BA's 777-300s

[jerrystinger]

According to today's Times, BA is to add the 777-300 to its fleet and replace at least 15 747-400s within the next few years. The longhaul fleet programme for the next ten years will see the 747-400 become a minor part of the company's scheduled services and the 777-200 and -300 forming the backbone of its longhaul services. The A380 is also likely to join the fleet, albeit on a small scale, to cater for the projected increase in demand on the Australasian routes.

[TURIN]

This fits in with the rumours of BA expanding the LH regional routes then?

It's been doing the rounds for a while but as PIA are making MAN their "EuroHub" and Emirates, Qatar, AA, etc expand their routes in to/through regional UK, then why not BA.

The 777 was built for regional ops.:ok:

[Human Factor]

The 777 was built for regional ops.

Unfortunately, BA wasn't.

[swiss_tonni]

All

At the recent Investors Day, Rod Eddington said that BA wouldnt be buying any more aicraft until the debt was down to 3 Billion.

It isnt there yet

Swiss_tonni

[BRISTOLRE]

BA news smentioned LH expansion but no specific clues on aircraft types or further acquisitions.
South America routes also on cards for expansion as well as west coast USA frequencies (up !)

[HZ123]

If the A380 becomes the more popular a/c then we have no choice in the matter. On many of our routes in competition with middle east/far east airlines we have enough problems matching their fares which with the arrival of the A380 e.g.Emirates will be even more competitive.

[747-436]

I wouldn't have thought they would get rid of the 744 quickly. Routes like Far East / Oz and many of the States flights can easily fill a 747-400 most of the time from what I can gather.
Emerging markets like Dubai seem to warrant a 744 these days.

[MarkD]

Doesnt 773 carry nearly as much pax as a 744 these days?

[Tandemrotor]

747-436

How strange that if 'emerging markets like Dubai seem to warrant a 744 these days'......

Emirates have none?

I guess the older technology has had its day?

[NWSRG]

If BA do go for the 773, and with the 772LR and 773ER in the background, does this not spell the end for the 744?

If BA (as the worlds biggest 744 operator) feel that the 777 can meet most/all their needs then surely the long-term future for the Queen of the Skies looks bleak. Even if Boeing do go for an Advanced 747 with 7E7 systems, will it be enough to justify the aircraft over the 777? And if BA release 744s, then the second hand market may be healthy enough to kill off new production.

Maybe Boeing should allow the 744 to go gracefully, and then bide their time until they are ready to go head-to-head with the A380.

[hobie]

seating comparisons ............

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/financial/finreports/annual/01annualreport/financials_spp.html

[B737NG]

The market call`s for it. If a operator is not competetive then the
depts will increase due to decrease load. The B777 burns 25%
less fuel with allmost same capacity (exl. cargo). That makes on
a far east round trip easy 65.000 Kilo diffrence. The envirement
calls for it as well.

NG

[Rugz]

Looks to me, from a business perspective, that the 773ER compares favorably with the 744.

Very similar range and seating configs, so probably comes down to efficiency and cost.

Anyone know how the 773ER and 744 compare on those points?

[Torquelink]

I understand that, in similar config, the 773ER will have some 50 - 60 seats less than the 744. If the 744s are pretty much written down in the books and a new 773ER costs, say, $130m, I would have thought that the 744 would put up a fair fight provided you can fill the additional seats despite burning more fuel.

[db767]

Jumping back to the original topic for a second. Did this story ever actually appear? I haven't seen it anywhere else and someone's already pointed out that it's not listed on the times website. Just wondering if it was a spoof?

[dolphin]

Apart from no one else having seen the article, I think someone's mixing up BA with Virgin. Virgin are commonly known to be one of the initial customers for the 380 and are allegedly ready to finalise a deal with Boeing for a few 777-300s.

Need to get rid of his 4 engines 4 long haul logo, won't he?

Someone's trying to stir things

[Sonic Zepplin]

It seems this thread is about to merge with another
(OCEANIC LONGHAUL 2 or 4)

ETOPS is gaining on the sensibility factor and surpassing safety, and by the response of the thread it appears that those who operate (PILOTS) not (MANAGERS) favor 4 rather than 2 on long haul oceanic crossings.

