Good Afternoon
Does anyone have an update on the delivery of the remaining 5 Airbus 320 due at Gatwick?
Deliveries seemed to have slipped again. There are only 3 Boeing 737 left now as one left for Victorville earlier this week for scrapping. Aircraft are regularly used/swapped from LHR and Titan is helping out too. Not sure if Titan is also connected to crew issues too as they have also been used at Heathrow quite a bit.
On the plus side the new services from Gatwick seem to be doing very well and judging by current fares on most routes it should be a good summer for BA at LGW.
Any news most appreciated.
Thanks
V

they cant be that concerned if yet another 734 just left the fleet last week. If they were desperate surely they could have been kept on

I would have a guess and say there fine at the moment at LGW as yes the 737 left a few days ago and they have Titan A320 for month I would say the 737 was due for a heavy check

Titan is flying at LHR because A320 are helping out at LGW and there is reduced spare aircraft.
Ba B767 are also flying A320 routes out of LHR due shortage of A320.

Quoting by738 (Reply 1): they cant be that concerned if yet another 734 just left the fleet last week. If they were desperate surely they could have been kept on

BA most usually schedules retirements followed by a ferry flight to the desert when the aircraft concerned is due a major, expensive service.

Economics determine that an old, fuel thirsty, fully written down aircraft like the remaining BA 734s is more economic to fly than a new, fuel efficient aircraft. But the cost of a major maintenance procedure taking up thousands of skilled engineering hours alters that equation. At that point it is likely more cost effective to retire the aircraft and wet lease a replacement.

Of course sometimes there is no available alternative to paying out for the unplanned service thus prolonging the operating life of an aircraft. We saw this as a result of the late delivery of 380s (because BA refused to accept delivery of aircraft with the old, unmodified wing).

Anticipating an earlier delivery of these aircraft BA did not install their New First product in fourteen 'Mid J' configured 744s. These were the aircraft in their 744 fleet where fitting the New First product would not be cost effective.

The first 744 to be configured with the new F Class cabin had been returned to service in March 2010. The last of 27 'Hi J' configured 744s to receive the update was ferried to CWL to have the new cabin fitted in April 2012. One of the aircraft excluded from this update was G-CIVA. But the delay in the 380 delivery resulted in a major maintenance procedure instead of retirement for this aircraft. The aircraft entered service after having its operational life extended and after fitting with the New First product in July 2014 more than two years after the 744 upgrade programme was originally scheduled to be completed. Where did the 'F' Class seats come from? 744 G-BNLT as it required a major maintenance procedure before 'VA.

So major maintenance procedures have a very strong influence on when an aircraft is retired. Putting a 734 through such a procedure simply to operate it for another few weeks is an unlikely scenario. .

Quote: Does anyone have an update on the delivery of the remaining 5 Airbus 320 due at Gatwick?

The most up to date delivery information (subject to change) is:

G–GATN - 10/Jul
G–GATO - Sep/Oct
G–GATP - 20/Jul
G–GATR - 30/Aug
G–GATS - 03/Aug

Several Airbuses were due for repainting this summer but due to the lack of aircraft this has been deferred until winter.

Current LHR based Airbuses at LGW:

G–EUOB - Transferred to LGW permanently until end of S15
G–EUOD - Transferred to LGW permanently until end of S15
G–EUOE - Transferred to LGW permanently until end of S15
G–EUPN - Due to swap with G–DBCG on 7/Jul
G–EUPS
G–EUUW - Due to swap with G–EUUA on 6/Jul

Quote: They cant be that concerned if yet another 734 just left the fleet last week. If they were desperate surely they could have been kept on

All of the B734s should of left the fleet by now but have been extended. Due to mandatory reasons however they aren't allowed to fly beyond certain dates, the last of which being 06/Oct for G–DOCX.

Quoting TCX69K (Reply 5): The most up to date delivery information (subject to change) is: G–GATN - 10/Jul G–GATO - Sep/Oct G–GATP - 20/Jul G–GATR - 30/Aug G–GATS - 03/Aug

Thanks for the update.

As at May 2014 these were the planned delivery dates:

G-GATH: October 2014. Delivered 2 April 2015
G-GATJ: November 2014. Delivered 19 December 2014
G-GATK: January 2015. Delivered 12 December 2014
G-GATL: January 2015. Delivered 16 January 2014
G-GATM: ? Delivered 16 February 2015
G-GATN: February 2015. See above
G-GATO: March 2015. See above
G-GATP: March 2015. See above
G-GATR: March 2015. See above
G-GATS: March 2015, See above

Earlier in another thread (that I cannot locate) TristarSteve reported that the delay in delivery of the 320s had resulted in cost escalations through unplanned 734 maintenance, unplanned 734 flight crew simulator checks and temporary transfers of both Heathrow based aircraft and even an E-190 wet leased from BA CityFlyer. To that I would add the cost of aircraft wet leased from other operators including Iberia and Titan Airways.,

Quoting TCX69K (Reply 5): The most up to date delivery information (subject to change) is: G–GATN - 10/Jul G–GATO - Sep/Oct G–GATP - 20/Jul G–GATR - 30/Aug G–GATS - 03/Aug

Still n o sign of G-GATN. Yet more delays?

Would be grateful for any update on the delayed deliveries. The July delivery seems to be slipping for G-GATN.

Many thanks

Do we know why there are these delivery delays?
I can think of these as possibilities, but have no idea which might apply:
Poor condition of planes as delivered to the refit centre, causing unexpected extra work;
Shortage of the seats specified by BA as standard on short-haul;
Inefficiency or strikes at the refit centre;
Documentation for planes not in order (maintenance records, especially);
but there will surely be others too.
Any ideas what the real reason is?

Perhaps they should have delayed sending the B737 to the desert.

If they had parked a few at Cardiff they would not now be needing to sub in capacity.

Quoting Andy33 (Reply 9): Poor condition of planes as delivered to the refit centre, causing unexpected extra work; Documentation for planes not in order (maintenance records, especially)

A combination of these two looks most likely to me. The additional work won't necessarily be time consuming, but getting reports from previous mx visits certainly could be!

It strikes me if these are the reasons for the delivery delays then someone within BA engineering hasn't done their homework on the airframes history.
They surely must knew of the condition before signing the dotted line to take them.

And when the whole LGW operation comes crashing down because they're haemorrhaging money on unreliable aircraft, the reason given at Waterside will be "'Because Gatwick".

Another UK airline had the same reliability issues with second hand frames that they received, they ended up disposing of them and leasing factory fresh... reliability (obviously) improved significantly. BA have tried to be complete cheapskates to try and make LGW short haul work and it's coming back to bite them where it hurts.

They'd have been better off extending the life of the 734's, fitting the cabin out with the higher density layout with the new seats and ordering fresh A320s. If the A320's don't make any money? Redeploy or sell them. The 734's were not that bad, the problems come when every singe one is scheduled to the bone and there is no backup, that can happen to anyone.

It's been said elsewhere and I'll say it again; it comes to something when British Airways, flag carrier of the UK is taking on aircraft that Wizzair & Onur have had enough of.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 10): Perhaps they should have delayed sending the B737 to the desert. If they had parked a few at Cardiff they would not now be needing to sub in capacity.

BA and other airlines that permanently retire aircraft usually do so immediately in front of scheduled major and very expensive maintenance. Using such (old) aircraft up to the maintenance due date is very economic. Usually the aircraft has a book value written down to or below its salvage value. So there are no amortization costs. This saving far outweighs the additional cost of fuel used (compared to a more modern, fuel efficient aircraft) and additional routine on-line maintenance.

As an example BA retired a couple of 744s to the desert in the early days of the credit crunch. Later they returned these aircraft to service. However they first visited CWL. There they underwent a D Check that each aircraft undergoes around every six years. These checks employ around 200 skilled engineers over a period of about five weeks equiring a total of more than 30,000 man hours work.

Here is a link to a 59 minute video of a BA 744 undergoing a D Chneck at CWL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_yHtfGH0nI

Carrying out a D Check on a 734 and then permanently retiring it only a few weeks or months later would be totally uneconomic. So delaying the retirement date is not cost effective

Guess there be using Titan Airways through out the summer the not just the month of June

Quote
'And when the whole LGW operation comes crashing down because they're haemorrhaging money on
unreliable aircraft, the reason given at Waterside will be "'Because Gatwick".'
I doubt the situation is as serious as that. Several other UK airlines are using Titan aircraft this summer including Easyjet.
Ryanair is also leasing several airframes from various sources. It is cheaper to lease in aircraft than cancel flights and pay the compensation.
I also expect that after costs some money is still being made. Fares from Gatwick are certainly not cheap peak summer with anyone.
I also doubt that BA with their experience would have leased poor aircraft. I would also imagine the leasing company would have to contribute towards
any unforeseen costs. Even brand new aircraft suffer delays, for example the 787.
BA is doing fine this summer from Gatwick, the delivery delays are annoying but not a disaster.


Thanks
V.

Quoting Gazdon121 (Reply 15):

They must be rubbing their hands with glee.  

