Future aircraft

[Scrooge]

Just polishing my crystal ball again..I was reading a report on oil prices and jet fuel prices.

With new long haul aircraft coming on line (787 and A350)and the 777 family proving to be an economical success will we be seeing VS,which runs a tight ship money wise,switch to these twin engine aircraft?

[Nottingham Nick]

4 engines 4 long haul. [8D];)[}:)]

[Scrooge]

Originally posted by Nottingham Nick
4 engines 4 long haul. [8D];)[}:)]

I understand that Nick,however with the price of jet fuel running at close to $92 a barrel and the 346's not being the most efficent of aircraft I can't see how VS will not bring in some twin engines.

I guess VS 7/8 is a prime example,switching to all 346's during the winter when loads are lighter becuase when a 744 is full nothing makes money like one,but when flying a light load nothing loses money like one.Also the fact that the 777 can carry a massive amount of cargo along with 300+pax along with the lower fuel usage means that from just pure economic point of view it makes sence to do so.

But of course..as you say..4 for 4 [:I]

I thought the A380 is supposed to be the most efficent plane ever in terms of $ per pax per mile?

and thats got 4!

[Nottingham Nick]

I have obviously been reading the same stories about future oil prices that you have, Dave. [:(!][:(!]

I have to be honest and say that I have never really considered the comparable 'gas mileage' of different aircraft before.

Are two engined planes MUCH more fuel efficient than four engined ones?

Nick

I was taliking to one of our Flight Crew a few days ago and he told that we will be getting the A380 and then we are getting the B777. Now i dont know if its 100% true but his source was someone high up in VS who I cannot say his name but from the way he was talking it s gonna happen sooner or later.

I have never been on the B777 I used to enjoy working on the B747 but and I used to hate working on A346 but now I have got used to the A346 I like it better than the B747. What do you folks like better. Not sure if there are any crew on here that have worked on the B777 but if there is what do you think form a crew members point of view. B747 A346 or B777

[Scrooge]

Originally posted by Jonathan
I thought the A380 is supposed to be the most efficent plane ever in terms of $ per pax per mile?

and thats got 4!

As with the 744 it will if it is full,hence you'll probably see these on the JFK and MCO routes first.If they dont fly full then your are just burning money..im searching right now for the pdf I was reading about it.

Not what I was looking for but it will do

BTW..I love the 777,the thing is so over powered on a light load flight it climbs like a rocket [y]:D[}:)]

also..found this blog from an exec at Boeing..makes for some interesting reading if your an anorak wearer.

I guess we can look foward to '2 engines 2 many' written on the back of the 747's and A340's if VS get 777's!

[Scrooge]

Originally posted by hairy114
I guess we can look foward to '2 engines 2 many' written on the back of the 747's and A340's if VS get 777's!

LMAO [oo]

I hope they cancel the A380 orders

Don't forgt that the A346 carries LOADS of cargo which pleases VS (more than 777 I believe. Also I believe airlines getting some compensation from Airbus because of higher fuel burn. There were rumours a while back about VS looking at A350 to replace the remaining (5?) A343s in a few years and to operate new lean startup routes. Still rumours about one or two A346s going to LGW and MAN next year, with less UCS seats. Also a thread running on PPrune
Basically just about anything that can fly is rumoured to be heading to VS. B777, A350, A330, B787, B744 (used) [:?]
Still interesting times ahead













Edit by mod to shorten link......Nick

Originally posted by ColourPhil
Don't forgt that the A346 carries LOADS of cargo which pleases VS (more than 777 I believe. Also I believe airlines getting some compensation from Airbus because of higher fuel burn. There were rumours a while back about VS looking at A350 to replace the remaining (5?) A343s in a few years and to operate new lean startup routes. Still rumours about one or two A346s going to LGW and MAN next year, with less UCS seats. Also a thread running on PPrune
Basically just about anything that can fly is rumoured to be heading to VS. B777, A350, A330, B787, B744 (used) [:?]
Still interesting times ahead

I think V-A should stick with 747-400 and look in to getting the 747-8. forget the rest the big moma of the skys if definatly the best.
How many aircraft would fly without problem with 1 engin down all the way from the west coast of USA to the U.K . Virgins 4 engins 4 long haul is a sensible one and i am sure that they will not rush in to throwing their motto away.

I know for a fact that we are still getting the A380 and that the A346 will not be going to MAN or LGW. No more A/C types will be serving VS apart from A380 A340 B747 and maybe B777.

Oh forgot to say I know we are still getting the A380 because I am on one of the cabin service teams for it and have been to a meeting this week.

Was it not rumoured before that the B777 could be chosen for expansion out of LGW/MAN?

Another thing to remember, is that if ever the BMI acquisition goes through, VS would inherit some A330's.... [y]

As far as 777's replacing the A346's I'd think this unlikely. As if this went through, VS would need to sell A346's - whoever they sell them to would probably prefer the 777 too, so could they find a buyer at the right price?

By the way, "4 engines 4 long-haul" is an Airbus slogan, not a VS one, hence the reason it is only on the Airbuses in VS's fleet. Many people point to that slogan as being a barrier but it's really not. 2 engine aircraft might be on the way. Personally I think VS would be foolish not to consider some. They allow for more routes where the runways are too short to hold 747s and 340s.

Originally posted by VS-EWR
By the way, "4 engines 4 long-haul" is an Airbus slogan, not a VS one, hence the reason it is only on the Airbuses in VS's fleet. Many people point to that slogan as being a barrier but it's really not. 2 engine aircraft might be on the way. Personally I think VS would be foolish not to consider some. They allow for more routes where the runways are too short to hold 747s and 340s.

hi nick its me again[:o)]

Over the years, Virgin has adopted many clever slogans including:

"Mine's Bigger Than Yours"
Written on the back of the Airbus A340-600's because they are the longest passenger aircraft in the world

"4 Engines 4 Longhaul"
Written on the engines of planes, because all Virgin's planes are quad-jets as apposed to BA's long haul twin-jet Boeing 777's and Boeing 767's

"Avoid The Q"
Used to advertise Virgin's London-Hong Kong-Sydney service, the Q being Qantas which also operates the same route, the Q can also be the queue

"Keep Discovering - Until You Find The Best"
Used to promote the London-Dubai service, playing with rival airline Emirates' slogan 'Keep Discovering'

Others Include:
"More Experience Than Our Name Suggests"

"Virgin, seeks travel companion(s)"

"Love at first flight"

"You never forget your first time"

"Extra inches where it counts"

"Fly a younger fleet"
so whats this all about then???

BTW..I love the 777,the thing is so over powered on a light load flight it climbs like a rocket

The 777 feels much faster than the A340 on take-off because it is a twin. I'm not too sure on the details but this is basically it: A twin has to be able carry on with one engine on TO whereas a quad only has to be able to produce enough thrust to go with three. Therefore, the 777 produces more thrust at TO than an A340 needs to. This is what causes that feeling of a rocket. However, if a twin does lose an engine, the loss in power is going to be much greater than on a quad.
(or something like that[:I]) Maybe preiffer could add something?

Cheers,
VS045

[Scrooge]

Not quite..i'll just wing it on the wording but here goes..the aircraft on reaching V must still be able to take off on one engine,on a twin this means that each engine must be able to carry the load,where as on a quad the other three must be able to,there for it can be said that each engine on the twin must be able to produce 200% of the max thrust for take off where as each engine on the quad must be able to produce 133% of the required thrst.

Kind of lose with the wording,but there you go.

Also if you look at the total thrust being made each engine on a 744 kicks out about 63,300 pounds for a total of 253200 lbs where as the GE 90's on the 777 kick out 127900 lbs each for a total of 255800 lbs.

So there you see the real reason for the kick in the pants,by design all twins have a higher poer to weight ratio than quads.

Anyone still awake
[?]

Not quite..i'll just wing it on the wording but here goes..the aircraft on reaching V must still be able to take off on one engine,on a twin this means that each engine must be able to carry the load,where as on a quad the other three must be able to,there for it can be said that each engine on the twin must be able to produce 200% of the max thrust for take off where as each engine on the quad must be able to produce 133% of the required thrst.

Kind of lose with the wording,but there you go.

Also if you look at the total thrust being made each engine on a 744 kicks out about 63,300 pounds for a total of 253200 lbs where as the GE 90's on the 777 kick out 127900 lbs each for a total of 255800 lbs.

So there you see the real reason for the kick in the pants,by design all twins have a higher poer to weight ratio than quads.

Anyone still awake

That's what I tried to say[:I]

Cheers,
VS045

4 engines 4 long haul is an airbus slogan- originally used when the 346 first entered the market- rememeber the large 346 advert in the central area at heathrow with the 4 engines 4 long haul slogan under it? VS have adopted it due to their close relationship with Airbus and have placed it on the engines of all airbus a/c- it doesn't afaik apear on the rear of the aircraft as with the other slogans- though it mite on the older 343's???!!???

the 777 has been rumoured for ages to be heading the way of VS- and it always causes a huge debate on a.net as they all love to virgin bash!

Personally i see the 330's of BD entering the fleet prior to any 777's!!!! [}:)]

[Scrooge]

Originally posted by VS045

Not quite..i'll just wing it on the wording but here goes..the aircraft on reaching V must still be able to take off on one engine,on a twin this means that each engine must be able to carry the load,where as on a quad the other three must be able to,there for it can be said that each engine on the twin must be able to produce 200% of the max thrust for take off where as each engine on the quad must be able to produce 133% of the required thrst.

Kind of lose with the wording,but there you go.

Also if you look at the total thrust being made each engine on a 744 kicks out about 63,300 pounds for a total of 253200 lbs where as the GE 90's on the 777 kick out 127900 lbs each for a total of 255800 lbs.

So there you see the real reason for the kick in the pants,by design all twins have a higher poer to weight ratio than quads.

Anyone still awake

That's what I tried to say[:I]

Cheers,
VS045

Glad you understood what I was saying,I re-read it and was scratching my head by the end [:I]

[Scrooge]

and lets not forget the VS 767

Originally posted by jerseyboy
"4 Engines 4 Longhaul"
Written on the engines of planes, because all Virgin's planes are quad-jets as apposed to BA's long haul twin-jet Boeing 777's and Boeing 767's

Well, I have to disagree with you, the jab at BA might have been a side reason for putting the slogan on planes, but as you can clearly see it only appears on VS's Airbuses (and only the dash 600 I believe) and it is really an attack on Boeing by Airbus.

[preiffer]

Originally posted by VS-EWR
Well, I have to disagree with you, the jab at BA might have been a side reason for putting the slogan on planes, but as you can clearly see it only appears on VS's Airbuses (and only the dash 600 I believe) and it is really an attack on Boeing by Airbus.

Indeed, even Boeing's VP of Marketing is under the impression it was an Airbus slogan...

Link to Randy's Blog

What's even more interesting about the A350 offering is that it throws the Airbus product strategy out the window. Their strategy for 20 years has been that twin-engine airplanes like the A330 were the most efficient way to service short and medium range routes, but that you needed four engines for the long haul, or "4 engines 4 long haul" as their slogan went.