V-Flyer

Is the fleet getting a bit stretched at the moment, with 2x744 and 2 x 346's undergoing more major checks. I see Beauty Queen is scheduled for the 657/658 tonight, that will be a first... What happens to anyone already booked UC on this service???

lots of involuntary downgrades I would imagine.

Strange with a LHR 744 operating to BGI so a lot of PE passengers getting upgrades. I certainly wouldn't accept a downgrade. I would be asking for ASAP to another airline with business class or wait until

It's probably because there's a very light load in j so makes sense to put the 330 on it. Plus the Accra pac get jam entertainment for a change!

PaulS wrote:Strange with a LHR 744 operating to BGI so a lot of PE passengers getting upgrades. I certainly wouldn't accept a downgrade. I would be asking for ASAP to another airline with business class or wait until

I don't think you get a choice in these situations. Do you?

Afterall the flight is operating.

The wiki for EU 261/2004 only mentions

"If a passenger is placed in a lower class than that for which a ticket was purchased, the airline must refund 30/50/75% of the cost of the ticket for type 1/2/3 flights (see notes)"

And the reglations only mention the refund levels - no compensation or rights to be rebooked on another carrier or flight.

and the 658 is going to be delayed overnight,although the 657 is on time.

I guess because the 330 crew taking her out, will have to bring her back, and so need adequate rest??

Looking at the load numbers on EF, both the outbound and inbound flights are very light indeed in W and Y.

RLF wrote:and the 658 is going to be delayed overnight,although the 657 is on time.

I guess because the 330 crew taking her out, will have to bring her back, and so need adequate rest??

Yes it would seem miniumn rest requirements for the crew is causing the delay to the inbound flight

I don't think you get a choice in these situations. Do you?

Afterall the flight is operating.

I am very tall and PE is no good to me long haul. Even with the extra legroom my knees around be in the back of the seat in front. So I would consider a downgrade totally unacceptable and if the airline didn't play ball that would be the end of my business. Was it a wise decision for Virgin to order aircraft without any UC seats. They coud have had just three rows giving hm 12 UC seats on the LGW fleet.

PaulS wrote:Was it a wise decision for Virgin to order aircraft without any UC seats. They coud have had just three rows giving hm 12 UC seats on the LGW fleet.

Nope, because the A330 would not have been able to operate into the US. The UCS was not classed as disabled-accessible and each time it landed within the US VS would have been liable to a fine up to $11,000 per violation.

All down to the Air Carrier Access Act

Darren Wheeler wrote:

PaulS wrote:Was it a wise decision for Virgin to order aircraft without any UC seats. They coud have had just three rows giving hm 12 UC seats on the LGW fleet.

Nope, because the A330 would not have been able to operate into the US. The UCS was not classed as disabled-accessible and each time it landed within the US VS would have been liable to a fine up to $11,000 per violation.

All down to the Air Carrier Access Act

If you are saying that at the time these planes were ordered that the UC suite that now flys daily to the US was not approved, then thats very bad planning and VS should have fitted other Business class as supplied by Airbus to other airlines until the new IC S was approved. Vthey could have had these suites retrofitted.

PaulS wrote:

Darren Wheeler wrote:
Nope, because the A330 would not have been able to operate into the US. The UCS was not classed as disabled-accessible and each time it landed within the US VS would have been liable to a fine up to $11,000 per violation.

All down to the Air Carrier Access Act

If you are saying that at the time these planes were ordered that the UC suite that now flys daily to the US was not approved, then thats very bad planning and VS should have fitted other Business class as supplied by Airbus to other airlines until the new IC S was approved. Vthey could have had these suites retrofitted.

The new UCS seats were approved for the 787s but because of the delays Boeing had in completing them the date for delivery has been pushed back time and time again. VS had no option but to bring in the A330-300 albeit without a UCS section

Darren Wheeler wrote:Nope, because the A330 would not have been able to operate into the US. The UCS was not classed as disabled-accessible and each time it landed within the US VS would have been liable to a fine up to $11,000 per violation.

All down to the Air Carrier Access Act

Forgive what might be a silly question but in that case how come the old UCS is (presumably) classed as disabled accessible on the 747 and 340?

What's different about the 330 - and why is the new UCS OK on the 330?

Because the 'old' sute was installed before the ADA came into being so it is 'ok' for use.

However once a plane is refurbished (and any new planes) it needs to meet the requirements of the legistation.

tontybear wrote:Because the 'old' sute was installed before the ADA came into being so it is 'ok' for use.

However once a plane is refurbished (and any new planes) it needs to meet the requirements of the legistation.

Ah right, thanks.

It's down to the age of the aircraft. The 400's, 340's andd 600's aren't covered as classed as old. The A330 is covered as a new design.