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, 10:56 pm
  #31  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 281
To get back to the original questions, there is no reason why they wouldn't be able to compete on this route. What little advantages A380s actually have to the individual will not be a factor in most people's choices about who they travel with.
CryptKeeper is offline  
Old Oct 28, 04, 2:42 am
  #32  
 
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 francophile
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.
I get your sarcasm, but you may be surprised how different people are.

When I plan my travels, I firstly look at mileage earning opportunities, and then I look at what aircraft I am going to fly, and 747 is my favourite.

Direct routings? They're of minor importance to me. On the contrary, I enjoy (as God is my witness) connecting flights because I savour every take-off and landing. Yes, this increases the probability of lost or delayed luggage, but this is the price I am willing to pay for the excitement of one more acceleration at take-off.

Lounges? I spend little time in lounges; but it's just me. I prefer to walk around airports and look at stuff.

Ground crew? I think it depends on the country, not airline. ALL my travels through Japanese airports, with any airline (and I've flown through eight airports in Japan), was a joy. ALL my travels through any Russian airport, with any airline (domestic AND international), were nothing but a stinking, deplorable humiliation of a passenger.

And yes, the beauty of an aircraft is important to me. That's why I am not very keen on flying Korean: I think the sickening blue colour they use is a pain to look at.
Andrius is offline  
Old Oct 28, 04, 2:54 am
  #33  
 
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 CharlesMD
What are the weight problems that the A380 is currently having?
The plane is 2.5 to 4 tonnes overweight, depending on which source you believe (Airbus itself or Emirates). Airlines feel, well, a bit cheated.
Andrius is offline  
Old Oct 28, 04, 3:24 am
  #34  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 4,967
Originally Posted by Andrius
The plane is 2.5 to 4 tonnes overweight, depending on which source you believe (Airbus itself or Emirates). Airlines feel, well, a bit cheated.
Airbus had exactly the sames problems over over-promising, and under delivering with the A345/346. The A346 now has a High-Gross Weight (HGW) version which does what they originally said it would.

Boeing on the other hand have done it the other way around, the 773ER is peforming better than expected with range and paylod, which is why they have now revised upwards the performance for the similar 772LR.

Not meaning to turn this into an A vs. B on like they have on airwhiners.net though. I think the original version of the A380, like the initial 747-100 will be a bit of a dog, but they'll sort it in a couple of years. It'll work for a few routes, but I think Boeing have the right idea with the 7E7, as I'd much rather go direct, than transit through somewhere with 600 people and luggage.

Last edited by Dave_C; Oct 28, 04 at 5:41 am Reason: typo
Dave_C is offline  
Old Oct 28, 04, 3:25 am
  #35  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 4,967
Originally Posted by Alpha Golf
NEVER!!! Those are reserved for Son of Concorde.
Sorry, *hangs head in shame*
Dave_C is offline  
Old Oct 28, 04, 3:57 am
  #36  
 
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
Now meaning to turn this into an A vs. B on like they have on airwhiners.net though.
God forbid. When I see grown-up people debating Airbus vs Boeing like a bunch of teens discussing who's the cutest in a boy band, and then moving onto personal insults and each others nationalities and which country did what in World War II and whose president is dumber, I want to weep. Or, maybe, just giggle.
Andrius is offline  
Old Oct 28, 04, 5:30 am
  #37  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 959
I think it's cute, in a geeky, anoraky, wouldn't get a snog at the school disco kinda way!
loobtastic is offline  
Old Oct 28, 04, 5:51 am
  #38  
dnw
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 5,338
Originally Posted by Andrius
When I see grown-up people debating Airbus vs Boeing like a bunch of teens discussing who's the cutest in a boy band
haha but the point is they *are* a bunch of teens!!
dnw is offline  
Old Oct 28, 04, 6:01 am
  #39  
Suspended
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,735
Originally Posted by Andrius
When I see grown-up people debating Airbus vs Boeing like a bunch of teens discussing who's the cutest in a boy band
whats the name of that guy in Blue.....?
krug is offline  
Old Oct 28, 04, 6:01 am
  #40  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Programs: BAEC Gold, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Gold, AMEX Platinum (US)
Posts: 18,313
Originally Posted by loobtastic
I think it's cute, in a geeky, anoraky, wouldn't get a snog at the school disco kinda way!
In that case they will have to rename it after me!

Originally Posted by dnw
haha but the point is they *are* a bunch of teens!!
But I'm 20!

I think it is just daft when people on there say you should fly BA from LHR-LAX because you can be taken there by the power of RB211s They don't mean that as a backwards way of saying going on a 747 they mean the RB211s.....jesus
Fraser is offline  
Old Oct 28, 04, 6:04 am
  #41  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Programs: BAEC Gold, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Gold, AMEX Platinum (US)
Posts: 18,313
Originally Posted by apudme
whats the name of that guy in Blue.....?
You'll love this ^

An airliners.net trip report featuring a guy from Blue!
Fraser is offline  
Old Oct 28, 04, 6:20 am
  #42  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Currently in Bloomington, IN, but Normally NYC, CDG, and even POZ or wherever FT takes me.
Programs: Northwest Airlines. MTA pay-per-ride Metrocard; zero-balance Oyster card.
Posts: 13,877
Fat target?

Don't you think that perhaps many people (here in the everything-fearing U.S. especially) won't get on one of these things simply becasue it represents a juicy terrorist target?

Yes, I know, so does a 747, or the QM2 for that matter, but this is a "new achievement of western civilization". Don't you think that that ol'Usama and his crew would simply love to knock one of these down?

With the first flights being on EK, it must make UBL think unholy thougts when he imagines sticking a dagger into the heart of one of the Gulf's "pro-western" states...
notsosmart is offline  
Old Oct 28, 04, 6:23 am
  #43  
 
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 fbgdavidson
You'll love this ^

An airliners.net trip report featuring a guy from Blue!
Someone pinch me. What passes for a trip report these days

The only question is: why did that star bloke buy an Economy Plus ticket in the first place?
Andrius is offline  
Old Oct 28, 04, 6:35 am
  #44  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 317
Originally Posted by Andrius
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.
I respectfully suggest you closely examine a few dildos. You will come to same conclusion as me that the 777 more closely resembles the standard dildo.

The 777 also looks exactly like the airplanes my 2nd grade classmates drew - a tube with wings. Now I know where my classmates went to work....too bad their aesthetic design skills did not progress...
CTPremEx is offline  
Old Oct 28, 04, 7:18 am
  #45  
 
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 CTPremEx
I respectfully suggest you closely examine a few dildos. You will come to same conclusion as me that the 777 more closely resembles the standard dildo.

The 777 also looks exactly like the airplanes my 2nd grade classmates drew - a tube with wings. Now I know where my classmates went to work....too bad their aesthetic design skills did not progress...
Next time I'm having a day out with the family at Dildos R Us, my local Marital Aid and Perversion Megastore, I will examine them more closely.

I still think that oversized engines lend a certain degree of clumsy elegance to 777, which in addition is blissfully spared puny wings of A380, which also has engines suspended rather like rubbish bins. Compare A380 engine mounting with the beefy 7E7 "integral engine" look and you'll know what I mean. ^
Andrius is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: