Ok, showing my age here but I was around for implemtation of B767-300 ERs with my group. Over the years I found them to be strong, comfortable, reliable aircraft. Only thing stronger was the DC10-30 and 747.
Are they really past their T/X. They're all mostly paid for with the legacy carriers. Are mtce costs sufficiently high to justify replacement for exactly what benefits?
I don't see similar new aircraft replacing their role to a significant advantage. OK, B787 has longer range - is that enough to justify a replacement cost?
I guess my question is more of at which point does an airline order replacement aircraft for a particular type? Being that the 767s have an average age of 12yrs, and the 787 will not even fly until 2008, if they do decide that the 787 is the one for them, when would they place an order to guarantee an EIS when they decide to stand down their 767s?
Even if they ordered today, and with the 787 order book standing at between 200-300 aircraft, the earliest would probably be 2011-2012, no? And by then, of course, the 767s will be closer to 20yrs old!
In view of the present finances 20 yr span looks to be acceptable and I feal sure that which ever maker offers the best deal will be the a/c of choice. There has even been suggestions that we could eventually at BA be an all Airbus fleet with the exception of the 777 as commonality of fleet would offer costs savings and that will be a major concern over the next 10 years.
Presumably the intention is to have the A350 on a dual rating with the A320, as carriers already do with the A330. Equally, the intention is for the 777 and 787 to be a dual rating. In which case, expect BA to go for whoever offers it the best deal at the time
The big question, will BA order the A380? If it does, this may smooth a path towards the A350....
In terms of its fleet, Eddington said BA's near-term focus is looking for a 767 replacement. "However, we are just putting flat beds in our 767s and they will be in service for another five years, while the 747-400s will be in service for another ten," he said. He suggested that BA's 767 replacements could even be more 777s rather than 787s or A350s. "It could be dash 300ERs, which is a superb 747-400 replacement, and more dash 200s and even the dash 200LR."
That's a stupid thing to say! Would you prefer BA had a 'buy European First' policy? An airline buys what it thinks suits it best and what it can afford, just as you buy whatever car you chose. Do you drive foreign? I do. 2 highly expensive German automobiles, and lovely they are too. I think the UK has moved on a bit from the 70s 'I'm backing Britain campaign'. Got us buying crap Brit cars instead of the best. Just let BA buy whatever it gets the best deal on just as you buy whatever is best value for you!
Airbus may be a European, indeed a partially British company, but components for the Airbus are made globally, even the US and here in Canada. The same can be said for Boeing products or our domestic Bombardier aircraft. These are to a large extent global companies now.
BA are not exactly known for a 'young fleet' policy unless they are replacing something completely uncompetitive. The 74 Clasics used on the JFK run in their last years were literally falling to pieces in their last days and must have ben about 27 years old. As Mr E has said the 744s are around for along time to come.
I would have throught that having a decent sized triple 7 fleet there was a lot to be said for a mix of Standard 777s (RR engined) LR ones and 300 s to replace the older 744s.
Also gives BA a nice middle of the road position with suppliers SH=Airbus 320 series which vastly superior from Pax view than Boeings. LH = Boeings mostly 777, which while not my fave plane to look at (hardly matters does it) seems to do the job pretty well.
Looks to me like BA have got a good fleet strategy -finally- and have the option of adding 'debugged' 787s or 380s maybe around 2010 without any short term risk
Nobody's mentioned 747 Advanced yet. Sounds like it might be a better fit for BA in a few years time than the A380: fits between 744 and A380, 8k nm range, minimum risk. Seems to be a good idea out of Seattle/Everett
A350 would seem a better fit.Unlike the 777-200LR / -300ER you have a choice of engines. A350-900 comes with GENX or RR Trent engines being developed for the 787,except they are not bleedless,and its family is being groomed as an A300/A343/767/777-200A replacement.
I hear the sales of A350 are not what they were hoping,so perhaps BA will get a good deal? A350 EIS is around 2010 when the 767s are due to be phased out,and the production slots are there for the taking.
Couldn't agree more! Why does a 767 replacement (which isn't needed for the foreseeable future anyway) incite such comment, criticism, and suggestions to the BA buying department how to do their job better?