I suspect that BA will look equally at all options. The problem facing A is a logistics one.

Simply put the A380 cannot fly to a great deal of cities because the airport cannot handle them. In contrast the B748 would work. So unless they are willing to accept a mixed fleet from the start the A380 is not a good option.

On this basis everything else being equal I would expect a B order.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 1): Simply put the A380 cannot fly to a great deal of cities because the airport cannot handle them.

The A380 is not meant to fly to a great deal of cities, but I'm pretty sure if the city provides the O&D for A380-type service, it will be able to handle the A380. Even cities like, where was it in Colombia? Medellin? Where they did some testing...a city like that will never see A380 service, but the airport could handle it.

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 2): The A380 is not meant to fly to a great deal of cities, but I'm pretty sure if the city provides the O&D for A380-type service, it will be able to handle the A380. Even cities like, where was it in Colombia? Medellin? Where they did some testing...a city like that will never see A380 service, but the airport could handle it.

You need the pax to fill the aircraft other wise they will not use it to lose money

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 2): Even cities like, where was it in Colombia? Medellin? Where they did some testing...a city like that will never see A380 service, but the airport could handle it.

It's one thing to be able to land an aircraft. Bringing it to the terminal is another thing entirely.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 1): Simply put the A380 cannot fly to a great deal of cities because the airport cannot handle them. In contrast the B748 would work.

The 747-800 is not the same as the 747-400, it is in the same airport category as the A380, ICAO Category F.

No advantage for the 747-800 on that front, it actually needs more runway to takeoff and land than a A380.

BA has enough destination which they could utilize the 380, perhaps a fleet of 10-14 to start with.....

Quoting BillReid (Reply 1): I suspect that BA will look equally at all options.

Agree

Cheers,

I would expect that BA would get the 748 now, and the 388 in the future if they find they can support a 30% larger jet than their denser 744s. The 748 is incremental.

Eventually, I would guess BA could fly both, but as one of the top 747 operators, I can't see them replacing their whole 747 fleet with a larger jet. I expect 77W/748/380 split (and that includes replacing some 772 with 77W as well). Of course, the 350X-1000 can replace the 77W in this discussion, I just put the 77W in there because they already fly the 772 and the 77W is available 5 years sooner...

Quoting Zeke (Reply 5): No advantage for the 747-800 on that front, it actually needs more runway to takeoff and land than a A380.

We won't know that until the 748 enters testing with final specs. Right now it hasn't been firmed up completely.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7): We won't know that until the 748 enters testing with final specs. Right now it hasn't been firmed up completely.

We dont know down to the meter, we do know it is significantly more than the 380 due to its higher takeoff and landing speeds.

And as for now being able to offer "final specs......hasn't been firmed up completely", do you think this will be a factor ?

What did LH sign up for then if all Boeing have to offer is a paper aircraft that is "subject to change".

I guess the same type of plane that Airbus has been selling for years, the 350. There are final spec details to firm up but I doubt it'll be anything like uncertainty over wings, engines, length, width, or construction material.

Quoting Wingman (Reply 9): I guess the same type of plane that Airbus has been selling for years, the 350. There are final spec details to firm up but I doubt it'll be anything like uncertainty over wings, engines, length, width, or construction material.

Even if the 748 needs more runway than the A380, I dont think it would be a huge issue. But its fair to say that while it has not been frozen, the airlines have a VERY clear picture of its specs at this stage.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7): Eventually, I would guess BA could fly both, but as one of the top 747 operators, I can't see them replacing their whole 747 fleet with a larger jet. I expect 77W/748/380 split (and that includes replacing some 772 with 77W as well). Of course, the 350X-1000 can replace the 77W in this discussion, I just put the 77W in there because they already fly the 772 and the 77W is available 5 years sooner...

Well in either case they will be replacing the 744s with a larger aircraft (748 is bigger!). If they are looking at the 773ER, than that is another spanner in the works as it is a new size in their fleet, likewise with the A350-1000. The whole 555 Vs 476 figures are not much use here, we must consider what configs BA are currently using, as many of their 744s have less than 300 seats. I remember reading that they are aiming to increase the number of Business and First class seats on the fleet.

[Edited 2006-12-29 19:13:43]

Quoting Crosswind (Thread starter): BA has reserved 10 B777-200ER delivery positions for 2009, but these will only be firmed up if the B777/787 is selected for the main fleet renewal order.

AFAIK, the delivery slots that BA secured were for the 77W, not for the 772.

Is the BA terminal at JFK (7 isnt it?) A380-ready or would they have to remote stand / move terminal?

Are there any other major long-haul routes which BA would have to move terminal to handle the 380?

What ports to they operate 744s into ?

Quoting DavidT (Reply 12): Is the BA terminal at JFK (7 isnt it?) A380-ready or would they have to remote stand / move terminal? Are there any other major long-haul routes which BA would have to move terminal to handle the 380?

They are buying 40-50 aircraft to replace 34 aircraft.

Well if they are considering buying 15 or 20 A380s, They would put them on the densest what, 7 or 8 routes?

Im thinking JFK, LAX, SFO, HKG, Tokyo, and a few more.

[Edited 2006-12-29 19:24:17]

Quoting Zeke (Reply 8): What did LH sign up for then if all Boeing have to offer is a paper aircraft that is "subject to change".

Yep, same as NH with the 7E7. Boeing provides them with minimum specs and performance assurances, but LH didn't buy a firm aircraft.

But LH did buy something valuable, the ability to influence the firming of the aircraft towards their needs. When LH says "we want this" and EK says "we want this" Boeing gives far more weight to LH. If BA signs up, we can expect that they and LH would have similar requirements for the 748i...

Quoting EI321 (Reply 10): Well in either case they will be replacing the 744s with a larger aircraft (748 is bigger!).

No, they may not be.

If they replace 2 744s with one 77W/35X and one 748i, they are basically not increasing capacity at, and it gives them more flexibility in route planning, since they will have older 744s still in the fleet, so they can choose 77W/744/748i on any route.

And considering they are looking to 772ERs for growth, BA doesn't look like they want to grow by increasing plane size by 30%, but by adding frequency with a smaller jet. Just my take on it, but I think you'll see an all Boeing order this time. BA need the 77W in 2009, not the 35X in 2014, they need to replace the 767s (which the 358 is not best for), and they aren't in need of the A380 sized jet at this time, since they have so many LHR slots already...

At a later date, you can see an all Airbus order, with A380s and A320NGs.

Quoting PanAmOldDC8 (Reply 3): You need the pax to fill the aircraft other wise they will not use it to lose money

My point...and since relatively few cities will be able to provide the pax, relatively few cities will be served by the A380.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 4): It's one thing to be able to land an aircraft. Bringing it to the terminal is another thing entirely.

True, but if you can land the aircraft, then at least you've got the runway and taxiways to handle it...most of the cost of infrastructure is for the runway and taxiways.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 1): The problem facing A is a logistics one.

The problem facing B, is that BA is a "British" carrier.


"British" = London fwiw

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 17): The problem facing B, is that BA is a "British" carrier.

Explain what you mean because I have no idea...

Quoting Crosswind (Thread starter): plus 10 "bridging" aircraft to cover interim growth requirements.

I take BA are assuming they can either

Buy more slots at LHR
Cut their LHR short haul flights
The 3rd runway is built

Or they plan to expand long haul at LGW?

Quoting Humberside (Reply 19): The 3rd runway is built

Im sure it will happen sooner or later.

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 17): Quoting BillReid (Reply 1): The problem facing A is a logistics one. The problem facing B, is that BA is a "British" carrier.

???? The BA fleet has always been mostly Boeings!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15): BA need the 77W in 2009, not the 35X in 2014

Deliverys from 2009 will be bridging A/C - 772 or A330, a/c according to the thread starter, MAIN ORDER TO BE DELIVERED LATER:

Quoting Crosswind (Thread starter): For the bridging aircraft which will be delivered from 2009 onwards only the A330 and B777-200ER are in contention.

