BA 787-10 deliveries
 

I recollect the inaugural BA 787-10 service was chalked up for the Atlanta route back in February. This was subsequently pushed back to a later date (April?)
Curious as to whether any of 10 series Dreamliners have joined the fleet yet and if so/not so where they currently are.

Discussion/speculation has been occurring here:
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/brit...acker-279.html

The link has already been posted but the current situation is one frame is ready for delivery, it appears BA have deferred accepting it. The second is off the production line but hasn't had any test flights yet, the third is at the beginning of the production line. Problem is Boeing's plant in Charleston is currently closed due to CV so nothing's being produced at the moment.

don't forget the 4th...BA hasn't quite got any passengers :D

Has it? I must have been mesmorised by all the 747/380 chatter. How far back do I need to go exactly?

March 17 - Thanks Schind! :D:tu:

As others have said restrictions with COVID-19 have delayed delivery. There have also been delays due to issues in the cabin. As of a few days ago, there was no date given for the first delivery.

I saw something on Twitter about Etihad refusing to accept delivery of a 787-10 unless Boeing gave them a 70% discount. They acquiesced, apparently...

Wonder if BA are playing hardball too.

Is that a verified comment on twitter?

It was from some kind of news service IIRC.

It was reported by the FT, although it doesn't name the airline.


"At the end of March, just days before Boeing was set to hand over a new 787 Dreamliner to one of its most valued customers in the Middle East, the airline’s head of procurement picked up the phone to the US aircraft maker. The deal was off, unless Boeing was willing to increase the 55 per cent discount it had already agreed on the $338m list price. In normal times, an airline would hesitate before threatening to cancel an order at such a late stage. Cancellation would normally mean heavy penalties and forfeiting the downpayments, which for Boeing’s state of the art twin-aisle model amounted to close to $100m of the agreed $150m price tag. But these are not normal times. Boeing caved in and cut the price by a further 15 per cent, according to people involved in the deal. The US aircraft maker — which declined to comment on the contract details — saw more value in getting the jet out of the hangar than haggling for a few million dollars more."

*edit*
Tried to post a link but it doesn't work.

So FT implying it’s one out of five Middle East airlines and one out of three Dreamliner models from one out of at least two Boeing Dreamliner production facilities. I’ll file that under ‘appears twaddle’.

Hmmm. Looking into it further, Etihad last had a 787 delivered in January. The only one delivered in March for that area was for Saudi Arabian Airlines.

I would also suggest that Etihad wouldn’t be considered “one of its most valued customers in the Middle East”, right now!

Not quite - they seem to be operating a lot of repatriation flights, and have been rotating their 777 and 787 aircraft into cargo flights, about the only sources of revenue around these days.

Sounds like the sort of move Akbar Al Baker at QR would pull given how vocal he has been in calling out both Airbus and Boeing and delaying taking delivery of aircraft in the past.

O’Leary probably refers to his passengers as cargo but I didn’t realise BA were too! :p

I know they have some passengers but with less than 20 flights per day (if it hasn’t declined further?) rather than their usual 300+ flights per day, to say you have passengers would be a bit insulting to BA. (IAG) in today’s numbers.

Sadly that is the reality. Yes they have a few passengers but not enough that they have ground 200 odd aircraft! ...I lost count. 200 (plus/minus) British Airways aircraft parked up. That is remarkable. Something that is incredibly strange to type let alone digest or see the reality of it.

Which, whilst isolating and being online through websites, social media etc it’s very easy to forget the outside world and what’s actually happening or not as the case maybe. Seeing a deserted Oxford Street on a news site today is very strange, almost apocalyptic.

I imagine if we were to visit Glasgow or LGW and see the aircraft all lined up, parked and engines covered, the reality might really hit home.

So on that basis I think even I could make the decision that 787 delivery can be rescheduled. :)

By stating the list price of $338 million, the FT is at least committing that it's a 787-10. The -8 and -9 are $248m and $292m respectively. (Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...craft-by-type/)

Here's a list of delivered 787s from All things 787

The thing that troubles me is that the FT say "at the end of March" which doesn't tie in with the date of the Saudia delivery. I've checked FR24 and the aircraft was physically delivered on the 19th. If the incident happened 'days before' then it was mid-March. Perhaps this is just an insignificant mistake or maybe it hints that the article is indeed 'twaddle'. As in my last post, I'm filing it under 'hmmm' for now.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...c0865264e3.png


Anyway, we're straying off topic. Sorry!

or a price beginning with the higher number is just more of a story.

Does anyone know which World Traveller seat the 787-10 will have?

Will it have the older (and wider) seat that’s on the -8 and -9, or will they go with the same new narrow seat that’s on the 777 refits and A350?

I think they would go with the newer seat.

They’re rumoured to be using the seats that are coming out the 744s being scrapped at Cotswolds Airport.

That better be sarcasm 😂

Some of those seat are new no?

When BA already have a First seat built for the 787, why would they go to the trouble of reworking secondhand seats from an aircraft cabin totally different in shape and size? With all these things, aircraft and seats already on firm order before COVID-19 struck, penalty clauses will exist for cancellation.

does the -8 and the -9 actually have wider seats than the A350 though? seems unlikely given the standard width of Y seats on a 9-abreast 787 is similar to a 10-abreast 777.

I was sure that the seat on the -8 was the same width as the 10 across WT in the 777s. Are the A350 seats more narrow than those?!

In the 1% chance this isn’t a joke i’m pretty sure those seats are too wide.

I think the old 777 WT seat is the same as the -8 and -9. But when the 777 was converted to 10 abreast, they received the newer seat which is the same as the A350. That suggests that to me it’s a narrower seat to allow 10 across.

And probably too chunky and heavy.

The BA Source has the following measurements:

- 787-9: 17.5" seat width 8F42J39W127Y | The BA Source
- 787-8: 17.2" seat width 35J25W154Y | The BA Source
- 777-200ER: 17.2" seat width 32J52W252Y | The BA Source & 14F48J40W134Y | The BA Source

They do not have details for the A350-1000

Godsavethepoints quotes on the width on the A351 being 17.5", which would mean that it should be ever so slightly wider than that on the 772.

Frankly I'm surprised they didn't select a wider seat, as the A350 supports 9 abreast at 18". Either way, I'm pretty sure the seat for the 777 and the A350 may look identical but not the same, as they are probably made to the specification of each aircraft. For instance, CX's retrofitted 777 seat looks similar with their A350 seats, yet their A350 is wider.

Any loss of seat width is gained by the aisle, which can be very useful on packed economy flights. Plus the cost savings of one large order vs two medium sized...

I'm quite sure it all goes on one order, given how the seats are the same product offered by the manufacturer, either way. I'm not exactly sure how they negotiate these things, but logically each seat must be tailored to fit the specification of each aircraft type, no?

It might go on one order but it is hard to imagine there isn't a penalty for having different variants - after all, it adds complexity to manufacture. Whilst BA are happy to shoulder this cost on Club Suite (depending on the aircraft, the side console changes width) they may think it is not worth it in economy. Easier to just bulk-buy a seat that will fit into every aircraft type regardless of 3-3-3 or 3-4-3.

Of course, I'm wildly speculating here but that would seem sensible to me!

That would make sense apart from the fact that in economy seats come as blocks do they not? For example the 3 or 4 seats in the middle are one unit and thus it isn't as simple as "bolting together a few seats"?

Yes, but the seats aren't bench-like - they literally are just bolted together somehow. My point stands that introducing an additional seat width increases the complexity of manufacturing. Why bother, when you can just stick to 17.5" for all economy seats?

Its really not that simple. The seat tracks in the floor may be in different places, the stay-out zone between the edge of the seat and the aircraft wall may be different. You may choose to have narrower armrests on one aircraft to give more passenger space but might not need to on the other because of the cabin width. The benefit of choosing a platform seat like BA has done is Recaro will have a range of widths they can easily offer and so its still a bulk order but can be tailored to the dimensions of a particular aircraft cabin. I expect the seats will be similar but the width may be slightly different to take account of the 787s narrower cabin than the A350

1) Wider seats are heavier (more material x100s)
2) Consistent Customer Experience across the fleet (why provide something better when the option exists :p)