BA 787-10 deliveries

Old Jul 30, 20, 9:14 am
  #226  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Austin
Programs: AA EXP +2MM- LT PLT! HH Diamond
Posts: 5,390
Originally Posted by rhysflies View Post
Thanks, very interesting! According to this document, the A359 is marginally more efficient than the 789 on transatlantic routes. I wonder what the difference is between A35K and 78X

https://theicct.org/sites/default/fi...g_20180912.pdf
Fascinating article.. thanks for sharing!
teemuflyer is offline  
Old Jul 30, 20, 9:17 am
  #227  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Programs: BA Exec Club
Posts: 582
Originally Posted by rhysflies View Post
Thanks, very interesting! According to this document, the A359 is marginally more efficient than the 789 on transatlantic routes. I wonder what the difference is between A35K and 78X

https://theicct.org/sites/default/fi...g_20180912.pdf
hmm interesting! Iíve always understood it as the A359 is more efficient on longer routes because it can lift more over a longer period but because the 789 is lighter on shorter long hauls itís more efficient as Iíve understood it.

with the A35K it depends on your network and capacity. The 35K on a London to Singapore would be MUCH more efficient than a 78X but on a London to New York the 78X would be much more efficient. Theyíre both very efficient but have different roles to play.

here at BA because most of their long haul to short to medium long haul the A35Kís appeal is its payload relative to its efficiency. Itís extremely efficient and lifts just as much as the 747. The 787-10 lifts almost as much but because itís about 20 tonnes lighter it burns significantly less fuel. In BAís 4 class sits about 260. If you put the A35K in a 4 class it will sit about 290. So about 30 extra passengers. So it really depends on what you want. Theyíre both fantastic at what they are needed for.

looking ahead at the 777-200ERs the 787-10 seems looks a top contender for that contract

Last edited by opus99; Jul 30, 20 at 9:26 am
opus99 is offline  
Old Jul 30, 20, 3:21 pm
  #228  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Programs: Mucci, BA Ag, Ex VS Au, Avis Pres, Enterprise Plat, Ex Marriott Plat, HHonors Ag, Priority Club Au
Posts: 546
Originally Posted by rhysflies View Post
Thanks, very interesting! According to this document, the A359 is marginally more efficient than the 789 on transatlantic routes. I wonder what the difference is between A35K and 78X

https://theicct.org/sites/default/fi...g_20180912.pdf
A really interesting article although I find it a shame that they didn't really attempt to measure efficiency other than by pax-km/L despite acknowledging that passenger density was a big driver in the results after fuel consumption. As such, you can't really compare aircraft types. Airlines and aircraft with big premium cabins (e.g. BA and Lufthansa 747s) nominally come off very badly and it really skews some of the results (such as in figure 2) as you are not comparing like with like. Having said that, I'm not sure whether there is a better measure out there, it would certainly be more complicated to undertake. Maybe something that takes both available pax floor area, with a nominal weight per square foot, combined with freight mass/volume available up to MTOW?
gliderpilot is offline  
Old Jul 30, 20, 3:45 pm
  #229  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,781
Originally Posted by gliderpilot View Post
A really interesting article although I find it a shame that they didn't really attempt to measure efficiency other than by pax-km/L despite acknowledging that passenger density was a big driver in the results after fuel consumption. As such, you can't really compare aircraft types. Airlines and aircraft with big premium cabins (e.g. BA and Lufthansa 747s) nominally come off very badly and it really skews some of the results (such as in figure 2) as you are not comparing like with like. Having said that, I'm not sure whether there is a better measure out there, it would certainly be more complicated to undertake. Maybe something that takes both available pax floor area, with a nominal weight per square foot, combined with freight mass/volume available up to MTOW?
When Steve Gunning was CFO he began talking about CAeSK, Cost for Available equivalent Seat Kilometre. it was meant to be representing a like-for-like comparison to reflect the difference between BA and, say, Vueling or LEVEL. How it was actually calculated, though I do not know.
gliderpilot likes this.
13901 is offline  
Old Jul 30, 20, 11:58 pm
  #230  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 30
Any update on G-ZBLC?
TheMan123 is offline  
Old Jul 31, 20, 1:09 am
  #231  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Left coast US & "a tiny island across the sea"
Programs: MUCCI, BAEC GCH (currently), AA LTG (FWIW)
Posts: 2,580
Originally Posted by TheMan123 View Post
Any update on G-ZBLC?
Where C could easily be for Cargo!

rb211.
RB211 is online now  
Old Jul 31, 20, 2:35 am
  #232  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,202
Originally Posted by 13901 View Post
When Steve Gunning was CFO he began talking about CAeSK, Cost for Available equivalent Seat Kilometre. it was meant to be representing a like-for-like comparison to reflect the difference between BA and, say, Vueling or LEVEL. How it was actually calculated, though I do not know.
Hence why I predict an expansion of WTP at the expense of First and/or Club. WTP is the largest revenue generating cabin in terms of per sq ft kilometre.
PETER01 likes this.
Sigwx is offline  
Old Jul 31, 20, 3:37 am
  #233  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,246
Originally Posted by Sigwx View Post
Hence why I predict an expansion of WTP at the expense of First and/or Club. WTP is the largest revenue generating cabin in terms of per sq ft kilometre.
It appears that may have already happened, the seat maps for A350, B781 and re-fitted B772s give clues.
FlyerTalker39574 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: