British Airways is set to take delivery on its first 787-10 later this week with it expected to arrive at LHR around 8am on Thursday 21 May 2020, though this is subject to change.

The 787-10 was expected to operate on LHR-ATL though this has more than likely been put off due to COVID-19. The 787-10 will join 12 787-8's and 18 787-9's currently in the British Airways fleet. British Airways will become the third airline to operate all 3 variants of the 787, joining ANA and United Airlines

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... 0-delivery

Here is the G-ZBLA seen on its first flight on 17th Jan 2020 at CHS



https://twitter.com/BoeingSCSpotter/sta ... 97474?s=20



https://twitter.com/cassidysvacay/statu ... 37889?s=20

Should be the first of many, the 78X is very well-suited to BA. In a perfect world they might be used as a drop in replacement for LGW 77Es, but LGW doesn't get much love even when times are good!

Curious...do the B78Xs have first class? If so, they could supplement or replace the older B772s.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Curious...do the B78Xs have first class? If so, they could supplement or replace the older B772s.

8 First, 48 Business, 35 PE, 165 Economy.

BA was supposed to start running 78J's into DFW this month, but obviously those plans
will be pushed back til who knows when. Right now, BA is serving DFW with 788's
2-3 times a week.

Sooner787 wrote:

BA was supposed to start running 78J's into DFW this month, but obviously those plans
will be pushed back til who knows when. Right now, BA is serving DFW with 788's
2-3 times a week.

The BA 787-8 flight into DFW is cargo.

Anyone know why ATL was chosen as the first destination initially or was it just random? Normally a 772 or 789 is on the route.

MrHMSH wrote:

Should be the first of many, the 78X is very well-suited to BA. In a perfect world they might be used as a drop in replacement for LGW 77Es, but LGW doesn't get much love even when times are good!

LGW gets no capital investment in new aircraft. Since the based B732 fleet in the 1980s, they have taken on delivery one single new build Dan Air ordered B734 in 1993 (G-BUHK), and a few of the original B777 fleet originally operated under AML at ten abreast in the late 90s. All the LGW delivered B744s soon went to LHR. No ROI sadly, so hand me downs it remains.

skipness1E wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Should be the first of many, the 78X is very well-suited to BA. In a perfect world they might be used as a drop in replacement for LGW 77Es, but LGW doesn't get much love even when times are good!

LGW gets no capital investment in new aircraft. Since the based B732 fleet in the 1980s, they have taken on delivery one single new build Dan Air ordered B734 in 1993 (G-BUHK), and a few of the original B777 fleet originally operated under AML at ten abreast in the late 90s. All the LGW delivered B744s soon went to LHR. No ROI sadly, so hand me downs it remains.

That is correct. I believe when the 777s finally go. The -9 will move to Gatwick and more -10s will be ordered to replace all Heathrow 777s which is about 25 frames. But GE engines this time!

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Curious...do the B78Xs have first class? If so, they could supplement or replace the older B772s.

I don’t think anything could be more perfect to replace the 772s

This is the first BA aircraft with the 'refreshed' First and Club Suite from the factory. I imagine the 77X will come with F, but the 78X could very well be the last aircraft in the BA fleet to be delivered with F.

skipness1E wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Should be the first of many, the 78X is very well-suited to BA. In a perfect world they might be used as a drop in replacement for LGW 77Es, but LGW doesn't get much love even when times are good!

LGW gets no capital investment in new aircraft. Since the based B732 fleet in the 1980s, they have taken on delivery one single new build Dan Air ordered B734 in 1993 (G-BUHK), and a few of the original B777 fleet originally operated under AML at ten abreast in the late 90s. All the LGW delivered B744s soon went to LHR. No ROI sadly, so hand me downs it remains.

I wouldn't say "no return on investment", I would say that LHR has a comparatively much better return on investment. That is why so many airlines have gone from LGW to LHR over the years. Things were looking a bit different when LHR was full, but its going to be a tough few years for LGW while the shape of the recovery becomes clear.

Opus99 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Should be the first of many, the 78X is very well-suited to BA. In a perfect world they might be used as a drop in replacement for LGW 77Es, but LGW doesn't get much love even when times are good!

LGW gets no capital investment in new aircraft. Since the based B732 fleet in the 1980s, they have taken on delivery one single new build Dan Air ordered B734 in 1993 (G-BUHK), and a few of the original B777 fleet originally operated under AML at ten abreast in the late 90s. All the LGW delivered B744s soon went to LHR. No ROI sadly, so hand me downs it remains.

That is correct. I believe when the 777s finally go. The -9 will move to Gatwick and more -10s will be ordered to replace all Heathrow 777s which is about 25 frames. But GE engines this time!

The 789 is probably too small for LGW especially since the densification of the 777 and the regular demand on some of BAs routes obviously in normal times. Many of BAs RR powered 77Es that operate from both LHR and LGW are still fairly young and there are more than 40 777s operating from LHR routinely in total. The split engines in the 77E fleet has always seemed a bug bear of BAs and I doubt they would split the engine types on any further dreamliner orders to put them in the same scenario again regardless of earlier problems they’ve had with the Trent’s.

n2dru wrote:

Anyone know why ATL was chosen as the first destination initially or was it just random? Normally a 772 or 789 is on the route.

Probably due to who is based at ATL.

I thought I read some where that BA B787-10 does not have crew bunk so it is limited to the length of its mission to US east coast destinations and Middle East.

chonetsao wrote:

I thought I read some where that BA B787-10 does not have crew bunk so it is limited to the length of its mission to US east coast destinations and Middle East.

Does anyone know:

- Which airlines do have bunks on the 78Xs? (Surely UA do?)
- What's the official limit on endurance for an aircraft without bunks?

chonetsao wrote:

I thought I read some where that BA B787-10 does not have crew bunk so it is limited to the length of its mission to US east coast destinations and Middle East.

Yes , BA 78X doesn't have crew rest area as well GE-powered 77E that directly intends to replace.

skipness1E wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Should be the first of many, the 78X is very well-suited to BA. In a perfect world they might be used as a drop in replacement for LGW 77Es, but LGW doesn't get much love even when times are good!

LGW gets no capital investment in new aircraft. Since the based B732 fleet in the 1980s, they have taken on delivery one single new build Dan Air ordered B734 in 1993 (G-BUHK), and a few of the original B777 fleet originally operated under AML at ten abreast in the late 90s. All the LGW delivered B744s soon went to LHR. No ROI sadly, so hand me downs it remains.

Top of my head, I thought G-YMMR and MMS were new deliveries when allocated to LGW. As always, happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

LGW always gets LHR hand-me-downs when it comes to BA.

But is atlanta still the destination the 78X will fly to given the coronavirus has seriously changed things.

Ishrion wrote:

Sooner787 wrote:

BA was supposed to start running 78J's into DFW this month, but obviously those plans
will be pushed back til who knows when. Right now, BA is serving DFW with 788's
2-3 times a week.

The BA 787-8 flight into DFW is cargo.

Interesting. So no pax on that service then? Anyone know which remaining BA flights to the US are carrying pax, and which are cargo only?

Opus99 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Curious...do the B78Xs have first class? If so, they could supplement or replace the older B772s.

I don’t think anything could be more perfect to replace the 772s

Just wondering, would the 787-10 be able to do LHR-EZE in lieu of the 777-200ER BA has been using for several years? AFAIK it's BA´s longest 777 nonstop flight.

Why would an airline that is struggling to survive be spending money on a brand new airplane? Makes no sense. Part of ANY government assistance should include NO NEW AIRPLANES at all until the TAXPAYERS are made whole and 100% of the government assistance is paid in full!

AA747123 wrote:

Why would an airline that is struggling to survive be spending money on a brand new airplane? Makes no sense. Part of ANY government assistance should include NO NEW AIRPLANES at all until the TAXPAYERS are made whole and 100% of the government assistance is paid in full!

Well they don’t have any government specific government assistance. They have only accessed the general facilities for ALL industries how do you want to start putting specific restrictions on that? Secondly new planes means less emissions which is the guarantee tied with a lot of bailout packages across Europe. What kind of comment is this? The reality is if the tax payer wants that money. IAG is more than able to give it back to them. I don’t know what makes you think BA is struggling to survive.

AA747123 wrote:

Why would an airline that is struggling to survive be spending money on a brand new airplane? Makes no sense. Part of ANY government assistance should include NO NEW AIRPLANES at all until the TAXPAYERS are made whole and 100% of the government assistance is paid in full!

You just killed most every major airline in the world. Seriously. AA/DL/WN/UA aren't ever going to pay back the more than $10 Billion in grants they've received. AF/KL and LH aren't going to be able to repay their assistance within seven years (or more). What do you think these carriers would look like with no new aircraft for the next seven years?

Aeropostale wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Curious...do the B78Xs have first class? If so, they could supplement or replace the older B772s.

I don’t think anything could be more perfect to replace the 772s

Just wondering, would the 787-10 be able to do LHR-EZE in lieu of the 777-200ER BA has been using for several years? AFAIK it's BA´s longest 777 nonstop flight.

Currently I think that’s about the only one it can’t do from the 772s route network. But Boeing is apparently working on an MTOW bump that will give it more range.

Aeropostale wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Curious...do the B78Xs have first class? If so, they could supplement or replace the older B772s.

I don’t think anything could be more perfect to replace the 772s

Just wondering, would the 787-10 be able to do LHR-EZE in lieu of the 777-200ER BA has been using for several years? AFAIK it's BA´s longest 777 nonstop flight.

LHR-SCL is the longest non stop BA route.
You won’t see the -10s in EZE as this route requires crew rest which as mentioned above the -10 doesn’t have.

BA174 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

LGW gets no capital investment in new aircraft. Since the based B732 fleet in the 1980s, they have taken on delivery one single new build Dan Air ordered B734 in 1993 (G-BUHK), and a few of the original B777 fleet originally operated under AML at ten abreast in the late 90s. All the LGW delivered B744s soon went to LHR. No ROI sadly, so hand me downs it remains.

That is correct. I believe when the 777s finally go. The -9 will move to Gatwick and more -10s will be ordered to replace all Heathrow 777s which is about 25 frames. But GE engines this time!

The 789 is probably too small for LGW especially since the densification of the 777 and the regular demand on some of BAs routes obviously in normal times. Many of BAs RR powered 77Es that operate from both LHR and LGW are still fairly young and there are more than 40 777s operating from LHR routinely in total. The split engines in the 77E fleet has always seemed a bug bear of BAs and I doubt they would split the engine types on any further dreamliner orders to put them in the same scenario again regardless of earlier problems they’ve had with the Trent’s.

The GE ones may be about time to go though. The RRs are more capable. That said, I'd be surprised if JFK isn't next after ATL, just to show off a better product than VS.

AA747123 wrote:

Why would an airline that is struggling to survive be spending money on a brand new airplane? Makes no sense. Part of ANY government assistance should include NO NEW AIRPLANES at all until the TAXPAYERS are made whole and 100% of the government assistance is paid in full!

Couple of reasons, it might be too late to not accept the aircraft now, and it will enable some 747’s to be retired.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

BA174 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

That is correct. I believe when the 777s finally go. The -9 will move to Gatwick and more -10s will be ordered to replace all Heathrow 777s which is about 25 frames. But GE engines this time!

The 789 is probably too small for LGW especially since the densification of the 777 and the regular demand on some of BAs routes obviously in normal times. Many of BAs RR powered 77Es that operate from both LHR and LGW are still fairly young and there are more than 40 777s operating from LHR routinely in total. The split engines in the 77E fleet has always seemed a bug bear of BAs and I doubt they would split the engine types on any further dreamliner orders to put them in the same scenario again regardless of earlier problems they’ve had with the Trent’s.

The GE ones may be about time to go though. The RRs are more capable. That said, I'd be surprised if JFK isn't next after ATL, just to show off a better product than VS.

I think the 747 is a priority retirement over the 777 fleet though.

AA747123 wrote:

Why would an airline that is struggling to survive be spending money on a brand new airplane? Makes no sense. Part of ANY government assistance should include NO NEW AIRPLANES at all until the TAXPAYERS are made whole and 100% of the government assistance is paid in full!

What government assistance has BA received?

AA747123 wrote:

Why would an airline that is struggling to survive be spending money on a brand new airplane? Makes no sense. Part of ANY government assistance should include NO NEW AIRPLANES at all until the TAXPAYERS are made whole and 100% of the government assistance is paid in full!

Didn’t Willie Walsh say something at the recent IAG earnings call that because of the way payments for new aircraft are made taking delivery of a new aircraft actually generated positive cash flow for the purchaser- and no, I didn’t understand how that works- so not to have taken delivery, rather counter intuitively would have been the wrong move for a company wanting more cash. Maybe this is only true for taking delivery of aircraft already in the course of production so as WW outlined in the call deliveries scheduled further into the future are being deferred.

shamrock321 wrote:

Aeropostale wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

I don’t think anything could be more perfect to replace the 772s

Just wondering, would the 787-10 be able to do LHR-EZE in lieu of the 777-200ER BA has been using for several years? AFAIK it's BA´s longest 777 nonstop flight.

LHR-SCL is the longest non stop BA route.
You won’t see the -10s in EZE as this route requires crew rest which as mentioned above the -10 doesn’t have.

BA never operated LHR-SCL with 777s. I was (explicitly) referring to 777 routes.

Will they keep using WB on flights to MAD? Booking engine still shows the 772..

TC957 wrote:

LGW always gets LHR hand-me-downs when it comes to BA.

aka rust buckets.

jumpjets wrote:

AA747123 wrote:

Why would an airline that is struggling to survive be spending money on a brand new airplane? Makes no sense. Part of ANY government assistance should include NO NEW AIRPLANES at all until the TAXPAYERS are made whole and 100% of the government assistance is paid in full!

Didn’t Willie Walsh say something at the recent IAG earnings call that because of the way payments for new aircraft are made taking delivery of a new aircraft actually generated positive cash flow for the purchaser- and no, I didn’t understand how that works- so not to have taken delivery, rather counter intuitively would have been the wrong move for a company wanting more cash. Maybe this is only true for taking delivery of aircraft already in the course of production so as WW outlined in the call deliveries scheduled further into the future are being deferred.

BA ordered the plane many years ago and presumably at a discount. Now a financial consortium will buy it from BA and lease it back to them. Presumably they will pay market price for the airplane which presumably is more for the plane than the price BA negotiated years ago. Thus BA ends up with net positive cash from the transaction. Thereafter it has to make lease payments, but these come with tax advantages. Overall BA makes more money this way than owning the planes themselves.

AA747123 wrote:

Why would an airline that is struggling to survive be spending money on a brand new airplane? Makes no sense. Part of ANY government assistance should include NO NEW AIRPLANES at all until the TAXPAYERS are made whole and 100% of the government assistance is paid in full!

Some planes were already finished when this all started or on the assembly line being built. Could be very expensive to defer those.

Aeropostale wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Curious...do the B78Xs have first class? If so, they could supplement or replace the older B772s.

I don’t think anything could be more perfect to replace the 772s

Just wondering, would the 787-10 be able to do LHR-EZE in lieu of the 777-200ER BA has been using for several years? AFAIK it's BA´s longest 777 nonstop flight.

LHR-EZE flights are operated (until COVID-19 pandemia) by Rolls-Royce powered 777-200ER without First, all 77E RR are more capable than GE-powered and all have crew rest area. Same aircraft configuration flies to BKK, for example.

AA747123 wrote:

Why would an airline that is struggling to survive be spending money on a brand new airplane? Makes no sense. Part of ANY government assistance should include NO NEW AIRPLANES at all until the TAXPAYERS are made whole and 100% of the government assistance is paid in full!

Maybe because these aircraft weren’t just ordered 4 weeks ago? Come on, you have to know how this works.

Aeropostale wrote:

shamrock321 wrote:

Aeropostale wrote:

Just wondering, would the 787-10 be able to do LHR-EZE in lieu of the 777-200ER BA has been using for several years? AFAIK it's BA´s longest 777 nonstop flight.

LHR-SCL is the longest non stop BA route.
You won’t see the -10s in EZE as this route requires crew rest which as mentioned above the -10 doesn’t have.

BA never operated LHR-SCL with 777s. I was (explicitly) referring to 777 routes.

The last time I checked, it was Gatwick to Santiago.
BAs longest non stop flight full stop, and a 777.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Opus99 wrote:

Aeropostale wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

I don’t think anything could be more perfect to replace the 772s

Just wondering, would the 787-10 be able to do LHR-EZE in lieu of the 777-200ER BA has been using for several years? AFAIK it's BA´s longest 777 nonstop flight.

Currently I think that’s about the only one it can’t do from the 772s route network. But Boeing is apparently working on an MTOW bump that will give it more range.

Still waiting for Boeing to announce the MTOW increase.....Considering the amount of cargo BA take to South America, the 787-10 is not gonna fair well payload wise on a 14+hr route compared to a 77W or any 350/789, the 77E can still take quite a bit more on these 14hr routes.

Revelation wrote:

jumpjets wrote:

AA747123 wrote:

Why would an airline that is struggling to survive be spending money on a brand new airplane? Makes no sense. Part of ANY government assistance should include NO NEW AIRPLANES at all until the TAXPAYERS are made whole and 100% of the government assistance is paid in full!

