Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

BA ranked worst TATL carrier for fuel efficiency

BA ranked worst TATL carrier for fuel efficiency

Reply

Old Sep 14, 18, 3:57 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CPT
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 147
BA ranked worst TATL carrier for fuel efficiency

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/newt...ewthread&f=446

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/n...a-second-time/
​​​​​​Iím sure there is a valid reason for BA to persist with the 747ís and the A380ís , but when you see that they burn 63% more fuel per passenger KM it doesnít appear to make a lot of economical sense.

I appreciate that the list takes into account the number of premium seats that BA offers against the high loads of Norwegian and Wow but even so these 4 engine planes are comparative gas guzzlers v the A350, 787-9 etc.

BA say that they will deliver a 25% improvement in Carbon emissions by 2025 is that supposed to co-inside with the phasing out of the 747ís ?
ironmouse is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 18, 4:07 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: NQY
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 72
Whilst the 747 are known for being less fuel efficient, these figures don't appear to make any allowance for the large cargo business BA has as well and will be carrying on these 747 routes.
LimitingFactor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 18, 4:14 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Programs: British Airways Gold
Posts: 1,836
The reason BA's fuel per pax number is so high are the big premium cabins. Norwegian only has a premium economy cabin and most of the plane is 9 abreast 787 economy.

Norwegian 789 - 344 seats
BA 789 - 216 seats
BA 747 Hi-J - 275 seats
adrianlondon and Calum like this.
ajeleonard is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 18, 4:16 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Northern England
Programs: BA Bronze, HH Gold
Posts: 44
And just how much carbon is produced in manufacturing a new aircraft?
frandrake likes this.
TraumaDoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 18, 4:20 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: LHR/ATH
Posts: 2,382
The 747s are fully paid for no? So their only costs are insurance, maintenance and fuel! So even if it uses a lot of fuel, you need to include the cost of the plane itself. Those new ones arenít cheap! I agree with flying those old school planes until they reach the end of their lives. if only ba wasnít so stingy with the interiors
trooper likes this.
ahmetdouas is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 18, 4:20 am
  #6  
Hilton Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: N/A
Programs: GGL/CCR
Posts: 4,074
All this CO2 is a fake news... moving on
nufnuf77 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 18, 4:24 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 743
lots of reasons - relatively less fuel-efficient aircraft, higher number of premium seats which boosts the 'per passenger' figure; cargo loadings on US flights probably result in a higher average take-off weight for BA than most other airlines (take-off and climb being by far the most fuel-intensive phases of flight); also I expect some small contribution from BA being primarily out of LHR where taxi and waiting times tend to be longer - this causes not insignificant fuel burn before you even leave the ground - fairly common to have a 744 taxiing for 45-60 minutes from the gate to take-off at peak times which must make a difference across the dozens of daily flights
ratypus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 18, 4:34 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Basel
Posts: 255
Booo! BA uses loads of fuel per person, they need to do something about it!!

Booo! BA aren't giving us enough space, they need to do something about it!!

And maybe even Booo! BA are throwing still useable aeroplanes into landfill and harming the environment by buying new ones. They need to do something about it!!

etc.

The solution is for everyone to just stay where they are and stop moving around Do excuse me while I take my positioning flight to go on an ex-EU tier point run.
adrianlondon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 18, 5:48 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,451
Originally Posted by ironmouse View Post
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/newt...ewthread&f=446

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/n...a-second-time/
Iím sure there is a valid reason for BA to persist with the 747ís and the A380ís , but when you see that they burn 63% more fuel per passenger KM it doesnít appear to make a lot of economical sense.

I appreciate that the list takes into account the number of premium seats that BA offers against the high loads of Norwegian and Wow but even so these 4 engine planes are comparative gas guzzlers v the A350, 787-9 etc.

BA say that they will deliver a 25% improvement in Carbon emissions by 2025 is that supposed to co-inside with the phasing out of the 747ís ?
S
Statistics and damned lies. If BA removed all the premium cabins and fitted hundreds more Y seats, then you would see a different result.
HIDDY, PETER01 and RoyalSwazi like this.
rapidex is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 18, 7:00 am
  #10  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CPT
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 147
Originally Posted by rapidex View Post
S
Statistics and damned lies. If BA removed all the premium cabins and fitted hundreds more Y seats, then you would see a different result.
Surely the main reason for the demise of the 747 is its fuel efficiency. Sure you would get a different result with more Y seats, but no matter how tightly you pack in the pax it's never going to compete with the 787-9 and the A350 with similar configuration.
But whatever, BA turn in a profit so can't be that bad.
ironmouse is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 18, 8:07 am
  #11  
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Programs: BA Gold, Mucci
Posts: 7,773
Originally Posted by ahmetdouas View Post
The 747s are fully paid for no?
This was on a thread sometime ago where it was stated that BA do own all their 747's. I can't remember which thread but I do remember it clearly so I can understand BA wanting to hold onto them. Plus as some else has pointed out, I do know that Cargo pays very well including on the 747 routes.

See page 9 of the 2017 BA report.

IAG - International Airlines Group - Annual Reports
PETER01 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 18, 8:55 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,451
Originally Posted by ironmouse View Post
Surely the main reason for the demise of the 747 is its fuel efficiency. Sure you would get a different result with more Y seats, but no matter how tightly you pack in the pax it's never going to compete with the 787-9 and the A350 with similar configuration.
But whatever, BA turn in a profit so can't be that bad.
Of course not. And BA is replacing them with new aircraft. Not possible to do that in 1 year. The crew training task alone would kill that plan.
rapidex is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 18, 10:45 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 5,782
Of course what is most environmentally friendly is not always what is most profitable.

Even though fuel consumption per km may be higher it is presumably more profitable to keep flying those old bangers around than take on debt to acquire new aircraft.
rapidex and jhneoh like this.
simons1 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 18, 12:15 pm
  #14  
Moderator: Qatar Airways
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: LHR/NCE/DOH
Programs: BAEC GGL & CCR, QR Insider, Krisflyer Gold, Mucci des Chevaliers des Bons Mots et Qui Savent Moucher
Posts: 6,960
Of course Norwegian is top of the rankings. Their longhaul fleet is spear-headed by 787s which are grounded - thus, limited co2!

M
msm2000uk is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 18, 3:10 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 3,465
The article was only looking at selected TATL routes, not all of them. BA's conversion of some 744's in to the 86J configuration will have hurt the rankings when compared to a Y/PE or high density configurations operated by the LCC's. As an example, BA's 777 have 299 seats. Air Canada's high density 777 has 458 seats. Which would you rather be on? There is a reason one has been nicknamed "The slaveships".
Jagboi is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: