Could we please stick to the topic. If you want to discuss the grounding of the 737MAX there is already a thread open for that. Additionally keep the point scoring out of the discussion, comments such as calling it a death trap or commenting on the number of people that have died in the crashes does nothing over than to provoke other users, so keep the flamebait out of the discussion

ITSTours wrote:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/british-airways-parent-company-delivers-a-massive-vote-of-confidence-in-the-boeing-737-max/
"Boeing said the deal is worth just over $24 billion at list prices. The real value of the planes after standard discounts in the industry, according to data from aircraft-valuation firm Avitas, is about $11 billion."

This assumes 54% discount I guess? Not that much but more than typical?

Who will order the 737Max at standard discount at this moment?
Boeing need a large order from 1st tier airline for PR matters and in exchange there must be a deep discount offered to the airline.

Same as what Ryanair did regarding 737NG. Boeing needed the order after 911 and Ryanair got the world's cheapest 737-800 in exchange.

I am today wondering if ever operations with containers becomes a minority for short-haul flights, perhaps there is a possibility airports will adjust their way of doing things to the new situation.

I think this will work out well for IAG, especially putting them to BA for Gatwick as they have operated B737 before and know what they are doing.

ITSTours wrote:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/british-airways-parent-company-delivers-a-massive-vote-of-confidence-in-the-boeing-737-max/
"Boeing said the deal is worth just over $24 billion at list prices. The real value of the planes after standard discounts in the industry, according to data from aircraft-valuation firm Avitas, is about $11 billion."

This assumes 54% discount I guess? Not that much but more than typical?

I interpret the ST article as mentioning the average discount applied for all deals in general, not specifically this IAG LOI.

rbavfan wrote:

x1234 wrote:

With the MASSIVE range of the B737Max7 (7100km full payload), this can fly low volume routes in EMEA as far as DXB, LOS, ACC, GYD, IKA, etc. Basically BA now has a narrow-body for routes that previously required a wide-body.
Example routes: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-ISB;+L ... PVD;&DU=km

I sense Europe, Middle East, Africa & Mid-West/East Coast USA/Canada expansion.

You forgot to figure in ETOPS & north atlantic winds. The 737-7 would be hard pressed to do do the midwest routes from LHR.

As has been mentioned upthread, the -7 is not part of this deal. So this is all academic.

Momo1435 wrote:

IAG still has enough neo on order to replace all the ceo's that are needed for BA's LHR T5 operations. The neo's now destined for Vueling can always be transfered to BA, so there's no problem there.

Yes, it will be interesting if and how the current orderbook of A320neo will be rearranged. I can see the 737-8 and 737-10 for Level, Vueling taking 737-10 as well. Perhaps IAG wants the LCC's going all Boeing, with Airbus narrowbodies exclusively for BA and IB, for a more 'premium' experience (which would be a novelty for BA and IB economy pax )
I can see Level going for the 787-8 too, for the same reason. Perhaps BA could transfer their rather unliked ones to Level.

T5 can deal with non containerised aircraft. BA used to fly the odd B757, had three based leased Jettime B737s and had one of the LGW based G-DBC* fleet when the BEA retrojet was swapped to Gatters recently.

It’s not a dealbreaker.

VV wrote:

Go away from that terminal and full stop. If BA operates from that terminal then fine they can use A320 or any other aircraft, but IAG is not only BA. Fact is BA signed a letter of intent to order 200 MAX. That's it.

And yes, please stop this obsession about containers. There are other ways to operate an aircraft. Just avoid areas where it cannot be operated.

Isn't that very very very easy to understand?

It quite extraordinary how many posters post without reading the preceding posts or the source material. These aircraft are for Vueling, LEVEL and LGW. They will not be seen at EI, LHR or IB - according to the public IAG statements. IAG have a huge requirement for A319 replacement - 55 frames between BA, IB and 5 more at Vueling, the 34-strong EI A320ceo average 13 years, the 3 A321s are 20. Thats just shy of 100 frames that are getting up there in age, before you consider much of the ex-IB Vueling fleet is of a similar age. IAG can clearly swallow 200 737s alongside their NEO order.

I think it does close the door on the A220, which was heavily rumoured. Have Boeing pulled another United-Style order here?

speedbird52 wrote:

It will be nice to see 737s in the BA livery again.

In Europe at least. BA liveried 737's are flying in South Africa for Comair.

Motorhussy wrote:

Noticeable in its absence in IAG’s media release is any reference to MAX. The airline group is obviously very aware of and sensitive to PR fallout associated with the name. They have referred to their MAX order as that of the Boeing 737 -8 and -10.

They’re not prepared to kiss the shadow.

Other news outlets are referring to it as the MAX - even the news update I heard on a radio station last night specifically mentioned the word "MAX". The media (and specifically the non-specialist outlets) aren't always great at picking up on finer details, but in this instance they're calling a spade a spade. It's a problem IAG's airlines will need to manage if the order is firmed up and punters are wary about flying on one if/when they are allowed to fly again...

https://news.sky.com/story/boeing-boost ... s-11744306
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48682123
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... 7-max-jets

I wanna know how IAG expects to viably place these planes with everyone in Europe already shouting over over-capacity... It's not going to drive down prices either for mainline when you have emptier planes flying over all over the place...

ewt340 wrote:

I get how these dirt cheap plane going to their LCC like Level and Vueling. Cause they needed it.
I mean, look at Ryanair. The MAX problems is the exact same opportunity for many airlines to get heavy discount, just like back in the day during 9/11.

I think you’re right on the money. IAG’s structure permits swap of aircraft between carriers, and although I believe these order is earmarked for Vueling, there is enough flexibility to move them around, even to lease them to another companies.
Is a matter of getting a sweet deal: cheap aircraft available before 2025, taking good slots away from competitors. Is very hard to walk away from that opportunity being WW.

Let’s not forget that from the big A320neo order, those allocated to VY were sold & leased-back and currently they don’t have any owned aircraft. Most leases are tipically 5-7 years, coincidentally they will end by the time 737Maxes join the fleet from 2023. Some leases can be extended to join IB, EI or BA fleets.

Having operated as a captain both in A320 & B737, I favour the latter for LCC operations. VY could benefit from this deal getting a cheap plane making it easier to compete with other LCCs, and if IAG someday buys DY now there’s commonality between fleets.

VV wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

VV wrote:

Why are people so obsessed by containers on single aisle aircraft. Get over it.
Does Ryanair have issues with containers?

Do you know how expensive it is to carry a lot of baggage in Europe?

Damn! Please stop this madness about containers on short haul flights in Europe.

Someone clearly does not understand the Terminal 5 Baggage system. Good job getting angry about airplane suitcase boxes by the way.

If you can't go to terminal 5 then don't go there.

Do you know a single thing about the way Heathrow is set up?

speedbird52 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Revelation wrote:

There's a long running meme here on a.net that suggests 737 is not acceptable due to its lack of containers despite loads (sic) of evidence otherwise, now augmented by this IAG deal for 200 frames.

Here's a charming thread from the past: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1371679

It seems like the era of the container fetishist is coming to an end.

Isn't it the case that BA uses containers at T5 exclusively, whereas T3 is bulk or containerised, as is LGW? If that is the case and the 737s are destined for LGW it doesn't disprove that BA needs container-capable aircraft at LHR (T5).

There is a reason BA kept the 737s at Gatwick. Correct me if I am wrong but the 757s never went to T5 either right? I suppose Heathrow will modify the system? Or BA will use the small 737 containers

Given that Willie Walsh has already said (and it has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread) that BA will use its share of this LOI at London Gatwick there's no need to do anything at Heathrow, as they won't be sending 737s there. You're entirely right though, LHR T5 was designed specifically around containerised baggage and it would be incredibly expensive to rebuild it for anything else. Loose-loaded planes have found their way to T5 occasionally, usually during disruption when cancellations free up enough baggage handlers to do the job manually - one of the reasons for containerisation in the first place was the massive reduction in the number of baggage workers required, and current staffing at LHR reflects that.

Andy33 wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Isn't it the case that BA uses containers at T5 exclusively, whereas T3 is bulk or containerised, as is LGW? If that is the case and the 737s are destined for LGW it doesn't disprove that BA needs container-capable aircraft at LHR (T5).

