British Airway’s first Boeing 787 Dreamliner (G-ZBJA) in full livery seen at Paine Field earlier today. Photo by Brandon Farris.
AirlineReporter.com writer Brandon Farris is currently tagging along with American Airlines to cover one of their Boeing 777-300ER delivery flights (story coming soon). During his adventure at Paine Field today, he was able to catch British Airway’s first Boeing 787 Dreamliner in full livery.
Previously, we saw this aircraft with a bare white fuselage, leading some (including us) to speculate that British Airways might had been planning a special livery. The sad side is it looks like they are keeping their standard livery, the good side is that livery looks amazing on the 787 Dreamliner.
But can you notice something a bit different from the majority of their current fleet? If not, check the photo below.
Closer shot of British Airways 787 Dreamliner in full livery. Photo by Brandon Farris.
The classic British Airways emblem is seen before the titles on the fuselage (and after the titles on the opposite side). Taking a closer look at the British Airways Airbus A380 that recently rolled out of the paint hangar half way across the globe shows the same thing.
BA has been starting the process of adding back their coat of arms to their fleet. It is not so obvious at first.
It’s the BA Coat of Arms. This has been happening fleet wide for a little while now. See this video at around 3 minutes:
http://youtu.be/x_G4MV_DG2Q
Thanks for sharing Steve…
I have been scouring Flickr for another BA aircraft with the coat of arms already on it — I know it was a part of their classic livery before and has been a part of BA for a long time.
David
Here you go:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44274506@N08/8258297650/
It’s pretty faint in most of the pictures I’ve seen, maybe they should have used a darker shade. I’ve seen it in person on a 777-200, and it seemed a little more apparent up closer.
Hi David,
Paul Kanagie, who has a substantial Flick presence, has documented the (re-)appearance of the coat of arms @ PHL for the past couple of months now:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/runway27r/8471857666/
Really? British Airways only made a ginormous international deal about returning the crest to their fleet a year or so ago.
The only thing special about this color scheme are the blue engine nacelles which were not supposed to be available in any color other than grey
I’ve seen them on some of their 747s
To Fly To Serve
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/british_airways_goes_vintage.php
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039678/British-Airways-relaunches-new-slogan-nods-imperial-origins.html
Are you talking about the location of the Crest? That seems to be standard on all of their aircraft that bear the Crest. It’s placed near the wing. There are several photos on various aviation website databases that show the Crest before the titles on the left side, and after the titles on the right side.
The crest looked way cooler when it was on the vertical stab IMO: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3096/2631812503_94cc818f37.jpg.
Yes, the ‘We Fly to Serve’ crest was a big feature on the old ‘Landor’ livery. It should be bolder though, it looks faded on the Dreamliner.
Either way, that plane is looking awesome.
What’s more interesting than the crest, which has been pointed out has been existing in the fleet for some time now, is the paint on the nacelles. British appears to me the first, in my recollection, to have strayed from the supposed rule of only painting 787 engine nacelles white or gray. According to tech forums, the darker colors cause uneven heat distribution on the composite materials of the engine nacelle. There has been significant amounts of discussion on how airlines with normally dark painted nacelles would not be able to do so on the 787. Apparently BA has thrown out this Boeing “rule”.
An old thread but it explains the issue.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3537184/?threadid=3537184&searchid=3537329&s=British+787+nacelle#ID3537329
Another
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/288886/
I was not an initial fan of this BA livery, with or without the returned COA. However, it seems to look better with repeated viewing and especially on the larger members of BA’s fleet. OK, I like it!
In the end, it is not so much about the pain job, but what happens inside while the pretty machine is flying. As good as any and far better than most, BA understands on-board hospitality and they execute it well, with typically understated British grace. If BA offers my route, they are the first choice, at least when someone else is paying their very dear prices. As an added bonus, most US-based pax understand their language. (It is not ours, but theirs and they speak/write it far better than do we!) Fun pix.
