjet if you look carefully enough plus you earn Avios which is an extra bonus.

It can often work out cheaper if you fly British Airways on the outbound and EasyJet on the return or vice versa which I have done several times and it's worked out cheaper than if I had booked EasyJet for both legs of that journey.

Time and patience can be a virtue when searching online for cheap flights and I always find them I can assure you.

With regards to cargo, I think BA use DHL to carry a lot of their cargo?
Also you have the likes of Iberia and Finnair that use wide bodies probably picking up a lot of
Cargo.
Sorry to hijack thread but wasn’t their a rumour a while back about Aer Lingus starting to use
An A330 on one of their rotations?

Bo)am

BritishB747 wrote:

TC957 wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

I’d argue the 787 as an aircraft is too expensive to have it fly around in Europe with a European configuration. Using a long haul 787 for a quick rotation before a long flight then that’s different.

Well, ANA seem to use the 788's almost exclusively on services to Shanghai, Taipei and Seoul which from HND/NRT are 2 - 3 hr sectors so why can't BA ? In fact, I don't think ANA use the 788's at all long-haul, that's covered by their 789 fleet.

Comparing the European air market with the Far East is like comparing apples and oranges. They are entirely different markets and there will be a large number of factors that contribute to making a 788 viable on routes between Tokyo - Shanghai/Taipei/Seoul. Population is one such factor:

Tokyo - 13.84 million
Shanghai - 24.18 million
Taipei - 2.67 million
Seoul - 9.84 million

If you compare that to the destinations that BA used to send the 763's to:

London - 8.825 million
Edinburgh - 0.46 million
Amsterdam - 0.85 million
Frankfurt - 0.73 million
Athens - 0.66 million
Madrid - 3.2 million
Larnaca - 0.059 million
Istanbul - 15.03 million

Although there are a couple of big markets that the 763 used to fly for BA, most of them are actually quite small when you compare them to the destinations you suggested in Asia. Therefore the comparison between distance and flight time is largely irrelevant.

The only destination there that would warrant BA sending a 788 is perhaps Istanbul, however I feel that TK are rather dominant in that market with several daily widebodies into LHR. Madrid is another larger market and is catered for by the IB 330/340/350 and BA 772.

Just a quick correction. You are quoting only the city centre population rather than the metropolitan area.

Frankfurt's metropolitan area is around 6mil.
Athens' metropolitan area is around 4mil (plus there is no major airport in a radius of 200km)
Larnaca being in Cyprus is a strange one. Realistically it is the only airport of the Republic of Cyprus catering for around 1mil people with a lot of expats and strong connections to the UK. A lot of Cypriots have houses in London as they were an ex-colony.
Madrid is bigger than Frankfurt - around 6,3mil