GVWOW From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 168 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6068 times:
I don't know about a whole lot of new things on VS, but I know they are adding Montego Bay as well as Dubai. They have also just acquired another A346 named Miss Behavin' (G-VWKD), and will be having an ebay auction to name one of their next planes!
747uk From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5777 times:
Quoting BHXDTW (Thread starter): Anyone know of the latest VS news from LHR/LGW/MAN ??
Any new route confirmations ?
Has DXB started taking bookings yet ? If so whats the loads looking like ?
VS are beginning with a 4 weekly LHR-DXB commencing 27 March. VS has already started taking booking since 2005! Load factor for the first week
(based on first four flights) for the LHR-DXB sector is booked at 48%. That's not too bad considering they have another 11 Weeks to go before they operate the Inaugural. So I would expect for that load factor to go up!
DXB is popular resort with Virgin Holidays. When customers used to book packages with Virgin Holidays to DXB. Virgin Holidays used to book their customers on direct flights operated by EK. Now that VS will be flying there. Obviously they will only book there customers on flights operated by VS.
6thfreedom From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3333 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5639 times:
Given that BA's suspension of MEL services has just released rights for daily UK-Australia flights (agreement is for 28pw in total), i'm surprissed VS has jumped on the opportunity to increase SYD flights, or even open up flights to MEL??
Has there been any talk of a LAX-AKL flight?, or a continuation of the flight to SYD going to AKL?
I heard last year that Branson was keen on flying from LAX to AKL, before heading to SYD, thus creating a RTW service.
I would love to see us fly to NZ, but I'm not sure the US govt would permit a UK airline to fly LAX-AKL (although QF do it!) I may be wrong of course. What is the current agreement between New Zealand and the USA
Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 9): Given that BA's suspension of MEL services has just released rights for daily UK-Australia flights (agreement is for 28pw in total), I'm surprised VS has jumped on the opportunity to increase SYD flights, or even open up flights to MEL??
Again, I think all of us at VS would like to see more services to Oz (particularly those who come from there!!), however, at the moment, we don't have the metal. To start another service to Oz we would need 3 more A346s, and all of those being delivered this year have been earmarked already, some of which to cover the A343s which are leaving the fleet.
MANmatt From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 969 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4946 times:
Quoting CactusTECH (Reply 13): VS will also start another flight to JFK with 346 starting July 1st and I will be MAN-JFK VS25/26
Where have you heard this from? I seriously doubt that VS would start MAN-JFK especially with Delta starting this route in May, along with BA and PK already on the route and CO on MAN-EWR. As DptMan mentioned, MAN-IAD would work better, or even MAN-LAX. Or dare i say MAN-LAS taking over BD if the do a runner from all long haul at MAN?!!
FlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2093 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4875 times:
Even if VS were to start MAN-JFK why would they use the A346 - an A343 would be a much better fit, although as has been pointed out with BA, DL and PK on MAN-JFK and CO on MAN-EWR, New York is very well served from MAN already.
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7392 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4756 times:
MAN-JFK is one of the routes VS have been thinking about since the 1990s but it in terms of longetivity, MAN-MIA is the route they said they'd be flying and that was announced back in 1986!
The A343 would have been an ideal aircraft for them to send to MAN to tap into the more business-orientated routes but as they've decided that we're a better "leisure" based operation, services to LAX and LAS shouldn't be ruled out - it would then enable them to have 2 744s at MAN for an entire week rather than having to position up an aircraft from LGW to operate 3 services a week.