edi-traveller

Yes those horrible 3 777s at Gatwick had 3x4x3 - the seats were mega narrow and it felt like you were sat in a vice. They changed the config back to 3x3x3 after many complaints.

I'm confused though.....

Is the 787 a similar width to a A330/340 etc or the width of a 777 or the width of a 767.

I don't think the current NCW could be deployed in 2x3x2 - they come in units of two don't they?

BOH

787 is wider than a A330/340 which itself is considerably wider than a 767
777 is slightly wider than a 787
A350XWB is wider than a 787

pbarnette

If BA is, indeed, seeking a "premium" brand position, then why are they a price leader for most of the TATL routes? I don't constantly price every route, but I am pretty fanatical about following prices, and BA are almost always at the bottom end of the price scale to the US.

And importantly, by virtue of WT+, it would seem that BA has already differentiated the market. I would think it is pretty hard to command a premium for WT, without bumping into the price of WT+. It would seem that the only people riding in WT are the truly price sensitive, and EK has shown that they will most certainly fly in a tighter config to save a few quid.

Don't take this to mean that I don't think BA offers a fine product, because I am perfectly happy with it, but it just doesn't make sense (to me) to accept reduced loads to offer a premium product that folks won't be willing to pay for, and which risks the premiums you enjoy for a product that already serves the Y+ market. If BA didn't have WT+, then my reaction might be different, but because they do, I just think 2-4-2 in a 787, when most of the competition will be 3-3-3, is just foolishly generous.

flyboy777

For the same reasons they didn't go 3x4x3 in Y on the triple sevens. Given the A380 standards of comfort 'expected' these days, 2x4x2 will be demanded. Also, a rumoured new World Traveller seat is bound to come, most likely with the A380. A seat (19" width) would fit 3x4x3 on the lower deck of an A380, or a comfortable 2x4x2 on a B787.

A B777 in 3x4x3 has seats which are only a third of an inch narrower than a B747 which for decades have been in a uniform ten-abreast layout.
http://boeing.com/commercial/777fami..._sections.html
http://boeing.com/commercial/747fami...s_section.html

In a standard 9 abreast, Boeing quote the seat width for B777s at 18.5" depending on the operator. For 10 abreast, it comes down to 17" & the aisle suffers.

A different variation of Club World would be needed since they come in 2s & 2s alone. Who knows, by the time the B787/A380s come, a whole new range of travel classes may be unveiled...

A300/A310/A330/A340 are all uniformly 222" wide.
B787 226" wide http://boeing.com/commercial/787family/787-8prod.html
B777 244" wide http://boeing.com/commercial/777fami...00product.html
A350 Reportedly 234" wide - don't quote me.

A300/A310/A330/A340 diameter 222", cabin width 208". A350 cabin width 220", diameter 234"
Airbus website not working atm so can't give links

YVR Cockroach

It appears BA may take 10-12 77Ws to bridge the delayed delivery of 787s (since BA was one of the last majors to order).

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ridge-787.html

bernardd

The story doesn't sound quite right to me because the 777-300ER is a very much bigger airframe than the 787's that BA have ordered - the 767-300ER is closer in capacity though without the range. Maybe Boeing is trying to offer a deal that puts them in the best position for the longer term replacement deal? Or maybe it's all the Boeing can reliably build at present?

YVR Cockroach

I'd say Boeing is probably offering BA a compensation in form of an incentive/discount on the 77Ws which may influence which way Boeing goes in the 777/A350 decision.

BOH

Was thinking the exact same thing - offer a 77W deal as compo to try and put them in a stronger position for the main order. Good strategy - which I hope fails for Boeing

pdsuk

If I am not mistaken, isnt the 777W only offered with GE engines ? Hasnt this been something of a stumbling block for BA who are, on the whole, a preferred RR carrier ?

And secondly, havent AF and SQ suffered a number of engine malfunctions on their 777Ws ?

I recall vaguely reading something a few months back which suggested that the GE units suffered more shutdowns than normal

BOH

BA generally do seem to prefer RR. But they do have more than half their existing 777 fleet with GE90 power.

USA_flyer

I think you're going to see more of the same. More A380's more B787s and some loaners from Boeing to cover the delay to the B787, probably 777 or 767.

BA1A

Not unless they do a better job with the air bridges than they have at T5 so far and use the correct doors. I wouldn't fancy being stuck behind all those economy pax when trying to disembark from F. It's bad enough now on a 747!

Dr. HFH

I second that. Do they really have no idea how much pax like the 747 F in front?

IAMORGAN

For what it's worth I'd like to see BA order some 777-300s and some more 787s. I'm not a big fan of the A380 and never have been, the 747 is a sturdy, proven aircraft that I think serves BA well, and the 777-300 is a great compromise between 772 and the current 744s -KLM will be using the 773 to replace their 744 as I understand it, so capacity can be squeezed out of it.

Why would BA mix and match 787 and A350 on their long-haul fleet? Surely it would be simplest to keep Boeing consistently for long haul and airbus for short haul -the a320s beat the 737NG hands down in my view. The 747-8 can't be a very strong product then, but I just don't see the demand for the A380 on BAs mainline services when oil prices are so high (yes I know the idea is to cut down the number of flights and thus free up landing slots, but running half empty planes isn't efficient). But I guess they know what they're doing. I just hope this doesn't mean a reduction on the JFK service for example, because the key selling point of BA is the frequency of flights. Having said that, it would give scope for expansion at LGW to JFK if the current route proves popular, or even for BA to launch regional services to JFK, if they wanted to (which it seems they don't) -could they give up free slots to Open Skies, or would the free slots have to be allocated by the airport authority in JFK?

It will be interesting to see what they decide, but the 787 IMHO is a cracking aircraft, whereas I see the A380 as a bit of a white elephant, but we'll see!

ensee

Would the bridging order be announced at Farnborough and, for that matter, the big twin order?

If BA are going to have crew trained on longhaul Airbus jets with the A380 - and the pair of A318s I suppose - presumably that leaves the door open to the A350-[variant to be decided].

And Airbus have given them a few to chose from. You've got the -800, -900, -1000, the alleged -900R that BA was offered last time round, there's a freighter in the offing and last week they mooted lower weight variants of the lot with decrease engines to tempt medium-haul operators.

Can't see BA moving until Boeing show their cards with an enhanced 77W. That said, the bridging aircraft would sit nicely as 747 replacements when (if?) the 787s arrive.

Who knows.