Didn’t Willie Walsh say something at the recent IAG earnings call that because of the way payments for new aircraft are made taking delivery of a new aircraft actually generated positive cash flow for the purchaser- and no, I didn’t understand how that works- so not to have taken delivery, rather counter intuitively would have been the wrong move for a company wanting more cash. Maybe this is only true for taking delivery of aircraft already in the course of production so as WW outlined in the call deliveries scheduled further into the future are being deferred.

BA ordered the plane many years ago and presumably at a discount. Now a financial consortium will buy it from BA and lease it back to them. Presumably they will pay market price for the airplane which presumably is more for the plane than the price BA negotiated years ago. Thus BA ends up with net positive cash from the transaction. Thereafter it has to make lease payments, but these come with tax advantages. Overall BA makes more money this way than owning the planes themselves.

I can't remember if what I'm saying is exactly what Willie Walsh said, but basically, the final payment required for the aircraft is much smaller than the overall value of the aircraft. Then, once with BA, the full value of the aircraft goes on the books.

Did WW specifically say they would do a sale and lease back arrangement with these aircraft?

If not, then it is more figures on a spreadsheet than actual cash.

Also, I can't see BA selling the aircraft for more than they paid for it. That would lead to increased leasing payments.
More a case, similar to above, where the sale value would be more than the final payment to Boeing.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Junglejames wrote:

Aeropostale wrote:

shamrock321 wrote:

LHR-SCL is the longest non stop BA route.
You won’t see the -10s in EZE as this route requires crew rest which as mentioned above the -10 doesn’t have.

BA never operated LHR-SCL with 777s. I was (explicitly) referring to 777 routes.

The last time I checked, it was Gatwick to Santiago.
BAs longest non stop flight full stop, and a 777.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Possibly a one-off Covid-19 related service but otherwise SCL has always been an LHR 789 flight.

Junglejames wrote:

Aeropostale wrote:

shamrock321 wrote:

LHR-SCL is the longest non stop BA route.
You won’t see the -10s in EZE as this route requires crew rest which as mentioned above the -10 doesn’t have.

BA never operated LHR-SCL with 777s. I was (explicitly) referring to 777 routes.

The last time I checked, it was Gatwick to Santiago.
BAs longest non stop flight full stop, and a 777.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

When BA left Santiago from Gatwick until resuming in 2017 with 789 from LHR , it used 744 on the route via GRU initially, then via EZE.

marcogr12 wrote:

Will they keep using WB on flights to MAD? Booking engine still shows the 772..

I'd imagine so. The main reason they use a WB to MAD is for the cargo capacity, which certainly ain't slowing down.

DylanHarvey wrote:

Considering the amount of cargo BA take to South America, the 787-10 is not gonna fair well payload wise on a 14+hr route compared to a 77W or any 350/789, the 77E can still take quite a bit more on these 14hr routes.

The -10 has not been given crew rest so I don't think it will be sent on 14+ hour routes.

TC957 wrote:

LGW always gets LHR hand-me-downs when it comes to BA.

At least two of the 777s @LGW are the newest -200ERs and non of the G-GAT 320s are ex LHR so not entirely true

G-VIIO, P, and R were new to BA at Gatwick. I worked the ramp on R on it's first revenue service. I told the captain on his pre-flight walk around, he wasn't even aware....

Junglejames wrote:

Aeropostale wrote:

shamrock321 wrote:

LHR-SCL is the longest non stop BA route.
You won’t see the -10s in EZE as this route requires crew rest which as mentioned above the -10 doesn’t have.

BA never operated LHR-SCL with 777s. I was (explicitly) referring to 777 routes.

The last time I checked, it was Gatwick to Santiago.
BAs longest non stop flight full stop, and a 777.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

You’re thinking of Lima.

Aeropostale wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Curious...do the B78Xs have first class? If so, they could supplement or replace the older B772s.

I don’t think anything could be more perfect to replace the 772s

Just wondering, would the 787-10 be able to do LHR-EZE in lieu of the 777-200ER BA has been using for several years? AFAIK it's BA´s longest 777 nonstop flight.

It used to be, LHR-SCL is now BA's longest nonstop flight, flown with 787-9. LHR-EZE is close to 13 hours each way; that seems pushing it a bit for the 787-10 w/o penalties of some kind.

Now, if you are referring to the 777 fleet, you are correct. EZE is the farthest destination served nonstop from LHR.

Read what people have said...
It’s going on no long trips...
No C/C rest......
East coast..... ATL...mid west...
Middle East...

That’s your lot