BA's growth
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA's growth
BA is investing hugely in India and China and the capacity to BOM, DEL, CCU, MAA, BGR, PEK and PVG has already grown. Pakistan is to be served with a B744 from next summer, but with all this growth and no aircraft being delivered which routes are being cut back to accommodate the "new" economies? MEL, yes, but more must be on the cards.
Furthermore when will they invest in the 777-300 as they obviously have a market for it with the 777-200 seemingly only doing the cr@p!
Furthermore when will they invest in the 777-300 as they obviously have a market for it with the 777-200 seemingly only doing the cr@p!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that long ago that they let they let two B777-200s go to Varig. I believe they are concentrating on paying off debt at the minute and whilst looking at the new 747 and 787, nothing is imminent.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several 767s being converted from short haul config to long haul config to take up the slack. The 321s acquired earlier this year, and a few more smaller busses in the next few years are to take up the slack on the short haul side with the loss of those few 767s.
The 321s acquired earlier this year
Strangely the franchises at GB and BritMed seem to have been able to finance new aircraft without difficulty during this time.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am not sure how a 321 order and a few tatty 767s are able to cope with the "slack" spanishflea. We are talking big investments in the India/Chinese market so how a 321 and a few old 767s cope with that, I fail to see.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 42
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tatty 767s
Takes about a month to do each one so it's not a cheap-and-cheerful quick fix.
Wouldn't exactly call them "tatty" anymore.
The growth is into India, Canada (to feed the Indian flights) and China and all has been achieved within the existing fleet. Most of the downtime has been created through releasing aircraft time by tighter scheduling to fund the eight extra long-haul daily departures, although a small number of 767s are being redeployed off short-haul back into LH configs.
There is plenty more that can be done to release aircraft time within BA. Up to now, focus has fallen on reducing ground time at LHR. However, the recent withdrawal of the SIN-MEL-SIN operations releases one 747-400 back for other use; and you will see ground time at other overseas destinations such as points in South Africa and Australia being reduced. For example, it is eminently possible that one of the two daily Heathrow-Jo'burg flights will become a daylighter each way, thus avoiding the need for two 747-400s to sit in JNB for 12 hours each day. Although daylight flights are less popular, there comes a point where the extra revenue that you earn from having a more popular schedule doesn't outweigh the extra cost of the aircraft you need to maintain that schedule.
It would not surprise me if more long-haul growth could be achieved without any requirement whatsoever for additional aircraft. From an investor's point of view, they are doing all the right things and it should be seen as a positive move.
There is plenty more that can be done to release aircraft time within BA. Up to now, focus has fallen on reducing ground time at LHR. However, the recent withdrawal of the SIN-MEL-SIN operations releases one 747-400 back for other use; and you will see ground time at other overseas destinations such as points in South Africa and Australia being reduced. For example, it is eminently possible that one of the two daily Heathrow-Jo'burg flights will become a daylighter each way, thus avoiding the need for two 747-400s to sit in JNB for 12 hours each day. Although daylight flights are less popular, there comes a point where the extra revenue that you earn from having a more popular schedule doesn't outweigh the extra cost of the aircraft you need to maintain that schedule.
It would not surprise me if more long-haul growth could be achieved without any requirement whatsoever for additional aircraft. From an investor's point of view, they are doing all the right things and it should be seen as a positive move.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have heard in the last day or so that the board meeting this week decided that until BA get into T5 that there will be no further net expansion at LHR. The management now realise that the operation is as big as it can get for now, ie T1, (T3) and T4 cannot take any more movements. There will of course be some tinkering with the schedules as recently announced, but the fleet renewal decision has now been postponed.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent. They can afford to pay off the pension deficit now, and with that reduction in debt they'll be able to borrow money for the new aircraft on far more favourable terms. Seriously though, did anyone really believe there'd be significant expansion at LHR before they introduced mixed-mode operation on the runways? Where would all the new slots come from?
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shorthaul wise BA have lots of 319 options (which can be converted to 32x) and as for the Varig 777s - well they might need a new home (old home?) if the rumblings about that airline is any guide.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably BA limitations at LHR are primarily stands (T4)?
If BA wanted to make the best use of their LHR capacity perhaps some more leveraging of oneworld would be an idea.
For instance, with AY, MA, IB taking over HEL/MAD/BUD completely (as slots/T1 stands can be obtained) in the same way EI have complete operation of LHR-DUB/ORK/SNN at present, leaving BA with possible headroom to increase frequency to non-oneworld/longhaul ports.
If BA wanted to make the best use of their LHR capacity perhaps some more leveraging of oneworld would be an idea.
For instance, with AY, MA, IB taking over HEL/MAD/BUD completely (as slots/T1 stands can be obtained) in the same way EI have complete operation of LHR-DUB/ORK/SNN at present, leaving BA with possible headroom to increase frequency to non-oneworld/longhaul ports.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: brighton
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who knows what is going to happen but their is Big Changes coming in BA watch out for the Announcements in the New Year that will affect mainly LHR and LGW which the later is expanding and recruiting for Cabin Crew !
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark; More could be done if the Movements/ Loading staff were more flexible enabling a/c to be removed from stand either to the base or cargo area. Some of the problems are of BA,s own making.
