Probably in any hope to get any government help, VS had to make drastic decisions. I hope they survive, my 2nd trip to the UK was on them EWR-LGA when they only had the 1 747 and competition is needed for fare pricing.

ltbewr wrote:

Probably in any hope to get any government help, VS had to make drastic decisions. I hope they survive, my 2nd trip to the UK was on them EWR-LGA when they only had the 1 747 and competition is needed for fare pricing.

Can a 747 even fit into LGA?

3 slots will most probably be needed (assuming similar frequencies):
1. Daily Barbados
2. Antigua with Tobago and Grenada add ons + Montego Bay
3. Daily Orlando

Havana had already been planned to move to LHR, and UVF was due to be dropped following a disagreement over subsidies.

The press release phrase 'From today, Virgin Atlantic will no longer use 'all' of its seven 747-400s,' is not very clear

It could mean that they will use 'some' of them

Jetport wrote:

caaardiff wrote:

According to the article the fleet will consist of 36 aircraft. The previous setup would've been 43 aircraft by 2022 (subject to new A330's replacing older ones). The split would have been as below, however clearly there will need to be some cancellations on new orders. Even with the 787's, all A350's and only the direct order A330's still takes the fleet to 37.
17 - 787-900
12 - A350-1000 (8 awaiting delivery)
14 - A330 neo (8 from Airbus & 6 from ALC)


Does anyone know the routes and frequencies of the LGW routes? I can imagine to start with that it won't be that difficult to chop and change LHR routes to fit some of the LGW routes in.

I haven't followed Virgin Atlantic much, but one look at the diversity of their tiny fleet tells me cost control isn't their strong suite. Why in the world would they have 787-9's and A330-900's on the way? That is crazy having 2 aircraft with very similar missions in such small quantities, but if they survive I don't see them taking any A330NEO's. I guess if they survive and end up with just A350's and 787's that makes some sense. However, as tiny as they are, I would think one aircraft type should suffice.

Many airlines seem incapable of learning the Southwest fleet simplicity lesson. I cannot see how Virgin Atlantic survives this crisis.

The A330's are better suited to the shorter TATL trips to the East Coast & Caribbean, with the 787's having the range for the longer West Coast, Asia & South Africa trips. No doubt there's probably more complicated reasons behind the deal as well, but it seems to work for VS having the right aircraft for the route. The A350's capacity is to replace the A340's & 747's where the 787 couldn't get near.
The 787-10 seats about 330 passengers in a standard layout, whereas VS A350-1000 seats 335 but is in a high Upper & Premium Economy layout. I believe there's a different configuration for when the A350's are placed on current 747 missions which will probably have more seats again with less J.

airhansa wrote:

What is the possible future for a KLM-Air France deal with Virgin Atlantic? KLM is still one of my top picks for UK regional airlines (e.g. Flybe-style). since flights over the North Sea and Norwegian Sea to isolated areas in Scandinavia and the islands of the Atlantic Ocean are still very much needed and profitable. Wideroe and Loganair shows that such operations are profitable.

Dead in the water. Branson had already killed it off before this situation arose, wanting to keep all 51% himself/within Virgin Group. AF/KLM won't be interested now with their own cash problems and VS showing itself to be in a messy position.

Loganair operate selected routes that are profitable/sustainable for a number of reasons, but UK domestic flying on props as we knew it is dead in the water with Flybe long gone at this point and no one else wanted to plug that gap (for the understandable reason that it was never overly profitable in recent history).

fcogafa wrote:

The press release phrase 'From today, Virgin Atlantic will no longer use 'all' of its seven 747-400s,' is not very clear

It could mean that they will use 'some' of them

I agree, but it's an easy thing for them to say because no one else is going to want them and the leases aren't finished on the frames. I imagine the deal they strike with lessors will afford them some flexibility for the future, but the harsh reality is that their 747s will probably never fly again with a 'Western' airline. (aka they may move to a saction-hit country, but the market is going to be flooded with end of life frames at this point)

Jetport wrote:

Many airlines seem incapable of learning the Southwest fleet simplicity lesson. I cannot see how Virgin Atlantic survives this crisis.

I don't think reliance on one fleet type will on the top of Virign's wish list after their issues with their 787s, or after the MAX situation which I'd hasten to add still isn't over.

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

Firstly, my thoughts are with all VS staff potentially affected by this. The LGW withdrawal is unsurprising but still a shock and sad in many respect....

Thoughts? Vs staff did not die. Sheehsh.

Did you have thoughts for BA staff also loosing jobs at gatWick?

All this shows is Virgn is poor run airline.

They may not be dying, but there's 3,000 people now staring at redundancy and an uncertain future, wondering where they're going to get money from to pay bills, put food on the table and keeping a roof over theirs and their families heads. I've thankfully never (yet) had to be made redundant, but in the current climate I can see it's not a good time to be out of work as I can't imagine it will be easy to walk into a new job elsewhere, especially in the aviation industry.

If you don't like my public statement of sympathy, particularly given there are dozens of comments on this thread where some people on here were quite content to see the entire workforce (and by extension the supply chain) lose their jobs, then there's nothing I can do about that. It won't affect how I feel for them and it makes a break from the broken records on here about letting them fail.

And yes, I also feel for the 12,000 BA staff who are also facing redundancy. If you had quickly checked my post history before making a personal comment, you will see I am on record saying as such...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1445363#p22184823

Finally, you see it as a badly run airline, I see an airline that is facing up to the reality of the current situation and doing what's needed to try and secure the appropriate money. They're not alone in having to make cuts and other difficult decisions.

caaardiff wrote:

Jetport wrote:

caaardiff wrote:

According to the article the fleet will consist of 36 aircraft. The previous setup would've been 43 aircraft by 2022 (subject to new A330's replacing older ones). The split would have been as below, however clearly there will need to be some cancellations on new orders. Even with the 787's, all A350's and only the direct order A330's still takes the fleet to 37.
17 - 787-900
12 - A350-1000 (8 awaiting delivery)
14 - A330 neo (8 from Airbus & 6 from ALC)


Does anyone know the routes and frequencies of the LGW routes? I can imagine to start with that it won't be that difficult to chop and change LHR routes to fit some of the LGW routes in.

I haven't followed Virgin Atlantic much, but one look at the diversity of their tiny fleet tells me cost control isn't their strong suite. Why in the world would they have 787-9's and A330-900's on the way? That is crazy having 2 aircraft with very similar missions in such small quantities, but if they survive I don't see them taking any A330NEO's. I guess if they survive and end up with just A350's and 787's that makes some sense. However, as tiny as they are, I would think one aircraft type should suffice.

Many airlines seem incapable of learning the Southwest fleet simplicity lesson. I cannot see how Virgin Atlantic survives this crisis.

The A330's are better suited to the shorter TATL trips to the East Coast & Caribbean, with the 787's having the range for the longer West Coast, Asia & South Africa trips. No doubt there's probably more complicated reasons behind the deal as well, but it seems to work for VS having the right aircraft for the route. The A350's capacity is to replace the A340's & 747's where the 787 couldn't get near.

The A330-200/300's can do UK-West Coast USA. The -300's were used on MAN-SFO flights previously and they're now due to operate the MAN-LAX flights next year. Whether they can do that year-round is another question, though I'd have thought it would be no issue for the -200's. The neo's should be able to go one step further and do the whole network.

I agree with you the A330's are more suitable than the 787's for the shorter flights.

JamesCousins wrote:

Jetport wrote:

Many airlines seem incapable of learning the Southwest fleet simplicity lesson. I cannot see how Virgin Atlantic survives this crisis.

I don't think reliance on one fleet type will on the top of Virign's wish list after their issues with their 787s, or after the MAX situation which I'd hasten to add still isn't over.

Indeed. We also don't know what deal Airbus offered and how that stacked up against whatever offer Boeing made. There's good arguments for ordering more 787's and I agree it would have made things simpler, but when you already have A330 type-rated pilots and cabin crew and the neo being capable of serving the whole VS network, I can see why VS went for it if there were also other aspects that made the neo a compelling choice.

fcogafa wrote:

The press release phrase 'From today, Virgin Atlantic will no longer use 'all' of its seven 747-400s,' is not very clear

It could mean that they will use 'some' of them

I agree it's badly worded, though the press release also states that they would only fly twins from LHR and MAN, so when you read that statement it's easy why me and many others concluded that's it for the 747.

Whether it's now or once all the A350's are in the fleet, the 747's were on the way out anyway. I did fear the current crisis would bring forward their demise.

