Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Future Of The A340-600 With Virgin Atlantic  
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 20093 times:

This is not A vs B so please, lets not make it into one. Virgin Atlantic Airways operates a large variety of aircraft but seems to planning their future long haul fleet around the A340-600. Within the past several months, the market has seen the 777-300ER skyrocket. Most individuals would state that the 777 is a better performing aircraft. Is Virgin going to continue to expand their fleet of A340-600s or will they look into the 777-300ER again? Again, this is not A vs B. The A340-500/600 family is a fine platform but the 777-300ER is rapidly dominating this segment. I just find it odd for VS to be going the opposite way of other carriers. Is there a particular reason why the A340 fits so well into the VS model?


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
113 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 20041 times:

I'm a relative newbie here, so can anyone tell me why the A346 won out over the T7 at VS? Branson does seems wedded to Airbus products (Virgin Blue notwithstanding). The price of oil is on the run up again, so VS has to be concerned.


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 20034 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I believe VS will continue with the A346HGW.

It fits their "4 engines 4 longhaul" philosophy, they are now familiar with the airframe and engine platform and they have existing facilities to support it (improving dispatch reliability).

The 773ER has it's strengths over the A346, but for an operator like VS, the acquisition and conversion costs probably far outweigh the benefits those strengths bring to the table.


User currently offlineMNeo From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2004, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 20015 times:

I have not heard anywhere that VS has any problems with their A346 series. One would think that the cost of aqiering a new type with GE engines Vs the RR for the 346 would play a big role in the desion.

Rumor has it that SRB got a great deal on the A346.

Its not that the A346 is a better aircraft, its price and fleet comunality is something that suits airlines like VS LH IB SA and others to the A346 than the 773ER.

By the looks of it VS is making money, so if it aint broke, dont fix it.



Powered by Maina
User currently offlineTifoso From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 19972 times:

Are the VS A346's leased or owned? Or a mixture of both?

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 19943 times:

Quoting CX747 (Thread starter):
s Virgin going to continue to expand their fleet of A340-600s or will they look into the 777-300ER again?

The fuel savings gained by a small fleet of additional aircraft needed by VS aren't likely sufficent to overcome the increased overhead caused by two completly different fleet types.

VS re-evaluated the 773ER in 2003-2004 and came to the conclusion that there isn't likely to be any fuel price that would now offset the fuel savings versus fleet complexity.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 19889 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 5):

The fuel savings gained by a small fleet of additional aircraft needed by VS aren't likely sufficent to overcome the increased overhead caused by two completly different fleet types.

VS re-evaluated the 773ER in 2003-2004 and came to the conclusion that there isn't likely to be any fuel price that would now offset the fuel savings versus fleet complexity.

Well said, its very very unlikely that Virgin would consider adding the 773ER to its fleet at this time.


User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 19867 times:

Quoting MNeo (Reply 3):

Its not that the A346 is a better aircraft, its price and fleet comunality is something that suits airlines like VS LH IB SA and others to the A346 than the 773ER.

These airlines you mentioned decided to go for the A346 during a period where price of oil was not their #1 concern. The A346 has advantages when it comes to comforts and it ends there. During that same time, the 773ER was geared for airlines who were conscious of the bottom line. Conversly, the A346 are for airlines who wanted passenger comfort, like VS LH IB SA.

But since oil is only going up... and the Iran situation will only make it worse... The A346 is fast becoming a dinosaur... I personally don't see a major A346 order ever. The 773ER is probably the most efficient in that segment. I do see future larger variants of the A350 and when that happens it will most likely replace the A346....

Virgin may either switch to the A350 or go Boeing... IMHO, I see the A350 in Virgins future and not the 773ER or more A346's.

Cheers,

Ric



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineGVWOW From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 168 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 19825 times:

VS has been trying to create a relationship with Airbus so they can get a deal on the A380. They announced at one point that they would slowly switch to an all-airbus fleet.
The A346 also has some serious hype...


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3595 posts, RR: 29
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 19824 times:

LH also considered the 777 vs the A340-600, but they also kept the A340.

Don't forget, the A340-600 might use more fuel than the 777, but it is still one of the most efficient airliners ever built, so it is considerably more economical than older airframes have been. The planes have been purchased and will be used for a certain amount of years, for which they have made a lot of calculations (fuel prices, maintenance costs, crew training, just to name a few things). Even if fuel prices get higher than planned, there are still many things which have been put into consideration when buying the planes, so ordering more A340s can very well make sense, as a higher fuel price can, for example, be outweighed by a lower acquisition cost, at least to a certain extent...


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 19647 times:

VS will probably stay with the A346, there is no need for them to switch..it would be much too expensive and they are more than happy with their birds...

Also, Branson did say though fuel costs were more on the 346 versus 777, the "extra cost of fuel is worth more than the disaster of a twin going down over an ocean"....

if anything, look for VS to get some A330's or A350's for their non trans-ocean flights..but thats about it..and I don't see that happening for a while (if even at all)....especially given they will be getting their A380's in the next few years...



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 19631 times:

What you see above this post has been correct for the most part. The price of switching a whole fleet, with training for all crews, etc. (in a nutshell) would be inefficient at this point in the game. VS also got a great bang-for-their-buck on the A346.

Branson also has a good deal on fuel...ever since he threatened to start his own fuel consortium to undercut the current suppliers (talk about having fuel suppliers' ears at a moments notice) I bet they shuddered at the thought of Branson starting a refinery of his own...because if he wanted to, he could...and they know that.

In the end...the A346 will be flying a long time to come with VS.

[Edited 2006-01-21 02:10:13]


Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineGARPD From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2659 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 19572 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 1):
I'm a relative newbie here, so can anyone tell me why the A346 won out over the T7 at VS?

A lot of people will tell you the A340-600 was the more economical or logical choice.

It was however in my opinion probably more a matter of price and incentives. Being a launch customer may carry some risks, but financialy you usualy get a killer deal. I wouldn't be surprised if VS only paid 50% of the list price on their first batch of A346's. Such deals are not unheard of for launch customers, regardless of manufacturer.

Branson is no fool, he'll go for the deal that gets him the biggest bang for his buck. Airbus undoubtely gave him that and he signed up.

The consequent follow on order last year was dictated by fleet commonality and associated costs. As has been mentioned above, it would not have made sense to add another fleet type.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 19529 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 10):
Also, Branson did say though fuel costs were more on the 346 versus 777, the "extra cost of fuel is worth more than the disaster of a twin going down over an ocean"....

Isn't VS half owned by SQ, currently the world's largest 777 operator?


User currently offlineUKA330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 68 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 19495 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

In the next 3 years Virgin will be adding 11 more A340-600 to their fleet and have another 13 options. So I don't think that they will be getting rid of them anytime soon.

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 19482 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 10):
"extra cost of fuel is worth more than the disaster of a twin going down over an ocean"

...something that's never happened after millions of hours of ETOPS operations, which have now entered their third decade with NEVER a relevant fatality.

Statistically, anything that's going to cause a dual shutdown in a twin would cause a total shutdown in any aircraft, regardless of engine count.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 10):
look for VS to get some A330's or A350's for their non trans-ocean flights.

You aren't seriously still buying that 4engines crap, right?

That was nothing but marketing, pure and simple... as evident by:
  • VS has flown twinjets over water in scheduled service before (see Reply# 11 in this thread)
  • VS showed more interest than any other airline in Boeing's defunct Sonic Cruiser... an intercon twin concept.

  • User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 19356 times:

    Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 7):
    During that same time, the 773ER was geared for airlines who were conscious of the bottom line. Conversly, the A346 are for airlines who wanted passenger comfort, like VS LH IB SA.

    I do not buy the argument that the A346 is somehow more comfortable. Premium service airlines like SQ, EK, and CX have all chosen the 777 instead. And from what I understand, Iberia is not the most premium airline.

    Not only that, I think bottom line considerations helped the A346 a couple of years ago since Boeing was so expensive at that time.

