Polot wrote:

tonystan wrote:

ajs123uk wrote:

It was also flown on BA’s own 767 too. I did many trips there from LGW

Nope, that was a US painted in BA colours with their own crew.

https://simpleflying.com/british-airway ... 767-lease/

He is talking about BA’s own 763s. BA has served CLT with BA painted USAir 762s, BA’s 777s, and BA’s 763s. IIRC the 763s were only used for a year or two before the route was cut.

BA started service with their own metal and crew in 1996, initially with a 763. The flight was up-gauged to a 772 in 1998, first seasonally and then year-round.

In October 2001, they canceled the CLT-LGW nonstop and added a CLT-BWI tag onto BWI-LHR, using a 763. They cut CLT completely in October 2002.

BA also had a small, but nice Terraces Lounge in Charlotte.

Westerwaelder wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

Magnum9 wrote:

Interesting that these 3 frames have the old CW cabin and G-VIIW is flying JFK-LHR right now and also did a LHR-JFK-LHR on 18th Feb. Yesterday, G-VIIY did LHR-JFK-LHR.

I thought JFK was guaranteed to have all Club Suites flights?

So the plan is to keep three airframe at LHR with no Club Suites to randomly disappoint customers? It's G-VTOP pre refurb all over again IYKYK.

I agree - that would be a really strange move. They aren't even the oldest of the GE90 777s. Unless they schedule them on the same three longhaul flights everyday, it surely creates waste having 14 F seats when routinely selling only 8? Seems a complication BA could do without.

These three 772’s typically cover Atlanta, Nairobi and Bahrain, but JFK seems to be the usual alternative. They’ve also infrequently operated a few other routes.

Philippine333 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

This reflects the fact that BA almost always failed on routes to Asia including BKK, given its relatively weak Asian coverage. So the question is, why was BA always relatively weak in Asia, and will they expand into Asia again in the future if ever?

The reasons for BA being weak in Asia are already being discussed in a thread you started earlier this month
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1481417

Oh right. Sorry for asking the same question, but was more of intending to ask a different question, will they expand into Asia again if ever?

It's been a long time since BA had double-daily LHR-BKK flights with one continuing onto SYD, and I've no particular reason to think that there will be any change to the daily LHR-SIN-SYD especially after it's now operating with the smaller 787. A major change over the past several years is that airlines like EK can funnel large amounts of traffic into its DXB hub and send connecting traffic to several places including Asia, and European-based carriers cannot compete with that. I've flown BA to Asian destinations such as BKK and MNL (in the days when BA used to operate flights to MNL, TPE and SEL via HKG), and I'm not expecting to do so again.

gunnerman wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

The reasons for BA being weak in Asia are already being discussed in a thread you started earlier this month
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1481417

Oh right. Sorry for asking the same question, but was more of intending to ask a different question, will they expand into Asia again if ever?

It's been a long time since BA had double-daily LHR-BKK flights with one continuing onto SYD, and I've no particular reason to think that there will be any change to the daily LHR-SIN-SYD especially after it's now operating with the smaller 787. A major change over the past several years is that airlines like EK can funnel large amounts of traffic into its DXB hub and send connecting traffic to several places including Asia, and European-based carriers cannot compete with that. I've flown BA to Asian destinations such as BKK and MNL (in the days when BA used to operate flights to MNL, TPE and SEL via HKG), and I'm not expecting to do so again.

That's true, and that is what probably made it harder for BA to compete into Asia. I think that BA has most likely given up chances of expansion in Asia for the foreseeable future especially because, Asia traffic is still quite low yielding as of now. Sure, Asia may be reopening to the world, but it doesn't change the fact that BA won't expand in Asia over the next several years, because business travel into Asia won't return for the foreseeable future. Europe-Asia flights are notorious for fierce competition from ME3, and these flights burn a lot of fuel which is really expensive in terms of fuel costs as of now. So if BA were to ever expand into long-haul business routes, we should expect to instead see more destinations in USA instead of Asia.

gunnerman wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

The reasons for BA being weak in Asia are already being discussed in a thread you started earlier this month
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1481417

Oh right. Sorry for asking the same question, but was more of intending to ask a different question, will they expand into Asia again if ever?

