Arion640 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

The next A330-900 has had a change of registration to G-VEII to honour our late Queen and has been names "Queen of the Skies".

Not quite sure of con no or original reg?

Awesome

Believe G-VEII is actually the 4th A339, so the 3rd remains G-VLDY. No idea what the reg was due to be originally.

Re: the different configs, the 787 fleet is around 10 years old so would assume there are discussions going on over whether to refit them with the A339 product, or replace them with further neo's and harmonise the fleet around 330's and 350's. Once the A330-300's leave over the next few years (and depending on what happens with the 787's) I think VS will have a pretty consistent business class product.

It would appear to make more sense moving to an A330-900 and A350-1000 fleet, as it should be able to cover its route network well.

Having the 787-9 also in what is relatively small fleet just seems to make it less than an optimal outcome. With DL also not operating the 787, it may well be the way that VS moves towards.

IndianicWorld wrote:

It would appear to make more sense moving to an A330-900 and A350-1000 fleet, as it should be able to cover its route network well.

Having the 787-9 also in what is relatively small fleet just seems to make it less than an optimal outcome. With DL also not operating the 787, it may well be the way that VS moves towards.

For an airline the size of VS and to your point - condensing the fleet to just the A339 & A35K would be smart and would serve their needs in terms of their current network.

While I’m not sure if VS feels the same, my sense is that the 789 second-hand market is likely strong due in part to Boeings backlog of 787 deliveries. I’m sure there’s several carriers that would snatch them up quickly.

IndianicWorld wrote:

It would appear to make more sense moving to an A330-900 and A350-1000 fleet, as it should be able to cover its route network well.

Having the 787-9 also in what is relatively small fleet just seems to make it less than an optimal outcome. With DL also not operating the 787, it may well be the way that VS moves towards.

They have it and might keep it because of cargo. Cargo that the 330neo can’t push. The 35K obviously can but in certain markets it might be too much plane. But the 787-9 is just very good with cargo, that’s why virgin might keep it even though as you rightly point out it’s an anomaly

Anyone have the figures for how the loads are for the LHR-TPA flights ?

Flew it on Sunday and only 106 people were on board, and looking at the seat map for the return, only 63.

pommy80 wrote:

Anyone have the figures for how the loads are for the LHR-TPA flights ?

Flew it on Sunday and only 106 people were on board, and looking at the seat map for the return, only 63.

Not sure on loads. January and February is the slowest time of year for transatlantic traffic, so those loads are to be expected. Things will pick up in March.

FLYKTPA wrote:

pommy80 wrote:

Anyone have the figures for how the loads are for the LHR-TPA flights ?

Flew it on Sunday and only 106 people were on board, and looking at the seat map for the return, only 63.

Not sure on loads. January and February is the slowest time of year for transatlantic traffic, so those loads are to be expected. Things will pick up in March.

Only industry insiders will have that true information and I am sure they are not allowed to share that info. TPA itself will release Jan data next month as they have already released Dec 22 (which is very fast for most major airports)

If you do some piecing of the data and make a few assumptions. For December, you get this:

VS - LHR-TPA - 10.880 pax on 62 flights (daily), that equates to 175 per flight using 787-9 with 258 seats on every run, you are looking at a load of 68% for Deceember.

BA LGW-TPA - 10,824 on 42 flights (roughly 5x weekly), equates to 257 per flight. If they use the hi-density 772ER's (which I believe is the only option from LGW), with 336 seats, that equates to 76.7%

FLYKTPA is correct. Jan and Feb are notoriously low for TATL loads, certainly are up here in BOS where you can often see loads of 1/2 of those from the summer or worse, It's a little different for FL because its a winter destination for many, but I wouldn't expect it to be great. Also a Sunday/Monday view is not the greatest comparative. Because flying out on Sunday means you lose Monday and every day counts and flying out Monday means you lose the weekend essentially. Fine for business, not so fine for leisure in particular.

Anyway, the numbers above (apart from the aircraft seat totals) are taken from here as my source:
https://www.tampaairport.com/sites/defa ... NDINGS.pdf
note TPA show both in and out for pax counts, but only count the landings, so you have to double that number to get the total flights above.

audidudi wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

The next A330-900 has had a change of registration to G-VEII to honour our late Queen and has been names "Queen of the Skies".

Not quite sure of con no or original reg?

