VS015 today (2 June 15)

Can anybody tell us what's going with the vs15 again today tracking it on flight tracker and its flying at 31.000 ft again and slower that the vs27 and the Manchester flights which are at 40.000 ft this isn't the first time in the last week

Looks like ladybird is operating this flight , isn't that the plane they had trouble with last week ? ,sounds like an ongoing problem

Ladybird has done the 15 a lot recently, is that because that service is less time critical, also, longer distance flights like the 43 may be more that its range at that height...

I was on the VS15 a week last Saturday on 'Ladybird' and it took 9hrs 50mins to Orlando. I have since learnt we we flying at 28,000ft for quite sometime and slower for sure and the flight map had been partially disabled.

As I was leaving the flight a CC member confirmed a technical issue. I did think the issue had been resolved but clearly hasn't. 10hrs10mins today is some flight time to MCO.

All a bit strange.

Jon

We flew out on ladybird 21st may no problems flight time to Orlando 81/2 hours although flight map not working so couldn't see what flight level we were at, flying home this Friday so hoping it's not ladybird again.

She seems to have picked up the pace a bit , currently at 34000 ft doing 520 mph

Strange - fuel economy at those lower altitudes would not be good. The climb later may be due to fuel burn such that the weight goes down and she can climb - all speculation, of course.

Wonder what the issue is and why it is not yet fixed?

Likely issues could include reduced engine thrust (for any number of reasons), speed limitations due to trim issues (but that's unlikely, really)...

Curious!

There is definitely some issue with VAST.

These are the stats for the last 3 days when it has operated VS15.

Usual schedule is 1300 departure 1710 arrival....

31/05 1305 departure 1858 arrival !!
01/06 1306 departure 1834 arrival !!
02/06 1335 departure 1919 arrival !!!

In fact it seems to be most days where VAST has operated, clearly it is a technical issue that VS need to address.

Come on VS - sort it out

She's just south of Cork just now at 33,000ft and 477kts (everybody else 39,000ft and 532kts) and running 2hr 26mins late.

I was wondering if it was a gate capacity issue at LGW, have they got broken gates and they need to run the service late?

She's just south of Cork just now at 33,000ft and 477kts (everybody else 39,000ft and 532kts) and running 2hr 26mins late.

I was wondering if it was a gate capacity issue at LGW, have they got broken gates and they need to run the service late?

I can't see it being a gate issue - it has left LGW pretty much on time or a few minutes late but has been a lot later on arrival time at MCO so it's losing time during the journey due to flying lower and slower, which all points to a technical issue with the aircraft itself.

With G-VROM now out of maintenance it might mean G-VAST can enter maintenance and get this fixed finally.

Will be interesting if I'm on lthe vs16 ladybird Friday night will keep everybody posted although my wife's a very nervous flyer and hopes were not, can't be to serious a problem as Virgin due to regulations wouldn't be allowed to fly. I hope someone knows the real reason.

Clearly whatever the problem is it doesn't affect safety in any way as VS (and BA) are renowned the world over for their extremely high aircraft maintenance standards.

I guess they had a choice: take Ladybird out of service straight away and be two 747s down, possibly resulting in multiple cancellations, or keep her flying - albeit it lower and slower than normal - until they've got enough slack in the fleet to cover.

Well here's their chance, Ladybird landed at lunchtime on VS16 and has the rest of the day off as all LGW flights have now departed. G-VROM back in service and operating VS43 today.

I wonder how they will cope in the summer when there are three LGW-MCO flights! We are going to be on the VS50..do they have enough planes?!!

Or the VS49 I should have said!

Yes They Do However Virgin Dont have much if any spare capacity as seen when just one 747 went maintenance at las a few weeks back with delays on other flights etc.

The Problem is Virgin are running at max cap at present ( Summer season) so if things do go wrong then there will be delays. Sometimes they have 1 aircraft spare and crew BUT with some aircrft on planned maintance it makes things all a we bit tighter. BA also face the same challenges and they have way more aircraft ( and also way more routes).

I wonder how they will cope in the summer when there are three LGW-MCO flights! We are going to be on the VS50..do they have enough planes?!!

But VS49 is Sunday only so I am sure they reduced the frequency elsewhere, probably from Belfast which I believe ends at the end of July, but I could be mistaken.

Is this actually legal? I was on this plane yesterday and hate flying so monitored it the days prior. I called to ask what the problem was and was told nothing's abnormal. The pilot told us we had a long flight because of headwind. Obviously it's not obvious we were lied to.

If the plane cannot operate normally then the safety of passengers was at risk.

If the plane cannot operate normally then the safety of passengers was at risk.

The plane is operating within the parameters it was designed for by the manufacturer and approved by the various regulatory bodies - FAA or CAA.

These people do not mess about.

As the plane was operating within these parameters is means it was operating normally.

Therefore passenger safety was not at risk.

If it was felt to be then VS would simply not operate the plane.

If the plane cannot operate normally then the safety of passengers was at risk.

The plane is operating within the parameters it was designed for by the manufacturer and approved by the various regulatory bodies - FAA or CAA.

These people do not mess about.

As the plane was operating within these parameters is means it was operating normally.

Therefore passenger safety was not at risk.

If it was felt to be then VS would simply not operate the plane.

For it not to be able to fly at full speed or the normal height there must be an issue though and isn't that a hazard?
Surely if planes are not 100% then they shouldn't fly?

If the plane cannot operate normally then the safety of passengers was at risk.

The plane is operating within the parameters it was designed for by the manufacturer and approved by the various regulatory bodies - FAA or CAA.

These people do not mess about.

As the plane was operating within these parameters is means it was operating normally.

Therefore passenger safety was not at risk.

If it was felt to be then VS would simply not operate the plane.

For it not to be able to fly at full speed or the normal height there must be an issue though and isn't that a hazard?
Surely if planes are not 100% then they shouldn't fly?

I agree! I would NOT have been happy if I was put on this plane. VS need to sort it out.

From the airline's POV I can fully understand why the pilot would say there was nothing wrong. It sounds like the aircraft is safe to the point where it can fly, it is just constrained from flying near to maximum tolerances so they avoid doing it. Flying is bad enough for some people without the pilot doing the equivalent of kicking the tyres and sucking air through his teeth.

I'm no expert on aircraft mechanics but I suspect if we knew even half the truth of how many minor faults planes fly with every day, many people would never fly again.

Most will never be noticed by passengers - this one has because it's seemingly limiting Ladybird's altitude and speed. But does it mean she's unsafe? Absolutely not.

Every time we fly we place our lives in the hands of highly skilled pilots and engineers and have to trust their judgement. VS have never had an accident so as far as I'm concerned if its staff have deemed Ladybird safe to fly, she is. Why would they risk their own lives, let alone ours?

For it not to be able to fly at full speed or the normal height there must be an issue though and isn't that a hazard?
Surely if planes are not 100% then they shouldn't fly?

The altitude is a result of the speed. The North Atlantic air navigation routes require that all planes fly at the same speed (530kts) to maintain separation. If a plane cannot maintain speed then it's to fly below the tracks (37-41,000ft). Therefore there is possibly a thrust issue preventing full speed. Just because the pilot is unable to firewall the throttles doesn't make a plane any less safe, I'm quite happy doing 65mph in the 'slow' lane of a motorway rather than 70mph in the fast lane. And that's all we're talking about here, the plane is still doing 90% of full speed.