BA's 767 summer expansion

[vapilot2004]

Re: BA's 767 summer expansion

Moreover, the 748 will have to have a much cheaper first cost to be competitive in cost per seat with the 380.

Fuel costs per seat for the new big bird is expected to be less than the superjumbo A380 in typical 3 class layouts which may offset any acquisition differences over the life of the airframe.

[flyer55]

Re: BA's 767 summer expansion

But arent Qantas about to replace the 767 with the 787 so I wonder if BA will take back the 767's . Also isnt the 757 and 321 picking up some of the 767 work from shorthaul?

[answer=42]

Re: BA's 767 summer expansion

Originally Posted by vapilot2004

Fuel costs per seat for the new big bird is expected to be less than the superjumbo A380 in typical 3 class layouts ....

This was Boeing’s statement. Why do I not find it so credible? Two reasons.

One, the 747-800 is a significant update to the –400, in particular featuring new wings and electronics. It nevertheless is an update of a 1960s design. It is also smaller than the A380. Other things (technology and so on) being equal, a larger aircraft is more fuel-efficient than a smaller one. So, we are asked to believe that a smaller aircraft updated from a near-40 year old design is more efficient than a larger all-new vehicle?

Two, the statement itself: Boeing could have manipulated the definition of a ‘typical three class configuration’ to get the answer they wanted. An extreme way to do this is by having the same number of economy class seats in both ‘aircraft’ and increasing only the number of first-class seats in the A380. If Boeing were really on to something, they would have made a more direct comparison.

This is not to say that the pax 747-800 does not have its uses. I would think that a buyer would have to have two reasons for preferring it to the A380:
1. They have an otherwise all-Boeing long-haul fleet
2. The number of aircraft larger than a 777 that they need is not sufficiently large to counteract the additional complication of running a mixed fleet (once differential initial costs and fuel consumption have been taken into account).
The first statement is true of BA but the second is probably not (unless the price differential was very large indeed). Both statements are probably true of a number of US and Japanese airlines.

[vapilot2004]

Re: BA's 767 summer expansion

This was Boeing’s statement. Why do I not find it so credible? Two reasons.

Well we should all know both A and B can put out some great 'statements' - some with more flair for the absurd than others. We also all probably know the old adage, 'liars figure and figures lie'.

One thing you may be leaving out of the fuel efficiency equations my good friend A42, are the new next-generation fuel saving engines and Boeing's 'fast' or super-critical low-drag wing design that is to be used on the improved jumbo.

Of course all of these figures are based on projections - even the launch airlines for the A380 don't have the any meaningful numbers on costs yet, so my original statement as put forth by Boeing is speculative I admit.

Personally, I would not care to be aboard anything so large as either the A380 superjumbo or the 748 'new jumbo ?' - who would want to be stuffed up with hoards of the general public (read your average group of morons) for hours on end back in cattle class - ok well perhaps a group of well-behaved Europeans might be tolerable...

A trip on the superjumbo would be fun however, just for the experience.

[MarkD]

Re: BA's 767 summer expansion

flyer55

the QF 767s have first flights from 1990-1992 so by the time they are replaced by 787 they will be at least 16-18 years old assuming they are replaced by the first deliveries in 2008.

Seems to me a little long in the tooth to be refitting by then - then again AC did pull 20 year old 762s out of the desert!

This link shows all the BA 767s including those currently at QF.
http://www.planespotters.net/Product...rch=2&aircraft[]=s_767-300&airline[]=4766

[traveller5]

Re: BA's 767 summer expansion

Isn't BA's Boeing history more political than practical? BA has effectively kept the European league and the american league happy. Can't see BA's longhaul fleet suddenly changing to Airbus somehow as they'd upset those across the pond...who are slowly going downhill because of Airbus's excellent fleet development.

[tristar500]

Re: BA's 767 summer expansion

BA Flight Ops. Heres a new idea!