Go figure

[Notso Fantastic]

Looking at the capacity figures quoted in the Boeing 2001 Annual Report referred to earlier, it appears to pan out like this:
practical capacity:
747-400.........416
777-200.........305
777-300.........368
I have taken the lowest quoted capacity range for each type as that is probably the most practical configuration without going to specialist types like Short Range High Seating Density.

It looks as if even the 777-300 is some 50 heads short of a 747, and significantly longer and higher wingspanned. I get the feeling the poor old 747 fuel consumption figures are compared against the great savings the 777-200 makes....with some 111 fewer seats. What matters is fuel/seat over the same ranges. Undoubtedly, the 777 is more efficient, and better to operate, until one goes for a swim. Flying 3 hours to a diversion field on 1 engine will not do the pilots digestive systems any good! But I wonder at the crew rest facilities on the 777- not ideal on the 747, but in BA at least, absolutely shocking- in fact a disgrace for the pilots. With the current configuration, the thought of it exceeding 747 ranges is not pleasant! But the plain fact remains, 747s are being filled all the time. They are still the main people carriers- the crews I hear talking about the two types actively dislike the 777. It is not a direct comparison!

[M.Mouse]

Notso, It is not only the fuel burn but overall maintenance costs that count.

We may not like it but with the exception of the A380 the world is going ETOPS.

They are still the main people carriers- the crews I hear talking about the two types actively dislike the 777

Having extensive experience of both I would choose the the 777 any day over the 747 from a flying point of view. Are you sure that you are not confusing people's dislike of the present 777 BA route structure and rest facilities which are demonstrably worse than the 747's?

It may not happen for a year or two but the writing is on the wall for the 747, wonderful aeroplane that it is.

[Skylion]

Interesting that one of Mr Eddingtons previous employer,- Cathay, which is now reportedly in the market for second hand 744s,- for many years had the philosophy of using old and usually second hand aircraft because their low capital ownership costs offset the higher fuel costs. The same went for " misusing" long haul types on short haul services,- eg 744s on HKG/TPE ( 70 mins), rather than add to fleet complexity by adding a purely short haul type.
This also enables them to get the last few hours of potential productivity out of 744 pilots as well.
On the face of it , using the CX formula, BA would do well to stick with the 744s and wait to see how the A 380 and 7E7 turn out before investing in 777-300s, which if they come in the new LR form will require a reversion to GE engines. The 777 could see a shorter than predicted production run by being displaced by stretched 7E7s, so again wait and see could pay off.
The real case for new aircraft would be if BA were to decide to resume anything more than marginal growth of their ( profitable) long haul business and therefore need a larger fleet.

[bean_counter]

Anyone found the alleged article yet ? I can't. Still, it is RUMOURS and news isn't it

[Notso Fantastic]

<It may not happen for a year or two but the writing is on the wall for the 747, wonderful aeroplane that it is.>
Yes absolutely right, but the mantle will go not to the 777, but the new Queen of the skies, the A380 (which BA is determined not to buy). The cabin crew always say they dislike the 777 because of the atmosphere and the movement. Pilots opinions are irrelevant. The 747 has had its time (first flight 1969), but people keep quoting fuel consumptions between the types for something that is not a direct comparison- like saying the 767 uses less fuel than a 777- so what? There's more to it. The popularity of the 777 relies on it not going swimming. ETOPS is all very well and highly efficient, as long as you don't lose one. A SH aeroplane will dive into the nearest suitable airfield- you don't have many options 1/3 of the way back from Barbados. That's where you are carefree in a 747!

[Lucifer]

Sale of -400s to Cathay has been rumoured for a while, but would I think be unlikely in the near future since BA are unlikely to make large purchases currently while they consolidate post-FSS, and the more likely sale remains the 777 with a larger sale value, and larger market demand. The -400 would be unlikely to achieve as much cash relatively (accounting for age and depreciation) simply as it is not in demand. So why bother to sell what is effectively the backbone of the LH fleet, when lighter 777 routes could be replaced with 7E7s?

I don't think the ETOPS consideration is much of an issue with the 777 going to Tokyo and Buenos Aires anyway, which are possibly more isolated than any other route - Barbados does have the Azores between it and London and has been operated largely by the 777 for a long time now.

The real case for new aircraft would be if BA were to decide to resume anything more than marginal growth of their ( profitable) long haul business and therefore need a larger fleet.

What Skylion says is possibly quite true - we all know the focus is hardly on SH from London due to the profit margins available.

