IAG signs LOI for 200 737MAX - some for BA LGW
Jun 18, 2019, 3:59 pm
#92
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 18,605
Some of the comments are great value. Particularly like this one: "Th should be ashamed of themselves, they should be buying British planes and I don't care how much the cost."
BA to hoover up old Avro RJs from the second hand market? Get some old Tridents recommissioned, somehow? A re-engined Bristol Brabazon, perhaps?
BA to hoover up old Avro RJs from the second hand market? Get some old Tridents recommissioned, somehow? A re-engined Bristol Brabazon, perhaps?
Jun 18, 2019, 4:24 pm
#93
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Scotland
Programs: BAEC - Silver | Hilton Honors - Gold
Posts: 296
Jun 18, 2019, 8:52 pm
#94
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 38
Honestly I suspect that this deal is to turn one of the two LLC's in IAG into a power house, and with level experimenting with low cost long haul I would predict most of the aircraft would be for Vueling, and the 737 does have advantages for a LLC over the a320. More plentiful pilots with less options as a320 pilots move up into a330 and a350 with minimal training while a 737 pilot has no such options, and is easier to service at the absolute bottom of the barrel airports where it can have baggage loaded manually and people loading through the in built stairs. Then if someone like IAG went up to Boeing to discuss a deal they were probably given a really competitive price and then were told that if they could get a respectable full service carrier they owned to also fly them they could get a even better deal so they added probably 10-20 airframes to go to BA at London Gatwick, so that technically BA is flying 737 Max's, and while BA pr and management are probably not very happy with the deal I doubt WW cares as BA is only a part of a much bigger operation.
Jun 18, 2019, 10:16 pm
#95
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,320
Right! There's no cargo containers. Only you put a bags on the conveyer belt into the aircraft. They can unload and loading into the aircraft.
It take a time to fixed the software. Hopefully they will put back in the air later this year.
As for 787, yes they grounding the 787 for more than 6 months. All 787 is being fixed and they already review from FAA.
Nice! I'm glad they orders the A321XLR for IB and EI, too.
Who cares? There's nothing wrong with the entire aircraft. Hopefully they will put back in the air later this year. Right now, they have to be fixed. If they has been resolved it. FAA will have an approved soon. They should be done investigating.
I haven't flown on DC10 yet! I never been on it before.
The 737 MAX makes concerns about battery issues on the 787 years ago seem like mere trivialities.
It's a warmed over design with cost avoidance at its now tragic core. It does not appeal to me though I am sure that IAG got a good deal on them.
Boeing - and the FAA - have some serious work to do to rebuild confidence in their respective organisations.
It's a warmed over design with cost avoidance at its now tragic core. It does not appeal to me though I am sure that IAG got a good deal on them.
Boeing - and the FAA - have some serious work to do to rebuild confidence in their respective organisations.
As for 787, yes they grounding the 787 for more than 6 months. All 787 is being fixed and they already review from FAA.
I haven't flown on DC10 yet! I never been on it before.
Jun 18, 2019, 10:59 pm
#96
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: HKG
Programs: BA GGL & CCR
Posts: 600
I agree with you, one of main reasons I choose to fly legacy or mainline over budget carriers is a focus on safety vs. cost, particularly as the market heads into recession and budget airlines HAVE to find corners to cut, to stem cash out flow.
Problem is the cost cutting is addictive, you have to keep pressuring your staff to find more ways to slice fractions off the bottom line or make it look like they have... sooner or later someone makes a bad decision, that won’t show immediate effect, but someone makes another, and another and things begin to slip by the wayside, start to get overlooked, safety issues previously double checked get missed and then checked every other time, qualified staff leave and aren’t replaced immediately, coverage is spread thin, paperwork just gets signed off just this once, then it starts happening regularly.
And then circumstances combine to produce critical failure and a plane blows up in the sky.
Jun 19, 2019, 12:15 am
#97
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Split between MAN & AKL
Programs: BAEC GGL/CCR, SkyMiles Gold, Mucci deux fois
Posts: 619
Call me an old cynic, but don’t you find it a sly & deliberate move on the part of IAG to refer to these aircraft as B737-8s and B737-10s, with not one single mention of the fact they are MAXs..?
Jun 19, 2019, 2:06 am
#100
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Scotland
Programs: BAEC - Silver | Hilton Honors - Gold
Posts: 296
While I do think the current company concern about the Max is warranted. This will eventually be alleviated with the new updates and testing.
There has been many examples in history of new aircraft have fatal accidents (DC-10 sprinkling the Midwest with cargo doors) Also BA to this day fly the 747 which as we know has had quite a few accidents in its history.
IAG have made a smart choice for the long run, this aircraft will be one of the safest aircraft in the sky but Boeing will need to go on the PR offensive to win pax confidence back.
There has been many examples in history of new aircraft have fatal accidents (DC-10 sprinkling the Midwest with cargo doors) Also BA to this day fly the 747 which as we know has had quite a few accidents in its history.
IAG have made a smart choice for the long run, this aircraft will be one of the safest aircraft in the sky but Boeing will need to go on the PR offensive to win pax confidence back.
Jun 19, 2019, 2:13 am
#101
Join Date: Mar 2009
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 113
Definitely disappointed from the perspective that this is could be seen as rewarding behaviour that is downright dangerous from Boeing.
From a personal standpoint, if these planes do end up with BA @ Gatwick, I will start taking the train up to Scotland instead of flying. I've no interest in flying them given the current safety issues, but also from a passenger comfort perspective I prefer the A320 so it is a definite downgrade.
From a personal standpoint, if these planes do end up with BA @ Gatwick, I will start taking the train up to Scotland instead of flying. I've no interest in flying them given the current safety issues, but also from a passenger comfort perspective I prefer the A320 so it is a definite downgrade.
Jun 19, 2019, 3:03 am
#102
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold; FB Silver; SPG; IHG Gold
Posts: 2,983
Jun 19, 2019, 3:07 am
#103
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
Concorde crashed pretty phenomenally, yet many hark on complaining it should have returned to service once the necessary changes were made.
Well, if Boeing make the necessary changes to the 737-MAX, surely they deserve a similar chance.
M
Well, if Boeing make the necessary changes to the 737-MAX, surely they deserve a similar chance.
M
Jun 19, 2019, 3:15 am
#104
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 18,605