Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
KrisYUL
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:25 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 2:29 pm

If BA could vertically integrate their whole fleet in only three types - A320, A350 and A380 - and get keen pricing to boot, then I see no logical reason not to do it other than "Boeing is Best" boosterism.
Flown on: L1011, A310, A332, A333, A319, B732, B752, B763, CRJ100, CRJ200, DC9, DHC-8-100
 
Asiaflyer
Posts: 925
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:50 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 2:57 pm

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 150):
If BA could vertically integrate their whole fleet in only three types - A320, A350 and A380 - and get keen pricing to boot, then I see no logical reason not to do it other than "Boeing is Best" boosterism.

I think we are on speaking terms mate. I dislike the "Boeing is best" boosterism just as much as you.

I can't understand the way DL, AA and CO are making their decisions.
Does the executives in those airlines know that they are there for the shareholders best interest.
Not to boost Boeings sale.
Its sometimes far too much political influecnce on business decisions.

Although I am happy to admit that Boeing are making great airplanes and it would not surprise me if they will get their share of the BA order, but only becasue they earn it.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:06 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 135):
Boeing have withdrawn their EASA certification application, and EASA aren't backing down over fees, so what makes you think Boeing want to get the 787-3 EASA certified?

Because they said they'd certify it with EASA as soon as any European operator ordered it.

Tom.
 
TKV
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:59 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:11 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 144):
Quoting TKV (Reply 142):

Really you have little support for the allegiance statement. But even if so: I agree they will buy some A380, if the price is "attractive" and other reasons i stated in former posts. But only some !!

BA ditched a generation-long partnership with Boeing to order a huge fleet of A320s. I think that shows that BA don't have allegiance to any manufacturer, and only look at cost and price

I am sorry, but if you check the history, you will see that this argument is meaningless.

BA ordered the last old generation B737 in 1988, delivered 1991 (a few more 1992/93). If you look at the comment on Wikipedia, already by 1990 it become visible that the the 20 years old B737 was not able to compete with the much newer A320, Boeing launched the NG in 1993, but was not able to begin deliveries before 1999-2001. Therefore, during this time span. Boeing lost a lot of faithful customers simply because it was not competitive enough but technically and in price, between them BA, LH and many other. Faithful customer means not buying inferior or too expensive products, but only giving the favored manufacturer the right of first refusal, As Boeing due to the problems of these years was not able to perform, the switch to Airbus occurred.

From this moment on, BA become an exclusive customer of Boeing for wide bodies, and a Airbus one
for narrow bodies.

But this situation is absolutely not comparable with todays on the wide body sector, where Boeing in addition of the advantage of commonality both for the B748i and B777 will argue:

- is the A350, deliverable in meaningful quantities 2014 or 15,which still has not left the drawing board, a superior product to the B787, with first flight is question of weeks or in worst case, a few months ??

- is the A380, which would be unable to operate at the vast majority of the B744 destinations, more adequate as the more reasonable dimensioned B748i or also the B773ER, if BA wants to go this way in some cases ??

- will BA risk to purchase A3510s, for not ensured delivery within 10 years, when its characteristics are still imprecise and it is probable that Boeing with make available a B7810X at the same time,probably before ? (by when the A359 becomes available, an equivalent model will already be on the market - B7810)

I fear that ignore all this is wishful thinking. But as exterior, but improbable and not rational factors could still work in, anything is possible

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 151):
can't understand the way DL, AA and CO are making their decisions.

Very simple: If you accept an exclusive supplier, this under the condition that he is willing to accept better
terms as he grants to other, which, providing the the supplier is a good one, means, together with the resulting commonality, a advantage for Airline and its shareholders

TKV

[Edited 2007-08-28 08:18:59]
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:26 pm

Quoting Gbfra (Reply 10):
OK 787 was desireble but due to the delivery dates unavailble intime to replace the 767 fleet a large order is unlikely BA will probably opt fot the A330 or A350

Why do you say that? BA can lease 787s from the likes of IFLC, they can buy slots from companies (a la kingfisher) that would be unable to take early delivery, they can be sitting already on reserved slots, Boeing can open up slots for them.

The 787 is the ONLY viable 767 replacement (unless you talk about ordering some 764s in the meantime and then spin them off to CO or DL when the 787s arrive).

Quoting GeorgiaAME (Reply 30):
The 380 was designed with Heathrow in mind. I can't imagine BA not going for at least a few of them.

Almost right. The A380 was designed with LHR as it existed in the late 90s in mind. Open skies, higher fuel prices, the advent of 757s across the atlantic, the imminent arrival of the 787, the 748i, EK ordering 50 A380s, etc... ALL of these are new factors that were not likely considered as probable by the A380 designers and BA when they provided input to those designers in the late 90s.

In other words the world just changed too rapidly and the A380 took to long to EIS for the design criteria to be spot on to LHR as it will exist in 2010s when BA could get some.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
Asiaflyer
Posts: 925
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:50 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:32 pm

Quoting TKV (Reply 153):
Very simple: If you accept an exclusive supplier, this under the condition that he is willing to accept better
terms as he grants to other, which, providing the the supplier is a good one, means, together with the resulting commonality, a advantage for Airline and its shareholders

No, thats wrong!!
To sit in one suppliers lap has mainly disadvantages.
Don't for a single second believe anyone who says that you get better conditions if you choose him as exclusive supplier.
You loose all the flexibility, transparency and competition that otherwise works in your advantage in the long run.
That is valid for most businesses, including airline industry.

