BA to retire entire B747 fleet
Jul 8, 2020, 7:18 am
#152
Join Date: Oct 2005
Programs: BA GGL & GfL, AA LTP, Marriott (sigh) Ambassador, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 3,237
So assuming that SAN is open again to international flights (it will be after the election so that is more likely......)
I really cannot see the 747 back in action this year. They are all mothballed and there is just not the demand. For a secondary route to the USA I would suspect at best this will be a 787-8 by then. If you think of nearby LAX at this time of year it would normally take 2xA380's - it currently has a 787-9 and its hardly full. That is a huge capacity drop and that is replicated everywhere. There is simply not demand and it would require a colossal surge in demand to need a 747 to SAN in 6 months......
A380's and 747's are for reminiscing at the moment sadly. I personally don't see the 747 coming back. the A380 might but even that to me looks doubtful - AF has just retired the entire fleet and LH has already announced a reduction of 50%. Bar a few routes (HKG, SIN, JNB) where, if there is demand for 400+ passengers a day, you could just have a single service as multiple services tend to go within a couple of hours of each other, I think the A380 is looking vulnerable......
FD.
I really cannot see the 747 back in action this year. They are all mothballed and there is just not the demand. For a secondary route to the USA I would suspect at best this will be a 787-8 by then. If you think of nearby LAX at this time of year it would normally take 2xA380's - it currently has a 787-9 and its hardly full. That is a huge capacity drop and that is replicated everywhere. There is simply not demand and it would require a colossal surge in demand to need a 747 to SAN in 6 months......
A380's and 747's are for reminiscing at the moment sadly. I personally don't see the 747 coming back. the A380 might but even that to me looks doubtful - AF has just retired the entire fleet and LH has already announced a reduction of 50%. Bar a few routes (HKG, SIN, JNB) where, if there is demand for 400+ passengers a day, you could just have a single service as multiple services tend to go within a couple of hours of each other, I think the A380 is looking vulnerable......
FD.
given AA has pulled all LAX flights thru end of year, its clear the airlines do not expect much uptick in international demand as we head into winter. and yes, i'm curious too as i have a LHR-JFK and LAX-LHR both on 747s in NOV/DEC which obviously will not proceed on 747s, but eagerly await to see what the LAX replacement will be.
Jul 9, 2020, 2:14 am
#154
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 30 miles from London
Programs: BAEC Gold, MUCCI, Elite Fan of MO, ALL Accor Live Gold
Posts: 1,483
Jul 9, 2020, 2:28 am
#155
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,355
I currently have 4 747 bookings; ORD in Oct, JFK in Nov, CPT in Jan & SJC in April.
Whether the US is open to tourists and the flights operate at all is a question but realistically ORD & JFK are destinations that require an F cabin. You could probably say the same for CPT so that means 777 or 789/10. It’s possible SJC could go to a smaller aircraft but as this drags on it’s probably more likely to be culled
Whether the US is open to tourists and the flights operate at all is a question but realistically ORD & JFK are destinations that require an F cabin. You could probably say the same for CPT so that means 777 or 789/10. It’s possible SJC could go to a smaller aircraft but as this drags on it’s probably more likely to be culled
Jul 9, 2020, 3:23 am
#156
Join Date: Nov 2006
Programs: MUCCI
Posts: 1,924
I currently have 4 747 bookings; ORD in Oct, JFK in Nov, CPT in Jan & SJC in April.
Whether the US is open to tourists and the flights operate at all is a question but realistically ORD & JFK are destinations that require an F cabin. You could probably say the same for CPT so that means 777 or 789/10. It’s possible SJC could go to a smaller aircraft but as this drags on it’s probably more likely to be culled
Whether the US is open to tourists and the flights operate at all is a question but realistically ORD & JFK are destinations that require an F cabin. You could probably say the same for CPT so that means 777 or 789/10. It’s possible SJC could go to a smaller aircraft but as this drags on it’s probably more likely to be culled
FD.
Jul 9, 2020, 5:35 am
#157
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: U.K.
