Oct 6, 2018, 2:19 pm
Last edit by: Joeykins
Configurations (with links to AeroLOPA seatmaps, where available):
777-200ER
32J 48W 252Y (code 77S)
32J 52W 252Y (code 77T)
14F 48J 40W 134Y (code 77R)
48J 40W 184Y (New Club Suite) (code 77L)
8F 49J 40W 138Y (New Club Suite) (code 77M)
777-300ER
8F 76J 40W 130Y (New Club Suite) (code 77H)
Updated 777 aircraft now in service:
LGW Based Aircraft:
Completed (re-entry to service date):
G-VIIX - 08 March 2018
G-VIIR - 20 April 2018
G-VIIO - 23 May 2018
G-VIIP - 25 June 2018
G-VIIT - 07 October 2018
G-VIIU - 07 November 2018
G-VIIV - 25 January 2019 (currently operating from LHR)
G-VIIW - 02 April 2019 (currently operating from LHR)
G-YMMC - 15 May 2019
G-VIIY - 04 June 2019 (currently operating from LHR)
G-YMMF - 03 October 2019
777-200ER
32J 48W 252Y (code 77S)
32J 52W 252Y (code 77T)
14F 48J 40W 134Y (code 77R)
48J 40W 184Y (New Club Suite) (code 77L)
8F 49J 40W 138Y (New Club Suite) (code 77M)
777-300ER
8F 76J 40W 130Y (New Club Suite) (code 77H)
Updated 777 aircraft now in service:
LGW Based Aircraft:
Completed (re-entry to service date):
G-VIIX - 08 March 2018
G-VIIR - 20 April 2018
G-VIIO - 23 May 2018
G-VIIP - 25 June 2018
G-VIIT - 07 October 2018
G-VIIU - 07 November 2018
G-VIIV - 25 January 2019 (currently operating from LHR)
G-VIIW - 02 April 2019 (currently operating from LHR)
G-YMMC - 15 May 2019
G-VIIY - 04 June 2019 (currently operating from LHR)
G-YMMF - 03 October 2019
G-YMMD - 01 November 2019
G-YMMB - 20 November 2019
G-YMME - 14 December 2019
G-YMMA - 14 July 2022LHR Based Aircraft:
Completed (re-entry to service date):
G-RAES - 08 October 2019
G-VIIL - 31 January 2020
G-VIIK - 02 March 2020
G-VIIM - 20 March 2020
G-VIIN - 14 April 2020
G-VIIB - 25 April 2020
G-VIIF - 15 June 2020
G-VIIS - 12 July 2020
G-VIIC - 08 September 2020
G-STBM - 01 October 2020*
G-STBN - 05 October 2020*
G-YMMI - 08 October 2020
G-VIIG - 28 October 2020
G-STBO - 06 January 2021*
G-STBP - 08 January 2021*
G-VIID - 28 February 2021
G-YMMN - 04 March 2021
G-YMMO - 21 April 2021
G-VIIE - 29 April 2021
G-STBD - 20 July 2021
G-YMMP - 23 July 2021
G-VIIH - 16 August 2021
G-YMMJ - 03 September 2021
G-YMMH - 05 October 2021
G-VIIJ - 29 October 2021
G-VIIA - 14 December 2021
G-YMMG - 07 January 2022
G-YMML - 31 January 2022
G-YMMK - 24 February 2022
G-STBH - 31 March 2022
G-YMMT - 24 May 2022
G-STBG - 14 June 2022
G-STBK - 21 August 2022
G-STBL - 09 October 2022
G-STBJ - 27 November 2022
G-YMMS - 22 February 2023
G-YMMR - 31 March 2023
G-YMMU - 04 May 2023
G-STBA - 24 June 2023
G-STBE - 22 September 2023
G-STBF - 12 December 2023
In Progress at CWL:
<none>
Planned:
G-VIIM - 20 March 2020
G-VIIN - 14 April 2020
G-VIIB - 25 April 2020
G-VIIF - 15 June 2020
G-VIIS - 12 July 2020
G-VIIC - 08 September 2020
G-STBM - 01 October 2020*
G-STBN - 05 October 2020*
G-YMMI - 08 October 2020
G-VIIG - 28 October 2020
G-STBO - 06 January 2021*
G-STBP - 08 January 2021*
G-VIID - 28 February 2021
G-YMMN - 04 March 2021
G-YMMO - 21 April 2021
G-VIIE - 29 April 2021
G-STBD - 20 July 2021
G-YMMP - 23 July 2021
G-VIIH - 16 August 2021
G-YMMJ - 03 September 2021
G-YMMH - 05 October 2021
G-VIIJ - 29 October 2021
G-VIIA - 14 December 2021
G-YMMG - 07 January 2022
G-YMML - 31 January 2022
G-YMMK - 24 February 2022
G-STBH - 31 March 2022
G-YMMT - 24 May 2022
G-STBG - 14 June 2022
G-STBK - 21 August 2022
G-STBL - 09 October 2022
G-STBJ - 27 November 2022
G-YMMS - 22 February 2023
G-YMMR - 31 March 2023
G-YMMU - 04 May 2023
G-STBA - 24 June 2023
G-STBE - 22 September 2023
G-STBF - 12 December 2023
In Progress at CWL:
<none>
Planned:
G-STBB - TBC (originally planned for March 2021)
G-STBC - TBC (originally planned for July 2021)
G-STBI - TBC
G-VIIV - TBC
G-VIIW - TBC
G-VIIY - TBC
*G-STBM/N/O/P were delivered new with cabins installed; date reflects entry into service rather than re-entry into service
G-STBI - TBC
G-VIIV - TBC
G-VIIW - TBC
G-VIIY - TBC
*G-STBM/N/O/P were delivered new with cabins installed; date reflects entry into service rather than re-entry into service