    [Edited 2006-01-21 03:21:49]

    User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4769 posts, RR: 14
    Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 19289 times:
    Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

    Quoting N79969 (Reply 18):
    Not only that, I think bottom line considerations helped the A346 a couple of years ago since Boeing was so expensive at that time.

    more like the 773Er wasn't available then!


    User currently offlineLuisca From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 19285 times:

    Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 7):
    Conversly, the A346 are for airlines who wanted passenger comfort, like VS LH IB SA.

    you beat me to it N79969

    Quoting N79969 (Reply 18):
    I do not buy the argument that the A346 is somehow more comfortable. Premium service airlines like SQ, EK, and CX have all chosen the 777 instead. And from what I understand, Iberia is not the most premium airline

    IB is the most awfull airline crossing the atlantic. and their A346's are even more uncomfortable than their 747's. It is like they deliveratly try to make you have a miserable flight.


    User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 9
    Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 19244 times:

    Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 16):
    Statistically, anything that's going to cause a dual shutdown in a twin would cause a total shutdown in any aircraft, regardless of engine count.

    One engine out on a twin you have an immediate diversion and the associated delay, inconvenience to customers, engine delivery, aircraft recovery, etc. Re: Air France diversion to the middle of nowhere in Russia - remember what happened there to clean up the mess? One engine out on a quad you can still continue. It's not a safety issue. It's a PR and image issue.

    Especially for Branson - he tries his hardest to avoid bad press. You see him inaugurating planes, trains, mobiles, etc. But you only get to see low key Virgin spokesman when things go t!ts up. Aside, you always get a free ticket with Virgin when sh!t happens - I suppose sh!t is unlikely to happen but a significant cost when it does.



    A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
    User currently offlineWah64d From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 13
    Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 18268 times:

    Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 16):
    Statistically, anything that's going to cause a dual shutdown in a twin would cause a total shutdown in any aircraft, regardless of engine count.

    Lets see those statistics then please. Are you saying that an aircraft with 4 Rolls Royce Trent 556s is somehow twice as likely to have an engine failure as an aircraft with 2 GE-90s or Trent 890s? I seriously doubt it. The Trent 556s on the A345/6 are at least as reliable as anything fitted to a twin. One could reason on that basis that a twin is twice as likely to have all engines fail as an A346.

    I realise that both engines failing on a twin is so rare an occurence as to be almost inconceivable, but to say that you're just as likely to lose 4 on a quad with engines of the same generation is just plain wrong.



    I AM the No-spotalotacus.
    User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
    Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18205 times:

    Quoting Wah64d (Reply 22):
    Lets see those statistics then please. Are you saying that an aircraft with 4 Rolls Royce Trent 556s is somehow twice as likely to have an engine failure as an aircraft with 2 GE-90s or Trent 890s? I seriously doubt it. The Trent 556s on the A345/6 are at least as reliable as anything fitted to a twin. One could reason on that basis that a twin is twice as likely to have all engines fail as an A346.

    I realise that both engines failing on a twin is so rare an occurence as to be almost inconceivable, but to say that you're just as likely to lose 4 on a quad with engines of the same generation is just plain wrong.

    What he is getting at is that there are events that would lead to multiple engine failure that would knockout all engines. These events are more likely than two independent engine failures, which is what ETOPS requirements are designed to make extremely unlikely.



    ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
    User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18157 times:

    Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 21):
    One engine out on a twin you have an immediate diversion and the associated delay, inconvenience to customers, engine delivery, aircraft recovery, etc. Re: Air France diversion to the middle of nowhere in Russia - remember what happened there to clean up the mess? One engine out on a quad you can still continue. It's not a safety issue. It's a PR and image issue.

    Statistically speaking the difference between these events is non-significant. More simply stated, it is a bullshit distinction that was once peddled by Airbus until they figured out the A350 would replace the A340-200/300.

    Quoting Wah64d (Reply 22):
    Lets see those statistics then please. Are you saying that an aircraft with 4 Rolls Royce Trent 556s is somehow twice as likely to have an engine failure as an aircraft with 2 GE-90s or Trent 890s? I seriously doubt it. The Trent 556s on the A345/6 are at least as reliable as anything fitted to a twin.

