Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Britsh Airways refurbishing 18 747-400 aircraft.
If it’s the end of the line for Boeing Co.’s 747 jetliner, nobody told British Airways. The largest operator of the hump-backed icon -- dubbed the Queen of the Skies on its debut in 1970 -- is plumping up seat cushions, hanging fresh curtains and upgrading entertainment systems on 18 planes. Seems they can get a bit more life out of paid-for aircraft and maybe make money doing so. (www.bloomberg.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
If these birds can get the job done at the right cost point, let them fly!!
BA's examples are well maintained. They have a critical mass for maintenance and operate out of a slot controlled airport where the bigger the better. Never mind fuel still being cheap.
BA's frames are probably cash printing machines at this point.
I think the only other airline in a similar situation is United, but what condition are their 747s in?
BA's frames are probably cash printing machines at this point.
I think the only other airline in a similar situation is United, but what condition are their 747s in?
Correct. And owned, depreciated to zero, and no mortgage cost unlike the shiny, new B777-300ERs. Thus with historically low fuel prices, the CASK is not disadvantageous. D check items such as wing spar inspections are the limiting factor. With A380-800, B777-300ER, B777-200ER and B787-8/9, thus well positioned to vary capacity, product and airframe deployed as the fuel price moves.
A plane can fly forever if needed (see NWA and those DC9s) given sufficient TLC/$s.
As long as they aren't unnecessarily deferring the heavy maintenance, the game can continue for a long time. But, as soon as demand drops (or fuel prices rise), they can park them with no tears. I'd love to see that spreadsheet which calculates the go-no-go decision.
Delta obviously has hit a wall and is parking theirs.
As long as they aren't unnecessarily deferring the heavy maintenance, the game can continue for a long time. But, as soon as demand drops (or fuel prices rise), they can park them with no tears. I'd love to see that spreadsheet which calculates the go-no-go decision.
Delta obviously has hit a wall and is parking theirs.
WEll said Matthew...I think Delta is parking their's because they have more money than brains...I want to see if I can find the article and which airline is thinking/doing an engine swap out, on some of their 744's, to a more fuel efficient unit...as you said the airframes are paid for and an upgrade would be a heck of a lot cheaper than buying new, if maintained well through their life (BA is a prime example)
That is OUR MONEY that they will RISK! They are using Government Backed funding!!!
Which money and government are you referring to?
Actually, Delta never wanted them nor did thy have any until the NWA merger. They weren't part of their plan, still aren't and I am sure are on the block.
As I said...more money than brains...rather buy shiny, new and expensive than recon great old birds and proudly show their colours
Delta didn't fly to Asia much (at all?) before the NWA acquisition. There was no Delta hub in Narita or Amsterdam. Delta bought NWA for a reason, one was because of these hubs and the fleet that served it. Fully depreciated assets (like BAs) are wonderful things, but if the business is not setup to take advantage of it (unlike BAs), those Delta 747s are best left in the desert.