They are going to the effort of flying LEH out to MNL this week.

i personally think the A380’s will remain, but the 747’s will go bye bye...

Apologies if this isn't the right place, and if it's been asked before, but, as such a prolific user of the 744 is there a reason (or several) that BA didn't choose the 748?

It's probably paid off as a decision now in a post Covid market, but that wouldn't have been known 5-10 years ago

maybe BA are already contracted to pay for the work on XLEH - so they might as well get it done ?

is XLEG going to come back to London/France, or are they going to leave her out there ?


on the bigger question of whether the BA a380s will fly again - if airlines are initially required (or choose) to enact social distancing on flights, then the a380s could be needed.

I believe BA evaluated the 748 alongside the A380. Lack of Rolls Royce propulsion was mentioned at the time, but that didn’t stop BA (eventually) buying the 777-300ER. I guess, the larger capacity suited them given LHR’s slot situation. It’s interesting that two out of the three passenger 748 operators (LH and KE) decided to buy both!

I agree. Proponents of the 77X point out its lower seat mile costs and cargo capacity, but those aren’t the only considerations. The 77X cannot carry 460+ passengers in a premium layout and that means that the A380 has the potential to deliver greater revenue and profit for each slot pair! Hence, BA can add capacity on routes like SIN, HKG and JNB without taking up additional LHR slots.
Obviously, it will take time for passenger numbers to return to 2019 levels, and there is the small matter of LHR R3! I just don’t think BA are ready to call time on the whale just yet.

I think it is essentially the same reason why most other airlines didn't choose the 747-8. The A380 was a cleansheet design with potential for further improvements and offered a much more significant capacity increase as a USP. The 747-8 was maybe stuck between a rock and a hard place; competing with the 77Ws and the A380 (and now the 777-9*). Hindsight is a wonder thing thought and maybe it would have been better for many to have bought the 747-8 instead. It may be that 747-8 is actually fits much better on many of the A380 routes, with it's slightly smaller capacity (making is eaiser to fill and thus maintaining good efficiecncy). It will be intersting to see if LH prefers their 747-8s to A380s in the post-COVID world.

*When the 777-9/X was launched in 2013 it was probably the death knell for the 747-8 as the capacity of that twin is not too far off that of the 747-8 but with better economics. We will still see 747s around for a long time to come though, mosty for cargo. It wouldn't surprise me if there were further orders for the 747-8F.

Interesting info, thanks. I suppose the modern new gen twins provide a better balance of capacity and efficiency than quads, even the 748.

I do agree that they'll be around a freighters for a long time to come though. The family as a whole has proved a popular freighter

This is from 2015:

"Sole-sourcing cost Boeing a major order for the slow-selling 747-8, said Willie Walsh, CEO of British Airways. Relations at the time between British and GE Aviation, the sole engine provider on the 747-8, were so poor BA decided instead to order the Airbus A380, where a choice between the Engine Alliance GP7200 and the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 was possible. GE is a JV partner in Engine Alliance with Pratt & Whitney. BA bought Rolls."

https://leehamnews.com/2015/06/09/we...lines-at-iata/

As mentioned above, WW got over his issue with GE. He'll probably retire before he gets over his current issues with Airbus though.

I don't think that'll happen. Triumph Aerostructures, the company that made parts of the 747 fuselage and tail, has stopped making them and sold off their equipment. Boeing will need to find another supplier or do it themselves. I think that's unlikely unless they get some fairly big orders.

G-XWBF, delivery expected 20 May as BA9153P - ETA1915 TLS. (Subject to change)

Put it like this it makes Willie sound pretty petty - which in the GE case is quite unjust. GE, in the early days of the GE90 on the 77E, was both pretty bad and eye-wateringly expensive, hence why the subsequent 77Es mounted Trents. Now the situation has flipped 180 degrees. The GE90-115B on the 77Ws have proven themselves to be some, if not the, greatest engine ever to be mounted on a civil aircraft (and not just because of their power). The GEnx engines on the 787s are also pretty good... something that can't be said of the Trent 1000 on the 787s BA has. The Trent XWB on the 350, though, is pretty good.

Correct me if im wrong but I thought they were one and the same engine on both the A350 and 787.

Edit: Wiki has an interesting article on them, they are varients of the same design, not the same engine itself, so every day is a school day.

Nope, the 787 gets the Trent 1000 and the A350 the Trent XWB. There are various technical differences between the engines and, although the 1000 is older, the latest versions (TEN) incorporate various updates based on the technologies developed for the XWB.

the biggest difference is that Trent 1000 is bleedless and, as far as whatever my brains remember, works at higher temperatures than the XWB.