V-Flyer

Yes I know this is on the Rumour network, but have a look atb this thread guys and gals
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=214872

Like the rumour myself, love the 747's you see...

Right there with ya on the 747s! I think the Airbus' are like sitting in a cigar tube...and certainly not a Cuban cigar as reputedly rolled on the inner thigh of a virgin

Jacq x

absolutly agree long live the 747 dont know why V-A went for the A340-600 in the first place. ALWAYS FEEL SAFE ON A 747.

Originally posted by jerseyboy
absolutly agree long live the 747 dont know why V-A went for the A340-600 in the first place. ALWAYS FEEL SAFE ON A 747.

747s are no safer than a 346. And VS probably went for them because they could get a much better deal from Airbus than the could from Boeing.

Indeed they got a cracking deal from airbus.

I am not really bothered where the next fleet comes from. Although it has to be said that the A380 philosophy only really covers MCO and JFK regards shifting numbers, so it may make sense for VS to buy from elsewhere. Its a tough one to call for sure, the A350 would have awesome range but not really seeing were they would get the advantage from apart from the SYD route, the B777/747 would seem to cover all other bases.

Suppose its in the hands of who knows best (Yup the bean counters) but there is good cases for both aruguments.

Don't forget the two daily flights to LAX, conceivably they could be combined onto an A380, particularly now that the LAX authority is belatedly and somewhat reluctantly embracing the aircraft.

Originally posted by VS-EWR

Originally posted by jerseyboy
absolutly agree long live the 747 dont know why V-A went for the A340-600 in the first place. ALWAYS FEEL SAFE ON A 747.

747s are no safer than a 346. And VS probably went for them because they could get a much better deal from Airbus than the could from Boeing.

you can not actually compair statts for 747 and A340-600 as there are only 56 A340/600 in service up to now with a small overall operational number of flights under their young belt. however there have been up to now a total of 1369 747's in opperation with a very health statistically proven safety record.
However i am not going to be padantic about it but i only said i FEEL SAFER in a 747 which is not the same as saying i am even though statistically i might just be.
From Jerseyboy
JERSEY U.K
Channel Islands

Originally posted by jerseyboy
[
However i am not going to be padantic about it but i only said i FEEL SAFER in a 747 which is not the same as saying i am even though statistically i might just be.
From Jerseyboy
JERSEY U.K
Channel Islands

I think it has a lot to do with the way the fuselage of a 747 doesn't flex so much on take off!!!

Originally posted by PVGSLF

I think it has a lot to do with the way the fuselage of a 747 doesn't flex so much on take off!!!

You say that, next time your on a 747 look at the center bins and the roof you be surprised at how muce it does flex, and wait till the 787 starts flying you wont see any flexing there just hear the noise of carbon fiber stressing and cracking[:I]

Originally posted by pegitt

....wait till the 787 starts flying you wont see any flexing there just hear the noise of carbon fiber stressing and cracking[:I]

I play the drums, and tried carbon fibre drumsticks once. They were horrible. Give me a decent hickory pair any day.
Bring back wooden aeroplanes I say![:o)]

Originally posted by jerseyboy

Originally posted by VS-EWR

Originally posted by jerseyboy
absolutly agree long live the 747 dont know why V-A went for the A340-600 in the first place. ALWAYS FEEL SAFE ON A 747.

747s are no safer than a 346. And VS probably went for them because they could get a much better deal from Airbus than the could from Boeing.

you can not actually compair statts for 747 and A340-600 as there are only 56 A340/600 in service up to now with a small overall operational number of flights under their young belt. however there have been up to now a total of 1369 747's in opperation with a very health statistically proven safety record.
However i am not going to be padantic about it but i only said i FEEL SAFER in a 747 which is not the same as saying i am even though statistically i might just be.
From Jerseyboy
JERSEY U.K
Channel Islands

I know you said "I feel" but I felt I should point out that you should not feel any safer. Both aircraft have good service records, so that's why I feel just as safe in either one!

