lightsaber wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

Most of the average fleet age number is driven by the narrowbodies. They did a good job of getting in early on the A320 family's success, and their older A320 series aircraft are doing just fine from a business perspective. They will steadily turn over the A320 fleet to the neo, and there is no massive hurry to do so.

First, nice summary. BA has A320s with good life left. With the LOV extension to 60,000 FC and 120,000 FH, there is no rush. I assume IAG is negotiating, but current NEO prices do not justify free replacement

seabosdca wrote:

n the widebody side they have waited an awfully long time to plan replacements for the final tranche of the 744 fleet and the 772ERs, and are likely to be one of the last operators of both types standing. Both families are perfectly capable of accumulating very high hours (KLM has recently retired some 744s with over 140k hours), so the frames have plenty of remaining life. it's effectively a bet that fuel prices will stay low in the near term.

I think there is a gluten of widebodies. BA should be able to negotiate good prices on the 777X, new 787s, and should consider both the A350 and 797 when launched.

Yes, it is a fuel price bet.

Lightsaber

Good point. These aren't 757's or 767's we're talking about.

LupineChemist wrote:

ramzi wrote:

They certainly don't seem to think so. Then again, they also don't seem to have realized until yesterday that it is time for a new CW seat.

Did I miss an announcement?

But on the topic at hand, the product is tired but it sells. I'd certainly like it refreshed but I still fly them so I suppose I'm part of the problem.

You and me both. Lol. New CW coming on the A350s next summer.

ro1960 wrote:

Aviation fans and their contradictions: whining that airlines don’t renew their fleets soon enough and crying when the last of a 40-year model gets retired

^ This! A thousand times, this!

lightsaber wrote:

I think there is a gluten of widebodies. BA should be able to negotiate good prices on the 777X, new 787s, and should consider both the A350 and 797 when launched.

Yes, it is a fuel price bet.

Lightsaber

No wonder there is a market for NMA with so many airlines gluten widebody intolerant...sorry, I know it is a typo but couldn't resist.

Agreed, it is a bet on fuel, but it is a low-risk bet, and the same one that most US carriers have made on older equipment. If the price of fuel skyrockets, you park or part out the older birds, and do what you can to get newer ones into the fleet faster, assuming that you believe it will stay high for a while. It's only a short-term game, as eventually the maintenance burden, obsolescence of parts etc will force a switch to new technology, but investors love it when it boosts profits and provides some extra cash that may come back to them in the form of dividends or buybacks.

I got the sense a couple of years ago when BA brought in the 77Ws that Willie Walsh had wished they had done it sooner thanks to the massive savings in fuel costs against the 744s. Still, many of those aircraft remain and BA is only bringing in a few 77Ws, and through a lease deal so they don't get stuck with "old tech" once the A350s etc roll in. That way, they don't face much downside risk on the residual of the 77Ws. It's a smart game to play, and it gives them flexibility to consider the latest and greatest, make hay while the sun shines now, but also control their risk if it all goes pear shaped.

They have got rid of their 737's,their 757's,their 767's and would have got rid of more 747's if they had been able to conclude a deal for 6 more with Airbus/RR ( even Emirates seem to struggle).Bought A320/321 neo's,bought A350-1000's,bought shed loads of 787-8/9/10's.Whats the problem?
Note the 772/3 remain fantastic aircaft no beef there esp with v low oil prices.Also the 744 on the 'blue ribbon ' route to the Big Apple is a highly specific. Indeed unique route with super high J and enormous frequencies.Not easy to replace.One assumes perhaps 779's some day.

AAIL86 wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

lhrsfosyd wrote:

Thank god you're just a bored geek with too much spare time and not someone in charge of a reputable airline.

My comments, sir, are not from being an airline "geek" but as user of BA 744 in First and Club World. Last flight in August from LHR to PHL in seat 1K was very disappointing. The plane was old and dirty but didn't have to look dirty which is the point I am attempting to make thank-you very much.

Completely agree with this point. BA certainly always seemed the height of class back in the day, now they are just an extremely mediocre airline milking the LHR cash cow hard.
I flew BA a bunch in the 2000s and in the first half of this decade. The 747 upper deck is still one of the best rides in the sky, but the 2-4-2 business on the 747 and (worse) 777 is a waste of the money or miles one invests in a business class ticket.
I last flew BA IAH-LHR back in 2014 on a tired, ratty old 772. Seat was torn and stained and had to have been a good 10+ years old. Was the worse business class flight this decade for me. I returned 4 days later on a brand new UA 787 and I vowed never again on BA until they compete harder for my dollars. Since then I've flown UA, LH, AF (77W biz class is excellent), KL, TK, and SQ in the pointy end.