It's been a long time since BA had double-daily LHR-BKK flights with one continuing onto SYD, and I've no particular reason to think that there will be any change to the daily LHR-SIN-SYD especially after it's now operating with the smaller 787. A major change over the past several years is that airlines like EK can funnel large amounts of traffic into its DXB hub and send connecting traffic to several places including Asia, and European-based carriers cannot compete with that. I've flown BA to Asian destinations such as BKK and MNL (in the days when BA used to operate flights to MNL, TPE and SEL via HKG), and I'm not expecting to do so again.

The LHR-SIN-SYD is now on the 777-300 with 76 club suites

Yes, the LHR-SIN-SYD flights are operated with the 777-300ERs, smaller than the 744s some years ago, with First (8 seats), Club World (76), World Traveller Plus (40) and World Traveller (130). I got these mixed up with the dedicated LHR-SIN flights operated with the 789s (obviously much smaller than the 380s a while ago).

Philippine333 wrote:

gunnerman wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

Oh right. Sorry for asking the same question, but was more of intending to ask a different question, will they expand into Asia again if ever?

It's been a long time since BA had double-daily LHR-BKK flights with one continuing onto SYD, and I've no particular reason to think that there will be any change to the daily LHR-SIN-SYD especially after it's now operating with the smaller 787. A major change over the past several years is that airlines like EK can funnel large amounts of traffic into its DXB hub and send connecting traffic to several places including Asia, and European-based carriers cannot compete with that. I've flown BA to Asian destinations such as BKK and MNL (in the days when BA used to operate flights to MNL, TPE and SEL via HKG), and I'm not expecting to do so again.

That's true, and that is what probably made it harder for BA to compete into Asia. I think that BA has most likely given up chances of expansion in Asia for the foreseeable future especially because, Asia traffic is still quite low yielding as of now. Sure, Asia may be reopening to the world, but it doesn't change the fact that BA won't expand in Asia over the next several years, because business travel into Asia won't return for the foreseeable future. Europe-Asia flights are notorious for fierce competition from ME3, and these flights burn a lot of fuel which is really expensive in terms of fuel costs as of now. So if BA were to ever expand into long-haul business routes, we should expect to instead see more destinations in USA instead of Asia.

It isn't just fuel costs, high though they are, let's take a look at LHR-SYD which requires BA to deploy multiple aircraft (three I think) for a daily LHR-SIN-SYD service. Crew must be accommodated, watered and fed as well, and they get some payments for being on duty whilst away from their LHR base. As SIN isn't a hub BA has to make do with whatever additional fifth freedom traffic between SIN and SYD it can get. In contrast Middle East and Asian carriers can much more cheaply operate flights from their hubs and are better placed to get higher loads to SYD from their hubs than BA from SIN.

gunnerman wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

gunnerman wrote:

It's been a long time since BA had double-daily LHR-BKK flights with one continuing onto SYD, and I've no particular reason to think that there will be any change to the daily LHR-SIN-SYD especially after it's now operating with the smaller 787. A major change over the past several years is that airlines like EK can funnel large amounts of traffic into its DXB hub and send connecting traffic to several places including Asia, and European-based carriers cannot compete with that. I've flown BA to Asian destinations such as BKK and MNL (in the days when BA used to operate flights to MNL, TPE and SEL via HKG), and I'm not expecting to do so again.

That's true, and that is what probably made it harder for BA to compete into Asia. I think that BA has most likely given up chances of expansion in Asia for the foreseeable future especially because, Asia traffic is still quite low yielding as of now. Sure, Asia may be reopening to the world, but it doesn't change the fact that BA won't expand in Asia over the next several years, because business travel into Asia won't return for the foreseeable future. Europe-Asia flights are notorious for fierce competition from ME3, and these flights burn a lot of fuel which is really expensive in terms of fuel costs as of now. So if BA were to ever expand into long-haul business routes, we should expect to instead see more destinations in USA instead of Asia.