Plus you must remember that all the business traveller love the -400 for the upper deck, the exclusive First cabin etc. What do BA have left as a marketing tool to make it different from the others with Concorde gone - that can only be a distinguishing characteristic for so long.

[Human Factor]

...the more likely sale remains the 777 with a larger sale value, and larger market demand...

Except there's very little demand for BA's 777s due to the fact that none of them are standard Boeing fit. They all have BA standard galleys, most don't have a crew rest area (only the RR ones) and the RR ones (Extended Range) don't have the standard flight crew bunk areas. Therefore anyone who buys them would have to spend a small fortune putting them right. The two which went back to Boeing after Sept 11th were a special case based upon some kind of lease-back.

[Torquelink]

I don't think BA will be selling anything - they've withdrawn the 744s from the market a) because they couldn't achieve required pricing and b) because they're all flying full. They now say that the 744s will be in the fleet for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile Cathay, finally accepting that they can't get RR-powered versions have, together with Dragonair, agreed to buy 8 744s from SIA of which most, if not all, are for conversion to freighters. CX looking for at least 8 more.

[Tandemrotor]

Notso

"The popularity of the 777 relies on it not going swimming. ETOPS is all very well and highly efficient, as long as you don't lose one."

Can't recall the loss of ANY B777 (touches wood!)

However, I CAN remember a large number of 747 losses, including a few that went splash! Are you saying the popularity of the 747 was affected by these?

Let's face it, a bald statement of the number of engines on the wing, has little to do with an aircraft's safety record. It's a FAR more complex equation!

Personally, if I had the choice, I would always choose the more modern technology, and, as alluded to by M.Mouse, that means the World's most modern jetliner!

[D.Lamination]

CX buying BA -400's - It will never happen, consider the following:

Greedy Guts CX CEO walks into London office:

"I say old chap I believe you have some 400's for sale? Things are a little tough in the Orient wot, but I can probably give you US$5M each for them.

Greedy Guts ex CX CEO in his London office:

Maaate, US$5M? I'm not that much of great bloody Galah! Tell yer what, since every Tom, Dick and Harry is knocking at my door wanting them but you are such an old mate I'll give'm to you at a knockdown price of US190M each - for this week only!

and so it goes on for weeks until the negotiating gap is narrowed to US$180M each, then both parties finally give up.

I have a chuckle everytime I think of two CX CEO's trying to haggle with each other.:O :p :}

[Notso Fantastic]

CX might have wanted to buy BA 747s, but it wouldn't be BA selling them! Here's a 'secret'. On all BA 747 Flight Decks, there is a little metal plaque riveted to the wall saying "This aeroplane is owned by Mitsubishi Leasing Bank leased to blah blah blah'. They are all leased by BA. So dead easy to get rid of.....but they are being filled. And thanks to Ailing who totally ballsed up the seating configuration with his drive to get rid of the backpackers and only carry premium pax (just when premium pax started tightening their belts when their share portfolios slumped), the seating capacity for almost all BA long haul aeroplanes is screwed up. We are filling 747s up with 259 people when we could have got 409 on, involuntarily upgrading into Club seats galore. Good for pax, but not for the bottom line.
Another in a long line of brilliant managerial decisions! For such as that, he walked off with millions, and now the House of Lords? An employee screws up and gets fired, a Director gets to win the lottery. Look how rich the Directors who brought Marconi down got! Heaven help us- he's going to 'help' run the country now!

[Lucifer]

They are owned by Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi's leasing department and leased to BA in a finance lease, however this means that BA need to offload the finance lease in a similar manner to the sale of the asset itself, and get someone else to take up the finance lease for a price, or renegotiate with the bank. The assets are not particularly easy to dispose of, since you have to find someone willing to take up the finance lease, and acheive a sufficient price for it so as to make it profitable - this is as finance leases are capitalised on the balance sheet anyway, just like an asset, making the whole sale situation far from dead easy.

Furthermore, how does it help the bottom line when there are more passengers paying economy fares, which don't make the company any money, as opposed to maintaining the capacity to fit more high-profit business class on the aircraft? It makes far more sense for the bottom line to highly price differentiate and reduce capacity, than try to get minimal profit from low margins.

And no, that is not a defence of Ayling's poor running of the company, with capacity cut at simply the wrong time - it is the right strategy now however.