In this industry things change by the day, my crystal ball is sadly flawed on occasion. I don't make comments without some background info & don't rely on spin that is given "to the troops".
Some info is not for general release & is treated accordingly. The A330 was a VERY close thing at VS & i think bringing the A343 back in house is an excellent move. They are a good, economical work horse & can be retained cheaply.
Originally posted by Denzil
Not sure of your informant willd but they aren't correct on a few counts. Firstly the A346 operated by CX are actually different weights & operate over longer sectors than VS (HKG-JFK), they have lot's of little differences to VS aircraft (all are T556 powered) & i'm 99% sure they were never destined for VS. Secondly Emirates do not operate A346HGW (or any A346's), they operate A343 & A345 & did not take up their order for the A346HGW (& why would you if you operate the superior B773ER). Lastly with reference to the HGW, basically all aircraft built will be to the new HGW standard & the engines are actually the same but at the max rating (in fact VS have a mix of T553 & T556 but may derate all their Trent 500 engines to T553 as it reduces maintenance costs).
Re EK: Yes wasnt thinking straight- been a long day ploughing on with my dissertation!
The frames that sit on the CX and IB a/c were the original ones for VS- Airbus realised a long time before they got to the final stages of production that the wings were too heavy. So gave them to CX/IB and moved forward the VS ones. I seem to recall this being an issue at the time.
CX's 346s are currently operating to LHR (1daily), JFK and do from time to time go off to SYD.
My knowledge on difference on HGW and non- is faily limited but now has grown thank you!
Basically what we are looking at is VS perhaps ordering a new a/c type and it could be: A330, 350, 777, 787 or 748!!! Take your pick ladies and gents!
Sorry willd but you need to sack your informant. B-HQA (msn 436) was originally ordered by Swissair NOT VS (the aircraft Swissair ordered also ended up with Iberia & SAA). The wing weight saving was never really a problem for VS & the reason for delivery deferal was only a financial one. Of the 3 CX aircraft B-HQC has the lighter wing, it doesn't have any effect on the max take-off weight anyway.
If the weight was such an issue VS wouldn't have taken up the lease on the 2nd & 3rd prototype aircraft either (G-VGOA & G-VATL).
If the weight was such an issue VS wouldn't have taken up the lease on the 2nd & 3rd prototype aircraft either (G-VGOA & G-VATL).
Originally posted by willd
Taking into account VS' continued expansion I see a number of reasons/options:
1. Changing to another aircaft type. Although given that the 777 line is full and the 330/340 line is as well I cant really see them being brand new aicraft as VS by all accounts need aircraft asap. I doubt they will go 2nd hand.
2. Merge with another carrier- Denzil says no- and I personally cant believe that the city hasn't predicted it.
3. SQ transfering across some aicraft. Possibly the 345's?!? Or have SQ transfered their 773 slots to VS?!? Or SQ giving up their own 330 slots?!?
Of course all pure speculation- maybe we will have to wait and see...
Option 1 would cause a lot of headaches to all areas of VS since it would mean retraining cabin crew/pilots, sorting out new MX routines, landng fees and would muck up diagrams for a while if the mix of a/c is wrong. If they were to go for another a/c type it would be the A330 for reasons mentioned before.
Option 2 is more realistic. After all its been rumoured for years now and SRB did mention in that radio interview a few months back that he is trying to purchase BMI.
Option 3 won't happen. Apparently SQ are happy with the A340-500s on the routes that they operate and they wouldn't want to transfer 777-300ER slots to VS, especially that they are now on delivery. And the A330s that they're getting is part of the A350 deal; the A350s are for expansion and the A330s are an interim measure as well as getting the crew used to Airbus aircraft on the routes that SQ intend to operate.
But like you said its all speculation so all we can do is want and see and speculate. Leave Denzil alone on this one people, hes only acting as the messenger and we all get things wrong.
Originally posted by VS045
Why are VS cancelling their A346 orders when there is so much expansion planned?
VS.
VS haven't confirmed anything at the moment.
Although the source Sky provided confirms it.
You can take your pick between they are getting a different a/c type or they will take over someone else with the capacity they need.
Now been confirmed that VS have DEFERRED not cancelled 346 orders.
VS taken the decision to only grow 10% this year and not the original 20% they wanted too- makes sense all airlines who expand too fast normally regreat it!
To be honest having now seen it confirmed it makes a lot more sense, it really is just a deferral as with the 380s.
http://www.atwonline.com/news/other.htm ... F26%2F2007
VS taken the decision to only grow 10% this year and not the original 20% they wanted too- makes sense all airlines who expand too fast normally regreat it!
To be honest having now seen it confirmed it makes a lot more sense, it really is just a deferral as with the 380s.
http://www.atwonline.com/news/other.htm ... F26%2F2007
And the article (along with stuff only VS staff would have read) should also indicate that VS aren't in a position to just pop over to Donnington Hall & make SMB a cash offer for BMi.
Seriously though, it's hard to expand AND compete with the larger airlines & airline alliances. The A343 are good route proving aircraft & the B744 a brilliant "bucket & spade" aircraft. As routes expand the A346 can take over.
It also puts a strong signal out to Airbus that VS are looking long & hard at their future & the aircraft types that they operate.
Seriously though, it's hard to expand AND compete with the larger airlines & airline alliances. The A343 are good route proving aircraft & the B744 a brilliant "bucket & spade" aircraft. As routes expand the A346 can take over.
It also puts a strong signal out to Airbus that VS are looking long & hard at their future & the aircraft types that they operate.
Originally posted by willd
Now been confirmed that VS have DEFERRED not cancelled 346 orders.
VS taken the decision to only grow 10% this year and not the original 20% they wanted too- makes sense all airlines who expand too fast normally regreat it!
Does that mean recent expansion has been a mistake? BTW what was last year's figure?
There's a plane at JFK, to fly you back from far away
all those dark and frantic transatlantic miles
all those dark and frantic transatlantic miles
Originally posted by Denzil
And the article (along with stuff only VS staff would have read) should also indicate that VS aren't in a position to just pop over to Donnington Hall & make SMB a cash offer for BMi.
I agree although SRB has been known to sell of other companies to further another Virgin branded company.
49% of VS to SQ was partly to keep Virgin Megastores/Our Price afloat.
Virgin Records was used to find VS' founding of course.
If VS wanted to do it they could find a way I am sure.
Could they possibly be looking at the new Boeings - more efficient etc
One wonders whether the effects of the BAA security debacle (i.e. how miserable transiting at LHR has become) are starting to take their toll on Virgin.
Whilst much of Virgin's traffic is O&D, there is a significant amount of transfer traffic and it might be moving to CDG, AMS and point-to-point flights just to avoid LHR. I know it has affected me as I now avoid LHR for all my flights to continental Europe which includes moving my custom from Virgin to other airlines.
AF
Whilst much of Virgin's traffic is O&D, there is a significant amount of transfer traffic and it might be moving to CDG, AMS and point-to-point flights just to avoid LHR. I know it has affected me as I now avoid LHR for all my flights to continental Europe which includes moving my custom from Virgin to other airlines.
AF
Over on a.net they have a simular thread running.
This is not a cancelation- this is merely a deferrement- that does not mean that VS don't want the a/c, it doesn't mean they are going to order another a/c type etc.
It is no different to when VS delayed the arrival of the 380- they have looked at the market and decided to act accordingly.
Rememeber there is no doubt that VS is successful- this isnt a sign of being unsuccessful at all- this is a sign of a carrier realising that they dont want to expand too fast.
This is not a cancelation- this is merely a deferrement- that does not mean that VS don't want the a/c, it doesn't mean they are going to order another a/c type etc.
It is no different to when VS delayed the arrival of the 380- they have looked at the market and decided to act accordingly.
Rememeber there is no doubt that VS is successful- this isnt a sign of being unsuccessful at all- this is a sign of a carrier realising that they dont want to expand too fast.
Whilst I don't disagree that there is some growth this year, there has been a reduction in the planned growth, otherwise they would not have deferred the delivery of new aircraft. The question I ask is what has caused the reduction in the rate of growth. It may simply be lack of suitable slots at LHR, but as I said before, there may also be some impact from reduced demand.
The disaster that was August, BAA and the subsequent security nightmare is very likely indeed to have caused passengers who don't need to transit LHR to have second thoughts about doing so.
I know my company now routes employees point to point (e.g. BHX-EWR / EDI-EWR) or through AMS simply to avoid LHR. Many friends have also done the same. Reading much of what is written on forums such as Flyertalk, I can't imagine that we are the only passengers that feel this way.
And we don't know how much impact the SilverJets, EOS' and Maxjets of this world have had on VS traffic either. With EOS planning to go 3 times daily to JFK in a few months, the argument that BA/VS frequency would keep pax loyal is starting to be eroded.
I have yet to be convinced that VS is not starting to see problems from loss of traffic to other carriers/hubs and the (unwanted) impact BAA and the Government have on the Virgin Atlantic travelling experience.
AF
The disaster that was August, BAA and the subsequent security nightmare is very likely indeed to have caused passengers who don't need to transit LHR to have second thoughts about doing so.
I know my company now routes employees point to point (e.g. BHX-EWR / EDI-EWR) or through AMS simply to avoid LHR. Many friends have also done the same. Reading much of what is written on forums such as Flyertalk, I can't imagine that we are the only passengers that feel this way.
And we don't know how much impact the SilverJets, EOS' and Maxjets of this world have had on VS traffic either. With EOS planning to go 3 times daily to JFK in a few months, the argument that BA/VS frequency would keep pax loyal is starting to be eroded.
I have yet to be convinced that VS is not starting to see problems from loss of traffic to other carriers/hubs and the (unwanted) impact BAA and the Government have on the Virgin Atlantic travelling experience.
AF
I have to agree with AF on this, but I am a person that flies for leisure not business, however if I can avoid LHR I do, which means VS loses my business when the LAS fares are at a stupid level (360 days a year), however I do wonder if VS is making the right move, after last years expansion, growing a little slower this year will give the ground crews a chance to catch up which is needed.
Also with the deferment, I am wondering if somewhere down the line we won't hear of VS being one of the launch customers for the 350, it gets them of the hook for the 346's, gives them a more economical aircraft to fly and being a launch customer they should get a very good discount on the planes themselves.
You could also be right about EOS, Maxjet etc at some point the majors are going to have to take a hit, right now it's only 250 pax a day or so they are losing, however, how many of these would be flying in UC etc as I said a while back, VS is cutting back at the wrong time, when new airlines are starting up and trying to take your pax you don't start cutting back on your premium product, you would of thought thatVS would have learnt this from going up against BA ?
Also with the deferment, I am wondering if somewhere down the line we won't hear of VS being one of the launch customers for the 350, it gets them of the hook for the 346's, gives them a more economical aircraft to fly and being a launch customer they should get a very good discount on the planes themselves.
You could also be right about EOS, Maxjet etc at some point the majors are going to have to take a hit, right now it's only 250 pax a day or so they are losing, however, how many of these would be flying in UC etc as I said a while back, VS is cutting back at the wrong time, when new airlines are starting up and trying to take your pax you don't start cutting back on your premium product, you would of thought thatVS would have learnt this from going up against BA ?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: ColOrd, Google [Bot], mitchja and 169 guests