opus99

Unconfirmed rumour that BA plans to put crew bunks on the 787-10 as the routes planned seem to fairing closer to regulatory borders on flight hours.

Any insiders hearing this?

TedToToe

For clarity, I believe we are talking cabin crew bunks here, given flight crew bunks are already fitted. In the light of the delays to the 779, this probably makes sense. There must be routes where the reconfigured 77W is too premium heavy and the 789 too small. Yes, there's the 4 class 77E but, how much longer are they going to be around. Also, Boeing are increasing the 781's range so better for BA to decide on this now rather than adding it later.

13901

It's impossible to give a single answer, which is also why it's often very hard to act on the root causes of a problem. If I look at today, 209 to MIA had delays due to rotation and then the tactical decision to await some inbound bags. Yesterday's 55 to JNB had issues due to weather at LHR, and the 84 to YVR had basically everything: rotational delay, ATC, paperwork... the 293 to IAD had a 1h30 rotational delay.

At a higher level, though, the 380 fleet historically struggled due to its limited size (12) and frequent use. Back in 2017/18/19 there were instances when there simply was no cover for some flights, especially those late in the day, due to technical issues and so on. A 13th aircraft would've been a godsend at that time. Now I'm not too sure about frame usage, but the issue in the earlier part of the year was technical reliability. Modern airliners are meant to be flying and be maintained, not to be mothballed someplace. You're bound to have issues when you do, especially of the electrical kind. And they don't need to be massive! A faulty emergency lighting can be a pain to sort out if it's due to wiring, and if it's on the Minimum Equipment List (as it normally is)... then you're stuffed. I was following QF with their 380s and they seem to be having lotsa problem as well.

So, once you have a 'triggering' event then it all snowballs from there: late plane means that you need to rejig resources, if you can't then there's additional problems, then if you don't have a spare A/C you need to cancel/suffer rotational delays... it all goes on.

I think with a bit of time things will settle down as the 380s get their daily/weekly maintenance routine and whatever is more likely to fail due to reduced usage will, indeed, fail.

BA has historically put non-bunked 77Es on routes that are really in need of a bunked plane. I honestly doubt they'll retrofit the current 78X order. Perhaps future top-ups will have bunks, but it all depends on how well the -10 performs on longer routes I guess, and perhaps on whether an HGW version of the 78X is on the cards as Leeham News was hinting at a while back.

LancashireFlyer

Thanks for the reply. I imagine it's a schedulers nightmare at the moment!

opus99

oh I see. I hope they do. Opens up the flexibility of the aircraft.

looking at their plans.

miami, denver and Seattle are routes planned for the winter on the 78X

and they’re very sketchy.

block time is 9hrs and 55 minutes for Miami and denver

seattle is 10 hours. But I think they’ve done Seattle with the -10 before but that was during covid when flights where not necessarily full

let’s see how it plays out.

But what exactly is the regulation?

13901

As far as I'm aware, there is no specific regulation as such, it's down to union agreements. I mean, there need to be rest areas, but that's it as far as I know. For instance, I flew LATAM MAD-SCL on their 787-9s and to my knowledge they only have some Premium Economy-like seats down at the back for a flight of about 13hrs. Similar story for Alitalia (now ITA) on the 330s if memory serves me right, or US Air on the 330s.

SEA used to be flown on non-bunked 77Es since time immemorial, since for some reason it's not considered as "West Coast" and my OH used to complain - in her LGW days - that some of the Caribbean routes were operated by non-bunked aircraft because the agreement allowed them to.

To be clear, I find that practice woeful for the crews. I've dabbled as crew when the volunteer crew thing was launched, and then rebranded iCSP. It is a physical job, that exhausts mind and body. There's a lot of lifting, shifting, pulling, pushing, and breaks are absolutely needed. I find it hard to understand how pilots can have bunks and seats blocked (though they often give them up, in fairness) for a job that is a bit more sedentary, while crews don't. I know there's different union agreements, and different balance of powers, but come on.

Personally, I think the 78X should've had bunks from the get-go. Firstly because it is a good thing to do for the crew, and I honestly doubt that the price differential or the revenue loss by having a couple less seats would've been massive. But also because right now, effectively, the 78X has a limit of about 4500nm from LHR (SEA is a kind of outlier) and there's a lot of other destinations that the -10 can travel to with a decent load without too much hassle. From LAX to SAN to the Caribbean in the West to India and Africa in the South and East. UA has flown the aircraft on routes up to 5500nm long, so there could be scope. There's a lot of 77Es to replace for BA and right now the 78X is the best fit. Sure, they can buy more of them - and I believe there are options? - with bunks, but it gets back to the old problem of sub-sub-fleets. BA could and should've thought a bit more strategically here.

Still, I don't think bunks will be retrofitted on the current fleet, at least not before the planes are due a massive refurb in 5-6 years from their arrival. Doing one now means basically re-doing the back of the plane.

GSTBD

Some inaccuracies in here. Yes it IS a regulation for crew rest areas, but it is complicated and depends on things such as time zones and elapsed time in them. You should know this if you are operating as crew as it is mandatory learning.

I do agree crew also need rest areas. The only aircraft where pilots have rest areas and crew dont is the 787-10, blame Boeing not BA.

As for your comment on pilots and rest, remind me who has the challenging task of landing the plane after a long night flight?

TheMan123

Boeing fit the interior of new aircraft to specifications set out by the airline. The 787-10 comes standard with CC bunks, but if an airline decides differently then Boeing will accommodate that. Many other airlines have CC bunks on their -10.

As far as I am aware, BA is the only airline that has decided to take the CC bunks out of their -10’s, which in turn limits where they can send it to based on agreements and regulations.

13901

I'm not.

I don't. BA chose not to put in crew bunks.

I've noted (see below) that a pilot's job is more sedentary. Not that it's more or less challenging.

GSTBD

This is incorrect. The -10 does NOT come with CC bunks as standard. I know Singapore Airlines don’t have them but to be fair I am not aware of what other airlines have done.

smiles in the aisles

anyone know why the A320 G-MEDK operates the ALG route so often?

TedToToe

I've read on here before, it's something to do with a greater baggage capacity which suits this route. Hopefully, somebody will be along to provide more details.

opus99

if they do not come as standard then that is because of the original selling point which was medium haul. It’s still very much up to the airline and I still very much blame BA. The longest 787-10 flight at SIngapore Airlines is 5:30 hours and the shortest about an hour

at BA it’s over 9 hours and the shortest about 8 hours. So don’t get the bunks if you’re not going to do those kind of hours.

I think Eva Air has them, they do about 11.5 hours on their -10s to destinations like Vancouver and Vienna

BA should’ve just gotten them, I think BA have realised the revenue gains and cost savings on longer stage lengths using the -10. On the SEA route, BA is saving about 30% on costs

SamYeager

I suspect "Cost cutting is in our DNA" and the desire to maximise seating capacity and hence income had rather a lot to do with the decision to dispense with bunks. Happy to be proved wrong.

BJ787

That would make sense, MEDK (Along with the GAT's) have a higher MTOW than the rest of the A320 fleet. 77000KG vs 75000KG on the NEO/EUYs and 72600KG on the rest of the classics. MEDK also having the full 180 seats as opposed to the 177 of the GATs I guess gives it the best of both worlds if it is indeed capacity driven.