Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

How Can BA compete to SYD without the A380?

How Can BA compete to SYD without the A380?

Old Oct 27, 04, 2:10 pm
  #16  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 4,965
If BA were looking for a new aircraft (all the evidence suggests to the contrary), the 777-200LR may be a better fit. The A380 would be expensive to introduce and operate, as BA are all Boeing long-haul. Also some airports aren't ready.

GE have been working to improve the version of the GE90 powering both the 773ER, and 772LR. Boeing have revised up the range specifications, putting LHR-SYD a good 500km or so inside it's range. The set-up costs would be low for BA as they already have a large GE-powered 777 fleet. No new type ratings or simulators.

I personally wouldn't like to go on a direct flight for that long, but SQ seem to be doing ok on EWR and LAX to SIN. LHR-SYD non-stop could well be a new "flagship" route, possibly reusing the BA001/2/3/4 flight numbers?
Dave_C is offline  
Old Oct 27, 04, 2:53 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Near LHR
Programs: UA1P, SK S, BA B, SPG G, Hyatt G, HH G, HM Revenue & Customs Lifetime MilkCow Platinum Plus
Posts: 715
Originally Posted by Dave_C
I personally wouldn't like to go on a direct flight for that long, but SQ seem to be doing ok on EWR and LAX to SIN. LHR-SYD non-stop could well be a new "flagship" route, possibly reusing the BA001/2/3/4 flight numbers?
I talked to three people who have been on EWR to SIN route and they were all full of praise. Would definitely do it again, they say.
Andrius is offline  
Old Oct 27, 04, 3:08 pm
  #18  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Near LHR
Programs: UA1P, SK S, BA B, SPG G, Hyatt G, HH G, HM Revenue & Customs Lifetime MilkCow Platinum Plus
Posts: 715
Originally Posted by SchmeckFlyer
Oh gos yes... it is, isn't it?

It looks extremely fat, with little stubbly wings, and I have trouble imagining being able to gain enough speed to lift off without becoming winded. It is greatly in need of the Atkins diet I believe, and some time in the pool.

The 747 is much more beautiful... long and slender body, with a beautiful profile and commanding nose, with long wings and a perfectly proportioned tail. The extended upper deck was a great improvement as well. The 747 was recently included on a list of "10 most beautiful industrial designs" by a magazine I read or show I watched, I forget now.
A380 is uglier than any piece of machinery I have seen in my life, INCLUDING that Fiat what's-it's-name Multipla that looks as if its parents had too much toxins in their diet and certain French cars designed in the eighties that look like vacuum cleaners designed at East German prison camps for the rehabilitation of the blind offenders.

But then maybe Airbus people have to spend so much time worrying about their government subsidies that they don't have a chance to think about design. Here's my favourite excuse by Airbus enthusiasts: you see, it will look better when it's actually nicely painted. I could not think this one up

747-400 is graceful in any colour and like you say it has perfect proportions; the upper deck cockpit lends it a "predator" look and the wing shape, tail and engine placement - all of it is just PERFECT.

BTW, 777 also looks quite good with its oversized engines, quite a beefy, muscular shape.

And 380... Well, it is just fat. It's like a dildo with wings, if you pardon my expression.
Andrius is offline  
Old Oct 27, 04, 3:25 pm
  #19  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Seattle, Wash. USA
Posts: 1,455
Originally Posted by SchmeckFlyer
What is wrong with Al vs. Cu wiring, by the way? Not conductive enough?
It's a known fire hazard in the houses it was installed in during the 1960's and 1970's in the US, mostly at junctions boxes and other connections. I'd be very uneasy on board an aircraft (a '380 or anything else) with miles of the stuff packed into the fuselage.
chucko is offline  
Old Oct 27, 04, 3:48 pm
  #20  
Moderator: GLBT travelers, India-based Airlines and India; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Asia
Programs: Yes!
Posts: 15,480
Originally Posted by Andrius
And 380... Well, it is just fat. It's like a dildo with wings, if you pardon my expression.

LOL ^
Just be thankful you're not posting this on AAnother board
AJLondon is offline  
Old Oct 27, 04, 4:18 pm
  #21  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SW18, UK
Programs: Mucci Diamond Hairbrush. And Nouveau Bronze
Posts: 1,317
I really can't see how airports are going to handle the size of this thing. What's Y check in times for long haul now? 3 hours? So you add 50% more pax, and how do you get them all checked in in time without more ground staff? Or you increase check in time.

Disembarkation, immigration & baggage reclaim are all bottlenecks on arrival. Adding 50% more volume (pax/luggage) to both of those stages will drive people nuts. It all points to slower, rather than faster travel. What's the attraction of that?
Greg66 is offline  
Old Oct 27, 04, 4:29 pm
  #22  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,845
a lot of the big airports which know they are likely to have to take (e.g. LHR) are already into planning for how it'll work... yes its a step up in handling, but its not insurmountable. Baggage is likely to be the big pinch point, but even in terms of general people flows its going to have some interesting effects (600 people getting of and going to the toilet ) But the airports are aware they might not need to just amend stands and taxiway lay-outs to cope.
Jenbel is offline  
Old Oct 27, 04, 4:34 pm
  #23  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Near LHR
Programs: UA1P, SK S, BA B, SPG G, Hyatt G, HH G, HM Revenue & Customs Lifetime MilkCow Platinum Plus
Posts: 715
Smile

Originally Posted by Greg66
I really can't see how airports are going to handle the size of this thing. What's Y check in times for long haul now? 3 hours? So you add 50% more pax, and how do you get them all checked in in time without more ground staff? Or you increase check in time.

Disembarkation, immigration & baggage reclaim are all bottlenecks on arrival. Adding 50% more volume (pax/luggage) to both of those stages will drive people nuts. It all points to slower, rather than faster travel. What's the attraction of that?
Well they have a theory that if people survive LHR T2 madness and no-one gets killed in the process, then surely they can fly on of them 500 passenger things and it will be OK. We'll see about that.

Actually I've flown ANA domestic configuration 747-400 on Tokyo Haneda to Sapporo Chitose, and it has some 500 people on board. But then most of them have only hand luggage, there is no immigration and the whole arrangement benefits from the Japanese way of running things, where every check-in desk opens EXACTLY as advertised, they are all staffed, everyone seems competent and no-one tries to sneak in 40 kilos or so on top of their luggage allowance (I saw a woman once at LHR trying to check 78 kilos above her allowance on AF flight, and oh boy did it take a long discussion before she agreed to pay).

If we think about UK, however, think of Emirates queue at T3 on a bad day, multiply it by three and you get the idea of what A380 experience is going to look like.

Last edited by Andrius; Oct 28, 04 at 3:33 pm
Andrius is offline  
Old Oct 27, 04, 4:35 pm
  #24  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Washington, D.C.
Programs: UA Premier 1K: PlAAtinum; DL SM, MM; Marriott Gold; CO Plat Emeritus; NW Plat Emeritus
Posts: 4,669
Originally Posted by Dave_C
possibly reusing the BA001/2/3/4 flight numbers?
NEVER!!! Those are reserved for Son of Concorde.
Alpha Golf is offline  
Old Oct 27, 04, 4:41 pm
  #25  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Israel (some of the time)
Programs: BA GGL, CCR; AF/KLM FB Silver; M&M LH FTL; LY GLD; HH Diamond; SPG Gold; A-Club Silver; Avis PCI
Posts: 2,054
Originally Posted by Jenbel
a lot of the big airports which know they are likely to have to take (e.g. LHR) are already into planning for how it'll work... yes its a step up in handling, but its not insurmountable. Baggage is likely to be the big pinch point, but even in terms of general people flows its going to have some interesting effects (600 people getting of and going to the toilet ) But the airports are aware they might not need to just amend stands and taxiway lay-outs to cope.
I believe passengers will board and leave the a/c on two levels - is that correct? If so, the que may be even shorter than on a 777. If the airports and airlines are well prepared to manage this efficiently, it should not be a problem. Not sure, though, I like the idea of flying with some many PAX on board.
economyman is offline  
Old Oct 27, 04, 4:47 pm
  #26  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,845
Originally Posted by economyman
I believe passengers will board and leave the a/c on two levels - is that correct? If so, the que may be even shorter than on a 777. If the airports and airlines are well prepared to manage this efficiently, it should not be a problem. Not sure, though, I like the idea of flying with some many PAX on board.
thats the theory - or pax loaded on one, catering loaded on other - a lot more entrances and exits. Of course none of the airport equipment is currently set up to do it...
Jenbel is offline  
Old Oct 27, 04, 4:50 pm
  #27  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Washington, D.C.
Programs: UA Premier 1K: PlAAtinum; DL SM, MM; Marriott Gold; CO Plat Emeritus; NW Plat Emeritus
Posts: 4,669
And of course 747s have 10 doors on the main deck. How many have you seen them use? And they've had 30-something years to plan for that...
Alpha Golf is offline  
Old Oct 27, 04, 5:31 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bedfordshire, UK
Posts: 32
weight-schmeight... when boeing designed and built the 747 this was also a main concern and look what eventually happened, this aircraft became their cash cow and a classic. now, i am not suggesting that history will always repeat itself but surely the good people of airbus will be able to make that thing fly inclusive of content.
Angst is offline  
Old Oct 27, 04, 10:09 pm
  #29  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Programs: AA EXP, BA GLD, FT < 30 y
Posts: 2,106
Winter housecleaning!

Last edited by CharlesMD; Jan 23, 05 at 2:01 pm
CharlesMD is offline  
Old Oct 27, 04, 10:32 pm
  #30  
Marriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: SFO
Programs: AA EXP 3 MM
Posts: 4,537
Originally Posted by Andrius
A380 is uglier than any piece of machinery I have seen in my life, INCLUDING that Fiat what's-it's-name Multipla that looks as if its parents had too much toxins in their diet and certain French cars designed in the eighties that look like vacuum cleaners designed at East German prison camps for the rehabilitation of the blind offenders.

But then maybe Airbus people have to spend so much time worrying about their government subsidies that they don't have a chance to think about design. Here's my favourite excuse by Airbus enthusiasts: you see, it will look better when it's actually nicely painted. I could not think this one up

747-400 is graceful in any colour and like you say it has perfect proportions; the upper deck cockpit lends it a "predator" look and the wing shape, tail and engine placement - all of it is just PERFECT.

BTW, 777 also looks quite good with its oversized engines, quite a beefy, muscular shape.

And 380... Well, it is just fat. It's like a dildo with wings, if you pardon my expression.
Andrius,

You are absolutely right on spot. When I am planning my flight itineraries, first and foremost I regard the attractiveness of a plane to be the most important factor in my decision of which airline to take.

Forget petty details like cabin comfort, direct routing, good inflight service, generous mileage programs, airport lounges, efficient ground crew, all I care about is whether or not the plane looks attractive.

God forbid if I had to board a plane that was as ugly as say, Darleen Druyun.
francophile is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: