BA's future at JFK

LondonXtreme · Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:48 pm

-B6 will rebuild T6/T7, so where will BA go? new T6/T7 or T8?
-BA will gradually retire its B747 fleet in next couple years. If BA still cannot deploys A380 on JFK route, will they add more frequencies?

drdisque · Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:16 pm

First point - I think that is still up in the air. I imagine they will be in the new T6/T7, but that's not certain. It also depends whether they will be able to stay in T7 during the renovation or if T7 is being totally demolished before anything new is built, meaning they'd have to go to T4 or T8.

It's possible that AA could pick up the slack by operating more flights on 77W's and BA sticking with the 777 for all flights. I'm not sure how BA's 77W's are currently deployed but it's possible they could be assigned to cover some of the current B744 JFK flights. It appears BA does have 14 more 77Ws on order, so that's where the extra lift could come from as well.

LondonXtreme · Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:27 pm

drdisque wrote:
First point - I think that is still up in the air. I imagine they will be in the new T6/T7, but that's not certain. It also depends whether they will be able to stay in T7 during the renovation or if T7 is being totally demolished before anything new is built, meaning they'd have to go to T4 or T8.

It's possible that AA could pick up the slack by operating more flights on 77W's and BA sticking with the 777 for all flights. I'm not sure how BA's 77W's are currently deployed but it's possible they could be assigned to cover some of the current B744 JFK flights. It appears BA does have 14 more 77Ws on order, so that's where the extra lift could come from as well.

I think even BA decide to replace some B747 flights by 77W, it still reduces the overall capacity.

Armaghman · Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:27 pm

A380, A380, A380 I hear them chant.

The frequency arguement against A380 can only last so long. A mix would be best to increase total seats.

It all comes down to capabilities and it is a good chance to make It comparable.

Whether we will ever see it is doubtful

XAM2175 · Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:28 pm

LondonXtreme wrote:
BA will gradually retire its B747 fleet in next couple years. If BA still cannot deploys A380 on JFK route, will they add more frequencies?

BA are unlikely to have any desire to use A380s on LHR-JFK even if they could - the route's value is in its premium demand and the yield derived from that is supported and enhanced by high-frequency service (that is, the frequency serves yield before it does capacity).

It's not to say that adding A380 capability at JFK isn't something worth doing, but the majority consensus by far is that the 744s will be replaced with new twins that provide comparable J capacity even if it reduces that available in Y.

evanb · Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:39 pm

BA could still stay in T7 as B6's tenant. B6 are planning 12 widebody gates in their new terminal.

rutankrd · Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:22 pm

LondonXtreme wrote:
-B6 will rebuild T6/T7, so where will BA go? new T6/T7 or T8?
-BA will gradually retire its B747 fleet in next couple years. If BA still cannot deploys A380 on JFK route, will they add more frequencies?

The future of JFK- LHR is without doubt the A35J and by the way use of the 77w in current form really only affects the back of the bus so to speak as the Triple has fewer of those low yielding economy seats. The ones they regularly dump on the consolidators for nought in the pound especially this time of year and Whipping out the potential Flexible fare carriers already pitiful margins - BA wouldn’t loose any sleep if these 40 odd seats per flight were to deisapear, however rince and rewind the route is Airbus 350 bound.

As for increasing frequency most unlikely as JFK is more slot constrained than Heathrow where BA is concerned.
The only way any increases could happen is at the expense of Gatwick and London City . The slot holding has been steady at JFK for many years and BA simple juggle the card decks from time to time.

The 380 is most unlikely to appear regularly any time soon imho.

ldvaviation · Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:30 pm

The State/Port Authority is still negotiating with the other airlines (i.e., BA, AA, Delta).

In the end, BA will find a new home at JFK.

parapente · Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:44 pm

Well...We know BA wanted 6 more A380's.God knows the WW slanging match has been going on long enough.So perhaps the first question should be if not for NY where were these so badly desired A380's destined?
Some/must have to have been for NY to replace the last of the 744's that fly there (super high yield) where else?.Perhaps there is another (777?) answer now.If so we haven't heard it from BA.This is after all the backbone of BA's profit.
I think it's a 'watch this space' time.

LupineChemist · Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:10 pm

There is the interesting point that as wifi becomes more prevalent, that day flights may become more common as people can work during the flight. So maybe more morning departures and late departures from London.

hiflyeras · Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:33 pm

Wake me up when something actually happens. It'll be talked to death for years.

gsg013 · Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:38 pm

Dont understand why you are saying that BA wouldnt want to put the A380 on one or a few of the JFK rotations. It has 14 F and 97 J seats. They need the premium capacity on the route so it seems to be their most premium heavy aircraft. JFK is no stranger to having A380's all day long the only issue might be modding a gate or 2 for BA to use 3 jetbridges for the A380.

Samrnpage · Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:38 pm

BA will use twins in the future with similar J capacity and lower the Y capacity to make it more profitable.

gsg013 · Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:41 pm

Samrnpage wrote:
BA will use twins in the future with similar J capacity and lower the Y capacity to make it more profitable.

What twin engine aircraft can they put 97 J and 14 F (A380) or even 14 F and 86 J(747 Hi J)? I mean i guess its possible on the 77W or 777-9 but do you think they will have ~ 100 Y seats on the plane?

jumpjets · Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:13 pm

I did wonder if the recently ordered additional 777-300ERs might be delivered in with a higher premium level than the existing aircraft and be used on premium heavy routes such as JFK.

At the moment the 773ER have 14 more Y+ and 40 more Y than the super high J 744s. So if those 54 extra Y+/Y were removed how many extra J could BA fit in - probably a question we can’t really answer until we see the final configuration of the new club world. It might not get them up to the 86 J that we see in the super high J configured 744s, but the lost revenue maybe more than compensated for by the more efficient and presumably lower running costs of the 773ER.

Just a thought.

lhrsfosyd · Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:44 pm

BA could indeed reconfigure B77W to something like 14/80/48/134 and use them as High-J replacement.

rutankrd · Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:10 am

Again give up on the 77ŵ JFK will be. 35J route pretty soon

VHTAE · Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:38 am

BA might consider moving to T8 with American and other Oneworld airlines. The question of whether T8 will be part of this new development remains.

VH-TAE

CRJ900 · Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:46 am

I thought the B787-10 was earmarked for LHR-JFK - big plane but lower weight and less range than the B77W and A35K.

jfklganyc · Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:44 pm

380 gates are being built in new B6 terminal.

Just saying...the gates will be there for BA to use

lhrsfosyd · Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:46 pm

I think BA117/112 and BA183/178 could easily support A380. The demand for premium seats is staggering on those flights.

FlyCaledonian · Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:04 pm

Why would BA use an A380 to JFK? There is not not difference in the premium capacity versus the Hi-J 747s and all they end up doing is chucking a load of World Traveller seats into the market. With a lot of competition on the route, and the likes of Norwegian picking off price sensitive passengers, if anything BA wants less World Traveller seats in the market. This is why, as others have said, BA ordered the 787-10. It will be a premium heavy aircraft with less World Traveller seats (I suspect).

BA uses the A380 on routes to the USA/Canada that don't need lots of frequency but where it can use the higher capacity alongside a smaller aircraft (e.g. as at ORD, IAD) or where adding lots of frequency doesn't necessarily make sense (e.g. LAX, SFO, YVR). It doesn't need it for a high frequency route like JFK.

clrd4t8koff · Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:02 pm

Since B6 won the bid for T6/T7 and will now be BA’s landlord, why can’t B6 work out some kind of sweetheart deal with BA that in return for reduced rent, prime space in T7 for a new lounge and their pick of gates that BA then gives B6 a few slots at LHR as it’s no secret B6 wants to enter the TATL market. It feels like B6 could leverage this to their advantage, no?