According to abcdlist.nl, G-VLDY, MSN 2025, the third A339 delivered to VS on 10 January 2023, has been re-registered G-VEII.

https://www.abcdlist.nl/a340f/a340f.html

Update…now G-VLDY is no longer showing as becoming G-VEII, so perhaps this will happen on the next frame MSN 2029?

Just out of curiosity, with VS joining SkyTeam soon, how many destinations will they add to the SkyTeam network?

J343 wrote:

Just out of curiosity, with VS joining SkyTeam soon, how many destinations will they add to the SkyTeam network?

Very few indeed NONE not even Pakistan as Saudia are literally massive in that market

All US are served by Delta/AF/KL

rutankrd wrote:

J343 wrote:

Just out of curiosity, with VS joining SkyTeam soon, how many destinations will they add to the SkyTeam network?

Very few indeed NONE not even Pakistan as Saudia are literally massive in that market

All US are served by Delta/AF/KL

Not even in the Caribbean?

J343 wrote:

rutankrd wrote:

J343 wrote:

Just out of curiosity, with VS joining SkyTeam soon, how many destinations will they add to the SkyTeam network?

Very few indeed NONE not even Pakistan as Saudia are literally massive in that market

All US are served by Delta/AF/KL

Not even in the Caribbean?

Good call. Grenada and St. Vincent are the only 2 I can see.

Antigua would be accessible year round. DL serves it out of ATL, but only seasonally.

VS has announced the resumption of daily PVG services starting on the 1st May; the last of the Covid route suspensions to come back.

https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/air/vir ... n-to-china

I think BKK would work better for Virgin than TPA as the US market is maxed out at the moment but there is potential for connections going east and direct traffic.

Thailand has business & leisure and budget and premium travellers. It's also an excellent place to connect to SE Asia and Australia.

There's still HKG to come back, if it ever will that is. I guess joining Skyteam helped with the decision to restart PVG.

3AWM wrote:

I think BKK would work better for Virgin than TPA as the US market is maxed out at the moment but there is potential for connections going east and direct traffic.

Thailand has business & leisure and budget and premium travellers. It's also an excellent place to connect to SE Asia and Australia.

Looking at how poor the loads seem to be this next week for TPA, I'm inclined to agree. Checking Galileo, every booking class every day the next week to TPA is available. Smacks of poor loads. With BA not resuming BKK, I think it's a destination worth looking at seriously for VS.

TC957 wrote:

There's still HKG to come back, if it ever will that is. I guess joining Skyteam helped with the decision to restart PVG.

It was announced last year that HKG was being permanently cancelled, unfortunately.

https://www.traveldailymedia.com/virgin ... stinations.

TC957 wrote:

3AWM wrote:

I think BKK would work better for Virgin than TPA as the US market is maxed out at the moment but there is potential for connections going east and direct traffic.

Thailand has business & leisure and budget and premium travellers. It's also an excellent place to connect to SE Asia and Australia.

Looking at how poor the loads seem to be this next week for TPA, I'm inclined to agree. Checking Galileo, every booking class every day the next week to TPA is available. Smacks of poor loads. With BA not resuming BKK, I think it's a destination worth looking at seriously for VS.

Jan/Feb are very weak TATL travel periods, it will all be about the Summer holidays for TPA. If BA struggles to make BKK work I don't see VS having a decent chance of success.

VS resuming Shanghai effective May 1 daily using 787

https://www.businesstraveller.com/busin ... -shanghai/

March 02 set as the entry date to Skyteam.

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/virg ... er-airline

Virgin Atlantic will be ending its operations to Pakistan (Lahore on 30APR & Islamabad 08JUL).

Formal announcement to be made by the airline

xwb777 wrote:

Virgin Atlantic will be ending its operations to Pakistan (Lahore on 30APR & Islamabad 08JUL).

Formal announcement to be made by the airline

Do we know why? I thought there might have been decent yields on this route or security still an issue as well?

UAL777UK wrote:

xwb777 wrote:

Virgin Atlantic will be ending its operations to Pakistan (Lahore on 30APR & Islamabad 08JUL).

Formal announcement to be made by the airline

Do we know why? I thought there might have been decent yields on this route or security still an issue as well?

Pakistan's economy has been taking a battering recently with foreign currency reserves almost non-existent
Additionally considering that this was probably a 100% VFR destination, Virgin probably decided to redeploy those aircrafts on more profitable routes. It was just a matter of time.
Virgin made a savvy business decision during the pandemic to earn some cash during a time when only VFR traffic was still flying.
As other travelling sectors have started to recover, flying VFR is probably not that much of a money maker anymore.

