MIflyer12 wrote:Seriously. AA/DL/WN/UA aren't ever going to pay back the more than $10 Billion in grants they've received.
By definition a grant is not expected to be paid back.
Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
MIflyer12 wrote:Seriously. AA/DL/WN/UA aren't ever going to pay back the more than $10 Billion in grants they've received.
dcajet 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.
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.
smi0006 wrote:What’s the refresh to the First class seat? Or is it simply the same as the 789 and the refresh refers to the difference between 777/744 and 789?
Arion640 wrote:That's the one. My sincere and most humble of apologies.Junglejames wrote:Aeropostale wrote:The last time I checked, it was Gatwick to Santiago.
BA never operated LHR-SCL with 777s. I was (explicitly) referring to 777 routes.
BAs longest non stop flight full stop, and a 777.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
You’re thinking of Lima.
BA174 wrote: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.
TUGMASTER wrote: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
vhtje wrote:BA174 wrote: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.
With the 787’s increased efficiency (compared to the 772), is the densification needed? In other words, could the 787 still make money for BA at LGW leisure route prices?
An awful lot of competitors were using 787s from LGW.
It’s all moot now, given there is debate about BA ever resuming LGW ops. (Personally, I think they will return to LGW, but LGW ops will be restarted much later, e.g. maybe even a year or 18 months after flights resume at LHR)
BA777FO wrote:The 787-10 has flight crew rest, but not CC rest. That said, DFW/SEA is likely to be the furthest it'll go.
BA777FO wrote:vhtje wrote:BA174 wrote: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.
With the 787’s increased efficiency (compared to the 772), is the densification needed? In other words, could the 787 still make money for BA at LGW leisure route prices?
An awful lot of competitors were using 787s from LGW.
It’s all moot now, given there is debate about BA ever resuming LGW ops. (Personally, I think they will return to LGW, but LGW ops will be restarted much later, e.g. maybe even a year or 18 months after flights resume at LHR)
LGW ops are due to restart on July 1st if the government doesn't impose silly quarantine rules. Cancun, Tampa, Orlando, Punta Cana, Mauritius, Las Vegas, Barbados, Bermuda, St Lucia and Antigua all due to return. So no Lima or San Jose (or LGW-JFK/YYZ) and frequencies reduced, but essentially the plan is to resume most of it. Obviously subject to change.
The 789 would work well at Gatwick. Not every market needs 336 seats. It works to Orlando and a few others in the peak summer season but is a bit too much at season boundaries. Extra capacity to where it's needed - Orlando and Caribbean at peak times, could just have extra frequencies or the 787-10 could do the entire network except for MRU, SJO and LIM - although LAS might be a push in the hot summer months. I'd imagine the 789 works well as one fleet there in the future. The A350-1000 is too big really.
2029 sees only 8 772s in the fleet at the last plan so presumably all GE ones will be gone by then as they'd be about ~30 years old.
The 787-10 has flight crew rest, but not CC rest. That said, DFW/SEA is likely to be the furthest it'll go.
concordeforever wrote: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....
Channex101 wrote: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
Channex101 wrote: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
Opus99 wrote:BA777FO wrote:vhtje wrote:
With the 787’s increased efficiency (compared to the 772), is the densification needed? In other words, could the 787 still make money for BA at LGW leisure route prices?
An awful lot of competitors were using 787s from LGW.
It’s all moot now, given there is debate about BA ever resuming LGW ops. (Personally, I think they will return to LGW, but LGW ops will be restarted much later, e.g. maybe even a year or 18 months after flights resume at LHR)
LGW ops are due to restart on July 1st if the government doesn't impose silly quarantine rules. Cancun, Tampa, Orlando, Punta Cana, Mauritius, Las Vegas, Barbados, Bermuda, St Lucia and Antigua all due to return. So no Lima or San Jose (or LGW-JFK/YYZ) and frequencies reduced, but essentially the plan is to resume most of it. Obviously subject to change.