Programs: BA Exec Club Gold, Hilton Honors Diamond
Posts: 277
It was decided that the 787-10 won't be used on routes of sufficient length that require Cabin Crew bunks. The galley space has also been reduced so there's no space for a second hot meal service. Make of that what you will...but obviously means more seats in the cabin.
Jul 9, 2020, 5:40 am
#158
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 3,061
Both cost and design.
Boeing did not intend the -10 to be used on longer-range routes. It’s designed for high capacity medium-length ones, which typically do not require cabin crew to have bunk rest (hence the higher payload-to-range ratio). Therefore cabin crew bunks were made a non-standard design element, which in turn means that any airline that wants them has to pay for them. BA took the standard view aligned with Boeing’s offer and chose not to pay the significant additional costs to design and fit them.
Boeing did not intend the -10 to be used on longer-range routes. It’s designed for high capacity medium-length ones, which typically do not require cabin crew to have bunk rest (hence the higher payload-to-range ratio). Therefore cabin crew bunks were made a non-standard design element, which in turn means that any airline that wants them has to pay for them. BA took the standard view aligned with Boeing’s offer and chose not to pay the significant additional costs to design and fit them.
Jul 9, 2020, 6:46 am
#159
Join Date: Nov 2016
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 457
The -10 is what’s known in the trade as a ‘simple stretch’ of the -9. The weight of the longer fuselage and extra payload is a direct trade-off against the range capability of the -9. So the -10 is incapable of flying as far as the -9 with an economic payload. Therefore there will by definition be reduced need for crew rest or additional meal service.
Jul 9, 2020, 7:22 am
#160
Join Date: Nov 2006
Programs: MUCCI
Posts: 1,924
The -10 is what’s known in the trade as a ‘simple stretch’ of the -9. The weight of the longer fuselage and extra payload is a direct trade-off against the range capability of the -9. So the -10 is incapable of flying as far as the -9 with an economic payload. Therefore there will by definition be reduced need for crew rest or additional meal service.
USA East Coast and Mid US
Middle East and India
Maybe at a push US West Coast
Canada
Northern part of Africa
Would that be about right - so a range of around 4,500nm or can it go further?
FD.
Jul 9, 2020, 7:40 am
#161
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 726
Boeing say the range of the -10 is 6,345nm but there are so many variables to take into account. Mind you, BA have relatively few seats on theirs compared to other airlines so they could maybe eek out a few more nm's if the crew bunks weren't an issue.
Jul 9, 2020, 7:40 am
#162
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 495
I think Seattle is as far as it can go in the US with no bunks/2nd hot meal.
While the 787-10 could go further, bunks would reduce seat count, extra galley storage would reduce seat count, and even with the reduced seat count would have to cap the number of passengers and cargo below capacity on the longer routes - the negatives vastly outweigh the benefits of fitting it out for longer flights. Plus probable changes to MTOW and Engine options
While the 787-10 could go further, bunks would reduce seat count, extra galley storage would reduce seat count, and even with the reduced seat count would have to cap the number of passengers and cargo below capacity on the longer routes - the negatives vastly outweigh the benefits of fitting it out for longer flights. Plus probable changes to MTOW and Engine options
Jul 9, 2020, 7:50 am
#163
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 726
I think Seattle is as far as it can go in the US with no bunks/2nd hot meal.
While the 787-10 could go further, bunks would reduce seat count, extra galley storage would reduce seat count, and even with the reduced seat count would have to cap the number of passengers and cargo below capacity on the longer routes - the negatives vastly outweigh the benefits of fitting it out for longer flights. Plus probable changes to MTOW and Engine options
While the 787-10 could go further, bunks would reduce seat count, extra galley storage would reduce seat count, and even with the reduced seat count would have to cap the number of passengers and cargo below capacity on the longer routes - the negatives vastly outweigh the benefits of fitting it out for longer flights. Plus probable changes to MTOW and Engine options
Jul 9, 2020, 8:35 am
#164
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SE1, London
Posts: 23,439
basically an A market 777 or, back in time, 747 Classic routes.