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

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.

From a passenger point of view maybe, from a business point of view no, they’ve gotten everything out of their assets especially the 747s.

Hard to say. After all, the long long delays to delivery of 380's and 787's from technical issues with the programme cant have helped. BUt still a decent number of frames on order for 2019 and 2020 with the 777 replacement order still to be decided - itself probably waiting for some hard evidence of the capability of the 777x ?
Certainly some while back management did hold fleet renewal hostage to achieving radical staff reforms and working practice changes (successfully) so they are also a bit to blame.....

They don't operate the 767 anymore, so that should reduce the average age a bit. Their fleet is nearly 3 years younger than Delta Air Lines, and by most accounts, Delta has things pretty well figured out.

I’m not much of a fan of BA, but in comparison, Delta, which seems to be doing alright for themselves, operate a fleet with an older than average fleet age.

So keeping aircraft, utilising them no matter the age, seems to be working.

OMAA

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.

On 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 don’t really get the obsession with young fleets, if the airline has a solid maintenance department and refurbishment plans to keep the aircraft reliable from and operation standpoint, and fresh from a customer standpoint you have a much more fiscally stable company, airlines that have very new fleets are very exposed to the finance markets and well finance is cheap right now, that will not always be the case...there’s a lot of airlines that if the money markets take a hit and or fuel starts to hurt then they might not survive the perfect storm

The 744 and 772ER problem BA has is not so much as replacements but the planes look worn. They have white planes which are dirty and the premium class seats are old and have been around for 15 to 20 years, First and Business should be new every 5 -7 years. Some 777 have unpainted engine coulings. JAL planes are white and every time I see one its "clean" it so white it shines, those 77W that they fly to LHR and the USA are the cleanest planes flying.

No doubt BA makes lots of $$$ from their 2-4-2 J class seats but have some pride you are " British Airways". BA should have 20 more 77W and 20 less 744's in the fleet. The new A350-1000 and three more 77W, new leased birds, will help but how will the new Club World be, something new and 1-2-1 lets hope. More 787 will help too with the 787-10 coming soon.

jfk777 wrote:

The 744 and 772ER problem BA has is not so much as replacements but the planes look worn. They have white planes which are dirty and the premium class seats are old and have been around for 15 to 20 years, First and Business should be new every 5 -7 years. Some 777 have unpainted engine coulings. JAL planes are white and every time I see one its "clean" it so white it shines, those 77W that they fly to LHR and the USA are the cleanest planes flying.

No doubt BA makes lots of $$$ from their 2-4-2 J class seats but have some pride you are " British Airways". BA should have 20 more 77W and 20 less 744's in the fleet. The new A350-1000 and three more 77W, new leased birds, will help but how will the new Club World be, something new and 1-2-1 lets hope. More 787 will help too with the 787-10 coming soon.

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

The average age of one particular model is a bit misleading. The 747 routes are being replaced by 787 and 350s so the average age of the fleet on a particular route is a better metric. Are the 767s even still flying? With cheap fuel an old fleet can be a very profitable one. With Brexit looming and a big unknown BA is much better positioned to not tie up capital in a fancy new fleet (I know this was not planned but is a fortunate accident).

I recall a quote from a BA executive type some years after they were launch customer for the Boeing 757, along the lines that 'they'd never be a launch customer again'. I'm not sure what the reasoning behind that was, but maybe they prefer to go for a proven product nowadays ?

I have flown on their 767 and their A320 between Istanbul and London and I found the 767 far more comfortable, despite their age. So I don't think they need to renew their fleet for the sake of passengers - an old A319 looks the same as a brand new one and if anything is probably more spacious. Also, a lot of people like to fly on the 747 which is getting rarer and rarer. There is no urgent need to change their fleet due to passenger preference, because most passengers don't know the difference and if they do they often prefer the older aircraft. I think it's more about economics and I'd imagine that with fuel prices how they are right now they'd save money by flying these aircraft right up to the end of their useful lives.

I think the better question...has BA been too slow with remodeling its interiors? That answer is definitely yes.

EBiafore99 wrote:

I think the better question...has BA been too slow with remodeling its interiors? That answer is definitely yes.

Chicken and egg!! There is an extensive refurbishment prog underway complicated by 787 engine issues, Wi-Fi roll out down time and limited slack in the fleet.

All B767's are now retired. Replaced by A321NEO's.

Their current aircraft livery is getting old. Since 1999?

JannEejit wrote:

I recall a quote from a BA executive type some years after they were launch customer for the Boeing 757, along the lines that 'they'd never be a launch customer again'. I'm not sure what the reasoning behind that was, but maybe they prefer to go for a proven product nowadays ?

They were effectively launch customer for the A320, too (albeit through the takeover of B-Cal, but the deliveries were straight to BA, not to BR), as 1 of only 2 operators of the A320-100.