Why not give the B757/B767 to the regions, in particular EDI. Dont think Iam being a bit cheeky here but seriously, why the hell not!

EDI could easily sustain a long-haul route network and make it work. The number of passengers forced to commute down to LHR/LGW to catch USA bound flights is astonishing.

Before someone quotes figures on seat/kilometer mile etc..., lets just look at some facts. The GLA-BOS service (now withdrawn) DID make money, although it may have lacked full commitment by the public. The cargo alone made the flight worthwhile. Continental, who have upped their summer flights to 2 per day to EWR cant be making a loss, neither can Delta who are about to start flights to ATL (both ops by B757/767). Emirates although on a different economic planet are operating a B777-300ER for goodness sake from GLA to DXB, and want to operate from EDI. Flyglobespan have aquired 3 B767s and are rumoured to be taking another 3 as well as the B787, to ops flights from EDI. Come on BA - Get your act together and go for it. You have retimmed the EDI-LGW flights, particularly on a Sunday morning which makes it impossible to connect to the USA. Why should the people of Scotland go south to fly more or less back up north when flights could easily go from Scotland. There is a demand and BA should stand up and admit the fact.

[Jordan D]

Re: BA's 767 summer expansion

Although not adding anything substansive to this debate, I'd have to agree with tristar.

Jordan

[Railgun]

Re: BA's 767 summer expansion

Originally Posted by tristar500

BA Flight Ops. Heres a new idea!
Why not give the B757/B767 to the regions, in particular EDI. Dont think Iam being a bit cheeky here but seriously, why the hell not!
EDI could easily sustain a long-haul route network and make it work. The number of passengers forced to commute down to LHR/LGW to catch USA bound flights is astonishing.
Before someone quotes figures on seat/kilometer mile etc..., lets just look at some facts. The GLA-BOS service (now withdrawn) DID make money, although it may have lacked full commitment by the public. The cargo alone made the flight worthwhile. Continental, who have upped their summer flights to 2 per day to EWR cant be making a loss, neither can Delta who are about to start flights to ATL (both ops by B757/767). Emirates although on a different economic planet are operating a B777-300ER for goodness sake from GLA to DXB, and want to operate from EDI. Flyglobespan have aquired 3 B767s and are rumoured to be taking another 3 as well as the B787, to ops flights from EDI. Come on BA - Get your act together and go for it. You have retimmed the EDI-LGW flights, particularly on a Sunday morning which makes it impossible to connect to the USA. Why should the people of Scotland go south to fly more or less back up north when flights could easily go from Scotland. There is a demand and BA should stand up and admit the fact.

Would never work BA want routes to make a profit and cannot run them at a loss for as long as EK can. They would have to add a big CC base and flight deck base at the regional stations and its just not going to invest that much money.

[KLMkitty]

What a fab idea Tristar But we know that the powers at be would never allow it and really want to concentrate on LHR.

[flyer55]

Tristar totally agree with you , their should be more BA Longhaul flights from Scotland so bring back JFK , BOS and many more. Or give the 757/767 to Shorthaul LGW

[HZMIS]

Keep on dreaming, more likely the lose of BA flights?

[Re-Heat]

Thank goodness none of you work near finance - or route planning.

Airlines might look like those in the US if you did...in fact, is that where you work?

My personal favourite:

The GLA-BOS service (now withdrawn) DID make money, although it may have lacked full commitment by the public.

That's not really demand at all now is it?! Can you not see the irony in your own statements?

If one company's cost of capital precludes it from taking on those routes, someone with an appropriate cost of capital will do so if the market is sufficiently deregulated. If not, you can't force airlines to do so, or say "I would do this if I were CEO", because it is simply pie in the sky dreaming.

[Skipness One Echo]

GLA-BOS operated via JFK so not direct at all and was flown by a narrow bodied 757 and little cargo. Cargo on the direct JFK when it was op by a 763 may have done well but I don't know. Check your facts please.