Hi guys

What has become of IAG LOI to order 737MAX ?

Best regards

LY777 wrote:

What has become of IAG LOI to order 737MAX?

IAG head Willie Walsh has confirmed the LoI remains in effect with Boeing. Deliveries were planned for 2023 to 2025 though that has likely changed just with the production slowdown due to the grounding so they could renegotiate the deliveries for later.

Stitch wrote:

LY777 wrote:

What has become of IAG LOI to order 737MAX?

IAG head Willie Walsh has confirmed the LoI remains in effect with Boeing. Deliveries were planned for 2023 to 2025 though that has likely changed just with the production slowdown due to the grounding so they could renegotiate the deliveries for later.

The last update I saw was earlier this year and pre-covid. Is there a more recent one?

Also, with COVID and WW now being at IATA, who knows.

No updates since Covid. But I assume it’s still somewhat in place. The person who brokered the deal was Steve gunning. IAF CFO. Not WW believe it or not

Since Covid, BA is considering leaving LGW which will probably mean the MAX order won't happen. The MAX was targeted to operate out of LGW and can't be moved to LHR due to non-containerised luggage.

The IAG MAX order was also for other non-BA IAG airlines. It might be dead at BA but not all IAG.

A decision is likely to be made in the first half of next year when there is a bit more certainty about the future, but very unlikely to be of the same scale as the original LoI of 200. Also gives Airbus a chance to make a pitch for the business. An LoI is just that - not a commitment!

If IAG had any sense, they'd let the LoI expire and forget about the MAX.

TC957 wrote:

If IAG had any sense, they'd let the LoI expire and forget about the MAX.

That would be the stupid thing to do from a business sense

TC957 wrote:

If IAG had any sense, they'd let the LoI expire and forget about the MAX.

Or at least re-negotiate the pricing

tullamarine wrote:

Since Covid, BA is considering leaving LGW which will probably mean the MAX order won't happen. The MAX was targeted to operate out of LGW and can't be moved to LHR due to non-containerised luggage.

BA flies the A320 family. They are bulk loaded. Your statement makes no sense

Does the LOI put any substantive obligations at all on IAG, eg paying nonrefundable money or obligation to order any of Boeing's products ? Or is it just as follows ?

"Dear Boeing
We are thinking maybe just possibly we might order some aircraft but we cannot make any promises whatsoever and will not pay any money or commit to anything until we make up our mind later
Regards,
IAG"

Boof02671 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Since Covid, BA is considering leaving LGW which will probably mean the MAX order won't happen. The MAX was targeted to operate out of LGW and can't be moved to LHR due to non-containerised luggage.

BA flies the A320 family. They are bulk loaded. Your statement makes no sense

BA’s A320s are not bulk loaded, they take containers.

[photoid][/photoid]

Boof02671 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Since Covid, BA is considering leaving LGW which will probably mean the MAX order won't happen. The MAX was targeted to operate out of LGW and can't be moved to LHR due to non-containerised luggage.

BA flies the A320 family. They are bulk loaded. Your statement makes no sense

Nope BA A32x models out of Heathrow are containerised

Now they do have one at Gatwick that isn’t G-MEDK though

JerseyFlyer wrote:

TC957 wrote:

If IAG had any sense, they'd let the LoI expire and forget about the MAX.

Or at least re-negotiate the pricing

They signed only a couple of months after the type was grounded, and was perceived at the time as a public vote of confidence from a blue chip customer. They probably got them at cost, if not below cost. While the delivery dates can be pushed back, I doubt Boeing can go any lower on pricing.

an LOI, is really what it says it is. A letter of intent. It’s basically saying look we want to buy these many units of this aircraft for delivery at these dates, pricing may or may not be included in the LOI but it’s not legally binding, no money is exchanged.

It’s basically the formal way of saying I want this aircraft

I expect pricing to be discounted and delivery rates altered. It would surprise me if this doesn't go through. The quantity could change, or it could stay the same with some fraction effectively options.

Lightsaber

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Does the LOI put any substantive obligations at all on IAG, eg paying nonrefundable money or obligation to order any of Boeing's products?

It depends on the LoI, but in general the terms are light and reasonable. IAG probably made some form of Predelivery Payment (usually 1%) when they signed the LoI and that will be credited against the price of the airframes should an actual sales contract / purchase agreement be signed that firms the number of frames and their delivery dates.