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.

I cannot believe 76 airlines fly the 747,now.

September11 wrote:

Their current aircraft livery is getting old. Since 1999?

Utopia was Introduced in 1997, albeit it had World Tails for the first few years until Chatham Dockyard became the standardised Tail in 2000, IIRC.

United_fan wrote:

I cannot believe 76 airlines fly the 747,now.

That would include Cargo Airlines and private/government jets, too.

There was talk in another thread few weeks back about BA getting a new livery to more closely reflect
their IAG stablemates. If true, that might explain why some of these planes exteriors look so worn, they'll
be the first birds to wear the new livery?

Bhoy wrote:

September11 wrote:

Their current aircraft livery is getting old. Since 1999?

Utopia was Introduced in 1997, albeit it had World Tails for the first few years until Chatham Dockyard became the standardised Tail in 2000, IIRC.

If I was CEO for the day, it would go back to the Landor Scheme and stay that way!!!

There is always a fascination of something new, ala the 787 or A350. That's just it though, fascination. Tomorrow comes along and a 787-8 or an A350-900 isn't new and the "new" obsessed move on. A 747 flies the same way other aircraft do. It may burn more fuel but that doesn't mean it doesn't make more money. The BA 747s were paid for a long time ago. They run, make $$$ and there is no monthly payment to Boeing. For the foreseeable future, that works. I remember talking with a BA crew about what their favorite aircraft was. 747.....because everything on it JUST WORKS!!!!

During my time in aviation, something brand new is equal to something that has yet to prove itself over the Atlantic, at 0137, on a Tuesday in March, when the cards we have been dealt for that flight are less than perfect. I'll take the aircraft on it's 20,000th journey across the Atlantic, not flight number 4.

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.

Sooner787 wrote:

There was talk in another thread few weeks back about BA getting a new livery to more closely reflect
their IAG stablemates. If true, that might explain why some of these planes exteriors look so worn, they'll
be the first birds to wear the new livery?

As Britain leaves the EU, BA removes the Union Flag from the fin after 46 years....can't see that being at all controversial.
I was reading a BA pilot's twitter claim last week who had been (allegedly) chatting to the head of brand who believed the brand was holding up well.

CX747 wrote:

Bhoy wrote:

September11 wrote:

Their current aircraft livery is getting old. Since 1999?

Utopia was Introduced in 1997, albeit it had World Tails for the first few years until Chatham Dockyard became the standardised Tail in 2000, IIRC.

If I was CEO for the day, it would go back to the Landor Scheme and stay that way!!!

Landor scheme did not get old...

BA, fat and lazy, trading on glory days, no one pushing them on interior product. The 747 costs them nothing but they do maintain them well well, that shows. The cabin product is for another debate.

Bhoy wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

I recall a quote from a BA executive type some years after they were launch customer for the Boeing 757, along the lines that 'they'd never be a launch customer again'. I'm not sure what the reasoning behind that was, but maybe they prefer to go for a proven product nowadays ?

They were effectively launch customer for the A320, too (albeit through the takeover of B-Cal, but the deliveries were straight to BA, not to BR), as 1 of only 2 operators of the A320-100.

Correct, the NEO is the *third* generation of A320s at BA, not bad for Boeing Always.

September11 wrote:

Their current aircraft livery is getting old. Since 1999?

While not my favorite I must admit, it's still going strong and looking pretty modern. No point spending heaps of cash repainting the fleet for what gain?

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

lhrsfosyd wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

The 744 and 772ER problem BA has is not so much as replacements but the planes look worn. They have white planes which are dirty and the premium class seats are old and have been around for 15 to 20 years, First and Business should be new every 5 -7 years. Some 777 have unpainted engine coulings. JAL planes are white and every time I see one its "clean" it so white it shines, those 77W that they fly to LHR and the USA are the cleanest planes flying.

No doubt BA makes lots of $$$ from their 2-4-2 J class seats but have some pride you are " British Airways". BA should have 20 more 77W and 20 less 744's in the fleet. The new A350-1000 and three more 77W, new leased birds, will help but how will the new Club World be, something new and 1-2-1 lets hope. More 787 will help too with the 787-10 coming soon.

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.

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

Within reason, when fuel prices are low it's better to keep your planes longer and when fuel prices go up you suddenly wish you had more NEO/MAX.

Fuel prices have been lower than one might have guessed seven years ago.

It could well be that BA made the right call.

JannEejit wrote:

I recall a quote from a BA executive type some years after they were launch customer for the Boeing 757, along the lines that 'they'd never be a launch customer again'. I'm not sure what the reasoning behind that was, but maybe they prefer to go for a proven product nowadays ?

If that's the case, they were pretty quick on the 744 and 777/GE bandwagon. The GE90 problems were certainly something back then....

