LondonElite

The point was that both BA's mediocrity and the popularity of the 747 upper deck are entirely independent of the colour of your FF card.

Will100

But, no First

Globaliser

But pretty much nobody else would. So the numbers would never stack up.

Kenneth Jensen

and so it did... it took a turn around the airport before landing. But to my knowledge BYGF has around 3 more years left on its D check and is one of the newest in the fleet wich makes it COMPLETE madness to scrap it !! I wonder if the people at BA making theese decisions have thougt this through or should be in that place...i know it is a financial struggle right now but for christ sake just store them for now. And when they are all gone the special about BA - to fly the queen - are history and they are on par with almost all other airlines (2 engined cramped space) only Lufthansa still has 19 B747-8 they will keep operating for some more years. There is no more reason for me to fly BA anymore

Globaliser

As if that would be a zero cost option?

greg5

The thing is that it's almost always going to be more expensive to maintain four engines than two. And BA apparently also was having some issues with the engines on their 744s. Not surprising, given the age.

KARFA

By the time long haul traffic gets back to anywhere near pre Covid levels the 747s were going to have been retired anyway. The capacity simply isn’t needed for the next few years. Also keeping them isn’t cost free either.

i don’t want them to go, but it’s hard to argue with the retirement on a logical level.

BAeuro

Unfortunately, BA needs to follow its head and not its heart. If the numbers don’t add up and they have to go, then that’s what will happen.

If BA operated routes and aircraft for pride/heritage, then they would be in the red.

BOH

Not so, very little profit (if any) is made on the sale and delivery of an engine. It is widely known they are virtually sold at cost as the money is made on power-by-the-hour payments or the lifetime in-service support and spares. So the delivery of the engine is actually a cash drain on the company as all the manufacturing cost is on RR and they do not recoup this investment on delivery, it is over the life of the engine.

Years ago, SQ selected the RR Trent as their engine for their 777 fleet - it was a huge coup for RR as SQ had previously been a loyal P&W. However on the day of the announcement the RR share price nosedived because the city saw it as a huge cash drain on the company in the short to medium term as RR would have to find the working capital to build them and would not recoup that on delivery.

So being the engine of choice on A350 and A330 is not the panacea it might seem.

Globaliser

IIRC, Rolls-Royce has done very well in persuading customers to take up the power-by-the-hour solutions. This was brilliant for R-R, until hours flown suddenly went to near-zero.

RB211

You appear to be almost saying that RR would be better off if they sold fewer engines. I know (hope) you are not saying that, but that's what your argument seems to be supporting. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that the payoff for RR is down the road... so surely being the engine of choice for the A350 and A330 is a good thing, albeit a little further down the road... and given almost no one is really buying right now, what has been sold will provide cash in the future, and therefor a good thing, right? Or maybe I'm totally wrong on that!

rb211.

KiwiSurfer

Do they need replacements? Not like there's much demand anyway.

opus99

certainly not now or anytime soon, the 777 replacements weren't even supposed to come online till 2025, but my thinking was down the line of we don't even know what they are not more-so the availability of them

Genius1

Compared to a Mid-J 747 (which usually flew the CPT route), the A350 has 14 fewer F seats, 4 more J seats, 20 more W seats and 16 fewer Y seats, so a net difference of 10 more premium seats and 16 fewer non-premium seats. That's a pretty good like-for-like replacement, albeit with the loss of one cabin (F).

It gets more interesting with the Super Hi-J 747, where the A350 has 14 fewer F seats, 30 fewer J seats, 26 more W seats and 74 more Y seats, so a net difference of 18 fewer premium seats and 74 more non-premium seats. Whilst not a like-for-like replacement on those numbers, with lower premium demand it makes sense for the A350 to take over some of these historically premium-heavy routes.

A P Yu

As J and W make more profit than F this shouldnt be an issue.