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 17):

Looks like there doing pretty well this season and, I ment the month of July not June

New updated delivery dates. Subject to change!

G–GATN - Aug
G–GATO - Sep/Oct
G–GATP - End Aug
G–GATR - Sep
G–GATS - Mid Aug

G–GATN is required to fly operationally at LGW from 25/Jul so another LHR A320 may have to transfer down.

As already mentioned, the LGW operation is doing very well with high load factors. The aircraft deliveries haven't got off to a good start but luckily LHR aircraft have been freed up to operate from LGW.

Just not sure their making the amount of money on these routes as they'll like (cw LHR) and so good loads may mean nothing. The CE product is dire for the money.

Quoting TCX69K (Reply 19): New updated delivery dates. Subject to change! G–GATN - Aug G–GATO - Sep/Oct G–GATP - End Aug G–GATR - Sep G–GATS - Mid Aug

Thanks for update TCX69X. Does anyone know reason for delay in these deliveries, some are 6 months overdue?

With so many A32x joining Vueling in last year you'd think some of those orders could be diverted to BA such as some of the IB orders did (G-EUYO-Y) - not sure which of these 10 were originally destined for BA?

IAG/BA must have got the G-GAT*s at a good price - does amyone know are they leased or bought from lease companies?

Quoting bluesky73 (Reply 21): With so many A32x joining Vueling in last year you'd think some of those orders could be diverted to BA such as some of the IB orders did (G-EUYO-Y) - not sure which of these 10 were originally destined for BA?

The original plan was for new A320s but the numbers around ROI appear not to have stacked up. The lack of divider at row one has gone down like a bag of cold sick with Club Europe regulars who are now on display to all and sundry during boarding   First world problems!

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 22): The original plan was for new A320s but the numbers around ROI appear not to have stacked up. The lack of divider at row one has gone down like a bag of cold sick with Club Europe regulars who are now on display to all and sundry during boarding First world problems!

When you have U2 and FR having so many new aircraft delivered per year compared to BA (short haul) it does make you wonder if BA should follow their path, keep aircraft in fleet shorter life cycle instead of what a lot of the legacy carriers do (approx 20 years).

As for the 171 config on the G-GAT*s I think it's a sad to see a legacy follow the new breed to survive but we know the new generation of airlines (FR/U2) can do this but I feel legacies need to remember their current loyal customers. I don't believe you can follow the old saying "if you can't beat them join them" - this can lead to offering no variety and an inferior product long term (the rest of your customers will join them).
Going off topic the BA CE pitch is disgraceful for customers paying those prices, seen this feedback on various websites.

Remember CE at LGW tends towards Avios redemptions and less of the revenue up front type.

Quoting vectismanpaul (Reply 16): I doubt the situation is as serious as that. Several other UK airlines are using Titan aircraft this summer including Easyjet. Ryanair is also leasing several airframes from various sources. It is cheaper to lease in aircraft than cancel flights and pay the compensation. I also expect that after costs some money is still being made. Fares from Gatwick are certainly not cheap peak summer with anyone. I also doubt that BA with their experience would have leased poor aircraft. I would also imagine the leasing company would have to contribute towards any unforeseen costs. Even brand new aircraft suffer delays, for example the 787. BA is doing fine this summer from Gatwick, the delivery delays are annoying but not a disaster.

This is always the case, but the issues at BA LGW are because the core fleet is not in place, which is different to just having a tight summer schedule! It's cheaper to lease than park owned aircraft up when not needed during winter.

BA saw cheap aircraft and were on them like a tramp on chips, at the same time as receiving shiny new aircraft from Toulouse going straight to LHR. It's a dipping a toe in the water exercise at LGW, they're experiencing delivery delays now, what is it going to cost them in the long term for upkeep of these aircraft? They drive a hard schedule from LGW, they'll be worked as hard as EZY & FR aircraft are.

I don't think it's fair to compare the 787 to the A320, the 787 is fresh from the drawing board, and thus has no proven service record, so nobody knew what kinks might need to be ironed out before entering service... which is why most have surplus aircraft to stand in for them when needed. The A320, whilst modified a fair bit since the initial concept, is proven in service.

Quoting kdhurst380 (Reply 13): It's been said elsewhere and I'll say it again; it comes to something when British Airways, flag carrier of the UK is taking on aircraft that Wizzair & Onur have had enough of.

I second that emotion.
But when the CEO is an accountant and nothing else, the spreadsheet says 'used aircraft are cheaper than new and that's all there is to know'.
If only it were that simple.
And it's not if they were not warned either.

Quoting GDB (Reply 26): it comes to something when British Airways, flag carrier of the UK is taking on aircraft that Wizzair & Onur have had enough of.

It's not the first time. The LGW 733s and 735s had seen service elsewhere before BA got them to complement purchased-from-new 734s. I think some came from the Philippines, others from elsewhere.

Quoting kdhurst380 (Reply 13): It's been said elsewhere and I'll say it again; it comes to something when British Airways, flag carrier of the UK is taking on aircraft that Wizzair & Onur have had enough of.

Winterlight favourite your tweet.

To be fair most European legacy carriers have increased seating in their cabins.
Even if BA go to 171 on some of their Airbus aircraft Easyjet are about to go to 186 on new deliveries and refit others other time.
I think we have to accept that most people want low fares in Europe. I know CE has changed but even there people want to pay less.
It is not just a Gatwick thing.
V.

Also a lot of Low cost airlines lease and then return aircraft before major maintenance to keep costs down.
Legacy costs will always be higher owing to need to provide for premium travel and all things associated with that.
To be fair upkeep of aircraft is more noticed by people then 'newness'

V

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 27): It's not the first time. The LGW 733s and 735s had seen service elsewhere before BA got them to complement purchased-from-new 734s. I think some came from the Philippines, others from elsewhere.

Some of them were a nightmare to operate and maintain.
So they even have previous negative experiences as well as informed advice to ignore.

The CEO is not an accountant, the level of ignorance on these boards at how a business actually functions is breathtaking. Does no one on here actually work in the private sector? The CEO did not take this decision by looking at his accountancy spreadsheet. Good grief, other than numbers, which to be clear are core and fundamental, what's he supposed to take a decision on? Social media sentiment analysis?

All customer experience is reflected in the base numbers, if the experience is so bad, they choose another airline. Then that is reflected in what you think is an "accountancy spreadsheet." #facepalm

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 32):

Keith Williams served as chief financial officer at one point, I think at cargo or somewhere.
But in general he is a qualified chartered accountant.

One way BA appears to have been addressing their shortage of short-haul configured aircraft is to substitute their Mid-haul 321s (J23 / Y131) on short-haul routes. So far in July I have counted 36 such substitutions plus one four-class 772 on domestic and short-haul European routes.

Here are the Mid-haul 321 flights:

G-MEDF:
2 July - LHR-DUB-LHR (BA830/29)
8 July - LHR-BRU-LHR (BA388/91)
8 July - LHR-LIN-LHR (BA574/75)
15 July - LHR-FCO-LHR (BA556/57)
16 July - LHR-GLA-LHR (BA1472/77)
16 July - LHR-GLA-LHR (BA1492/87)
17 July - LHR-FCO-LHR (BA556/57)
18 July - LHR-ARN-LHR (BA776/77)

G-MEDG:
8 July - LHR-GOT-LHR (BA792/93)
9 July - LHR-LIN-LHR (BA564/65)
16 July - LHR-NCE-LHR (BA342/43)
20 July - LHR-NCE-LHR (BA342/43)

G-MEDJ:
3 July - LHR-GVA-LHR (BA736/37)
15 July - LHR-NCE-LHR (BA342/43)
17 July - LHR-TXL-LHR (BA986/87)
18 July - LHR-LIN-LHR (BA564/65)
20 July - LHR-CPH-LHR (BA818/19)
21 July - LHR-OSL-LHR (BA762/63)

G-MEDL:
11 July - LHR-ORY-LHR (BA334/35)
11 July - LHR-DUB-LHR (BA823/24)

G-MEDM:
4 July - LHR-GVA-LHR (BA728/29)
4 July - LHR-CPH-LHR (BA818/19)
8 July - LHR-MAN-LHR (BA1382/87)
14 July - LHR-BRU-LHR (BA390 /91)
17 July - LHR-NCE-LHR (BA342/43)

G-MEDN:
3 July - LHR-OSL-LHR (BA762/63)
18 July - LHR-OSL-LHR (BA766/67)
19 July - LHR-NCE-LHR (BA342/43)
19 July - LHR-MAN-LHR (BA1396/1403)
19 July - LHR-DUB-LHR (BA838/39)

G-MEDU:
9 July - LHR-DUB-LHR (BA836/37)
9 July - LHR-EDI-LHR (BA1458/65)
10 July - LHR-MUC-LHR (BA948/49)
10 July - LHR-CPH-LHR (BA818/19)
11 July - LHR-BGO-LHR (BA758/57)
11 July - LHR-CPH-LHR (BA820/21)

The 772 was G-VIIH that operated LHR-NCE-LHR (BA354/55) on 19 July. There may have been others.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 34):

Wow, great information, Thanks.   

