Should B&S routes be called B&S routes?

[Scrooge]

Just to carry on the discussion from this thread.

MAN-MCO is the only VS route I fly and it doesn't bother me what they call it. A flight attendant on Monday in PE called it 'our leisure route' when she told us 'Our leisure routes are not a priority for getting the new PE seats, don't hold your breathe, they need to give us our pay rise first' [:o)]. We'd kind of figured that out! [ii]

MAN-MCO is the only VS route I fly and it doesn't bother me what they call it. A flight attendant on Monday in PE called it 'our leisure route' when she told us 'Our leisure routes are not a priority for getting the new PE seats, don't hold your breathe, they need to give us our pay rise first' [:o)]. We'd kind of figured that out! [ii]

Not wishing to raise any tempers but why not just rename the LGW/MAN operations as Virgin Holidays a la Britannia and Thomson a few years ago. That way you can have a two tier ac quality structure and avoid annoying PAX who expect the full VS experience so often seen in advertising which always seems to favour LHR.

Not wishing to raise any tempers but why not just rename the LGW/MAN operations as Virgin Holidays a la Britannia and Thomson a few years ago. That way you can have a two tier ac quality structure and avoid annoying PAX who expect the full VS experience so often seen in advertising which always seems to favour LHR.

[Decker]

Virgin Holidays might object to the pilfering of their brand values [;)]

[Decker]

Virgin Holidays might object to the pilfering of their brand values [;)]

[Neil]

Here we go again, more of the old 'poor, unfairly treated MCO' stuff.

B&S routes are so called because they are predominantly to beach/holiday destinations, you know, where kids play with bucket and spades, jeesh some people take offense at the most stupid of things. It is an industry used term to identify such routes not something specific to this site.

why not just rename the LGW/MAN operations as Virgin Holidays a la Britannia and Thomson a few years ago.

Because VH and VS are 2 different companies. LGW/MAN flights are not purely sold by VH, they are just one of the travel agents who buy a certain amount of seats on each flight.

[Neil]

Here we go again, more of the old 'poor, unfairly treated MCO' stuff.

B&S routes are so called because they are predominantly to beach/holiday destinations, you know, where kids play with bucket and spades, jeesh some people take offense at the most stupid of things. It is an industry used term to identify such routes not something specific to this site.

why not just rename the LGW/MAN operations as Virgin Holidays a la Britannia and Thomson a few years ago.

Because VH and VS are 2 different companies. LGW/MAN flights are not purely sold by VH, they are just one of the travel agents who buy a certain amount of seats on each flight.

Originally posted by Neil
Because VH and VS are 2 different companies. LGW/MAN flights are not purely sold by VH, they are just one of the travel agents who buy a certain amount of seats on each flight.

OK, Virgin Sun then [:p] All I'm saying is that maybe it's pertinent to differentiate the routes to avoid raising expectations. That way an MCO holiday can be sold as 'Operated by Virgin Sun' whilst a MRU holiday can say 'Operated by our sister airline, Virgin Atlantic'.

Originally posted by Neil
Because VH and VS are 2 different companies. LGW/MAN flights are not purely sold by VH, they are just one of the travel agents who buy a certain amount of seats on each flight.

OK, Virgin Sun then [:p] All I'm saying is that maybe it's pertinent to differentiate the routes to avoid raising expectations. That way an MCO holiday can be sold as 'Operated by Virgin Sun' whilst a MRU holiday can say 'Operated by our sister airline, Virgin Atlantic'.

Neil, I don't think the origin of the term bucket and spade route is being disputed. My objection to its use is that it can come over as being patronising, and its use would be best left by those who move in industry circles rather than V-Flyer.

This is a consumer resource, and with the dishonourable exception of the term B&S does not come over as being only for in-crowds, snobby, patronising or any other trait that rips my knitting. Sure, it's full of jargon and abbreviations, but none in my opinion that could remotely be seen as patronising. That's why it's one of only three Internet resources I pay for the priviledge of using.

For what it's worth, my only other experience when flying with Virgin was to Orlando, and I found the standard of service on these flights was far and away better than my previous trans-atlantic flights, which were, somewhat ironically, to Newark and Chicago with Continental and United respectively. On that basis I look forward to my next flight to Las Vegas with Virgin more than I would with cheaper alternatives.

I appreciate that this rant will probably make absolutely no difference to most of those who read it, but they're my views, I stand by them, and look forward to reading the views of others even if they differ with mine.

[:w]

Neil, I don't think the origin of the term bucket and spade route is being disputed. My objection to its use is that it can come over as being patronising, and its use would be best left by those who move in industry circles rather than V-Flyer.

