Panic Stations

The 767s can't stick around for long as sometime in the next few years (can't remember exactly but it's less than 5) there's a navigation equipment change required for the North Atlantic which the 767 won't be able to comply with. That would force it to cross the pond at 28000ft or below, making it uneconomical for the US routes. It could carry on flogging south and east but it's pretty limiting. The 747/777 replacement could turn into an interesting contest. If Airbus can get the A350 right then Boeing will need to re-engine and re-wing the 777 to make it competitive. Will they be able to deliver enough savings from a 20 year old airframe? My money is on a mix of A350 and A380 to replace the 744s and 787s to replace the older 777's. I don't think we'll see any more 777 orders beyond the current ones.

JMurray

Thanks for that, who knew?

Examples like this prove that point of how difficult planning fleet-renewals must be; balancing all the operational, legal, economic arguments for and against each a/c, manufacturer or aircraft family.

It must be incredibly fustrating to airlines when their carefully planned aquirements become subject to delays (eg A380, 787) and cock up all your plans...cheers for our 767s Boeing

cornishsimon

Perhaps the likes of LAN arent as stupid as they first seemed by having 767 new builds still on order !

The 767 production line seems to be still going strong, I must admit that its churning out more Freighters now than Passenger models, but still, if someone was to come along and order 20 767-300ERs to add to an existing 767 fleet, it might not be such a stupid order !

cs

Globaliser

As a general question of interest, does anyone know when there will be some definitive clarity yet on whether the 380 can actually deliver more capacity than a 747, particularly at an airport like LHR? ISTR it being quite finely balanced whether increased separation requirements and other 380-specific characteristics mean that airlines/airports can't actually move more people overall with 380s than they could with 747s - although obviously using 380s would reduce the number of aircraft by which that capacity is being moved.

cornishsimon

I know i cant copy and paste something thats currently posted on another airline related forum, but theres some rather interesting speculation regarding the BA fleet post BMI takeover floating around.................

It involves the replacement of the BA LGW 734 fleet

cs

Paralytic

It doesn't count if you change the font colour

RB211

I don't think there's anything wrong with you giving us a brief summary, is there?

rb211.

stueys

Still confused why BA wouldn't go 748, it's the most loved plane after the pointy one, handled by vast majority of airports and has a nice capacity. Is it that much more costly to run than a 787 or 350?

Waterhorse

Simple answer - yes.

Slightly more complex answer. When an airline presents a new aircraft to the market it is full of claims as to what it will do, when they actually try to sell the aircraft, then they make certain guarantees as to its performance in service. Boeing has, so far, only been able to guarantee performance such that the -8 will not be economical as a pax jet. Only DLH (and a handful of trivial others) have ordered them as a pax jet and they got a fantastic deal as Boeing pulled out out of an order for MD-11s when they closed the production line. So as far as the accountants believe, the 747-8 does not stack up economically and is dead in the water as a passenger jet. It seems to work as a freighter.

As a simple rule of thumb, big twins are more economical that quad-jets.

JimEddie

Only slight problem is that big twins don't have the capacity of quad-jets, which is a big issue if you're operating from a capacity constrained airport such as LHR.

jabrams72

Can anyone point to details on this?

Thanks!

OPebble

Also what about high airfields? ISTR someone saying that the 777 can't operate out of JNB? Comments?

Waterhorse

The 777-300 is pretty close to the 747-400 but is significantly cheaper to operate. The 747-8 is not a big enough step up in size for the economics to work out, i.e. not enough more capacity for the extra cost in operating it. This extra capacity only really starts to come into play with the A380.

Perhaps the capacity issue would be more relevant if travel in the lesser cabins was more lucrative. It is the premium cabins that generate most of the revenue and pure capacity, in itself, is not the primary driver in these purchasing decisions.

JimEddie

Only if you compare it to the Hi J 744, you lose nearly 40 seats compared to the Mid J

Don't forget the belly cargo capacity, which will also be an important influencing factor.

It is difficult though, with Boeing clearly aiming for airlines based in the non-capacity constrained airports around the world and therefore not offering a "big quad"

peterrabbit

BA 33/34 are operated by 777 so I don't think that's right. JNB is a similar altitude to DEN which is also a 777 operated route.

But they both do have very long runways!