Thanks for your reply to the added cities, here's a few remarks I like to add.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 101): India-London is already started to suffer from overcapacity...

It seems that the flights of other airlines only start to fill up after the BA flights are filled up, particularly in the premium cabins. Not sure if slots allow for more frequencies, especially to BOM and DEL.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 101): Don't see it with QF adding the A380 to part of this "Kangaroo route"..not to mention, TG adding the A380 to LHR...

reply for SIN and BKK

TG, SQ and QF operating the A380 might be an extra motivation for BA to fight, particularly SQ and TG, with similar weapons. I doubt BA is going to stand on the sideline, seeing TG filling up their A380 to BKK and SQ to SIN. BA currently operates 2 daily to SIN (777 and 744). An A380 to SIN could connect with the various destinations QF serves from SIN.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 101): See only 777 services...744/748 services are far off and even farther off for the A380

reply for PVG and PEK

I believe lack of 744 aircraft is the reason the Chinese destinations are served with 777s.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 101): I would see a carrier such as SA going for the A380 first, as it integrates into their fleet quite nicely already...

As a reaction to BA, SA might change their mind and add the A380. I think BA might act instead of react on routes to South Africa.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 101): Not even close..YYZ only sees 777/767 services...

One of each daily, together the capacity of an A380. As all North American destinations YYZ is indeed less likely then most other (non North American) intercontinental destinations.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 101): Given how BA operate, there would be an increase in frequency before adding a larger jet..but NBO would be intersting route for the A380...

Not sure. Why operate a 744 to CAI, when a 767 and a A320 (or adding capacity a bit, 3 A320s) can do the job, while changing SYD to a 777 and cancelling MEL because the 744 can be better used elsewhere?

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 101): Which cities?

reply for Mexico

MEX is what I had in mind. BA is restricted in the number of flights it can operate IIRC. They currently have only 3 744 flights a week, a larger aircraft is the the solution to accomodate more passengers if no more flights rights are given.

Manni..you finally have some arguments I can appreciate and debate without using some sarcasm.... 

Quoting Manni (Reply 100): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 101): India-London is already started to suffer from overcapacity... It seems that the flights of other airlines only start to fill up after the BA flights are filled up, particularly in the premium cabins. Not sure if slots allow for more frequencies, especially to BOM and DEL.

Actually, 9W, AI have their own following, and now that AI is going to be joining Star Alliance, its going to give Star Alliance partners some good feed to India out of LHR...

Add other carriers like IT, etc. and regardless if flights get filled after BA flights, pax/business are going to start to use these aforementioned carriers, especially if their fares are competitive....

Quoting Manni (Reply 100): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 101): Don't see it with QF adding the A380 to part of this "Kangaroo route"..not to mention, TG adding the A380 to LHR... reply for SIN and BKK TG, SQ and QF operating the A380 might be an extra motivation for BA to fight, particularly SQ and TG, with similar weapons. I doubt BA is going to stand on the sideline, seeing TG filling up their A380 to BKK and SQ to SIN. BA currently operates 2 daily to SIN (777 and 744). An A380 to SIN could connect with the various destinations QF serves from SIN.

I'm not saying BA is going to stand on the "sidelines", but adding capacity will only dilute yields..and that just isn't part of BA's business plan.....a carrier doesn't need to have the A380 in its fleet to be considered a "premier" carrier...regardless of what BA does, like SQ, it has quite a following..

Witness how BA does every year, even after all the problems with BA, strikes, BAA, terrorist threats, etc....

I state this because as long as BA provide comfortable features and service, it will probably retain its pax base...

Quoting Manni (Reply 100): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 101): See only 777 services...744/748 services are far off and even farther off for the A380 reply for PVG and PEK I believe lack of 744 aircraft is the reason the Chinese destinations are served with 777s.

BA pull 744's though from other routes such as ORD and LAX during the winter periods..if they need the 744's, they are available.....

Quoting Manni (Reply 100): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 101): I would see a carrier such as SA going for the A380 first, as it integrates into their fleet quite nicely already... As a reaction to BA, SA might change their mind and add the A380. I think BA might act instead of react on routes to South Africa.

