Future aircraft

Originally posted by jerseyboy

Originally posted by jetwet1
Oh im sure,to be honest im amazed that with VS ordering a lot of Airbus aircraft we havn't seen any A330's come in yet,they would be perfect for the east coast routes.

Now thats Food for Thought

Wow i leave this thread for 5 hours and its doubled in size! [:0]

Well i did mention about 330's in my original reply on page 2...but sadly my humour/seriousness fell on deaf ears [:?] [:(] If....i mean when....(!) we buy BD's long haul operation I am sure the 330 will fit in nicely!

I did think that maybe they hadnt been bothered to repaint those aircraft with 4 engines 3 long haul- but then i saw that even the newer 346's on a.net are coming out of TLS with the slogan on them.

Yeh Vast is the only 744 with the 4engines 4 long haul on the side of them- i think a number of the original slogans on 744 were replaced with 'backing the bid' and of course fab is now in the birhday livery.

I think in all honesty we have seen a large committment from VS for airbus a/c so bar them ordering the 747-8 i think we can asume that future a/c orders will be 346's or more likely to be the 350/380mix! After all i cant see the 346 production line being open for many more years to come (can find the actaul number left but i believe only 30 or so are to be bult). The problem for VS is if the 346 line is closed down (likely with the 350 coming) and they are looking for an a/c with 300 plus capacity then it leaves only the 380 or 748 or of course 2nd hand 346's. But im sure boeing will offer them tehe 773....i guess we will see but i would see vs favouring airbus.

I'll need to look up some stats, but IIRC the 777 is more efficient than the a330, but either way I wouldn't mind seeing both in a VS livery! Maybe then VS could offer some competition against BA to Bermuda.

I'll need to look up some stats, but IIRC the 777 is more efficient than the a330, but either way I wouldn't mind seeing both in a VS livery! Maybe then VS could offer some competition against BA to Bermuda

Isn't it very difficult to get traffic rights to Bermuda?

Cheers,
VS045

Originally posted by VS045

I'll need to look up some stats, but IIRC the 777 is more efficient than the a330, but either way I wouldn't mind seeing both in a VS livery! Maybe then VS could offer some competition against BA to Bermuda

Isn't it very difficult to get traffic rights to Bermuda?

Cheers,
VS045

I don't think so, Bermuda gets so much money from tourism that they need as much as they can get, BA seems to be getting business since they keep upping the amount of flights there, but the biggest aircraft BDA's runway can accept is a 777-200ER. If you're talking about Bermuda II, I believe, despite the name, that it has nothing to do with flight rights to Bermuda. I am not at all sure about the last part though, so I am willing to be contradicted on that.

I don't think so, Bermuda gets so much money from tourism that they need as much as they can get, BA seems to be getting business since they keep upping the amount of flights there, but the biggest aircraft BDA's runway can accept is a 777-200ER. If you're talking about Bermuda II, I believe, despite the name, that it has nothing to do with flight rights to Bermuda. I am not at all sure about the last part though, so I am willing to be contradicted on that.

I think that, in the past, Bermuda was pretty uptight about traffic rights, but now they are much less stringent. In any case, tourism in Bermuda is second to offshore financial services.
Also, chartered 747s have landed at BDA, although they may have been quite light-weight. However, the runway is only 500 ft shorter than LGW.

Cheers,
VS045

Originally posted by VS045
I think that, in the past, Bermuda was pretty uptight about traffic rights, but now they are much less stringent. In any case, tourism in Bermuda is second to offshore financial services.
Also, chartered 747s have landed at BDA, although they may have been quite light-weight. However, the runway is only 500 ft shorter than LGW.

Cheers,
VS045

I looked up the info on landing and take off distances for aircraft and I remember seeing that 747s and a340s required longer runways that the one BDA has, but the statistics might have had some fine print. Like you said though, it could have been that the 747 was underweight.

Originally posted by jerseyboy

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???

I added those slogans in on wikipedia [:p]

Originally posted by jerseyboy
How many aircraft would fly without problem with 1 engin down all the way from the west coast of USA to the U.K .

However, BA are being hammered by the FAA (it was in their airspace) for this. And the aircraft had to declare 'Mayday' to put into MAN for fuel

Originally posted by PatDavies

Originally posted by jerseyboy
How many aircraft would fly without problem with 1 engin down all the way from the west coast of USA to the U.K .

However, BA are being hammered by the FAA (it was in their airspace) for this. And the aircraft had to declare 'Mayday' to put into MAN for fuel

Do you know how much the fine is that the FAA will place on B-A? And did you know apparently a few days later the same aircraft had an engine failure out of Singapore but aging carried on to LHR.

With this in mind I am actually a bit put off flying B-A there is no mention of which engine was affected but just imagine if it were a different engine. Yikes does little for the confidence.

Cheers Wayne

[preiffer]

Originally posted by jerseyboy
Do you know how much the fine is that the FAA will place on B-A?

Yes,

It was $25,000

Originally posted by preiffer

Originally posted by jerseyboy
Do you know how much the fine is that the FAA will place on B-A?

Yes,

It was $25,000

Cheers for that paul so the estimated cost for compensation of $100,000.00 means quite a nice saving for B-A then althoug i guess money had nothing to do with the decisions of the flight crew to carry on.

[Scrooge]

It was the captains decision to carry on to LHR.

Originally posted by jetwet1
It was the captains decision to carry on to LHR.

Thanks for that althoug i had takn thatas read. I actuall think it was an ok decision but what now plays on my mind is that the same arcraft suffres an engin failure from SIN to LHR a short time later. so i guess i changed my mind from my initial viewpoint and now wounder if carrying on the flight was a good call?? even th esecond time around when the capitain continued from SIN to LHR.

I personally thing turning around if the fault is on takeoff is the correct call - With the west coast incident the pilot had to land at man anyway so you cant argue that he didnt inconvinience the pax - id rather wait at the departure point than have to divert elsewhere..

3 engines mean less height/power/speed = less range