A330 routes and start date.

[Neil]

Personally I'm very disappointed by the lack of UC on this route. The VS 75/76 was always the 1st choice of flight for us to MCO and now we are faced with limited days of the week and arriving 3 hours later. Bad move IMO VS.

The new times will mean only a 30min later arrival in to MCO and also the same when returning to MAN ii)

Hi can someone confirm for me then, we fly LGW - MCO on VS27 sunday 1st May 2011, will this be a 747 or a A330-300 ~ looking at seat configuration I would prefere the latter as we can have set of 2 seats as its 2-4-2 ~ much better for a couple ~ have tried the pairs at the back of the 747 but find it too busy/noisy by the toilets

Thanks

What I don't understand is why change the only daily flight ex MAN so that is means that on certain days MAN pax can't fly UC. Why not put the new A330 on one of the two daily LGW flights, meaning that it would give a mix of both a/c type and wouldn't totally cut MAN out of UC seats.

I agree, the 73/74 or the second daily LGW flight should have been allocated the 330

The new times will mean only a 30min later arrival in to MCO and also the same when returning to MAN ii)

I was referring to the different arrival times flying on the 73 instead of the 75 to get UC. ii)

[Neil]

Hi can someone confirm for me then, we fly LGW - MCO on VS27 sunday 1st May 2011, will this be a 747 or a A330-300 ~ looking at seat configuration I would prefere the latter as we can have set of 2 seats as its 2-4-2 ~ much better for a couple ~ have tried the pairs at the back of the 747 but find it too busy/noisy by the toilets

Thanks

It looks like it will be the first A330 flight ex LGW, but you would be best checking with who you booked with to be 100% certain. Also, it could easily change as delays with the new a/c could happen, so it might change right up until the last minute.

I often read TRs on here with people saying the MAN planes are cr*p and need doing up etc and when MAN does get spiffy new planes (not just refurbs from LHR) and there are still complaints!

Of course there are going to be complaints - VS has significantly reduced capacity in PE and removed UC on the most popular flight on this route just in time for the Easter holidays. This can only lead to increased prices and, for those of us who wish to fly UC, we are limited to certain days of the week with a flight that arrives 3 hours later than our preferred option.

suzanneme - I think you are getting your Airbuses confussed. The A330 that Virgin will be using is smaller than a 747 (similar to 777). It is an A380 that is the huge new plane. We are not sure when Virgin will receive these super jumbo's, if ever.

well done VS. i love Orlando and prefer flying on Airbus a/c looking forward to seeing the new cabin and IFE system.

I still stand by what I said earlier in that everyone cannot be pleased and really we should be grateful that finally, after some 8 years or so of moaning that VS aree taking some positive steps with the LGW/MAN fleet. I can think of at least one lurker who surely must be very happy that the days of inferior service from LGW/MAN are long gone.

With regards to the lack of J ex MAN. I have been thinking about this. Not to defend VS but there is no way that they will have undertaken this decision without doing some sort of market research and looking at the figures. Clearly MAN came up as a route that either has less J demand or somewhere where J passengers are more than happy to connect down to LGW. It's a gamble on the part of VS but one that they will not have taken without looking at all the figures and facts, something that none of us here have access to. I wouldn't mind betting that when VS approached J passengers ex MAN a lot commented that they prefer flying from LGW/LHR because of CH access etc.

Thanks jpcox1, I was confusing A330 with A380 - if I wasn't posting on an iPhone I'd be adding in a red-faced emoticon! Still, I've heard so much about flying PE in the Bubble on a 747 that I would still really like to try that, so glad I've booked on 747 days for flights to and from MCO.

[Neil]

.

With regards to the lack of J ex MAN. I have been thinking about this. Not to defend VS but there is no way that they will have undertaken this decision without doing some sort of market research and looking at the figures. Clearly MAN came up as a route that either has less J demand or somewhere where J passengers are more than happy to connect down to LGW. It's a gamble on the part of VS but one that they will not have taken without looking at all the figures and facts, something that none of us here have access to. I wouldn't mind betting that when VS approached J passengers ex MAN a lot commented that they prefer flying from LGW/LHR because of CH access etc.

I wish I had your faith in the VS research dept Will. We have flown UC from MAN on 4 different occasions and the UC cabin was always full. Even when we flew in Feb and there were only 66 pax on the whole 747 the UC only had 1 spare seat. I'm not saying that VS don't know what they are doing, and I certainly haven't been one to jump on the whole 'poor MAN always getting the bad deal' bangwagon that is often brought up in here, but it is mighty annoying to have to travel to London to fly UC, and it sucks if VS think that Northernn pax wont mind either.

