jamestg

So looking at where BA send their 787s to, I notice a few of the destinations are to developing countries. Hyderabad, Chengdu and Chennai.

Is BA trying to target destinations which they need to fly to but don't have a huge demand?

If so why don't they fly to: Guangzhou, Nanjing, Jakarta, Lima, Ho Chi Minh City, Bogota and Taipei - with the 787s.

These places are growing rapidly and can provide growth for BA as well. Latin America, particularly Peru and Columbia. China is also a major destination, and the need for growth because BA (as said on the BBC documentary) have a very small 'footprint' on China - and the country is likely to be a world superpower. Vietnam is industrialising at a fast pace, Indonesia and Taipei too.

However I don't work for BA and can't see all the statistics. Just these destinations could really help BA for the future.

UKtravelbear

All the cities and their countries that you list would loath that you used the term 'developing world' in the first place.

BA will only fly to places where

(a) they think they can make money and part of that calculation is what is the best plane to use

and

(b) get permission to fly into.

shorthauldad

Anyone care to spill the beans on how well the CTU route is doing?

Leeski

I seem to recall hearing there's a lot of cargo on that route which is quite profitable.

paul4040

The 787 works well on "long and thin routes" - cities which are long haul but have a secondary level of demand compared to marquee destinations such as NRT, PVG, and so on.

They sent them to Austin originally, primarily for that reason.

jamestg

Why wouldn't they make money though? Business travellers travelling between London and there is obviously increasing because of increase of tertiary sector jobs in those countries. Looking at a MasterCard study, people are travelling more and more internationally to newer destinations in the world and the growth is expected to carry on increasing as the countries further develop.

Even three return flights a week to these destinations would be better than 5/6 half-empty ones.

000

I read the title and thought... yes, 787's do fly in and out of LHR!!

The economics of the 787 are much better than other widebodies in the fleet, primarily due to it burning less fuel. This makes them ideal to fly into new markets or markets where margins are tight (i.e. they can't get away with high ticket prices).

The good news for folks flying to these destinations is that you get to fly on a new plane in relative comfort (think the lower pressurisation altitude of a 787 cabin).

shorthauldad

Unless you're in Y, in which case it's dire.

UKtravelbear

I'm not saying they won't make money but unless routes turn a profit they won't last for long.

Just look at Target (yes a shop not an airline) they invested billions on extending into Canada. They are not making a profit so have closed the business down.

jamestg

I'm not suggesting for them to go all out at once.

Strategically adding routes, probably beginning with one Asia and one Latin America route - and then gradually dispersing other ones when others make profit.

Genius1

China and India are two of the fastest developing economies in the world, and the flight times are perfectly suited to the economics of operating 787s. There is high demand for travel to these countries for business.

Skipcool3

BA used to fly to Bogota using 777s ....
Perhaps the new 787s will open up some of these other routes...

UKtravelbear

And I never suggested that either.

But this is not just an airline decision.

Often they have to get permission from the other countries Government to operate.

And with BA and LHR in particular it is an issue of getting a slot and at present for BA to start a route to one place generally means having to cut a flight to another.

Calum

5 789's are to be delivered later this year so who knows what news routes could open.

Calchas

Plus lower fuel prices ...