Fleet commonality is one thing and I agree there, but large airlines has room for both suppliers and can still get enough fleet commonality.
To go for one supplier in the way AA and DL are doing smells politics and patriotism.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:57 pm

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 151):
I can't understand the way DL, AA and CO are making their decisions.
Does the executives in those airlines know that they are there for the shareholders best interest.
Not to boost Boeings sale.

Yes. The CEOs and BODs at AA, DL, WN are all idiots intent on overpaying for aircraft to make Boeing rich and their airlines poor. My god! why do these questions keep on coming up here on A.net.

Have you EVER HEARD of preferred strategic suppliers? It is common in many highly capital intensive industries. It does not cause higher costs, quite the contrary.

Here, I'll be nice. When you are running your airline, I'll give you a simple paragraph that can be incerted in any contract that will guarantee that you won't pay more for having a single supplier (Boeing in this case).

"Boeing expressly guarantees and warrants that the prices or aircraft, aircraft parts, mantenance services, training, consumables and all other related items that it charges AA while this contract is effect, will be no more than the lowest price Boeing has charged these items to any other airliner or commercial aircraft opperator, leasing or dealer company, adjusted by inflation definned by the US wholesale price index excluding food and ennergy for the applicable period. Boeing shall provide to in a timelly manner, to an AA selected neutral auditting firm timelly access to all relevant information needed to demonstrate compliance with this clause".

Got it? It is that simple! Done all the time. You get the absolute best price AND you get to save on maintenance, trianing, scheduling coplexity, etc for having few aircraft/engine types on your fleet.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
gkirk
Posts: 23447
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:04 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 28):
Boeing / GE are pushed into commiting into premature developments.

Funniest thing I've ever read  rotfl 
How many times has the design of the A350 been changed?  Wink
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1892
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:07 pm

My speculation: BA is going to pull Lufthansa on this one and go like the following:
A350-800 w/ ~210 - 230 seats
A350-900 w/ ~250 - 280 seats
A350-1000 w/ ~300 - 320 seats
747-8i w/ ~ 350 - 400 seats
A380-800 w/ ~ 440 - 460 seats

all configured in 4-class layout.

I expect around 20 - 25 747-8is, 10 - 12 A380-800s, 20 - 25 A350-1000s, 35 - 45 A350-900s and 20 - 25 A350-800s in the order. The youngest 777-200s will go last, possibly leased out to maximize return on investment.

[Edited 2007-08-28 09:10:02]
Proudly avoiding 737 MAX since 18.11.2020.
 
Asiaflyer
Posts: 925
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:50 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:11 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 156):
Have you EVER HEARD of preferred strategic suppliers? It is common in many highly capital intensive industries. It does not cause higher costs, quite the contrary.

Yes I have, but you are mixing it up with exclusive supplier.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 156):
It is that simple! Done all the time. You get the absolute best price AND you get to save on maintenance, trianing, scheduling coplexity, etc for having few aircraft/engine types on your fleet.

Strange that only the smartasses at AA and DL understands that.
Seems like managers at LH, AF, KL, TG. SQ, CX, QF etc need to learn a lesson as they apparently dont know how to run an airline.  Wink
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3690
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:16 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 145):
When did BA place their initial A320 order? Was the 737NG an option? As I understand it, BA owns a number of

When BA bought BCAL in Jan 1988 they inherited an order for 5 A320-111 and 5 A320-211. 9 of these are still in service.
When BA had to replace the B737-200 in 1998, they were already operating a fleet of about 33 B737-400, and the B737NG was available, and seemed to be the obvious choice given the existing B734 fleet. BA bought A319/A320.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 130):
Wasn't (or hasn't) BA going to order more A319s for replacing the 737s at LGW?

Yes they have ordered A320s for LHR. First delivery of this batch is in Oct 2008. When delivered, A319s will transfer to LGW to replace the B737-300 and -500 aircraft at LGW. A319 will not be based at LGW until then.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:30 pm

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 150):
If BA could vertically integrate their whole fleet in only three types - A320, A350 and A380 - and get keen pricing to boot, then I see no logical reason not to do it other than "Boeing is Best" boosterism.

"Boeing is best" boosterism isn't a logical reason. An actual logical reason is that you'd have some huge capacity and range holes.

In normal layouts, which we assume is what BA will use, the A320 capacity maxes out at 185 and the A350 doesn't start until 270. The A350 tops out at 350 and the A380 doesn't start until 525.

Range is a bigger problem...range on an A321 is 4400 km while the A350/A380 are all over 14000 km. You wouldn't have anything in the middle.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 155):
Don't for a single second believe anyone who says that you get better conditions if you choose him as exclusive supplier.

What do you know that Ryanair, WestJet, Southwest, easyJet, Frontier, Skybus, etc., etc. don't?

I work with an operator that has an exclusive supplier agreement. When they say "jump" the OEM says "how high?". *Much* more so than they do for larger mixed-fleet carriers.

Tom.
 
globeex
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:06 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 161):
In normal layouts, which we assume is what BA will use, the A320 capacity maxes out at 185 and the A350 doesn't start until 270. The A350 tops out at 350 and the A380 doesn't start until 525.

I think you are quite off here.
BA's 767 have either 181 or 252..... so I would guess they could put around 200+ seats into an A350-800 (okay, that wouldn't be for intra european flights, but still)....
And about the A380...
BA has 744 configs between 291 and 351 seats so I would guess, that they would put between 360 and 450 seats into an A380....

GlobeEx

[Edited 2007-08-28 10:09:26]
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
 
globeex
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:11 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 161):
"Boeing is best" boosterism isn't a logical reason. An actual logical reason is that you'd have some huge capacity and range holes.

And a hole between a 787-9 and 748 is small, ey? Even 787-1 / 748 would be bigger than now.

GlobeEx
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:31 pm

Quoting GlobeEx (Reply 163):
And a hole between a 787-9 and 748 is small, ey? Even 787-1 / 748 would be bigger than now.

What hole between a 787 and 748? Did Boeing suddenly stop making 777's?

Tom.
 
TKV
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:59 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:42 pm

KUWAIT AIRLINES cancels LOI for 12 B787 and 6 A320 which the intended to by from ALAFCO.See
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUKL284841320070828?rpc=44
UPDATE 1-Kuwait Airways scraps $3 bln order for 19 planes

The cancellation is due to the Kuwait Government refusal to finance the deal as it was conceived.

It is not known if the deal will be renegotiated.

In the meantime, Alafco could transfer these favorable slots to BA or use them to support any other B787 deal which is hampered by the Boeing delivery times.

PS: I just heard from a friend in Kuwait that the real reason of the non-approval is that there are problems between some persons in ALAFCO (related to the Government)
and other in the Parlament, because,
- as stated in the Article, the Airline bought the Aircraft from the State owned Alafco (instead directly from the manufacturers) to make use of their early slots :
- but the prices seems to exceed by far the ones which the manufacturers mentioned during earlier negotiations.
There is some confirmation in the article
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...B3E-4401-4F8F-A7DD-0984322BFD51%7D
where it says:

Quote:
Relations between Kuwait's 50-member National Assembly and the state-run airline have been strained since the airline announced its plan in June to buy the aircraft from Alafco

TKV

[Edited 2007-08-28 11:02:28]

[Edited 2007-08-28 11:12:23]

[Edited 2007-08-28 11:13:40]
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14133
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:47 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 161):
In normal layouts, which we assume is what BA will use, the A320 capacity maxes out at 185 and the A350 doesn't start until 270. The A350 tops out at 350 and the A380 doesn't start until 525.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 164):
What hole between a 787 and 748? Did Boeing suddenly stop making 777's?

Why do you forget the hot selling A321, A332 & A333 then?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:49 pm

Quoting TKV (Reply 153):
- is the A350, deliverable in meaningful quantities 2014 or 15,which still has not left the drawing board, a superior product to the B787, with first flight is question of weeks or in worst case, a few months ??

Agreed, we all know that BA isnt a launch customer i highly doubt a A350 order this year. However the A350 could offer some options you wont get on the 787 like A350-900R for LHR-SYD and would offer better flexibility for future expansion.

Quoting TKV (Reply 153):
- will BA risk to purchase A3510s, for not ensured delivery within 10 years, when its characteristics are still imprecise and it is probable that Boeing with make available a B7810X at the same time,probably before ? (by when the A359 becomes available, an equivalent model will already be on the market - B7810)

Again i agree. My guess 787, 748,A380. BA is IMO a conservative Airline that doesnt take big risks.
In defense, at least for some airlines the purchase of some A350 isnt a risk for them.(or not to high)
Flown on: DC-9, MD-80, Fokker 100, Bae 146 Avro, Boeing 737-300, 737-400, 747-200, 747-300,747-400, 787-9, Airbus A310, A319, A320, A321, A330-200,A330-300, A340-313, A380, Bombardier CSeries 100/300, CRJ700ER/CRJ900, Embraer 190.
 
globeex
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:52 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 164):
What hole between a 787 and 748? Did Boeing suddenly stop making 777's?

Tom.

Now, but I would guess the A350 would be a better longterm investement as it will be the better plane..... If it wouldn't be the better plane, there would be no point in building it. I personally don't see BA comitting to the 77W.... so if they would have a gap between the 772 and 748 which wouldn't really be a much smaller gap than A350-1000 A380.

GlobeEx
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:56 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 166):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 164):
What hole between a 787 and 748? Did Boeing suddenly stop making 777's?

Why do you forget the hot selling A321, A332 & A333 then?

I didn't forget them, KrisYUL did in Reply 150 (that's where this particular sub-thread started). He claimed BA should standardize on A320/A350/A380. No mention of A330 anywhere.

The passenger figure I gave was for the A321 to give the benefit of the doubt. I'm assuming that when KrisYUL said A320 he meant the A32x family. If we're restricting to single derivatives of a family, there is no way that BA could standardize their fleet on only three airplanes (A320, one A350 derivative, and the A380-800).

Tom.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:04 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 152):

Because they said they'd certify it with EASA as soon as any European operator ordered it.

The news that Boeing was withdrawing its request for 787-3 EASA certification came less than three months ago, it seems unlikely to do that if BA were making noises about it. BA won't order the 787-3.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 145):
When did BA place their initial A320 order? Was the 737NG an option? As I understand it, BA owns a number of A320-100s, so they must have been close to a launch customer for the family...



