Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
VS & The A380  
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17165 times:

I was just wondering what the score is with VS and the A380 ?

Have they firm orders/delivery dates etc for the aircraft ?

Just seems that with the 'primo' routes they fly LAX, JFK, HKG, JNB, CPT, DXB etc from the airport that is their base i.e LHR (with all its capacity issues) the aircraft for them is really a no brainer ??

I would of thought they'd have jumped all over the A380 ?

Seems perfect for them.......


Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
81 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineby738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2266 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17134 times:

Still on order and will appear on US routes plus HKG first. They were delayed slightly but first delivery planned for Q4 2013/ early 2014

User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3589 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17119 times:

A lower CASM is only helpful if the yield is not too depressed by the extra seats supplied.

I don't know how elastic VS's demand is on their routes.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30654 posts, RR: 84
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17116 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am of the opinion they placed the order more for Richard Branson to tweak British Airways' nose than out of a real need for such a plane.

VS will eventually need to replace their 747-400 and A340-600 fleets, but I am of the current opinion that the 777-300ER, 777X and/or A350-1000 will be the bulk - if not totality - of those replacements.

That they ordered six implies they could make the plane work on some leisure routes - say LGW-MIA/FCO during the cruise / summer vacation seasons. But could they make full use of six frames year round and are six frames really enough to justify and leverage the investment?


User currently offlinegingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 893 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17013 times:

I think they would fit nicely on the leisure routes out of LGW & MAN. I know VS will use them initially on the LHR routes for "prestige" purposes, but they will no doubt find their way to Gatwick to operate to MCO/LAS etc.


Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
User currently offlineEY460 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16870 times:

I really hope VS takes delivery of the A380 and comes up with something very innovative in all classes. Many years ago VS was a step above his competitors with regards to his product and services. They need to use the opportunity of the A380 to go back on track.

User currently offlinePhxA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 885 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16769 times:

My money is that they don't take delivery of the A380 at all ... Virgin needs to focus first on reestablishing its customer base and improving its product. Other airlines would happily take Virgin's slots for the aircraft who will be able to fill the 500+ seats with profitable customers rather than to low yield leisure routes.

User currently offlinegkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24914 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16745 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
LGW-MIA/FCO

They fly LHR-MIA, and I think an A380 would be overkill on LGW-FCO. BA and EZY use A319/B737 sized a/c on those routes  



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineby738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2266 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16620 times:

Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 6):
low yield leisure routes

LHR-NYC is low yield leisure. Eh, no.


User currently offlinePhxA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 885 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16550 times:

Quoting by738 (Reply 8):
LHR-NYC is low yield leisure. Eh, no.

Nope but it is a high frequency business route ... can you provide me another example besides JFK where VS could send there A380 to profitably ? Besides HKG ?


User currently offlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5176 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 16492 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
That they ordered six implies they could make the plane work on some leisure routes

Or it implies that they had 6 x LHR 747's at the time of the order so it was a 1 for 1 replacement with the LHR 747 fleet.

Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 6):
Virgin needs to focus first on reestablishing its customer base and improving its product.

Which it is spending 100 million pounds doing through out this year.

Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 9):
Nope but it is a high frequency business route ... can you provide me another example besides JFK where VS could send there A380 to profitably ? Besides HKG ?

Anywhere they send the 747 currently... LAX/JFK/MIA/JNB/SFO


User currently offlinejonathanxxxx From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 673 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 16444 times:

Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 9):

LAX, JNB, MIA are all pretty good to send an A380 too.


User currently offlineby738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2266 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 16443 times:

Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 9):

#
So the two example you are now accepting are not enough for starters ? CPT and LAX are two more and again are not necessarily low yield leisure.


User currently offlinesteve6666 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 16442 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 2):
A lower CASM is only helpful if the yield is not too depressed by the extra seats supplied.

I don't know how elastic VS's demand is on their routes.

I would have thought this would be the most relevant issue - how are they going to get enough feed to fill the thing other than by killing yield?



eu nasci ha dez mil anos atras, e nao tem nada nesse mundo que eu nao saiba demais
User currently offlinePhxA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 885 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 16382 times:

Quoting by738 (Reply 12):
So the two example you are now accepting are not enough for starters ? CPT and LAX are two more and again are not necessarily low yield leisure.

VS has no feed at either end, they rely completely on O/D for the most part. VS can send an A380 anywhere but at good enough yields ? The LAX - LHR is a extremely competitive market. As previously mentioned ... is it worth it for VS to have a tiny sub fleet of 6 frames for a few routes .... I dunno.

Quoting anstar (Reply 10):
Anywhere they send the 747 currently... LAX/JFK/MIA/JNB/SFO

From my understanding , a lot of those 747s are configured in very high densities. Can VS fill a 380 on those routes while not killing the yields ?


User currently offlinesevenheavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1156 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 16036 times:

I've always been highly skeptical of ever seeing an A380 in VS colours, but....

It may or may not be a coincidence that the airframes are timed to arrive at about the same time as the current LHR B744 leases expire (the LGW B744 fleet have all had their leases extended and are being refurbished so they will be around for a while)

I still have my doubts, but you never know. There are some routes that could support an A380 easily.....SFO, JNB, LAX, MIA, possibly JFK. Certainly not CPT however.


Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 14):
VS has no feed at either end, they rely completely on O/D for the most part

This is an often quoted myth. Just because they aren't in a major alliance doesn't mean they are purely O+D. They carry thousands of connecting passengers daily.

The LAX route would be a prime candidate. After a couple of years of mostly A346 service the B744 is back for the summer, and the demand is definitely there. They only have 5 B744 operating from LHR at the moment so 6 A380's would not be an issue - especially given VS's airbus widebody experience.

Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 14):
From my understanding , a lot of those 747s are configured in very high densities. Can VS fill a 380 on those routes while not killing the yields ?