.........What can we make of this? If the bridging a/c are to replace 763s, what can Boeing offer in 2009 as a replacent for a 763? Is the 772ER ideal to replace a 763, or would the A332 be better (remember it says only A330s or 772ERs)? If the bridging aircraft are to replace 744s from 2009, will there be 748 or A380 slots availible, and are the 772ER or A330 good bridging a/c for the 744? I dont think so! So it seems to me that these 10 bridging a/c will probably be only for the 767s, with the 744s to be replaced 'directly' after 2009, ie with no interm order.

[Edited 2006-12-29 21:07:55]

Quoting Zeke (Reply 8): We dont know down to the meter, we do know it is significantly more than the 380 due to its higher takeoff and landing speeds.

OK...

How do you define 'significantly' in this context? 500m? 2500m? ...

Quantitatively, what is that takeoff roll for an A388 with std. full pax load (std. atmospheric conditions, etc. at sea level), and what is it for the 744? What are you guessing that it will be for the 748?

Quoting DrExotica (Reply 21): How do you define 'significantly' in this context?

Significantly more than the 748? That is what 'significant' implies... like Zeke said "we don't know down to the meter".

I thought that Boeing only offered the 777-200LR now ??

Quoting Raventom (Reply 22): Significantly more than the 748? That is what 'significant' implies... like Zeke said "we don't know down to the meter".

Classic content free post.

Zeke obviously has a value in mind that he can share, or, is this more 'idle speculation'. Smart money is on the later.

How about within +/- 250m?

Quoting EI321 (Reply 20): Deliverys from 2009 will be bridging A/C - 772 or A330, a/c according to the thread starter, MAIN ORDER TO BE DELIVERED LATER:

Shout all you want, but it doesn't say that.

It says those two types would start arriving in 2009, not that no other aircraft would arrive in 2009. Logistically few in the plan CAN arrive in 2009, however.

748i likely can't arrive in numbers before 2011, and A388s the same. 77W deliveries can start in 2009. 787 and A350 can't. 787 in 2010 or later, minimum. 350 in 2013 or later.

So the 772/330 aircraft can bridge until that time, and expand from that time, but it doesn't mean that if they decide to get 77W, they won't take some in 2009 if it works for them.

It's one reason I expect Boeing to win the order. 77W available sooner, and with 10 772 slots in 2009, they can add to that and take 77E and 77Ws in 2009-2011. 787 available sooner than A350. 748i not as big a capacity jump, available about the same time as A380. BA is such a large airline, longer term they could still buy Airbus aircraft, but right now, B has aircraft that better suit them in the time they need them.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 20): If the bridging a/c are to replace 763s,

They're not -- the "bridging" aircraft are for interim growth, a third category after "replace 20 744" and "replace 14 763." The 787/A350 will be to replace the 763.

Quoting Crosswind (Thread starter): For the bridging aircraft which will be delivered from 2009 onwards only the A330 and B777-200ER are in contention. BA has reserved 10 B777-200ER delivery positions for 2009, but these will only be firmed up if the B777/787 is selected for the main fleet renewal order. Likewise the A330 will only be ordered if the A350XWB is selected.

The B 772ER is a definite yes here due to the familiarity it already has with the BA fleet/maintainence crew/cabin crew so wipe out the A 332 from the bridging category. The B 772ER will be used probably to replace the oldest B 763ERs gradually from the fleet due to ageing factors.

As far as the A 380 debacle goes, my feeling is that I do not think that BA will order the A 380 right now for the main reason that its major competitor on its key African and trans-atlantic routes i.e. Virgin Atlantic delayed by 4 years (i.e. till 2013) the delivery of their own A 380s.

BA was scared that VS's A 380 inflight product might poach many of its premium class pax (J & F) and luckily for BA thats not going to happen for 4 extra years now.

So BA can now adopt a "wait and see" approach like VS has done and see how the A 380 performs economics wise for QF-EK-SQ on the kangaroo route and then make its decision.