The 789 would work well at Gatwick. Not every market needs 336 seats. It works to Orlando and a few others in the peak summer season but is a bit too much at season boundaries. Extra capacity to where it's needed - Orlando and Caribbean at peak times, could just have extra frequencies or the 787-10 could do the entire network except for MRU, SJO and LIM - although LAS might be a push in the hot summer months. I'd imagine the 789 works well as one fleet there in the future. The A350-1000 is too big really.
2029 sees only 8 772s in the fleet at the last plan so presumably all GE ones will be gone by then as they'd be about ~30 years old.
The 787-10 has flight crew rest, but not CC rest. That said, DFW/SEA is likely to be the furthest it'll go.
my bet is on the 787-10 to replace the LHR 777s
Arion640 wrote:Not sure the big fuss over these Gatwick planes being second hand. In the case of the 777’s they had a higher standard interior than much of the LHR fleet for a period of time.
CRJ900 wrote:BA777FO wrote:The 787-10 has flight crew rest, but not CC rest. That said, DFW/SEA is likely to be the furthest it'll go.
Why didn't BA just include a cabin crew rest since they were getting pilot rest anyway? With only 256 seats, the B787-10 should have impressive range - United flies their 318-seat B787-10 on 11-hour flights like TLV-EWR.
skipness1E wrote:How an earth are US destinations from LGW, or indeed LHR going to start in about 5 weeks? Really??? They just keep shuffling dates back a month every four weeks. Is the Caribbean ready for thousands of incomers?
BA777FO wrote:Clearwater beach is now open - good news for Tampa. I doubt Disney World theme parks will be open on July 1st but people may still wish to travel for other reasons (no idea when Universal Studios may open?) But Florida is making steps to end their lockdown.
skipness1E wrote:Arion640 wrote:Not sure the big fuss over these Gatwick planes being second hand. In the case of the 777’s they had a higher standard interior than much of the LHR fleet for a period of time.
The 777s aren’t second hand. It’s not a fuss, it’s more the case that LGW’s ROI vs LHR was inferior and so capital spending on new aircraft was concentrated there.
So by the time the later Rolls Royce B777s turn up at Gatters they’re paid off. It’s not like LGW is a B787 hotspot really. Aside from Norwegian, TUI and a couple of Westjets, isn’t that it? And Norwegians strategy of spending billions on a new B787 fleet didn’t end well in that market. Given VS just closed LGW, am not sure that market is going to be in a good place anytime soon.
Arion640 wrote:skipness1E wrote:Arion640 wrote:Not sure the big fuss over these Gatwick planes being second hand. In the case of the 777’s they had a higher standard interior than much of the LHR fleet for a period of time.
The 777s aren’t second hand. It’s not a fuss, it’s more the case that LGW’s ROI vs LHR was inferior and so capital spending on new aircraft was concentrated there.
So by the time the later Rolls Royce B777s turn up at Gatters they’re paid off. It’s not like LGW is a B787 hotspot really. Aside from Norwegian, TUI and a couple of Westjets, isn’t that it? And Norwegians strategy of spending billions on a new B787 fleet didn’t end well in that market. Given VS just closed LGW, am not sure that market is going to be in a good place anytime soon.
I should of re-phrased sorry. I was talking with the A320’s in mind, with the 777’s there starting to get refurbished before the LHR ones did.
It is BA’s leisure hub at the end of the day, so BA’s passengers are less likely to be interested about the quality of the interior. Perhaps a decision any good business person would make?
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!
Ishrion wrote:So... looks like Sunday delivery it is?
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)...
Ishrion wrote:Well, guess it wasn’t Sunday delivery either.
DrPaul 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)...
Dan Air ordered a new aeroplane? I find that hard to believe!
scbriml wrote:Ishrion wrote:Well, guess it wasn’t Sunday delivery either.
There's still half of Sunday left in Seattle.
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!
rbavfan 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!
Ask AA the same thing. Answer is you have a contract to buy them. You cannot just walk away from those orders when they are ready to deliver. You can negotiate spreading them out if you are a top customer though.
rbavfan 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!
Ask AA the same thing. Answer is you have a contract to buy them. You cannot just walk away from those orders when they are ready to deliver. You can negotiate spreading them out if you are a top customer though.