FlyCaledonian · Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:48 pm

clrd4t8koff wrote:
Since B6 won the bid for T6/T7 and will now be BA’s landlord, why can’t B6 work out some kind of sweetheart deal with BA that in return for reduced rent, prime space in T7 for a new lounge and their pick of gates that BA then gives B6 a few slots at LHR as it’s no secret B6 wants to enter the TATL market. It feels like B6 could leverage this to their advantage, no?

Or BA goes speaks to JV partner AA about building out T8, complete with new lounges and dedicated gates and keeps its LHR slots without gifting a competitor access into the JFK-LHR market.

lhrsfosyd · Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:55 pm

BA does use A380s on high frequency routes such as ORD and to lesser extent BOS so I wouldn't rule anything out after B747s are phased out.

And yes ORD is a high frequency route for BA/AA so your theory doesn't add up.

aemoreira1981 · Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:58 pm

gsg013 wrote:
Dont understand why you are saying that BA wouldnt want to put the A380 on one or a few of the JFK rotations. It has 14 F and 97 J seats. They need the premium capacity on the route so it seems to be their most premium heavy aircraft. JFK is no stranger to having A380's all day long the only issue might be modding a gate or 2 for BA to use 3 jetbridges for the A380.

However, complicating matters is that it's the wrong side of the airport for A380 landings in the 31 direction...and it would also have issues on taxiing for a 22 takeoff (restricted from Taxiway C, where planes usually line up)...and it likely can't use Taxiway B on the north side of JFK at all. There may be increased J demand, but that's where the B78J comes into play since it will not have a crew rest cabin...basically limiting it to the USA, Middle East, and India.

There could be A380 gates at T7, but BA would have to take the long way around to reach T7, even if landing on 13L (taking a tour of the airport).

WPvsMW · Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:19 pm

aemoreira1981, are the JFK taxiway issues for the whalebus weight or width issues?

aemoreira1981 · Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:27 pm

WPvsMW wrote:
aemoreira1981, are the JFK taxiway issues for the whalebus weight or width issues?

I suspect it's width issues, as the B747-8 is not restricted on the current taxiways. The Boeing 747-8 has a wingspan of 225 feet; the Airbus A380 has a wingspan of 262 feet.

clrd4t8koff · Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:00 pm

FlyCaledonian wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:
Since B6 won the bid for T6/T7 and will now be BA’s landlord, why can’t B6 work out some kind of sweetheart deal with BA that in return for reduced rent, prime space in T7 for a new lounge and their pick of gates that BA then gives B6 a few slots at LHR as it’s no secret B6 wants to enter the TATL market. It feels like B6 could leverage this to their advantage, no?

Or BA goes speaks to JV partner AA about building out T8, complete with new lounges and dedicated gates and keeps its LHR slots without gifting a competitor access into the JFK-LHR market.

So what’s BA supposed to do until T8 gets built out. Is that even approved?

Seems like whether they like it or not B6 has a head start on T6/T7 and BA will be their tenant. I understand your theory about BA not wanting to gift their competitor slots, but then they have to ask how important is JFK if B6 is In control and until anything with T8 gets done?

tphuang · Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:16 am

clrd4t8koff wrote:
FlyCaledonian wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:
Since B6 won the bid for T6/T7 and will now be BA’s landlord, why can’t B6 work out some kind of sweetheart deal with BA that in return for reduced rent, prime space in T7 for a new lounge and their pick of gates that BA then gives B6 a few slots at LHR as it’s no secret B6 wants to enter the TATL market. It feels like B6 could leverage this to their advantage, no?

Or BA goes speaks to JV partner AA about building out T8, complete with new lounges and dedicated gates and keeps its LHR slots without gifting a competitor access into the JFK-LHR market.

So what’s BA supposed to do until T8 gets built out. Is that even approved?

Seems like whether they like it or not B6 has a head start on T6/T7 and BA will be their tenant. I understand your theory about BA not wanting to gift their competitor slots, but then they have to ask how important is JFK if B6 is In control and until anything with T8 gets done?

My guess is that BA will move into AA, because AA will continue to cut back. They can certainly allocate the admiral club + more space in concourse C for BA to build their lounges. Admiral Lounge can get more investment also to be used for both BA/AA passengers. Right now, what used to be admiral club section is technically part of the lounge, but is still serving club level catering. I'm sure BA F class passengers would love to try the flagship first dining. There is just so much of T8 that's completely dead throughout much of the day. I would love to have a real lounge in concourse C that I can go to. Right now, my flights are always over there, which makes for a really long hike.

klkla · Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:04 am

clrd4t8koff wrote:
So what’s BA supposed to do until T8 gets built out. Is that even approved?

T8 doesn't really need more gates to handle BA's flights. From what I understand from other posters is that it doesn't have adequate lounge space. It seems to me they could built a mega-lounge (or multiple smaller lounges) pretty quickly in the space near gates 14 and 16 that was originally intended as a gate area if that is indeed the problem.

BA777FO · Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:34 pm

CRJ900 wrote:
I thought the B787-10 was earmarked for LHR-JFK - big plane but lower weight and less range than the B77W and A35K.

Spot on. The A350 is "too capable" to be put on the JFK run. It's the type of flight the 787-10 is designed for (BOS, JFK, IAD, ORD, PHL, ATL etc.) and precisely the stage length BA want to utilise the aircraft on. The A350 is much more likely to fly the 11+ hour legs. Think of the A350 as more of the mid-J jumbo replacement and the 787-10 as the super hi-J jumbo replacement.

Turnhouse1 · Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:02 pm

BA777FO wrote:
CRJ900 wrote:
I thought the B787-10 was earmarked for LHR-JFK - big plane but lower weight and less range than the B77W and A35K.

Spot on. The A350 is "too capable" to be put on the JFK run. It's the type of flight the 787-10 is designed for (BOS, JFK, IAD, ORD, PHL, ATL etc.) and precisely the stage length BA want to utilise the aircraft on. The A350 is much more likely to fly the 11+ hour legs. Think of the A350 as more of the mid-J jumbo replacement and the 787-10 as the super hi-J jumbo replacement.

Indeed, a 787-10 is 18' longer than a 787-9, which is conveniently 3 rows of Club World seating. So keeping everything else equal in BA's config it would be F8, J63, W39, Y127. Losing a row each of W and Y would give 70J.

lhrsfosyd · Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:36 pm

Turnhouse1 wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
CRJ900 wrote:
I thought the B787-10 was earmarked for LHR-JFK - big plane but lower weight and less range than the B77W and A35K.

Spot on. The A350 is "too capable" to be put on the JFK run. It's the type of flight the 787-10 is designed for (BOS, JFK, IAD, ORD, PHL, ATL etc.) and precisely the stage length BA want to utilise the aircraft on. The A350 is much more likely to fly the 11+ hour legs. Think of the A350 as more of the mid-J jumbo replacement and the 787-10 as the super hi-J jumbo replacement.

Indeed, a 787-10 is 18' longer than a 787-9, which is conveniently 3 rows of Club World seating. So keeping everything else equal in BA's config it would be F8, J63, W39, Y127. Losing a row each of W and Y would give 70J.

Cabin layout cannot be determined by simply adding three rows of J as the door configuration is different. You cannot squeeze two rows of F, nine rows of J and 39 W seats between doors 1&3. The configuration will roughly be F8J56W39Y151.

Airlinerdude · Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:56 pm

FlyCaledonian wrote:
Why would BA use an A380 to JFK? There is not not difference in the premium capacity versus the Hi-J 747s and all they end up doing is chucking a load of World Traveller seats into the market. With a lot of competition on the route, and the likes of Norwegian picking off price sensitive passengers, if anything BA wants less World Traveller seats in the market. This is why, as others have said, BA ordered the 787-10. It will be a premium heavy aircraft with less World Traveller seats (I suspect).

One reason might be for corporate contracts/preferred airline status. The company I work for uses BA as a preferred airline; we'll book BA even if airline XYZ is cheaper. Depending on grade and other factors, some individuals might only be eligible for Y class travel. Taking away Y class seats will only increase the prices for the remaining seats, and probably incentivize companies like the one I work for, to consider other airlines for our business in the future.

Similarly, another consideration might be to retain frequent flyers on the route. Making the assumption that frequent flyers would be less price sensitive, BA has probably calculated how price increases from the lowered supply of seats, would impact long term frequent flyer spending etc.

usxguy · Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:15 am

B6 just was announced as the new developer of the T6/T7 land.... that doesn't mean all the T8 tenants are getting kicked out. B6 did a GREAT job on T5, and T7 is one of the last remaining "eye sores" of JFK (after T6, now demolished, although T1 is quite the mess around 8 and 10PM).

Apparently there's still a lot of open real estate at the T8 complex, so AA might be included to add in some gates and complete a build-out of the concourse and Terminal, they could easily accomodate both AS and BA under their roof.

I guess BA has the lease on T8 until 2022?

ramzi · Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:39 am

Turnhouse1 wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
CRJ900 wrote:
I thought the B787-10 was earmarked for LHR-JFK - big plane but lower weight and less range than the B77W and A35K.

Spot on. The A350 is "too capable" to be put on the JFK run. It's the type of flight the 787-10 is designed for (BOS, JFK, IAD, ORD, PHL, ATL etc.) and precisely the stage length BA want to utilise the aircraft on. The A350 is much more likely to fly the 11+ hour legs. Think of the A350 as more of the mid-J jumbo replacement and the 787-10 as the super hi-J jumbo replacement.

Indeed, a 787-10 is 18' longer than a 787-9, which is conveniently 3 rows of Club World seating. So keeping everything else equal in BA's config it would be F8, J63, W39, Y127. Losing a row each of W and Y would give 70J.

BA will be installing the new CW on those planes, so the layout is going to change due to the aisle access. In any case, it is 8F/70J is still a significant downgrade from the 14F/86J 747, not to mention that BA have been increasing W, and I think we can expect to see that change reflected on incoming aircraft. The closest potential replacement would be a reconfigured 77W. The current fleet has 14F/56J/44W--the conversion to 10 abreast will make it easy to add a few rows of CW, making it almost an exact match to the hi-J jumbos with an extra few W seats.

tkoenig95 · Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:10 am

Wasn't the A380 made for markets like NYC-LON high density? I would think this aircraft would be perfect considering the amount of seats offered compared to the 772 service they offer.

KD5MDK · Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:18 am

I find it hard to believe BA would go much less than the 86J it has on the top end 744s for the replacement. I'll bet it has no more than 108Y.

ZK-NBT · Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:07 am

tkoenig95 wrote:
Wasn't the A380 made for markets like NYC-LON high density? I would think this aircraft would be perfect considering the amount of seats offered compared to the 772 service they offer.

Not really in this case given how the 744’s mainly used are configured, they have 86J and only 145Y plus F and W total 275 seats, the A380 in its current configuration adds a lot of Y seats.

The 772 might do 1-2 flights but most are the premium heavy 744’s and frequency is hugely important here as is J capacity.

ldvaviation · Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:28 am

clrd4t8koff wrote:

So what’s BA supposed to do until T8 gets built out. Is that even approved?

Seems like whether they like it or not B6 has a head start on T6/T7 and BA will be their tenant. I understand your theory about BA not wanting to gift their competitor slots, but then they have to ask how important is JFK if B6 is In control and until anything with T8 gets done?

Except at DAL, that is not how things work.

The airport board will find BA the gates it needs to operate all of its flights.

clrd4t8koff · Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:09 am

ldvaviation wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:

So what’s BA supposed to do until T8 gets built out. Is that even approved?

Seems like whether they like it or not B6 has a head start on T6/T7 and BA will be their tenant. I understand your theory about BA not wanting to gift their competitor slots, but then they have to ask how important is JFK if B6 is In control and until anything with T8 gets done?

Except at DAL, that is not how things work.

The airport board will find BA the gates it needs to operate all of its flights.

What is DAL?

AirbusA322 · Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:14 am

I’m Late to the Party.

So why don’t BA use the 380 to JFK? I just assumed it already fix but seems it never has?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net