VS' agents bulletin doesnt state reason for Pakistan withdrawal, just says what a difficult decision this is and acknowledged importance of cargo and medical suppliers they brought to the Pakistan market. I think WestendRaider has the reasons spot-on.

With Phuket slowly recovering how about a tie in with Virgin Holidays/Honeymooners

Perhaps lack of suitable slots for new destinations is the issue? They have mentioned wanting to start flying to some new destinations. As I said above trying to do everything from Heathrow will constrict expansion to some extent.

I think its convenient these routes are axed as they announce that new routes will be launched once they join ST in a couple of weeks. Not understating the problems mentioned above by the way, probably a question of lower hanging fruit elsewhere.

I wouldn’t be surprised if new routes are announced with launch dates on 1st May and 9th July. ICN anyone?

Of course if they decided to use some of their former Gatwick slots for more leisure orientated routes this would give them more leeway at Heathrow. Over the years the number of destinations served from Heathrow by Virgin has barely changed. New routes nearly always seem to be at the expense of some destinations already served.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

I think its convenient these routes are axed as they announce that new routes will be launched once they join ST in a couple of weeks. Not understating the problems mentioned above by the way, probably a question of lower hanging fruit elsewhere.

I wouldn’t be surprised if new routes are announced with launch dates on 1st May and 9th July. ICN anyone?

I'm willing to bet ICN is going to be the next add.

I'm assuming they will wait until the KE/OZ tie up gets final approval from the various governments still left to rule.

Formal announcement: https://corporate.virginatlantic.com/gb ... istan.html

777Mech wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

I think its convenient these routes are axed as they announce that new routes will be launched once they join ST in a couple of weeks. Not understating the problems mentioned above by the way, probably a question of lower hanging fruit elsewhere.

I wouldn’t be surprised if new routes are announced with launch dates on 1st May and 9th July. ICN anyone?

I'm willing to bet ICN is going to be the next add.

I'm assuming they will wait until the KE/OZ tie up gets final approval from the various governments still left to rule.

If they do end up heading to ICN, which would be likely eventually, hopefully they time the flight to leave ICN later than what the likes of Korean Air do to allow same day connections for travellers coming from Australia/New Zealand as they currently have almost a 24hr transit in ICN

They come, they go. Just who's pulling the strings and what are they trying to be? Joining ST will do very little for them IMO. Put VS in the verging on ‘basket case’ category.

by738 wrote:

They come, they go. Just who's pulling the strings and what are they trying to be? Joining ST will do very little for them IMO. Put VS in the verging on ‘basket case’ category.

They have been flying since 1986 providing a quality service and offering passengers an alternative to the national carrier. They are owned by Delta as part of their transatlantic strategy, which give the airline a big boost in their future and longevity. Over the covid period they successfully moved huge amounts of cargo to keep their airline going. Its a quality airline which is adapting to a ever changing and recovering aviation market. Your so called "basket case" analogy is pretty ignorant.

Caluma350 wrote:

by738 wrote:

They come, they go. Just who's pulling the strings and what are they trying to be? Joining ST will do very little for them IMO. Put VS in the verging on ‘basket case’ category.

They have been flying since 1986 providing a quality service and offering passengers an alternative to the national carrier. They are owned by Delta as part of their transatlantic strategy, which give the airline a big boost in their future and longevity. Over the covid period they successfully moved huge amounts of cargo to keep their airline going. Its a quality airline which is adapting to a ever changing and recovering aviation market. Your so called "basket case" analogy is pretty ignorant.

VS more so than almost any other airlines has huge opportunity costs associated with each route. The few slots they have at LHR are worth a lot, the routes they could launch are a dime a dozen, the ones they can launch are limited by their main hub. If a route isn’t pulling its weight within the portfolio than the axe has to be swung to redeploy the slot elsewhere. Evidently, these routes didn’t pull their weight (enough).

I do hope they’ll expand back to their pre-covid footprint in LGW and MAN. That would help freeup LHR even more, the MAN expansion was really exciting.

I wouldn’t be surprised if new routes are announced with launch dates on 1st May and 9th July. ICN anyone? [/quote]
VS historically announce long lead-in times for any new routes. May 1 and Jul 9 would be too soon IMO.
Wonder if they have thought about PUJ for W23/4 season, would be good for VS Holidays.

How are VS’ flights to TLV doing (think it is single daily winter and double daily in summer)? My friend flew LHR-TLV-LHR and said that J was super empty (I know not the way to judge but made me curious given the Pakistan cutback).

timboflier215 wrote:

VS has announced the resumption of daily PVG services starting on the 1st May; the last of the Covid route suspensions to come back.

https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/air/vir ... n-to-china

Why does Virgin fly to Shanghai, its their only Oriental destination after ditching Hong Kong. PVG is a very long flight now that they have to fly south of the Ukraine and over Kazakstan and China. Virgin Atlantic needs to decide if their international flights are based solely on the Atlantic world or does it includes the Orient too. IF VA flew to Shanghai, Hong Kong & Tokyo things would be different. Their aircraft would be better used if they did launch that flight to Sao Paulo Covid stopped.

VA covers the USA, The Caribbean, and certain strategic African Markets well. If their plan is to be competitive to the Orient great, have a plan, a single flight to PVG is not a plan.

by738 wrote:

They come, they go. Just who's pulling the strings and what are they trying to be? Joining ST will do very little for them IMO. Put VS in the verging on ‘basket case’ category.

I believe one should not read too much into the axing of these two routes as somewhat indicative of VS's health in general. VS serving that country was an anomaly in the first place. No major non-middleeastern airline serves that country. It's neither a business destination nor a tourist destination. If there's a pure VFR destination in the entire world, this country is either at the very top or at least in the top 3.

When these routes were launched, three favourable conditions existed: a large origin and destination market, secondly VFR traffic was still flying during the pandemic, and thirdly PIA was banned from flying to Europe by EASA. With resources available since the business and tourism travel was down, VS simply tapped into that opportunity. It allowed VS to generate some cash when it seemed there was very little to be made. However, it seems this market's time has come and gone. Better money can be made elsewhere by deploying the aircraft and slots on more profitable routes.

One might be tempted to compare VS to BA saying that BA still serves Pakistan but I believe BA axing Islamabad is also a matter of time.

jfk777 wrote:

timboflier215 wrote:

VS has announced the resumption of daily PVG services starting on the 1st May; the last of the Covid route suspensions to come back.

https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/air/vir ... n-to-china

Why does Virgin fly to Shanghai, its their only Oriental destination after ditching Hong Kong. PVG is a very long flight now that they have to fly south of the Ukraine and over Kazakstan and China. Virgin Atlantic needs to decide if their international flights are based solely on the Atlantic world or does it includes the Orient too. IF VA flew to Shanghai, Hong Kong & Tokyo things would be different. Their aircraft would be better used if they did launch that flight to Sao Paulo Covid stopped.

VA covers the USA, The Caribbean, and certain strategic African Markets well. If their plan is to be competitive to the Orient great, have a plan, a single flight to PVG is not a plan.

China Eastern is skyteam and should once they enter maybe offer some connections.

3AWM wrote:

I think BKK would work better for Virgin than TPA as the US market is maxed out at the moment but there is potential for connections going east and direct traffic.

Thailand has business & leisure and budget and premium travellers. It's also an excellent place to connect to SE Asia and Australia.

You clearly have no idea that TPA-LHR was the largest unserved market until VS took over. January is notoriously bad for transatlantic it’s poor loads are to be expected right now. The flight will fill for sure. What about USA is maxed out right now, VS said they will add many more USA destinations after they join sky team. These opinions on why VS should fly to BKK make little to no sense.

PVG should do well with cargo, let alone all the connection possibilities afforded by ST partner MU.

GVIIO wrote:

3AWM wrote:

I think BKK would work better for Virgin than TPA as the US market is maxed out at the moment but there is potential for connections going east and direct traffic.

Thailand has business & leisure and budget and premium travellers. It's also an excellent place to connect to SE Asia and Australia.

You clearly have no idea that TPA-LHR was the largest unserved market until VS took over. January is notoriously bad for transatlantic it’s poor loads are to be expected right now. The flight will fill for sure. What about USA is maxed out right now, VS said they will add many more USA destinations after they join sky team. These opinions on why VS should fly to BKK make little to no sense.[/quo

As I have said before it is all very well to say Virgin will add many more destinations once they join skyteam but the question of slot availability remains.

BaronHamstead wrote:

GVIIO wrote:

3AWM wrote:

I think BKK would work better for Virgin than TPA as the US market is maxed out at the moment but there is potential for connections going east and direct traffic.