This is a consumer resource, and with the dishonourable exception of the term B&S does not come over as being only for in-crowds, snobby, patronising or any other trait that rips my knitting. Sure, it's full of jargon and abbreviations, but none in my opinion that could remotely be seen as patronising. That's why it's one of only three Internet resources I pay for the priviledge of using.

For what it's worth, my only other experience when flying with Virgin was to Orlando, and I found the standard of service on these flights was far and away better than my previous trans-atlantic flights, which were, somewhat ironically, to Newark and Chicago with Continental and United respectively. On that basis I look forward to my next flight to Las Vegas with Virgin more than I would with cheaper alternatives.

I appreciate that this rant will probably make absolutely no difference to most of those who read it, but they're my views, I stand by them, and look forward to reading the views of others even if they differ with mine.

[:w]

[Neil]

I just don't get how it is patronising. Nobody uses it in a derogatory/condescending way, it is just used to identify the type of route. What difference does it make it the beach holiday routes are described this way? I know plenty of wealthy people who go on beach holidays, in fact some of the most exclusive resorts in the world are 'beach holidays', however glorified they are.
I just seriously don't get were the issue is with using this abbreviation.

[Neil]

I just don't get how it is patronising. Nobody uses it in a derogatory/condescending way, it is just used to identify the type of route. What difference does it make it the beach holiday routes are described this way? I know plenty of wealthy people who go on beach holidays, in fact some of the most exclusive resorts in the world are 'beach holidays', however glorified they are.
I just seriously don't get were the issue is with using this abbreviation.

[Decker]

GDE

As a mod I try not to take contrarian views to those of our members unless there is a clear issue at stake. However your kind

look forward to reading the views of others even if they differ with mine

frees me up so....

When I think bucket and spade, images of Blackpool, Cleethorpes and Southend spring to mind and not Palm Beach, Sarasota or Miami.

so you're obviously comfortable with the concept of defining SOME destinations as B&S. By thus accepting the concept any attempt to ghettoise the phrase as redolent of a particular industry is nullified. So having established that you're happy with B&S as a generic term for certain categories of resort we then have to establish the criteria which should be used to slot the resort into the definition.

I chose to use the cost of accommodation at a resort as an indicator of the socio-economic groupings most likely to frequent such a place. This is a blunt tool as obviously parents with children will tend towards resorts geared towards their offspring thus AB1s might still be found in Disneyland for example.

So it would SEEM that B&S is only patronising when used to describe resorts you wish to fly to yourself?

[Decker]

GDE

As a mod I try not to take contrarian views to those of our members unless there is a clear issue at stake. However your kind

look forward to reading the views of others even if they differ with mine

frees me up so....

When I think bucket and spade, images of Blackpool, Cleethorpes and Southend spring to mind and not Palm Beach, Sarasota or Miami.

so you're obviously comfortable with the concept of defining SOME destinations as B&S. By thus accepting the concept any attempt to ghettoise the phrase as redolent of a particular industry is nullified. So having established that you're happy with B&S as a generic term for certain categories of resort we then have to establish the criteria which should be used to slot the resort into the definition.

I chose to use the cost of accommodation at a resort as an indicator of the socio-economic groupings most likely to frequent such a place. This is a blunt tool as obviously parents with children will tend towards resorts geared towards their offspring thus AB1s might still be found in Disneyland for example.

So it would SEEM that B&S is only patronising when used to describe resorts you wish to fly to yourself?

[RichardMannion]

Can we discuss SLF?

I seem to remember SRB wanting to call Y, 'Riff-Raff'. Coach, bucket seats, gypsy class etc etc.

Personally I don't see the problem with them being called B&S routes. I fly to them at times, and it's no tarnish on my reputation, nor is it derogatory towards said destinations. E.g I'd class Orlando as a whole a tourist/holiday destination.

[RichardMannion]

Can we discuss SLF?

I seem to remember SRB wanting to call Y, 'Riff-Raff'. Coach, bucket seats, gypsy class etc etc.

Personally I don't see the problem with them being called B&S routes. I fly to them at times, and it's no tarnish on my reputation, nor is it derogatory towards said destinations. E.g I'd class Orlando as a whole a tourist/holiday destination.

Originally posted by Decker
GDE

As a mod I try not to take contrarian views to those of our members unless there is a clear issue at stake. However your kind

look forward to reading the views of others even if they differ with mine

frees me up so....

When I think bucket and spade, images of Blackpool, Cleethorpes and Southend spring to mind and not Palm Beach, Sarasota or Miami.

so you're obviously comfortable with the concept of defining SOME destinations as B&S. By thus accepting the concept any attempt to ghettoise the phrase as redolent of a particular industry is nullified. So having established that you're happy with B&S as a generic term for certain categories of resort we then have to establish the criteria which should be used to slot the resort into the definition.