JamesCousins wrote:

fcogafa wrote:

The press release phrase 'From today, Virgin Atlantic will no longer use 'all' of its seven 747-400s,' is not very clear

It could mean that they will use 'some' of them

I agree, but it's an easy thing for them to say because no one else is going to want them and the leases aren't finished on the frames. I imagine the deal they strike with lessors will afford them some flexibility for the future, but the harsh reality is that their 747s will probably never fly again with a 'Western' airline. (aka they may move to a saction-hit country, but the market is going to be flooded with end of life frames at this point)

I believe that the wording of 'all' meant that the complete fleet of 7 will be retired. Not 100% sure though, although many aviation news outlets, posters on this forum, and social media are saying goodbye to the Virgin 747 for good.

https://onemileatatime.com/virgin-atlantic-future/

IIRC, the A330-900 Neo and A350-1000 order was a deal struck to cancel their old A380 order. Airbus might have persuaded them to order some A330 Neos, otherwise there may be some penalties for the A380 order cancellation.

VCVSpotter wrote:

I believe that the wording of 'all' meant that the complete fleet of 7 will be retired. Not 100% sure though, although many aviation news outlets, posters on this forum, and social media are saying goodbye to the Virgin 747 for good.

Wikipedia has already deleted the 747s from their version of the VS fleet list!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Atlantic

airhansa wrote:

What is the possible future for a KLM-Air France deal with Virgin Atlantic? KLM is still one of my top picks for UK regional airlines (e.g. Flybe-style). since flights over the North Sea and Norwegian Sea to isolated areas in Scandinavia and the islands of the Atlantic Ocean are still very much needed and profitable. Wideroe and Loganair shows that such operations are profitable.

Bhoy wrote:

Ryga wrote:

Your ignorance is amusing.

did he not just get the codes back to front?

BY is collapsing, whereas DY future is uncertain

Yes, But TBF I just read that DY was rescued by creditors yesterday, though that doesn't mean they'll keep London Gatwick operations alive. I don't personally believe that BY will get out of the pandemic alive either but obviously I've got no hard facts to argue with yet, other than maybe that it's primarily older people that by package holidays and these are the bulk of TUI travel users.

WHAT'S BY the code for ?

jamsco99 wrote:

airhansa wrote:

What is the possible future for a KLM-Air France deal with Virgin Atlantic? KLM is still one of my top picks for UK regional airlines (e.g. Flybe-style). since flights over the North Sea and Norwegian Sea to isolated areas in Scandinavia and the islands of the Atlantic Ocean are still very much needed and profitable. Wideroe and Loganair shows that such operations are profitable.

Bhoy wrote:

did he not just get the codes back to front?

Yes, But TBF I just read that DY was rescued by creditors yesterday, though that doesn't mean they'll keep London Gatwick operations alive. I don't personally believe that BY will get out of the pandemic alive either but obviously I've got no hard facts to argue with yet, other than maybe that it's primarily older people that by package holidays and these are the bulk of TUI travel users.

WHAT'S BY the code for ?

TUI Airways, formally Thomson, Britannia...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52542038

Wow Virgin Atlantic to cut 3,000 jobs and quit Gatwick

I think there are still a couple parked up at LHR? Any ideas which two are there?
It is hard to think of Virgin without 4 engine planes but that has now happened. The same will happen to BA in the near future, who knows if any of their 747's will survive beyond 2020.

I was glad I captured so much of the Virgin jumbo magic at Heathrow, I hope it is ok for people on here to enjoy the good days, including my all time favourite Lady Penelope aka 'Birthday Girl' - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upefGnCXBCM&t=536s

Yes the four holers have been on their way out for some time and this crisis is the final nail in the coffin. I'm glad to have been in some of VS's 747s to/from places such as JFK, MIA, LAX, ANU, GND and TAB. And demand is so bad that airlines can't even take advantage of oil prices being so low.

MrFlashjet1 wrote:

I think there are still a couple parked up at LHR? Any ideas which two are there?

The 'age' number is out of date but everything else should be current:

Virgin Atlantic 747-400 Fleet
Registration/Age/Type
**Retirement Immediately due to COVID19 (eff May 5, 2020)
G-VAST (STORED LGW-MAN (VIR808P) 4/1, 21.7, 747-441R)
G-VXLG (STORED LGW-GLA (VIR847P) 3/24, 20.4, 747-441R)
G-VROS (STORED LHR-MAN (VIR847P) 5/5, 17.9, 747-443)
G-VGAL (Last flight before storage MCO-MAN (VS76) 3/18,17.8, 747-443)
G-VLIP (STORED LGW-MAN (VIR847P) 3/24, MILLENNIUM FALCON, 17.8, 747-443)
G-VROM (Last flight before storage BGI-MAN (VS78) 3/23, 17.7, 747-443)
G-VROY (Last flight before storage ANU-LHR (VIR34W) 3/28, 17.7, 747-443)

So to answer your question, there is only 1 at LHR currently, G-VROY

Yep, ROS ROY are parked over at T4, 440/441.

TUGMASTER wrote:

Yep, ROS ROY are parked over at T4, 440/441.

G-VROS flew to MAN today from LHR. Just edited my former post

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-vros

Will the 747's be scrapped in the UK? There doesn't seem to be any enthusiasm for one of them (or a BA one for that matter) to be preserved. (I know preservation of aircraft is the last things airlines are thinking of, when self preservation seems to be the order of the day.)

The upstairs Economy class on the VA 747's was a unique experience and the only time I have been on the upper deck.

MrFlashjet1 wrote:

Will the 747's be scrapped in the UK? There doesn't seem to be any enthusiasm for one of them (or a BA one for that matter) to be preserved. (I know preservation of aircraft is the last things airlines are thinking of, when self preservation seems to be the order of the day.)

The most recent retirement, G-VBIG, flew to DGX, but I have also seen them at SBD. I do not know exactly where they'll be scrapped, but based off of recent retirements I'd say the likelihood of them being scrapped in the UK is high.

As for how they can move the LGW operation to LHR, it should be easy in the short term. In the medium term (1-3 years out), it should still be fairly simple. LGW was planned to have what, at most 4-5 daily flights this summer? Easy targets to cut from LHR would be the split 4x weekly SEA / 3x weekly LAX frequency that was planned to be added this summer, the 2nd daily DEL frequency, and perhaps the BOS RON flight, plus the GRU flight that never started. The 2nd daily SFO flight could also be a candidate, or one of the 5x daily JFK flights. I'm not sure how they were doing at TLV, but that was also a recent addition that could be cut if it's under performing.

airhansa wrote:

What is the possible future for a KLM-Air France deal with Virgin Atlantic? KLM is still one of my top picks for UK regional airlines (e.g. Flybe-style). since flights over the North Sea and Norwegian Sea to isolated areas in Scandinavia and the islands of the Atlantic Ocean are still very much needed and profitable. Wideroe and Loganair shows that such operations are profitable.

Bhoy wrote:

Ryga wrote:

Your ignorance is amusing.

did he not just get the codes back to front?

BY is collapsing, whereas DY future is uncertain

Yes, But TBF I just read that DY was rescued by creditors yesterday, though that doesn't mean they'll keep London Gatwick operations alive. I don't personally believe that BY will get out of the pandemic alive either but obviously I've got no hard facts to argue with yet, other than maybe that it's primarily older people that by package holidays and these are the bulk of TUI travel users.

If only people had the correct facts before posting...

You’d be surprised at the mix of clientele TUI take on holiday as it isn’t just older people and more importantly it’s pretty well sold for the remainder of the summer once things get rolling again and the upcoming winter/next summer is pretty well sold and ahead of where it normally is..

I think we will all be surprised with the majority of Brits that will actually want and need a holiday once this is all over. It’ll take a lot longer for business travel to get rocking again..

And TUI is not collapsing.. Far from it!

TC957 wrote:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

Firstly, my thoughts are with all VS staff potentially affected by this. The LGW withdrawal is unsurprising but still a shock and sad in many respect....

Thoughts? Vs staff did not die. Sheehsh.

Did you have thoughts for BA staff also loosing jobs at gatWick?

All this shows is Virgn is poor run airline.

Oh please ! I think the fact that VS have a clear plan announced how they will look like post-CV19 shows they are a far better run airline than many doom and gloom merchants posting on this thread think. I hope those that predicted VS's complete demise eat their words now.
It's sad that the 744's are no longer being kept but surely in the cold light of reality an inevitable decision. Next step now is what routes they will keep going forward.

What the hell? Apparently at some point putting out any kind of plan makes you a well run airline? We'll see what's left after the restructure.

Norwegian have at least moved to make it workable

3AWM wrote:

VS definitely have too many types. But fleet decisions take a long time to play out. If they are looking to re-structure now through administration they could lose the 747s and the 787 and have a fleet of just A330/A350 which would have benefits.

I’ve been wondering about the fleet make up, and how that reconciles with the statement in yesterday’s announcement (see link below)that:

“By 2022 the simplified, greener fleet will comprise of 36 twin engine aircraft”

https://corporate.virginatlantic.com/gb ... uture.html

I think we can take it as read that this means the B744s, A340s and the A332s will be gone, leaving a fleet of B789, A35K and A333 / A339 (subject to deliveries and retirements).

If that is so, it seems they must be cutting the A330 fleet substantively:

B789: 17 aircraft in service and presumably retained at LHR.

A35K: 12 aircraft ordered, all of which are scheduled for delivery by 2022. Presumably split between LHR and MAN in some ratio.

This means a cumulative total of 29 aircraft.

A339neo: this was an order of 14 aircraft, with options for 6 more. Deliveries due to start in 2021. Airbus describes this as a “firm” order for 8, plus 6 from Aer Cap.

My thoughts: if you assume the 6 options are non-committal, and the 6 via Aer Cap can be delayed or removed, but the 8 from Airbus are committed, this brings the cumulative total of aircraft to 37 aircraft. The only way I can reconcile this to the 36 aircraft in the statement is that at the period of time referred to in the statement, all A333s have gone and there is one A339 slated for delivery.

I suppose cutting the B744 (already the A340) and removing the A332 and A333 pretty much as soon as they can, this will save costs in the short term (2020 - 2022) and perhaps position the airline for when hopefully times improve from 2022.

The caveat to all of this is survival!

Boeing74741R wrote:

Finally, you see it as a badly run airline, I see an airline that is facing up to the reality of the current situation and doing what's needed to try and secure the appropriate money. They're not alone in having to make cuts and other difficult decisions.

That's because it is bad run airline. Never made profit, now begging for money like destituted child on back street.

And still, brandson still not putting in his own money's. Vs is not worth saving. Better to flush money in toilet. As for jobs, many are losing jobs due to virus. Airline pepeole aren't special. It's economy. It happens.

DobboDobbo wrote:

The only way I can reconcile this to the 36 aircraft in the statement is that at the period of time referred to in the statement, all A333s have gone and there is one A339 slated for delivery.

It is probably a question of timing - the A339s are due to begin delivery in 2021 and all fourteen should have arrived by 2024. The A339s are supposed to be a 1 for 1 replacement for the Ceos.

As the timeline only goes up to 2022, what we may see is one A330 Ceo leaving the fleet before its replacement A339 arrives. I suspect that this is all planned for and that there are adequate planes in the fleet to mount the planned services.

FSDan wrote:

As for how they can move the LGW operation to LHR, it should be easy in the short term. In the medium term (1-3 years out), it should still be fairly simple. LGW was planned to have what, at most 4-5 daily flights this summer? Easy targets to cut from LHR would be the split 4x weekly SEA / 3x weekly LAX frequency that was planned to be added this summer, the 2nd daily DEL frequency, and perhaps the BOS RON flight, plus the GRU flight that never started. The 2nd daily SFO flight could also be a candidate, or one of the 5x daily JFK flights. I'm not sure how they were doing at TLV, but that was also a recent addition that could be cut if it's under performing.

Don't forget EWR gone and no replacement flight announced for that one yet.

When were the 747s due to retire before all of this? Had they been due to retire in the next few years anyway and the original A330s to go, it would be interesting to know what they were planning as their replacements. Or were the current A330-300s due to stay longer with no decision on their replacement?

caaardiff wrote:

When were the 747s due to retire before all of this? Had they been due to retire in the next few years anyway and the original A330s to go, it would be interesting to know what they were planning as their replacements. Or were the current A330-300s due to stay longer with no decision on their replacement?

The 747s were going to be retired next year (2021), although I don’t know when in the year exactly.

I believe the plan was to replace the A333s with the A339s (after the A332s were replaced). The entire A330ceo fleet is leased with the leases expiring around the time the A339s are coming in.

caaardiff wrote:

When were the 747s due to retire before all of this? Had they been due to retire in the next few years anyway and the original A330s to go, it would be interesting to know what they were planning as their replacements. Or were the current A330-300s due to stay longer with no decision on their replacement?

A350's were due to be their replacements. These would have been in a densified config compared to the A350's currently operating at LHR.
A330-200's and 300's were due to be replaced with A330Neo's.

There were rumours that VS were looking to go all airbus, with A350’s A330-300 and A330NEO. This would mean the 787’s leaving with the A330-200 and 747’s.

12 A350’s
10 A330-300’s
14 A330NEO

Gives the magic number of 36. Whether or not this has changed as it seems a mammoth task getting rid of 17 787’s in the space of two years remains to be seen. The leases on the 10 A330-300 could easily be extended however for this to be the case!

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

Finally, you see it as a badly run airline, I see an airline that is facing up to the reality of the current situation and doing what's needed to try and secure the appropriate money. They're not alone in having to make cuts and other difficult decisions.

That's because it is bad run airline. Never made profit, now begging for money like destituted child on back street.

And still, brandson still not putting in his own money's. Vs is not worth saving. Better to flush money in toilet. As for jobs, many are losing jobs due to virus. Airline pepeole aren't special. It's economy. It happens.

One, you might want to spell Sir Richards name right and two, he has already put £250m into the airline in recent weeks, please check facts before posting drivvel

Rampvan wrote:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

Finally, you see it as a badly run airline, I see an airline that is facing up to the reality of the current situation and doing what's needed to try and secure the appropriate money. They're not alone in having to make cuts and other difficult decisions.

That's because it is bad run airline. Never made profit, now begging for money like destituted child on back street.

And still, brandson still not putting in his own money's. Vs is not worth saving. Better to flush money in toilet. As for jobs, many are losing jobs due to virus. Airline pepeole aren't special. It's economy. It happens.

One, you might want to spell Sir Richards name right and two, he has already put £250m into the airline in recent weeks, please check facts before posting drivvel

Just in the interest of posting facts, he actually put $250m, not £250m into the Virgin Group. Not all of it went to Virgin Atlantic

https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/my-response-global-crisis

although not many aircraft, virgin still has quite a big presence at gatwick.
a lounge that is only a few years old and i think they have a big maintenance hanger too
virgin holidays used to be based in crawley too (not sure if they still are)

azz767 wrote:

There were rumours that VS were looking to go all airbus, with A350’s A330-300 and A330NEO. This would mean the 787’s leaving with the A330-200 and 747’s.

12 A350’s
10 A330-300’s
14 A330NEO

Gives the magic number of 36. Whether or not this has changed as it seems a mammoth task getting rid of 17 787’s in the space of two years remains to be seen. The leases on the 10 A330-300 could easily be extended however for this to be the case!

That is interesting - personally I’d be surprised if they wanted to get rid of the B789s (I think the engine issues are largely under control) and even if they wanted to, that they could get rid of them for an acceptable / affordable / no financial penalty.

I think the most likely explanation is deliveries / retirements but it’d be interesting if you are correct on this.

flee wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

The only way I can reconcile this to the 36 aircraft in the statement is that at the period of time referred to in the statement, all A333s have gone and there is one A339 slated for delivery.

It is probably a question of timing - the A339s are due to begin delivery in 2021 and all fourteen should have arrived by 2024. The A339s are supposed to be a 1 for 1 replacement for the Ceos.

As the timeline only goes up to 2022, what we may see is one A330 Ceo leaving the fleet before its replacement A339 arrives. I suspect that this is all planned for and that there are adequate planes in the fleet to mount the planned services.

I think this is the most likely explanation - it does mean the statement of having 36 aircraft is perhaps a little misleading if thereafter they intend to increase capacity (which hopefully by 2022 will be needed at both bases and in the wider marketplace).

jamsco99 wrote:

although not many aircraft, virgin still has quite a big presence at gatwick.
a lounge that is only a few years old and i think they have a big maintenance hanger too
virgin holidays used to be based in crawley too (not sure if they still are)

Millions of £ or $ the fact remains SRB has put millions into it!

Rampvan wrote:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

Finally, you see it as a badly run airline, I see an airline that is facing up to the reality of the current situation and doing what's needed to try and secure the appropriate money. They're not alone in having to make cuts and other difficult decisions.

That's because it is bad run airline. Never made profit, now begging for money like destituted child on back street.

And still, brandson still not putting in his own money's. Vs is not worth saving. Better to flush money in toilet. As for jobs, many are losing jobs due to virus. Airline pepeole aren't special. It's economy. It happens.

One, you might want to spell Sir Richards name right and two, he has already put £250m into the airline in recent weeks, please check facts before posting drivvel

I had the stroke. It's not funny to laughs at others until your know the reason sir.

Rampvan wrote:

jamsco99 wrote:

although not many aircraft, virgin still has quite a big presence at gatwick.
a lounge that is only a few years old and i think they have a big maintenance hanger too
virgin holidays used to be based in crawley too (not sure if they still are)

Millions of £ or $ the fact remains SRB has put millions into it!

What's your reply got to do with my post ?

Hang on - I have enormous sympathy with your health situation, but let me play back what you just said...

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

It's not funny to laughs at others until your know the reason sir.

Earlier you posted the following in relation to VS and it’s staff, but the same could apply to the people in almost any other UK airline and their supply chains:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

Never made profit, now begging for money like destituted child on back street.

And still, brandson still not putting in his own money's. Vs is not worth saving. Better to flush money in toilet. As for jobs, many are losing jobs due to virus. Airline pepeole aren't special. It's economy. It happens.

Leaving aside the factual inaccuracies, you are talking in pretty blunt and unsympathetic terms about thousands of people’s livelihood (tens of thousands indirectly in the UK - and many more in Europe and beyond) their ability to put door on the table, pay the bills and keep a roof over their heads.

I’m sure they don’t find the situation remotely funny, and I suspect many have genuine fears about a destitute future.

You can’t have it both ways and then cry foul when it suits you. This is an awful time for many - the airline industry probably most of all. First and foremost, show some humanity. However, if you dish it out you should be prepared to take it back.

MrFlashjet1 wrote:

It is hard to think of Virgin without 4 engine planes but that has now happened. The same will happen to BA in the near future, who knows if any of their 747's will survive beyond 2020.

While inevitable (and sad), I had to chuckle when remembering "4 engines 4 long haul."

33lspotter wrote:

MrFlashjet1 wrote:

It is hard to think of Virgin without 4 engine planes but that has now happened. The same will happen to BA in the near future, who knows if any of their 747's will survive beyond 2020.

While inevitable (and sad), I had to chuckle when remembering "4 engines 4 long haul."

I'm old enough to remember pre-ETOPS when a lot of people felt safer on a 4 holer, crossing the pond. I think Virgin tapped into that perception nicely with their marketing slogan. Even if better informed AV geeks saw light of it, and even if certain AV geeks mistook it for some sort of quotation from the VS operations manual...

G-VROY has in the last hour (at time of writing) repo'd out of Heathrow to Glasgow (GLA) for storage, alongside G-VXLG and A332, G-VMIK which have been in town for around six weeks already. I took an exercise stroll over to Abbotsinch, 20 min walk from home, armed with my Lumix FZ-1000.

2020-05-07_03-53-20 by Allen McLaughlin, on Flickr

2020-05-07_03-53-02 by Allen McLaughlin, on Flickr

airhansa wrote:

I guess there needs to be a thread on the future of Gatwick Airport. BA and DS are leaving, BY is collapsing, whereas DY future is uncertain. London will now have over three low cost airport hubs!

User001 wrote:

Furthermore, most of Asia has been less hit by the pandemic, especially India. China and India are still forecast to economically grow. Asian tourists will have more money to spend.

That's only true if the numbers have been reported correctly. Reports of 25,000 urns being delivered to Wuhan alone suggest they haven't, and people in China living in such fear of this virus that clearly they have been spooked by much more than just govt orders. They are allowed to go out again but many refuse to, why, if they have such a grip on things as you suggest?

But anyway, this thread is about VS so will leave it there.

Junglejames wrote:

airhansa wrote:

Sorry if that came across harshly, but Chinese tourists are fickle and many of them would now have worse views on the quality/standard of western healthcare following the pandemic, or in other words may become more trusting of eastern healthcare standards. The history of having dealth with SARS will calm the fears of many Asian tourists and they can trust Asian countries to implement anti-SARS measures.

Furthermore, most of Asia has been less hit by the pandemic, especially India. China and India are still forecast to economically grow. Asian tourists will have more money to spend.

Anyway, since both BA and VS are leaving Gatwick, wouldn't this just leave U2 as the only major operator at the airport? (DY are probably going to collapse, whereas BY will be the hardest hit in terms of leisure travel during the downturn). It's ridiculous that a city now has over three low-cost airport hubs.

You do realise not many chinese believe their governments official figures?
When the chinese government insists there are no new cases, it is taken with a pinch of salt.

As for healthcare. Ha. I've seen the chinese answer for an ambulance and paramedics.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I'm not saying that the infection numbers and deaths are necessarily true, but the geographic spread within China was successfully contained, and tourism has basically rebound already.

Generally, the Wuhan outbreak was mostly limited to the central provinces of China (akin to Switzerland and the surrounding departments in Europe), which can be backed up with date from Macau, Hong Kong (which kept mostly open borders) and Taiwan where there weren't that many infections. The outbreak in South Korea was due to Christian missionaries that flew to Wuhan during the outbreak.

The vast majority of infections in East Asia (especially Hong Kong and Singapore) now can be traced back through Europe and the US, hence why the predominant mood in East Asia (as well as outside China) is that the pandemic has hit harder in the West than in the East, with the reason being a failure by westerners to respond to the pandemic properly.

Which ignores the rumoured real figures from china.
Hint- a million deaths may be low!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

Rampvan wrote:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

That's because it is bad run airline. Never made profit, now begging for money like destituted child on back street.

And still, brandson still not putting in his own money's. Vs is not worth saving. Better to flush money in toilet. As for jobs, many are losing jobs due to virus. Airline pepeole aren't special. It's economy. It happens.

One, you might want to spell Sir Richards name right and two, he has already put £250m into the airline in recent weeks, please check facts before posting drivvel

I had the stroke. It's not funny to laughs at others until your know the reason sir.

Firstly, literally not one of your claims has any truth to it. It’s well documented that SRB has injected a significant amount of money into VS, they have made a profit many times, and they have an exceptionally strong leadership team. All easily verified facts.

Secondly, I’m genuinely very sorry to hear of your health issues and I wish you a full and speedy recovery, but to show utter contempt for the welfare of thousands of people and their families and then complain to someone for (unknowingly) not accounting for your own difficulties is at best a bit rich!

Junglejames wrote:

airhansa wrote:

I guess there needs to be a thread on the future of Gatwick Airport. BA and DS are leaving, BY is collapsing, whereas DY future is uncertain. London will now have over three low cost airport hubs!

User001 wrote:

That's only true if the numbers have been reported correctly. Reports of 25,000 urns being delivered to Wuhan alone suggest they haven't, and people in China living in such fear of this virus that clearly they have been spooked by much more than just govt orders. They are allowed to go out again but many refuse to, why, if they have such a grip on things as you suggest?

But anyway, this thread is about VS so will leave it there.

Junglejames wrote:

You do realise not many chinese believe their governments official figures?
When the chinese government insists there are no new cases, it is taken with a pinch of salt.

As for healthcare. Ha. I've seen the chinese answer for an ambulance and paramedics.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I'm not saying that the infection numbers and deaths are necessarily true, but the geographic spread within China was successfully contained, and tourism has basically rebound already.

Generally, the Wuhan outbreak was mostly limited to the central provinces of China (akin to Switzerland and the surrounding departments in Europe), which can be backed up with date from Macau, Hong Kong (which kept mostly open borders) and Taiwan where there weren't that many infections. The outbreak in South Korea was due to Christian missionaries that flew to Wuhan during the outbreak.

The vast majority of infections in East Asia (especially Hong Kong and Singapore) now can be traced back through Europe and the US, hence why the predominant mood in East Asia (as well as outside China) is that the pandemic has hit harder in the West than in the East, with the reason being a failure by westerners to respond to the pandemic properly.

Which ignores the rumoured real figures from china.
Hint- a million deaths may be low!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

What you are stating is simply untrue. My family know real life people from different part of China who have told us there was never a huge outbreak where they are and it's currently simply not an issue in most parts of China. And the reason is they locked down the entire country by late January to a degree that's simply not fathomable here.

The latest study from New York and Germany show that the real mortality rate from infection at around 0.5%. Slightly higher for hospital system overwhelmed and lower for ones not-overwhelmed. If they had over a million death, there would have to be 200 million infections or basically 1/6 of population. That simply is not possible. At this point, its doubtful that Wuhan ever got as infected as New York is right now.