V-Flyer

http://www.worldairlineawards.com/Award ... _top20.htm

These awards get less credible every year. Whilst I make no secret of my liking for the current BA first and business products their are areas where VS still have the advantage I.e. clubhouses, so to see BA above VS in the J lounge awards is laughable. Interesting that the crew also rank lower? So is VS with its "fun" style of J product out of touch with the modern J market.

Probably more like that VS are looked down upon as it's a "small" airline which is ridiculous, IMO UC beats BA business all day long but first is another level.

The word 'skytrax' should be an immediate warning about these so called awards / ratings.

Remember

(1) that a couple of years ago were very heavily critisised by the Advertising Standards Authority.

(2) at least 2 v-flyers that I know have had reviews editited to change their meaning or rejected.

Tontybear I'm confused, what do you mean?

Re the ASA

ASA ruling upholding complaints against Skytrax

Interesting.
I wonder too if VS so called "fun" style is really out of touch. I have always enjoyed my flights on VS, mainly because the CC have been approachable and have had some good banter with them in the bar/galleys.
My only experience of BA was one short haul so I think that would not be reflective of their main service, so will see next year how I get on in CW.
That said I think VS win on the CH and DTCI front (yes I understand why DTCI wouldnt be workable for BA though).

In the business world there has been huge shift away the 'stuffed shirts in suits' of old towards the more casual approach. VS taps that market very well with their approach.

If you want all "Yes Sir, No Sir" or Penny from Come Fly With Me, then VS isn't the airline, in my view anyway.

Seems really very flawed. They seriously rank Virgin Atlantic below Virgin Australia and Air Candada???

All such "rankings" are flawed. Subjective and biased to the core. I take no notice myself.

It's the same in all professions and industries. Take the CQC rankings for General Practices yesterday for example- utterly pointless exercise that offers no insight whatsoever.

Maximus wrote:All such "rankings" are flawed. Subjective and biased to the core. I take no notice myself.
It's the same in all professions and industries. Take the CQC rankings for General Practices yesterday for example- utterly pointless exercise that offers no insight whatsoever.

I'm reading the website on an iPad at the moment; I can't see how the ratings are derived and, from a statistical point of view, that makes me question the validity of the rankings.

It smacks of the television advertisements of '89 of 130 women agree' that this particularly expensive grease in a pretty tube and lots of cardboard packaging, with gold embossing, made their skin feel softer, and we provided a heap of free samples.

At least the VS on-board questionnaires do appear to be randomly allocated by seat number, although it would be possible to pre-identify who was in each seat.

The bonus is that 'The World's Favourite Airline' doesn't appear to be BA, anymore.