    No he is not saying the probablility of failure is 2x as high. The reliability standards for for quads are far below than those for twins. The Trents do not need to be as reliable.


    User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
    Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18032 times:

    Quoting Glom (Reply 14):

    Isn't VS half owned by SQ, currently the world's largest 777 operator?

    49%.....but VS is run independently.....

    Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 16):
    something that's never happened after millions of hours of ETOPS operations, which have now entered their third decade with NEVER a relevant fatality.

    don't hear me arguing?

    Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 16):
    You aren't seriously still buying that 4engines crap, right?

    That was nothing but marketing, pure and simple... as evident by:
    # VS has flown twinjets over water in scheduled service before (see Reply# 11 in this thread)
    # VS showed more interest than any other airline in Boeing's defunct Sonic Cruiser... an intercon twin concept.

    who says I'm buying it? I just quoted what he recently said (as evidenced by my quotation marks)

    obviously my username just goes to show as to what I think of "4 engines 4 longhaul"..... Wink



    "Up the Irons!"
    User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 13
    Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18016 times:

    Quoting N79969 (Reply 24):
    No he is not saying the probablility of failure is 2x as high. The reliability standards for for quads are far below than those for twins. The Trents do not need to be as reliable.

    I'm well aware of the reliability standards for twins. The Trent 556s may not need to be quite as reliable, the fact is that they're every bit as reliable as any engine fitted to a twin today.

    By stating that events leading to a dual shutdown in a twin would result in a quad shutdown on a 4 engined aircraft is a little bit of a generalism to say the least. While we are aware that fuel contamination/starvation, volcanic ash, total electrical failure and such things would result in all engines failing on any aircraft, such a general statement is effectively implying that quad aircraft are twice as likely to lose an engine than twins which is utter rubbish at best.

    ConcordeBoy is well known for being a "twin supremacist" so I take his comments on anything twin related with a pinch of salt. I have no preference either way but what I do believe is that while being exceptionally unlikely, an independant failure of both engines on a twin is twice as likely as an independant failure of all engines on an aircraft of the A346s generation.

    [Edited 2006-01-21 08:00:12]


    I AM the No-spotalotacus.
    25 Post contains links JeffSFO : VS had some very notable teething problems after the A346 was introduced into service. You can read about them here. However, I believe it's doubtful
    26 Atmx2000 : I don't think they are big enough to handle a switch or to operate enough 773ERs to make a sizable enough fleet so commonality concerns aren't an iss
    27 Sevenforeseven : You are all forgetting cargo. The A346 will carry more cargo with a full payload of pax further nonstop than any 777 will. VS as with many airlines ma
    28 BigB : More and farther than the 773ER?
    29 Bennett123 : I was not aware that VS used the B767, which routes was this on. I note from Jet Airliner Production List that it was leased for about 9 months and th
    30 Post contains images Gofly : The "four engines for longhaul" is marketing. Pure and simple. The A346's were bought because VS decided they were the right aircraft for them at the
    31 Glom : You are drawing a specious conclusion here because you are looking at it the wrong way. Saying that a quad is twice as likely to lose an engine impli
    32 SKA380 : I think both the 773 and the A346 are fantastic aircrafts, but when it comes to passenger comfort the A346 is superior in my opinion. I've been on bot
    33 Crosscountry : The 767 was leased from Martinair and operated the routes from MAN for short time. Virgin never intended on permenantly having a twin in its fleet. So
    34 Flight7E7 : I must admit, either the Boeing (if it's boeing it's going an F/A friend of mine still says till today) or Airbus equipment-arguably, safety comes fir
    35 Glom : Maybe, but that doesn't make it right. To play on ignorant fears to boost your sales is low.
    36 RichardPrice : Is there any chance of an origin for this quote? It doesnt sound like something he would say. Not saying you made it up, just curious.
    37 Boeing767-300 : Getting back to original topic there is absolutely no doubt that the A346 is safe with Virgin. Given SRBs comments about 4 engines for long haul and s
    38 Post contains images Glareskin : Please stop this ridiculous bashing of the A340, Virgin and Branson! the A346 is a magnificent aircraft VS is very profitable SRB might be uncommon bu
    39 GARPD : Glareskin, do you enjoy being a hypocrite? You tell others to stop bashing Airbus, but you agree with points here that paint the A346 as superior. You
    40 Bennett123 : The point is that one day a B777 will crash mid ocean, if the cause of the crash is engine related, (i.e a Quad would not have crashed) then you can a
    41 Post contains images Glareskin : It would be hypoctite to tell you to stop bashing the A340 and bash another aircraft (like the T7) myself. But I din't do that. I don't think you've
    42 RichardPrice : I dont think his comment was an outburst, childish or not. He simply agrees with a few opinions, they certainly dont paint the A340 as superior. This
    43 BigB : This argument holds no ground since no twin hasn't crashed yet. Once a twin crash, then bring the argument. But for now, no ground sir. Point out to
    44 Post contains images Boeing767-300 : This is probably the worst post I have seen and was quite suprised to see your age was 36-45 bracket. Perhaps you should look at the millions of hour
    45 RichardPrice : I agree with the above posts, to cite that a quad is safer on most routes than a twin is basically false. You are equally safe in both situations - th
    46 8B775ZQ : Bennet123 remember the reason behind the Titanic disaster was the fact that Certain CEO's wanted lot's of PR. With that being said I cannot think of a
    47 WAH64D : No, this is the point you are trying to make, not the general theme of the thread. Is it me you're trying to convince or is it yourself? I ask this a
    48 Bennett123 : The fact that something has not happened yet does not mean that it can not or will not happen in the future. The fact that people here do not agree is
    49 Amy : Irrespective of the 2 or 4 engine argument, i cannot see VS, with a fleet of A340-300 and A340-600 moving away from the -600 towards the T7, it just d
    50 BigB : Bennett, again, point out where someone has said the 777 will never crash? I've seen people talking bout the odds of engines failures, but a engine fa
    51 Dw747400 : I think the argument is that the chances for dual independent engine failure are SO REMOTE that it is greatly overshadowed by the possiblity of failu
    52 RichardPrice : While the chance of an independant failure on a twin being fairly low, crew mistakes can heighten that possibility by a margin. This is intended for i
    53 Tifoso : Yes, it was shown that while the crew had a lot of flight hours on the 737-300, they were given almost no training on the 737-400. It was entirely a
    54 Crosscountry : the 737-300 and 737-400 cockpits are identical...the crew would not have been able to work out which engine had failed any more easily in a -300 than
    55 WAH64D : Well no, not the case. The in flight shutdown rate is measured over a complete engine family, not the probability of an individual engine having prob
    56 RichardPrice : The crew was coming from a -200 to a -400 with no cross training. The engine had flames coming out the back of it. Interviews with survivers said the
    57 BAW716 : I've been gone a while, but I couldn't pass up on this thread, so here's my two cents. This discussion for the most part has centered around the quest
    58 PM : I watched that flight taxi out towards take-off. My then girlfriend (now wife) was taking a BA flight from T1 back to Zurich. When I got home I heard
    59 NorCal : Reminds me of that flight in Canada where the FA saw ice on the wings but failed to inform the captain b/c she thought he knew what he was doing. I g
    60 CX747 : I am really proud of all of us as this has been an extremely professional post and no A vs B war has broken out. Do we know the delivery schedule of t
    61 Glom : Of course it is. But twice nothing is still nothing. The risk of multiple independent engine failures is dwarfed by the risk of systemic power failur
    62 RichardPrice : As greater ETOPS standards become normal, you are replacing redundancy with proven reliability so I dont think theres anything to be worried about - t
    63 Tifoso : Comfort is largely dependent on the seat arrangement, in-flight entertainment and amenities. All of these depend on the airline and class of travel,
    64 ConcordeBoy : Incorrect. what you fail to take into consideration is that an independent multiple failure on any large commercial jet has never occurred and is so
    65 Bennett123 : I do wish people would think before they shout. The point is that one day a B777 will crash mid ocean. I did not say that it would happen next week or
    66 Post contains images Jacobin777 : say what? what planes are you comparing?? that's a matter of opinion..I have had bad experiences on VS, where I haven't on long-haul BA/AA..... gosh
    67 Richard28 : Indeed they did, but remember this was during the early days of VS, when they needed aircraft quickly, during their initial growth phase, and VS purc
    68 Bennett123 : When did any of these airlines have a major crash. I suspect that if the BA B747-400 had crashed in Mid Atlantic, (which fortunately did not happen) t
    69 AirCanada014 : AC already having problem with their trent engines for A340-500. I heard it from several posts AC is having trouble with their 340-500. I've mention o
    70 11Bravo : … kind of like you are latching on to ETOPS safety issues based on simplistic and unfounded concerns? The fact of the matter is that the world's ai
    71 YULWinterSkies : Extremely funny when it comes to IB and LH! I second you for economy, business flying is not my world, but I've only flown the 343, not the 346. Is t
    72 BoeingBus : Say it as you wish... but the A346 is a much more comfortable flight than the 777 in any class. A personal opinion and I'm sure many out there think
    73 N79969 : There is no polite way to put it. But this is about the most ignorant, illogical set of remarks I have read in a while. They reflect an incomprehensi
    74 Post contains images Richard28 : Its a factor of the width of the aircraft. In Y class, the 2-4-2 will always be preferable over a 3-3-3 or a 2-5-2. In biz class, a 2-2-2 or the 1-1-
    75 ConcordeBoy : who said anything about scheduled service? which is a factor of the airline's preference, not the aircraft's capability. Keep in mind that a 777 is c
    76 TheSonntag : I guess everybody knows I am an Airbus fan, but I agree with you. This thread is one of the few which had stupid Boeing bashing, and I do not think t
    77 OldAeroGuy : Let's put some numbers to the loss of all engines discussion. Based on actual events, the loss of all engines due to fuel problems occurs about once i
    78 SkyHigh777 : How long does it take to train a flight crew and cabin crew on an A340-600? Do you think it takes longer to train a crew on the A346 than on the 773?
    79 TheSonntag : Why should it? The A346 cockpit is very close to the design of the A320, A330, A380, other A340. So if a pilot flies the A320, I would say the opposi
    80 Post contains images Lehpron : While you may pray it will not happen, based on previous experiences, why not expect it and go on with your day? Might make it a bit easier. Unless t
    81 Ikramerica : I've demonstrated before and will do it again why this statement is not always true, because the 9 vs. 8 in a row makes up for much of the no middle
    82 Richard28 : The problem is you do not know the loads when you book the flight, so whilst it would be nice to have a spare seat next to you, the flying public has
    83 OldAeroGuy : While understand the point you are trying to make, the statement above cannot be made with absolute certainty. The best you can say is that some day
    84 Sevenforeseven : Lets all get to the bottom line, VS are a fantastic airline always in front of other British airlines and unlike "BA" VS buy with passengers comfort i
    85 Post contains images Speedmarque : No, now it has!!
    86 Kangar : Would be interesting to see how many hours have been flown on the A330 type, and what the calculated probs of losing both engines were before the Air
    87 Post contains images Glareskin : Air Transat was fuel related (and probably a human error) so the same would have happened on a quad. Air Transat only proved to me that there still i
    88 WAH64D : A bit of an odd statement there. How could they be such a great crew if their own actions compounded the problem in the first place. The way I see it
    89 Kangar : You see, the point I'm trying to make, is that for all the stats which support the reliability of big twins, and they are undoubtedly correct, you st
    90 Jacobin777 : I can't recall there was an "uproar" after the Air Transat incident...neither in the news when it happened, nor in the various television documentari
    91 Egmcman : Depends on the style of the newspapers some make a mountain out a mole hill. More to the point could an airline which plays on the four engined marke
    92 Kangar : That's because no-one died. Given that BA got hauled over the coals for the 3 engine 744 from LAX to LHR, it would seem Air Transat were lucky to hav
    93 Post contains images Atmx2000 : Well, the FAA made a fuss about BA continuing on 3 engines over US airspace, where as the Transat incident happened outside US airspace. Well, if it
    94 Post contains images Jacobin777 : it was basically a general observation of mine..nothing more, nothing less...
    95 Post contains images Glareskin : I understand your remark. Of course I do not approve of the actions that caused this near-disaster but I do admire the way they got the aircraft safe
    96 WAH64D : Agreed, nobody can deny they ultimately did a fantastic job getting that thing on the ground.
    97 AA777 : Silly. VS will go with whoever gives them a better deal economically. Its all about money. If they find better economics overall- albeint because of
    98 Aerokiwi : Hehe, you sure about that? Wasn't SAA the airline that tried to cram econ pax into a 31" pitch on their 15 hour A340-600 flights to the US? and have
    99 BAW716 : Bennett123, Your statement is most provocative. The suggestion that a 777 will eventually crash in the ocean is hidious. Chances are greater that you
    100 Post contains images Jacobin777 : hey..don't blame the messenger..i'm only quoting what I had read.. .. that being said, VS isn't going to do anything with their A346....simple as tha
    101 OldAeroGuy : But statistics are the sole reason for arguing a quad is safer than a twin. You have to believe in statistics in both instances.
    102 Bennett123 : The point with probabilities is that even if your chance each time is very low, then the more tickets you buy the greater your chance of a win.
    103 Boeingguy1 : Hey, Bennett, as long as the plane goes down mid ocean mechanically, you have a bet.
    104 GARPD : Whats your view on inflight fires then? As part of ETOPS, the 777 (and any ETOPS qualified twin) must demonstrate a stronger fire supression and resi
    105 FlyDreamliner : Thousands of ETOPS flights go out every day over water. Every day for two decades now, we've had liners flying under ETOPS succesfully. When was the l
    106 Bennett123 : The fact is that the chance of either an A340 or B777 crashing over the next 20 years is somewhere between 0 and 1. Exactly where along that line is a
    107 Iwok : My two best flights ever. 1)UA 747 upper deck SFO-FRA 2)UA 767 FRA-IAD
    108 SKA380 : Besides from it being amazingly long (from a aviation nutter), I find it quite nice with the lavatories downstairs. It is quite annoying sitting next
    109 AndesSMF : I always find it silly to talk about the most comfortable airplane somebody has ridden on. As a log time airplane fanatic, with plenty of experience,
    110 Trex8 : right on!
    111 Post contains images JetBlue : What, this many posts and no pics of the beauty? jetBlue
    112 Vs25 : What more can be added to this thread really... - The A346s will stay in VS and they'll get more. - VS are unique in being long haul only - I prefer 2
    113 WAH64D : Probably not a deal clencher but I think you're right. In my opinion, after the BMI A332, the VS A346 is the prettiest aircraft flying.
    Top Of Page
    Forum Index

    This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

    Printer friendly format

    Similar topics:More similar topics...
    I Will Be On The First A340-600 Flight With VS posted Wed May 15 2002 22:31:51 by Skippy777
    What The Hell With Virgin Atlantic! posted Thu Dec 30 1999 09:14:43 by StarAlliance
    'The Loop': Good Ad For Virgin Atlantic posted Fri Mar 24 2006 02:45:43 by JFKLGANYC
    When Will The QR A340-600's Be Ready? posted Sat Nov 12 2005 15:35:10 by B742
    The Lufhansa A340-600 YYZ! posted Wed Mar 17 2004 15:42:11 by Rattibone
    What Happened To F-WWCA (the First A340-600)? posted Mon Apr 22 2002 09:31:03 by Senliture
    Nobody To Take Up The Ordered A340-600 posted Fri Oct 12 2001 11:01:17 by Airbus Lover
    The New A340-600 Pictures From Airbus posted Fri Apr 13 2001 19:31:14 by Spaceman
    The Future Of Alliances (post Merger Frenzy) posted Fri Nov 17 2006 12:09:40 by B777A340Fan
    Regional Airlines RFPs And The Future Of Them posted Wed Nov 15 2006 07:39:34 by Apodino
    The Future Of AA Management posted Wed Feb 22 2012 07:39:41 by ckfred
    The Future Of Boarding Passes? posted Mon Jan 30 2012 12:25:46 by vfw614