G–GATN is now due for delivery at LGW tomorrow (24th) as BA9252P at 1600.

Quoting TCX69K (Reply 36): G–GATN is now due for delivery at LGW tomorrow (24th) as BA9252P at 1600.

Thanks for update, at long last one of the remaining 5 on its way to LGW.

Would it be ready to enter service straight away

Quote: Would it be ready to enter service straight away

It is planned to enter service on the 27th. Operating the VCE & FNC rotations.

Quoting Gazdon121 (Reply 38): Would it be ready to enter service straight away

It is already on its way operating LGW-AGP (BA2714) this morning (25 July). And this has freed one of the 'loan' aircraft, 320 G-EUUA, to return from LGW to LHR.

They still short tho as they now got a extra titan aircraft today at LGW

Quote: They still short tho as they now got a extra Titan aircraft today at LGW

UOB is currently AOG at LGW after arriving tech from BOD on Friday morning.

UYN diverted to LIS on Friday afternoon after 2 failed attempts to land at FNC and was delayed overnight.

This has left the LGW flying programme a further 2 aircraft short for today, hence the help from Titan.

Quoting TCX69K (Reply 42):

That makes sense then

Also they been very busy today with so many charters

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 32): The CEO is not an accountant, the level of ignorance on these boards at how a business actually functions is breathtaking

Often referred to as 'The Accountant' since he is, as quoted below, also a term to illustrate a perception of him. As part of a not very positive comparison with the rather more energetic and charismatic Walsh.

Quoting shuttle9juliet (Reply 33): Keith Williams served as chief financial officer at one point, I think at cargo or somewhere. But in general he is a qualified chartered accountant.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 4): Economics determine that an old, fuel thirsty, fully written down aircraft like the remaining BA 734s is more economic to fly than a new, fuel efficient aircraft

I've re-read this several times as it doesn't quite make sense. I think what you are driving at is the capital cost of a new aircraft has a bearing on the costs that are incurred.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 32): The CEO is not an accountant, the level of ignorance on these boards at how a business actually functions is breathtaking. Does no one on here actually work in the private sector? The CEO did not take this decision by looking at his accountancy spreadsheet. Good grief, other than numbers, which to be clear are core and fundamental, what's he supposed to take a decision on? Social media sentiment analysis? All customer experience is reflected in the base numbers, if the experience is so bad, they choose another airline. Then that is reflected in what you think is an "accountancy spreadsheet

Good post. There seems to be some misunderstanding (in the posts above) between accounting for statutory reporting purposes and day to day business decisions which are based on completely different criteria.

And to add, I see I'm going to have to read the latest BA/IAG Annual Report and financial statements at some point!

[Edited 2015-07-26 05:20:03]

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 45): I've re-read this several times as it doesn't quite make sense. I think what you are driving at is the capital cost of a new aircraft has a bearing on the costs that are incurred.

It certainly does. For short-haul aircraft the 2014 British Airways Annual Report indicates that the annual capital cost of its short haul aircraft is 5.5 per cent of the difference between their original capital cost and their estimated residual (scrap) value. This is because their stated policy is to depreciate the value of its short-haul aircraft in a straight line over 18 years.

If we look at specifics, the three 734s that remain in service with BA were delivered between October 1992 and March 1993. So this means that BA has not included any capital cost for operating these aircraft in its accounts over the last four to five years.

The Boeing web site lists today's 738 price at $96 million. It also reports that their 738 selling prices are 2.9 per cent higher in the current year than they were in 2014. If we assume the same price increase over each of the last 23 years and make no allowance for price increases to cover technical improvements then the price of the 734 at the time of BA's purchase would likely have been a little more than $50 million each.

So what we see is that the price of each aircraft has approximately doubled. We also see that the annual depreciation or capital cost of each new aircraft is (5.5 per cent of $96 million) $5.3 million. So unless the additional cost of fuel for the old, fuel inefficient aircraft approaches $5 million per annum - which it cannot - then the old aircraft is lower cost to operate until . . .

When that old aircraft comes close to requiring a very expensive D Check, all the numbers will change.

I am no accountant. So if anyone with greater knowledge than mine can correct any of the above . . .

Quoting VV701 (Reply 48): I am no accountant. So if anyone with greater knowledge than mine can correct any of the above . . .

The B737-400's would have been fully written down by 2010/11. Presumably the mortgages or finance leases on these aircraft matches the accounting period. Therefore, as VV701 comments, these aircraft are cheap to operate. As an aside, I doubt BA paid the list price for these aircraft as it is usually negotiable.