Originally Posted by
13901
The purchases are done at IAG level for the whole group, so whatever is ordered for BA will be done by the Group, a little bit like Lufthansa does. LH ordered 787s for the group and, eventually, these wound their way in LH proper but they could've gone to other airlines in the group. At some point BA will need to replace the 77Es, that's for sure, much like IB and EI will need to replace their A330s; in all honesty I don't know what will replace them. I don't even want to assume it's going to be a 1:1 replacement, a little bit like the 747s, whose missions were going to be fulfilled by a mixture of 77Ws, 78Xs and 35Ks.
The 787-10 has a very similar footprint to the 77E, that's for sure, and the similarity with the LHR-based 77Es are striking, especially when in a four-class setup as you say. Plus, it's lighter and a lot more efficient. The one issue is that it's got shorter legs than the 77E. I can't claim to have a clear understanding of the charts below, they belong to engineers and I'm not, but my simplistic reading is that a fully-laden 77E flies some 2,000 miles further than a 78X.
This makes quite a difference, especially for the LGW fleet. A 78X packed as their 77Es will struggle to get to most of the Caribbean without some sort of load restriction, to say nothing of South Africa or possible West Coast routes.
The idea of a higher gross weight version of the 787-X is enticing, but I don't know if it'll be enough to 'bridge the gap', so to speak. Some more powerful engines are required: the most powerful Trent 800, which powers the 77Es on BA, delivers some 50kN of thrust more than the most powerful Trent 1000 on the 787. Of course the 787 is not made of cast iron like the 77E, but still...
[Armchair CEO] Ignoring all elements of feasibility, I'd have more 350s at BA (with better interiors), including for LGW. They carry a similar number of passengers to the LGW 77Es they're very fuel efficient, they have very long legs which gives them versatility. You can do a Tampa and then a Phuket with the same bird and it'll be going good on both. I'd keep the 787s on 'mainline' out of LHR, especially as a 77E replacement.[/Armchair CEO]
to be fair to the 78X. It does a longer route with Eva air daily - TPE-SEA which is about 9700KM range and subject to pacific winds with 342 passengers. Now I doubt it does that with much cargo but it does it with a full load factor.
United CCO also confirmed that the updated IGW will allow Chicago to Tokyo will full cargo and passengers even with pacific winds. Same applies to Auckland to Los Angeles/San fracisco.
The IGW increases the MTOW by 6 tonnes and includes fuel software management improvements.
Given BA already generally has a very premium heavy config compared to most carriers. I don’t doubt the 78X in its IGW form can do HND and I think it can do GIG. But that’s not it’s focus. It’s focus is the 77E. And they don’t fly that far. 78X can cover all of it.
Now will BA replace all the 77Es with 78X? I highly doubt it. And I generally agree with 13901 it will be a mix.
the 78X will replace the GVIIx fleet out of Heathrow. The similarities are too obvious moreover it carries an extra 20 passengers overall when similarly configured. 235 Vs 256 passengers. Will mean good growth with slot constrained Heathrow, 25-30% more efficient and does not come with capital acquisition costs of the 777X or 350-1000
for the RR 777s that’s between the 789 and 359. But again, 789 might have the inroad here because whilst BA have the 35K, the 359 is still a bit different with different engines, and parts.
789 and 78X share all the same parts, including engines. 788, 789 and 78X all share the same engines and engines can be switched out between the two. These are some of the things Boeing will be saying.
but I would imagine IAG might want to diversify. But they might not like United that’s gone all in 787s.
I don’t know which way BA will go but IMO fhe 78X makes it way in there. The way BA have set it up, it’s pretty obvious the plans they’ve got for it