LGW & LHR selected 777s go 10-abreast (3-4-3) in Y 2018 onwards
Nov 6, 2016, 5:16 am
#181
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,380
What I mean here is this.
As long ago as post 93 people were saying there were no thinner walls. You kept going on about it so it was pointed out to you again in posts 131 and 134.
However in post 154 you were still talking about "(perhaps) making the cabin walls thinner" as some reason why 10 abreast might be the same as 9 abreast.
This is a forum and its a debate, however part of having a sensible debate is listening to what other people say.
Of course it's up to you what view you take, however I don't think your argument is strengthened by using reasons which are untrue.
Anyway I'll leave it at that. No need for pms thanks.
As long ago as post 93 people were saying there were no thinner walls. You kept going on about it so it was pointed out to you again in posts 131 and 134.
However in post 154 you were still talking about "(perhaps) making the cabin walls thinner" as some reason why 10 abreast might be the same as 9 abreast.
This is a forum and its a debate, however part of having a sensible debate is listening to what other people say.
Of course it's up to you what view you take, however I don't think your argument is strengthened by using reasons which are untrue.
Anyway I'll leave it at that. No need for pms thanks.
However, the point is the way you post. Is there really any need to be quite so disrespectful and mocking in your tone to fellow posters? Could you not have worded your objections to my post in the more reasonable way you just have done now?
In the spirit of listening to each other that you advocate, perhaps you will take on board this point?
Nov 6, 2016, 5:18 am
#182
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,380
Ah, thank you for the information; a distinction I had not considered.
Nov 6, 2016, 5:24 am
#183
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
Well, some posts were saying thinner walls were an option, other posts were saying not. How to know which to believe? In a nod to this I softened my approach to this one factor in 154.
However, the point is the way you post. Is there really any need to be quite so disrespectful and mocking in your tone to fellow posters? Could you not have worded your objections to my post in the more reasonable way you just have done now?
In the spirit of listening to each other that you advocate, perhaps you will take on board this point?
However, the point is the way you post. Is there really any need to be quite so disrespectful and mocking in your tone to fellow posters? Could you not have worded your objections to my post in the more reasonable way you just have done now?
In the spirit of listening to each other that you advocate, perhaps you will take on board this point?
Maybe we can both accept now that there are no thinner walls involved here (possibly, probably or at all) and we can move on to other things.
As I posted elsewhere I don't think there is a major difference between 9 and 10 across. The seats are a bit narrower as are the aisles. That is about it really. I can live with it.
Nov 6, 2016, 5:32 am
#184
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,380
I apologise if you were offended, however it was becoming clear that a variety of posters were having trouble getting the point over. There is no point in having a debate unless the reasons are credible and deliverable.
Maybe we can both accept now that there are no thinner walls involved here (possibly, probably or at all) and we can move on to other things.
As I posted elsewhere I don't think there is a major difference between 9 and 10 across. The seats are a bit narrower as are the aisles. That is about it really. I can live with it.
Maybe we can both accept now that there are no thinner walls involved here (possibly, probably or at all) and we can move on to other things.