I also do not forsee an A 350 order being placed by BA because those aircraft cannot be delivered to them before 2015-17 because airlines that have already ordered them in bulk such as QR-AY-SQ-US will want delivery of theirs first.

They have been 202 A 350 orders placed to date according to http://www.justplanes.com/A350_B787.htm

If BA wants the A 350, then I can only see them leasing them from ILFC who have ordered 16 of the type...but as far as I recall ILFC blasted the A 350 program few months ago!!!

So say even the ILFC option doesnt work out then BA is stuck till 2016-17 with the A 350 which I do not see happening as the B 787s can be delivered from 2012 onwards.

BA will also push Boeing as has EK/SQ on building the B 787-10X which will be eventually used to replace its B 772ER fleet from 2012 onwards as BAs B 772ERs would be 16-17 years old by then as would EKs & SQs!

I'll do part of the homework - from the 744 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning document, a 744 (with PW-4056 engines) on a standard day, 0' pressure altitude, at max design takeoff weight (875,000 lbs); the F.A.R. takeoff runway requirement is approximately 10,600 ft.

What is the analogous number for the A388?

What is Zeke (and others) suggesting that it will be for the 748?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 13): What ports to they operate 744s into ?

Zeke,

I may be off on a couple of these if they have since switched from 744s to 777s, but here it goes (eff. until Mar. 24th):

From LHR:
JFK, MIA, PHX, LAX, SFO, SEA, YVR, NRT, HKG, BKK, SIN, SYD, DEL, BOM, ISB, DXB, MRU, NBO, JNB, CAI, CPT, LOS, MEX, GRU, GIG (via GRU), and EZE (via GRU)

Until recently, MEL and SYD also had 744 service, but MEL was discontinued and SYD was downgraded to a 772. I am not sure whether BOS, ORD, IAD, and YYZ are still upgraded to the 744 from the 777 or 763 during the busier summer season. Likewise, I am not sure if 744 flying from LGW has officially ended or some routes like IAH to LGW still see a 744 during the busy summer season. If anyone can help me out or offer more (or corrections) to the list above, please do so.

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 17): The problem facing B, is that BA is a "British" carrier.

Yes, BA may be British, but given their past history, BA can easily stand for Boeing Always.

Finally, I see BA going with the 772ER option for the short term plan and the 787/747-8 for the long-run. For one, BA has a long history with Boeing widebody aircraft. As for the 747-8, I think that they will choose it over the A380 due to the smaller incremental growth from the size of the 744. I see BA preferring the more conservative capacity growth of the 747-8 for routes to LAX, JFK, JNB, NRT, and HKG and then evaluate in 3-4 years if the demand on the routes warrant another increase to the A380. I think that it is at least a 50-50 chance that BA will one day operate both the 747-8 and the A380. However, I think that the list of cities that they would fly the A380 to would likely be restricted to: LAX, SFO, MIA, JNB, NRT, and possibly HKG. As for the 787, I still think that BA's past history with Boeing and the flexiblity will win out. I am a bit surprised that they are not including the 787-3 or 787-8 on their list as these - in my opinion - are the most suitable aircraft to replace the 763s that BA operates in Europe and longhaul. However, perhaps these are in a different order or perhaps BA has something else planned. However, this will also present BA with 10 772ERs which will fit right into their fleet versus a fleet of 10-15 A-330s. I think that this point is also a key issue.

Quoting Iowa744fan (Reply 29): Yes, BA may be British, but given their past history, BA can easily stand for Boeing Always.

BA = London Airways, but I do hope they go for the 77L/77W/787

Quoting Behramjee (Reply 27): The B 772ER is a definite yes here due to the familiarity it already has with the BA fleet/maintainence crew/cabin crew so wipe out the A 332 from the bridging category.

Wiping out A330s from the bridging category proved moderately realistic in some 787 vs A350 competitions.

Quoting Iowa744fan (Reply 29): Until recently, MEL and SYD also had 744 service, but MEL was discontinued and SYD was downgraded to a 772. I am not sure whether BOS, ORD, IAD, and YYZ are still upgraded to the 744 from the 777 or 763 during the busier summer season. Likewise, I am not sure if 744 flying from LGW has officially ended

On the current winter timetable LHR-BOS is flown three times daily. BA213 and 239 are 772 services but BA215 is flown by a 744.