It isn't just fuel costs, high though they are, let's take a look at LHR-SYD which requires BA to deploy multiple aircraft (three I think) for a daily LHR-SIN-SYD service. Crew must be accommodated, watered and fed as well, and they get some payments for being on duty whilst away from their LHR base. As SIN isn't a hub BA has to make do with whatever additional fifth freedom traffic between SIN and SYD it can get. In contrast Middle East and Asian carriers can much more cheaply operate flights from their hubs and are better placed to get higher loads to SYD from their hubs than BA from SIN.

So why does BA still operate LHR-SIN-SYD flights? Wouldn't it be just easier for BA to let QF or QR overtake the SIN-SYD (or DOH-SYD) leg instead? I doubt they'd operate this route if it wasn't profitable. Does it have anything to do with the loyal customers on both ends of the route?

I haven't got an answer for you as I don't work for Revenue Management, but I think that there is still enough profit for BA to keep SYD. Remember BA used to operate LHR-SYD double-daily with 744s via BKK and SIN, now the frequency has halved and the seat capacity further reduced by using the 77W. The only reduction left would be the 789 which BA used when restarting this route in March 2022, and if this were to prove to be necessary and still can't make money then BA would have to axe SYD.

There is no doubt that BA would be exceedingly loath to axe SYD having collaborated as Imperial Airways with QF to launch flights for mail in December 1934 (with passengers in April 1935), launched flights as Imperial Airways in 1938 using flying boats, launched flights as BOAC across the Pacific using the 707, launched flights as BOAC in June 1971 using the 741 and by 1976 BA's 741s were flying to SYD, MEL, BNE and ADL. I do also have a recollection, and I stand to be corrected as I'm not wholly sure, of BA flying to AKL via PER. How times change.

There's a natural limit on UK-US flights, it's simply playing to their strenghts and the path of least resistance. There's not that many more untapped US markets, and they'd be remiss not to look at serving the huge London market direct to world cities for growth as we bounce back.

Look at the disparity vs. Air Canada on UK/CA! Pathetic.

I heard a romour about new BA B787-10 new order soon......about 15-20 frames.

skipness1E wrote:

So the plan is to keep three airframe at LHR with no Club Suites to randomly disappoint customers? It's G-VTOP pre refurb all over again IYKYK.

All three are being refitted to 8F/49J (suite) towards the end of the year/early 24.

747fly wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

So the plan is to keep three airframe at LHR with no Club Suites to randomly disappoint customers? It's G-VTOP pre refurb all over again IYKYK.

All three are being refitted to 8F/49J (suite) towards the end of the year/early 24.

How is BA differentiating its F product/service from J (beyond the seat)? On the ground? Inflight?

747fly wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

So the plan is to keep three airframe at LHR with no Club Suites to randomly disappoint customers? It's G-VTOP pre refurb all over again IYKYK.

All three are being refitted to 8F/49J (suite) towards the end of the year/early 24.

Interesting. Either this confirms there's definitely going to be no further long haul expansion from LGW, or just an inconsistemt J product offering at LGW. Whilst instead, being in favour of a more uniform F product fleetwide and with the flexibility to rotate the aircraft between the bases. Hopefully the latter reason rather than the former.

pabloeing wrote:

I heard a romour about new BA B787-10 new order soon......about 15-20 frames.

That’s the G-VII* 777 replacement order sorted then.

No surprise considering these frames tend to do missions under 10 hours.

747fly wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

So the plan is to keep three airframe at LHR with no Club Suites to randomly disappoint customers? It's G-VTOP pre refurb all over again IYKYK.

All three are being refitted to 8F/49J (suite) towards the end of the year/early 24.

Ah that makes sense, appreciated.

pabloeing wrote:

I heard a romour about new BA B787-10 new order soon......about 15-20 frames.

I’m surprised they haven’t got more 78Xs on order already, tbh. Not that new aircraft would ever slum it out at LGW, but it’s a natural fit there.

Does anyone know if there are any plans to re-time the Haneda flights?

It is being boosted to double daily (on some days) but both flights are morning / early afternoon departures in both directions.

With the longer flight times due to avoiding Russian airspace, wouldn’t an evening departure from LHR with an overnight return (like the HKG and SIN flights) be viable and desirable now? JAL have such a mix on their 2 daily flights to LHR.

BTW, a question: Even with the historic ties between the UK and Malaysia, why did BA keep cutting so much services to KUL in 2001 and resumed in 2015, only to leave again 2021, while KLM stayed much longer in KUL? Is there really a problem with them in Malaysia, and will this route ever be back?

Philippine333 wrote:

BTW, a question: Even with the historic ties between the UK and Malaysia, why did BA keep cutting so much services to KUL in 2001 and resumed in 2015, only to leave again 2021, while KLM stayed much longer in KUL? Is there really a problem with them in Malaysia, and will this route ever be back?

A mixture of BA being classic Willie Walsh era BA which is to say weak and not wanting to compete, build markets and customer base, but instead adding more US flights with a short term outlook.

Lately Covid, Russia overflight issues and now shortage of aircraft have prevented them restarting many routes, especially in Asia due to the issues with Russia.

Their short-sighted decision to retire all B744s due to the pandemic is perhaps the key cause of many flights not resuming here, compounded by new delivery delays which have followed.

KUL is not alone; they still have to return to Durban, Seychelles, Abu Dhabi, Muscat, Jeddah, Dammam, Bangkok, Osaka, Seoul, Lima, Calgary and Charleston too. Others like Beirut, Lahore, Montego Bay and Luanda were lately canned due to economic factors.

pabloeing wrote:

I heard a romour about new BA B787-10 new order soon......about 15-20 frames.

If true... i'd be very surprised if the A350-1000 options weren't firmed into orders around the same time.

BA777FO wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

pabloeing wrote:

I heard a romour about new BA B787-10 new order soon......about 15-20 frames.

I’m surprised they haven’t got more 78Xs on order already, tbh. Not that new aircraft would ever slum it out at LGW, but it’s a natural fit there.

The 787-10 doesn't quite work at LGW. It can reasonably cover 90% of the network but MRU and SJO would either need to move to LHR on a different type or be canned altogether and LAS would be a struggle in the summer. I know MRU has been a LHR route in the past so it's perhaps an option along with consolidating Vegas.

In reality as more 787-10s and A350s are delivered I think it'll free up some RR 777s to move to LGW which puts off the LGW 777 fleet replacement until the decade. Latest thinking is perhaps 2027 or 2028 before the first 777 starts to leave the fleet, so it won't be anytime soon.

It was more fantasy airline CEO/wishful thinking as we can be close to certain that no new aircraft would go to LGW (has any BA widebody been based there when new?), but anyway.

At 5253nm, would MRU really be beyond what a 78X could do? Especially with a MTOW boost. The current longest flight on the 78X looks to be SEA-TPE, which is around 13hrs (longest this week was 13:32) compared to usually sub-12hrs for MRU-LGW (the 78X would make the trip a touch shorter), and BR's 78Xs are a fair bit more dense than BA's (342 seats vs 256 seats) to boot. I'm honestly surprised that the 78X couldn't do any BA route ex LGW if they so desired.

MrHMSH wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

I’m surprised they haven’t got more 78Xs on order already, tbh. Not that new aircraft would ever slum it out at LGW, but it’s a natural fit there.

The 787-10 doesn't quite work at LGW. It can reasonably cover 90% of the network but MRU and SJO would either need to move to LHR on a different type or be canned altogether and LAS would be a struggle in the summer. I know MRU has been a LHR route in the past so it's perhaps an option along with consolidating Vegas.

In reality as more 787-10s and A350s are delivered I think it'll free up some RR 777s to move to LGW which puts off the LGW 777 fleet replacement until the decade. Latest thinking is perhaps 2027 or 2028 before the first 777 starts to leave the fleet, so it won't be anytime soon.

