Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 43): Quoting Stitch (Reply 37):Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 35): Doesn't this show the pointlessness of Boeing's customer code system... The system is now anachronistic with modern production and inventory tracking, which is why Boeing has dropped it with the 787 program. A.net is still using customer codes on 787 photos. Hope they continue to do so as it makes it much easier to track the history of an aircraft when you can immediately identify its original operator, especially after several changes of ownership.

But BA's leased birds won't be '336ER's despite being identical to the owned planes, and BA being the first operator. BA could exclusively keep and operate them for 20 years, and they could then be sent to be made into coke cans, and they still won't have the 36 customer code...

Quoting FlyingCello (Reply 49): A 777 (or 777X) / 748i / A380 mix would give a BA type airline tremendous flexibility...

Fantasy

BA will still be flying vast numbers of 77E , a handful 77W and yes 744s in eight years time.
The fleet of 388s may have been slowing upped from the current 12 orders to something close to 20 and deliveries continuing to be received in small numbers

The 788 and 789 fleets may be due mid life upgrades and small extra options converted with small deliveries 3-4 per year continuing to be received.

At this time they WILL be looking at beginning replacement of early 772E and in the frame will be 78-10 and A350 models.

BA has NO NEED for the 748i at any time soon.

It adds nothing to the mix what so ever.

Remember this is an airline slot constrained at its primary Hub.

Now if you are talking IAG as group the 748i may suit IB growth on some of the longer South America runs but not the BA network.

The only 748 models in BA colours are and will be the GSSA 748Fs working out of Stansted and Frankfurt.

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 51): BA has NO NEED for the 748i at any time soon.

So you are saying that there is no route in the BA network, where a 748i could be effectively deployed? More efficient perhaps than an under-utilised A380? Or providing additional capacity where a 77E/77W isn't enough?

Maybe LH got it wrong...

LH got a very special launch deal on those 748i frames as did Korean. Further the LH strategy differs considerably to BA in that they don't operate many multiple daily trans Atlantic rotations.Rather they deploy the 748i/388 and 346 on routes where BA would do two daily 77E - This differentiator won't change any time soon . BA go for frequency every time.

(By the way this is a strength and weakness of BA - No one else operates 8+ daily New York services from any other hub !)

The LH deal is almost certainly not available to BA and anyways these days BA are VERY conservative carrier when it comes to launch technology.

And Yes i am saying that the current BA network (They are effectively a TALC carrier in the main) would not benefit from a four engined 748i over say a 77W/772 mix with the 388 on the JFK shuttles Bejing Hong Kong and South Africa routes.

The remaining 744s will live on for another decade where cargo uplift is required and frequency is limited - thats much of the sub -continent , the hand full of South American routes and Australia.

As i say the good old 747 will still be with BA for a long time yet just don't expect the 748i to replace it .

Remember the next gen Airbus A350-900/1000 and Boeings 78-10 77X NG twins are expected to have significant capacity increases on the SLF deck and below for pallets thats pretty close to that of the current 744 and with far better economics even than the 748i and BA need nothing much beyond ETOPS 180 twin engine limitations anywhere.

BA chose will be from one of those new large twins with a decision perhaps around the 2015 timeframe.

Quoting FlyingCello (Reply 52): So you are saying that there is no route in the BA network, where a 748i could be effectively deployed?

British Airways have themselves stated they see no place for the B747-8i. You may choose to disbelieve that if you so wish.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 54): So you are saying that there is no route in the BA network, where a 748i could be effectively deployed? British Airways have themselves stated they see no place for the B747-8i. You may choose to disbelieve that if you so wish.

Even without BA saying so, it's very hard to see a place for it between the 77W and A380 (which will be coming next year) and as if that weren't enough, the 779X would blow any case for the 748i out of the water.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 48): The 777-9X would likely be a better platform as it has plenty of floor space for premium seating thanks to the fuselage stretch.

Quoting FlyingCello (Reply 49): A 777 (or 777X) / 748i / A380 mix would give a BA type airline tremendous flexibility...

The 777-9 will be an excellent 744 replacement for those routes that cannot fill a 380. No need for 748 as total 744 replacement is not that urgent with 380s coming soon.

I see an overall need for replacements to be a bit bigger than the frames being replaced, to cover PAX growth on most routes. I think most of the 772s will end up being replaced by 359 / 3510, which will sit nicely below 777-9. 359 mainly to replace 3 class 772, and 3510 to replace 4 class 772, with an F cabin ahead of more or less than same 3 class cabins as in the 359s. Obviously there will be various configurations, as now, so there will be 3 class 3510 also.

Similar for 788 / 789 replacing 767s. Plus 787s enabling opening new routes which 767s cannot now do at the longer ranges.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 39): Umm... no. 777-300ER/200LR are also "classic" 777s. There is nothing "next generation" about them, as they were planned as a part of the 777 family when the original 777-200 was conceived. The 777-8X and 777-9X will be the "NG" 777.

The 777X is the third generation of the 777 family. The first generation was the 777-200, -200ER and -300(no-ER).

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 54): British Airways have themselves stated they see no place for the B747-8i. You may choose to disbelieve that if you so wish.

BA also chose the 748i internally before Airbus made them an exceptional commercial offer on the A380. Also, the world has moved on, fuel has continued to rise, and companies are actually allowed to change their minds, believe it or not. So it's not about me disbelieving BA...simply putting forward a hypothetical situation.

But thank you for putting me right.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 57): The 777X is the third generation of the 777 family.

You are entitled to your opinion however I and many others do not see that as a generational leap. There is just not enough change between the 300 and 300ER I believe, however you are entitled to disagree. The B707-320B was not an NG B707 although it was a much improved aircraft on an existing airframe. It's hard to justify a generational leap a mere eight years from entry into service.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 50): But BA's leased birds won't be '336ER's despite being identical to the owned planes, and BA being the first operator. BA could exclusively keep and operate them for 20 years, and they could then be sent to be made into coke cans, and they still won't have the 36 customer code...

That's an interesting point will these new orders be owned or leased?

I think the 36NERs (four) are the only BA Boeing aircraft without the 36 code but even if they bought the leases of those four they would still be 36Ns.

Quoting FlyingCello (Reply 58): BA also chose the 748i internally before Airbus made them an exceptional commercial offer on the A380.

I personally (and I'm no expert) don't understand any airline that operates both the 748i and the A380 when there are so many options available for 'the other' smaller long-haul frame in your fleet.

I'm of the opinion that LH were trigger happy with the cheque book during better times when the outlook was far far better.

They may have got them cheap but still.

As for BA I'm sure they did look at the 748i but it was always going to be one or the other not both.

Quoting BA174 (Reply 60): I think the 36NERs (four) are the only BA Boeing aircraft without the 36 code but even if they bought the leases of those four they would still be 36Ns.

Currently yes but the tranche of B737-300s in the 90s were 36Ns amongst others, none were B737-336 as they were leased for a time then passed on.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 56): I see an overall need for replacements to be a bit bigger than the frames being replaced, to cover PAX growth on most routes.

The first question one needs to ask is why BA needed a fleet of 744s. The natural answer is their size and load carrying capacity. But in this case, although important, this was not the main reason.

At the time of the first BA 744 order in August 1986 the airline operated a fleet of sixteen 741s. They had by then all been re-engined with the P&W JT9D-7. This re-engining increased the range of these aircraft to 4,500 miles making them ideal for use on many North Atlantic routes. Similarly the sixteen 742s in the BA fleet had been re-engined with the RR RB 211-524D4 engine. This increased their range to 6,500 miles. This was good, for example, for LHR-LAX but not far enough for BA to operate direct between LHR and BBK, HKG, NRT and SIN that were, for them, all important destinations.

So range was a more important consideration than passenger carrying capability. And this was reflected in the late 1990s when the 772ER had become operational.

As of April 1998 BA had received 50 744s from Boeing and had outstanding orders for a further sixteen plus an option on seven more. In May 1998 they cancelled their order for four 744s and instead ordered five more 772ERs, a type that had first entered service with BA fifteen months earlier. Just three months later in the following August they cancelled orders for a further five and all their remaining options on the 744. Instead they ordered sixteen 772ERs.

This was all part of the BA "future size and shape" strategy.

We are now seeing the smaller 77W replacing the first 744s to be removed from service. Again the 77W is a smaller aircraft than the 744. This is not to say that BA will not order more VLAs in the form of the 380. But it is strongly indicative that the BA "future size and shape" and "frequency" strategies designed to attract premium class customers is likely to result in some 744s currently in service being replaced by smaller aircraft. This is directly confirmed by BA's CEO, Keith Williams, with his comments about the 350 and the 777X in his interview linked in Reply 18.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 63): We are now seeing the smaller 77W replacing the first 744s to be removed from service. Again the 77W is a smaller aircraft than the 744. This is not to say that BA will not order more VLAs in the form of the 380. But it is strongly indicative that the BA "future size and shape" and "frequency" strategies designed to attract premium class customers is likely to result in some 744s currently in service being replaced by smaller aircraft. This is directly confirmed by BA's CEO, Keith Williams, with his comments about the 350 and the 777X in his interview linked in Reply 18.

To be honest I think I have an idea 'what' they will order but I havn't got a clue how many of each type.

Everything is so up in the air (sorry) at the moment with the world I guess they will be cautious ?

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 61): I personally (and I'm no expert) don't understand any airline that operates both the 748i and the A380 when there are so many options available for 'the other' smaller long-haul frame in your fleet.

At the time they placed their order, LH was planning a roughly 100-seat step change between the A340-600 (306 seats), 747-8 (420 seats) and A380-800 (525 seats).

As delivered, the 747-8 has 362 seats - not much more than the 322-seat 747-400 model - due to it having the new Business Class seating that takes up a good bit more floor space due to the enhanced pitch and that the seats are 2+2+2 as opposed to 2+3+2 of the older style on the 747-400 (and in 2+2+2 on the A340-600 and A380-800). Should LH refit their A340-600 and A380-800 with the new seats, that will bring down their seat counts, as well.


As for KE, I have not heard about their seating configuration for the 747-8, but considering the low-density configuration of their A380-800s, I would be inclined to guess that they will use it like LH does - where premium cabin loads are high, but Economy is not and therefore we'll see a configuration of around 300 seats - similar to the 777-300ER, but with probably double the First Class and 50% more Business Class seats.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 61): I'm of the opinion that LH were trigger happy with the cheque book during better times when the outlook was far far better.

LH has wanted a larger 747 for over a decade. They pushed Boeing for the 747X and 747X Stretch in the early 2000s and showed strong interest in the 747 Advanced. Once Boeing finally decided to pull the trigger on a new 747, LH was going to be the launch customer.

[Edited 2012-07-07 11:37:36]

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9): BA's 747-400s still have useful life in them and the large premium cabin configuration of the LHR birds means that even though they cost a fair bit to operate, they generate significant revenues.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 10): And BA usually keeps their birds for a pretty long while in the fleet.

When I read your comments I checked to see if this was a QF sould've ordered the B777 thread...

Nice to see BA adding to their already strong B777 fleet...

EK413

Quoting Stitch (Reply 65):

That's all very well but it doesn't answer my concern.

Wouldn't the 773 have been a better option for axample ?

To quote one source...

Using only two engines produces a typical operating cost advantage of around 8–9 percent for the −300ER over the A340-600,along with a 20 percent fuel burn advantage over the 747-400. Several airlines have acquired the −300ER as a 747-400 replacement amid rising fuel prices.

I just don't understand why an airline would want another '4 holer' after the A380. Not with with the options available today.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 67): Wouldn't the 773 have been a better option for example?

Perhaps, but LH already had a large Airbus A340-300 and A340-600 fleet, so they chose to add more A340-600s instead of moving to the 777-300ER.

That being said, the only real benefit the 777-300ER would offer over the A340-600 would be being able to fit 9-seats per row of Economy and between the A340-600's extra 1.5m of fuselage width and lower hold lavatories, the actual difference in seat-count between the two would probably be minimal.

Therefore, only the 747-8 offered LH the ability to put in an appreciable jump in both Business Class and Economy Class seats compared to the 777-300ER / A340-600.

The problem is the options are not available today, they are in the pipeline. The B747-8i is not in favour as an NG B777 is expected as well as a growth A350. However that distant day is not getting close any time soon. Hence four engined aircraft, ( a much nicer way of phrasing it for the love of Almighty God !) based on an older platform may yet be a good option. No point in jam tomorrow if no jam today means people shop elsewhere. Ask QANTAS.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 57): The 777X is the third generation of the 777 family. The first generation was the 777-200, -200ER and -300(no-ER).

Incorrect.

777-200LR was initially conceived alongside 777-200 and -200ER (hint: "C-market" 777, read the model history).
The 777-300ER was studied initially as the "HGW" model of the original -300.

They are all same generation aircraft, with -200LR/-300ER being younger by a few years.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 63): Similarly the sixteen 742s in the BA fleet had been re-engined with the RR RB 211-524D4 engine. This increased their range to 6,500 miles. This was good, for example, for LHR-LAX but not far enough for BA to operate direct between LHR and BBK, HKG, NRT and SIN that were, for them, all important destinations.

Just to make a small correction, BA did operate the 747-236 with the RB211-524D4D non-stop to BKK, HKG and NRT, from Heathrow, albeit with some payload restrictions, in both directions.

As soon as the 747-400's arrived in significant numbers, the 747-236's were displaced back to less range critical routes, as the -400's could operated without the same payload restriction, due to the -400's greater MTOW, range and passenger capacity.

These routes only became non-stop for BA when the 747-236 RR engines were uprated to the D4D spec, around 1986/7. SIN did however remain out of range for BA, and even SQ could only fly non-stop LHR-SIN with their 747-300's in the mid/late 1980's, but couldn't manage the longer SIN-LHR sector due to the prevailing headwinds. SQ would stop in Abu Dhabi. Only with the advent of the 747-400 could both BA and SQ operate the LHR-SIN-LHR route non-stop in both directions.

MANfan



[Edited 2012-07-08 10:51:28]