<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Advantage: BA</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2008/01/29/advantage-ba/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2008/01/29/advantage-ba/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:56:58 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: keesje</title>
		<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2008/01/29/advantage-ba/comment-page-1/#comment-770</link>
		<dc:creator>keesje</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:03:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/?p=200#comment-770</guid>
		<description>Stratoliner777: I think 787-8 might be the right aircraft for OpenSkies and other smaller citypairs/destinations..

Mike: The A350-1000 will be only a little smaller then the B777-300ER. Seatsconfigurations will be 9 abreast in economy and 4 abreast in First like the 777. Club might be different, maybe 7 abreast. Cargo will be the same.

All for much less fuel / operating costs. Boeing has to counter the A350XWB at some point &#38; not wait to long.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stratoliner777: I think 787-8 might be the right aircraft for OpenSkies and other smaller citypairs/destinations..</p>
<p>Mike: The A350-1000 will be only a little smaller then the B777-300ER. Seatsconfigurations will be 9 abreast in economy and 4 abreast in First like the 777. Club might be different, maybe 7 abreast. Cargo will be the same.</p>
<p>All for much less fuel / operating costs. Boeing has to counter the A350XWB at some point &amp; not wait to long.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stratoliner777</title>
		<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2008/01/29/advantage-ba/comment-page-1/#comment-769</link>
		<dc:creator>Stratoliner777</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:22:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/?p=200#comment-769</guid>
		<description>I wonder if OpenSkies eventually gets 787s?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder if OpenSkies eventually gets 787s?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dougloid</title>
		<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2008/01/29/advantage-ba/comment-page-1/#comment-768</link>
		<dc:creator>Dougloid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:02:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/?p=200#comment-768</guid>
		<description>Mike said:

Airframers must also be mindful of bending over to far to this Airline. It’s past is littered with the wreckage or near wreckage of more than a couple of Aircraft manufacturers.

Absolutely right. Think Convair bending over for Howard Hughes.

The other point that Boeing777 made is narrowbody engine technology not being ready...I'll take the points and the Pratt geared fan. If they pull it off, it will be a game changer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike said:</p>
<p>Airframers must also be mindful of bending over to far to this Airline. It’s past is littered with the wreckage or near wreckage of more than a couple of Aircraft manufacturers.</p>
<p>Absolutely right. Think Convair bending over for Howard Hughes.</p>
<p>The other point that Boeing777 made is narrowbody engine technology not being ready&#8230;I&#8217;ll take the points and the Pratt geared fan. If they pull it off, it will be a game changer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2008/01/29/advantage-ba/comment-page-1/#comment-767</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:48:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/?p=200#comment-767</guid>
		<description>It seems BA do have time but at some point they'll have to commit and I believe it would be impractical to replace 57 747's with 380s, especially being mindful of 772's having replaced 747s in at least one application. There is definitely going to have to be another level above the 772's which I believe will be the 748 or 77W unless they do have time to wait for the 777RS. The 350 m as way be too narrow in the fuselage as too, any 787 stretches to really be a replacement for 747s or 772's.
Airframers must also be mindful of bending over to far to this Airline. It's past is littered with the wreckage or near wreckage of more than a couple of Aircraft manufacturers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems BA do have time but at some point they&#8217;ll have to commit and I believe it would be impractical to replace 57 747&#8217;s with 380s, especially being mindful of 772&#8217;s having replaced 747s in at least one application. There is definitely going to have to be another level above the 772&#8217;s which I believe will be the 748 or 77W unless they do have time to wait for the 777RS. The 350 m as way be too narrow in the fuselage as too, any 787 stretches to really be a replacement for 747s or 772&#8217;s.<br />
Airframers must also be mindful of bending over to far to this Airline. It&#8217;s past is littered with the wreckage or near wreckage of more than a couple of Aircraft manufacturers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: keesje</title>
		<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2008/01/29/advantage-ba/comment-page-1/#comment-766</link>
		<dc:creator>keesje</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:57:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/?p=200#comment-766</guid>
		<description>Good neutral editorial. I think for filling the gab between the A380 and 777 BA will use the 747-400 for the next 10 years,  They´ll probably sing it out until something new comes along like a Y3 or  A350-1100. No immediate need for a 777-300ER although it is a capable aircraft..

I have no doubt more A380´s will be ordered / options taken. In the end they have to replace 57 x 747-400s &#38; fly preferably from slot restricted hubs with oil prices going north of $100/barrel. Airtraffic will tripple in the next 20 yrs according to Boeing and Airbus, and BA probably doesn´t want to surrender to much marketshare..

So 60 A380s in various version by 2025 doesn´t seem unlikely.
On the 747-8i, I don´t think BA is the only carrier that passed on it. Maybe BA wants to see how it performs in operation first.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good neutral editorial. I think for filling the gab between the A380 and 777 BA will use the 747-400 for the next 10 years,  They´ll probably sing it out until something new comes along like a Y3 or  A350-1100. No immediate need for a 777-300ER although it is a capable aircraft..</p>
<p>I have no doubt more A380´s will be ordered / options taken. In the end they have to replace 57 x 747-400s &amp; fly preferably from slot restricted hubs with oil prices going north of $100/barrel. Airtraffic will tripple in the next 20 yrs according to Boeing and Airbus, and BA probably doesn´t want to surrender to much marketshare..</p>
<p>So 60 A380s in various version by 2025 doesn´t seem unlikely.<br />
On the 747-8i, I don´t think BA is the only carrier that passed on it. Maybe BA wants to see how it performs in operation first.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacobin777</title>
		<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2008/01/29/advantage-ba/comment-page-1/#comment-765</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacobin777</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:01:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/?p=200#comment-765</guid>
		<description>As of now, I do not believe BA is looking at the B748I...of course, dynamics change and the B748I has a lot to offer in terms of seats, especially between an A350-1000/B773ER and A380....

With Boeing, a lot is going to depend on "1st flight of the B787"..once they get that squared away, the could offer BA a B787-10 with the range Boeing were talking about (7200nm)....this would make it a very effective and efficient plane for BA...

All being said, I give it a 60:40 Airbus:Boeing shot...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As of now, I do not believe BA is looking at the B748I&#8230;of course, dynamics change and the B748I has a lot to offer in terms of seats, especially between an A350-1000/B773ER and A380&#8230;.</p>
<p>With Boeing, a lot is going to depend on &#8220;1st flight of the B787&#8243;..once they get that squared away, the could offer BA a B787-10 with the range Boeing were talking about (7200nm)&#8230;.this would make it a very effective and efficient plane for BA&#8230;</p>
<p>All being said, I give it a 60:40 Airbus:Boeing shot&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Wallace</title>
		<link>http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2008/01/29/advantage-ba/comment-page-1/#comment-764</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Wallace</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:30:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/?p=200#comment-764</guid>
		<description>The advantage that the A380-800 offers BA is they no longer have to trade Club World and World Traveler seats for each other like they do on the 747.

BA could comfortably fit 458 people in an A380 with 12F seats between Door 1 and Door 2 on the main deck, 310 Economy seats aft of Door 2 on the Main Deck (with 32" pitch instead of 31"), 96 Club World seats on the upper deck aft of Door 1 and 40 World Traveler Plus seats forward of Door 1 on the upper deck with 44" of pitch instead of 38".

So that is 26 more CW seats then the "High J" 744 (and 58 more then the "Low J") and 47 more Y seats then the "Low J" 744 (and 133 more then the "High J"). That will allow BA to recover a lot of lost premium and economy traffic.

A 747-8I would, at best, give them two more rows each of Club World on the UD and LD at the forward plug and two more rows of WT at the aft plug. So the High J would go to 14F/94C/30Y+/197Y for a total of 335 seats. And the Low J would go to 14F/62C/30Y+/283Y for 389. There is just no way the 747-8I could offer lower CASM then the A380-800 with seat counts that much lower, especially on routes where CW is in demand.

Now let us talk of a widebody twin.

Depending on how they angled them, BA might just be able to fit four rows of FIRST suites (4 per row) between Door 1 and Door 2 on the 777-300ER. You can fit six rows of Club World (8 per row) between Door 2 and Door 3 (leaving space for lavs). You should also be able to fit two more rows of Club World plus five rows of Word Traveler Plus between Door 3 and Door 4. And then you can fit 120Y between Door 4 and Door 5 with 12 rows of 9, one row of 7 and one row of 5. So you'd have a total of 240 seats in a 16F/64C/40Y+/120Y configuration. That is only 16 more then a 77E and 51 below the "High J" 744. Now you could knock down a row of F and add back three rows of Y to get you to 263. So that might work a bit better.

An A350-1000 will have about 4% less floor space, so it will likely either give up a row of CW or 2 rows of WT, but it will still be close enough.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The advantage that the A380-800 offers BA is they no longer have to trade Club World and World Traveler seats for each other like they do on the 747.</p>
<p>BA could comfortably fit 458 people in an A380 with 12F seats between Door 1 and Door 2 on the main deck, 310 Economy seats aft of Door 2 on the Main Deck (with 32&#8243; pitch instead of 31&#8243;), 96 Club World seats on the upper deck aft of Door 1 and 40 World Traveler Plus seats forward of Door 1 on the upper deck with 44&#8243; of pitch instead of 38&#8243;.</p>
<p>So that is 26 more CW seats then the &#8220;High J&#8221; 744 (and 58 more then the &#8220;Low J&#8221;) and 47 more Y seats then the &#8220;Low J&#8221; 744 (and 133 more then the &#8220;High J&#8221;). That will allow BA to recover a lot of lost premium and economy traffic.</p>
<p>A 747-8I would, at best, give them two more rows each of Club World on the UD and LD at the forward plug and two more rows of WT at the aft plug. So the High J would go to 14F/94C/30Y+/197Y for a total of 335 seats. And the Low J would go to 14F/62C/30Y+/283Y for 389. There is just no way the 747-8I could offer lower CASM then the A380-800 with seat counts that much lower, especially on routes where CW is in demand.</p>
<p>Now let us talk of a widebody twin.</p>
<p>Depending on how they angled them, BA might just be able to fit four rows of FIRST suites (4 per row) between Door 1 and Door 2 on the 777-300ER. You can fit six rows of Club World (8 per row) between Door 2 and Door 3 (leaving space for lavs). You should also be able to fit two more rows of Club World plus five rows of Word Traveler Plus between Door 3 and Door 4. And then you can fit 120Y between Door 4 and Door 5 with 12 rows of 9, one row of 7 and one row of 5. So you&#8217;d have a total of 240 seats in a 16F/64C/40Y+/120Y configuration. That is only 16 more then a 77E and 51 below the &#8220;High J&#8221; 744. Now you could knock down a row of F and add back three rows of Y to get you to 263. So that might work a bit better.</p>
<p>An A350-1000 will have about 4% less floor space, so it will likely either give up a row of CW or 2 rows of WT, but it will still be close enough.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