It was more fantasy airline CEO/wishful thinking as we can be close to certain that no new aircraft would go to LGW (has any BA widebody been based there when new?), but anyway.

At 5253nm, would MRU really be beyond what a 78X could do? Especially with a MTOW boost. The current longest flight on the 78X looks to be SEA-TPE, which is around 13hrs (longest this week was 13:32) compared to usually sub-12hrs for MRU-LGW (the 78X would make the trip a touch shorter), and BR's 78Xs are a fair bit more dense than BA's (342 seats vs 256 seats) to boot. I'm honestly surprised that the 78X couldn't do any BA route ex LGW if they so desired.

Acording to Boeing ACAP the B78X can carry 40000Kg over 5500nm

MrHMSH wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

I’m surprised they haven’t got more 78Xs on order already, tbh. Not that new aircraft would ever slum it out at LGW, but it’s a natural fit there.

The 787-10 doesn't quite work at LGW. It can reasonably cover 90% of the network but MRU and SJO would either need to move to LHR on a different type or be canned altogether and LAS would be a struggle in the summer. I know MRU has been a LHR route in the past so it's perhaps an option along with consolidating Vegas.

In reality as more 787-10s and A350s are delivered I think it'll free up some RR 777s to move to LGW which puts off the LGW 777 fleet replacement until the decade. Latest thinking is perhaps 2027 or 2028 before the first 777 starts to leave the fleet, so it won't be anytime soon.

It was more fantasy airline CEO/wishful thinking as we can be close to certain that no new aircraft would go to LGW (has any BA widebody been based there when new?), but anyway.

At 5253nm, would MRU really be beyond what a 78X could do? Especially with a MTOW boost. The current longest flight on the 78X looks to be SEA-TPE, which is around 13hrs (longest this week was 13:32) compared to usually sub-12hrs for MRU-LGW (the 78X would make the trip a touch shorter), and BR's 78Xs are a fair bit more dense than BA's (342 seats vs 256 seats) to boot. I'm honestly surprised that the 78X couldn't do any BA route ex LGW if they so desired.

Some of the later B744s went into service at LGW after being delivered to CBG.

Some of the later B744s went into service at LGW after being delivered to CBG

IIRC, there was a BA 747-400 subfleet of later-build aircraft which didn't have the horizontal stab fuel tanks and had lower MTOW - I think it was about 375 tonnes instead of the 396. Suspect the aircraft deployment between LHR and LGW may have been more to do with this factor than whether the aircraft were new or old.

ZuluTime wrote:

Some of the later B744s went into service at LGW after being delivered to CBG

IIRC, there was a BA 747-400 subfleet of later-build aircraft which didn't have the horizontal stab fuel tanks and had lower MTOW - I think it was about 375 tonnes instead of the 396. Suspect the aircraft deployment between LHR and LGW may have been more to do with this factor than whether the aircraft were new or old.

That is correct, their registrations were G-CIVF, G-CIVG, G-CIVH and G-CIVI. In the end they never really had much impact on the BA operation in terms of routes... However i'm they saved them a few extra £££'s at various airports around the world.

Some new 777's were also delivered to Gatwick starting with G-VIIL and the 3 2-Class AML ones G-VIIO, P & R. Of course this was very different times as Gatwick was being grown as a hub in 98-99 and BA didn't really have older types to move to Gatwick with the 747-100's being retired only the 200's would fallen into that category but some of these having been based at Gatwick (I think in the mid 90's most of 236's where based at Gatwick) all went to Heathrow leaving Gatwick with a modern fleet of 747-400's, 767-300's and 777-200's once the DC-10 had also been retired

amc737

BA777FO wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

The 787-10 doesn't quite work at LGW. It can reasonably cover 90% of the network but MRU and SJO would either need to move to LHR on a different type or be canned altogether and LAS would be a struggle in the summer. I know MRU has been a LHR route in the past so it's perhaps an option along with consolidating Vegas.

In reality as more 787-10s and A350s are delivered I think it'll free up some RR 777s to move to LGW which puts off the LGW 777 fleet replacement until the decade. Latest thinking is perhaps 2027 or 2028 before the first 777 starts to leave the fleet, so it won't be anytime soon.

