Revelation wrote:marcelh wrote:More that as long the virus is spreading uncontrollably, borders won’t open up to those places. And video conferencing has proven that you don’t have to fly for a business meeting, so premium demand won’t go back to pre-COVID levels. Add in some disruption of a hard Brexit and BA is facing a perfect storm on their most profitable routes.
It's kind of interesting many people are finally accepting that video teleconferencing is going to impact business travel going forward. I had some pretty strong pushback on this idea a few months ago. I'm sure there still will be a need for face-to-face business meetings in many circumstances, but I also feel people also now feel comfortable doing many more things via video teleconferencing than they did a year ago. Given how long the COVID shutdowns will extend they'll have no choice but do even more of them. And of course the economic factors are huge. Most businesses are strongly impacted by COVID and going forward approval for travel will be harder to get than ever. The "new normal" is people doing things by teleconference and for most people travel will be the exception rather than the rule.
In my case I attended a technical conference remotely for the first time a few weeks ago, and everything worked well. In regards to technical content I probably got more out of it than in person because I could jump from session to session based on what was being presented and since all content was online immediately I could go back and view things I missed. In terms of person to person interaction, they set up a Slack messaging server for attendees with individual channels for each type of content. I'd say I got to participate in more conversations than I ever would have in real life, since the real life conversations are just random luck of the draw. And for economics, it's no comparison. The live conference fee would have been $1200, the virtual conference fee was $50. The real live conference would have meant four nights in a hotel, expensive meals, and transcontinental travel. The conference made out too. They normally draw less than 200 for it, online they drew over 4000, and avoided most of the expenses they'd suffer with real life conferences. They've already said they will offer a remote option for all the conferences they do going forward.
IMO, the genie is out of the bottle when it comes to business travel, and it's gonna be hard to get it back in.leleko747 wrote:It seems every 747 fan is losing a relative lately... it feels like losing a close person...
2020 will forever be remembered as a bleak year.
I must admit I was expecting a drastic fleet reduction, maybe coming back with 10 frames or so. But retiring them all at once... that hit hard.
Yes, but once you cut it down to ten, the cut to zero became a lot easier to do. It's hard to justify the entire maintenance and training regime needed for a small fleet. Then, given it's clear 2020 is a write off and 2021 isn't looking much better, it's very tempting to turn the whole thing off.
Given the number of new aircraft they have recently bought and ones they have on order, it's really hard to justify keeping the 744 fleet around hoping things get better.DCA350 wrote:aemoreira1981 wrote:Basically BA has given up hope on travel returning to normal until 2022 at least.
That said, what are the odds that the A388 at BA returns to service? I would say about 20-25 percent at best...and then the B772 (GE ER fleet) will have to soldier on a bit longer.
The 747s were long paid for and amortized. They were scheduled for retirement over the next few years. To scrap the A380s would be a massive write down.
True, but as above the 744s just had a billion dollars invested in them and their write down will not be small. Pretty much all the things written about 744 in the staff letter ( premium heavy, need to fly full to make money, A350/787 are more efficient ) are true for A380 as well. Also as QR just pointed out yesterday in an article on FlightGlobal, A380s are next on the ecology hit list. Their engines are a big step behind the 787 and beyond era engines.Opus99 wrote:What will BA use instead of the 747's on their JFK-LHR routes ? 777's ? A350's ?
The new and also refurbished 777-300ERs (with club suite) AND the 777-200ERs (with club suite)
I thought I read that 787-10 was ordered to be a TATL mainstay as well?
I guess CV-19 will shift a lot of allocations around.
Yes it is, but it won’t be on the most premium TATL routes. So expect it on Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, Nashville (pre-covid so it will probably be put on hold) etc. The 77W expect it on all previous super high J 747 routes as it’s going to have the highest J count (76) bar the 380.
As the four new 77Ws arrive and the rest are refurbished they will be on the more premium TATL like JFK, LAX, BOS, ORD, IAD, SFO etc.