BA is slowly phasing out the 744 and the 767 is pretty much gone as it is. Even with those types they still have a very modern fleet that is efficient enough for their needs.

JannEejit wrote:

I recall a quote from a BA executive type some years after they were launch customer for the Boeing 757, along the lines that 'they'd never be a launch customer again'. I'm not sure what the reasoning behind that was, but maybe they prefer to go for a proven product nowadays ?

Yea that is a great quote from a BA executive because the Boeing 757 was such a crappy aircraft

Interiors are more of a function of upkeep vs age. Efficiency gets better with new birds, but are much more expensive.

LH707330 wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

I recall a quote from a BA executive type some years after they were launch customer for the Boeing 757, along the lines that 'they'd never be a launch customer again'. I'm not sure what the reasoning behind that was, but maybe they prefer to go for a proven product nowadays ?

If that's the case, they were pretty quick on the 744 and 777/GE bandwagon. The GE90 problems were certainly something back then....

BA was early to the 787 party too. BA is an airline Boeing or Airbus courts for large launch orders. Even when they are late like the A380, 12 firm plus options is a good order especially for a slow seller.

LH707330 wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

I recall a quote from a BA executive type some years after they were launch customer for the Boeing 757, along the lines that 'they'd never be a launch customer again'. I'm not sure what the reasoning behind that was, but maybe they prefer to go for a proven product nowadays ?

If that's the case, they were pretty quick on the 744 and 777/GE bandwagon. The GE90 problems were certainly something back then....

And the 788, for that matter. BA received their first Dreamliners relatively early, especially if there were, as you say, concerns about an unproven airframe.

The 747s are really showing their age on the inside especially in Y . BA obviously aren’t investing in them anymore

Havent some of the 'Hi J' 747s just had a fairly big investment?

EBiafore99 wrote:

I think the better question...has BA been too slow with remodeling its interiors? That answer is definitely yes.

Bingo. I think Delta would rank comparably with BA in that fleet age information stated by the OP, but DL does a great job keeping interiors up to date. BA may do well to learn from that approach.

September11 wrote:

CX747 wrote:

Bhoy wrote:

Utopia was Introduced in 1997, albeit it had World Tails for the first few years until Chatham Dockyard became the standardised Tail in 2000, IIRC.

If I was CEO for the day, it would go back to the Landor Scheme and stay that way!!!

Landor scheme did not get old...

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.

The OP is purely looking at numbers. While this statistic might be right it’s still not comparing apples with apples. There are so many more carriers nowadays. EasyJet, Ryanair, Norwegian, Wizz etc. Also all of the airlines don’t renew the fleet in the same year. So it’s only natural that some have a higher average age than others, might be the other way around in 5 years time again. Compared to other legacy EU airlines BA’s fleet is about the same/not far off average age.

Galwayman wrote:

The 747s are really showing their age on the inside especially in Y . BA obviously aren’t investing in them anymore

Some have been refurbished others haven’t. The ones which weren’t will leave the fleet soonish.

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.

On 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.

It's because the A320 hasn't changed since November of 1988.

1989worstyear 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.

On 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.

It's because the A320 hasn't changed since November of 1988.

Eh? The oldest Active A320 in the BA fleet first flew in May 1999, and has had several interiors (it was originally delivered to bmi). The oldest currently active A320 that was delivered straight to BA was delivered in 2002.

The A320's interior has changed since 2010, never mind November 88, thanks to densification.

Bhoy wrote:

1989worstyear 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.

On 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.

It's because the A320 hasn't changed since November of 1988.

Eh? The oldest Active A320 in the BA fleet first flew in May 1999, and has had several interiors (it was originally delivered to bmi). The oldest currently active A320 that was delivered straight to BA was delivered in 2002.

The A320's interior has changed since 2010, never mind November 88, thanks to densification.

Oh, I'm just referring to the baseline -200 model, not the interior. A 29 year old CEO is practically the same as one rolling off the line today, so BA shouldn't be in a rush to turn over their NB fleet any time soon.

jfk777 wrote:

lhrsfosyd wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

The 744 and 772ER problem BA has is not so much as replacements but the planes look worn. They have white planes which are dirty and the premium class seats are old and have been around for 15 to 20 years, First and Business should be new every 5 -7 years. Some 777 have unpainted engine coulings. JAL planes are white and every time I see one its "clean" it so white it shines, those 77W that they fly to LHR and the USA are the cleanest planes flying.

No doubt BA makes lots of $$$ from their 2-4-2 J class seats but have some pride you are " British Airways". BA should have 20 more 77W and 20 less 744's in the fleet. The new A350-1000 and three more 77W, new leased birds, will help but how will the new Club World be, something new and 1-2-1 lets hope. More 787 will help too with the 787-10 coming soon.

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.

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