There is a reason BA kept the 737s at Gatwick. Correct me if I am wrong but the 757s never went to T5 either right? I suppose Heathrow will modify the system? Or BA will use the small 737 containers

Given that Willie Walsh has already said (and it has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread) that BA will use its share of this LOI at London Gatwick there's no need to do anything at Heathrow, as they won't be sending 737s there. You're entirely right though, LHR T5 was designed specifically around containerised baggage and it would be incredibly expensive to rebuild it for anything else. Loose-loaded planes have found their way to T5 occasionally, usually during disruption when cancellations free up enough baggage handlers to do the job manually - one of the reasons for containerisation in the first place was the massive reduction in the number of baggage workers required, and current staffing at LHR reflects that.

Just so VV can understand: Heathrow is a large extremely spread out airport. It is almost impossible to connect between terminals. As BA has a lot of connecting traffic, they like to keep all their flights at one place. That place is Terminal 5. It makes no sense for BA to get a subfleet that will operate out of a separate terminal. BA cannot move terminals as T5 was basically built for them. It is the best optimized Terminal at Heathrow for British Airways to operate from. Additionally, there is no room in the other terminals, and no airline willing to trade with BA. Finally, T5 is the best terminal at Heathrow. Why would BA downgrade themselves just so they can have 737s at Heathrow? Anyways, considering WW confirmed they will be at LGW, I would say this argument is pointless.

I think this is the first bit of positive news for Max 737 since the crashes?

I doubt the buyer is taking any risks at all. If Max 737 doesn't prove to be safe etc in the future they won't be committing.

It's good news for Boeing and no doubt a great deal for the purchaser (if they do indeed purchase)

I doubt the 738 will end up as BA's smallest frame at LGW. It is larger than all the 319s and 320s currently based there.

Maybe 220s soon??

kimimm19 wrote:

I wanna know how IAG expects to viably place these planes with everyone in Europe already shouting over over-capacity... It's not going to drive down prices either for mainline when you have emptier planes flying over all over the place...

What makes you think that all these planes are for service expansion? IAG airlines have a lot of middle aged A32x ceos. By the time MAXs start arriving in quantity these will be getting due for replacement. IAG takes great pride in the way they have standardised their more modern A32x planes internally, so that to transfer one from one fleet to another takes less than a week, including a repaint.

Then BA's fleet at LGW is 29 A319s and A320s, all ceo, mostly leased. These can be directly replaced by MAX8s (or 737-8s as the LOI calls them). It's a heavily slot controlled airport, so not much scope for expansion other than by replacing 10 x 144 seat A319s with 180-186 seat 737-8s.

Vueling and Level shorthaul has just under 130 planes, a mix of 319/320/321 with some neos. If the entire fleet was made 737-8 and 737-10, their newest Airbuses could be transferred to EI or IB or BA (Heathrow) fleets replacing more elderly ceos
.
Really, there's only about 40 planes in this LOI that look like being purely for expansion, over 5 years.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I doubt the 738 will end up as BA's smallest frame at LGW. It is larger than all the 319s and 320s currently based there.

Maybe 220s soon??

The operating cost of a 737-8 (ex MAX) is likely to be lower than an A319ceo, even with one extra cabin crew member, so if they can sell the extra seats for anything at all, they're still better off than they are now. Also UK regulations prevent cabin crew members from being current on more than 3 aircraft families concurrently. During the changeover period LGW based crew would need to be qualified on A32x; 737; and 777, and duty schedules do mix shorthaul and longhaul work - there's only the one crew pool at Gatwick and duties are mixed. So adding a 4th type would require extra crews for several years- since spare crews wouldn't be able to stand in for every aircraft type. Once the conversion process is completed, and there are no A32x planes at BA Gatwick, then A220s could be easily introduced, but by then there are no A319s to be replaced....

Just in case it wasnt clear to everybody this order is NOT for BA at LHR but for BA at LGW. So replacing some of the oldest A320s and the second hand frames that joined that base. No change to LHR and containerised loading!!!

george77300 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

BAWLGW wrote:

Wow, well this came as a shock. The likely price reductions probably gave IAG incentive to place this LOI.