Quoting TKV (Reply 153):
BA ordered the last old generation B737 in 1988, delivered 1991 (a few more 1992/93). If you look at the comment on Wikipedia, already by 1990 it become visible that the the 20 years old B737 was not able to compete with the much newer A320, Boeing launched the NG in 1993, but was not able to begin deliveries before 1999-2001. Therefore, during this time span. Boeing lost a lot of faithful customers simply because it was not competitive enough but technically and in price, between them BA, LH and many other. Faithful customer means not buying inferior or too expensive products, but only giving the favored manufacturer the right of first refusal, As Boeing due to the problems of these years was not able to perform, the switch to Airbus occurred.

Woah woah, hold on. BA recieved its first A320 at the end of 1987, as part of a batch of aircraft that BCal ordered. It entered service in April 1988. After that, in October 1988, BA ordered 24 737-436, six 767-336 and one 757-236. BA was still a loyal Boeing customer at this point.

In July 1990, BA ordered 21 more 747-436 with 12 options bringing the total order to 42. In 1991 BA ordered 15 777-236/ER, 15 options and orders and options for 24 more 747-436. The 737-436 entered service in October 1991. In Novembered 1992 BA acquired Dan Air and kept the scheduled 737s at Gatwick.

In Feburary 1998, BA ordered five 777-236ER to replace a 747-436 order, and six 757-236.

It's only in August 1998 that BA ordered 59 A320-series aircraft with 129 options. The 737NG was launched in 1993, the -700 and -800 went into service in 1998 (the year BA ordered the A320). BA recieved its first A319 almost two years later.

So yes, BA was a loyal customer, and yes they chose the A320-series over the 737NG, yes it shows that loyalty at BA means less than a good price for aircraft. Also notice that BA chose not to order the 737NG the year it went into service, which you claim is because of a big order backlog at Boeing. That would suggest they won't do the same with the 787.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27484
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:18 pm

Quoting Hloutweg (Reply 147):
Though still nonexistent, the gaps in between can be covered by further developments of the A380 and A350, and the A320 replacement.

I think an A350-700 or A380-700 will be no-starters due to being "structurally uneconomical".

Quoting Hloutweg (Reply 147):
To me, Boeing has the lower chances than Airbus for this order.

I disagree. I think Boeing has a better-matched product offering to BA's existing fleet and does not require as significant minimum traffic growth.

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 150):
If BA could vertically integrate their whole fleet in only three types - A320, A350 and A380 - and get keen pricing to boot, then I see no logical reason not to do it other than "Boeing is Best" boosterism.

So if BA can vertically integrate their whole fleet in only three types - 737RS, 787, 748I - and get keen pricing to boot, then not doing it is "Airbus is best" boosterism?

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 151):
I can't understand the way DL, AA and CO are making their decisions. Does the executives in those airlines know that they are there for the shareholders best interest. Not to boost Boeings sale. Its sometimes far too much political influecnce on business decisions. Although I am happy to admit that Boeing are making great airplanes and it would not surprise me if they will get their share of the BA order, but only becasue they earn it.

So let me get this straight - an airline that chooses all-Boeing is fleecing their shareholders, but an airline that chooses all-Airbus is enriching their shareholders. And you don't like "Boeing Boosterism", but then espout "Airbus Boosterism" in all your statements.

They have a noun to describe that, and it starts with an "h", but I'll refrain from stating it lest I be considered "attacking" you and having my post deleted.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 155):
No, thats wrong!! To sit in one suppliers lap has mainly disadvantages.

Unless that supplier is Airbus?

Quote:
Don't for a single second believe anyone who says that you get better conditions if you choose him as exclusive supplier. You loose all the flexibility, transparency and competition that otherwise works in your advantage in the long run. That is valid for most businesses, including airline industry.

And yet not one reply earlier, you just advocated BA do just that with Airbus. That noun that starts with an "h" applies here, as well.

Quote:
Fleet commonality is one thing and I agree there, but large airlines has room for both suppliers and can still get enough fleet commonality. To go for one supplier in the way AA and DL are doing smells politics and patriotism.

But not when BA does it, evidently. I'm sensing a pattern here...
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:34 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 170):
The news that Boeing was withdrawing its request for 787-3 EASA certification came less than three months ago, it seems unlikely to do that if BA were making noises about it. BA won't order the 787-3.

Agreed. The point was that some of the reasoning on why they won't order is was backwards. A couple of posts have suggested BA won't order it because it's not getting EASA certification. That's backwards. The 787-3 is not getting EASA certification because BA (and other European carriers) haven't ordered it.

Tom.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5691
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:45 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 161):
I work with an operator that has an exclusive supplier agreement. When they say "jump" the OEM says "how high?". *Much* more so than they do for larger mixed-fleet carriers.