Stitch wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Does the LOI put any substantive obligations at all on IAG, eg paying nonrefundable money or obligation to order any of Boeing's products?

It depends on the LoI, but in general the terms are light and reasonable. IAG probably made some form of Predelivery Payment (usually 1%) when they signed the LoI and that will be credited against the price of the airframes should an actual sales contract / purchase agreement be signed that firms the number of frames and their delivery dates.

Does IAG get the money back if the sale does not go forward?

spinotter wrote:

Stitch wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Does the LOI put any substantive obligations at all on IAG, eg paying nonrefundable money or obligation to order any of Boeing's products?

It depends on the LoI, but in general the terms are light and reasonable. IAG probably made some form of Predelivery Payment (usually 1%) when they signed the LoI and that will be credited against the price of the airframes should an actual sales contract / purchase agreement be signed that firms the number of frames and their delivery dates.

Does IAG get the money back if the sale does not go forward?

No money has been exchanged it’s a LOI, not a firm order and contract

Boof02671 wrote:

spinotter wrote:

Stitch wrote:

It depends on the LoI, but in general the terms are light and reasonable. IAG probably made some form of Predelivery Payment (usually 1%) when they signed the LoI and that will be credited against the price of the airframes should an actual sales contract / purchase agreement be signed that firms the number of frames and their delivery dates.

Does IAG get the money back if the sale does not go forward?

No money has been exchanged it’s a LOI, not a firm order and contract

In the remarks above, Stitch wrote that IAG already made a predelivery payment of 1%. Not true?

spinotter wrote:

In the remarks above, Stitch wrote that IAG already made a predelivery payment of 1%. Not true?

I said they may have. I have only seen a handful of MoUs and LoIs and they usually had a PDP that was written that it would be credited if the order was firmed.

IAG is a large customer, so they may have been able to do an LoI on a "handshake", but 200 frames is also a fair bit of kit and with a four year delivery window, would have represented about one full month's worth of production per year. I would not be surprised if Boeing wanted some form of financial commitment from them in the form of a PDP or "slot deposit" to confirm the seriousness of their interest.

AA is reported to have had something similar with their initial 47-frame 787 LoI with Boeing because it was contingent on the pilot's union ratifying a new contract with 787 rates included in order to be converted to a firm sales contract. As such, it was reported that AA agreed to pay a slot deposit for all 47 slots and to commit to purchasing the plane for each slot 18 months in advance of the planned production date for that slot, but they could cancel without penalty on a per-slot basis if the LoI had not yet been firmed into a sales contract by that time.

Boof02671 wrote:

spinotter wrote:

Stitch wrote:

It depends on the LoI, but in general the terms are light and reasonable. IAG probably made some form of Predelivery Payment (usually 1%) when they signed the LoI and that will be credited against the price of the airframes should an actual sales contract / purchase agreement be signed that firms the number of frames and their delivery dates.

Does IAG get the money back if the sale does not go forward?

No money has been exchanged it’s a LOI, not a firm order and contract

Then why sign an LOI? Usually there are some form of financial repercussions, albeit relatively small. In M&A, after an MoU is signed for a merger there tends to be a "breakup fee". If you elect to walk away, the party being acquired gets some pre-negotiated sum.

In the grand scheme of things, it's small and like Stitch said, given IAG's size and relationship, this may not necessarily exist. But LOI/MoU are more than just words.

Antarius wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

spinotter wrote:

Does IAG get the money back if the sale does not go forward?

No money has been exchanged it’s a LOI, not a firm order and contract

Then why sign an LOI? Usually there are some form of financial repercussions, albeit relatively small. In M&A, after an MoU is signed for a merger there tends to be a "breakup fee". If you elect to walk away, the party being acquired gets some pre-negotiated sum.

In the grand scheme of things, it's small and like Stitch said, given IAG's size and relationship, this may not necessarily exist. But LOI/MoU are more than just words.

Question: does IAG need 200 MAX post COVID? The payment made might be more useful to streamline the WB fleet.

tullamarine wrote:

Since Covid, BA is considering leaving LGW which will probably mean the MAX order won't happen. The MAX was targeted to operate out of LGW and can't be moved to LHR due to non-containerised luggage.

I am getting flashbacks to the time people got into a passionate argument about baggage containers on here. It got so heated it devolved into personal insults

Antarius wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

spinotter wrote:

Does IAG get the money back if the sale does not go forward?