Flew BA last year short haul within Europe on HEL-LHR and enjoyed the privilege of paying 4 pounds for a lukewarm cup of tea with something like 29" pitch, an experience which only validated for me my prior opinion of BA. Not looking back to BA anytime soon, I will continue giving my travel budget to other carriers. A real shame too, because BA was always airline people saw as prestigious.

Sadly you are right here. It is one thing having old aircraft and another one not maintaining the interiors. While everyone is amazed on how BA is profitable, this comes down to BA not investing in aircraft replacement earlier, not maintaining or modernizing interiors and not cleaning the cabins. Add to that cuts to the service everywhere: no eye-shades for Y longhaul, minimal catering for Y longhaul, BoB in shorthaul, aging and outdated IFE, no UaM service, no through check in for passengers with separate tickets, old Business Class, average First Class, etc... If BA invested in their product and aircraft like AF did they would certainly have less profits. Now they can get away with it with their dominance at LHR with all FFs and business contracts.

ACCS300 wrote:

In my home market of YVR, except for the summer A380s, BA offers us decrepit 'Spice Girls' era 747-400s, compared to ACs 787-9s on the same route. Last one I took from YVR-LHR in 2015, G-BNLP, was days from the scapper and it's ancient First product was being sold to CW passengers. Certainly doesn't bode well for their image here in Vancouver.

G-BNLP was only retired last week.

There should be some refurbished 744s popping up on the YVR route now that the higher density frames are now in the process of being done.

While we're discussing landor, can we agree that this would be *the* best looking 787 in the air?

KICT wrote:

While we're discussing landor, can we agree that this would be *the* best looking 787 in the air?

It looks lovely, but why does it have the Queen (as in the band) logo on the back?

AAIL86 wrote:

The 747 upper deck is still one of the best rides in the sky, but the 2-4-2 business on the 747 and (worse) 777 is a waste of the money or miles one invests in a business class ticket.
I last flew BA IAH-LHR back in 2014 on a tired, ratty old 772. Seat was torn and stained and had to have been a good 10+ years old. Was the worse business class flight this decade for me. I returned 4 days later on a brand new UA 787 and I vowed never again on BA until they compete harder for my dollars. Since then I've flown UA, LH, AF (77W biz class is excellent), KL, TK, and SQ in the pointy end.

The 777s plying the LHR-IAH route are the 4-class RR 777s and will be the last to receive the upgrades - the 4-class LHR GE powered 777s and 3-class LGW GE 777s have all had a refurb. They don't have the new Club seat debuting on the A350 and won't for a little while but they are getting attention. You will have noticed that BA has and plans again on flying the 787-9 on the earlier flight (BA195/194) when engine issues are resolved.

As for the Club seat, people bemoan 2-4-2 but some others advertising their 1-2-1 seats are just staggered rows of 2-4-2 and you lose your legs in a cubby hole. Stepping over another passenger isn't ideal and the new Club seat addresses this, but I've never found Club World to be inferior to many other airlines Business product. The upgrades to catering and bedding are very good indeed.

Flew BA last year short haul within Europe on HEL-LHR and enjoyed the privilege of paying 4 pounds for a lukewarm cup of tea with something like 29" pitch, an experience which only validated for me my prior opinion of BA. Not looking back to BA anytime soon, I will continue giving my travel budget to other carriers. A real shame too, because BA was always airline people saw as prestigious.

Just a point of order, a cup of tea is £2.30. The seat pitch is 30" - an inch more than easyJet and the same as United's A320s in economy. Short haul is cut throat in Europe, margins are razor thin and while it's disappointing that drinks aren't still complementary it emables a more sustainable route network and continued investment in A320neos and A321neos.

BA174 wrote:

ACCS300 wrote:

In my home market of YVR, except for the summer A380s, BA offers us decrepit 'Spice Girls' era 747-400s, compared to ACs 787-9s on the same route. Last one I took from YVR-LHR in 2015, G-BNLP, was days from the scapper and it's ancient First product was being sold to CW passengers. Certainly doesn't bode well for their image here in Vancouver.

G-BNLP was only retired last week.

There should be some refurbished 744s popping up on the YVR route now that the higher density frames are now in the process of being done.

Apologies, it was G-BNLF and G-BNLP inbound, both were in pretty terrible shape. Are the refurbished 744s getting a new CW product?

ACCS300 wrote:

BA174 wrote:

ACCS300 wrote:

In my home market of YVR, except for the summer A380s, BA offers us decrepit 'Spice Girls' era 747-400s, compared to ACs 787-9s on the same route. Last one I took from YVR-LHR in 2015, G-BNLP, was days from the scapper and it's ancient First product was being sold to CW passengers. Certainly doesn't bode well for their image here in Vancouver.