This is generally the case with reputable companies. The best way to destroy customer loyalty is to mistreat them or not give them preferential treatment when you have promised to do so. Boeing did have some problems in the 90's that came from arrogance and the "king of the hill" syndrome, but I believe they have learned from the experience. Be assured that they will knock themselves out to keep a customer such as BA. As to what they will order, I believe that Airbus has a larger hurdle than Boeing to win it (assuming than the statements that they will not split the order are correct.) I would assume that the aircraft in contention are the 748 and 787 versus the A380 and A350. The 748 is slightly more expensive to operate than the A380 but can be used on more routes. The 787 is somewhat smaller and not as long range as the A350 but has better operating economics. I don't expect any more 777 or any A330/340 orders from BA; I think they will go for next-generation aircraft from now on where available. If they need interim aircraft they will lease them, which would be 777's because that's what they have. Therefore my expectation is that this order will be for 748's and 787's, with a mix of 788's and 789's. They will probably be bombarding Boeing with what they want in the 7810, but since it is not yet available it obviously will not be ordered.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
globeex
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:50 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 171):
So if BA can vertically integrate their whole fleet in only three types - 737RS, 787, 748I - and get keen pricing to boot, then not doing it is "Airbus is best" boosterism?

With the present 787 types on offer at the moment that just wouldn't work. BA couldn't operate propperly with a gap between the 787-9 and 748. The new biggest Aircraft would be bigger than their current. And the second biggest would be quite a bit smaller than their current second biggest.

GlobeEx
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27484
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:55 pm

Quoting GlobeEx (Reply 174):
With the present 787 types on offer at the moment that just wouldn't work. BA couldn't operate propperly with a gap between the 787-9 and 748. The new biggest Aircraft would be bigger than their current. And the second biggest would be quite a bit smaller than their current second biggest.

The 787-10 will fill the gap between the 787-9 and 747-8I. And yes, it will be launched. It won't have the range of the A350-900, but considering the low-density seating plans BA uses, they should be able to get similar performance (and much better economics) to their existing 777-200ER fleet.
 
globeex
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:58 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 175):
The 787-10 will fill the gap between the 787-9 and 747-8I. And yes, it will be launched. It won't have the range of the A350-900, but considering the low-density seating plans BA uses, they should be able to get similar performance (and much better economics) to their existing 777-200ER fleet.

I also see it as a given, that boeing will launche the 787-10 at one point. But sure BA would not take the risk (which maybe be only 10-20% that boeing does not launch the 787-10) and order 787 and 748 onlyb "hoping" that the 787-10 will be launched at some stage (and yes, I know they still have the 772 and will stick to them for quite some time).

GlobeEx
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:45 pm

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 121):
I didn't realize it was 4 billion invested on the 748. My mistake.

Can we get a source on that?

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 135):
Not to correct to which point? You seriously think BA are going to buy 787-3? Boeing have withdrawn their EASA certification application, and EASA aren't backing down over fees, so what makes you think Boeing want to get the 787-3 EASA certified?

Was not referring to BA, Boeing simply will not apply for certification until a European carrier buys it just like I wont licence my car in a particular state until I move there.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 135):
787-3 isn't longhaul and isn't being certified in Europe.

Until there is an order.

Quoting TKV (Reply 138):
The certifying costs hurt if you must pay them without having orders, bur are peanuts if you have them !

Exactly, Boeing has stockholders that expect ROI.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 145):
When did BA place their initial A320 order? Was the 737NG an option?

I think it was actually United that chose the 320 over the 737 before the NG was available, which for them was the right decision, IIRC.

Quoting KrisYUL (Reply 148):
If Boeing wins, it will be a political order designed to maintain the trans-atlantic "friendship" with the US.

BS

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 149):
Whether BA will choose Airbus, Boeing or a mix of them doesn't really matter to me, neither to BA I think.

BA, more than most, simply buys what is best for them at the time and for the projected future..

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 151):
I can't understand the way DL, AA and CO are making their decisions.

I am sure there is a reason you cant.

Quoting TKV (Reply 153):
Very simple: If you accept an exclusive supplier, this under the condition that he is willing to accept better
terms as he grants to other, which, providing the the supplier is a good one, means, together with the resulting commonality, a advantage for Airline and its shareholders

Works the same way in trucking, car rental, railroad, and many other industries. The truck fleet leasing company my Mom ran for decades had exclusive deals with Kenworth, Caterpillar, and Great Dane. This almost never affected her deals, and it made the operation highly profitable. Kenworth based design decisions on input from her and other big customers, they gave priority production fulfillment, they would make custom runs for specific deals, and when there was a problem there were no questions asked just solutions provided. Her operation became THE most profitable leasing operation in the country partly because of her exclusivity deals and despite the fact she was a woman.

These deals exist for a reason, and it is all about the profit margin. It costs a lot of money to go thru a selection process every time you need aquire assets, this is why these deals exists. The minute an exclusivity deal hinders a corporation, the deal is scrapped or the supplier sweetens the deal. Lot of leverage there.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 155):
To go for one supplier in the way AA and DL are doing smells politics and patriotism.

Thats not what smells.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 155):
To sit in one suppliers lap has mainly disadvantages.

That are far outweighed by the advantages.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 171):
But not when BA does it, evidently. I'm sensing a pattern here...

A 50' neon sign would not make it more clear.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:48 pm

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 177):
Was not referring to BA, Boeing simply will not apply for certification until a European carrier buys it just like I wont licence my car in a particular state until I move there.

No, this is wrong. Boeing sent the 787-3 certification request to EASA, then withdrew it less than three months ago.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 177):
Until there is an order.

The 787-3 isn't a longhaul aircraft, and won't be ordered by BA.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:03 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 178):
No, this is wrong. Boeing sent the 787-3 certification request to EASA, then withdrew it less than three months ago.