It was more fantasy airline CEO/wishful thinking as we can be close to certain that no new aircraft would go to LGW (has any BA widebody been based there when new?), but anyway.

At 5253nm, would MRU really be beyond what a 78X could do? Especially with a MTOW boost. The current longest flight on the 78X looks to be SEA-TPE, which is around 13hrs (longest this week was 13:32) compared to usually sub-12hrs for MRU-LGW (the 78X would make the trip a touch shorter), and BR's 78Xs are a fair bit more dense than BA's (342 seats vs 256 seats) to boot. I'm honestly surprised that the 78X couldn't do any BA route ex LGW if they so desired.

Unless BA order or retrofit cabin crew bunks to the 787-10s it won't be going over 10ish hours.

MRU is also performance restricted if runway 32 is required for departure and there's no way it can take MTOW out of SJO. Also, although the 787-10s now have 256 seats, a move to Gatwick would necessitate removing First and making the Y cabin much bigger, meaning a full payload would be much higher. Over 10ish hours you'd start to trade that payload for range.

Regarding Asian routes, with the Russian airspace closure, with hindsight, it's not been a bad business decision. Asia still isn't generating the travel demand that the North Atlantic is. On the issue of KUL specifically, over the years landing fees/airport user charges were hiked for foreign arrivals, which is why BA hasn't really served it continuously. China is restarting soon, but premium leisure is the most resilient market segment at the moment, meaning that the Far East isn't generating the growth or revenue that the North Atlantic is.

Sure, configuration wise the 78X might not fit, but then that's BA's decision, not a limitation of the aircraft. Fair enough about the runway limitations, but if push came to shove I'm sure BA would take the hit. That said it's all just a thought exercise. As you note, any 77E replacement is a long way on the horizon, not even sure when they'd start making a move, let alone actually retire and replace them, and that's just for LHR.

questions wrote:

How is BA differentiating its F product/service from J (beyond the seat)? On the ground? Inflight?

F passengers have exclusive use of the Concorde Room in LHR, the new Chelsea lounge in JFK and of course all the other oneworld alliance F lounges. That would include things like the BA and CX F lounges in T3 at LHR, QF F in SYD, MEL and LAX, JL at HND, CX at HKG and so on.

At LHR, there is also the First Wing, which is private check-in with its own dedicated security lane, after which you go down a corridor into the Galleries First lounge.

Inflight, F has a higher standard of catering, a larger seat in a much, much smaller and more exclusive cabin, which gives a better FA to passenger ratio and theoretically better service. They also serve Laurent-Perrier Grand Siecle Champagne in First, which retails at well over £100 a bottle (it's also available in the Concorde Room). They also serve better wine etc etc.

aidoair wrote:

ZuluTime wrote:

Some of the later B744s went into service at LGW after being delivered to CBG

IIRC, there was a BA 747-400 subfleet of later-build aircraft which didn't have the horizontal stab fuel tanks and had lower MTOW - I think it was about 375 tonnes instead of the 396. Suspect the aircraft deployment between LHR and LGW may have been more to do with this factor than whether the aircraft were new or old.

That is correct, their registrations were G-CIVF, G-CIVG, G-CIVH and G-CIVI. In the end they never really had much impact on the BA operation in terms of routes... However i'm they saved them a few extra £££'s at various airports around the world.

Ahhh Victor Hotel, who did the honours of my first ever 747 flight.

BA777FO wrote:

Regarding Asian routes, with the Russian airspace closure, with hindsight, it's not been a bad business decision. Asia still isn't generating the travel demand that the North Atlantic is. On the issue of KUL specifically, over the years landing fees/airport user charges were hiked for foreign arrivals, which is why BA hasn't really served it continuously. China is restarting soon, but premium leisure is the most resilient market segment at the moment, meaning that the Far East isn't generating the growth or revenue that the North Atlantic is.