I chose to use the cost of accommodation at a resort as an indicator of the socio-economic groupings most likely to frequent such a place. This is a blunt tool as obviously parents with children will tend towards resorts geared towards their offspring thus AB1s might still be found in Disneyland for example.

So it would SEEM that B&S is only patronising when used to describe resorts you wish to fly to yourself?

Decker, I'm delighted to have given you the right of reply [;)]. In thw words of, er, someone important in history, I will defend to my death the right of freedom of expression. Anyway, just to reiterate...

My objection to its use is that (from what I understand) it was orginially a term used by the industry: this is a consumer, not a trade resource.

To answer your first point, no, I'm not comfortable with the concept of the term at all, and would never use it to describe a flight destination. I described the image it romantically brought about (albeit in a pro-anglicised manner the first time round [:p]), not what I thought was an acceptable scenario for its use.

As for the socio-economic content of your response, I'm not following you. Despite the relative costs of travel to the US dropping dramatically over the past few years, I would still consider Orlando, the Caribbean and the likes luxurious holiday resorts, and way out of the reach of many. Using the Hilton in Blackpool to compare just doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the dbate. Anyway.

In response to your last point, I find the term mildly patronising with nil, nada, zilch exceptions. Might I suggest the term 'leisure route' is equally descriptive, more accurate and couldn't possibly be described as patronising? [;)]

Originally posted by Decker
GDE

As a mod I try not to take contrarian views to those of our members unless there is a clear issue at stake. However your kind

look forward to reading the views of others even if they differ with mine

frees me up so....

When I think bucket and spade, images of Blackpool, Cleethorpes and Southend spring to mind and not Palm Beach, Sarasota or Miami.

so you're obviously comfortable with the concept of defining SOME destinations as B&S. By thus accepting the concept any attempt to ghettoise the phrase as redolent of a particular industry is nullified. So having established that you're happy with B&S as a generic term for certain categories of resort we then have to establish the criteria which should be used to slot the resort into the definition.

I chose to use the cost of accommodation at a resort as an indicator of the socio-economic groupings most likely to frequent such a place. This is a blunt tool as obviously parents with children will tend towards resorts geared towards their offspring thus AB1s might still be found in Disneyland for example.

So it would SEEM that B&S is only patronising when used to describe resorts you wish to fly to yourself?

Decker, I'm delighted to have given you the right of reply [;)]. In thw words of, er, someone important in history, I will defend to my death the right of freedom of expression. Anyway, just to reiterate...

My objection to its use is that (from what I understand) it was orginially a term used by the industry: this is a consumer, not a trade resource.

To answer your first point, no, I'm not comfortable with the concept of the term at all, and would never use it to describe a flight destination. I described the image it romantically brought about (albeit in a pro-anglicised manner the first time round [:p]), not what I thought was an acceptable scenario for its use.

As for the socio-economic content of your response, I'm not following you. Despite the relative costs of travel to the US dropping dramatically over the past few years, I would still consider Orlando, the Caribbean and the likes luxurious holiday resorts, and way out of the reach of many. Using the Hilton in Blackpool to compare just doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the dbate. Anyway.

In response to your last point, I find the term mildly patronising with nil, nada, zilch exceptions. Might I suggest the term 'leisure route' is equally descriptive, more accurate and couldn't possibly be described as patronising? [;)]

I always thought B&S meant bulls**t routes [:I]. Took me ages on VFlyer to realise not, but then I never travel on such tours to visit the hells of Orlando!

I also believe b&s is derogatory, just because a term is in widespread use does not make it a good one. Neil - no one here may imply derogation in using said term, but others do.

That said, all airlines have what they term flagship routes that get new investments first, sometimes because the finances justify it, sometimes because the publicity is greater. Very few airlines have consistency across all cabins, all planes, all of the time. And this we must simply accept while believing their promises of jam for all, in time! Should we instead call b&s the 'second class' routes ... boy that would be fun [}:)] ... how about a competition to replace b&s with another moniker!

I always thought B&S meant bulls**t routes [:I]. Took me ages on VFlyer to realise not, but then I never travel on such tours to visit the hells of Orlando!

I also believe b&s is derogatory, just because a term is in widespread use does not make it a good one. Neil - no one here may imply derogation in using said term, but others do.

That said, all airlines have what they term flagship routes that get new investments first, sometimes because the finances justify it, sometimes because the publicity is greater. Very few airlines have consistency across all cabins, all planes, all of the time. And this we must simply accept while believing their promises of jam for all, in time! Should we instead call b&s the 'second class' routes ... boy that would be fun [}:)] ... how about a competition to replace b&s with another moniker!

Oh, meant to add (double post I know, sorry [:w]), how about 'u' and 'non u' routes [B)].

Oh, meant to add (double post I know, sorry [:w]), how about 'u' and 'non u' routes [B)].