I'm hoping the A380 stays in favor

with 35% more floor space per passenger on that plane (compared to a 747-400), it gives hope that things will improve not just in Upper Class, but also ecomomy - i.e. more seat pitch!


Purchasing new planes is of course more complicated than just seat pitch though [:(]

Originally posted by VS-EWR

Originally posted by jerseyboy

Originally posted by VS-EWR
[quote]Originally posted by jerseyboy
absolutly agree long live the 747 dont know why V-A went for the A340-600 in the first place. ALWAYS FEEL SAFE ON A 747.

747s are no safer than a 346. And VS probably went for them because they could get a much better deal from Airbus than the could from Boeing.

Nick think back to when you were young. Did you feel safer with your mum looking out for you when you were in a situation that was alien to you? or were you safer in the arms of your teacher??? Both are probably equally a safe and reassuring as each other but your mother always should be the safest bet. Because you know her you trust her, time has proven that. But your teacher is the new matriarch in your life and she is the un-known quantity.

Just like the 747 the mother of all wide body aircraft!! and the new kid on the block who might have more qualifications (ground breaking technology) but lacks that proven track record the un familiarity factor. Plus the a430-600is just one very very very long tube with no endearing feature.

P.s by the way I am enjoying talking to you and hope I am not getting on your wick**

I preffer the 747 - but thats only because ive only been on an A343 once, so not really much to compare against. I didnt feel any less safe on it though, as VS would NEVER let an unsafe plane fly.

Also i read in a magazine a couple of years ago that VS didnt wantm to order any more 747's because Boeing were charging way too much for them and werent interested in negotiating a better deal. Airbus however were willing to do business, so VS went with them.

Originally posted by jerseyboy
Nick think back to when you were young. Did you feel safer with your mum looking out for you when you were in a situation that was alien to you? or were you safer in the arms of your teacher??? Both are probably equally a safe and reassuring as each other but your mother always should be the safest bet. Because you know her you trust her, time has proven that. But your teacher is the new matriarch in your life and she is the un-known quantity.

Just like the 747 the mother of all wide body aircraft!! and the new kid on the block who might have more qualifications (ground breaking technology) but lacks that proven track record the un familiarity factor. Plus the a430-600is just one very very very long tube with no endearing feature.

P.s by the way I am enjoying talking to you and hope I am not getting on your wick**

The a346 has just been out for a few years, however the a340 has been out for a while, and there have been no 0 fatalities involving accidents with the aircraft. The a346 is just an updated version that is also longer, and just because it doesn't have an "endearing feature" doesn't make it a bad plane.

Edited to clean up quotes.

[/quote]

The a346 has just been out for a few years, however the a340 has been out for a while, and there have been no 0 fatalities involving accidents with the aircraft. The a346 is just an updated version that is also longer, and just because it doesn't have an "endearing feature" doesn't make it a bad plane.

Edited to clean up quotes.
[/quote]Hi Nick [y]yes you are right about the A340 up to now there have been 316 aircraft in total put in to operation against the 1369 Boeing 747 without loss of life and I hope that long may it be that this figure remains. But you still canÕt beat the beauty and prowess of the 747 and I feel safe with her big hearty personality looking after me as I cross the skyÕs. Airbus may be safe but does not give me that same feeling. Probably due to that feeling of being stuck in a tunnel. Just by way of interest have virgin experienced the same level of problems with the post delivery of the 747 fleet as they are currently having with the A340 fleet? Maybe you can let us know.

Cheers nick
[^]i am wayne by the way[^]

Originally posted by jerseyboy
Hi Nick [y]yes you are right about the A340 up to now there have been 316 aircraft in total put in to operation against the 1369 Boeing 747 without loss of life and I hope that long may it be that this figure remains. But you still canÕt beat the beauty and prowess of the 747 and I feel safe with her big hearty personality looking after me as I cross the skyÕs. Airbus may be safe but does not give me that same feeling. Probably due to that feeling of being stuck in a tunnel. Just by way of interest have virgin experienced the same level of problems with the post delivery of the 747 fleet as they are currently having with the A340 fleet? Maybe you can let us know.

Cheers nick
[^]i am wayne by the way[^]

I'm not quite sure about the problems, but since VS is the launch customer for the a346 it's possible that they're just unlucky. They got their first 747s several years after it was launched, so perhaps boeing had worked out a lot of the problems by then. I like both the 747 and the a346, I think I sort of understand now what you mean about feeling a little unsafe in a 346 compared to a 747, but I still wouldn't mind flying in either one.

Originally posted by jerseyboy

1369 Boeing 747 without loss of life and I hope that long may it be that this figure remains.

Hmm i think you need to get your fact's right.

All in all both aircraft have good safety record's and you just have to look at how well The A340 that crashed at Toronto took the impact.

I'm not quite sure about the problems, but since VS is the launch customer for the a346 it's possible that they're just unlucky. They got their first 747s several years after it was launched, so perhaps boeing had worked out a lot of the problems by then. I like both the 747 and the a346, I think I sort of understand now what you mean about feeling a little unsafe in a 346 compared to a 747, but I still wouldn't mind flying in either one.

Good stuff nick yes i am making a personal observation based on my own feelings and I totally agree with what you say about the a340 also but for me the 747 400 will always be my number 1 untill at least i get on an A380

Hmm i think you need to get your fact's right.

All in all both aircraft have good safety record's and you just have to look at how well The A340 that crashed at Toronto took the impact.

Hi Phil
Thanks for the facts link however I think you may have misunderstood my line I actually said Òyes you are right about the A340 up to now there have been 316 aircraft in total put in to operation against the 1369 Boeing 747 without loss of life and I hope that long may it be that this figure remains.Ó
I was not implying that there have been no fatal accidents involving 747Õs nor that the a340 600 is an unsafe aircraft. I just preff the 747-400 and I am sure you will agree she is a beauty is she not????

Cheers wayne

hmm ok i think you could have worded it better.

Is the 747 a beauty um NO i think it's what people are used to looking and THH i like the 346 just as much as the 744 they both have there own pluses.

In reality I wonder how many people who are neither "enthusiasts" nor frequent flyers really know or care what type they are flying on?

I am both (though only a closet enthusiast!), and do enjoy "bagging" as many aircraft types as possible. My first virgin flight (from HKG) was a change from the company booked BA flight just becuase i wanted to bag an A340! But there have been many times I've boarded through a jetway and not been aware of what type i was on until I'd read the safety card!

So i really doubt that airlines give much weight to "the punters will like it" when striking a deal for new aircraft.

Originally posted by PVGSLF
In reality I wonder how many people who are neither "enthusiasts" nor frequent flyers really know or care what type they are flying on?

I am both (though only a closet enthusiast!), and do enjoy "bagging" as many aircraft types as possible. My first virgin flight (from HKG) was a change from the company booked BA flight just becuase i wanted to bag an A340! But there have been many times I've boarded through a jetway and not been aware of what type i was on until I'd read the safety card!

So i really doubt that airlines give much weight to "the punters will like it" when striking a deal for new aircraft.

I am sure tht you are absolutly right a good deal will always bee the top of the shopping list but i still love the big bird[:o)]

The vast majority of PAX have no clue or interest on what they are flying on, it frustrates the hell out of me at work when returning from Hols no one can ever tell me what A/C type they were on and look at me as if I'm some sort of geek/spotter, to be honest the type of PAX will equaly never find themselves on a forum like this

Originally posted by G-VSKY 97
The vast majority of PAX have no clue or interest on what they are flying on, it frustrates the hell out of me at work when returning from Hols no one can ever tell me what A/C type they were on and look at me as if I'm some sort of geek/spotter, to be honest the type of PAX will equaly never find themselves on a forum like this

Usually people can tell if they are flying on a 747 or 340 though. And some people, usually UC and PE customers, will care if they can't get their upper deck seat.