At this point, I think that BA has given up chances of expansion in the Far East since travel demand to Asia is still quite low, and business traffic won't return there for a very long time. I don't think that they will consider new Asian or even resuming pre-pandemic destinations in Asia for the foreseeable future (e.g. KL, Bangkok, Osaka, Seoul, etc.) reflecting LHR's geographic location, low traffic into the East, and even Russian airspace closure, making the chances of more BA presence in Asia slim. I'd instead expect them to see them expand to more routes in the USA.

For what it’s worth - I recently booked very cheap J tickets KUL-SIN-LHR for travel later this year on BA11/BA12.. with MH for the shuttle service… shame to not be able to fly direct but the fare was about half of what I would have paid just to travel on the SIN-LHR legs return!

Oh BTW, why doesn't BA fly to BOG, and are there ever any chances of seeing BA in BOG? This potential route has been long-discussed here on airliners.net.

So the 787-10 will likely replace the LGW based 777s?

GVIIO wrote:

So the 787-10 will likely replace the LGW based 777s?

Been a long time since LGW got new build heavies, G-VIIO/P/R to AML would have been the last alongside the reduced MTOW B744s that arrived via Marshalls of Cambridge. You gotta wonder whether they'll wait till 2030 and send 20 year old depreciated B77Ws down from LHR to end their days.

Philippine333 wrote:

Oh BTW, why doesn't BA fly to BOG, and are there ever any chances of seeing BA in BOG? This potential route has been long-discussed here on airliners.net.

At a guess, it's easier to leverage IB's strength to S. America than to have BA use a valuable slot which they could get a better return from flying elsewhere. IB flies the A359 2x daily to BOG. BA's footprint in S. America isn't strong, only hitting the 2 big Brazilian cities, SCL and EZE (+MEX, CUN and SJO if you want to include Latin America). If LHR capacity wasn't so constrained I imagine they would fly to BOG, but as it is I don't see it happening.

GVIIO wrote:

So the 787-10 will likely replace the LGW based 777s?

Absolutely not. We'll be seeing a further A350 order before any large scale fleet replacements take place. Inparticularly at LGW. As others have said, more RR powered 777s will likely transfer to LGW eventually as newer aircraft arrive at LHR.

Philippine333 wrote:

Oh BTW, why doesn't BA fly to BOG, and are there ever any chances of seeing BA in BOG? This potential route has been long-discussed here on airliners.net.

I think when BA flew to BOG it was always via CCS , so that option is unlikely to make BOG an attractive option.

I am not sure what is happening to Avianca long haul flights given all the changes to their business model. Maybe if they dropped out of the LHR route then BA might feel more inclined to introduce a non stop route.

It's worth noting that Colombia is significantly more politically stable compared to 20 years ago, and its economy has grown
And yes, I know that Venezuela has taken a rather different path in the last 20 years.
Air traffic at BOG has increased from about 10m to 35m per year in the same period. Avianca already fly daily Bogota-Heathrow. I wouldn't rule out completely a BA London-Bogota route in the next few years

Philippine333 wrote:

Oh BTW, why doesn't BA fly to BOG, and are there ever any chances of seeing BA in BOG? This potential route has been long-discussed here on airliners.net.

BA has a long history with BOG: flying as BOAC in the 1960s the route was LHR-BDA-BGI-POS-CCS-BOG 1x weekly using the 707, in the 1980s it was LHR-POS-CCS-BOG 1x weekly using the L10, in the 1990s it was LHR-CCS-BOG 2x weekly using the 744, then LGW-CCS-BOG 3x weekly using the 744 (later switched to the 772), but the route was terminated about 20 years ago. BOG isn't big enough for dedicated flights, and as the economic situation in Venezuela remains dire it is most unlikely that BA will restart this route especially when pax can easily be shunted onto partner IB's double-daily flights via MAD.

MrHMSH wrote:

pabloeing wrote:

I heard a romour about new BA B787-10 new order soon......about 15-20 frames.

I’m surprised they haven’t got more 78Xs on order already, tbh. Not that new aircraft would ever slum it out at LGW, but it’s a natural fit there.

IAG still has 5 deferred but firm A350 orders to allocate between IB and BA, these were originally slated for EI which instead took late 330ceos.

MrHMSH wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

Oh BTW, why doesn't BA fly to BOG, and are there ever any chances of seeing BA in BOG? This potential route has been long-discussed here on airliners.net.

At a guess, it's easier to leverage IB's strength to S. America than to have BA use a valuable slot which they could get a better return from flying elsewhere. IB flies the A359 2x daily to BOG. BA's footprint in S. America isn't strong, only hitting the 2 big Brazilian cities, SCL and EZE (+MEX, CUN and SJO if you want to include Latin America). If LHR capacity wasn't so constrained I imagine they would fly to BOG, but as it is I don't see it happening.

Spot on, IB is actually going 3 daily to BOG soon from MAD and AV was awarded additionally slots at LHR last year.. Much easier to let IB handle it and focus on better yielding routes..

aidoair wrote:

ZuluTime wrote:

Some of the later B744s went into service at LGW after being delivered to CBG

IIRC, there was a BA 747-400 subfleet of later-build aircraft which didn't have the horizontal stab fuel tanks and had lower MTOW - I think it was about 375 tonnes instead of the 396. Suspect the aircraft deployment between LHR and LGW may have been more to do with this factor than whether the aircraft were new or old.

That is correct, their registrations were G-CIVF, G-CIVG, G-CIVH and G-CIVI. In the end they never really had much impact on the BA operation in terms of routes... However i'm they saved them a few extra £££'s at various airports around the world.

I always these aircraft had the stab fuel tanks but they were not connected and after a few years BA decided the cost saving wasnt worth the effort of scheduling these subfleet to specific routes and they had the stab tank reconnected

Someone suggested to me that BA Euroflyer was to British Airways what Iberia Express was to Iberia. So I get that LGW short haul cabin crew are now arms length, but are flight deck at Euroflyer not on the master seniority list? Are they not employed by BA per se? I think IB and I2 have seperate pilot fleets?
Will LGW get their own callsign now they have their own AOC? And with the LGW Airbus fleet on a seperate certificate, LHR crews can no longer fly them on loan out of LHR as before to cover?

From end of March, HKG is returning to 2x daily. New flight will compliment the existing daily 787-9 service with daily A350-1000.

Question on adding 35K to HKG - I thought I read somewhere that galley configurations meant difficulty in serving 2 full meals and this is why these aircraft didn't fly above 10hrs... with Russian airspace closed, HKG-LHR can easily be 14h20. Can the galleys accomodate two full meals?

AA100 wrote:

From end of March, HKG is returning to 2x daily. New flight will compliment the existing daily 787-9 service with daily A350-1000.

Question on adding 35K to HKG - I thought I read somewhere that galley configurations meant difficulty in serving 2 full meals and this is why these aircraft didn't fly above 10hrs... with Russian airspace closed, HKG-LHR can easily be 14h20. Can the galleys accomodate two full meals?

BA A350s fly daily from LHR to GRU (BA247) - around 12 hrs - and A350s have in the past flown nonstop to EZE (BA245), 13+ hrs. Never heard of any issues with the galleys or meals on those flights.

gunnerman wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

Oh BTW, why doesn't BA fly to BOG, and are there ever any chances of seeing BA in BOG? This potential route has been long-discussed here on airliners.net.

BA has a long history with BOG: flying as BOAC in the 1960s the route was LHR-BDA-BGI-POS-CCS-BOG 1x weekly using the 707, in the 1980s it was LHR-POS-CCS-BOG 1x weekly using the L10, in the 1990s it was LHR-CCS-BOG 2x weekly using the 744, then LGW-CCS-BOG 3x weekly using the 744 (later switched to the 772), but the route was terminated about 20 years ago. BOG isn't big enough for dedicated flights, and as the economic situation in Venezuela remains dire it is most unlikely that BA will restart this route especially when pax can easily be shunted onto partner IB's double-daily flights via MAD.

And to a certain extent, BA could even shunt its BOG pax onto its one if its other partners AA via MIA too.