How hard headed can you possibly be? They withdrew it because they cannot justify the expense until ther eis an order, when an order materialises, they can justify the expense, otherwise they cannot. It really isnt that hard to understand. Boeing stated this themselves.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 178):
The 787-3 isn't a longhaul aircraft, and won't be ordered by BA.

As I have already posted, I WAS NOT REFERRING TO BA, I was referring to the European market in general. There will probably be a 787-3 order eventually, and when that happens Boeing will certify it in Europe. Why would Boeing certify a plane in Europe that has not been ordered by a Euorpean ariline yet? Why would they not if there was an order?

You cant answere either because your argument
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
EI321
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:04 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 178):
Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 177):
Until there is an order.

The 787-3 isn't a longhaul aircraft, and won't be ordered by BA.

No european airline wants the 787-3. I'm not convinced that any American airlines will order it either. According to analysis I have seen, its range when fully loaded is just 1250 miles.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:07 pm

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 179):

How hard headed can you possibly be? They withdrew it because they cannot justify the expense until ther eis an order, when an order materialises, they can justify the expense, otherwise they cannot. It really isnt that hard to understand. Boeing stated this themselves.

I'm not the one being hard headed. You said that Boeing won't apply for EASA certification until a European carrier orders it. This was flat out wrong, they did apply for certification. They withdrew certification because of a row over fees, and the fact that no European airline seems to want the 787-3.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 179):
There will probably be a 787-3 order eventually, and when that happens Boeing will certify it in Europe. Why would Boeing certify a plane in Europe that has not been ordered by a Euorpean ariline yet? Why would they not if there was an order?

So if it has to be done eventually, why not bite the bullet now? They have done with every other major Boeing varient. I'm glad you now agree with me that BA won't order the 787-3.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
TKV
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:59 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:47 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 180):
No european airline wants the 787-3. I'm not convinced that any American airlines will order it either. According to analysis I have seen, its range when fully loaded is just 1250 miles.

Therefore Boeing must be out of its mind stating om its Website:

Quote:
A third 787 family member, the 787-3 Dreamliner, will accommodate 290 - 330 passengers and be optimized for routes of 2,500 to 3,050 nautical miles (4,600 to 5,650 kilometers).

But even if what you write were true, 1250 nm would be enough to fly from London to any major European city with 330 pax (290+ for Moscow).

By the way: as ANA reportedly later wants to use their B783 for Tokyo-Hong Kong (1600 nm) and Tokyo-Manila (1650 nm) between other, they must have not read your analysis.

TKV
 
sh0rtybr0wn
Posts: 373
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:16 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:53 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 180):
According to analysis I have seen, its range when fully loaded is just 1250 miles.

Can we see the source of your " analysis " ?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27484
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:55 pm

Quoting GlobeEx (Reply 176):
I also see it as a given, that boeing will launche the 787-10 at one point. But sure BA would not take the risk (which maybe be only 10-20% that boeing does not launch the 787-10) and order 787 and 748 onlyb "hoping" that the 787-10 will be launched at some stage (and yes, I know they still have the 772 and will stick to them for quite some time).

The hold-up for Boeing on the 787-10 is a combination of "too much" demand for the 787-8 and 787-9 and the fact that a few airlines have publicly desired range capabilities the plane cannot easily provide (and a few of them have asked the same for the A350, as well).

And honestly not to stir the pot here, but BA would also be taking a risk that Airbus will launch the A350 in a timely manner and that it will meet the specifications promised. At least with the 787-10, it will be a derivative of a "known" design with a half-decade or more of in-service data to draw from. It should comfortably meet the performance goals Boeing sets for it, even if those goals are not "world-beaters".

Quoting EI321 (Reply 180):
No european airline wants the 787-3. I'm not convinced that any American airlines will order it either. According to analysis I have seen, its range when fully loaded is just 1250 miles.

 checkmark 

Quoting TKV (Reply 182):
Therefore Boeing must be out of its mind stating (the 787-3 range specs) on its website...

The Boeing website figures are for passengers and bags only. Load up a 787-3 to MZFW and you can only tank enough gas to fly about 1250nm based on Boeing's own range charts in the 787 Airport Compatibility Guide.
 
EI321
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:00 am

Quoting TKV (Reply 182):
By the way: as ANA reportedly later wants to use their B783 for Tokyo-Hong Kong (1600 nm) and Tokyo-Manila (1650 nm) between other, they must have not read your analysis.

It was not my analysis, it was compiled my an industry anaylist. I assume fully loaded implies that the aircraft would be close to MTOW. You say nothing about the above route being flown fully loaded. Boeing's figures dont state that you can have max range or max passengers, but not both. There is a similar affect on the figures of the 737-900ER. If you want to fully load an aircraft you have to sacrifice range.

RE: London to Moscow, Its 1550 miles in a straight line and you would also have to account for the holding patterns over LHR. Aircraft can get stuck in them for well over half an hour. Then there are headwinds to consider also.

All in all, it the 787-3 had a decent market it would have a decent number of customers. I think its market is limited to Japan, and maybe India & China.
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:06 am

Quoting Eureka (Reply 134):
The ICAO 747 approach separation standards for following Heavy/Medium/Light aircraft are 4/5/6 miles respectively. The current ICAO recommendation for the same Heavy/Medium/Light aircraft following an A380 on approach are 6/8/10 miles.

So, worst case scenario, it'll add 1 minute to the separation time of a following light aircraft.

