"highly likely" fleet plans

Old Jun 15, 08, 2:54 pm
  #16  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Scotland
Programs: BA, BD, AF, LH, AA, EK, Hilton, ICHG, SPG
Posts: 1,500
jumbodriver said that part of the 77W rationale was to start making inroads into the 744 ranks.

But I agree it's difficult to see the full picture, as there are so many permutations of possible fleet 'juggling', frequency adjustments and route network changes.
Steady-EDI is offline  
Old Jun 15, 08, 4:48 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: BA Executive Club
Posts: 1,132
I flew to ARN on Wednesday (767) and back on Saturday (Airbus). Both flights were completely full and the curtains for the division between CE and ET were way back on the 767.

If they're filling the flight, why would they want to reduce capacity?
dmahon is offline  
Old Jun 16, 08, 1:42 am
  #18  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 59K
Posts: 2,180
Ref the 77W, they may be coming in compensation for the 787s but they're not to replace 767s.

As for removing 767s from Shorthaul, the 767 will burn approx double the fuel of a 321 without getting anywhere near doubling capacity. DME is the only route which will be a problem, as other routes may get a frequency increase (to use the bmed slots Long haul wont be) even then the direct operating costs over an airbus will be around £20000 per round trip, thats a lot of tickets once you add in the other overheads.
Jumbodriver is offline  
Old Jun 16, 08, 2:02 am
  #19  
Fontaine d'honneur du Flyertalk
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Alicante. Spain
Programs: Reine des Muccis de Pucci; Foreign Elitist (according to others)
Posts: 15,495
Originally Posted by Jumbodriver View Post
Ref the 77W, they may be coming in compensation for the 787s but they're not to replace 767s.

As for removing 767s from Shorthaul, the 767 will burn approx double the fuel of a 321 without getting anywhere near doubling capacity. DME is the only route which will be a problem, as other routes may get a frequency increase (to use the bmed slots Long haul wont be) even then the direct operating costs over an airbus will be around 20000 per round trip, thats a lot of tickets once you add in the other overheads.
Interesting. I wonder what they will do with the DMEs - Bet they either go to Long Haul as they will not let that route go as it make too much money - or they will up the frequency if they are allowed to and use the 757. The 767 is getting fairly long in tooth now. All I will warn anyone who might be even thinking of travelling to LCA or ATh at Christmas is to book early!
PUCCI GALORE is offline  
Old Jun 16, 08, 2:12 am
  #20  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 59K
Posts: 2,180
Originally Posted by PUCCI GALORE View Post
The 767 is getting fairly long in tooth now.
The Short haul 767s are either 1989/90 or 1998 so some arent that old yet!

The problem with DME is that the J loads are so high that no LH aircraft has the seats, and the Russians wont allow additional frequencies. However its virutally impossible to justify the retention of 2 767s in short haul with all the crewing and engineering expense for 1 route.

I cant see the 757 doing DME, BA wont want it anywhere but T5.
Jumbodriver is offline  
Old Jun 16, 08, 2:21 am
  #21  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 11,924
LCA flight are always full too, for 9-10 months of the year. Although on 300ET fares and 500 CE fares, making them not especially profitable, I imagine. Compared to DME's 800 ET fares and 1700 CE fares.

LCA would be fine with 2 x 321s. Or could even be shifted to LGW, where it probably belongs, alongside the PFO service.

Move ATH, IST to 320s/321s, and move DME to long-haul, and then you can get rid of thoses 767s.
Smirnoff is offline  
Old Jun 16, 08, 2:26 am
  #22  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 11,924
Originally Posted by Jumbodriver View Post

The problem with DME is that the J loads are so high that no LH aircraft has the seats.

You forget that WT+ seats are far superior to the existing CE seats.

So you take a 3 class 777, and charge a premium to the current J fares, for those that wish to travel in long-haul J. You charge a small reduction off the current J fare, for those that wish to travel in WT+. I think the market would easily bear 2000 for J seats, 1400 for WT+ seats, 800 for WT seats.
Smirnoff is offline  
Old Jun 16, 08, 2:34 am
  #23  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 59K
Posts: 2,180
Originally Posted by Smirnoff View Post
You forget that WT+ seats are far superior to the existing CE seats.

So you take a 3 class 777, and charge a premium to the current J fares, for those that wish to travel in long-haul J. You charge a small reduction off the current J fare, for those that wish to travel in WT+. I think the market would easily bear 2000 for J seats, 1400 for WT+ seats, 800 for WT seats.
I wouldnt be surprised (speaking for myself). There are new 777s arriving this winter and with no LH expansion planned to any degree it may just work. Additionally the morning DME round trip could actually be squeezed into a Early arrival/late departure long haul rotation for a non F 777 (if there are any).
Jumbodriver is offline  
Old Jun 16, 08, 2:35 am
  #24  
Fontaine d'honneur du Flyertalk
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Alicante. Spain
Programs: Reine des Muccis de Pucci; Foreign Elitist (according to others)
Posts: 15,495
Originally Posted by Jumbodriver View Post
The Short haul 767s are either 1989/90 or 1998 so some arent that old yet!

The problem with DME is that the J loads are so high that no LH aircraft has the seats, and the Russians wont allow additional frequencies. However its virutally impossible to justify the retention of 2 767s in short haul with all the crewing and engineering expense for 1 route.

I cant see the 757 doing DME, BA wont want it anywhere but T5.
Jumbo, Your first statement fills me with joy. I have been around BA since 1988 so to read that 1989 is not that old is a delight!!

I am sure that they are not that old - but it is still 20 years and technology and fuel efficiency have moved on since then. Your last sentence confuses me - I thought that the 757 was not at T5? Can you or anyone else confirm please?
PUCCI GALORE is offline  
Old Jun 16, 08, 2:39 am
  #25  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Programs: Mucci, BA Gold, HHonours Diamond, BA AMEX PremPlus
Posts: 5,130
Originally Posted by PUCCI GALORE View Post
Your last sentence confuses me - I thought that the 757 was not at T5? Can you or anyone else confirm please?
I think Jumbodriver is referring to the route (DME) rather than the airframe, PUCCI dear.
Teece is offline  
Old Jun 16, 08, 2:46 am
  #26  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly AUS or rural England
Programs: BAEC redundant Bronze, AAdvantage Lifetime PLT, CO, WN, B6
Posts: 6,526
Originally Posted by Smirnoff View Post
You forget that WT+ seats are far superior to the existing CE seats.

So you take a 3 class 777, and charge a premium to the current J fares, for those that wish to travel in long-haul J. You charge a small reduction off the current J fare, for those that wish to travel in WT+. I think the market would easily bear 2000 for J seats, 1400 for WT+ seats, 800 for WT seats.

Doesn't this still mean a reduction in J seats? I thought the 3-class 777's had barely 80 WT+ & CW seats, but a lot more in the back of the bus? Also, aren't some / all of them at LGW?
bernardd is offline  
Old Jun 16, 08, 2:48 am
  #27  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 59K
Posts: 2,180
Originally Posted by Teece View Post
I think Jumbodriver is referring to the route (DME) rather than the airframe, PUCCI dear.
I was!

I've just decided to spread the rumour among Worldwide Cabin Crew about daytrip Moscows on the 777. That will entertain me for weeks!
Jumbodriver is offline  
Old Jun 16, 08, 2:55 am
  #28  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Programs: Mucci des Hommes Magiques et Magnifiques
Posts: 15,661
Originally Posted by Jumbodriver View Post
I was!

I've just decided to spread the rumour among Worldwide Cabin Crew about daytrip Moscows on the 777. That will entertain me for weeks!
We won't mind at all we will still get overtime and two days off unlike E/F crew. ^
CIHY
Can I help you is offline  
Old Jun 16, 08, 3:01 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 15 minutes west of LHR, Stockholm, or somewhere inbetween.
Programs: BAEC Gold GGL, CCR, GfL, Mucci des Recherches des Consommations Exotiques.
Posts: 2,463
Hmm, I'm wondering what they'll replace BA780/1 with?

The flights are usually pretty full.

They'd probably need to add one extra A320 rtn/day LHR-ARN, but are there slots available?

bjorns
bjorns is offline  
Old Jun 16, 08, 3:36 am
  #30  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Programs: Mucci, BA-GGL, LH-Sen
Posts: 2,237
Originally Posted by Smirnoff View Post
LCA would be fine with 2 x 321s. Or could even be shifted to LGW, where it probably belongs, alongside the PFO service.
Shush you Don't go giving them any nasty ideas about LGW...

In all seriousness, there's actually quite a bit of transatlantic feed to and from LCA - not just those "chavs" you so love to hate - so moving the service from LHR probably doesn't make much sense. And the fares are not really ex EU cheapos either any more. They used to be, but lately there are no real bargains to be had at all (if you require some sort of flexibility).

On the other hand recently BA have allowed passengers on BA fares to the US to travel on CY between Cyprus and London. There were quite a few American gentlemen on my flight last week connecting onto BA service to the US. If they reduce the number of seats by switching to 32S, then perhaps they could send more business CY's way. Now if they would only offer TPs and miles

Question for Jumbodriver: Do the 321s have the range for LCA? I thought only the 320s could do it.
Cyba is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: