BA Fleet Age

[wowzz]

On reading SLF flight reviews on other forums, one issue that comes up time after time, is the fact that the BA fleet is 'long in the tooth' and 'tired'. F3G made a similar comment regarding a recent BA flight.
Can someone please enlighten me as BA's current purchasing position regarding new aircraft [especially LH].
I for one would quite like to fly with BA on an aircraft that is less than 10 years old!

[One Outsider]

Aircraft age and cabin condition are two separate things.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Agree about the cabin condition, as long as you fly long haul and keep off the B747 & B767 fleet you have a chance of a 10 years or less a/c.
Some of the B777-200s are new and the the B777-300s start to be delivered next month.

[L337]

I for one would quite like to fly with BA on an aircraft that is less than 10 years old!

Why?

I fly the 747-400 and they are well over 10 years old. If they are unsafe please tell me so I can report it to BA the press the CAA and my wife.

[PAXboy]

I agree that most passengers will take the condition of the cabin interior to be indicative of the age of the airframe. That is because they will, not unreasonably think that it is like a domestic car - where the interior reflects the age of the vehicle.

If the aircraft has passed it's airworthiness, then it is airworthy. Once in a blue moon these things are fiddle but not usually in Western European carriers!!

In some web sites, folks don't have much to ßitch about and 'age' is often an easy choice.

[raffele]

Can someone please enlighten me as BA's current purchasing position regarding new aircraft [especially LH].
I for one would quite like to fly with BA on an aircraft that is less than 10 years old!

Well, they have some shiny new 777-300's coming very soon. There's that A380 order placed with deliveries due 2012 onwards I believe, and the 787 order placed at the same time.

In the meantime, BA have a lovely fleet of brand new aircraft which you can take your pick of. Cityflier services from LCY use new E170s from Embraer, and if you have a few bob you can hop aboard one of their 4 brand new A318s operating LCY-JFK. Additionally, a fair number of the A320 series fleet is young with an average age across A319/320/321 of 6.5 years.

As for the 'older' aircraft, as previously mentioned if they weren't safe then they wouldn't still be in use...

[MIDLGW]

Sorry to barge in, but there are only 2 (shiny and new) A318 aircraft doing LCY - JFK...

Unfortunately, a lot of people these days make a mess on aircraft, break things (ie traytables) and don't tell the crew. I've read reviews online where customers have commented about how old the aircraft interior looks, even though the aircraft is only 6 months old.

For those worried about "old" planes, there are strict rules we adhere to in regards to engineering. Checks are done on things that the average "Joe Bloggs" wouldn't even think about.

[PaperTiger]

Some of the B777-200s are newWell, 4 of them are. The other 42 were delivered between 1996 and 2001. Average 777 age: 10.5 years; average total fleet: 11.6.

Fleet age British Airways - Airfleets (http://www.airfleets.net/ageflotte/British%20Airways.htm)

[wowzz]

Just to be totally clear, I was in no way suggesting that the age of the plane, certainly in the case of BA, had any bearing whatsoever on safety.
I probably should have just kept my question simple - when will BA be getting new aircraft, and what type?
To say that BA has new aircraft is one thing, but when, as PaperTiger points out, less than 10% of the B777-200s are less than 10 years old, makes the point I was initially trying to make.

[Skylion]

BA's policy, particularly with its longhaul fleet, has always been to keep its aircraft almost throughout their working lives. This reduces their ownership costs but increases maintainance costs as the aircrfat get older .The alternative, adopted by some carriers (Singapore has been a notable in the past) is to turn the fleet over at quite a young age while it is still an attractive second hand buy. This increases the cost of ownership but reduces engineering costs.
From the passenger point of view an aircraft can be kept looking young by periodic replacements of the interior sidewalls, ceilings, hatracks and toilets and maintainaing the exteriors in good condition. The cost of a complete interior strip-out and replacement is upwards of £2 million per aircraft and toilets add to the bill. BA in the past, while good at seating innovations, has been less good at the cosmetic aspects, inside and out and this shows on some of the 747s and 767s in particular.Nobody likes a tired looking aircraft but as the financial results of looking down at heel are difficult to quantify CEOs have often been slow to tell the accountants to dig in their pockets.Airlines have a lot of data on the passengers they fly but almost none on those who walk away because they dont like the aircraft appearance, service or any other thing.

[wowzz]

Excellent post Skylion - could not have put it better myself.

[Skipness One Echo]

Also BA look after their aircraft very well with the backing of their own in house maintenance facilities at Heathrow, Gatwick, Glasgow and Cardiff.

My only issue with the older aircraft is cosmetic. Put an old Lufthansa B737 next to a 1992 build Gatwick based BA machine and only one of them will look shiny and new on the outside alas. I'm wierd in that I like oder aircraft. I got all excited last year flying out on one of the original BA A320s from the early 90s and miffed when I went home in a shiny new build one.

[PaperTiger]

I wasn't implying anything by citing the average age, just trying to be accurate. Really unless you're a (cough) spotter the age of any particular plane is impossible to ascertain just by looking at it; inside or out.

Northwest (well Delta now) is still flying DC-9s with an average age of 35 years. Delta is retiring the oldest (vintage 1966 on !) ones but plans to repaint and refurbish the -50 series and keep them for up to 5 more years.

I'm sure they are maintenance hogs, but like the bumper sticker says - don't laugh it's paid for. Long since.

[WHBM]

I recall flying as pax on a BA One-Eleven Birmingham to Glasgow in the last month of their operation. This was a 1968 aircraft in about 1993, and I knew it was probably my last One-Eleven trip. The cabin interior was immaculate, everything clean, no sign of dirt or wear at all.

A few years later I also flew, in 1998 I think, in the pioneer 747 AWNA which dated from 1970, back from Vancouver to Heathrow. It's condition was similarly immaculate.

The condition of the cabin interior has nothing to do with the airframe age, it is all down to how well it is maintained inside by the team on the ground. Unfortunately everybody, from the government to BASSA to the oil market speculators, seems to think they have a prior claim on BA's funds nowadays.

I also have been on a Virgin Atlantic 747-400 which was less than two years old. So many of the fittings for the seat controls, items in the washrooms, etc, were broken or worn. I was not surprised that could happen in 24 months of use, but I was amazed that it appeared not to have had a single spanner applied to the cabin fittings since it was delivered.

[F3G]

Just to reinforce the OP's point, we frequent pax don't link cabin condition to safety, so L337 less of the sarcasm please, it makes you look childish in the context of those people posting here.

However, if you pay 700€ to fly in something (for 4.5 hours) that resembles a well used garden shed and then the service is poor, one is going to remember that there are alternatives available.

I've been riding up and down to the middle east on BA777s that are probably 12-15 years old and they look immaculate in the Club World cabin - backed up by good service; I'll be booking some more flights after Ramadan.

However, I won't be flying BA short haul again, unless there is no alternative, the experience was awful and the aircraft condition was truly depressing.

BA don't seem to learn, the Malta route was flown by GB with new and well (interior) maintained A32x equipment. Flights were full.

BA terminated GB and proceeded to replace the A32x with some of the most awful 737s I have ever flown in; on one flight, I adjusted the headrest and the whole thing came away in my hands :eek:

Panels were missing, the beige plastic was dirty yellow in places, the loos stank, carpet was taped together.

Guess what, we all avoided these flying garbage trucks like the plague and BA chopped the route. (One aspect that was good was the cabin crew from LGW, who did their best on a route with lousy timings for them for a season - how they were so cheerful working with such rubbish was beyond me, but was still appreciated.)

One cannot retrench forever.

We still have nice A320s, but they are KM or U2.

[wowzz]

I think F3G is also on the point here - if you have spent a large sum of money on a flight, you want to feel that the 'kit' matches the expenditure.
When I fly to the Far East with an Asian carrier I know I will get a newish aircraft, normally with better pitch than BA, and with an attentive cc.
On BA I will get an old aircraft, 31'' pitch and [at the moment] a variable crew experience.
If the price is the same, which should I choose?