I have to agree with you there. I flew through Heathrow out of Chicago twice on BA with American flights in the states and it was like the difference between a cheap motel and a 4 star hotel. I can honestly say I have not been on such a nice flight since.
@Dave; Glad that you noticed the difference. To be clear, BA is not a budget carrier and, especially of one is flying to/from/through the major UK airports, you’ll also pay substantial entry/exit fees (some transit fees are waived). Is it worth the extra expense? If one does not care about ground support or consistent and reliable in-flight services, no, probably not. However, If one feels comfortable with knowing what to expect – and having it executed with the utmost grace and courtesy, then BA is your carrier. BA’s front cabin food service is NOT the best in the air, but it is easily the most reliable an consistently good. Their personal service may not be quite the intrusive ass-kissing service for which some Asian and mid-Eastern carriers are famous, but it is excellent, proper and available when needed. In short, BA accomplishes the necessary in-cabin service and meals excellent meals, in a typically British, understated way, one that easily meets the essentials and with grace, yet without becoming intrusive. BA’s front end meals are far from prissy, but they are well prepared, tasty and delivered with grace, not fluffy pomp. You’ll pay a hefty premium to fly a BA long-haul jet and near the pointy end, but you are not likely to regret it. More often than not, understated yet excellent service is far better than prissy elegance and seriously inferior food. If it works for me, it works because I know what to expect, I’m not worried about the essentials and the FAs vanish when not needed, yet appear before I know I need something. No one other than the British understand that kind of service. To be pointed about it, BA seems to understand that cabin service is just that; graceful service – and not some kind of floor show. Three Cheers for BA! Hip hip…… -C.w
@Dave; Glad that you noticed the difference. To be clear, BA is not a budget carrier and, especially of one is flying to/from/through the major UK airports, you’ll also pay substantial entry/exit fees (some transit fees are waived). Is it worth the extra expense? If one does not care about ground support or consistent and reliable in-flight services, no, probably not. However, If one feels comfortable with knowing what to expect – and having it executed with the utmost grace and courtesy, then BA is your carrier. BA’s front cabin food service is NOT the best in the air, but it is easily the most reliable an consistently good. Their personal service may not be quite the intrusive ass-kissing service for which some Asian and mid-Eastern carriers are famous, but it is excellent, proper and available when needed. In short, BA accomplishes the necessary in-cabin service and meals excellent meals, in a typically British, understated way, one that easily meets the essentials and with grace, yet without becoming intrusive. BA’s front end meals are far from prissy, but they are well prepared, tasty and delivered with grace, not fluffy pomp. You’ll pay a hefty premium to fly a BA long-haul jet and near the pointy end, but you are not likely to regret it. More often than not, understated yet excellent service is far better than prissy elegance and seriously inferior food. If it works for me, it works because I know what to expect, I’m not worried about the essentials and the FAs vanish when not needed, yet appear before I know I need something. No one other than the British understand that kind of service. To be pointed about it, BA seems to understand that cabin service is just that; graceful service – and not some kind of floor show. Three Cheers for BA! Hip hip…… -C.
>>(It is not ours, but theirs and they speak/write it far better than do we!)<<
Beg to disagree – Americans in general speak English with far better grammar and diction than do the average Brits.
BTW, I am a Brit.
The Boeing 787 ‘Dreamliner’ looks so beautiful in the colors of Britain’s flag carrier British Airways. I can see BA using the plane to start new routes such as London-Kuala Lumpur, London-Jakarta, London-Osaka, Japan, London-Charlotte, NC; London-Ho Chi Minh City, Manchester-Hong Kong and Manchester-Tokyo.
It is possible that the 787 will be used for some new routes but it is more likely initially the 787 will be used for sustaining long haul routes which exist already but which use a huge amount of fuel. Routes such as LHR-BKK especially with no onward flight to Australia.
Malaysia has joined One World so unlikely BA will now start a new route to KL.
Jakarta is a possibility as is Charlotte and possbily HCMC. I doubt the others will.