rkkwan

BA announced today they'll buy twelve A380 and twenty-four B787s (both -8 and -9 models), to replace 34 of their longhaul planes (767s and some 744s).

This is relatively small order, so they'll still have to buy more to replace the remaining 744s and older 772s.

This also mean they won't buy the 747-8i. It wasn't even mentioned as something they'll look into in the next round.

Even though it's only a 12-plane order, it's quite a boost to the A380 program.

AnthonyGA

BA and AF always have to buy at least a few Airbus planes. They got stuck with Concordes, too.

rkkwan

I disagree. AF and BA are very strong competitors in the aviation world, with real shareholders to answer to. They buy the planes that are best for them.

And they weren't "stuck" with the Concordes. Those flights were very profitable to both airlines until the AF crash and 9/11. It was mainly the British and French government who were stuck with the bills of developing the planes. Not BA nor AF.

LT

I predict we haven’t seen the last of troubles with the 380, and thus, BA may pull back or outright cancel their 380 orders. And yes, while BA is a private company, I see the Airbus order as a “bone” tossed to the UK/EU govts. in order to help support Airbus and m,aintain good relations with said govts.

So far, LH is the only 747-8 customer . . . Hope this changes for the better.

And rkkwan, where is your info re: Concorde profitability? Every news report I have every seen has said that it was a money loser from the day it launched.

AAFrequentFlyer

I don't think this had anything to do with political/regional pressure. It was a good buy for BA. They used the airplane makers against each other to get deep discounts. Although the total deal for both orders was reported to be ~$8B, most aviation analysts believe that it was actually ~$6B after the discounts.

BA will use the A380 on routes from London to Hong-Kong, Singapore, South Africa and LAX. They will probably substitute 1 A380 for 2 B747s on these routes. That opens up 4 LHR slots, which at this point are priceless.

As far as the theory that A380 may have some more problems? BA is not scheduled to take the first delivery until 2010 and the last during 2014, so I believe Airbus will have all the problems worked out by then. I'm not sure where the A380 delivery schedule falls between those dates, as the dates are for the total order, the A380 and the B787, but nevertheless it's still years away.

I believe it was a purely business decision on BA's part.

The first commercial A380 flight - Singapore Airlines, Singapore-Sydney in 27 days.

rkkwan

LT - The Concorde is a huge money loser for the manufacturers (i.e. the French and UK governments).

But they are huge profit makers for BA and AF until the AF crash and 9/11. Otherwise, why would they keep the fleet for so long, and BA invested quite a bit to refresh the interior no long before 9/11?

LT

Why did BA & AF keep Concorde going, even though it was a money loser? National honor & prestige.

http://www.imperial.ac.uk/P4718.htm

rkkwan

LT - That is just wrong.

So, you mean the Brits and French stop caring about national prestige after 9/11?

AnthonyGA

An aircraft that makes money on a handful of flights marketed to a very small segment of society will not necessarily make money when an attempt is made to scale up operations with it. BA and AF managed to make money with their handful of Concordes by marketing to a handful of people willing to pay any price to ride in them. But if they had had 1500 Concordes, the situation would have been different.

An A380 or 747-8i isn't a Concorde, and both need to prove themselves in a mass-market environment.

AAFrequentFlyer

I really don't understand your insitance that the 747-8 still has to prove itself to the market.

Different versions of 747s have been flying since 1969. The -8 version is jsut a little bigger than the -4 version, but basically the frame design is the same. The newer engines will provide more power and less fuel usage per passenger but it's a solid, proven airplane. It will be capable of carrying ~50 more passengers than the -4 version.

It will not need any modifications by the airports. It can use the same runways and gates as the -4 version is using today.



I believe that the 747 is a proven design that's almost 40 years old.

chartley

The 747 is a veteran aircraft, and even with new engines and modifications it will struggle to compete with newer designs. Airlines expect to use their planes for many years, so a design that is 40 years old now will be 60 years old when the plane comes to the end of its life. Time will tell if Boeing made the right decision to modify the 747 rather than start again with a new design.

The 737 has the same problem. Although it has been redesigned, airlines are tending to replace their 737s with the Airbus 320 family, because they are basically a newer design.

It's all swings and roundabouts. Companies make wrong decisions sometimes, and no-one is on top for ever. The 787 has yet to fly, while the 350 is still being designed. It will be years before we will know which is the more successful.

AAFrequentFlyer

The 737 was and still is the most succesful airplane ever built.

<i>The newest members of the Boeing 737 family - - the 737-600/-700/-800/-900 models -- continue the 737's pre-eminence as the world's most popular and reliable commercial jet transport. The 737 family has won orders for more than 6,000 airplanes, which is more airplanes than The Boeing Company's biggest competitor has won for its entire product line since it began business.

The 737 - a short-to-medium-range airplane - is based on a key Boeing philosophy of delivering added value to airlines with reliability, simplicity and reduced operating and maintenance costs.

The Next-Generation 737 models build on the strengths that made the 737 the world's most successful commercial airliner, while incorporating improvements and value-added technology designed for the 21st century.</i>

chartley

Easyjet are replacing their old 737s with new Airbus 320 series.

Can you tell me if any airlines are replacing their Airbuses with Boeings?

Airbus claim 5350 orders for the A320 family so far, and total orders for all models of 7753. That's rather more than 6000.

rkkwan

While the 320s are better than the 737-3/4/500, the 737-7/8/9 are more advanced and are selling well. Some of the largest shorthauls airlines all fly those - Southwest in the US, Ryanair in Europe, Westjet in Canada and so on.

As for the 747-8s, Boeing didn't have to spend too much money to develop it. And even if the passenger version isn't successful, the cargo version alone is worth the investment in bringing the 747 up to date.

AnthonyGA

Airplanes are not cars, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with a design just because it is 40 years old.

Boeing is selling 737s as fast as it can build them. They've stopped building the 747-400, but that's mainly because so many airlines currently prefer to fly a lot of little planes rather than one big plane (this is very inefficient, but it meets perceived market demand).

There are still airlines flying the 727, and John Travolta is still flying his crusty old 707.

The only real advantages that new aircraft can bring to the table are things like fuel economy or lower maintenance costs. Fuel economy depends a great deal on powerplants, so that's not so much a question of airplane design as it is of engines installed.

Aircraft have to be very old indeed before they actually need to be replaced for maintenance reasons. Some airlines just replace aircraft to reflect a change in business strategy, such as the current affection for small aircraft like the 737 or A320 as opposed to large aircraft like the 747 or A380. There are some markets, though, that prefer large jets even today, especially in Asia. And the biggest jets are still the most comfy for long hauls, and they can meet ETOPS more easily (although just about every recent aircraft is now satisfying those criteria at least partially).

I do agree that the 747 is a proven design, whereas the A380 is not. I rather like the 747, although I've only occasionally had a chance to fly in one. But I like the 737, too&mdash;it's a cute little plane that works well for short hops.

wally34949

Too bad those 737's can't fly across the Atlantic Ocean. Can you imagine how many Continental would buy?

wally34949

Has anyone heard if BA plans to configure their 787's nine across or eight across?

chartley

&quot;Airplanes are not cars, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with a design just because it is 40 years old.&quot;

So why are Boeing bothering with the 787? Surely a few old 707s would be just as good.

AAFrequentFlyer

Beacuse the 787 will be much lighter, have the latest engines, longer range, bigger plane, fuel savings (if you didn't notice, fuel seems to be a very important factor these days, as in VERY EXPENSIVE, eating into any potential profits, etc. )

The 747 is a different story. True it is an old design, but when retroffited with new interior, better, more powerful fuel saving engines, it can compete in todays market. The design was so revolutionary at the time that it still holds up today.

707 can't.

wally34949

I'm surprised they didn't purchase any A330's. With their 2-4-2 seating, it is a popular aircraft.