|
Originally Posted by SHT88T
(Post 32404187)
As with everything else at the moment, I imagine both the MAX and 779 are up in the air.
For example, take a scenario where BA choose to keep the A380 in the fleet (given they are owned). In the current climate, with 35K deliveries continuing, the 781 arriving soon and the densification programmes on the whole 77E/W fleet, do BA really need another large aircraft to fill? A mix of 35K, 788, 789, 781, densified 77E, 77W and 388 is a pretty diverse fleet mix which may facilitate right sizing markets for the next 5-7 years. In the short term there would be fleet reduction with the (very saddening early) loss of the 744. Longer term a deferred 779 order provides the option to expand again later (after all 35K’s and 787’s are received) if demand returns or as replacements when the G-VII 77E’s have no life left. I imagine many airline CEO’s would love to have a crystal ball now more than ever before. |
Originally Posted by tiffwhat
(Post 32404063)
As part of the current negotiations with BALPA, BA are trying to allow for BA CityFlyer to fly from Heathrow - this is something that appears likely to happen sooner rather than later (this summer).
I guess the E-jets could be parked on remote stands which would help overcome some of the logistical issues. The E190 would probably be a good plane to operate the new NQY route too. They would also need to switch Euro Traveller back to free catering across the board, otherwise Airbus flights would have BOB and Embraers free snacks. |
Originally Posted by BAeuro
(Post 32404241)
The E190 would probably be a good plane to operate the new NQY route too. They would also need to switch Euro Traveller back to free catering across the board, otherwise Airbus flights would have BOB and Embraers free snacks.
|
Originally Posted by opus99
(Post 32404200)
this was the same thing I thought. Until i remembered there’s a huge 747 GAP of about 30 frames and then 77Es begin to fade off given that their owned, Demand returns, the 779 will take BA back to where it was pre covid but they don’t need it now, 2023 Entry is the correct time also some 77E replacements will happen with the 779. I don’t see the 779 as growth at all. The 787 was growth the 779 has always been tipped for the 747 replacement program and from the moment it launched BA has always wanted it but the pricing had to be right.
|
Originally Posted by ISTFlyer
(Post 32404243)
Aren't they serving free pretzels on short-haul regardless of the aircraft type, at least for the moment?
|
Originally Posted by ISTFlyer
(Post 32404243)
Aren't they serving free pretzels on short-haul regardless of the aircraft type, at least for the moment?
|
Originally Posted by lcylocal
(Post 32404280)
I wonder if in the longer term the crisis gives BA the cover to quietly dump Tourvest and go to a more simplified free ET offering of pretzels plus pre-packages beer, wine or soft drink or a hot drink. No other legacy airline copied them and their staff costs might have radically changed.
And also, the BoB would certainly resume in terms of revenue when things get better. Forget free beer/wine/spirits on ET. |
Originally Posted by 13901
(Post 32404129)
I'd rather see it as a way to keep part of BACF flying, as well as covering routes that otherwise wouldn't be economic with larger planes. Still, it'll take some time to implement: literally no one at LHR is even remotely qualified to touch an Embraer.
|
Originally Posted by BAeuro
(Post 32404241)
The E190 would probably be a good plane to operate the new NQY route too.
|
Originally Posted by gliderpilot
(Post 32404262)
Yes, good point. I see the 779 as essentially filling the vacum left by the 747 retirements. Worth bearing in mind that the 788 and a35k don't have F and not every 777 has F either and the 7810 will take a while coming. That will be a factor in fleet balance as I am sure BA will be wanting to maintain F on some of the more lucrative routes and may mean we see some of the 747s for at least a few years more?
Covid19 will drive a huge shift in how the majority are likely operate in broad terms. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that instead of traveling most weeks I can do my job remotely for at least three weeks per month. The other one week on site just to show my face and keep up actual human appearances. The exception to this being at the beginning of a piece of work when I find it much more beneficial building relationships while I am physically sitting with a client. Many employers will again be seeing the savings made by blocking or forcing serious scrutiny on work related, non-essential travel. I am not thinking for a second this is the rule for everyone but if even 50% of current travelers find they can do their job 75% of the time remotely that'll be a big loss in the short to medium term. Many of the customers lost, in many cases, may have have been sitting 'up front'. |
Originally Posted by SHT88T
(Post 32404369)
I'm sure BA are already all over this with their corporate clients. It's hard to see the likes of the JFK returning to the same frequency as before, other business heavy routes are likely to be the same in the short term thus reducing the need for lots of First. The 77E, 77W, 789, 781 and 388 may prove to be enough First capacity to plug the gap.
Covid19 will drive a huge shift in how the majority are likely operate in broad terms. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that instead of traveling most weeks I can do my job remotely for at least three weeks per month. The other one week on site just to show my face and keep up actual human appearances. The exception to this being at the beginning of a piece of work when I find it much more beneficial building relationships while I am physically sitting with a client. Many employers will again be seeing the savings made by blocking or forcing serious scrutiny on work related, non-essential travel. I am not thinking for a second this is the rule for everyone but if even 50% of current travelers find they can do their job 75% of the time remotely that'll be a big loss in the short to medium term. Many of the customers lost, in many cases, may have have been sitting 'up front'. In my company, for instance, we're reviewing our needs in terms of office space. A lot of us are considering whether to embrace WFH for good, with some occasional visits. That could trigger some additional duty travel which, previously, we wouldn't have had. |
Originally Posted by tiffwhat
(Post 32404063)
As part of the current negotiations with BALPA, BA are trying to allow for BA CityFlyer to fly from Heathrow - this is something that appears likely to happen sooner rather than later (this summer).
|
Originally Posted by 13901
(Post 32404159)
Can't remember it, but they definitely must've taken their own crews and maintenance personnel. I think the Embraer is not even on BA's list of 'approved aircrafts' from an engineering point of view. All I was saying is that everyone who might touch it - logistics, the pushback crews, baggage loaders - would need specific training. Not a massive thing, but building up a sufficient pool takes time. I'm also wondering if the Mototok and the Douglas tugs are rated for the Embraers. I always saw those planes being pushed with a towbar, of which there aren't any in T5.
|
Originally Posted by tiffwhat
(Post 32404063)
As part of the current negotiations with BALPA, BA are trying to allow for BA CityFlyer to fly from Heathrow - this is something that appears likely to happen sooner rather than later (this summer).
|
Important to note that this is a “wish list” item for BA. However BALPA clearly understand the ramifications of losing their (legally watertight) scope agreement so they’re not going to willingly put it on the table.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:57 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.