RWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4605 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 13359 times:
Quoting 1400mph (Reply 5): Yeah but if I was flying between LHR and MAN I'd rather try out a brand new A380 instead of an old Aer Lingus A320.
For a short hop like that an A380 would be a blast, a true A.netters dream. Nothing wrong with the A320, but if you have a choice, Come on, we'd all take that opportunity, if they say they wouldn't. then they are not being entirely forthcoming.
Just a bit of fun anstar....it's very easy to attack either VS or BA if you so choose. I just happen to be in the BA camp.
They are both good airlines.
Quoting RWA380 (Reply 11): For a short hop like that an A380 would be a blast, a true A.netters dream. Nothing wrong with the A320, but if you have a choice, Come on, we'd all take that opportunity, if they say they wouldn't. then they are not being entirely forthcoming.
It's true! there is always someone who can find fault with an others dreams, keep following your gut, I like when guys think big. It's obvious your comment was about flying the A380 vs the usual options, not a bashing of EI or the A320.
EGPH From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 288 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 12803 times:
Well with Aer Lingus you'd get their lovely Iriush charm all the way to your destination unless it's crew supplied by Viregin of course. Then again I have heard only glowing reports from VS cabin crew! Though as I said in the previous thread about this only really MAN and maybe BHX at a push (although not a destination available from LON I know) could handle the A380. If we are throwing in airports that are not served from London we could also say LHR-PIK runs would be good! GLA and EDI would really struggle to service an A380, particularly EDI. ABZ not a chance and I don't know about NCL but it doesn't seem that much bigger than say GLA.
Sorry, I stand corrected on that, I know that PIK couldn't service an A380 passenger service through its terminals and air bridges but the fact that the Boeing Cargo Lifter and Ruslan are frequent visitors as well as C-5s being sent there by the USAF in years past meant that for crew training flights it would be no problem to park one up for an hour or so!
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 13273 posts, RR: 34
Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 11160 times:
They might send some A380s over to SNN for trng flights; it has received 380s, but the number of trng flights to SNN has gone down a lot. Now that most simulators are so advanced that crews can qualify without even seeing the aircraft, I think they'll be sending crews on such flights; that's why the first flights will be revenue flights.
Actually, as much as I love EI A320s, I would certainly pick BA A380s over EI A320s!
Has BA announced a date for starting regular long haul flights with A380s, i.e. to HKG.
Are you sure? It can take the AN225. What's the issue preventing an A380? Am genuinely curious, because I understood BA had nominated PIK and MAN as A380 diversion airfields.
Do BA still take heavies of to airports for line training in the 21st century? I don't think they do to be honest.
There have been more than a few threads on this already where MAN was ruled out as the only A380 gate is at T1 and BA fly from T3, GLA would see the Loganair offices taken out by an A380's wings from the main taxiway and EDI has a meltdown when they get a twice yearly B77W for the French rugby.
CDG was mentioned, MAD is likely IMHO and FRA remains a possibilty if they can ensure they won't be bussing (!)
bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 4307 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10140 times:
Surely domestic routes aren't long enough to provide realistic crew training, barely time for a quick trip down the aisle handing out deli boxes and a cup of coffee. I would have thought that a route of at least two hours would be required to allow the cabin crew to learn anything meaningful. Of course to the flight crew its take offs and landings that matter, so the shorter routes the better.
RedSnapper From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2012, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9884 times:
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 19): There have been more than a few threads on this already where MAN was ruled out as the only A380 gate is at T1 and BA fly from T3
Not necessarily Skippy, when bmi used the A330 on scheduled flights between LHR and MAN for crew training the aircraft parked on stand 23 at T1 and the pax were bussed over fron T3. Not saying BA will be happy at bussing pax on short turnround shuttle flights but in addition to stand 12 at T1 remote stand 62 is also A380 capable. I guess it will also depend whether they sell a full load or just the A320 quota of seats as bussing 350+ pax seems a non-starter at any airport for a short-haul, short turnround flight. Engineering support will also need to be considered so my money is on FRA/CDG/MAN as the front runners.
Wherever they decide to send them I've got a load of avios set aside so let's get that meet set up when the destinations are announced.
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3909 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9731 times:
I think the main concern is that fielding the A380 *must* maintain business as usual for connections and people just flying as normal. Needless bussing and delays have a cost in missed connections. Mind you I flew the AF A380 on LHR-CDG so not impossible.
btw I assume the A330 on LHR-MAN was rotating aircraft or covering cancellations? As BMI were in T1 when they first got them so no need to bus all that far.
afriwing From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9301 times:
Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 20): Surely domestic routes aren't long enough to provide realistic crew training, barely time for a quick trip down the aisle handing out deli boxes and a cup of coffee. I would have thought that a route of at least two hours would be required to allow the cabin crew to learn anything meaningful. Of course to the flight crew its take offs and landings that matter, so the shorter routes the better.
Exactly, that's why I expect a combination of both. A 2:30 hours flight to MAD or BCN followed by a shorter flight to AMS or CDG. Same flights repeat next day.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 8668 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5033 times:
The more I think about it the more I expect most flight training to be on simulators. It would be so much lower in cost. Yet simulators are not cheap so they must be utilised to the max to justify their cost.
I therefore conclude that short, domestic training flights are unlikely. The flight training they offer can be carried out on a simulator. The cabin crew training on such a flight would be next to useless. How could you even contemplate serving up to 469 passengers on such a short flight? The only advantage of such flights for cabin crew training would be frequent training in passenger boarding and disembarkation. But if the flights were to an airport or terminal that was not "380 ready" that would be a waste. Indeed it would require cabin crew to be ground trained in a boarding and disembarkation procedure that they would only use on their training flights!
The most likely training flights as far as I can see would be to a relatively short long-haul destination with an add-on like LHR-BAH-DOH or LHR-AUH-MCT. Four arrivals and departures and two legs of around five hours each would offer maximum training benefits balancing flight and cabin crew needs on each full training rotation. But that raises a question. Are either BAH and DOH or AUH and MCT 380-ready? If not then I favour MAD as the initial training destination being the only other IAG hub with max engineering facilities to iron out minor teething problems.