G-BNLP was only retired last week.

There should be some refurbished 744s popping up on the YVR route now that the higher density frames are now in the process of being done.

Apologies, it was G-BNLF and G-BNLP inbound, both were in pretty terrible shape. Are the refurbished 744s getting a new CW product?

All of the super hi-J have refreshed interiors and new IFE. So far only 2 mid-J 747s have been completed (possibly 3?) And will also receive new interiors and new IFE. About 6 mid-J 747s won't get the upgrades as they are due to be retired by ~end 2020. They won't have the Club seat on the A350. It remains to be seen whether any will get it before they're retired but the A350s, 787-10s and 77Ws on order will all be entered into service with it.

An airline's fleet renewal depends quite a lot on its financial situation. When BA placed its orders for 12 A380s and 24 787s in 2007, I think it was the first widebody orders since the 32 777s (including 16 options) in 1998. In the intervening period BA had suffered big losses in 2008 and 2009 and had been through damaging cabin crew strikes and volcanic ash shutdown in 2010. Even if BA had wanted to be one of the first A380 customers, its woeful financial position precluded any orders for years.

As for Club World: the cabin is dated but popular. I recently flew LGW-UVF in one of the densified 772s and all 32 seats were filled. On the continuing UVF-GND flight about 23 seats were filled. I've also been on several other Caribbean flights with full or nearly full CW cabins.

Yes, it's easy to sell J seats when you control one of the three wealthiest markets in the world so thoroughly! That doesn't mean people like the product.

Will the existing 787s and 77Ws be retrofitted with the new CW seat?

To the original question, I say this: There is no such thing as being "too slow" at replacing the 747.

LAX772LR wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

Aviation fans and their contradictions: whining that airlines don’t renew their fleets soon enough and crying when the last of a 40-year model gets retired

^ This! A thousand times, this!

Is a 99% brand new fleet with the newest interiors plus a few token "retro" birds like DC-8s, 727s, and 747s flying a small number of ceremonial routes really all that much to ask?!

seabosdca wrote:

Yes, it's easy to sell J seats when you control one of the three wealthiest markets in the world so thoroughly! That doesn't mean people like the product.

Will the existing 787s and 77Ws be retrofitted with the new CW seat?

Yes the CW seats will be retrofitted. There will be also a refreshed First seat.

Not really sure what you are going on about. CW in it’s current form is not bad. The only thing which could be better is the direct aisle access. But a very few airlines in Europe offer a seat like that. Even Emirates doesn’t, a big junk of Qatar’s fleet doesn’t either etc. Virgin does offer all aisle access but the seat is rubbish so I really don’t understand the argument.

senatorflyer wrote:

Not really sure what you are going on about. CW in it’s current form is not bad.

Cramped as hell.
You've got those ridiculous ottomans that sometimes collapse on you at night when you're trying to sleep (been there).
You're staring into the face of a stranger.
You don't have direct aisle access.
You don't have s#!t for storage space.
You don't have personal air vents above (787).
.....and you're going to pay at or above competitors' rates, for the pleasure of all the above.


"Not bad." LOL, that was a good one.

gunnerman wrote:

An airline's fleet renewal depends quite a lot on its financial situation. When BA placed its orders for 12 A380s and 24 787s in 2007, I think it was the first widebody orders since the 32 777s (including 16 options) in 1998. In the intervening period BA had suffered big losses in 2008 and 2009 and had been through damaging cabin crew strikes and volcanic ash shutdown in 2010. Even if BA had wanted to be one of the first A380 customers, its woeful financial position precluded any orders for years.

In addition, it could be argued there wasn't a need for BA to jump in and be a launch customer, simply because if they ended up being one of the first to receive an A380 in the last decade the oldest 744 would have been just under 20 years old.

To be honest, I look at this thread and I question why BA have been singled out when others have a track record of holding on to aircraft for a long time - Delta being one prime example. For most passengers, I suspect what matters more to them is the quality/cleanliness of the cabin and reliability. I'm not going to pass comment on cabin quality re. BA because the last time I flew on a BA widebody it was a 767 in 2015 on a EDI-LHR flight which has recently been withdrawn (G-BZHB if anybody is interested) and have no experience of flying on other BA widebodies.

skipness1E wrote:

Landor was beloved by Americans who saw it in sunlight, less so locals seeing 20 an hour in February drizzle at Heathrow.
As for age, Lufthansa have some of the oldest A320s flying, but the interior product has kept pace, not something that's true of BA's long haul fleet sadly.

Excellent point - I had never thought if that before. Easily fixed though - change the upper grey colour to white. Like Concorde wore, when it was in the Landor livery.

