CONFIRMED: BA B787 & A380 layouts

Old Dec 11, 2012, 4:24 pm
  #76  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Wild Wiltshire
Programs: Demoted to gold, Cats protection
Posts: 3,455
Originally Posted by Jumbodriver
As it stands yes. The NE seaboard routes look likely to be first.
NE seaboard routes currently using 767 ??
that'll be PHL for one
pinkcat is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2012, 6:53 pm
  #77  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,916
on the 787 QR is going 4 across 1x2x1 using a J seat similar to the new AA version. It will be interesting to see seat and configuration AA will have on its 787s however it will be quite a swing that AA has a superior seat product to BA. It seems CX and JL also now have a better seat product than BA.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qatar...liner/2198185/

Even going back to the CW "Craddle" vs. the fury monster on AA it's hard to recall AA ever having a J seat on par with BA. Same could be said historically of JL and CX seat products.

While I know the JV means all revenue shared, at the end of the day, alliances come, go and partners change. One would think BA needs to protect preference for its product - obviously hard product in J being an important component of the offering.
elitetraveler is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2012, 7:19 pm
  #78  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 769
I'm not too sure why some people are disappointed to find that the a380 has products consistent with the rest of the fleet. This isn't Concorde. It's not a revolutionary aircraft that serves a different market or purpose. It's just bigger. If you look to other airlines, their offering is largely consistent with their other fleet plans.

Originally Posted by hillrider
AA and BA run a joint business on the Transatlantic so they probably don't care.
Originally Posted by Jumbodriver
Exactly, all Joint business flights are revenue shared. BA gets around 60% AA 30% IB 10% no matter what colour the plane is.
I'm fully aware of the arrangement...

Originally Posted by elitetraveler
While I know the JV means all revenue shared, at the end of the day, alliances come, go and partners change. One would think BA needs to protect preference for its product - obviously hard product in J being an important component of the offering.
This is generally sums up my point. Complacency isn't good for business. AA is making the investment. If BA sits around saying we get 60% of the revenue regardless and then a large amount of traffic shifts over to AA, AA might begin question the terms of the agreement.

Furthermore, jointly marketing two airline's products where one is notably better than the other would in my opinion look worse than comparing two competitors - especially when the price tags are the same. It just doesn't look good and could affect people's choices on routes that aren't under the JV.

You'll have companies that lead and those that follow. Leading has held BA in good stead in the past. JVs allow an for a good opportunity to lead together.

Last edited by destere; Dec 11, 2012 at 7:52 pm
destere is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2012, 7:26 pm
  #79  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,916
Originally Posted by destere
I'm fully aware of the arrangement...



This is generally sums up my point. Complacency isn't good for business. AA is making the investment. If BA sits around saying we get 60% of the revenue regardless and then a large amount of the traffic shifts over to AA, AA might begin question the terms of the agreement.

Furthermore, jointly marketing two airline's products where one is notably better than the other would in my opinion look worse than comparing two competitors - especially when the price tags are the same.

You'll have companies that lead and those that follow. Leading has held BA in good stead in the past. JVs allow an for a good opportunity to lead together.
When i price out trips I often find the AA flights are discounted compared to BA CW. I end up paying a premium to fly on BA as I can sleep well in CW and they provide a better airport experience. If AA suddenly had a superior seat product it would be harder to justify the other attributes of BA as being worth the premium. After all, with a good sleeping seat and privacy i don't have to interact with AA FAs who vary from good to horrible and i can survive without my special meals. It should be around 2 years until AA really has their new J seats in a significant part of the fleet so perhaps in that time we will see an new BA CW product.
elitetraveler is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2012, 7:40 pm
  #80  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Delhi
Programs: Emirates gold *alliance silver jet airways platinum tridentprivilege gold.
Posts: 1,817
Originally Posted by Greg45
Because SQ would have been about 2.5 times the price for my upcoming flight and EK was not competetive on the overall flight time.

Easy decision.
+1

Also

because they don't fly from London to new York, and they don't fly nonstop from Delhi or Bangkok to London. Having said that, when I ( or my company) pays for First I would choose 9W or TG on the BKK and

DEL certainly not BA.. not ditto for CW where BA still trumps. On LON-NYC No contest in F or J. BA wins

These considerations apart, in F of course I would choose most ( non US) airlines over. BA if you are cosmopolitan about your product preferences ... EK SQ, CX TG EY, LH, NH, OZ all have a far superior F product.

