BA ranked worst TATL carrier for fuel efficiency
Sep 14, 2018, 2:57 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TNR
Programs: BAEC Silver, *A Gold
Posts: 237
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/
I’m sure there is a valid reason for BA to persist with the 747’s and the A380’s , but when you see that they burn 63% more fuel per passenger KM it doesn’t 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 747’s ?
https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/n...a-second-time/
I’m sure there is a valid reason for BA to persist with the 747’s and the A380’s , but when you see that they burn 63% more fuel per passenger KM it doesn’t 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 747’s ?
Sep 14, 2018, 3:14 am
#3
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Programs: British Airways Gold
Posts: 2,636
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
Norwegian 789 - 344 seats
BA 789 - 216 seats
BA 747 Hi-J - 275 seats
Sep 14, 2018, 3:20 am
#5
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: LHR/ATH
Programs: Amex Platinum, LH SEN (Gold), BA Bronze
Posts: 4,489
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 aren’t cheap! I agree with flying those old school planes until they reach the end of their lives. if only ba wasn’t so stingy with the interiors
Sep 14, 2018, 3:24 am
#7
Join Date: Jun 2016
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 1,164
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
Sep 14, 2018, 3:34 am
#8
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1,587
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.
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.
Sep 14, 2018, 4:48 am
#9
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,596
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/newt...ewthread&f=446
https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/n...a-second-time/
I’m sure there is a valid reason for BA to persist with the 747’s and the A380’s , but when you see that they burn 63% more fuel per passenger KM it doesn’t 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 747’s ?
https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/n...a-second-time/
I’m sure there is a valid reason for BA to persist with the 747’s and the A380’s , but when you see that they burn 63% more fuel per passenger KM it doesn’t 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 747’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.
Sep 14, 2018, 6:00 am
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TNR
Programs: BAEC Silver, *A Gold
Posts: 237
But whatever, BA turn in a profit so can't be that bad.
Sep 14, 2018, 7:07 am
#11
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10,140
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
See page 9 of the 2017 BA report.
IAG - International Airlines Group - Annual Reports
Sep 14, 2018, 7:55 am
#12
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,596
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.
But whatever, BA turn in a profit so can't be that bad.
Sep 14, 2018, 9:45 am
#13
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
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.
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.
Sep 14, 2018, 11:15 am
#14
Moderator: Qatar Airways
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: LHR/NCE/MIA
Programs: BAEC GfL & GGL, SQ Gold, Amex Centurion, Mucci des Chevaliers des Bons Mots et Qui Savent Moucher
Posts: 8,947
Of course Norwegian is top of the rankings. Their longhaul fleet is spear-headed by 787s which are grounded 
- thus, limited co2!
M
- thus, limited co2!M
Sep 14, 2018, 2:10 pm
#15
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,744
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".