[PAXboy]

SkylionBA's policy, particularly with its longhaul fleet, has always been to keep its aircraft almost throughout their working lives. This reduces their ownership costs but increases maintenance costs as the aircraft get older .The alternative, adopted by some carriers (Singapore has been a notable in the past) is to turn the fleet over at quite a young age while it is still an attractive second hand buy. This increases the cost of ownership but reduces engineering costs.It is similar (not the same) as owning a domestic car. Once the car is paid off, the maintenance cost goes up. If you then buy a new car, maintenance goes right down, but your repayments are high.

In commerce, acquisition and maintenance costs are dealt with differently. Depending on the way the airline runs it's finances, depending on whether it's a private or public company or state owned - they will handle these differently. Not to mention if you do your own maintenance or whether you outsource or have some other kind of leasing agreement with maintenance included form the supplier. So, for some, having high maintenance costs will look bad, for some, buying new machines will look bad. :confused:

Over, say, 25 years of owning a car/aircraft the cost might be similar if you buy one and maintain it OR if you have three new ones for 8 years each. BUT the way in which the cost appears in your books will be different. Also, there is insurance, training of staff on a new machine, the manpower involved in selling and buying a/c and many more besides. Add to that the image/PR and corporate/state pride that can be big factors and you will begin to work your way through the problem. :bored:

[wiggy]

However, I won't be flying BA short haul again, unless there is no alternative, the experience was awful and the aircraft condition was truly depressing.

BA don't seem to learn, the Malta route was flown by GB with new and well (interior) maintained A32x equipment. Flights were full.

BA terminated GB and proceeded to replace the A32x with some of the most awful 737s I have ever flown in;

Surely a blanket refusal to use BA, which seems to be what you are saying, because of some LGW 737s on one route is a bit simplisitic? I'd agree the 737's are somewhat err, tired, but in contrast the LHR shorthaul fleet is Airbus - many of which are brand spanking new.

[F3G]

Wiggy

No, not a blanket refusal, did you read my post thoroughly or didyou only look for evidence to support your thesis? I said intend to book Club World flights in Q3/4.

Also, my point was not made on the Malta run, this was just a reinforcement of the appalling experience between Larnaca and London last week.

Basically 700€ in CE for an aircraft with a knackered interior, 7" less seat pitch than Cyprus Airways and inattentive service, with a poor product (no before take off drink, no hot towels and no after dinner drinks for 2 hours, not even water.)

The Heathrow fleet is not just Airbus, this was a careworn 767 - just not good enough.

My philosophy for buying travel is simple, but not simplistic, I seek best value.

CE is nowhere near best value.

[WHBM]

There are, by direct discussion I have had with them, a significant number of business pax on London to Moscow who have been turned off by the atrocious state that the "short-haul" 767 interiors have been allowed to get into.

One of the fleet (there are what, about 8 aircraft) became known to regulars as "The Disco" because of the constant flickering and flashing cabin lights that Engineering were never given the funds to fix properly.

BA did a complete refurb of the interiors of the long-haul 767s a couple of years ago, but didn't touch the over-tired interiors of the short-haul variant.

Yes, people commented again and again about the contrast with the Aeroflot Airbuses, which although some have now been around long enough for a D-check still look new and looked after. Coupled with the far better C class service that Aeroflot provide nowadays, BA have lost ground on what was apparently one of the best performing financially of all their European routes (and at the fares they charge, so it should be). On this route service quality between the two airlines is a complete reversal of what it was a generation ago. Someone once suggested to me that when Aeroflot pulled themselves together (which they have done very thoroughly) and got rid of the broken seats and the disgusting catering, they had sold it all as a job lot to BA.

[ulxima]

WHBM, I agree.

I have flown SU two months ago (London-Moscow-Hong Kong) and the service was very good, as well as the aircrafts (320 and 330).
As a result I booked another "series" with them (London-Moscow-Shanghai).
They have improved considerably since I used them early 2000 (Venice-Moscow-Hong Kong). At that time the Venice-Moscow sector was flown by TU-154M (superb bird, I loved it).
However I would not recommend these routes if the transit time is longer than 2 hours. The new Terminal D has not been completed yet and the business lounge is not available.
SU ground staff told me it will take some "russian" time to complete it :E

[Rusland 17]

I agree wholeheartedly about Aeroflot. I just travelled with them LHR-SVO-TAS and back (only because hardly anyone else flies that route), and they were surprisingly good. The aircraft were young and spotless.

The only downside is the inter-terminal transfer at SVO. Stand there, go over there, wait here, stand there, follow me, please wait... it was painfully old-school Soviet.

[F3G]

One of the fleet (there are what, about 8 aircraft) became known to regulars as "The Disco" because of the constant flickering and flashing cabin lights that Engineering were never given the funds to fix properly.

At least I was lucky enough to avoid this pleasure, that would have driven me mad after four and a half hours :eek:

[WHBM]

One of the fleet (there are what, about 8 aircraft) became known to regulars as "The Disco" because of the constant flickering and flashing cabin lights that Engineering were never given the funds to fix properly.
"The Disco" is apparently BZHC. It was still in this condition a couple of months ago. Has it been fixed yet ? Here's what A Regular wrote about it at the time :

Came back on G-BZHC today. What a wreck that plane is.

Flashing disco lights started while still on the ground. Rectified by shutting down the overhead electrics, allowing it to "cool down", and leaving the door open to the IFE equipment for the entire duration of the flight, to stop it overheating and going into a disco light frenzy.

All 3 bulkhead monitors are broken and will never be fixed. In front of 2AB and 2JK completely dead. In front of 1DF, almost pitch black, you might be able to make out something with night vision glasses. Noone in the front row can see the screens, so none of us were able to see the safety demo.

One of the ceiling mounted TVs (above rows 4/5 on LHS) broken. So, a total of 4 out of 7 monitors broken in the forward cabin.

No sound was working in the JK seats throughout the plane.

The bulkhead mounted pocket infront of 1D has almost completely ripped off the wall, leaving the magazines and sickbags dangling into the floor area.

No magazines loaded. No menus loaded.

The oven in the forward galley barely works, so it took an hour to heat the food. Imagine what chicken and rice tastes like after an hour in a warm oven. It was completely hard and came out in lumps, but had to be left in the oven this long to heat through. The outward breakfast was similarly baked for an hour in the mal-functioning oven, and the scrambled eggs came out in one vile lump.

Any comments from you BA guys who might have access to the Tech Log ?

[pwalhx]

Just done MAN-LHR-IST-LHR-MAN

Have to say the shuttles between London and Manchester always seem airey and clean, the 767 in Club Europe to IST was dismal and uncomfortable. I said after a recent trip to HKG I would look at other airlines but this trip had already been booked, it merely reinforced my opinion.

[F3G]

Noone in the front row can see the screens, so none of us were able to see the safety demo.

This is disgraceful.

However, one to quote when some of our CC friends starting hufflepuffing about pax not paying attention to the demo.

[One Outsider]

If only personalities could be changed as easily as user names.

[TightSlot]

How very true...

[Dairyground]

Noone in the front row can see the screens, so none of us were able to see the safety demo.

This is disgraceful.

However, one to quote when some of our CC friends starting hufflepuffing about pax not paying attention to the demo.


If you cannot see the demo on a screen for any reason, shout out or otherwise attract the attention of the CC. They will then revert to the old-style human demo. or at least that's what happened when I was faced with a non-functioning seat-back display on a 747.

[PAXboy]

OK, so F3G is blunt in manner but he/she is correct:This is disgraceful.BA should not allow this and these are the people who have failed (not in order of direct responsibility but of a simplified reporting structure)
CC report to FC
FC write tech log
Tech staff request time and spare parts to fix problem
Mgmt [clearly must have] refused/delayed/obfuscatedSo, what happens next?
A simple repeat of the above?
Perhaps some senior tech staff tell their mgmt that this a/c is all messed up?
Perhaps some CC ensure that their mgmt know how terrible the interior is?
Perhaps some Customer service staff point out to mgmt that this is being written about on the internet and that, therefore, the money they saved is now costing them more than the money?But, line management should have known that from the moment the problem with the interior of G-BZHC came to their attention. But, perhaps, they gain 'brownie points' by not spending money? Because you can look at money on the balance sheet but, sadly, by the time you are reading on the internet that your customers know the aging a/c interior BY NAME - you have lost money and respect. The only thing you will not lose is your job. :ugh:

The people who are, ultimately, responsible are the Board of Directors. For they have not given clear enough instructions to their CEO and CFO to ensure that the machines look as good as the ones used in their advertisements. The money men have, once again, lost the company the respect of some of their customers. If it was an isolated incident, it would be a bell weather - but the storm has already arrived.