But J. Is a different story. More complicated. Head to head EK A380 is a very attractive product. So is SQ, if you don't get 747UD. Ditto CX otherwise I think BA still trumps em... Even given the uninspired rote offering on the 380

Last edited by rathin100; Dec 11, 2012 at 10:35 pm
rathin100 is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2012, 7:52 pm
  #81  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,170
Originally Posted by rathin100
But J. Is a different story. More complicated. Head to head EK A380 is a very attractive product. So is SQ, if you don't get 747UD. Ditto CX otherwise I think BA still trumps em... Even given the uninspired rote offering on the 380
Yup....doesn't matter how good your F product is it's the quality of your long haul J product that brings in the money. Something which Lufthansa and several other big named competitors have for some inexplicable reason never been able to get right.
HIDDY is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2012, 8:05 pm
  #82  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 769
Originally Posted by HIDDY
Yup....doesn't matter how good your F product is it's the quality of your long haul J product that brings in the money. Something which Lufthansa and several other big named competitors have for some inexplicable reason never been able to get right.
You're right. F is now used as an incentive for non-F travellers as much as it is a product in it's own right.

Suppose it's part of the reason why BA wanted to retain the same number of seats in the F cabin when NF was developed - redemptions and upgrades.
destere is offline  
Old Dec 11, 2012, 8:15 pm
  #83  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,916
Originally Posted by destere
You're right. F is now used as an incentive for non-F travellers as much as it is a product in it's own right.

Suppose it's part of the reason why BA wanted to retain the same number of seats in the F cabin when NF was developed - redemptions and upgrades.
I think it is more that BA has certain routes where they can sell 14 F seats or close to it (let's say more than 8 that CX, LH or AF have) and when you calculate the incremental revenue of F tickets over not having inventory, it made sense to have the capacity which then could also be used for upgrades when not sold if BA wished.

The big point is they didn't seem to want to create sub-fleets with various numbers of F seats. I guess once you figure Hi-J, Low-J etc you can have too many configurations which would muck thinks up with IRROPs.
elitetraveler is offline  
Old Dec 12, 2012, 1:50 am
  #84  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2007
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 12,046
Originally Posted by elitetraveler
on the 787 QR is going 4 across 1x2x1 using a J seat similar to the new AA version
The two seats are not similar at all! The have the same configuration but that is about it.

The Qatar Super Diamond is a bespoke design exclusive to QR. It is graceful and elegant with huge amounts of personal space, an extremely large tray table and double sideboard stowage. Incidentally, it uses the same (or at least a very similar) seat shell material as NGCW.

AA's J seat is off-the-shelf and entirely like the CX Cirrus. It is a bit clunky and lacks sideboard surface space.
Sixth Freedom is offline  
Old Dec 12, 2012, 4:35 am
  #85  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: LON, ACK, BOS..... (Not necessarily in that order)
Programs: **Mucci Diamond Hairbrush** - compared to that nothing else matters (+BA Bronze)
Posts: 15,063
Originally Posted by Hyperacusis
The A380 seat plan seems particularly underwhelming, I have to say. Would it not have made much more sense to the keep the upper deck 'premium only', ala EK or QF?
I thought that initially but then I thought that unless they opened more than one door on the lower deck, disembarking would take ages on a full plane for those in WT/WT+. Someone will have spent ages working this out and I don't envy them the task.
Jimmie76 is offline  
Old Dec 12, 2012, 4:38 am
  #86  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: LON, ACK, BOS..... (Not necessarily in that order)
Programs: **Mucci Diamond Hairbrush** - compared to that nothing else matters (+BA Bronze)
Posts: 15,063
Originally Posted by BingBongBoy
The depiction of service areas (toilets and galleys) is not accurate on the diagrams published.
Ah thank you for clearing that up, thought it might be the case but wanted to check.
Jimmie76 is offline  
Old Dec 12, 2012, 4:41 am
  #87  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: LON, ACK, BOS..... (Not necessarily in that order)
Programs: **Mucci Diamond Hairbrush** - compared to that nothing else matters (+BA Bronze)
Posts: 15,063
Originally Posted by Can I help you
Only customers on the upper deck have access to the stairs.
And very handy it is too when you're trying not to be bothered by the people you're travelling with and get some sleep.
Jimmie76 is offline  
Old Dec 12, 2012, 4:49 am
  #88  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: LON, ACK, BOS..... (Not necessarily in that order)
Programs: **Mucci Diamond Hairbrush** - compared to that nothing else matters (+BA Bronze)
Posts: 15,063
Originally Posted by Jumbodriver
As it stands yes. The NE seaboard routes look likely to be first.
Nooooooooo! Stay the hell away from BOS with those 787 things, I like my UD on the 747 and F.
Jimmie76 is offline  
Old Dec 12, 2012, 4:50 am
  #89  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: LON, ACK, BOS..... (Not necessarily in that order)
Programs: **Mucci Diamond Hairbrush** - compared to that nothing else matters (+BA Bronze)
Posts: 15,063
Originally Posted by inkiboo
Compare the A380 First products from Singapore and Emirates; why would you pick BA?
Just off the top of my head, because they don't fly LHR to BOS?
Jimmie76 is offline  
Old Dec 12, 2012, 5:02 am
  #90  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Programs: Mucci des Hommes Magiques et Magnifiques
Posts: 18,981
The rumour that I have heard is that the B787 will first be going to Calgary and then Baltimore, followed by China.
Can I help you is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.