No money has been exchanged it’s a LOI, not a firm order and contract

Then why sign an LOI? Usually there are some form of financial repercussions, albeit relatively small. In M&A, after an MoU is signed for a merger there tends to be a "breakup fee". If you elect to walk away, the party being acquired gets some pre-negotiated sum.

In the grand scheme of things, it's small and like Stitch said, given IAG's size and relationship, this may not necessarily exist. But LOI/MoU are more than just words.

They are more then just words but its really more of an option than an order and likely is going to be revaluated in light of covid

dstblj52 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

No money has been exchanged it’s a LOI, not a firm order and contract

Then why sign an LOI? Usually there are some form of financial repercussions, albeit relatively small. In M&A, after an MoU is signed for a merger there tends to be a "breakup fee". If you elect to walk away, the party being acquired gets some pre-negotiated sum.

In the grand scheme of things, it's small and like Stitch said, given IAG's size and relationship, this may not necessarily exist. But LOI/MoU are more than just words.

They are more then just words but its really more of an option than an order and likely is going to be revaluated in light of covid

Letter Of Intent
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/letterofintent.asp


A LOI is almost useless to discuss since we have no idea of what's in it. We might assume that the agreement has lapse since it's 18 months old, but like I said ... we simply dont know.

With all of the current political issues surrounding Brexit, the single market, free trade and more between the UK and Europe, it’s safe to say those 737’s will be delivered. Each side already threatening each other with import / export tariffs, Airbus threatened to close the UK wing plant, and let’s not forget Boeing is crawling on hands and knees offering deals.

This entire situation smells more political than anything.

SueD wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

Boof02671 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Since Covid, BA is considering leaving LGW which will probably mean the MAX order won't happen. The MAX was targeted to operate out of LGW and can't be moved to LHR due to non-containerised luggage.

BA flies the A320 family. They are bulk loaded. Your statement makes no sense

Nope BA A32x models out of Heathrow are containerised

Now they do have one at Gatwick that isn’t G-MEDK though

To clarify, the airline does own a mix of both, but most are containerised. Any 319/320/321s bought fresh from Airbus should all take containers, the former BMI/BMED fleet are still a bit of a mix and then there are a number of random 2nd hand models- who knows! But typically containerised are operated from LHR and bulk loaded from LGW, though there are exceptions (for example the occasional bulked loaded ex-BMI 319 still flying from LHR.

JFKalumni wrote:

With all of the current political issues surrounding Brexit, the single market, free trade and more between the UK and Europe, it’s safe to say those 737’s will be delivered. Each side already threatening each other with import / export tariffs, Airbus threatened to close the UK wing plant, and let’s not forget Boeing is crawling on hands and knees offering deals.

This entire situation smells more political than anything.

Those 737MAX were meant to be part of VY and LEVEL, both Spanish based, and probably some would have ended up in Gatwick as BA's short-haul fleet. With the pandemic LGW short-haul routes have all been moved to LHR and it is evident the LEVEL brand as a paneuropean low-cost airline has been a failure. The fact that a new aircraft type is no longer needed in the medium-long term has nothing to do with politics.

In fact, IAG is actually less British than it has ever been (its new CEO being Spanish), as a move to remain considered a European group regardless of the agreements that will be made after the UK leaves the EU.

The LOI was signed as a result of Boeing offering prices at producction cost after two fatal accidents of the aircraft and its prolonged grounding. It was beneficial for both parts: Boeing gained some global support for its grounded MAX and IAG received a new type for its ambitious expansion plan focused on the low-cost short-haul segments, for which the MAX is ideal. That said, it is crystal clear IAG won't need those aircraft as the LEVEL brand will silently disappear and BA's operations will remain LHR based.

opticalilyushin wrote:

SueD wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

Boof02671 wrote:

BA flies the A320 family. They are bulk loaded. Your statement makes no sense

Nope BA A32x models out of Heathrow are containerised

Now they do have one at Gatwick that isn’t G-MEDK though

To clarify, the airline does own a mix of both, but most are containerised. Any 319/320/321s bought fresh from Airbus should all take containers, the former BMI/BMED fleet are still a bit of a mix and then there are a number of random 2nd hand models- who knows!
But typically containerised are operated from LHR and bulk loaded from LGW, though there are exceptions (for example the occasional bulked loaded ex-BMI 319 still flying from LHR.

All of the A319s, A320s and A321s ordered by and delivered to BA are containerised.
All of the ex-BMed A321s (G-MEDx) are containerised.
All of the ex-BMI A320s (G-MIDx) are containerised.
The ex-BMed A320 (G-MEDK) is loose load.
All of the ex-BMI A319s (G-DBCx) are loose load.
All of the second hand A320s acquired for Gatwick (G-GATx) are loose load.

The Terminal 5 baggage systems and resources are designed around handling containerised baggage. I do not think that this is the case for Terminal 3.
As mentioned above, loose load BA Airbuses do from time to time operate from LHR. I believe that they can as an exception be handled at T5 - I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong on that.

BealineV953 wrote:

opticalilyushin wrote:

SueD wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

Nope BA A32x models out of Heathrow are containerised

Now they do have one at Gatwick that isn’t G-MEDK though

To clarify, the airline does own a mix of both, but most are containerised. Any 319/320/321s bought fresh from Airbus should all take containers, the former BMI/BMED fleet are still a bit of a mix and then there are a number of random 2nd hand models- who knows!
But typically containerised are operated from LHR and bulk loaded from LGW, though there are exceptions (for example the occasional bulked loaded ex-BMI 319 still flying from LHR.

All of the A319s, A320s and A321s ordered by and delivered to BA are containerised.
All of the ex-BMed A321s (G-MEDx) are containerised.
All of the ex-BMI A320s (G-MIDx) are containerised.
The ex-BMed A320 (G-MEDK) is loose load.
All of the ex-BMI A319s (G-DBCx) are loose load.
All of the second hand A320s acquired for Gatwick (G-GATx) are loose load.

The Terminal 5 baggage systems and resources are designed around handling containerised baggage. I do not think that this is the case for Terminal 3.
As mentioned above, loose load BA Airbuses do from time to time operate from LHR. I believe that they can as an exception be handled at T5 - I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong on that.

I believe this is correct. It might only be T5 that can’t handle it. It’s very shocking that a 21st century terminal can only handle containerised baggage

BealineV953 wrote:

opticalilyushin wrote:

SueD wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

Nope BA A32x models out of Heathrow are containerised

Now they do have one at Gatwick that isn’t G-MEDK though

To clarify, the airline does own a mix of both, but most are containerised. Any 319/320/321s bought fresh from Airbus should all take containers, the former BMI/BMED fleet are still a bit of a mix and then there are a number of random 2nd hand models- who knows!
But typically containerised are operated from LHR and bulk loaded from LGW, though there are exceptions (for example the occasional bulked loaded ex-BMI 319 still flying from LHR.

All of the A319s, A320s and A321s ordered by and delivered to BA are containerised.
All of the ex-BMed A321s (G-MEDx) are containerised.
All of the ex-BMI A320s (G-MIDx) are containerised.
The ex-BMed A320 (G-MEDK) is loose load.
All of the ex-BMI A319s (G-DBCx) are loose load.
All of the second hand A320s acquired for Gatwick (G-GATx) are loose load.

The Terminal 5 baggage systems and resources are designed around handling containerised baggage. I do not think that this is the case for Terminal 3.
As mentioned above, loose load BA Airbuses do from time to time operate from LHR. I believe that they can as an exception be handled at T5 - I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong on that.

BA can actually always bulk load, also at T5. They can drive the container out and then unload it into the aircraft. Very time consuming and inefficient but it can be done if necessary. Same goes the other way around, load it off the aircraft into a container and then bring the container in.

On the other side you can never load a container into an aircraft that can not take them. So in the long run, BA will not run any more bulk loaded aircraft at LHR (except in dire sitrations when nothing else is possible).
For efficiency reason we therefore will never see a fleet of bulk loaded aircraft in BA livery at LHR.

BA wet-leased 2 JetTime 737-700s for the entire summer 2016 season operating ABZ, CPH, EDI and GLA flights. Both were based at T5.

So it’s clear that while T5 is set up to handle containerised aircraft, that is because BA’s whole operation is containerised, rather than because it’s impossible to handle a non-containerised operation there. BA would have contracted some alternative aircraft if it was that critical. Same reason why the 757s and routes they could be dedicated to operate were all moved to T3 towards the end. Simplicity.