[rant mode off]

[TightSlot]

There is a very simple procedure in place for u/s screens as described - a manual safety demonstration. It isn't optional, it is mandatory for the CC to do so. If a passenger believes that he/she has not received a satisfactory safety briefing, as required, their first stop should be the CAA. It is absolutely appropriate that (as discussed by PAXboy) managers are held to account by customers for their decisions: Such accounting is done by the CAA.

F3G may be correct (despite the dramatic prose) that this is not acceptable - what makes his post tedious is the immaturity of the linkage to another perceived issue, yet again, for no visible reason beyond the usual malice and self-aggrandisemnt.

[Ancient Observer]

F3G might be direct, but other than their pointing out that they often turn left, I don't see too much self-aggrandisement in their posts.

One of the delights of pprune is its ability to allow strongly held different views to emerge, and to not take it personally.

As to the CAA, whilst they have all the powers that they need, they do need an information flow................I hope someone's told them!

[WHBM]

Just to keep us on course for the original topic, that of fleet age, I would point out that BZHC is actually the newest unit in the BA 767 fleet, dating from 1998, whereas the oldest dates from 1990. Which just shows once again that age has nothing really to do with it.

If a passenger believes that he/she has not received a satisfactory safety briefing, as required, their first stop should be the CAA.

I hope TS that this is not the case, but that the passenger's first stop should be to speak with the CC and point out that they have been unable to receive the safety briefing. There must be an SOP for what the CC then have to do in this situation, surely ? I would presume it then has to be repeated manually.

[TightSlot]

...that the passenger's first stop should be to speak with the CC and point out that they have been unable to receive the safety briefing. There must be an SOP for what the CC then have to do in this situation, surely ? I would presume it then has to be repeated manually.

On the money WHBM, both on what I should have said, and what the SOP actually is i.e. manual demo, repeated if necessary. I had taken it as read that this process had been followed.

As mentioned by Ancient Observer - the important thing is that the CAA are advised if the situation is not resolved appropriately.

[pax britanica]

I think some very good points are made ehre , particularlyt he one that BA shoudl realy take notice if passengers actually quote the registration of the shabby 76 thats much discussed.

The point I would like to make is that while crew, airline employees , enthusiasts and other who read PPrune gnerally do understand that the state of the cabin does not reflect the state of the airframe engine avionics etc what about Joe/Jane public who often cannot tella A318 from an A380 since they only see the cabin. It IS REASONABLE for them to conclude that if the bits they can see are shabby, dirty , not working , then like most other things in life the bits they cannot see are actually worse. How many repeat pax have BA lost because most people equate shabby dirty plane with badly maintained plane.

My personal experience has been that BA are generally not good at looking after the cabins, a bit biased as much recent flying has been on LGW shorthaul which until recently as someone pointed out was entirely dependent on the most decrepit 733s and 734s around

[Rob Courtney]

I fky on the shuttles quite a lot and prefer Gatwick to Heathrow because its easier to get in and out of but the 737 fleet is now looking rather shabby.

The one thing BA has going for it however is that despite the airframes and the shennanigans going on at the moment, they have the best crews in the business:ok:

Finally talking about age of BAs fleet the most memorable flight for me was on a Trident 3 in 1984 to Alicante (KTours charter) that aircraft used for the shuttle run then was the most comfortable I have ever flown on.

[AndoniP]

I also have been on a Virgin Atlantic 747-400 which was less than two years old. So many of the fittings for the seat controls, items in the washrooms, etc, were broken or worn.

Same here. The screens didn't work, the seats were broken, the whole interior was shabby. And they received complaints galore.

The state of the interior of aircraft is what represents the airline, apart from the cabin crew - a public face if you will. Passengers barely if ever notice how clean the aircraft is on the outside. A shabby interior makes you think, god this is horrible. Nice interior, ooh this is very pleasant. Simple.