BA's 777-300s
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA's 777-300s
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Notts & Derbyshire border
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !)
South America routes also on cards for expansion as well as west coast USA frequencies (up !)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Emerging markets like Dubai seem to warrant a 744 these days.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
The ONLY West Bromwich Albion Season Ticket Holder
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Birmingham
Age: 51
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Need to get rid of his 4 engines 4 long haul logo, won't he?
Someone's trying to stir things
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
(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
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Controversial, moi?
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.
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.
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
It may not happen for a year or two but the writing is on the wall for the 747, wonderful aeroplane that it is.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.