This order gives me more reason to believe that IAG have their eyes/plan set on a big European aviation shake up. Personally, I think that Vueling will be merged with LEVEL and potentially BA LGW Shorthaul joining the fray. This order facilitates a easy take over of Norwegian later down the line also.

Later on, could we see IAG ordering more of the 737Max to replace A320s across the BA, Iberia and Aer Lingus brands? Perhaps!

Also, could the 737Max ever be containerised?

I think this is less likely, certainly not a 100% replacement. All the IAG airlines have neos on order and there's nothing to suggest they'll be cancelled. IAG airlines also tend to hold onto aircraft for the long term.

I can see the neos orders being rejigged internally to different airlines. With more focus on IB and EI and BA at LHR with less to VY. We will see I suppose. Wonder if Vueling in the long run will completely switch? A320 to 737. Has been done by others before. Who knows but interesting to see how this pans out. Still around 4 years out from first delivery.

That would make sense, it would seem strange to leave their LCCs Vueling and Level with a mixed fleet. BA at LGW only needs 30ish 737s so the remaining 170 are surely enough to full equip Vueling and Level.

The alternative is that IAG are planning really aggressive expansion, which isn't how they've tended to operate. Indeed apart from anything else, IAG buying 200 narrowbodies in one order is the biggest shock!

dcajet wrote:

VV wrote:

IAG is a big group in Europe.

This is a very significant endorsement.

And one that knows how to get a very meaningful discount from Boeing...

Reminds me of the early 2000's Ryanair order. They probably got a similar deal. Even the order is the same size IIRC.

speedbird52 wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

There is a reason BA kept the 737s at Gatwick. Correct me if I am wrong but the 757s never went to T5 either right? I suppose Heathrow will modify the system? Or BA will use the small 737 containers

Given that Willie Walsh has already said (and it has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread) that BA will use its share of this LOI at London Gatwick there's no need to do anything at Heathrow, as they won't be sending 737s there. You're entirely right though, LHR T5 was designed specifically around containerised baggage and it would be incredibly expensive to rebuild it for anything else. Loose-loaded planes have found their way to T5 occasionally, usually during disruption when cancellations free up enough baggage handlers to do the job manually - one of the reasons for containerisation in the first place was the massive reduction in the number of baggage workers required, and current staffing at LHR reflects that.

Just so VV can understand: Heathrow is a large extremely spread out airport. It is almost impossible to connect between terminals. As BA has a lot of connecting traffic, they like to keep all their flights at one place. That place is Terminal 5. It makes no sense for BA to get a subfleet that will operate out of a separate terminal. BA cannot move terminals as T5 was basically built for them. It is the best optimized Terminal at Heathrow for British Airways to operate from. Additionally, there is no room in the other terminals, and no airline willing to trade with BA. Finally, T5 is the best terminal at Heathrow. Why would BA downgrade themselves just so they can have 737s at Heathrow? Anyways, considering WW confirmed they will be at LGW, I would say this argument is pointless.

Fine.

So no aircraft without container capability will go to terminal 5 at Heathrow.

That's it that's all.

But the obsession about containers still make me wonder.

If containers are must for BA or any airlines, at least they have this option to explore for the 737NGs and 737MAXs.

http://flexibleloadingsystem.com/home/

hongkongflyer wrote:

Boeing need a large order from 1st tier airline for PR matters and in exchange there must be a deep discount offered to the airline.

Same as what Ryanair did regarding 737NG. Boeing needed the order after 911 and Ryanair got the world's cheapest 737-800 in exchange.

I am sure the discount is large but this situation is not the same as the post-911 Ryanair situation.

Boeing desperately needed the orders back then due to other airlines cancelling in the post-911 environment.

Without such orders their supply chain could have collapsed.

The industry learned from that and other events so now it's a lot harder to cancel contracts.

The proof is that IAG's first delivery is scheduled for 2023 with perhaps some chance of an opening in 2022, so around 4 years from now.

Overall Boeing has ~5000 737s in the backlog and would have been just fine without this order.

So, not the same.

Really, this is all just a statement on what list price means, which is not much.

Andy33 wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I doubt the 738 will end up as BA's smallest frame at LGW. It is larger than all the 319s and 320s currently based there.

Maybe 220s soon??

The operating cost of a 737-8 (ex MAX) is likely to be lower than an A319ceo, even with one extra cabin crew member, so if they can sell the extra seats for anything at all, they're still better off than they are now. Also UK regulations prevent cabin crew members from being current on more than 3 aircraft families concurrently. During the changeover period LGW based crew would need to be qualified on A32x; 737; and 777, and duty schedules do mix shorthaul and longhaul work - there's only the one crew pool at Gatwick and duties are mixed. So adding a 4th type would require extra crews for several years- since spare crews wouldn't be able to stand in for every aircraft type. Once the conversion process is completed, and there are no A32x planes at BA Gatwick, then A220s could be easily introduced, but by then there are no A319s to be replaced....

So are we to assume that the LGW fleet will standardize around Boeing aircraft because BA is looking to replace its old 772s too..Does it mean that LGW will get 787s and 737MAXs and LHR the A320 family, 787,777,A350,A380?

marcogr12 wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I doubt the 738 will end up as BA's smallest frame at LGW. It is larger than all the 319s and 320s currently based there.

Maybe 220s soon??

The operating cost of a 737-8 (ex MAX) is likely to be lower than an A319ceo, even with one extra cabin crew member, so if they can sell the extra seats for anything at all, they're still better off than they are now. Also UK regulations prevent cabin crew members from being current on more than 3 aircraft families concurrently. During the changeover period LGW based crew would need to be qualified on A32x; 737; and 777, and duty schedules do mix shorthaul and longhaul work - there's only the one crew pool at Gatwick and duties are mixed. So adding a 4th type would require extra crews for several years- since spare crews wouldn't be able to stand in for every aircraft type. Once the conversion process is completed, and there are no A32x planes at BA Gatwick, then A220s could be easily introduced, but by then there are no A319s to be replaced....

So are we to assume that the LGW fleet will standardize around Boeing aircraft because BA is looking to replace its old 772s too..Does it mean that LGW will get 787s and 737MAXs and LHR the A320 family, 787,777,A350,A380?

I wouldn't assume that at all. BA has already arranged replacements for a small proportion of its large 772 fleet (with a few 77Ws and 779s) which are expected to go to LHR. The rest are expected to see 30 years old, and are currently going through a refurbishment cycle. The remaining 772s only start becoming due for replacement from 2027 onwards. Not surprisingly, nobody (I suspect including IAG) knows what will be ordered then, and whether there will be fleet reshuffles as a result.

Antarius wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

Given that Willie Walsh has already said (and it has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread) that BA will use its share of this LOI at London Gatwick there's no need to do anything at Heathrow, as they won't be sending 737s there. You're entirely right though, LHR T5 was designed specifically around containerised baggage and it would be incredibly expensive to rebuild it for anything else. Loose-loaded planes have found their way to T5 occasionally, usually during disruption when cancellations free up enough baggage handlers to do the job manually - one of the reasons for containerisation in the first place was the massive reduction in the number of baggage workers required, and current staffing at LHR reflects that.

Just so VV can understand: Heathrow is a large extremely spread out airport. It is almost impossible to connect between terminals. As BA has a lot of connecting traffic, they like to keep all their flights at one place. That place is Terminal 5. It makes no sense for BA to get a subfleet that will operate out of a separate terminal. BA cannot move terminals as T5 was basically built for them. It is the best optimized Terminal at Heathrow for British Airways to operate from. Additionally, there is no room in the other terminals, and no airline willing to trade with BA. Finally, T5 is the best terminal at Heathrow. Why would BA downgrade themselves just so they can have 737s at Heathrow? Anyways, considering WW confirmed they will be at LGW, I would say this argument is pointless.

BA also operates out of T3.

They do. T3 handles the overflow because T5 isn't big enough to hold all the flights, especially since the takeover of BMI in 2012, though it had a few before that. T3 was designed as a long haul terminal for multi-airline use, and long haul baggage on most airlines has been containerised for years. BA flights from T3 are all containerised, both short and long haul, so they don't have the staff to loose load there either. The terminal itself can cope with loose loading, though it is optimised for containers.

I am guessing some folks at Airbus maybe secretly pleased with this deal. 200 more Boeing aircraft for a EU customer gives more leverage in any potential tariff fight.

Andy33 wrote:

They do. T3 handles the overflow because T5 isn't big enough to hold all the flights, especially since the takeover of BMI in 2012, though it had a few before that. T3 was designed as a long haul terminal for multi-airline use, and long haul baggage on most airlines has been containerised for years. BA flights from T3 are all containerised, both short and long haul, so they don't have the staff to loose load there either. The terminal itself can cope with loose loading, though it is optimised for containers.

Yes, the largest terminal at the largest hub of the group's largest airline requires containers, as does its overflow terminal at its largest hub, yet the group ordered 200 aircraft that do not support containers.

Remarkable, isn't it?

Something that should be making the heads of a few container fetishists spin, I would think.

The great container debate has already been solved. Telair designed a lower lobe cargo container system when the 737-800BCF was launched a few years ago

https://www.genewsroom.com/press-releas ... -converted



737s started flying last year with lower lobe cargo containers

This could be interesting for Vuelevel to launch long-haul to the US from secondary airports (BIO, SVQ, VLC, SCQ, ALC, AGP).

Also if they keep Vuelevel in Vienna, they could reach quite far into the ME and Asia. I assume (if bilateral allows) something like VIE-DEL would be feasible.

I think its great that we will see the 737 back in BA colours again in the UK. No doubt they got a great deal and Boeing will also be "happy" to have sold the MAX to such a group at this given time.

skipness1E wrote:

T5 can deal with non containerised aircraft. BA used to fly the odd B757, had three based leased Jettime B737s and had one of the LGW based G-DBC* fleet when the BEA retrojet was swapped to Gatters recently.

It’s not a dealbreaker.

I thought that’s why the 757’s got canned with so much life left in them, the container issue at T5?

UAL777UK wrote:

I think its great that we will see the 737 back in BA colours again in the UK. No doubt they got a great deal and Boeing will also be "happy" to have sold the MAX to such a group at this given time.

Indeed, and this generation of products will offer range (738) and capacity (7310) and economy far greater than the Classics that BA once operated.

marcogr12 wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I doubt the 738 will end up as BA's smallest frame at LGW. It is larger than all the 319s and 320s currently based there.

Maybe 220s soon??

The operating cost of a 737-8 (ex MAX) is likely to be lower than an A319ceo, even with one extra cabin crew member, so if they can sell the extra seats for anything at all, they're still better off than they are now. Also UK regulations prevent cabin crew members from being current on more than 3 aircraft families concurrently. During the changeover period LGW based crew would need to be qualified on A32x; 737; and 777, and duty schedules do mix shorthaul and longhaul work - there's only the one crew pool at Gatwick and duties are mixed. So adding a 4th type would require extra crews for several years- since spare crews wouldn't be able to stand in for every aircraft type. Once the conversion process is completed, and there are no A32x planes at BA Gatwick, then A220s could be easily introduced, but by then there are no A319s to be replaced....

So are we to assume that the LGW fleet will standardize around Boeing aircraft because BA is looking to replace its old 772s too..Does it mean that LGW will get 787s and 737MAXs and LHR the A320 family, 787,777,A350,A380?

Well it will make a change that LGW is getting new BA aircraft instead of the usual rust buckets they get cascaded down from along the road at LHR.

x1234 wrote:

With the MASSIVE range of the B737Max7 (7100km full payload), this can fly low volume routes in EMEA as far as DXB, LOS, ACC, GYD, IKA, etc. Basically BA now has a narrow-body for routes that previously required a wide-body.
Example routes: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-ISB;+L ... PVD;&DU=km

I sense Europe, Middle East, Africa & Mid-West/East Coast USA/Canada expansion.

And why would anybody fly BA from LHR or Gatwick to DXB on a 737 when you can fly on an Emirates A380 for a lower price and getting better service? And obviously it's not about frequency. EK fly 6-8 A380's daily on London - Dubai.

Andy33 wrote:

kimimm19 wrote:

I wanna know how IAG expects to viably place these planes with everyone in Europe already shouting over over-capacity... It's not going to drive down prices either for mainline when you have emptier planes flying over all over the place...

