V-Flyer

Per this article, VS is rapidly moving away from four engined aircraft - so those A380 orders will be converted to A350s then!

Uh huh.... think this means the fuel surcharge will be lowered given they are looking to lower the overall fuel consumption :w

Bye Steve, what a way to exit ii)

Frankly I'm not surprised in the least.

The A380 just seems too big for VS and the only route that it would seem to fit is the summer MCO route.

No doubt there will be the cries of "What happened to 4 engines for long haul??" Just like when the A330 was announced.

joeyc wrote:Uh huh.... think this means the fuel surcharge will be lowered given they are looking to lower the overall fuel consumption :w

Bye Steve, what a way to exit ii)

Oh but of course, substantially better fuel savings will be reflected in the SQ charged.... Given it is only there to reflect short-term issues in the cost of fuel...
As such the SQ value should start tapering off as these new aircraft come on stream.....


Or is SQ being used for other reasons......

I called that months after the "order" was announced... :w

surely a 380 with greater capacity makes sense on the MCO route like Darren says. could they make do with one 380 v 2/330 flights ???also doenst the dreamliner have lower capacity as well?

preiffer wrote:I called that months after the "order" was announced... :w

I won't split hairs, but ditto ):

flabound wrote:surely a 380 with greater capacity makes sense on the MCO route like Darren says. could they make do with one 380 v 2/330 flights ???also doenst the dreamliner have lower capacity as well?

The 787-9 will have greater capacity, it'll be in the 250-300 seat range I believe.

flabound wrote:surely a 380 with greater capacity makes sense on the MCO route like Darren says. could they make do with one 380 v 2/330 flights ???also doenst the dreamliner have lower capacity as well?

I would imagine that to make economic sense there'd need to be a minimum number of them in the fleet not just a couple to cover the MCO route - is a question of what else they'd be used on (as well as in the quieter times where MCO wouldnt need an A380 need to be used somewhere then too!)

Would an A380 make sense into JFK or EWR?

cagcowboy wrote:Would an A380 make sense into JFK or EWR?

Only if they consolidated 2 or 3 flights into one. That would then defeat the reason for having 6 flights a day into the New York area.

The full interview (http://www.flightglobal.com/interviews/ ... interview/) answers the question.

'The future of Virgin’s 11-year-old order for six A380s “very much depends on the state of the global economy and the oil price”, says Ridgway, with deliveries slated for 2017. “It’s a lovely, quiet aircraft but it’s very big and you need to operate it on some very big trunks and you need to have a big enough fleet,” he says.'

Will be interesting to see what happens to the VS fleet, not exactly the most fuel efficient aircraft at the moment lol!

As others have said the A380s won't happen as Virgin do not have the routes. They wont consolidate the NY flights to one as pax want the variety of schedules, HKG may be one route they could fill.
Probably been said elsewhere but aren't the 343X temporary until the 787 arrives and are being funded by compensation from Boeing.

I hear a shorthaul route to a very pleasant destination in France is also on the cards.

If VS was in a decent alliance with meaningful code shares then the A380 would work if the JFK and MIA (for Caribbean islands not currently served by VS) were used as hubs. It will be a sad day when the 747's finally go

markna wrote:As others have said the A380s won't happen as Virgin do not have the routes. They wont consolidate the NY flights to one as pax want the variety of schedules, HKG may be one route they could fill.

Probably been said elsewhere but aren't the 343X temporary until the 787 arrives and are being funded by compensation from Boeing.

The story on 787 compensation was that this was used for the deposits on the ten A333s, which VS then sold on to a lessor and effectively got them for no upfront price.

As things currently stand the A380 is perfect for VS some of the time on some routes, but is to big to be a mainstay of the fleet year round. Even people who fly to MCO in low season witness plenty of seats on a 747, flying an A380 would lose more money. It only makes sense on trunk routes with high demand, therefore high RASM year round. BA's network (and those of LH and AF for example) could sustain that by moving the aircraft around its route network to best match capacity with demand all year, VS's more limited network makes it to much. Sad really, it's a lovely plane and I would love to see it with VS, but I think a A350 is much more likely.

My totally uninformed guestimate is that we'll see:

LHR Fleet
- 10 x A330-300's (3 class)
- 15 x A787-9's
- 5 x A350-1000's or 777-300's (replacing 747's)

LGW
- 5 x A350-1000's or 777-300's (replacing 747's)

I think we're more likely to see the A346's disappear before the 747 does, and the LGW 747 fleet is likely to still be here come 2018 when the A350 will be available.

clarkeysntfc wrote:My totally uninformed guestimate is that we'll see:

LHR Fleet
- 10 x A330-300's (3 class)
- 15 x A787-9's
- 5 x A350-1000's or 777-300's (replacing 747's)

LGW
- 5 x A350-1000's or 777-300's (replacing 747's)

I think we're more likely to see the A346's disappear before the 747 does, and the LGW 747 fleet is likely to still be here come 2018 when the A350 will be available.

On a sort of related note, boeing are now producing a 777 every 2.5 days. Amazing really.

duggy83 wrote:

flabound wrote:surely a 380 with greater capacity makes sense on the MCO route like Darren says. could they make do with one 380 v 2/330 flights ???also doenst the dreamliner have lower capacity as well?

I would imagine that to make economic sense there'd need to be a minimum number of them in the fleet not just a couple to cover the MCO route - is a question of what else they'd be used on (as well as in the quieter times where MCO wouldnt need an A380 need to be used somewhere then too!)

I agree, there are many times in the winter months where there is barely enough pax for one A330. Also I thought the A380 was going to be used for other things on board like a casino or shopping, I wouldn't like to turn up at a gate with the aircraft packed like a cattle truck, with something nearing 800 people!! Imagine the queues at immigration.

kushty wrote:

duggy83 wrote:

flabound wrote:surely a 380 with greater capacity makes sense on the MCO route like Darren says. could they make do with one 380 v 2/330 flights ???also doenst the dreamliner have lower capacity as well?

I would imagine that to make economic sense there'd need to be a minimum number of them in the fleet not just a couple to cover the MCO route - is a question of what else they'd be used on (as well as in the quieter times where MCO wouldnt need an A380 need to be used somewhere then too!)

I agree, there are many times in the winter months where there is barely enough pax for one A330. Also I thought the A380 was going to be used for other things on board like a casino or shopping, I wouldn't like to turn up at a gate with the aircraft packed like a cattle truck, with something nearing 800 people!! Imagine the queues at immigration.

I have travelled on a singapore a380 a couple of years ago and what they tend to do is the gate that is used is split into two upstairs and downstairs and they board both at the time time through two different sides / landing bridge. It's actually no different to boarding an A330 / B747400 and did not feel cramped at all, to be honest although it is not as big as virgins pe it felt as big.