Well yes it is good that VS are investing in aircraft. We plan to fly MAN to MCo next May, and will be booking PE on the A330 pretty well as soon as seats come up for sale (silly prices excepting).

Be silly not to try the new pe seat.

Quote from

http://airlineroute.net/2010/05/31/vs-333/


A330-300 Seating Configuration:
Premium Economy 39 Seats
Row 20 – 25
Layout AC – DFG – HK
Exception No 20DFG seating

Okay, silly question but why does numbering start from row 20?

Quote from

http://airlineroute.net/2010/05/31/vs-333/


A330-300 Seating Configuration:
Premium Economy 39 Seats
Row 20 – 25
Layout AC – DFG – HK
Exception No 20DFG seating

Okay, silly question but why does numbering start from row 20?

I suspect that the missing rows have been block booked for VH incl. the whole of the forward cabin.

So what's the deal with the flight taking longer with the A330? Other A330 operators do the Man - Orlando route quicker so why does it take Virgin longer?

Is it to do with ETOPS certification?

So what's the deal with the flight taking longer with the A330? Other A330 operators do the Man - Orlando route quicker so why does it take Virgin longer?

Is it to do with ETOPS certification?

A333 has a slower cruising speed than the B744.
Also a less direct route with two engines under ETOPS, having to stay within range of an airfield.
Not sure if VS will be restricted to ETOPS 120 until they have proven reliability with two engined ops.

[
I suspect that the missing rows have been block booked for VH incl. the whole of the forward cabin.

Will it? 20-25 x 7 across is 35 seats, isn't that roughly what is being planned for the PE cabin? If so, what goes from row 1-19 ... that's akin to J on a 346 .

20 to 25 inclusive is 6 rows * 7 seats across = 42 but less row 20 no middle 3 totals 39 seats.

Rows 26 to 65 is 40 rows * 8 seats = 320 seats max - but there are some blanks, so all the seats seem accounted for.

Cheers Bill, I thought it must have something to do with ETOPS & speed!

Just to confuse the issue, remember on the LGW fleet at the moment, there are no rows 1 - 5, saying that, I still think there has to be something before row 25.

I also hope there will be an u/c on these new planes, yesterdays VS027 had no spare seats in upper, the VS015 had one, and I think there was only a couple spare on the Man flight so there is definately a demand.

The other comment about VS subsidising upper fares on their lgw/man routes maybe used to be true but with Z upper fares now starting around £1800+ as opposed to £1500 last year and as low as £1200 a few years ago (not sales figures) seems to have finished a while ago.

Can't wait to try the new planes but will join a huge amount of dissappointed people if there is no upper on them.

David

20 to 25 inclusive is 6 rows * 7 seats across = 42 but less row 20 no middle 3 totals 39 seats.

Rows 26 to 65 is 40 rows * 8 seats = 320 seats max - but there are some blanks, so all the seats seem accounted for.

EF is showing this layout:

but previous word was YWY layout so the forward Y cabin could be replaced with J in the future.

Could the blank outboard pairs be extra legroom seats?

The highest density on other airlines I could find was Philippines

I am disappointed with 7 seats across in PE - not going to be up to the ANZ standard

Thanks Bill, so that shows 25 seating rows whereas the Philippines seatmap you linked to has 38, so your assumption that the forward cabin will be Y now and possibly J later is a very sound one - and since it's not shown, presumably blocked out by VH?

I do always think that if you pay more you should be at the front ... but this seems a good plan for these early birds.

Okay, but rows 26 to 44 will be y and if you total up 26 to 65 you get around about 300 Y seats. With the 39 in W doesn't that just about equal the max for a 330 in this config?

Nottingham Nick reports for example 48 W and 265 Y.

I'll just have to book a flight won't I?

I am not happy that UC is being reduced on the MCO route but since I need to book 3 fights next year which will now be in Economy not UC (personally I dont feel PE is worth the extra) it will save me a few pounds.
Does anyone know if they will have laptop power points at all seats now, would seem sensible if they have in flight connectivity.. Ironically with the better IFE I am now less likely to want laptop power or connectivity.

No reason why not, laptop power available on other airlines using EX2, along with USB port at each seat.