What makes you think that all these planes are for service expansion? IAG airlines have a lot of middle aged A32x ceos. By the time MAXs start arriving in quantity these will be getting due for replacement. IAG takes great pride in the way they have standardised their more modern A32x planes internally, so that to transfer one from one fleet to another takes less than a week, including a repaint.

Then BA's fleet at LGW is 29 A319s and A320s, all ceo, mostly leased. These can be directly replaced by MAX8s (or 737-8s as the LOI calls them). It's a heavily slot controlled airport, so not much scope for expansion other than by replacing 10 x 144 seat A319s with 180-186 seat 737-8s.

Vueling and Level shorthaul has just under 130 planes, a mix of 319/320/321 with some neos. If the entire fleet was made 737-8 and 737-10, their newest Airbuses could be transferred to EI or IB or BA (Heathrow) fleets replacing more elderly ceos
.
Really, there's only about 40 planes in this LOI that look like being purely for expansion, over 5 years.

No one said that these are just for service expansion, but ones for Level are generally going to be expansion.. AND they are not really that direct replacement as the MAX's are being equipped with more seats.

If I may add a word about containers, albeit very reluctantly. Containers are not unheard of on non-airbus narrow bodied aircraft. I remember as far back as the 1970s that Eastern used containers on DC-9s. I particularly recall this because I was sitting on an EA DC-9 at ATL looking out the window when I watched them drop a container off of the trolley before getting it in the hold.

Revelation wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

They do. T3 handles the overflow because T5 isn't big enough to hold all the flights, especially since the takeover of BMI in 2012, though it had a few before that. T3 was designed as a long haul terminal for multi-airline use, and long haul baggage on most airlines has been containerised for years. BA flights from T3 are all containerised, both short and long haul, so they don't have the staff to loose load there either. The terminal itself can cope with loose loading, though it is optimised for containers.

Yes, the largest terminal at the largest hub of the group's largest airline requires containers, as does its overflow terminal at its largest hub, yet the group ordered 200 aircraft that do not support containers.

Remarkable, isn't it?

Something that should be making the heads of a few container fetishists spin, I would think.

Container obsession is just strange.

And yes, IAG intends to order 737 MAX including the 737-10.

Antarius wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

Given that Willie Walsh has already said (and it has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread) that BA will use its share of this LOI at London Gatwick there's no need to do anything at Heathrow, as they won't be sending 737s there. You're entirely right though, LHR T5 was designed specifically around containerised baggage and it would be incredibly expensive to rebuild it for anything else. Loose-loaded planes have found their way to T5 occasionally, usually during disruption when cancellations free up enough baggage handlers to do the job manually - one of the reasons for containerisation in the first place was the massive reduction in the number of baggage workers required, and current staffing at LHR reflects that.

Just so VV can understand: Heathrow is a large extremely spread out airport. It is almost impossible to connect between terminals. As BA has a lot of connecting traffic, they like to keep all their flights at one place. That place is Terminal 5. It makes no sense for BA to get a subfleet that will operate out of a separate terminal. BA cannot move terminals as T5 was basically built for them. It is the best optimized Terminal at Heathrow for British Airways to operate from. Additionally, there is no room in the other terminals, and no airline willing to trade with BA. Finally, T5 is the best terminal at Heathrow. Why would BA downgrade themselves just so they can have 737s at Heathrow? Anyways, considering WW confirmed they will be at LGW, I would say this argument is pointless.

BA also operates out of T3.

At very limited capacity

Revelation wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

They do. T3 handles the overflow because T5 isn't big enough to hold all the flights, especially since the takeover of BMI in 2012, though it had a few before that. T3 was designed as a long haul terminal for multi-airline use, and long haul baggage on most airlines has been containerised for years. BA flights from T3 are all containerised, both short and long haul, so they don't have the staff to loose load there either. The terminal itself can cope with loose loading, though it is optimised for containers.

Yes, the largest terminal at the largest hub of the group's largest airline requires containers, as does its overflow terminal at its largest hub, yet the group ordered 200 aircraft that do not support containers.

Remarkable, isn't it?

Something that should be making the heads of a few container fetishists spin, I would think.

