BA's 777-300s
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<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!
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!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...the more likely sale remains the 777 with a larger sale value, and larger market demand...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
"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!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Classified
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by D.Lamination; 30th Apr 2004 at 13:48.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Lucifer; 12th May 2004 at 05:50.