As I posted elsewhere I don't think there is a major difference between 9 and 10 across. The seats are a bit narrower as are the aisles. That is about it really. I can live with it.
Nov 6, 2016, 5:49 am
#185
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
But getting what point over? Some were saying thinner walls, some were saying no thinner walls, and now PrimaVista has brought some interesting new information re the option the cabin walls may be resculpted as a retrofit - possibly a similar way in which more space can be saved. Without this ongoing debate (of which we were both a part), perhaps this relevant information would not have come forward. My point is that there was no need to be so mocking or hostile in the way you chose to post.
I would be interested to see some source for the suggested 767/777 programmes.
Nov 6, 2016, 3:45 pm
#186
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Isle of Skye, Scotland
Programs: BA gold
Posts: 3,902
One of the reasons for underseat boxes is ease of access for maintanance and reduces cost. There are options to install the kit under the floor (even under the aisle floor) but all of it does add to the cost especially when retrofitting.
Nov 6, 2016, 4:05 pm
#187
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,380
Thank you Stez. Such an amazing resource of information on FT ^
Nov 6, 2016, 6:26 pm
#188
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Non-top tier Asia Miles member
Posts: 19,800
Not yet mentioned: the extremely bad IFE boxes on BA's 787 which take away 40-50% of the underseat space, where one's feet have to go if one is to sit in a natural (90 degree knee angle) position when one has longer legs or larger feet - let along put one's smaller carryon bag down there, or things one may want ready access to during the flight (drinks, entertainment).
I completely do not understand why they had to take so much cabin space in a new, as-delivered IFE installation. This is a genuine question - does anyone know why the IFE hardware on the 787 is not integrated under the floor, overhead, in the walls or in the seat?
I completely do not understand why they had to take so much cabin space in a new, as-delivered IFE installation. This is a genuine question - does anyone know why the IFE hardware on the 787 is not integrated under the floor, overhead, in the walls or in the seat?
Nov 6, 2016, 6:58 pm
#189
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: CX Green, QF Platinum, BAEC Silver, Hyatt Glob
Posts: 10,780
Just for comparison's sake, CX hasn't had any IFE boxes under seats in Y since 2007.
Nov 7, 2016, 11:27 am
#190
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Cumbria
Programs: BAEC GGL/CCR, Hilton Diamond, Starbucks Gold
Posts: 4,510
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37902468
BA said: "We are flying more customers than ever before... To meet this demand, we are updating our (Boeing) 777 cabins to bring us into line with many of our competitors."
BA said: "We are flying more customers than ever before... To meet this demand, we are updating our (Boeing) 777 cabins to bring us into line with many of our competitors."
Nov 7, 2016, 12:42 pm
#191
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,770
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37902468
BA said: "We are flying more customers than ever before... To meet this demand, we are updating our (Boeing) 777 cabins to bring us into line with many of our competitors."
BA said: "We are flying more customers than ever before... To meet this demand, we are updating our (Boeing) 777 cabins to bring us into line with many of our competitors."
Nov 7, 2016, 1:12 pm
#192
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: US/UK - and elsewhere
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 2,557
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37902468
BA said: "We are flying more customers than ever before... To meet this demand, we are updating our (Boeing) 777 cabins to bring us into line with many of our competitors."
BA said: "We are flying more customers than ever before... To meet this demand, we are updating our (Boeing) 777 cabins to bring us into line with many of our competitors."
Nov 7, 2016, 1:51 pm
#193
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: JER
Programs: BA Gold/OWE, several MUCCI, and assorted Pensions!
Posts: 32,145
BA: "We are scratching for every penny we can find down the back of the sofa, because we haven't got a clue what we want to be ... apart from keeping the shareholders happy. I'm sure we will find some one-time passengers to fill these seats, before they discover other airlines offer more for less money. There's always another ignorant customer waiting round the corner ... for now,"
Nov 7, 2016, 3:59 pm
#194
Join Date: May 2009
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 769
Whilst BA has all it's faults, amidst all it's dubious decisions, this one was inevitable. This is not part of BA's 'race to the bottom', this is a genuine response to how the market has changed. CX is going 10 abreast too for gods sake. It's only a matter of time before the very few at 9 abreast left follow.
This is the one issue where I think people really need to get a grip.
This is the one issue where I think people really need to get a grip.
Nov 7, 2016, 8:15 pm
#195
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 476
The Daily Mail has finally read The Independent (can't believe they actually name that as a source rather than reading the presentation - well I can, its the DM) and picked up on this story http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html#comments It's obviously going down well in the comments