Jesus Christ this has already been answered by BA explicitly saying they are going to Gatwick! How on Earth are you turning actual facts into "container fetishist". Why are you getting so emotional over suitcase boxes?

speedbird52 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

They do. T3 handles the overflow because T5 isn't big enough to hold all the flights, especially since the takeover of BMI in 2012, though it had a few before that. T3 was designed as a long haul terminal for multi-airline use, and long haul baggage on most airlines has been containerised for years. BA flights from T3 are all containerised, both short and long haul, so they don't have the staff to loose load there either. The terminal itself can cope with loose loading, though it is optimised for containers.

Yes, the largest terminal at the largest hub of the group's largest airline requires containers, as does its overflow terminal at its largest hub, yet the group ordered 200 aircraft that do not support containers.

Remarkable, isn't it?

Something that should be making the heads of a few container fetishists spin, I would think.

this has already been answered by BA explicitly saying they are going to Gatwick! How on Earth are you turning actual facts into "container fetishist". Why are you getting so emotional over suitcase boxes?

You are reading me wrong.

I'm sarcastically pointing out that I'm surprised we're not more emotional about a EU-based blue chip airline group presumed to be A320-only going forward that is ordering 200 737s in the midst of a reputational if not existential crisis instead of being container fetishists, thus the exploding head comment.

For those who care about words, fetish is defined as "any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion" and I find the devotion / respect / reverence being given to suitcase boxes to be entirely out of proportion to their actual significance in the industry.

Lets hope the paint job is better than the Com Air South African attempts at Chatham on their 738's. And please no winglet painting like the new BAA350 #Tacky

Most surprising this LOI, I am guessing that the price was too good to pass, given it is grounded and the MAX needed some good news. They will probably leave payment of any milestones till the Max is permitted back in the air.

Not called 737 MAX anymore.

It will just be followed by a number; e.g. 737 MAX 8 becomes 737-8, etc.

This is per the press release.

Arion640 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

T5 can deal with non containerised aircraft. BA used to fly the odd B757, had three based leased Jettime B737s and had one of the LGW based G-DBC* fleet when the BEA retrojet was swapped to Gatters recently.

It’s not a dealbreaker.

I thought that’s why the 757’s got canned with so much life left in them, the container issue at T5?

No, they got canned cos they were way to big for the developing market, BA moved from B757/B763 to A320 series.

Re the "container fetish", it won't be long until containers are moving on AGV's between baggage hall and aircraft stand. Furthermore within the T3 baggage hall some containers are loaded on the 3rd floor of the building and therefore are transported with lifts and on conveyor lines. In theory both also possible with special inhouse trailer for lose load … but it makes it very unlikely.

airzona11 wrote:

IAG as a group is like all other large airlines / groups. They operate a mixed fleet of nearly all types. Will be a great win for Boeing. I am not sure this is really even a blow for Airbus, the A320 family is selling like hotcakes. Airlines are not proBoeing or Airbus, the reality is the arbitrage that they get from a mixed fleet keeps the purchase price down and even more so, each plane excels in different areas. They are compliments. The largest / most profitable airlines in the world operate them side by side.

Yes, a stunning win for Boeing, and congratulations to everyone involved with the MAX project. I suspect this was a deal finalised at the same time as the 779x confirmation, and WW negotiated a killer deal, against a background of new Airbus management wanting to major on profitability over market share. I suspect Airbus were far less flexible on price.

Travelling round Europe by air has become pretty boring recently with airbuses seemingly taking over the place, so I'm for one pleased with Boeing winning this one........

WW and the IAG board obviously figure that by 2023, hundreds of MAX's will be in service, and any current controversies will be long over.

What I find amazing about this order, is that with deliveries of MAX's up to 2027 and maybe even up to 2030, it isn';t too far fetched to think that 737's will still be in service in 2067 in time for a hundred years of 737's in continuous service. Just think of that, a hundred years of service with one aircraft type. Amazing.

BrianDromey wrote:

Have Boeing pulled another United-Style order here?

....mmmmmm, interesting thought.

Its gonna be sure interesting to find out what IAG paid per unit for these MAX's. If Boeing have priced this deal at rates under production cost; the WTO is sure gonna be interested....... Boeing might be able to pull a stunt like the United one for a domestic deal, but for an 'export' deal to a European carrier; well thats a whole different bag of onions..........