Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Airlines, Airports & Routes
Reload this Page >

A350s for British Airways?

Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

A350s for British Airways?

Old 1st Apr 2013, 22:03
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A350s for British Airways?

The Wall Street Journal seems to think an order is imminent.

IAG in Talks to Order Airbus A350 Jets for British Airways - WSJ.com

Any thoughts?
Haymaker is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2013, 22:16
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 3,462
Received 134 Likes on 72 Posts
According to Wiki, Airbus' are developing the -900R version to do LHR-SYD non-stop! SPECIFICALLY for BA.
Pinch of salt required, methinks.
TURIN is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2013, 22:25
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reuters) - Airline holding company International Airlines Group (ICAG.L) could order Airbus' new A350 long-range aircraft for its British Airways arm as soon as this week, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

The exact number of planes to be ordered and the potential value of the contract were still under discussion with the talks mainly centred on the A350-1000, the largest aircraft in the A350 range, the WSJ said on its website citing two people familiar with the talks. (r.reuters.com/byn96t)

The financial daily cited one of the people as saying the order could also include the smaller A350-900.

If a deal is agreed, it would be a win for EADS-owned (EAD.PA) Airbus over rival Boeing Co (BA.N) which is trying to sell British Airways the next version of its popular 777 wide-body jet, the paper reported.


However, the Journal said British Airways, which already has a large fleet of Boeing 777s, could still order the revamped 777X.

British Airways mainly operates Boeing aircraft on long-haul routes with its current Airbus planes, mainly from the A320 family, used on shorter runs, according to the airline's website.

However, the company also has 12 Airbus A380 super-jumbos on order, its website shows.

Airbus was not immediately available for comment. An IAG spokeswoman declined to comment.
LTNman is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2013, 00:34
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The A350-900 and A350-1000 are natural replacements for Iberia's A340-300s and A340-600s. The A350-900 would also complement the 787-9 for British Airways' 777-200ER replacements, though the 787-10 would offer more capacity for TATL missions.

As a 747-400 replacement, the 777-9 has the advantage of being able to more closely match the capacity of both the low-J and high-J models than the A350-1000 can. The 777-9 can use the same Economy Class hard product as the 747-400 in the same 10-abreast configuration and the additional 3 meters of cabin length would allow BA to roughly fit 16 additional Club World seats on the main deck, which would mostly make up the loss of the 20 seats on the 747-400's upper deck.

So I could see IAG operating all models of the 787 family (-8 | -9 | -10) along with the A350-900, A350-1000, 777-9 and A380-800.
Kiskaloo is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2013, 04:56
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With United planning to return & cancel its current 787 orders??? I am not surprised by this rumour. Despite its fantastic low fuel consumption I have always thought the 787 to be too small. It only has a modest increase in seat capacity over the 767, the a/c BA are seeking to replace. So with the current battery problems, & other problems yet to be revealed maybe?? it makes sense to look at other options. The A350 could just be the answer??
Walnut is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2013, 05:55
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The A350 could just be the answer??
A350 is the answer until it starts flying
I think it is kind of premature to judge one new flying-grounded type vs. new yet nonflying type.

Last edited by Sunamer; 2nd Apr 2013 at 05:56.
Sunamer is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2013, 06:12
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,083
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 7 Posts
United 'returning and cancelling it's orders'


Don't know where you get that from but it's incorrect.
stilton is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2013, 06:30
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: toofaraway
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
its fantastic low fuel consumption ..

Walnut, have you seen any credible figures for in-service 787 fuel consumption?

Apart from Boeing's vague "20% lower than X" claim, I haven't seen anything.

You're right about the size: it was a big mistake to make the 787-8 too small to be profitable.
toffeez is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2013, 06:58
  #9 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 81
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Don't know where you get that from but it's incorrect.
United 'returning and cancelling it's orders'
Here probably:
United, Boeing Agree to 787 Buyback - FlyerTalk Forums
green granite is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2013, 07:42
  #10 (permalink)  
A4

Ut Sementem Feeceris
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,439
Received 63 Likes on 16 Posts
Think you'll find that it's an April Fool article.......
A4 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2013, 07:58
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As A4 says, that Flyertalk article was a very good April Fool joke. The clue was the Senior Vice President Finance "Linda Smoken-Mirrors", and the Director of In-Flight Amenities, "Rachel Paytivee".

Last edited by Airclues; 2nd Apr 2013 at 07:59.
Airclues is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2013, 08:19
  #12 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 81
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That was the opinion I formed when I read it, but when somebody asked where the story came from I thought I'd post the article to be dissected by my peers.
green granite is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2013, 09:38
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 82
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just had a look at the Airbus website. What does 'shapes efficiency' mean?
Sunnyjohn is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2013, 09:52
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 3,462
Received 134 Likes on 72 Posts
Gobonastick.
Thats what I thought, which is why I mentioned "a pinch of salt".


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
TURIN is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2013, 09:54
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Under the clouds now
Age: 86
Posts: 2,498
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
Just had a look at the Airbus website. What does 'shapes efficiency' mean?
Lower drag?
brakedwell is online now  
Old 2nd Apr 2013, 10:30
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Boeing PR states the 777-9 will seat up to 407 passengers, close to 747 seat counts.

Deception.

Boeing uses "typical" seatcounts in this case 10 abreast in these new 777s.

BA tried and abandoned 10 abreast on the 777. Little chance they will re-use them next to the World Traveler seats currently used. E.g. the differences with the A380s would be too visible/ noticeable.

So use 9 abreast in the back and realize the 777-9 will be less then 3 meters longer then the A350-1000. Then look at both aircraft empty weights and the writing is on the wall IMO.
keesje is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2013, 12:15
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 82
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks, brakedwell, but that's not the context in which it is used. However, they do seem to have a hang-up with 'efficiency' - it appears eight times, each in a different context.
Sunnyjohn is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2013, 12:42
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LHR-Sydney non-stop "and general public preference all go against it. "

really? surely its just what you want for a hub and spoke operation - and I've never found passengers are keen on a stop if they can go through non-stop

The question would be are there enough other routes of such length that makes it worthwhile buying such a specialised fleet - not many I guess
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2013, 01:41
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In related news, IAG today converted 18 787 options into firm orders.

IAG and Boeing agree $4bn Dreamliner deal | Business | The Guardian
British Airways parent IAG, Boeing reach deal on 18 Dreamliners | Reuters

Last edited by Kiskaloo; 4th Apr 2013 at 02:16.
Kiskaloo is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.