User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:56 pm

Quoting TedToToe (Reply 24):
I do not see floor space as the be all and end all, especially where BA is concerned. They show no sign of going 10 abreast in their 77E's or 77W's

The 777X cabin will be comparable to a 747-400 cabin at 10Y. BA will have no problem with that -- they can use the extra space for J.

Quoting StTim (Reply 27):
The 777X is a great ME3 product for the rest however the jury is still largely out.

The 777-8X is a ME3 product. The 777-9X isn't. It's intended for any airline that has big, reliable, heavily premium trunk routes. That describes a bunch of European and Asian carriers, and possibly even one (AA) in North America. And, sure enough, LH, CX, and NH have already signed up with 5 years to go before first delivery.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:39 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 50):
The 777-9X isn't. It's intended for any airline that has big, reliable, heavily premium trunk routes. That describes a bunch of European and Asian carriers, and possibly even one (AA) in North America.

I'll also suggest maybe AC, along with AA would be North American 777X operators.

While AA would probably order the -9 only, could AC benefit from both the -8 and -9?
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12838
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:13 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 51):
I'll also suggest maybe AC, along with AA would be North American 777X operators.

Though it'll likely take them a while, I'd add DL to that list.

They'll have their 77Ls for a while, but might want the 778 to continue their JNB ops.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
trex8
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 3:08 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 20):
United just ordered 10 77W "to replace their 10 oldest 744", the 35 A350-1000 they have also ordered will replace some 744 and 777-200ER, which at UA are among the oldest. For UA its NOT a straight A350-1000 for 744 replacement.

Wasnt the original A359 order a "744 replacement"?
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 3:14 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 51):

AC used to think they need the 77L on routes like YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG, which was true earlier on.

But as time passed, it was apparently the 77W's slight performance hit is more than covered by its superior economics and revenue potential. For that, I see 779 for AC but not 778.

For AA, their 77W are simply too new for them to be even thinking about replacement.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 3:57 am

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 54):
AC used to think they need the 77L on routes like YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG, which was true earlier on.

But as time passed, it was apparently the 77W's slight performance hit is more than covered by its superior economics and revenue potential. For that, I see 779 for AC but not 778.

Fair enough, but I feel they'd probably want to see performance of it.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 54):
For AA, their 77W are simply too new for them to be even thinking about replacement.

Why would 777-9s need to replace the 777-300ER? Seems like they can be added with relative ease.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 4:06 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 55):

AA's fleet of 77W is only 20 when all is said and done, and I don't see the need for more than 15 779 to compliment that.

So instead of having a mixed fleet of 20+15, having 35 of the same might be easier when factoring in more fleet commonality and Boeing's willingness to discount the 77W a lot more significantly to bridge the production gap.

Unlike the old AA which had a heavy dependency on LHR, the new AA has a PHL that can significantly spread TATL traffic across more flights, and thus reducing the need for a twin VLA.

-----

On the topic of AC, I don't have the figures of 778/779, but I have decent confidence in Boeing that 778/779 would have a very similar dynamic to 332/333, 338/339, and 77L/77W. I can't really think of any major potential routes for AC that a 778 might be markedly superior to either 789 or 779. Can you ?

Maybe a wild card flight like YYZ-JNB.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 4:24 am

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 56):
AA's fleet of 77W is only 20 when all is said and done, and I don't see the need for more than 15 779 to compliment that

15 was the number I was thinking    AA has obviously been successful utilizing the 777-300ER, and adding the 777-9 would allow the 777-300ERs to go to growing markets, among other things.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 56):
So instead of having a mixed fleet of 20+15, having 35 of the same might be easier when factoring in more fleet commonality and Boeing's willingness to discount the 77W a lot more significantly to bridge the production gap.

It seems unlikely, but I wonder if Boeing will try and get AA into a 777-300ER/777-9 deal.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 56):
I can't really think of any major potential routes for AC that a 778 might be markedly superior to either 789 or 779. Can you ?

The only one that's sticking out YVR-SYD. Maybe YYZ-HKG and a few other Asian cities. How many 77Ls does AC have?
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18266
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:42 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 46):
Too many gaps, the way I see it. Yes, that'd be very modern and efficient, just not very flexible.

It is a very flexible fleet when you look at BA's route network and how they operate. The fact is, until they recently took 77Ws as interim lift, they operated very happily with nothing between the 77E and 744.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
steve6666
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 1:58 am

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 11:25 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 58):
The fact is, until they recently took 77Ws as interim lift, they operated very happily with nothing between the 77E and 744.

That's true, but some 77Es have 275 seats, and some 744s only have 291 - albeit of course with very different distributions between F and Y.

Which all goes to emphasise just how flexible a B777/A350 fleet can be in different seating configurations.
A306, A318, A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A343, A346, A388, B722, B732, B733, B734, B735, B73G, B738, B742, B744, B752, B753, B762, B763, B764, B772, B773, B77W, B787-8, BAe-146, Cessna Something, DC-10, E175, E195, ERJ145, MD-11, MD-80, PA Something
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2494
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:40 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 33):
The 747-8 is a lemon?

It's hardly a world beater, and it's barely a 77W beater.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 33):
There's no proof that more will order the 777X?

There isn't, until the deal is signed there is only speculation. There is a very high probability of big 777X success, but until the deals are signed we have no proof.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 38):
There's no denying that, but the 747-8 has found homes at airlines who use them effectively. The statement about it is laughable.

Any airliner can be effective if you use it right, Concorde delivered huge profits for BA once they twigged how much value customers thought it had.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 38):
And why bring up the 748? I didn't bring it up.

In this bracket from the A35K to the A380, everything in between is relevant to an extent.

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 44):
Except BA intend to have a 3 type long haul fleet.

No evidence of this. BA could well order 779s.

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 44):
That's an equally modern, versatile and efficient fleet with the cost savings of one less type.

It is, and while BA might have decided that the A380-A35K gap is not in need of cover, it's not as if the 779 would be a misfit given that it's the same size as the 744 and has a degree of commonality with the 77W.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 45):
The point I'm merely trying to convey is that I think there's some space within BA's fleet for the 777-9

Maybe, but BA's fleet planners may think differently.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 46):
Too many gaps, the way I see it. Yes, that'd be very modern and efficient, just not very flexible.

As above, gaps do not necessarily need to be filled. However I fail to see how it would be inflexible given that the A380 already occupies a small but important niche, and the 781 and A35K can shoulder the capacity that BA may want.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 49):
I believe that the 779 in BA configuration would be substantially larger than the A351 which could be appealing to BA if they have routes where they are confident they will fill a 744 but don't need the A380. As the 747 fleet is so large I do think there are routes where this will apply.

Would it be that big? I thought that the more premium you get, the less difference in seats there is likely to be. The 779 could very well be appealing, but there's only speculation and some quotes from Walsh to go on.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 49):
I believe that BA would go 10-abreast in Y as it seems every carrier will. Plus at 8-abreast in business that could offer some serious revenue opportunity advantages over the A351. They have a very large 777 fleet and I just don't see them sitting this round out.

The 787 and A350 will almost inevitably take up the 777's role at BA, for the 772 even more likely. The 77W itself is handily replaced by the A350, it's more about the 747's and whether BA think they'd rather go for the low risk 781 and A35K.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 49):
Some here have been focused on 747 replacement and I agree that is the core of the market but I do think some of BA's A351s and 781s may come in as 747 replacements but then be used to upgrade 77E routes when that replacement happens right around the corner and then there will be opportunity to upgrade 77W/A351/781 routes up to the 779 if BA experiences growth.

Maybe, but the 772 retirement is well into the future, and BA can easily order 787s and A350s and not suffer any commonality disadvantages. Availability is not so important because BA plan for the long term, but I see them ordering more 789s and A359s for this purpose.
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:02 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 60):
No evidence of this. BA could well order 779s.

It's been known internally for years and well documented on here if you care to look back, therefore, your affirmation is moot.
Flying around India
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2494
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:06 pm

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 61):
It's been known internally for years and well documented on here if you care to look back, therefore, your affirmation is moot.

When you say internally, do you mean that the management have made a decision that they will not order any more than 3 types for long haul, or is it company rumour?

Well-documented on A.net doesn't convince me either. I'd read a source and I'll accept that my speculation is completely wrong, but I've never seen any evidence suggesting that BA will not consider the 777X in any guise at any point.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18266
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 4:27 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 62):
I've never seen any evidence suggesting that BA will not consider the 777X in any guise at any point.

It would be a bit silly for BA to publicly say they weren't interested in the 777X.

