BA777FO wrote:Net promoter scores are higher for passengers that have been on the refreshed 777s versus those that have been on the ones yet to be refreshed.
Can you educate me? What is a "net promoter score" and how is it measured?
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
BA777FO wrote:Net promoter scores are higher for passengers that have been on the refreshed 777s versus those that have been on the ones yet to be refreshed.
Waterbomber2 wrote:British Airways has killed thousands of cutting edge British jobs with the B777X order, by denying Airbus their last hope for an A380 order and by not ordering the A350 with high British content.
JayinKitsap wrote:emiratesdriver wrote:Waterbomber2 and friends, how about getting this through your heads, the 380 is a dead duck in terms of its appeal to BA, simple really. When I talk to the line engineers and heavy maintenance engineers about the 380, they all say the same things, it’s poorly built and requires a lot of extra unplanned work in comparison to previous Airbus aircraft and Boeing’s.
The upshot of this is that even my employer are looking for the exit sooner rather than later as in EK service the 380 has always been at best revenue neutral...and latterly calamitous with respect to fuel burn and expense v revenue.
Within EK flight Ops it is now no longer denied that the numbers of 380s in EK service are a problem, the stated intent in the last 6 months is all about fuel saving and utilisation rather than expansion and capacity.
Face facts, the 380s economics never really stacked up in the real world, it’s worth observing as well that little Timmy the 380s biggest fanboy has been noticeably quieter in recent times.
Quite interesting! Some questions:
1 The extra unplanned maintenance - on structure or like access panels, or devices, or in its systems.
2 On EK's birds, is there a big variation from the early to later planes.
3. Are there issues with the 5,000 psi hydraulics vs the far more common 3,000 psi hydraulics?
Why I note access panels comes from my experience with doors on buildings, the standard door is a no brainer, but get to a 5' x 10' door the hinges become massive, the frame is stout, the door weighs a ton, and they always need adjustment.
Do the RR trents handle the sandy environment as well as the EA engines?
I am sure BA figured in their maintenance costs in the review of what to purchase next.
To those whining about buying local. That is great to do, but once the cost to go local adds 5% or more, the economics have to over rule. Is it a government requirement that all planes in the UK are to be Airbus with RR engines. Why is it OK for AF to buy GE engines on 777's instead of RR engines. Isn't that a choice of the purchaser that is trying to make money on its investment.
BA777FO wrote:Lots to cover here. Bear with me!Speedbird2155 wrote:And to set the record straight, all of BA A350-1000s have the appropriate crew rest facilities.
They will come fitted with flight crew bunks but not cabin crew bunks - this has been confirmed internally. So that will limit the range although not to the extent of no bunks at all. Cabin crew can do up to a 16 hour FDP (so about a 14 hour sector, although in reality it'll never be planned that tight) with a Class 3 rest facility, which means blocking off seats in the cabin. It can cover most of the network, but not all of it.
Speedbird2155 wrote:BA777FO wrote:Lots to cover here. Bear with me!Speedbird2155 wrote:And to set the record straight, all of BA A350-1000s have the appropriate crew rest facilities.
They will come fitted with flight crew bunks but not cabin crew bunks - this has been confirmed internally. So that will limit the range although not to the extent of no bunks at all. Cabin crew can do up to a 16 hour FDP (so about a 14 hour sector, although in reality it'll never be planned that tight) with a Class 3 rest facility, which means blocking off seats in the cabin. It can cover most of the network, but not all of it.
What has been confirmed internally is that the B787-10 won't have cabin crew bunks. The A350 certainly does have them, noticeable by the lower bins over the seats at the rear of the aircraft. It will be clarified in a few months when the aircraft arrives.
EvanWSFO wrote:Waterbomber2 wrote:As some seem to be insisiting that I'm making this all up, a few more posted on Tripadvisor no earlier than today:
If I booked my flights based on TripAdvisor (or any ratings site), I'd never fly. There will ALWAYS be disgruntled pax on EVERY airline. Perhaps you should grow up and spend more time doing something productive than making an a** of yourself on here.
Waterbomber2 wrote:T5 was a complete mess and still is. Too often you don't know your gate number until 40 minutes before your flight time and need to keep checking the screens. When you leave the lounge to get to your gate on time, you end up waiting another half hour because they can't seem to decide which aircraft to assign to your flight. Past the departure time, there is still no sign of boarding.
