Main VS 787 Thread

Hi

Anyone have any idea as to when info/pictures of the vs 787 interiors will be released ?? Really excited to see how they have updated the UC cabin !

Any info would be much appreciated
Thanks
Jamieking

I think the 1st one is just hitting the production line at Boeing so I'd imagine it will be a little while yet. VS probably have mock up/artist impressions of how it will look but as to when they plan to release them - your guess is as good as mine.

there is a virgin atlantic factsheet which gives some details but appears to be slightly out of date but maybe not but some of the routes consideration on there are interesting but feel that they could be revised given economic climate but will see.

Just out of curiosity - as I believe the CAA or BA's rules made them run 200 ish legs on the 380 short-haul before allowing type Long-haul.

Do we therefore think we'll see the 787-9 on little red or shorter routers before long-haul service starts?

Doubt it - they didn't with the A330s or any other previous new aircraft did they?

I thought the BA "test runs" on the A380 were mainly to give their staff (pilots but mainly cabin crew) more time to "practice" - but given I was on one of the early A380's to Frankfurt and the CC actually did very little on a practically empty plane then I am not sure how much "practice" there really was....

I thought the BA "test runs" on the A380 were mainly to give their staff (pilots but mainly cabin crew) more time to "practice" - but given I was on one of the early A380's to Frankfurt and the CC actually did very little on a practically empty plane then I am not sure how much "practice" there really was....

It's more for running through procedures, not necessarily carrying them all out fully. It's also beneficial for the ground staff. They did run full tests of service, but not during actual passenger flights.

Could a 787 land at Edinburgh - short runway. ??

There is also the fact that Little Red is operated by Aer Lingus...

They are more likely to do LHR-LHR. As far as I can remember they did this on the A330s, flight out of LHR up to Scotland and back landing and taking off at LHR only.

Could a 787 land at Edinburgh - short runway. ??

QR flys 787's non-stop from EDI to Doha so it's not an issue with runway length.

AFAIK there are pilots on 'secondment' to Norwegian gaining experience flying the 787 on the shorter routes.

stevop21 - That may be how they getting away with the training then...

There used to be something about ETOPS as well where the airline had to demonstrate procedures on type to be allowed the further routings away from alternative landing sites - ie the more optimimal for fuel burn routings sometimes. For etops-240 - I thought the airline had to demonstrate 18+ months of on-type performance - Has that requirement gone?

stevop21 - That may be how they getting away with the training then...

There used to be something about ETOPS as well where the airline had to demonstrate procedures on type to be allowed the further routings away from alternative landing sites - ie the more optimimal for fuel burn routings sometimes. For etops-240 - I thought the airline had to demonstrate 18+ months of on-type performance - Has that requirement gone?

Virgin went through all the ETOPS hoops when they got the A330 - prior to that they didn't require an ETOPS rating.

As the first few routes for the 787 will be ones the 330 is doing then I would say they don't need ETOPS 240 straight away.

Nice little article that confirms virgin will launch the 787-9 on October 28th to Boston.

http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/1 ... -to-boston

Apparently it will be configured with 31 upper class seats. Let's hope they've learned from the a330 disaster!

Nick

Config in J (UCS3) will be 1-1-1 so different from the UCS2. Especially as the 787 fuselage is an inch or 2 wider than the 330/340.

G-VNEW will also be called "Birthday Girl"

Config in J (UCS3) will be 1-1-1 so different from the UCS2. Especially as the 787 fuselage is an inch or 2 wider than the 330/340.

G-VNEW will also be called "Birthday Girl"

Birthday Girl! Love it! A friend has just told me the first revenue flight will be on October 28th. Time to get booking!!

Virgin went through all the ETOPS hoops when they got the A330 - prior to that they didn't require an ETOPS rating.

As the first few routes for the 787 will be ones the 330 is doing then I would say they don't need ETOPS 240 straight away.

ETOPS is two part, plane and airline. I believe the 787 is ETOPS 240 at delivery (same as A330) and can go up to ETOPS 330. Perhaps somebody can confirm but I don't think Virgin procedures allow more than ETOPS 180 because it's not required on any of their routes.

Only 31 seats in UC? So looking at a 25+% drop in UC capacity unless they are proposing to increase frequencies.

Only 31 seats in UC? So looking at a 25+% drop in UC capacity unless they are proposing to increase frequencies.

It is only 2 less seats the A330 in J. I would also guess the demand for J has decreased in recent years. DL & AA have also just announced they are reducing J on their 777 fleet. BA/QF are stopping F on some of their current routes.

So I think there is a trend to reduce premium capacity - so perhaps it is just right sizing to the new environment?

Config in J (UCS3) will be 1-1-1 so different from the UCS2. Especially as the 787 fuselage is an inch or 2 wider than the 330/340.

G-VNEW will also be called "Birthday Girl"

Love it!

stevop21 - That may be how they getting away with the training then...

There used to be something about ETOPS as well where the airline had to demonstrate procedures on type to be allowed the further routings away from alternative landing sites - ie the more optimimal for fuel burn routings sometimes. For etops-240 - I thought the airline had to demonstrate 18+ months of on-type performance - Has that requirement gone?

I'm afraid we're very quickly drifting out of my knowledge zone, this is one for the ops department!

I think you need to demonstrate procedures in order to increase the ETOPS limit from the delivery value, I know ANZ do this for their Auckland-LAX route and hence has a very large ETOPS allowance on their 777s.

So I think there is a trend to reduce premium capacity - so perhaps it is just right sizing to the new environment?

I think I can agree. Several recent bookings (even 2 months out) with the other British Airline, 0 availability in Y or W, Only J or F with seats - on trips in July, Sept, and Oct (booking them as VS/DL would result in more stops ). Indicates a good demand even 3 months out in W/Y to some locations.

Also seeing W priced above J (or even F) in a lot of cases - likely because some corporate entities (like mine) only allow PE (automatically) unless a beancounter approves - and people don't book the cheaper flight as they don't ask and realise the responsible counter is fine with you booking the J in the circumstance. Part of people relying on in-house booking systems (which is ideal for speed) and not being bothered to work out how to do exceptions! (I'm sure many of us have this combined travel/expense system nowadays, it is quite popular)

In May, IAG premium traffic has increased 9.7% on May last year...

So even if it dropped before it's picking up at a good rate!

stevop21 - That may be how they getting away with the training then...

There used to be something about ETOPS as well where the airline had to demonstrate procedures on type to be allowed the further routings away from alternative landing sites - ie the more optimimal for fuel burn routings sometimes. For etops-240 - I thought the airline had to demonstrate 18+ months of on-type performance - Has that requirement gone?

I'm afraid we're very quickly drifting out of my knowledge zone, this is one for the ops department!

I think you need to demonstrate procedures in order to increase the ETOPS limit from the delivery value, I know ANZ do this for their Auckland-LAX route and hence has a very large ETOPS allowance on their 777s.

Possibly VS are already well on their way to this with their partnership with Norwegian.