I cannot for 1 second accept that a major infrastructure project such as T5, which is owned by the airport and not the airline tenant could not handle bulk loading. However it is just that as a matter of convenience because all BA’s T5 fleet uses containers, that’s how it’s currently set up. That wouldn’t preclude them using a non-containerised fleet there in the future... imagine if the A320 replacement is bulk loaded for weight/cost reasons. What do you do then? Shut down your whole narrowbody operation ? And let’s not forget every wide body has a bulk hold, loaded by hand, and used for crew bags, rush luggage, pets and various other uses... pets aside pretty much all processed through the T5 baggage system.

Crosswind wrote:

BA wet-leased 2 JetTime 737-700s for the entire summer 2016 season operating ABZ, CPH, EDI and GLA flights. Both were based at T5.

So it’s clear that while T5 is set up to handle containerised aircraft, that is because BA’s whole operation is containerised, rather than because it’s impossible to handle a non-containerised operation there. BA would have contracted some alternative aircraft if it was that critical. Same reason why the 757s and routes they could be dedicated to operate were all moved to T3 towards the end. Simplicity.

I cannot for 1 second accept that a major infrastructure project such as T5, which is owned by the airport and not the airline tenant could not handle bulk loading. However it is just that as a matter of convenience because all BA’s T5 fleet uses containers, that’s how it’s currently set up. That wouldn’t preclude them using a non-containerised fleet there in the future... imagine if the A320 replacement is bulk loaded for weight/cost reasons. What do you do then? Shut down your whole narrowbody operation ? And let’s not forget every wide body has a bulk hold, loaded by hand, and used for crew bags, rush luggage, pets and various other uses... pets aside pretty much all processed through the T5 baggage system.

You would have to rebuild the entire processing system, its doable but the current solution when dealing with bulk loaded aircraft appears to be to load cars instead of crates inside and then unload them into the aircraft its extremely labor intensive, rebuilding the system is doable but again a major time and expense investment, its not impossible but such an aircraft would need to be significantly better then its alternative for it to be worth the investment.

guillermohs wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

With all of the current political issues surrounding Brexit, the single market, free trade and more between the UK and Europe, it’s safe to say those 737’s will be delivered. Each side already threatening each other with import / export tariffs, Airbus threatened to close the UK wing plant, and let’s not forget Boeing is crawling on hands and knees offering deals.

This entire situation smells more political than anything.

Those 737MAX were meant to be part of VY and LEVEL, both Spanish based, and probably some would have ended up in Gatwick as BA's short-haul fleet.

In June ‘19, a week after the IAG 737 MAX LOI was announced, IAG released a statement saying:
"The mix of 737-8 and 737-10 aircraft would be delivered between 2023 and 2027…. It is anticipated that the aircraft would be used by a number of the Group’s airlines including Vueling, LEVEL plus British Airways at London Gatwick airport."

The shorthaul part of LEVEL was, amongst other things, expected to take on many Vueling services that did not touch Spain, for example AMS-UK. The first shorthaul aircraft in the Level fleet were based at Vienna. So, I wouldn't say that Level was based in Spain.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Since Covid, BA is considering leaving LGW which will probably mean the MAX order won't happen. The MAX was targeted to operate out of LGW and can't be moved to LHR due to non-containerised luggage.

BA flies the A320 family. They are bulk loaded. Your statement makes no sense

BA’s A320s are not bulk loaded, they take containers.

Some of the BD ex Bmed ones are bulk,

In my opinion, IAG was only trying to help Boeing out when its PR was a nightmare after two fatal crashes of new aircraft. Boeing got some support from IAG, and most probably IAG got some discounts on future aircraft being those wide or narrow-bodied, time will tell.
Even if the LoI was actually something real for Level, Vueling and BA ex-LGW, those plans have most likely been scrapped post-COVID world: Level back then was intended to be a paneuropean low cost carrier fighting against EasyJet, Norwegian and Ryanair, nowadays they are just gone. BA is now all-LHR for the time being and we have already seen that bulk-loaded aircraft are inconvenient for the operation has at LHR. As of Vueling, I believe that it isn't worth to change all the fleet even if the Maxes were sold at a really low price.

JJR wrote:

In my opinion, IAG was only trying to help Boeing out when its PR was a nightmare after two fatal crashes of new aircraft. Boeing got some support from IAG, and most probably IAG got some discounts on future aircraft being those wide or narrow-bodied, time will tell.
Even if the LoI was actually something real for Level, Vueling and BA ex-LGW, those plans have most likely been scrapped post-COVID world: Level back then was intended to be a paneuropean low cost carrier fighting against EasyJet, Norwegian and Ryanair, nowadays they are just gone. BA is now all-LHR for the time being and we have already seen that bulk-loaded aircraft are inconvenient for the operation has at LHR. As of Vueling, I believe that it isn't worth to change all the fleet even if the Maxes were sold at a really low price.

You might be onto something with this though. I know that at the same time when the IAG MAX order came through BA also committed to six more 777Xs(do note not firm orders just commitments). Which is why if you go back to the Boeing 777X FF presentation the slide shows BA’s commitment as “24 orders and commitments”. How did I know it happened during the Paris air show? Because Boeing’s 777X “orders and commitments” increased by 6 during that show. So there’s definitely some behind the scenes business regarding the MAX LOI

BA will not be closing their Gatwick base long term. Short haul is expected to return next year, they would not be selling flights if they plan on completely shutting down at Gatwick. They will need those slots when things pick up again, just at the moment they don't need them.

IIRC this deal came about at a time when IAG fleet planners had alrteady identified the need for extra/replacement single-aisle aircraft, IAG Management had had its fill of delivery delays and/or quality issues with Airbus and was sharp enough to figure that the MAX difficulties meant that Boeing was ready to give a sugar sweet deal to anyone with their purchasing power. Once the LOI was announced I think it was reported that Airbus asked if they could try to wrestle the business back, which suggested that it was never a competition, more an opportunistically timed punishment.

jomur wrote:

BA will not be closing their Gatwick base long term. Short haul is expected to return next year, they would not be selling flights if they plan on completely shutting down at Gatwick. They will need those slots when things pick up again, just at the moment they don't need them.

BA ex Gatwick pilot here. Whilst I tend to agree with the general point remember they were still selling flights for the summer back when all this kicked off in March and April despite the fact they knew full well they were closing the base. If it comes to it the flights will get moved to LHR, it’s no big deal for them. Whilst I agree there will be SH flights from LGW again I very much doubt it will be as early as March 21 - as the schedule suggests - and it won’t be a standalone SH base anymore. We’ve already been told from a flightcrew perspective we will be bidding for Gatwick trips alongside Heathrow so more of a 777 style arrangement. Even longer term I suspect it’ll be a new contract down there rather than just a pay point cap as it was.

tullamarine wrote:

Since Covid, BA is considering leaving LGW which will probably mean the MAX order won't happen. The MAX was targeted to operate out of LGW and can't be moved to LHR due to non-containerised luggage.

It wasn't only for BA at LGW but also VY at BCN. I believe it was split half and half among the two according to the news.

Rampvan wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

BA flies the A320 family. They are bulk loaded.

BA’s A320s are not bulk loaded, they take containers.

Some of the BD ex Bmed ones are bulk,

Of the ex-BMed via bmi Airbuses, only A320 G-MEDK is loose load. All the ex-BMed A321s are containerised.
As in post 31 above:
All of the A319s, A320s and A321s ordered by and delivered to BA are containerised.
All of the ex-BMed A321s (G-MEDx) are containerised.
All of the ex-BMI A320s (G-MIDx) are containerised.
Both of the ex-GB Airways via easyJet A320s (G-TTOx) are containerised.
The ex-BMed A320 (G-MEDK) is loose load.
All of the ex-BMI A319s (G-DBCx) are loose load.
All of the second hand A320s acquired for Gatwick (G-GATx) are loose load.

lesfalls wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Since Covid, BA is considering leaving LGW which will probably mean the MAX order won't happen. The MAX was targeted to operate out of LGW and can't be moved to LHR due to non-containerised luggage.

It wasn't only for BA at LGW but also VY at BCN. I believe it was split half and half among the two according to the news.

Hello.
In June ‘19, a week after the IAG 737 MAX LOI was announced, IAG released a statement saying:
"The mix of 737-8 and 737-10 aircraft would be delivered between 2023 and 2027…. It is anticipated that the aircraft would be used by a number of the Group’s airlines including Vueling, LEVEL plus British Airways at London Gatwick airport."

Wildlander wrote:

IIRC this deal came about at a time when IAG fleet planners had alrteady identified the need for extra/replacement single-aisle aircraft, IAG Management had had its fill of delivery delays and/or quality issues with Airbus and was sharp enough to figure that the MAX difficulties meant that Boeing was ready to give a sugar sweet deal to anyone with their purchasing power. Once the LOI was announced I think it was reported that Airbus asked if they could try to wrestle the business back, which suggested that it was never a competition, more an opportunistically timed punishment.

My thoughts are similar. It was an opportunistic buy for an already identified need. WW has made comments regarding his frustration with Airbus, so it appears the combination of the likely attractive pricing and sending a message to one supplier were achieved in one fell swoop.

Same reason that Southwest periodically looks at Airbus. You can't let your sole sourcing vendor (in BA's case for narrowbodies) get too comfortable.

Opus99 wrote:

BealineV953 wrote:

opticalilyushin wrote:

To clarify, the airline does own a mix of both, but most are containerised. Any 319/320/321s bought fresh from Airbus should all take containers, the former BMI/BMED fleet are still a bit of a mix and then there are a number of random 2nd hand models- who knows!
But typically containerised are operated from LHR and bulk loaded from LGW, though there are exceptions (for example the occasional bulked loaded ex-BMI 319 still flying from LHR.

All of the A319s, A320s and A321s ordered by and delivered to BA are containerised.
All of the ex-BMed A321s (G-MEDx) are containerised.
All of the ex-BMI A320s (G-MIDx) are containerised.
The ex-BMed A320 (G-MEDK) is loose load.
All of the ex-BMI A319s (G-DBCx) are loose load.
All of the second hand A320s acquired for Gatwick (G-GATx) are loose load.

The Terminal 5 baggage systems and resources are designed around handling containerised baggage. I do not think that this is the case for Terminal 3.
As mentioned above, loose load BA Airbuses do from time to time operate from LHR. I believe that they can as an exception be handled at T5 - I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong on that.

I believe this is correct. It might only be T5 that can’t handle it. It’s very shocking that a 21st century terminal can only handle containerised baggage

T5 handles non containerised baggage. They have handled B757s and several of the G-DBC* A319s were based here over summer and autumn.

Anyone on here who says they have a clear idea what the post COVID market will look like is talking out of their backside. "Building Back Better" is the mantra from Sydney to Ottawa via London and Washington. The new normal will differ in many ways from the old as part of what the WEF is calling the Great Reset. Look out for green taxes to be used to fill the enormous holes left in tax revenues, and the impact this will have on spontaneous travel and random holidays abroad. And that's before we get to post furlough job losses....

Aviation will be massivley impacted for a number of years, I think the best analogy was US deregulation, things were never the same again. Now maybe IAG has a need for a whole load of new B737MAX aircraft, but I suspect IAG only have the most basic ideas of what a post COVID environment will look like. Any capital investment planning made before this mess could and should be looked at again. Remember after 9-11 the US majors barely ordered a handful of widebodies between them for years. I suspect something similar will happen here.

BealineV953 wrote:

Rampvan wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

BA’s A320s are not bulk loaded, they take containers.

Some of the BD ex Bmed ones are bulk,

Of the ex-BMed via bmi Airbuses, only A320 G-MEDK is loose load. All the ex-BMed A321s are containerised.
As in post 31 above:
All of the A319s, A320s and A321s ordered by and delivered to BA are containerised.
All of the ex-BMed A321s (G-MEDx) are containerised.
All of the ex-BMI A320s (G-MIDx) are containerised.
Both of the ex-GB Airways via easyJet A320s (G-TTOx) are containerised.
The ex-BMed A320 (G-MEDK) is loose load.
All of the ex-BMI A319s (G-DBCx) are loose load.
All of the second hand A320s acquired for Gatwick (G-GATx) are loose load.

What about those delivered to BA but sent to LGW and fitted with the rubber protective insert? Do you know if they still have it? UUS-UUZ.

Are you sure about the bmi A320s, I thought they were loose loaded?

So are containerised aircraft bulk loaded at Gatters?

JJR wrote:

In my opinion, IAG was only trying to help Boeing out when its PR was a nightmare after two fatal crashes of new aircraft. Boeing got some support from IAG, and most probably IAG got some discounts on future aircraft being those wide or narrow-bodied, time will tell.

How exactly did the LOI help Boeing, did any airline place orders for the MAX during the grounding, did any airline who wanted to cancel their order defer those cancellations?
If no funds were exchanged - as some claim - doing PR on a grounded jet going through certification which secures no additional orders was a failure of great magnitude.

I may be more inclined to believe the LOI was meant to get additional deals, however, since they were already an Airbus shop I see no need, based on what we know here on A.Net. Boeing is the only OEM who needs to be played off to obtain better discounts.