However, the lack of such a statement doesn't mean they are considering it or that there isn't a "three types for long-haul" policy. An airline doesn't have to publish everything for our benefit.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
scotron11
Topic Author
Posts: 1432
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 4:27 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 62):
Well-documented on A.net doesn't convince me either. I'd read a source and I'll accept that my speculation is completely wrong, but I've never seen any evidence suggesting that BA will not consider the 777X in any guise at any point.

great plane notwithstanding, I do not see any reason why BA would purchase this aircraft. They are only flying the 77W by default, not because they had a need and ordered it.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 4:39 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 63):
However, the lack of such a statement doesn't mean they are considering it or that there isn't a "three types for long-haul" policy. An airline doesn't have to publish everything for our benefit.

I very much doubt a company with the analytical capability of IAG has such a hard and fast rule that is uninformed by analysis.

IAG and BA will evaluate the 777-9 just like other aircraft. If all of the analysis reveals that the return on additional A350-1000 purchases is greater than the return on 777-9 purchases, BA will stick with the A350 in this segment. If the analysis reveals that the 777-9's additional revenue potential makes the additional cost worth it, BA will introduce the 777-9. The 777-300ER was not in their fleet plan but the numbers showed that first leasing a few, and then buying a few more, was justified.

[Edited 2015-07-08 09:40:09]
 
fcogafa
Posts: 1199
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:37 pm

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 4:49 pm

[reply=65]great plane notwithstanding, I do not see any reason why BA would purchase this aircraft. They are only flying the 77W by default, not because they had a need and ordered it. [/quote]

And BA subsequently said they wished they had ordered the B77W earlier as it worked so well for them
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:29 pm

Quoting trex8 (Reply 53):
Wasnt the original A359 order a "744 replacement"?

I don't think we can trust what many of these large public companies say about fleet replacement. Wall St analysts are hung up on capacity discipline and likewise the US3 are trying to limit indications of fleet and capacity growth. I prefer to look at their actions which point me to growth rather than restrictions going forward.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 54):
For that, I see 779 for AC but not 778.

Their 77Ls are young aircraft and they knew the 77W performance before they bought them and still chose them. I believe they use them effectively on their polar routes out of YYZ and I could see a small fleet of 778s to continue that role but down the road.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 56):
I can't really think of any major potential routes for AC that a 778 might be markedly superior to either 789 or 779. Can you ?
Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 57):
The only one that's sticking out YVR-SYD.

I see YYZ routes to Asia that have cargo. It would be a small fleet, no doubt.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 58):
The fact is, until they recently took 77Ws as interim lift, they operated very happily with nothing between the 77E and 744.

I wouldn't say happy. Willie Walsh said that his only regret was that he didn't order the 77W sooner.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 60):
No evidence of this.

It was stated pretty clearly from the airline. I can't find the quote myself but they did say it. Now the 787 and 777 share a common type rating so does change the dynamic? Will they change their mind by 2020s...a lot can happen.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 60):
Would it be that big?

In my view the 779 could have as few as 41 seats or as many as 63 more seats than a comparably equipped A351 in BA configuration. It could be a solid step difference. Their high-density Club World makes a difference.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 60):
Availability is not so important because BA plan for the long term, but I see them ordering more 789s and A359s for this purpose.

But that is kinda my point. I was responding to the point that people are making to say that BA have already earmarked the A350 and the 787 for 747 replacement so there is no longer room for the 779....but I believe that the 787 and the A350s will be the core of their long haul fleet so ordering them now for 747 replacement and then transitioning those same airplanes to 77E replacement when that time comes and possibly upgrading to the 779 where appropriate, still seems viable.

The A350s and 787s will be needed regardless for 77E replacement so that is not an argument against a 779 purchase.

Quoting Scotron11 (Reply 64):
They are only flying the 77W by default, not because they had a need and ordered it.

I do not believe this is true.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
thekorean
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:05 pm

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:10 pm

What does BA fly to MCO from Gatwick? VS flies 747 I think. 779 has the capacity to nearly match.
 
rtfm
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:35 pm

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:21 pm

Quoting thekorean (Reply 68):
What does BA fly to MCO from Gatwick?

A 3 class 777-200ER. (All the LGW long-haul flying is 777-200ERs.)
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

RE: BA And The 778 Or 779

Thu Jul 09, 2015 11:27 pm

Quoting thekorean (Reply 68):

What does BA fly to MCO from Gatwick? VS flies 747 I think. 779 has the capacity to nearly match.
Quoting RTFM (Reply 69):
A 3 class 777-200ER. (All the LGW long-haul flying is 777-200ERs.)

I would think that's a made for a 78J sort of route. It would allow for growth and at 3700 nm falls close to that planes "sweet spot" for range. I would think the 779 makes more sense for VS since they're the ones flying 4-5 400+ pax 744s over, assuming they want to maintain current seat count.

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