Drive_is_a_good_movie

Dear all,

this is my first post in the BA forum, so I hope this is the appropriate place to post my question. It is also not important. It is just a matter of curiosity.

BA has a large fleet of 747-400 but no 747-8.[1]
Is the reason because the 747-8 was commerically introduced shortly after the A380 (about 4 years?) and BA wanted to focus on the latter?
If this is the case: Why does LH fly the A380, the 747-8 and the 747-400?

As I said, just of curiosity.

Thank you!

[1] For instance, I flew recently the 747-400 between LHR-ORD as well as -IAD. Well, I did not fly the plane. I was just a pax.

irishguy28

Only a handful of operators use the 747-8 family (Air China, AirBridgeCargo Airlines, Cargolux Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Korean Air, Lufthansa, Nippon Cargo Airlines, Silk Way Airlines, UPS) and many of these are cargo operators.

The 747-8 came after many operators had looked beyond and past the 747.

AC*SE

The 747 models are increasingly a bad fit for airlines. The 773 provides significant lift (about 50 fewer seats than a 744) but does it on only two engines. Two engines means half the engine maintenance cost and half the spares inventory, as well as a better fuel burn per seat ratio. The smaller lift of the 773 makes it slightly more flexible than a 744, and type commonality with the 772 means lower crew costs in terms of training and scheduling flexibility. For many operators the 747 was never the right airplane.

The Queen of the Skies is in her decline. Major operators have been steadily shedding them (JL, SQ, CX) and over half of the passenger versions of the 744 delivered are now mothballed or converted to freighter use. It is as freighters (the purpose for which she was originally designed) that the 747 continues to find its best fit.

For carriers heavily invested in 744s (like BA and LH) new aircraft can't come on stream fast enough. But only three carriers have decided that the 748 is the new equipment of choice. Everyone else has gone in for 777s, A380s or both.

Internaut

Add to that the current emphasis on smaller, more efficient, longer range aircraft (the 787 and A350, for example) which allow airlines to test routes that would have been considered risky a few years back (Weekend break in Austin? Anyone?).

CommanderB

The dual engine aircraft are now the popular choice over the 747 for the most part.

BA is the single largest operator of the 744's left I believe.

JALlover

Surprise that BA didn't expand on their 777-300, when most airlines are expanding on that.

Instead, they opt to diversify its aircraft fleet, which can be a cost burden in terms of maintenance.

mikeyfly

BA was the largest operator ever I believe ?

apollo00

Seems like they've decided the A350-1000 is the next step, which makes sense I guess, I assume more economical than the 777-300 and available sooner than the 777X...so long as something replaces the mid-J 747s before too long...

Andy33

BA have historically preferred long-haul aircraft with Rolls Royce engines. As nothing they have in service now dates to before privatisation, it isn't a "buy British" policy, but based on maintenance and operating costs, and reinforced by less than stellar performance of the 777-200s with GE engines - later orders for 777-200s had Rolls Royce engines fitted.

The 747-8 and the 777-300ER have only ever been available with GE engines, unlike their slightly smaller classmates the 747-400 and 777-200ER
Allegedly the 777-300ER was offered to BA by Boeing at a very advantageous price in part compensation for the severe delivery delays on the 787s they had already ordered. They only have 12 because the 787s finally started arriving, with, of course, Rolls Royce engines. Guess what, the A380s have Rolls Royce engines too....

It's IAG, BA's owners, who decide new purchases. They want commonality across all their airlines, and since apart from BA these are all-Airbus fleets, the A350 in its various sizes is the choice, with, inevitably, Rolls Royce engines.

Worcester

Another aspect of the 747-8 is that while extensively updated, it based on a old design, while the A380 was a brand new aircraft. While the A380 may not break even the 747 has been a total commercial failure.

Sad as the 747 is a beautiful aircraft while the A380 is ugly as sin.

flatlander

The lead time for 777-300s is long, and was very long a few years ago when BA decided to get the A350s instead. However lovely an aircraft is for the cost per seat mile, it is of no benefit until it is delivered.

KARFA

Cargo wise the 787-8 has done ok since there is no competitor. For passenger use it has done really poorly - only Air China, Korean Air, and Lufthansa have taken it. LH have already talked about getting rid of the 747-8 well before it's normal retirement date - normally it would be in service for 25 years at least.

They still are the largest 747-400 operator.

TheBOSman

BA's main hub is the world's most slot constrained airport, and also has one of the highest premium seating demands of any airport on the globe. The fact that BA isn't buying any 747-8s and only has a dozen A380s speaks volumes about the practicality of the big four-engine planes.

It's worth it . Though maybe wait a few months until it isn't above 35C for high temperatures every day .

LondonElite

I think this was JL.

Gig103

I hate to see the 747 go, but the writing is on the wall unfortunately. When Boeing gave UPS a huge deal on some planes that were built and sitting idle, I heard a plausible theory that Boeing is just trying to keep the production line going long enough to get the new Air Force One contract signed and the planes built.