V-Flyer

Saw this article and it got me thinking whether the DXB route fitted with the new US focused strategy? There is huge capacity on the route, especially Emirates..

http://www.thenational.ae/business/avia ... iddle-east

This is a tricky one. I think a few v-flyers have mentioned this before, when the news of the route changes were first announced. I have flown this route a couple of times so far, and the load has varied from half full to overbooked. The prices on this route is pretty competitive, too.

Part of me thinks that this route has survived the last round of changes due to the slots at LHR. With the late departure, I don't think they would be any good for TATL flight.

I do hope that it survives long-term, as I use it for fairly regular work trips, but I am not going to hold my breath.

It survived the cull, it gets good loads (don't know about yield), is popular with V Holidays, I believe cargo is good, and yes the late departure slot isn't suitable for going west. It has a chance of surviving!

I am amazed it has lasted this long - how Virgin can even try to compete with the likes of EK (1 daily flight from one airport, compared to about 15 flights a day from differing UK airports) is beyond me. Having said that - on the EK 777-300, not everyone in business class has direct aisle access, so even the A330-300 Virgin operate has an advantage here. UCDS may not be perfect, but you're not climbing over other people to get to the aisle.

That said, for the route to avoided the cull, it's numbers must add up somewhere. It may be a combination of fairly good loads / cargo volume - and also the fact that the LHR slot it uses is not ideal for a TATL flight.

I know that when Emirates make the inevitable upgrade from a 777-300 to an A380 on a route, they cut their cargo capacity by about half on the upgraded flight.

Yes this has been debated before.

As I understand it DXB is profitable for VS (remember it's not just passenger loads but cargo that's important) and is an important Virgin Holidays destination.

Most of the routes that have been ditched recently - SYD, NRT, CPT, YVR - were more expensive to operate, being long flights that kept crews away from base for 2 or more nights and which couldn't be run as an out & back trip in 24 hours for the aircraft. Like the US east coast routes DXB is short, only requires one aircraft, crews only spend one night away and loads are generally healthy year round.

VS still fly to more non-US destinations than US ones and you'd have thought there are other routes that are more at risk than DXB - PVG for example, or LOS - but only VS knows exactly how profitable they are and how they fit in with its future strategy. But my gut feeling is it's safe enough if it's making good money.

And it's going on the 787 next winter

virginboy747 wrote:And it's going on the 787 next winter

Given priority to reduce running costs?

Kraken wrote: Having said that - on the EK 777-300, not everyone in business class has direct aisle access, so even the A330-300 Virgin operate has an advantage here. UCDS may not be perfect, but you're not climbing over other people to get to the aisle.

I don't think direct aisle access is such a priority for many business class travelers, many airlines don't have it, and are unlikely to drop it any time soon, like BA. BA manage to fill (they are creating a Super-High J 747 sub fleet) their business class seats without direct aisle access

Delta actively market themselves as having more direct aisle access seats than any other (US) airline, so they obviously perceive it to be an issue for their premium customers.

787 to DXB woud be great!

Is the 787 a capacity decrease on now?

Surprised, I thought the 787 was more fuel efficient on longer routes.

LHRrules wrote:Is the 787 a capacity decrease on now?

Yes, but only by 2 seats (264 vs 266 on the A333). PE is significantly smaller though (35 vs 48).

If VS have the 787 planned on the route then it's staying for at least a couple of years