that was/is a marketing gimmick. if they do go for the A350, itll be dropped like a hot potato. and i doubt v many ppl (with the exception of those on here!) will notice. and even if they do, i doubt itll matter one jot a few yrs down the line.
Shamrock350 From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 6203 posts, RR: 15 Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13684 times:
Quoting B742 (Reply 12): I think VS would be more intrested in the A340E/748
How many A380s do they have on order? I agree the A340E is an aircraft that VS may want later on but for an A340-300 replacement the A350 would be great and would work well with the A340-600 and A380. I would like to see VS order a twin like the 787 or A350. We will just have to wait a while.
BoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1595 posts, RR: 18 Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13566 times:
If this is so... I think VS will 'indirectly' publicly admit to the A346 order blunder. I guess the cost of fuel is eating profits. I personally believe VS ordering a long haul twin is more logical than many people think on here. VS will eat their pride up and order a large twin eventually. The A343A346 was a mistake and now they are feeling the pain for it. A savings of 5-10% on a fuel bill for an airline such as VS is a HUGE profit loss.
Conclusion... a TWIN at VS is a matter of when and not if...
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 18 Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13488 times:
Quoting 7LBAC111 (Reply 7): And all these planes were ordered several years ago!
Well, just last year (IIRC jan '05) they exercised their options on 10 a346's and placed another 10 options. So technically of course it was an order from a couple of years ago, they did add aircraft just last year.
Quoting Shamrock350 (Reply 14): A340-300 replacement the A350 would be great and would work well with the A340-600 and A380
Agreed, I wouldn't be surprised if they were the Trent 1700 launch customer, with SRB's "buy British" attitude of late. And I suppose the a359 would be a great fuel-saver compared to the a343.
Shamrock350 From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 6203 posts, RR: 15 Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13470 times:
Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 15): The A343A346 was a mistake and now they are feeling the pain for it.
I think that the A340 was a good aircraft for VS and that's why they ordered them. It's only in the past few years that we have seen the "twin era" take over and with both Boeing and Airbus offering the 787 and A350 it's time VS started thinking of both those aircraft but I am not saying they will not be interested in the A340E.
Nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5051 posts, RR: 36 Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13434 times:
would virgin be able to convert their A340-600s to A350 orders? Airbus is probably despirate to shift a few more A350s, particularly to a well known airline. Also with them talking about subsidising A340 operators to offset the fuel burn difference between the 777, perhaps it would be in airbus' best intrests to get Virgin to switch to the A350...?
Georgiabill From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 553 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13224 times:
Trying not to turn this into a Boeing vs Airbus thread. If as mentioned the A346 is not the correct plane for VS, wouldn't they want to consider ordering a replacement they could be operating before 2010? Perhaps the 773ER? Just a thought. If they are not in a rush to replace the A343 or A346 then the A350 makes sense because of their experience operating Airbus aircraft.
Tom_EDDF From Germany, joined Apr 2000, 451 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13077 times:
I don't see how switching exisiting orders for A346 to A359 could make sense just for the sake of having a twin rather than a quad. Both aircraft are designed for fundamentally different missions playing in different market segments and are rather complementary, as much as the 777-300ER is complementary to the 777-200ER right now and to the 787-9/10 in the future. Those are not substitutes.
Some people here sound like the difference between a 773ER and the A346 is as big as between a 787 and a DC-8 in economical terms, which is not the case. There are differences, but they hardly justify dumping the A346 for most operators and this likely includes VS. My best guess is they will operate the A359 and A346 alongside each other, with the A359 replacing their aging fleet of A343s (the remaining early 257t -311s in particular) on routes that currently don't justify the A346 and won't do so in the future. Keep in mind the A346 is close to a 742, capacity-wise.
They might also be interested in getting a revised A340-600E in the future. Most likely they will choose the Trent for A350 as well, and I guess there is nothing wrong with SRB's "buy British" attitude. I don't know how and why, but I always thought VS feels much more British than BA and that's why I like them.
Shamrock350 From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 6203 posts, RR: 15 Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12965 times:
Quoting Tom_EDDF (Reply 22): My best guess is they will operate the A359 and A346 alongside each other, with the A359 replacing their aging fleet of A343s
That is exactly what they should do. VS want the size of the A340-600 and replacing them with A350s would be silly for such a successful airline. So in the future I can see the A340-600, A340E and A350-900 all flying together for VS.
25 Crewrest: The rumour I've heard is B773s not A350s and no A380s. The A350 is delayed according to flight because it's getting the full A380 style flightdeck and