Wasn’t there an experimental scheme done with just this idea, or am I imagining it?

vhtje wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

Landor was beloved by Americans who saw it in sunlight, less so locals seeing 20 an hour in February drizzle at Heathrow.
As for age, Lufthansa have some of the oldest A320s flying, but the interior product has kept pace, not something that's true of BA's long haul fleet sadly.

Excellent point - I had never thought if that before. Easily fixed though - change the upper grey colour to white. Like Concorde wore, when it was in the Landor livery.

Wasn’t there an experimental scheme done with just this idea, or am I imagining it?

There was certainly at least one interim 767 that flew with a Landor Tail, and Utopia Body, minus the Speedmarque, which might be causing you to get confused?

September11 wrote:

Their current aircraft livery is getting old. Since 1999?

June 1997 it was rolled out on Concorde.

But back to the main topic. BA are taking advantage of low oil prices and paid off aircraft.

September11 wrote:

Their current aircraft livery is getting old. Since 1999?

I think the livery still looks nice but I think the BRITISH AIRWAYS font looks very dated. They should change it to a bolder font but keep the rest of the livery.

LAX772LR wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

Not really sure what you are going on about. CW in it’s current form is not bad.

Cramped as hell.
You've got those ridiculous ottomans that sometimes collapse on you at night when you're trying to sleep (been there).
You're staring into the face of a stranger.
You don't have direct aisle access.
You don't have s#!t for storage space.
You don't have personal air vents above (787).
.....and you're going to pay at or above competitors' rates, for the pleasure of all the above.


"Not bad." LOL, that was a good one.

The area is actually pretty specious. Might be a bit narrow but if one doesn’t weigh 200kg it is pretty ok.

Things do tend to break at some point. Such is life. I must say, I’ve have never experienced a collapsing ottoman.

There is a divider. Just push the button and up it goes.

You may wish to read my post about the direct aisle access again.

Storage could be better, agreed.

And the air vents are important why?

So all in all, compared to what the majority of other airlines are offering, it’s not too bad. Also keep in mind the seat has been in service for a long time while other airlines didn’t even have a lieflat bed.

Anyways, a new seat will be introduced next year.

The window seats in the upper section of the A380 CW cabins have storage bins. I've not seen such bins in the 777s which I've flown in.

BA have a pretty conservative fleet renewal policy. It's pretty much 1 in, 1 out.

Their fleet renewal for the 747 is pretty much set with 787 and A350 replacements. The next major task will be the 777-200ER's. They have stated they plan on keeping those planes for 25-30 years. So they still have a few years to decide on what they plan to replace them with.

uta999 wrote:

If you look at the chart below, they seem to lag behind most other airlines. Perhaps little and often orders would have been better.

They also seem to be well down the future production lists for the 787-10 and the A350-1000 too.

Aircraft Number Age Rank for the age by aircraft type
Airbus A318 1 9.2 years On 15 airlines operating this type of aircraft British Airways ranks 4
Airbus A319 43 16.9 years On 140 airlines operating this type of aircraft British Airways ranks 119
Airbus A320 72 11.5 years On 256 airlines operating this type of aircraft British Airways ranks 150
Airbus A321 18 13.1 years On 117 airlines operating this type of aircraft British Airways ranks 79
Airbus A380 12 4.5 years On 16 airlines operating this type of aircraft British Airways ranks 4
Boeing 747 36 22.1 years On 76 airlines operating this type of aircraft British Airways ranks 40
Boeing 767 5 21.5 years On 93 airlines operating this type of aircraft British Airways ranks 45
Boeing 777 58 16.3 years On 72 airlines operating this type of aircraft British Airways ranks 62
Boeing 787 29 2.8 years On 58 airlines operating this type of aircraft British Airways ranks 31

TOTAL 274 13.8 years The calculation of the fleet age can be approximated because it is only based on the supported aircraft

https://www.airfleets.net/ageflotte/Bri ... irways.htm

BA has excellent maintenance facilities and they upkeep and get the full life out of their planes. This was the norm until the likes of ME3 and SQ etc started handing planes back every few years (and everyone on a.net "most") are use to "young" fleets.

flyfresno wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

Aviation fans and their contradictions: whining that airlines don’t renew their fleets soon enough and crying when the last of a 40-year model gets retired

^ This! A thousand times, this!

Is a 99% brand new fleet with the newest interiors plus a few token "retro" birds like DC-8s, 727s, and 747s flying a small number of ceremonial routes really all that much to ask?!

It is like the railroads that have a few token steam locomotives that see a few excursions a year, while the rest are relatively new.

Up here in the North of England, I can definitely confirm that the majority of rail rolling stock is older than most of BAs fleet....