BA48 SEA to LHR

[klfrodo]

Pre-Covid, BA48 was scheduled to transition from a 787-9 to a -10. However, that was delayed for various reasons. Covid and Boeing management sucking being a couple of reasons.

 

Do any of the knowledgeable people here have any idea when BA is going to transition BA48 from the -9 to the -10?

[FlyerTalker]

I have no direct knowledge.  However, you might ask yourself this question -- does the SEA-LHR route need to have an increase of 40 seats and/or 4 cargo containers per day?  Because the fuel burn is higher on the -10, so the main reason to switch is if the capacity increase is warranted.

 

Yes, there is the second issue of then using the longer range -9 elsewhere.  But that would require an overall analysis of BAs route structure and loads.  Which I think is beyond the data of most everyone here.

[Zach1213]

20 minutes ago, FlyerTalker said:

I have no direct knowledge.  However, you might ask yourself this question -- does the SEA-LHR route need to have an increase of 40 seats and/or 4 cargo containers per day?  Because the fuel burn is higher on the -10, so the main reason to switch is if the capacity increase is warranted.

 

Yes, there is the second issue of then using the longer range -9 elsewhere.  But that would require an overall analysis of BAs route structure and loads.  Which I think is beyond the data of most everyone here.

 

This was kind of my thought process too. I believe they have 2x -10s, and only 10 more on order, so does SEA warrant a -10 at any point when the fleet is relatively small? That's especially true once you factor in that, with longhaul aircraft like that, one roundtrip takes up an entire day of aircraft usage. I guess, perhaps, one can argue that the OneWorld ties that now exist between Alaska and BA might help, and is perhaps why there are 3x daily SEA-LHR flights on OneWorld during the high season. 

 

I feel like the opportunity cost of putting the -10 on a SEA route versus other routes might be a bit too high, even when they have the full fleet of 12. But hey...what do I know. This is why I work on the engineering side of aviation, not the business side 🙂

 

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Zach1213

[klfrodo]

Going to Alaska's website and using miles as the search feature, it appears the equipment change is "currently" scheduled for December 1st.

If I can't get the SEA - LHR route on BA48 in the -10, I'll just look for seats from LAS in the A350.

My preference is to not have to sit in the reverse herringbone configuration.

[Zach1213]

1 hour ago, klfrodo said:

 

My preference is to not have to sit in the reverse herringbone configuration.

 

Ha, this makes so much more sense now. I was wondering why you were so adamant about a -10 versus a -9, but I get it now. 

[FlyerTalker]

2 hours ago, klfrodo said:

My preference is to not have to sit in the reverse herringbone configuration.

 

I think you meant "rear facing seats" for the 787-9.  Because the 787-10 actually has "reverse herringbone" seating.

 

FYI - herringbone refers to seating where the passenger angles toward the aisle, with their feet closer to the aisle.  (See the old DL 777s or Virgin Atlantic for an example).  Reverse herringbone refers to seating where the passenger is angled away from the aisle, with the head closer to the aisle.  (See BA 787-10)