Thailand has business & leisure and budget and premium travellers. It's also an excellent place to connect to SE Asia and Australia.

You clearly have no idea that TPA-LHR was the largest unserved market until VS took over. January is notoriously bad for transatlantic it’s poor loads are to be expected right now. The flight will fill for sure. What about USA is maxed out right now, VS said they will add many more USA destinations after they join sky team. These opinions on why VS should fly to BKK make little to no sense.[/quo

As I have said before it is all very well to say Virgin will add many more destinations once they join skyteam but the question of slot availability remains.

TPA has been served by BA from LGW for decades, just not from LHR

With Pakistan operations ending, why doesn't VS add Ghana which is another critically underserved market? I would imagine LHR-ACC-CPT or LHR-ACC-WDH could also work? Perhaps I'm thinking way outside the box at this point.

jbs2886 wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

timboflier215 wrote:

VS has announced the resumption of daily PVG services starting on the 1st May; the last of the Covid route suspensions to come back.

https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/air/vir ... n-to-china

Why does Virgin fly to Shanghai, its their only Oriental destination after ditching Hong Kong. PVG is a very long flight now that they have to fly south of the Ukraine and over Kazakstan and China. Virgin Atlantic needs to decide if their international flights are based solely on the Atlantic world or does it includes the Orient too. IF VA flew to Shanghai, Hong Kong & Tokyo things would be different. Their aircraft would be better used if they did launch that flight to Sao Paulo Covid stopped.

VA covers the USA, The Caribbean, and certain strategic African Markets well. If their plan is to be competitive to the Orient great, have a plan, a single flight to PVG is not a plan.

So even if VS (not VA) can make money flying LHR-PVG it shouldn’t because one flight isn’t a “plan”? Clearly VS thinks it’s an important part of their network and/or can be profitable. How do you know where that aircraft will be used more profitably than the actual airline?

Also, the use of “Orient” isn’t really proper anymore.

Flying 14 or 15 hours when many of their routes are less time makes a great argument for a shorter flight, LHR to LAX is only 11 hours as is Johannesburg. Shanghai also has many competitive connections with Emirates and Cathay among others. The closest country Virgin Atlantic flies to is India. Hey if you can make a 15 hour flight more profitable than an 11 hour one show us please.

[
Flying 14 or 15 hours when many of their routes are less time makes a great argument for a shorter flight, LHR to LAX is only 11 hours as is Johannesburg. Shanghai also has many competitive connections with Emirates and Cathay among others. The closest country Virgin Atlantic flies to is India. Hey if you can make a 15 hour flight more profitable than an 11 hour one show us please.[/quote]
You forgot about TLV.
Besides, it's not that simple that 11 hr flights is always more profitable than a 15hr one as you well know. Operating costs, fares, cargo rates, overfly rights and costs, and a multitude of other operational factors have to be taken into consideration.

VS should probably look at South Asia. BLR-LHR is a huge market and is very underserved with even AI not serving this route.
BA flies everyday from BLR with just a couple of seats free.

Also, I heard VS was lookaing at this route in 2019 and was not happy when BA raised the freq to 10x weekly.

Virgin has made quite a significant shift towards ‘premium leisure’. More services in the Caribbean with the additions of TCI and Nassau (plus returning St Lucia), their new service to the Maldives, and the returning (possibly year round) Cape Town. There is potentially scope for that to continue.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but is the rule of VFR being unprofitable a hard and fast rule? The UK - Pakistan market is HUGE, the Pakistani population in the UK makes up what I believe is Britain's second largest ethnic minority (I think only Indians have a larger ethnic group in the UK), and VS served that market quite well, especially since they could also connect passengers to the US (which PK couldn't do). Granted the ME3 could do the job VS was doing slightly better, but the VS/DL tie-up certainly helped with cities that didn't have ME3 service, no?

I think VS pulling out was inevitable however. Not because VFR isn't profitable ever, it can be profitable sometimes: I'm pretty sure UA's most profitable route is a VFR route (IAD-ACC). Rather I think it has to do with the political instability in Pakistan and more importantly the Pakistani gov. not allowing VS to convert PKR that they earn from ticket revenue into foreign currency. This is a huge issue in Pakistan; they're holding back $225 million in ticket revenue overall, only Nigeria and Venezuela are worse in that respect.

This possibly also forced TK to give up some of their flights from IST to Pakistan to PK.

What do you think?