Similarly LHR-IAD is flown twice a day. While BA217 is a 772 service, BA293 is flown by a 744.

There are no BA 744 flights to YYZ this winter. There is a daily 772 flight (BA093) and a daily 763 flight (BA099) from LHR.

ORD has no BA 744 flights. It has two daily 772 flights (BA295 and 299) and one daily 763 flight (BA297) from LHR.

There are no 744 BA flights from LGW and have not been for some time. So, for example, when a BA 744 became the first aircraft to taxi under the then new LGW North Terminal Pier 6 Bridge on 27 May 04 a BA 744 (G-CIVM) was ferried LHR-LGW (BA9177P) and then LGW-LHR (BA9178P) that day as BA had no 747s at LGW to open the taxiway under the bridge.

Here are photos of G-CIVM about to depart from LGW on 27 May 04 as BA9178P after inaugurating the Pier 6 Bridge:

View Large View Medium Photo © Ben Pritchard

View Large View Medium Photo © Ben Pritchard

I believe this was the last time a BA 744 was at LGW.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 1): Simply put the A380 cannot fly to a great deal of cities because the airport cannot handle them. In contrast the B748 would work.

This is why I think the 748 has the inside track for this order. I do see A380's in the future however. As it stands now, if BA took A380's they'd have to downgrade capacity to several cities which are not A380-ready and are not planning to be near-term. SEA is an example off the top of my head. Currently served by 744, would have to downgrade to 777 or A330 if they took delivery of that model. SEA has no plans to make modifications to handle the A380.

Howdy Keesje,

Quoting Keesje (Reply 31): Wiping out A330s from the bridging category proved moderately realistic in some 787 vs A350 competitions.

keeping the 330 in the bridging category might also prove to be wildly unrealistic in some 787 vs 350 competitions. I think that happened already in some Australian and Canadian competitions- to name a couple. It seems to me that the 330, amazing as it is, is not a cure all for having a product that is yet to be defined and will be delivered later than its competition....

Hey what is the going rate on a brand spanking new 330 nowadays? Something realistic- no weird or exorbitant discounts.... Lets call it 80 million (Am I way off on this??). If I place an order today when can I expect delivery from eads? Lets call it mid 2010. When is eads predicting first delivery on the 350-800 (900)? I think I heard 2012 but lets call it 2013 (although I still doubt that very much!!).

So if I pay 80 million a pop for 15 frames and I am only keeping these for 3 years how does that work out for my fictitious airline... keeping in mind all the costs associated with this purchase (what is the resale value vs the purchase price of a 330).... I don�t think it makes a whole lot of sense to me unless eads is willing to subsidize me.... Is this good business practice for eads???Maybe it is if it means more sales for the 350 ( a loss here will hopefully be recouped later, or maybe some type of aid will come through from certain govts....).

Unless of course eads is not being up-front about deliveries and aviation week , IHT and wsj are right when they say that perhaps first delivery will not happen till 2015-2016 in which case I can amortize the cost of the 330 a bit longer.....

Uhm, I don�t know too much about this, maybe I am wrong. Anyone care to help me out here with some numbers/analysis.... I am sure I missed something!

Thanks

Peace

Elvis777

Quoting Elvis777 (Reply 35): Hey what is the going rate on a brand spanking new 330 nowadays?

Hi Elvis I think the price of the A330 is determined by demand & availability.

The A330 is the most economic aircraft available today
http://www.securitization.net/pdf/Publications/AircraftABS_7Sept05.pdf , page 28   , 600 have been ordered. If you looking for a savy 250-280 seater & don´t want to wait for 6 years ..

Doesn´t smell like discount time to me. Even 787 customer are ordering them (SQ, QF, NW), after they ordered 787s.

The A330 is the silent 250 seater sales party going on at Airbus since it eliminated the 767 some years ago. Massively ignored by the press in favour of the more popular A350 vs 787, A340 vs B777, A380 battle stories..

The A330 is the airline´s favourite at this moment..
http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8&q=airbus+a330

Quoting Zeke (Reply 5): No advantage for the 747-800 on that front, it actually needs more runway to takeoff and land than a A380.

Quoting DrExotica (Reply 28): I'll do part of the homework - from the 744 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning document, a 744 (with PW-4056 engines) on a standard day, 0' pressure altitude, at max design takeoff weight (875,000 lbs); the F.A.R. takeoff runway requirement is approximately 10,600 ft. What is the analogous number for the A388? What is Zeke (and others) suggesting that it will be for the 748?

Per Boeing's 747-8 airport planning brochure, at sea level and ISA+15C, the -8 needs less runway at MTOW than the -400/400ER currently do:

747-400 @ 875,000 lbs: ~11,100 feet
747-400ER @ 910,000 lbs: ~11,200 feet
747-8I @ 970,000 lbs: ~10,700 feet

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7478brochure.pdf (page 11)

BA, or for that matter any other 747 operator, will have no problem with field length on the 747-8I. As far as pavement loading goes, this does not seem to have been an issue on the 777-300ER and the 747-8I should have significantly lower loading than the 77W.

--B2707SST

[Edited 2006-12-30 01:18:36]

Quoting Crosswind (Thread starter): For the bridging aircraft which will be delivered from 2009 onwards only the A330 and B777-200ER are in contention.

Kinda of surprised BA isn't looking at the 777-200LR, instead. Not for the range, but for the ability to take max payload out to around 7500nm... Then again, if the 772 is being tasked as a short-term 763 replacement pending the arrival of the next generation widebody, a 772LR would be overkill and I imagine they can get more preferred pricing on the ER.

Quoting Elvis777 (Reply 35): Hey what is the going rate on a brand spanking new 330 nowadays?

Average list was $166.5 million with a discount rate of around 33%, for an average sale price of $112 million per the TEAL Group. Mind you, this is Richard Aboulafia's group so the Airbus aficionados may take issue, but TEAL also calculates similar discounts for Boeing products (~30%).

BA will take 2 or 3 more years to make up its mind about the A380. The 777 will play a bigger part in BA's future, 773ER's will join the fleet. The 748 will play a big role at BA having a capacity of 100 seats more then the 773ER. As Lufthansa has showed us there will be a need for a tiered international capacity of 300, 400 and 500 seat airplanes. The 773ER, 748 and A380 fit that strategy. Several cities in the USA and Asia could benefit from the Whale jet but will the expense and complication of an A380 fleet be worth it. BA will likely operate the 787-9/10 or A350 to compliment the 777 fleet.

Hi Keesje,

Thanks for your kind response.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 36): he A330 is the most economic aircraft available today

Your statement needs to be qualified. In certain situations the 330 is the most economical. The same can be said of the 777. As matter of fact of we are counting birds as a measure of economic viability then I put forth the 777 since it has sold more than 600!

Anyways I am sure that the 330 is quite good for some airlines - and it will continue to be successful for some time. The trouble for me comes when it is taken out and waved as a panacea for 350/787 competitions. I am sure it plays a small part in some competitions but IF the 350 is deficient or expected to be delivered in 2015 then it does no one any good to keep thinking that the 330 will satisfy those needs!

The only possible answer is if eads decides that it is worth losing money on 330s so that it can keep customers from switching to a Boeing product. Then it starts to make sense for airlines to give it a it more weight. The underlaying problem is as like I attempted to describe in my first post. Purchasing a bird to tide me over for 3 years (given that I wont receive it til 2009 and the 350 will not be ready til 2012 (???!!!!!)) then it makes no economic sense for me to purchase a 330 keep it for 3 years and then purchase another 150 million dollar aircraft while taking as loss on the first purchase!!!! How long does it take an airline to pay off and make money on a single frame?? It is not 3 years!

The only way this makes sense is if I get a heck of a deal from eads! In other words eads subsidizes my purchase - and that is no way for a company to make money!!! Unless of course it is a govt entity ala soviet and chinese style communist enterprises!  

So you see what I mean that I don’t understand how the 330 can so often be trotted out as a savior of eads by calling it a bridging airplane- in 350/787-777 competitions!

Now if the 350 is really not delivered till 2015-2016 time frame it starts to make a bit more sense economically. Because then I have had 6-7 years of use and the cost has been amortized and the depreciation on the plane has plateaud so that I no longer loose money on the purchase of this bird. But then we have had so many years where I could have had a 787/777 that might have been economically superior and made me more money.


Listen you and I have been around this thing a couple of times so I don’t want to turn it into a whalejet debate. That will be played out soon enough. But it does point an incriminating finger to the old eads leadership in that they focused on the wrong segment and dropped the ball on this.
I think it would be much better for eads if they had developed the 350 , with compelling technology, prior to the 787 and who knows maybe they would have caught boeing in a bad spot. Eads would ahve sold 500+ of these birds in 2007 not 2017 ...... Well at least eads can say that they have the biggest passenger airliner ever developed. And although it was a different company, eads can trace its roots to it, so they can also claim credit for having the worlds first mach 2 passenger airliner. Nice.


Peace

Elvis777

Hey and I did not even have to use google!!    

Quoting Bh4007 (Reply 23): I thought that Boeing only offered the 777-200LR now ??

No, at Boeing you can purchase any of the "current generation" of an aircraft. Even though all the already ordered 772 and 773 have been delivered you can still order them (though it would be rather pointless). A 772ER still has a 7700nm+ range compared to the 9400nm+ of the 772LR. Most airlines don't need 772LR's as 772ER's do quite well.

You can order, 737-600, 700, 700ER, 800, 900, 900ER, 767-200ER, 300ER, 400ER and 777-200, 200ER, 200LR, 300 ,300ER. The 747 is the only one you cannot purchase the "current generation" of. All 744/F/ER/ERF orders have been halted, only the 748I/F are available.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 5): Simply put the A380 cannot fly to a great deal of cities because the airport cannot handle them. In contrast the B748 would work. The 747-800 is not the same as the 747-400, it is in the same airport category as the A380, ICAO Category F. No advantage for the 747-800 on that front, it actually needs more runway to takeoff and land than a A380.

According to the performance data that B released for the B-747-800I/F, and the same data A released for the A-380-800, the B-747 needs less runway. The B-747 does have a higher T/O and approach speed, but it accelerates much faster than the A-380. On a standard day, at sea level, both airplanes at MTOW, the A-380 has a critical field lenght of 9,900'. The B-747, under the same conditions has a CFL of 9,200'. So, the B-747 actually needs LESS runway.

Quoting Swissy (Reply 6): BA has enough destination which they could utilize the 380, perhaps a fleet of 10-14 to start with.....

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7): I would expect that BA would get the 748 now, and the 388 in the future if they find they can support a 30% larger jet than their denser 744s. The 748 is incremental.

I have no idea if BA will buy any B-747-800Is, A-380-800s, B-777-300ERs, B-777-200LRs, B-787-300/-800/-900/-1000s, A-330-200s, or A-350-800/-900/-1000s. All I know is BA will select the airplane(s) they believe will best fit their business model. Somehow I doubt they will bring any of us a.netters in for fleet conciltations.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 8): We dont know down to the meter, we do know it is significantly more than the 380 due to its higher takeoff and landing speeds.

We do have the performance projections (based on wind tunnel and computer testing) for the B-747, and actual performance of the A-380 (which is almost exactly what was projected). But, as I said, the B-747 does accelerate faster than the A-380, so it actually uses less runway.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42): According to the performance data that B released for the B-747-800I/F, and the same data A released for the A-380-800, the B-747 needs less runway. The B-747 does have a higher T/O and approach speed, but it accelerates much faster than the A-380.

Is that with or without the steep approach option Boeing is offering on the 747-8, which was supposed to lower approach speeds?

Quoting Crosswind (Thread starter): BA has reserved 10 B777-200ER delivery positions for 2009

Fascinating. I always thought that many A.Netters were being premature in assuming these would be 777-300ERs. The announcement (whenever it was) just mentioned ten 777 delivery slots. It always seemed to me that more 777-200ERs were a possibility.

Quoting Crosswind (Thread starter): For the bridging aircraft which will be delivered from 2009 onwards only the A330 and B777-200ER are in contention.

The 777-200ER has obvious advantages (listed above) but this must be the best chance Airbus have ever had to sell widebodies to BA. A fleet of ten A330s would be perfectly viable, would probably be highly appropriate for many of BA's routes, and would give BA lots of leverage next time it comes to haggling over price with Boeing. And we can assume that Airbus will pull out all the stops to get this sale.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 11): AFAIK, the delivery slots that BA secured were for the 77W, not for the 772.

No, that was an assumption made (frequently) on A.Net.

Quoting Bh4007 (Reply 23): I thought that Boeing only offered the 777-200LR now ??

Certainly not. Some numbers of 777-200ERs are likely to keep selling for a while yet, if only as established operators add incremental frames - El Al and Kenya Airways come to mind. We might also see ANZ take a few more. (They're a good bit cheaper than 777-200LRs and not everyone wants the additional capability of the newer model.)

I suppose they will order the B 787-9/10 to replace the B 767s and the B 747-8 to replace the B 747-400. Maybe a few A 380s.

Quoting PM (Reply 44): The 777-200ER has obvious advantages (listed above) but this must be the best chance Airbus have ever had to sell widebodies to BA. A fleet of ten A330s would be perfectly viable, would probably be highly appropriate for many of BA's routes, and would give BA lots of leverage next time it comes to haggling over price with Boeing. And we can assume that Airbus will pull out all the stops to get this sale.

Anyone know if SQ floated an RFP for their near-term 772ER replacement to Boeing or did they just default to the A333?

If Boeing was part of an RFP, losing SQ will probably convince them to work harder to keep BA. The A333 is going to have a lower list price then a 772ER, but Boeing might be able to leverage the 777's extra capability and flexibility to get BA to stick with the model.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46): Anyone know if SQ floated an RFP for their near-term 772ER replacement to Boeing or did they just default to the A333? If Boeing was part of an RFP, losing SQ will probably convince them to work harder to keep BA. The A333 is going to have a lower list price then a 772ER, but Boeing might be able to leverage the 777's extra capability and flexibility to get BA to stick with the model.

If I read the OP correctly, the near-term replacement is dependent on the long term replacement. If they decide to go the 350 route, then it will be 330s. If they go the 787/777 route, it will be 772s, most likely because that will be the only way to get a decent deal on them. That is, even though 772s would fit in better with the current fleet, Boeing ain't going to give them much of a deal for 772ERs (esepcially with how well the 777 line has been selling) if they give a large order to Airbus. They could probably justify a small subfleet of 330s (with additional costs of operating a new type) if they use them on the shorter routes where their economics would beat the 772s. I think that the 350 can give the 787/777 a run for it's money in the race for this order (although I'd lean on thinking that they'll go Boeing). The 748i/380 race is an interesting one. Depends on how much Boeing and Airbus are willing to deal on it, I guess.

cheers.

Quoting Behramjee (Reply 27): They have been 202 A 350 orders placed to date

That number is for all the different versions Airbus offered before they settled on the XWB, or Mk. VI version. I wonder if airlines like US can now use the A-350XWB capabilities, when they thought they were ordering a different airplane?

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 43): Is that with or without the steep approach option Boeing is offering on the 747-8, which was supposed to lower approach speeds?

I'm not sure, but my guess is the increased speed is based only on a 3 degree GS (standard approach). But, yes, normally steeper approaches mean a reduced final approach speed.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 5): No advantage for the 747-800 on that front, it actually needs more runway to takeoff and land than a A380.

That's true, since the A380's wing area is much larger, but the 748 can fit into smaller gate areas and requires less ramp space than the A380. That's critical.