The LHR B744's are relatively low density - J44/W62/Y261.

Quoting gingersnap (Reply 4):
I think they would fit nicely on the leisure routes out of LGW & MAN. I know VS will use them initially on the LHR routes for "prestige" purposes, but they will no doubt find their way to Gatwick to operate to MCO/LAS etc.

Possibly LAS. I would be surprised if they went to MCO though. VS could fill 10 of the things for about 12 weeks a year but they would get killed on at least another 10. The remaining medium demand weeks would probably dictate that VS would have to trash the yields to fill them - whereas now the A330's to MCO are cash cows



So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
User currently offlinedairy From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 16008 times:

Quoting gkirk (Reply 7):
able cu
Quoting gkirk (Reply 7):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
LGW-MIA/FCO

They fly LHR-MIA, and I think an A380 would be overkill on LGW-FCO. BA and EZY use A319/B737 sized a/c on those routes

well, I think he meant MCO, not FCO!?



A318/A319/A320/A321 AB3/A306/A310/A333/A343/A346 732/733/735/736/744/752/763/764/772/773 DH3 F70 F100 CR2 CR1 CR7 ATR42
User currently offlinewilld From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 237 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 15905 times:

You all assume that they will be used ex LHR. Everyone said this with the 330 which arrived and was sent to LGW in a new two class configuration that has worked very well.

I would imagine that LGW-MCO will be a prime candidate in a leisure configuration with a large number of Premium Economy and extra legroom Y seats.

I flew into MCO on Wed and saw six VS planes parked up at Airside 4 with three flights alone from MAN.The route has huge demand in the UK school holidays and during the kids term time the route is also in demand from conference groups, golfers and the increasing number of snowbirds. And lets not forget parents in the UK are happy to risk a fine and pull their kids out of school early in order to get a cheaper holiday so the demand is not necessarily as seasonal as some may at first think.

It is also worth remembering that VS has the added bonus of it's sister companies Virgin Holidays, Vorgin Holiday Cruises and Travel City Direct who block buy seats and have kept VS very healthy on their leisure routes.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4872 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 15713 times:

Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 9):

The A380 was rumored to operate on the LHR-HKG-SYD route I take it the plans have changed...?

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinevirgincrew From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 422 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 15546 times:

Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 15):
I've always been highly skeptical of ever seeing an A380 in VS colours

Would look fantastic though .....




Hello Beautiful !!!
User currently offlinevirgincrew From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 422 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 15305 times:

Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 15):
They only have 5 B744 operating from LHR at the moment so 6 A380's would not be an issue - especially given VS's airbus widebody experience.

I think the A380 would be a natural replacement for the LHR fleet of 744's.

The leases on the LGW fleet of 744's have just been extended for another 7 years, in keeping with the full upgrade & re-fitt of the LGW aircraft.

I think the only acceptable use of the A380 @ LGW would be on rotation at high yield times for the MCO route.

Quoting anstar (Reply 10):
Anywhere they send the 747 currently... LAX/JFK/MIA/JNB/SFO

Exactly ... we would hope that VS would have a totally upgraded cabin & product desgin for the launch of the A380, so capacity wise I don't think there would be much differance between the 744's and the A380 in seating capacity. We would hope they would launch a similar product to Emirates & Singapore.



Hello Beautiful !!!
User currently offlinesevenheavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1156 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14980 times:

Quoting willd (Reply 17):
I flew into MCO on Wed and saw six VS planes parked up at Airside 4 with three flights alone from MAN.The route has huge demand in the UK school holidays and during the kids term time the route is also in demand from conference groups, golfers and the increasing number of snowbirds. And lets not forget parents in the UK are happy to risk a fine and pull their kids out of school early in order to get a cheaper holiday so the demand is not necessarily as seasonal as some may at first think.
Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 15):
I would be surprised if they went to MCO though. VS could fill 10 of the things for about 12 weeks a year but they would get killed on at least another 10. The remaining medium demand weeks would probably dictate that VS would have to trash the yields to fill them - whereas now the A330's to MCO are cash cows

Its fine for those 10 (maybe 12 or 14) weeks per year when the whole world wants to go to MCO. Sure there are parents willing to pull kids from school and there is definitely a demand from other demographics, but not enough to fill a couple of A380s a day. Just look at the schedules in September, May, Jan, Feb etc. On many days VS will cancel one of the services. The demand just isn't there.

BTW 3 x daily to MAN has never been in the schedule. Its a daily A333 and a 4 x weekly B744. Maybe a one-off delayed flight (?) but the most you will ever see in MCO is 2 x A333 and 3 x B744. Even then you would have to be lucky as the first couple (VS28, VS76) should be leaving as the last (VS73) arrives



So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 785 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14166 times:

Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 6):
My money is that they don't take delivery of the A380 at all ... Virgin needs to focus first on reestablishing its customer base and improving its product.

Wouldn't that mean upgrading their product to an A380? Customers like them.


User currently offlinegingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 893 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14138 times:

I will add that I have travelled both MAN-MCO & LGW-MCO with VS a number of times, at varying times of the year. Both in and out of the typical school holiday times.

I've never seen a bad load on any flight at any time of the year.

Compare that with the LHR-BOS flight I took with VS back in Feb '07, and there were 151 pax outbound and 87 inbound. Felt quite roomy, and for £30rtn (website glitch but they honoured it) I couldn't complain  



Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24904 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13259 times:

Don't hold your breath for LAX. I have yet to see VS participate in any of the airport A380 meetings.

Also the VS LAX terminal (T-2) currently does not have any A380 capable gates.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1916 posts, RR: 7
Reply 25, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12702 times:

Well, for what it's worth; Virgin is preparing for the A380. They have been ordering stuff from a small aerospace company here in The Netherlands for use in their cabins.

Doesn't mean they are going to fly the jet, but they are doing some planning on the project.

Cheers!   



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offline1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11583 times:

Quoting by738 (Reply 1):

Still on order and will appear on US routes plus HKG first. They were delayed slightly but first delivery planned for Q4 2013/ early 201

Interesting that VS website says that they will get their first A380 in 2015. I'm still not 100% sure they will take it the aircraft, especially you consider by that time they have will 10 A330s and a few 789s based at LHR are they then going to replace relatively low density 744s by jumping to a 500+ seat A380. Also judging by their new upper class seat map on the A330 their getting in higher capacity than on the A343 which they have achieved without increasing the size of the aircraft (J33W58Y185 on the A330 versus J34W45Y171 on the A343)

Of course if VS can't get more slots then A380s might make sense for growth by adding capacity on their big routes like JFK and SFO.


User currently onlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17057 posts, RR: 10
Reply 27, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11283 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 24):
Also the VS LAX terminal (T-2) currently does not have any A380 capable gates.

But that doesn't stop AF from sending their A380 to LAX.



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24904 posts, RR: 46
Reply 28, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7732 times:

Quoting B747forever (Reply 27):
But that doesn't stop AF from sending their A380 to LAX.

AF is going to TBIT.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5176 posts, RR: 6
Reply 29, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7639 times:

Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 14):
From my understanding , a lot of those 747s are configured in very high densities.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 28):
AF is going to TBIT.

And what is to stop Virgin going to TBIT too?


User currently onlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17057 posts, RR: 10
Reply 30, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7380 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 28):
AF is going to TBIT.

Yeah, I know that. That is my point, why shouldnt VS be able to go to TBIT?



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24904 posts, RR: 46
Reply 31, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7199 times:

In theory only $$$$.

But my point is VS has expressed zero interest in bringing the A380 to LAX in recent times or participated in any of the regular aircraft related project meetings. Other airlines (eg OZ) which are years away from the A380 however have actively participated in comparison.
Matter of fact, if VS would have expressed their interest there are plans to build an A380 capable gate at T-2 eventually, and having tenant airlines committed to operating the type would encourage LAWA to move forward with the plans.

[Edited 2012-04-15 09:46:44]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1110 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6858 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting B747forever (Reply 27):

LAX has the remote parking stands. and they CAN bring them to an INternational Gate But they can only load VIA the Horizontal gates they cannot load upper and main deck.simultaneously I don't believer there will EVER be many US Airports that WILL make that mod for ONE airplane type Though I Have seen SQ and QF a380's land at LAX and SFO So evidently the gate isn't that big of a deal is it??


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24904 posts, RR: 46
Reply 33, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6759 times:

LAX already has split level gates for the A380 at the international terminal.



photo from johnnyjet.com



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4138 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6582 times:

Quoting EY460 (Reply 5):
I really hope VS takes delivery of the A380 and comes up with something very innovative in all classes. Many years ago VS was a step above his competitors with regards to his product and services. They need to use the opportunity of the A380 to go back on track.

That was when SRB was running the show. Now they have realized that there is not the market for the type of service that htey provide, and personally I did not like the last flight I had on their B744. I don't think that there is much of difference between them and BA any more.

Quoting by738 (Reply 8):
LHR-NYC is low yield leisure. Eh, no.

That is not what he was referring to, he was referring to the MCO and LAS routes.

Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 15):
This is an often quoted myth. Just because they aren't in a major alliance doesn't mean they are purely O+D. They carry thousands of connecting passengers daily.

They have agreements with several airlines that provide them with connecting traffic.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 22):
Wouldn't that mean upgrading their product to an A380? Customers like them

No not necessarily. I like the B777 but the airlines don't always cow-tow to the public desires.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 32):
LAX has the remote parking stands. and they CAN bring them to an INternational Gate But they can only load VIA the Horizontal gates they cannot load upper and main deck.simultaneously I don't believer there will EVER be many US Airports that WILL make that mod for ONE airplane type Though I Have seen SQ and QF a380's land at LAX and SFO So evidently the gate isn't that big of a deal is it??

I thought that the present terminals that are at LAX had A380 compatible gates.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently onlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17057 posts, RR: 10
Reply 35, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6125 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 31):
In theory only $$$$.

How much more would it cost VS to operate out of TBIT instead of T2?

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 32):

Please, we dont need your Airbus bashing here too. It is more than enough in the UA 748i thread.



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24904 posts, RR: 46
Reply 36, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6052 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 34):
I thought that the present terminals that are at LAX had A380 compatible gates.

TBIT the international terminal has 2 A380 compatible gates, while there are 6 remote stands with jetways that are also A380 capable also.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 35):
How much more would it cost VS to operate out of TBIT instead of T2?

Rent new offices and counters. Passenger enplanment fees about 15-20% higher today, and probably substantially higher when all the work at TBIT is done.

But again. Its probably all for not as VS has not expressed interest or participated in any recent LAX A380 related issues. Even if they had a remote interest, participating in workgroups is hardly a bad thing to do nor take much effort.

So I'll say it again, I don't expect to see VS A380s at LAX unless they wake up one morning and decide to do a 180 turn from all their actions locally here the last few years.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently onlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3578 posts, RR: 3
Reply 37, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5998 times:

Quoting B747forever (Reply 35):

Please, we dont need your Airbus bashing here too. It is more than enough in the UA 748i thread.

Huh? If that's bashing, we have big troubles.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 32):
LAX has the remote parking stands. and they CAN bring them to an INternational Gate But they can only load VIA the Horizontal gates they cannot load upper and main deck.simultaneously I don't believer there will EVER be many US Airports that WILL make that mod for ONE airplane type Though I Have seen SQ and QF a380's land at LAX and SFO So evidently the gate isn't that big of a deal is it??


User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 578 posts, RR: 4
Reply 38, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5866 times:

LAX I would imagine is doable as is HKG and SYD

JFK for sure - I mean, every time I have flown in or out of there premium or economy it is usually full. Upper Class on the few times I have flown has been I would say around 70% full.

Am sure with the wait, seeing what other airlines have done, Virgin could really use the opportunity to showcase a new product to outpace rival... after all, they will have the advantage of later delivery, thus making use of what's worked and what hasn't.

I would love Virgin to get on with things, get the routes in the UK going, get a nice feed and maybe consider expansion into Europe, ala Virgin Express... If they (Virgin) bought BMI baby that would be a nice way to start. Rebrand, new fleet and bob's your uncle or fanny's your aunt!



146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently offlineAAMDanny From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2008, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5772 times:

When they built there Cabin Crew training facility they made the 'rig' big enough to fit the A380 slide mock up, so they are taking the idea of having a A380 delivered seriously... it's just if there is still a home for the A380 in there fleet, there business model and plan is going to be taking some interesting turns this year. So we will see if they need the super jumbo still or not.

User currently offlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5176 posts, RR: 6
Reply 40, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5640 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 34):
Now they have realized that there is not the market for the type of service that htey provide

there is obviously a market for their services or else no one would fly them!


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3199 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5504 times:

Quoting by738 (Reply 1):
Still on order and will appear on US routes plus HKG first. They were delayed slightly but first delivery planned for Q4 2013/ early 2014

Hmm yes they're downsizing from the A346 to the A333 but wait, here comes the A380? They are taking capacity downwards by replacing about eight aircraft on a case by case basis, in expectation of flying the A380? Let's get real, it's not likely is it? They ju

Much if what VS says is blah and bluster, very few in the industry exepct the A380 ever to fly in VIrgin Atlantic colours.
I seem to recall G-VTOP, the freshly painted B744 is leaving the fleet next year as well. Indeed with 15 B787s coming, I can only see them being used to phase out the A346 as growth appears to be off the radar. This year sees LGW-KIN replaced by LGW-CUN and one more daily out of LHR split between SFO and YVR. The continual desperation behind the BMI sell off coupled by a lack of serious bid for BMI and allowing BA to grow in such an important and strategic manner at a stroke shows they're in trouble. They continue to be squeezed by not being in an alliance and allowed the only chance they're ever going to have to become a larger player at LHR sail into IAG witout putting in a serious bid. They did this because they don't have the money for the fight anymore, Virgin will remain a good niche player, but they're no longer filling the A346s they have too many of, so seriously, the A388?

[Edited 2012-04-15 15:42:00]

User currently offlinegingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 893 posts, RR: 5
Reply 42, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5427 times:

Quoting btblue (Reply 38):
I would love Virgin to get on with things, get the routes in the UK going, get a nice feed and maybe consider expansion into Europe, ala Virgin Express... If they (Virgin) bought BMI baby that would be a nice way to start. Rebrand, new fleet and bob's your uncle or fanny's your aunt!

Perhaps, but they won't be able to get much of a Europe expansion going. The competition is heavy at least to the mainland, and getting hold of extra slots will be tough assuming they even manage to get the ones up for grabs.



Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3199 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5430 times:

Quoting gingersnap (Reply 42):
and getting hold of extra slots will be tough assuming they even manage to get the ones up for grabs.

Had they put in a serious offer and put some funding together they might now be the ownner of BMI and we could be looking at a new era,


User currently offlinegingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 893 posts, RR: 5
Reply 44, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5415 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 43):

Quoting gingersnap (Reply 42):
and getting hold of extra slots will be tough assuming they even manage to get the ones up for grabs.

Had they put in a serious offer and put some funding together they might now be the ownner of BMI and we could be looking at a new era

As much as I would have loved for that to happen, I just don't think VS would have been any good for BD. I'm sure they'd have possibly gone with a VX-lite approch with BD which would have no doubt have been fantastic on-board. But part of me thinks it would be too little, too late.

However as we all know, we'll never know and in the long term the acquisition by IAG was the best for all parties. I'd have loved to see VS try, and maybe we will see something if they really do go for the slots on offer. Well as long as they can get the required aircraft, as I doubt an A346 on LHR-EDI 4-5 times per day will be sustainable  



Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
User currently onlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8292 posts, RR: 7
Reply 45, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5283 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 14):
Quoting anstar (Reply 10):
Anywhere they send the 747 currently... LAX/JFK/MIA/JNB/SFO

From my understanding , a lot of those 747s are configured in very high densities. Can VS fill a 380 on those routes while not killing the yields ?
Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 15):
The LHR B744's are relatively low density - J44/W62/Y261.

Any airline having many flights at congested LHR flying long haul will need the ggest planes available. While not evey route Virgin flies out of LHR needs an A380 enough do. VA may only be able to fly 3 or 4 daily flights with 6 A380's, if 2 are used to JNB that is 1/3 of the whole 6 plane fleet. Another 2 to Hong Kong only leaves 2 for the USA, one daily to JFK and that is about all 6 planes will allow.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3199 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5258 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 45):
Any airline having many flights at congested LHR flying long haul will need the ggest planes available. While not evey route Virgin flies out of LHR needs an A380 enough do.

They really, really don't. Look more closely and have a think.
JFK needs to maintain current frequency of at least three daily to have any hope of competing and they are downsizing from the A346 to the A333 on some flights.
EWR is twice daily, one B744 / A346 and one A343.
BOS struggles to fill the daily A346 year round and is often on the A343.
LAX is twice daily at two A346s, perhaps consolidate this to a single A380?
SFO is growing to one B744 and one A343 / A333 on three days per week, again a potential A380 route if you drop frequency.
MIA is a single B744 daily, upgauge is possible but desirable?
IAD is a single A346, the second daily was dropped
ORD is a SEASONAL A346 / A343
JNB is only a seasonal B744, it's an A346 in the summer.
HKG second daily was dropped as they couldn't fill it leaving a single daily A346.
CPT is seasonal only and on the A346.

That leaves China and India which I don't see as candidates. The only good comercial opportunity are consolidating the West Coast US and upgauging to an A380 with MIA a potential as it's still on the B744 at daily. Everything else needs frequency maointained which they are not even filling a B744 on at the moment. The strategy is the A346s are being replaced by smaller aircraft in the short term and B789s in the medium. Remember Virgin only have five B744s at LHR now with the other eight on the beach fleets.

Current LHR B744 ops :

VS001 LHR-EWR
VS005 LHR-MIA
VS019 LHR-SFP
VS045 LHR-JFK

with aircraft five floating between other routes. By all means match BA into NYC and lose some yield but looks like no more than five aircraft if they replace the B744s.

Finally VA is Virgin Australia...VS is Virgin Atlantic, they're not the same company.


User currently offlinesevenheavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1156 posts, RR: 10
Reply 47, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4947 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 46):
They really, really don't. Look more closely and have a think.
JFK needs to maintain current frequency of at least three daily to have any hope of competing and they are downsizing from the A346 to the A333 on some flights.
EWR is twice daily, one B744 / A346 and one A343.
BOS struggles to fill the daily A346 year round and is often on the A343.
LAX is twice daily at two A346s, perhaps consolidate this to a single A380?
SFO is growing to one B744 and one A343 / A333 on three days per week, again a potential A380 route if you drop frequency.
MIA is a single B744 daily, upgauge is possible but desirable?
IAD is a single A346, the second daily was dropped
ORD is a SEASONAL A346 / A343
JNB is only a seasonal B744, it's an A346 in the summer.
HKG second daily was dropped as they couldn't fill it leaving a single daily A346.
CPT is seasonal only and on the A346.

Although the A333 is replacing some A346 flying, when you look at the flying programme as a whole there is more to consider;

Also, bear in mind that the A333 actually has 26 more seats than the A343.

Taking NYC as an example. recently there has been anything from 1 X A343 and either 2 X A346/2 X B744 or 3 X A346 / 1 X B744. That equates to between 1531 and 1590 seats. With the new schedule of 1 X A333 / 2 X A346 / 2 X B744 there will be 1616 seats.

ORD has historically been an A343 (although due to availability of A343 it will be an A346 until the A333 arrives) so it will gain 26 seats.

DEL flirts between A343 and A346. With a permanent A333 the number of seats changes very little one way or the other.

SFO will stay as a B744/A343 - the A333 will go to YVR but will struggle to SFO.

IAD has been upgraded from an A343 to an A346

Bottom line, For the 8 A333 that arrive over the next year or so, 4 A346 and 2 A343 will go. 1712 seats leave and 2128 arrive. Net gain, 416 seats. In terms of the LGW operation, G-VROM has come back so that cancels out G-VTOP IF it leaves the fleet next year.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not convinced about the A380 ever arriving myself, but the demand is certainly there for a handful of routes. LAX/MIA/NYC/SFO and seasonally JNB. I doubt HKG/SYD would see one, despite other claims to the contrary



So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
User currently offlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5176 posts, RR: 6
Reply 48, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4864 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 46):
LAX is twice daily at two A346s, perhaps consolidate this to a single A380?

VS7 also ops as a 747 during summer so its 1 x 744 and 1 x 346 service.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 46):
BOS struggles to fill the daily A346 year round and is often on the A343.

BOS/IAD both go to 343 during the winter and revert to 346 for summer.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 46):
HKG second daily was dropped as they couldn't fill it leaving a single daily A346.

And you also had that thing called a global recession at the time... BA and CX also dropped HKG frequencies at the same time.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2949 posts, RR: 2
Reply 49, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4770 times:

Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 47):
I doubt HKG/SYD would see one, despite other claims to the contrary

+1. Even in a premium heavy configuration, that's a lot of Y seats to fill, and we've never seen a scheduled 744 down here...


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3199 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4561 times:

CX did no such thing, LHR-HKG remains at four daily.

User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1605 posts, RR: 6
Reply 51, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4476 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 46):
HKG second daily was dropped as they couldn't fill it leaving a single daily A346.

the second frequency was dropped because the slot timings were unattractive to pax, especially high yield/J Class, and VS switched the LHR slots to another serrvice (cannot recall which from top of my head)

The VS200/VS201 LHR/HKG legs would be very suited to a A380, as it has excellent loads and brilliant yields.

The question is how they would deal with the HKG/SYD continuation flight, as an A380 on that would probably be overkill.....


User currently offlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5176 posts, RR: 6
Reply 52, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4394 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 50):
CX did no such thing, LHR-HKG remains at four daily.

They went to 3 flights a day around SEP09 for a while.


User currently offlinemdavies06 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2009, 381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4365 times:

Seems like no one has mentioned DXB and NRT yet. Perhaps there is a chance that DXB will get one? NRT may also be a candidate as Tokyo in general is a high premium market (not saying anything about NRT-LON though).

User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3199 posts, RR: 1
Reply 54, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4328 times:

Quoting anstar (Reply 52):
They went to 3 flights a day around SEP09 for a while.

If they did, it wasn't for long. The 2009 winter schedule a mere eight weeks later had them back at four daily at which it remains. Either way, LHR-HKG is not a realistic candidate for VS A380 operations. Also, the fact that Cathay is now upgrading to the B77W and BA are offering the new Boeing as well as the lack of second VS flight shows where momentum lies. Surely a twice daily A333 service would make more sense? Indeed drop SYD and two LHR-HKG terminators might be more profitable on the new A330s. Only by building that up over time would anuy A380 service be feasible in the medium term.


User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 55, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4322 times:

Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 6):
Virgin needs to focus first on reestablishing its customer base and improving its product.

By having those A380s as quickly as possible is how it will re-establish a solid customer base and improve its product. At the moment those high density 747s must be killing its repeat customer base.

Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 14):
Can VS fill a 380 on those routes while not killing the yields ?

If it can't it needs to dump those expensive to operate 747s today. The A380 has better operating statistics to a 747.


User currently offlinesevenheavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1156 posts, RR: 10
Reply 56, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4303 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 54):
Surely a twice daily A333 service would make more sense? Indeed drop SYD and two LHR-HKG terminators might be more profitable on the new A330s.

The SYD-HKG tag performs well. There's no reason to drop it.

Anyway, the A333 doesnt have the range for LHR-HKG. this is actually a route where the A346 makes perfect sense. I can't see the A380 working as things stand



So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2949 posts, RR: 2
Reply 57, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4251 times:

Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 56):
The SYD-HKG tag performs well. There's no reason to drop it.

In the A333/A346 scenario, it makes sense to keep SYD-HKG. But in a single daily A388 scenario, it would be a dead tag IMO.

Also, the HGW A333's VS is getting would probably make LHR-HKG... There are similar and longer routes today... Perhaps an A346/A333 combo?


User currently offlinesevenheavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1156 posts, RR: 10
Reply 58, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4214 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 57):
Also, the HGW A333's VS is getting would probably make LHR-HKG... There are similar and longer routes today... Perhaps an A346/A333 combo?

Where? I'm not doubting you, but I don't personally know of any. A332 maybe but not A333.



So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 59, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4180 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 46):
JFK needs to maintain current frequency of at least three daily to have any hope of competing and they are downsizing from the A346 to the A333 on some flights.
EWR is twice daily, one B744 / A346 and one A343.
BOS struggles to fill the daily A346 year round and is often on the A343.
LAX is twice daily at two A346s, perhaps consolidate this to a single A380?
SFO is growing to one B744 and one A343 / A333 on three days per week, again a potential A380 route if you drop frequency.
MIA is a single B744 daily, upgauge is possible but desirable?
IAD is a single A346, the second daily was dropped
ORD is a SEASONAL A346 / A343
JNB is only a seasonal B744, it's an A346 in the summer.
HKG second daily was dropped as they couldn't fill it leaving a single daily A346.
CPT is seasonal only and on the A346.

Looking at that I'm surprised they are ordering any A380's.

Guess I was wrong to assume.



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2949 posts, RR: 2
Reply 60, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4177 times:

Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 58):
Quoting qf002 (Reply 57):
Also, the HGW A333's VS is getting would probably make LHR-HKG... There are similar and longer routes today... Perhaps an A346/A333 combo?

Where? I'm not doubting you, but I don't personally know of any. A332 maybe but not A333.

DME-LAX is 5319nm (scheduled as an A332, but the A333 is subbed), ZRH-HKT was 5039nm, SYD-BOM was 5482nm and there are 4-5 in the 4,800ish range.

These are all older A333's, not the HGW, which has added range.

LHR-HKG is 5209nm for the record. I'm not 100% sure it would make it, but like I said, it is probably something that could work for VS if the economics worked.


User currently offlinesevenheavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1156 posts, RR: 10
Reply 61, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4116 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 60):
DME-LAX is 5319nm (scheduled as an A332, but the A333 is subbed), ZRH-HKT was 5039nm, SYD-BOM was 5482nm and there are 4-5 in the 4,800ish range.

These are all older A333's, not the HGW, which has added range.

LHR-HKG is 5209nm for the record. I'm not 100% sure it would make it, but like I said, it is probably something that could work for VS if the economics worked.

SVO-LAX takes a huge payload penalty on the rare occasion it is operated by an A333. Not sure about the others - I couldn't find any more details.

I'm sure that technically the aircraft could make it. But on a premium, cargo heavy route it would be massively uneconomical.



So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3199 posts, RR: 1
Reply 62, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4014 times:

Quoting babybus (Reply 55):
If it can't it needs to dump those expensive to operate 747s today. The A380 has better operating statistics to a 747.

You know this for a fact that with the VS business case and capacity vs lease costs the A380 is a better option for the routes I listed above? Or are you just assuming because a lot of people say so. The B744s are mainly based at LGW which is not able to take five A388s on the morning wave just yet......

Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 56):
The SYD-HKG tag performs well. There's no reason to drop it.

Does well for VS on LON-AUS or local traffic HKG-SYD?
BA and QF are getting out of that market big time, with QF dropping half their LHR services this summer and BA now terminating some flights in SIN and BKK. BA now have ONE flight a day to Sydney on their own metal. I doubt VS is unscathed from the Emirates effect somehow. LHR-HKG is a profitable market that needs seats blocked off to sell to Australia which is incredibly proce sensitive. A dedicated LHR-HKG would surely make more money on the utilisation of the given asset, be that A346 / A333 / A388.


User currently offlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5176 posts, RR: 6
Reply 63, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3980 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 57):
Also, the HGW A333's VS is getting would probably make LHR-HKG... There are similar and longer routes today... Perhaps an A346/A333 combo?

You wont see the A330 used on routes that require 3 flight deck members as they aircraft has no crew rest facilities.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2949 posts, RR: 2
Reply 64, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3951 times:

Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 61):
Quoting anstar (Reply 63):

Having thought about it, I've realised it was a bit of a silly suggestion in the first place   

I suppose it could still happen, but I agree it's unlikely given there are plenty of other places for VS to use their A333's, and they're hardly short on more suitable long haul aircraft...


User currently offlinesevenheavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1156 posts, RR: 10
Reply 65, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3931 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 62):

Exactly. Who says the B744 are more expensive to operate then an A388?. The lease costs on the LGW B744s are extremely competitive. Equally, the lease costs on the A388 are far higher. They burn about the same fuel as a B744 (so obviously the CASMs are far better due to the higher seating capacity) so you have to be damn sure you can fill the extra seats before you even start to consider the extra cost worthwhile.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 62):

HKG-SYD was a slow starter, but it does well from local traffic. Although clearly a large volume of the capacity is for connecting passengers. Ultimately, HKG-SYD is never likely to exist without the LHR-HKG sector so I'm not sure of the validity of assessing the two customer bases in isolation. If overall the route is viable then that's what counts



So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3199 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3907 times:

Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 65):
If overall the route is viable then that's what counts

Ahh but you see, look at what BA are doing. The A346 is away from base a long time on LHR-HKG-SYD whereas a LHR-HKG-LHR in the same timeframe allows another profitable LHR-XYZ rotation to be flown.

The question is could LHR-HKG and LHR-XYZ be more profitable as two routes than LHR-HKG-SYD-HKG-LHR with all the costs of crew downroute and London to Australia being decimated by the Gulf Carriers? It might be profitable but the aircraft may well make more money elsewhere. Given what a profitable route LHR-HKG-LHR can be for CX and BA (allegedly), Virgin is not selling all the seats in that market as they have to consider the tag on. Is the through traffic and HKG-SYD-HKG local traffic enough to cover this potential loss?


User currently offlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5176 posts, RR: 6
Reply 67, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3886 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 66):
The question is could LHR-HKG and LHR-XYZ be more profitable as two routes than LHR-HKG-SYD-HKG-LHR with all the costs of crew downroute and London to Australia being decimated by the Gulf Carriers?

VS would also need to fins slots at LHR to start an addiotnal service which would have their own costs. Don't forget that VS have a crew base in Hong Kong and they operate HKG-LHR and HKG-SYD. There are sometimes as few as 4 london cabin crew on these flights with the other 9 being HKG crews so at lower costs.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 66):
Virgin is not selling all the seats in that market as they have to consider the tag on. Is the through traffic and HKG-SYD-HKG local traffic enough to cover this potential loss?

VS seem to be one of the priciest for the route so they are probably doing ok.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3199 posts, RR: 1
Reply 68, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3873 times:

Quoting anstar (Reply 67):
VS would also need to find slots at LHR to start an addiotnal service which would have their own costs

Good point, Virgin have shown no interest in expanding their LHR slots so I agree the clearly A380 is needed if they need to grow at all.
Incidentally, being practical for a minute, with Emirates, Singapore and two QANTAS A380s taking the four slots on Pier 6 each evening, one would have thought BAA were negotiating to put in more A380 stands at T3.... I mean with them all being used in the evening peak, surely Virgin have asked BAA to build more. I mean if A380s were really coming.......*cough*

Maybe they're going to bus everyone?


User currently offlinesevenheavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1156 posts, RR: 10
Reply 69, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3835 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 66):

I understand that, but the question originated from the viability of the HKG-SYD route in the context of the LON-AUS market, not when compared to other potential routes. If HKG-SYD was sapping revenue from LHR-HKG then either HKG-SYD could be axed or additional capacity could be added on LHR-HKG. The main reason that the addiontal LHR-HKG route didn't work was the timings so if the right slots were available maybe it would be different.

There may be other opportunities that would perform even better but if that were the case VS would have the flexibility in their fleet to start them in addition to, rather than instead of. New routes always time to become profitable, VS would have to be very sure before leaving an established market for a totally new one.



So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
User currently offlinesevenheavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1156 posts, RR: 10
Reply 70, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3822 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 68):

I'm not suggesting that VS are getting A380s, but the stands issue doesn't stack up. VS would, in all likelihood be using the gates around the middle of the day. The two QF A380s are towed off first thing. 2 other stands are being made A380 compatible as we speak, and in all probability SQ and or QF Will have moved to be with their respective alliances in Heathrow East or T5 by the time the VS aircraft arrive



So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2949 posts, RR: 2
Reply 71, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3791 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 68):
Maybe they're going to bus everyone?

Or maybe QF will be moving to T5  


User currently offlinePHXA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 885 posts, RR: 1
Reply 72, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3765 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 22):
Wouldn't that mean upgrading their product to an A380? Customers like them.

Agreed , but it would seem customers like lower fares more.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3199 posts, RR: 1
Reply 73, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3733 times:

Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 70):
2 other stands are being made A380 compatible as we speak

Really? Which two? I was through on Saturday and didn't see any significant WIP.


User currently offlinesevenheavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1156 posts, RR: 10
Reply 74, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3618 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 73):

342 is one. It has already been realigned. I don't recall the other one offhand, possibly 336.



So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
User currently offlinepanman From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Aug 1999, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3195 times:

I can guarantee you that 342 is being made a380 compatible as we speak. It is currently fenced off while work is in progress.

Currently the QF10 is at the mercy of the EK04. If the EK04 leaves late, then the QF10 arrives at the departure gate vacated by EK04 late, and it's a bit of a struggle for it to leave on time. So for QF's sake 342 cannot be modified quickly enough. Heaven alone knows what will happen when Virgin gets their A380s as QF is not going to terminal five.

pAnmAn
-----------


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3199 posts, RR: 1
Reply 76, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3151 times:

No but Singapore is headed to Terminal 2 which should leave one gate free on the pier, but not for a while yet. If Malaysia move across to T3 as Oneworld partners of course it's a problem again.

User currently offlinepanman From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Aug 1999, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3105 times:

True as it would go from 1 Singaporean, 2 Qantas' and 2 Emirates', leaving within 1 hour and 50 minutes of each other, to 1 Malaysian, 2 Qantas' and 2 Emirates'.

pAnmAn
-----------


User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 78, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3050 times:

I'd love to get my hands on VS.

The first thing I'd do is go knocking on Willie Walsh's door waving a white flag asking if there was a mutually beneficial way to work together.

There is absolutely no reason why VS couldn't retain its identitty, branding, image etc as a member of IAG.

Isn't that a benefit of a holding company ?

Given the size of VS it could work and i'm sure the regulators would / could just about swallow it.

(maybe with a squirt of KY)

Past vendattas and grudges finally laid to rest of course............



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinesevenheavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1156 posts, RR: 10
Reply 79, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3023 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 78):
I'd love to get my hands on VS.

The first thing I'd do is go knocking on Willie Walsh's door waving a white flag asking if there was a mutually beneficial way to work together.

There is absolutely no reason why VS couldn't retain its identitty, branding, image etc as a member of IAG.

Isn't that a benefit of a holding company ?

Given the size of VS it could work and i'm sure the regulators would / could just about swallow it.

(maybe with a squirt of KY)

Past vendattas and grudges finally laid to rest of course............

Thats all lovely, but relevance to VS and the A380?



So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
User currently offlinevirgincrew From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 422 posts, RR: 1
Reply 80, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2762 times:

Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 79):
Thats all lovely, but relevance to VS and the A380?

Got ya there Mikey lol  



Hello Beautiful !!!
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2696 posts, RR: 25
Reply 81, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2718 times:

Quoting by738 (Reply 1):
Still on order and will appear on US routes plus HKG first. They were delayed slightly but first delivery planned for Q4 2013/ early 2014

If Q4 2013/ early 2014 is correct than production of the fuselage parts will start in some months, which would end to the discussion if they will actually take over their A 380s (assuming that if they are built VS will also receive them).

However, can someone confirm late 2013 / early 2014. I always thought the first one was due in 2015?


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...
Will VS Ever Fly The A380? posted Sat May 19 2007 02:16:28 by Boeing77W
Will VS Ever Fly The A380? posted Sat May 19 2007 02:16:28 by Boeing77W
Why No Topics On The A380 Vs 787? Ok Seriously posted Fri Feb 11 2005 02:48:46 by TransportEng
Will VS Ever Fly The A380? posted Sat May 19 2007 02:16:28 by Boeing77W
Will VS Ever Fly The A380? posted Sat May 19 2007 02:16:28 by Boeing77W
Why No Topics On The A380 Vs 787? Ok Seriously posted Fri Feb 11 2005 02:48:46 by TransportEng
Why No Topics On The A380 Vs 787? Ok Seriously posted Fri Feb 11 2005 02:48:46 by TransportEng
Future Of The A380? posted Fri Apr 13 2012 13:19:37 by SWALUV
Why No Topics On The A380 Vs 787? Ok Seriously posted Fri Feb 11 2005 02:48:46 by TransportEng
TWA And The A380 posted Sun Mar 25 2012 04:01:06 by 747400sp
Future Of The A380? posted Fri Apr 13 2012 13:19:37 by SWALUV
LH Sending An A346 To MIA. Where Is The A380? posted Sat Dec 10 2011 14:02:53 by Carls
Future Of The A380? posted Fri Apr 13 2012 13:19:37 by SWALUV
Future Of The A380? posted Fri Apr 13 2012 13:19:37 by SWALUV
TWA And The A380 posted Sun Mar 25 2012 04:01:06 by 747400sp
LH Sending An A346 To MIA. Where Is The A380? posted Sat Dec 10 2011 14:02:53 by Carls
TWA And The A380 posted Sun Mar 25 2012 04:01:06 by 747400sp
The Number Of Boeings VS The Number Of Airbuses posted Sat Dec 3 2011 00:08:28 by United Airline
U.S. Airlines And The A380 - Any Candidates? posted Thu Dec 1 2011 15:05:22 by NYCFlyer
LH Sending An A346 To MIA. Where Is The A380? posted Sat Dec 10 2011 14:02:53 by Carls
The Number Of Boeings VS The Number Of Airbuses posted Sat Dec 3 2011 00:08:28 by United Airline
U.S. Airlines And The A380 - Any Candidates? posted Thu Dec 1 2011 15:05:22 by NYCFlyer
The A380 And Its "wow" Factor posted Tue Nov 8 2011 07:06:53 by SKAirbus
The Number Of Boeings VS The Number Of Airbuses posted Sat Dec 3 2011 00:08:28 by United Airline
Should The A380-900 Been Launched From The Get-go? posted Sat Nov 5 2011 09:04:41 by YYZALA
Questions Regarding The A380-900 posted Wed Sep 14 2011 22:49:34 by United Airline
The A380 And Its "wow" Factor posted Tue Nov 8 2011 07:06:53 by SKAirbus
TWA And The A380 posted Sun Mar 25 2012 04:01:06 by 747400sp
Should The A380-900 Been Launched From The Get-go? posted Sat Nov 5 2011 09:04:41 by YYZALA
U.S. Airlines And The A380 - Any Candidates? posted Thu Dec 1 2011 15:05:22 by NYCFlyer
The A380 And Its "wow" Factor posted Tue Nov 8 2011 07:06:53 by SKAirbus
LH Sending An A346 To MIA. Where Is The A380? posted Sat Dec 10 2011 14:02:53 by Carls
Should The A380-900 Been Launched From The Get-go? posted Sat Nov 5 2011 09:04:41 by YYZALA
Questions Regarding The A380-900 posted Wed Sep 14 2011 22:49:34 by United Airline
Questions Regarding The A380-900 posted Wed Sep 14 2011 22:49:34 by United Airline
The Number Of Boeings VS The Number Of Airbuses posted Sat Dec 3 2011 00:08:28 by United Airline
U.S. Airlines And The A380 - Any Candidates? posted Thu Dec 1 2011 15:05:22 by NYCFlyer
The A380 And Its "wow" Factor posted Tue Nov 8 2011 07:06:53 by SKAirbus
Should The A380-900 Been Launched From The Get-go? posted Sat Nov 5 2011 09:04:41 by YYZALA
Questions Regarding The A380-900 posted Wed Sep 14 2011 22:49:34 by United Airline