Airlinerdude wrote:It's impossible for BA to know the demand of people wanting to fly to LHR when other airports in the London area will likely segment some of this demand. If it turns out that demand is still concentrated on LHR, then yes they might place top-up orders for 779s/350s/78Ks, but they might also regret not having taken up used 380s.
kitplane01 wrote:I might be wrong, but I don't think bare wings alone are that expensive (especially if some of the parts come from overseas).
Now engines if you add the engines .. I still wonder if you'd get above 20%. I'm willing to be educated by people with numbers.
Jetty wrote:But it’s still telling BA (and IB) have the lowest rating among large European legacy airlines.
par13del wrote:So all the talk about Airbus a/c having high US content was just talk to have the US Military and US carriers buy Airbus a/c?
I recall the Military and civilian threads on Airbus purchases, and this was before the Airbus FAL, amazing how many things are ultimately revealed in the sunlight.
In the A380 threads EK was bashed as having too many A380's to kill competition, now we realize that BA was the reason Airbus pulled the plug on the A380. Must be a Brexit thing as everything else is...
par13del wrote:So all the talk about Airbus a/c having high US content was just talk to have the US Military and US carriers buy Airbus a/c?
I recall the Military and civilian threads on Airbus purchases, and this was before the Airbus FAL, amazing how many things are ultimately revealed in the sunlight.
In the A380 threads EK was bashed as having too many A380's to kill competition, now we realize that BA was the reason Airbus pulled the plug on the A380. Must be a Brexit thing as everything else is...
peterinlisbon wrote:50 million dollars for seats - I think BA is getting ripped off.
SomebodyInTLS wrote:Err... I don't really know where this is coming from either. FWIW, obviously if a second customer such as BA was to join EK in wanting a NEO or at least another batch of CEOs then it would have happened.
Jetty wrote:EvanWSFO wrote:Waterbomber2 wrote:As some seem to be insisiting that I'm making this all up, a few more posted on Tripadvisor no earlier than today:
If I booked my flights based on TripAdvisor (or any ratings site), I'd never fly. There will ALWAYS be disgruntled pax on EVERY airline. Perhaps you should grow up and spend more time doing something productive than making an a** of yourself on here.
If you booked your flight based on TripAdvisor you wouldn’t book BA. Yes, every company has disgruntled pax. But it’s still telling BA (and IB) have the lowest rating among large European legacy airlines.
Waterbomber2 wrote:
Yield management is a joke at most airlines anyway.
Most airlines including BA overcharge for O&D and would rather spend more money flying lower yielding transferring pax from competing hubs despite that they could make more money by focussing more on O&D and their local market.
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
I’m fairly confident that everything you said in this paragraph is wrong.
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:Waterbomber2 wrote:
Yield management is a joke at most airlines anyway.
Most airlines including BA overcharge for O&D and would rather spend more money flying lower yielding transferring pax from competing hubs despite that they could make more money by focussing more on O&D and their local market.
I’m fairly confident that everything you said in this paragraph is wrong. Yield and demand management innovation has revolutionized ticket pricing and resulted in much higher load factors.
Nonstop O&D is earns both higher fares and costs less to operate. Point to point nonstop O&D is where much of the most profitable flying is for high yielding passengers.
I don’t know where you get the idea that BA focuses on lower yielding transfer passengers. Only 30% of traffic through LHR is connecting passengers.
chonetsao wrote:peterinlisbon wrote:50 million dollars for seats - I think BA is getting ripped off.
To be fair, the figure quoted was $30 to 50 million total refurbishment per aircraft. Emirates just finished refurbishing B77L at $15 million per aircraft. So $35 to $40 million for A380 depends on the configuration is not unreasonable estimate.
kitplane01 wrote:chonetsao wrote:peterinlisbon wrote:50 million dollars for seats - I think BA is getting ripped off.
To be fair, the figure quoted was $30 to 50 million total refurbishment per aircraft. Emirates just finished refurbishing B77L at $15 million per aircraft. So $35 to $40 million for A380 depends on the configuration is not unreasonable estimate.
Why?
If a 777L costs $15 million, and an A380 has maybe 50% more seats, shouldn't it cost about $22.5 million to redo the interior? Is there something about the A380 that increases the per-seat interior refurbishment cost?
chonetsao wrote:peterinlisbon wrote:50 million dollars for seats - I think BA is getting ripped off.
To be fair, the figure quoted was $30 to 50 million total refurbishment per aircraft. Emirates just finished refurbishing B77L at $15 million per aircraft. So $35 to $40 million for A380 depends on the configuration is not unreasonable estimate.