Ok..I could buy that argument..BA would be the aggressive carrier on this route and possibly take business away from SA....

The problem however I see is that unless BA have a decent amount of A380s in its fleet, the A380's wouldn't be put to good use as fleet utilisation on the LHR-JNB-LHR route would be quite low (witness how long SA's 747's sit at LHR, as well as how long BA's 744's sit around at JNB)....almost 14 hours... 

Quoting Manni (Reply 100): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 101): Not even close..YYZ only sees 777/767 services... One of each daily, together the capacity of an A380. As all North American destinations YYZ is indeed less likely then most other (non North American) intercontinental destinations.

Overkill..if anything, BA will go for 2x777 or 1x777+1x744..and if they add the 748's and 773's to the fleet, that will add the incremental amount of seats which BA would rather prefer..

Quoting Manni (Reply 100): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 101): Which cities? reply for Mexico MEX is what I had in mind. BA is restricted in the number of flights it can operate IIRC. They currently have only 3 744 flights a week, a larger aircraft is the the solution to accomodate more passengers if no more flights rights are given.

One possible A380 route....but BA would rather fight for increase in frequency...also, I don't know which version of 744 is sent..the one with the high J (70 seats) class or the one with the lower J-class seats (38)..that's an important indicator to a certain extent as to yields are on that particular route...

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 83): OK, let's get serious here. How would BA fly over Atlantic on three engines if they had a A343 instead of B744?

Obviously they'll have to hang an extra one somewhere.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 99): India-London is already started to suffer from overcapacity...and all of the Indian carriers such as IT, ect. don't have all of their wideobodies online yet...add to the fact many will either add or increase routes/capacity to the United Kingdom.. BA is going to stick to smaller planes with an increase in frequency..that's about it..

Actually mate the Indian Aviation scene will have to consolidate eventually, and by the time these new entrants get international rights and WB , will places like JFK/LHR have additional slots to provide convinient timings needed to make a route profitable.?? see how much 9W is loosing on its 4 daily flights to LHR from India.

BA despite not getting good loads on their morning 744s arrivals into BOM/DEL are still surviving because of reputation/deep pockets/ and the fact they manage to fill up their Premium cabins.

BA will have flexibility to operate from a fully refurbished/new terminal even once the likes of KF start international operations.

What would the choice be mate--A BA early morning arrival into LHR or a KF late evening arrival into LGW??

Karan

Karan, you bring up some very interesting arguments...

I certainly do expect to see consolidation in the Indian Aviation sector, however, not for a while..and once the certain bloodbath starts in India, I expect to see some of the other operators try to expand to the United Kingdom...

I'm not so sure if getting slots in JFK will be a problem..LHR might be a problem, but that won't stop them from flying to say LGW...or even trying to get expensive slots at LHR..."part of doing business"...

As air rights agreements between India and Europe become less stringent, I would expect to see Indian carriers even make a harder push into London...

According to the UK CAA

" A study published today by the CAA examines the dramatic impact of the liberalisation of air services between the UK and India since 2004 and finds that there has been a doubling in the number of people travelling directly between the UK and India from just over one million passengers for the year before liberalisation to just over two million for the twelve months up to July 2006. This is due to the greater choice and capacity available, combined with cheaper fares."**

"Between October 2004 and October 2006, the number of direct services between India and the UK more than tripled from 34 to 112 services per week, provided by a combination of pre-existing carriers offering more flights and the arrival of new carriers in the market."**

**-sources:UK CAA...


More carriers = increase competition = lower yields..

(Reposted with permission from the moderators)

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 76): How do you figure (Boeing's family offers more flexibility then Airbus')? I am not insinuating anything here, I am just trying to see how you came to these conclusions as to why they're more flexible.

The 787 to 777 to 747 progression offers BA the option of putting anywhere from 210 to 480 seats on a route (mind you, BA's actual seating will depend on what classes of service they wish to install and how they arrange it in terms of abreast seating).

The A350X offers BA the option of putting anywhere from 270 to 350 seats on a route (again, depending on how they fit it out) and then you jump to ~500 on the A388.

So the Boeing family offers BA the ability to better tailor capacity to demand across a much larger spectrum of the "demand curve" then the Airbus family does. And yes, the A332 does allow Airbus to scale downwards, however it does so at an economic disadvantage to the more modern 787-8.

Pity they didn't support European manfacturers back in the '50's & 60's under the guise of BOAC & BEA.

Quoting VC-10 (Reply 106): Pity they didn't support European manfacturers back in the '50's & 60's under the guise of BOAC & BEA.

I agree, not sure if todays landscape would be that different.

In the future, I see Japan, and Germany building the most aircraft.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 107): In the future, I see Japan, and Germany building the most aircraft.

I doubt you'll see any new players in the field for a long time; the risks are so huge, and one crash blamed on the manufacturer would kill any newcomer. There just is no more unforgiving business than manufacturing airliners. I think this is why Boeing was willing to share as much of the manufacturing of the 787, whereas in the past they had kept critical elements strictly in-house to avoid giving others the know-how. I think the future holds more of this type of cooperation, with A & B remaining the controlling players for the forseeable future, but more and more companies around the world participating in component manufacture.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 108): Quoting Zeke (Reply 107): In the future, I see Japan, and Germany building the most aircraft. I doubt you'll see any new players in the field for a long time; the risks are so huge, and one crash blamed on the manufacturer would kill any newcomer. There just is no more unforgiving business than manufacturing airliners. I think this is why Boeing was willing to share as much of the manufacturing of the 787, whereas in the past they had kept critical elements strictly in-house to avoid giving others the know-how. I think the future holds more of this type of cooperation, with A & B remaining the controlling players for the forseeable future, but more and more companies around the world participating in component manufacture.

I can see the trend of both airbus and boeing delegating increasingly large shares of future projects to overseas companys, in Boeings case mostly Japan, and in Airbus' case China and Russia.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 92): The current A350 offering is the seventh including the original upgrade the A330 responses to the 787.

Holly heck!!! Not sure what else to say in response to this

Quoting Stitch (Reply 105): The 787 to 777 to 747 progression offers BA the option of putting anywhere from 210 to 480 seats on a route (mind you, BA's actual seating will depend on what classes of service they wish to install and how they arrange it in terms of abreast seating). The A350X offers BA the option of putting anywhere from 270 to 350 seats on a route (again, depending on how they fit it out) and then you jump to ~500 on the A388.

So in conclusion, it all depends on class and seating configurations. Apparently the Boeing family offers more flexibility on 2X2/3X2, 2X4X2, 3X4X3 configs, leg room, class, etc than Airbus. I suppose I can see this when looking at the physical appearance of the A340 vs a 777. How many seats across does that [A340] allow? I can't imagine that being any wider than the 767. How about the 777 is that wide enough for 2X4X2 or only 2X3X2? Not to mention, why use 4 engines over an ETOPS jet.

Sorry, one more question, what is BA's preferred seating arrangement for Coach on their 747 and 777 aircraft, 2X4X2 on the jumbos and 2X3X2 on the T7s? It looks like more airlines are considering 2-4-2 seating for the 747 for comfort purposes. I saw that on one of the many write-ups on the 748i. Although I think many of the 747s have a 3X4X3 seating.

So it looks like BA would be silly to sacrafice its boeing fleet, especially long haul/high density for Airbus, besides the fact that BA already has a sizeable Boeing long-haul fleet already...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 105): 787 to 777 to 747 progression offers BA the option of putting anywhere from 210 to 480

There's no way that BA would put 480 seats on a 748i.  

On a large number of their 744s they only seat 291 (14/62/215). Yes they do have some denser configurations, but this layout seems to be the most popular one.

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 110): How many seats across does that [A340] allow? I can't imagine that being any wider than the 767.

The A340 is wider than the 767, seating 2-4-2 compared to the 767's somewhat awkward 2-3-2 in Y.

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 110): It looks like more airlines are considering 2-4-2 seating for the 747 for comfort purposes. I saw that on one of the many write-ups on the 748i.

If you can find any airline that seats 2-4-2 in Y on a 747 you'll be very lucky. That would be a huge waste of space and the airline would be losing money hand over fist. Why do you think most airlines are wanting to fit 9-across on the much smaller 787?  

Quoting EI321 (Reply 109): I can see the trend of both airbus and boeing delegating increasingly large shares of future projects to overseas companys, in Boeings case mostly Japan, and in Airbus' case China and Russia.

Most of the 787 is still built in the U.S., even if Boeing doesn't do much of it themselves. Combine Vought, Spirit, Rohr, and Boeing U.S., and that's got to be at least half.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 53): I think BA will get the A380 sooner or later. They are big enough to fill them, and how else will they manage growth on overcrowded airports?

I thinkk later, 3 or 4 years at least from now so they know the actual performance.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 104): " A study published today by the CAA examines the dramatic impact of the liberalisation of air services between the UK and India since 2004 and finds that there has been a doubling in the number of people travelling directly between the UK and India from just over one million passengers for the year before liberalisation to just over two million for the twelve months up to July 2006. This is due to the greater choice and capacity available, combined with cheaper fares."** "Between October 2004 and October 2006, the number of direct services between India and the UK more than tripled from 34 to 112 services per week, provided by a combination of pre-existing carriers offering more flights and the arrival of new carriers in the market."** **-sources:UK CAA... More carriers = increase competition = lower yields..

Just think, if the 380 replaces 1/3 of these flights, 6 380's on the route would do it.

I believe that the financial side in the VLA area could be interesting for BA. The 380 is well past launch pricing and Airbus needs to start generating some good margins on the plane in order to hit break even. On the other hand, with only one pax customer, the 748i could still have launch pricing, especially on an order for 65 frames. Personally I have no doubt that Boeing will consider BA a launch customer for the 748i - they would have presented pricing before LH placed their order.

So what would this illiterate arm chair CEO do in the VLA area? I'd go with the 748i, both firm and options. The options would basically be for the number of 380s that I would consider at a significantly lower price than Airbus is looking for. Then I would wait and watch the 380 sales as I am basically taking a punt that the production line would essentially be somewhat empty by the time I would look for deliveries of the 380. If it is I would consider that I had Airbus sufficiently over a barrel to get the price I wanted to pay.

Part of the punt is that I will be having competitors who paid (comparatively) very little for their 380s, being launch customers and getting compensation for their delays. Might make it hard to compete with them while they had that advantage. Airbus will only get me close to them if they are really hungry for a good sale to keep the line open.

The other part of the punt is that I will be getting a very good deal on the 748i - especially if I go with the 787 and 777 for the rest of the order.

[Edited 2007-01-20 07:33:39]

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 113): Just think, if the 380 replaces 1/3 of these flights, 6 380's on the route would do it.

You mean kill yields? I'm sure it would... 

If BA orders the A380, expect them to use these beasts mainly on high yielding routes, period. These are routes that currently see 2x or 3x 747 service with the A380 replacing the 2x with just one flight a day and the 3x will become A380/B747(a la Virgin), therefore freeing up a few 747s to be used on routes that will be seeing improved yields over the coming years. HKG, LAX and SIN are strong candidates.

Quoting BALAX (Reply 116): HKG, LAX and SIN are strong candidates.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 97): LAX-frequency-BA cut services during the winter

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 97): HKG-as mentioned above..could be..but we'll have to see what happens with yields with Oasis HKG and NZ also flying this route now...(as well as CX)

SIN-with QF and SQ flying the A380 SIN-LHR, I doubt BA will join that particular club...

The winter schedule for LAX is normal. Always 3x daily in the summer and 2x daily in the winter. That's bound to change this year if management get their way with LAX keeping BA278 (the extra flight) year round, perhaps on a reduced frequency schedule in the winter.

Quoting BALAX (Reply 118): The winter schedule for LAX is normal. Always 3x daily in the summer and 2x daily in the winter. That's bound to change this year if management get their way with LAX keeping BA278 (the extra flight) year round, perhaps on a reduced frequency schedule in the winter.

Well lets see what happens with the potential LAX yearly 3x/daily frequency before we could put "LAX" as a potenial A380 route..