Quoting Eureka (Reply 111):
That is rubbish. The current ICAO and NATS separation requirements for the A380 obviate the gains in passengers carried provided by the A380's increased capacity. If BA is convinced that the 747-8 falls into a less restrictive category than the A380 it becomes very likely that the former aircraft will provide them with the greatest passenger through put benefit into LHR.



I'm afraid it is you who is posting "rubbish". A380 has no separation penalty from preceeding aircraft and only between 30-60 seconds for following aircraft. BA may order B748 but certainly not for the reasons you speak of. Your analysis would only work if BA was the sole airline at LHR and the runways operated at full capacity 24 hours a day.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 145):
When did BA place their initial A320 order? Was the 737NG an option? As I understand it, BA owns a number of A320-100s, so they must have been close to a launch customer for the family...

An inherited order from the BCal buyout. BA didn't want the aircraft but after operating them, realised that they were an order of magnitude better than the B737 classics and have ordered A320 series ever since.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 154):

The 787 is the ONLY viable 767 replacement (unless you talk about ordering some 764s in the meantime and then spin them off to CO or DL when the 787s arrive).

A330 is a superior aircraft in every way. BA will not order B764.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 154):

Why do you say that? BA can lease 787s from the likes of IFLC, they can buy slots from companies (a la kingfisher) that would be unable to take early delivery, they can be sitting already on reserved slots, Boeing can open up slots for them.

A very expensive way of going about things and very un BA ish.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 164):
What hole between a 787 and 748? Did Boeing suddenly stop making 777's?

Orders will dry up to nothing over the next 7-10 years, the A350 will be the final nail in the coffin of the B777 project.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 170):

The news that Boeing was withdrawing its request for 787-3 EASA certification came less than three months ago, it seems unlikely to do that if BA were making noises about it. BA won't order the 787-3.

 checkmark 

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 179):
As I have already posted, I WAS NOT REFERRING TO BA, I was referring to the European market in general. There will probably be a 787-3 order eventually, and when that happens Boeing will certify it in Europe. Why would Boeing certify a plane in Europe that has not been ordered by a Euorpean ariline yet? Why would they not if there was an order?

You cant answere either because your argument

I can't think of a single European airline that would order B787-3, not one. It is suitable for one market and one market alone, Japanese domestic.
I AM the No-spotalotacus.
 
EI321
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:13 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 181):
Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 179):

How hard headed can you possibly be? They withdrew it because they cannot justify the expense until ther eis an order, when an order materialises, they can justify the expense, otherwise they cannot. It really isnt that hard to understand. Boeing stated this themselves.

I'm not the one being hard headed. You said that Boeing won't apply for EASA certification until a European carrier orders it. This was flat out wrong, they did apply for certification. They withdrew certification because of a row over fees, and the fact that no European airline seems to want the 787-3.

Info here:
RE: Boeing To Withraw 787-3 Cerification For Europe.. (by Boeing7E7 Jun 5 2007 in Civil Aviation)
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27484
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:13 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 185):
All in all, it the 787-3 had a decent market it would have a decent number of customers. I think its market is limited to Japan, and maybe India & China.

Each could be a huge market, however...
 
TKV
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:59 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:31 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 185):
It was not my analysis, it was compiled my an industry anaylist. I assume fully loaded implies that the aircraft would be close to MTOW. You say nothing about the above route being flown fully loaded. Boeing's figures dont state that you can have max range or max passengers, but not both. There is a similar affect on the figures of the 737-900ER. If you want to fully load an aircraft you have to sacrifice range.

I acknowledge that the analysis was not yours, but this lets things unchanged.
But you will agree with me that if the site states that the craft is optimized for 2500-3050 nm and indicates a capacity of 290 to 320 pax, it would be absurd that the reality were 1250 nm !

By the way, even if I did abstain to cite Wikipedia, there it is stated that the range indicated if fully loaded, but this is not reliable.

TKV
 
theginge
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:53 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:57 am

The only people who know exactly what will be ordered are the people from the fleet planning department and also other people involved as part of this such as Engineering and the flight Ops departments.

The decision will be made by them and then it will be put to the board, the CEO won;t have too much to do with it so any talk about him having previous sway towards airbus has nothing to do with it as it won't be him deciding.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27484
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:03 am

Quoting TKV (Reply 189):
But you will agree with me that if the site states that the craft is optimized for 2500-3050 nm and indicates a capacity of 290 to 320 pax, it would be absurd that the reality were 1250 nm !

The 1250nm figure comes from Boeing. Take a look how far an 787-9 will fly at MZFW. Or an A380. Or any plane.

You can only load the tires up so much, and when you max-out the passengers and the cargo, you can only add so much fuel weight (even if you have plenty of fuel volume available) before you reach the limit of the undercarriage.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:02 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 180):
According to analysis I have seen, its range when fully loaded is just 1250 miles.

That's about right. The difference between range with max passengers and range at max payload is usually about 3 or 4 to 1. The range number quoted on the manufacture website, if they only give one number, is almost always the range with max passengers. Unless you're hauling a lot of cargo or you're in a very high density configuration, it's unusual to load up to MZFW.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 181):
This was flat out wrong, they did apply for certification. They withdrew certification because of a row over fees, and the fact that no European airline seems to want the 787-3.

The did apply for certification, that's true. They withdrew it because there was no need (no European orders) and EASA wanted a lot of cash. It wasn't exactly a row, it just didn't make sense to pay all that money for no value.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 181):
So if it has to be done eventually, why not bite the bullet now? They have done with every other major Boeing varient.

Time value of money. There is no value in getting the EASA cert now, there is no penalty for getting it later, and Boeing has better things to do with that money now. They haven't done it with every other major variant; EASA only came into existence in 2003.

Tom.
 
TKV
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:59 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:08 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 191):
The 1250nm figure comes from Boeing. Take a look how far an 787-9 will fly at MZFW. Or an A380. Or any plane.

You can only load the tires up so much, and when you max-out the passengers and the cargo, you can only add so much fuel weight (even if you have plenty of fuel volume available) before you reach the limit of the undercarriage.

I see. Do you have a ballpark figure which would be the range with 290 pax and no extra payload ??

TKV
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27484
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:23 am

Quoting TKV (Reply 193):
I see. Do you have a ballpark figure which would be the range with 290 pax and no extra payload?

That would be about 3500nm.
 
TKV
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:59 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:29 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 194):
Quoting TKV (Reply 193):
I see. Do you have a ballpark figure which would be the range with 290 pax and no extra payload?

That would be about 3500nm

Is this not a typo, meaning 1500 or 2500 nm.?? If 3,500 nm are right, this would mean that it could fly 2500 nm with good chunk of payload !?

TKV
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:39 am

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 186):
I can't think of a single European airline that would order B787-3, not one. It is suitable for one market and one market alone, Japanese domestic.

Which is why they withdrew the paperwork, BUT are you trying to say that if for example AF asked boeing for 20 they would say no because we dont feel like getting it certified? I am not making predictions, just stating what Boeing will do if they make a sale.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 181):
I'm not the one being hard headed. You said that Boeing won't apply for EASA certification until a European carrier orders it. This was flat out wrong, they did apply for certification. They withdrew certification because of a row over fees, and the fact that no European airline seems to want the 787-3.

I just dont think you want to comprehend what I said. I was not referring to the past, forget about the past! If Boeing gets a 783 order in Europe, FROM ANY AIRLINE, at any point in the future, they WILL get it certified. PERIOD.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 181):
So if it has to be done eventually, why not bite the bullet now?

Why not wait until they are sure the investment will see ROI?

That is the question, asking why doesn't Boeing gamble money on an "if" is not a question, it is a simply a sign of an underlying agenda on your part. Why on Earth would a corporation dedicate that much time and money on something they dont need, and might never need?

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 186):
I can't think of a single European airline that would order B787-3, not one. It is suitable for one market and one market alone, Japanese domestic.

I am not arguing either way, but I think you have a narrow outlook, especially after reading about the possibilities over the years.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27484
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:52 am

Quoting TKV (Reply 195):
Is this not a typo, meaning 1500 or 2500 nm.?? If 3,500 nm are right, this would mean that it could fly 2500 nm with good chunk of payload !?

A 787-3, while having the same physical tankage volume of a 787-8, cannot carry close to the same amount of fuel in those tanks because the structure is not designed to support the weight of full tanks.

So you can only put around 3500nm worth of fuel by weight/volume into a 787-3, period. The 787-3 has enough additional available payload weight beyond that to haul around 300 folks and their bags.

However, if you want to fill the holds to the brim with heavy and dense revenue cargo and then add all the passengers and their bags, then you only have enough MTOW left to fill the tanks to a point that would allow you to fly all that payload around ~1250nm.
 
Caryjack
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 9:45 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Wed Aug 29, 2007 5:51 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 191):
The 1250nm figure comes from Boeing. Take a look how far an 787-9 will fly at MZFW. Or an A380. Or any plane.

I understand that MTOW is the maximum take off weight and that range is traded for cargo but MZFW is new to me. If the plane is fully loaded to MZFW then fuel is added to reach MTOW (right?), can this fuel and cargo combination be considered to represent the minimum range that the plane can be expected to fly? Min. range, Max. utilization???

Can we also say that if we fully fueled an empty plane (Maximum Fueled Takeoff Weight???  Smile ) then loaded it with cargo to MTOW, that this is the maximum range that the plane will fly?


I know that aircraft manufactures specify ranges and I've seen Boeing's range charts but apparently they dont tell the full story. I also understand that altitude and temperature figure into MTOW. Obviously I made up the MFTW.

I've seen what could be range vs cargo load curves of various planes. They were unusual in that each curve had two breaks which were well explained by the poster but I couldn't quite get a handle on them. With this new information about MZFW and other things I've picked up, these curves could help fill in the blanks. Does anyone know of these curves?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 197):
A 787-3, while having the same physical tankage volume of a 787-8, cannot carry close to the same amount of fuel in those tanks because the structure is not designed to support the weight of full tanks.

Are you saying that a fully fueled 787-3 will still have room for more fuel?? confused 
What would prevent someone from over fueling this aircraft?

Thanks for your consideration.
Cary
 
virtual
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:14 am

RE: BA Plans Firmed..who's Guessing

Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:05 am

This *was* a rather interesting thread about BA's long haul fleet renewal.

It's now seems to have gone off topic and turned into an argument about the B787-3's range!

Maybe those wishing to chat about the range of the B787-3 could take their discussion to a new thread?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos