Speednews is reporting that Virgin has pushed back delivery of the A380

[747FOCAL]

Here is the direct quote:

VIRGIN ATLANTIC is deferring delivery of its first A380 (six ordered) by 18 months from mid-2006 to early 2008 to
ensure it says that new cabin features are ready and airport facilities (citing LAX) will be ready to handle the aircraft.

:ok:

[colegate]

I have a long experience of dealing with inflight service issues, including the specification and sourcing of equipment. It is completely and utterly incomprehensible to me that any airline can possibly say that it will take several years to get the inflight service designed. To say in spring 2004 that a new aeroplane delivery needs to be delayed for 18 months for inflight service planning reasons defies all credibility.

Equally to say that ground facilities at LAX are a problem is also incomprehensible. The maximum time needed at LAX will be say 18 months.

LHR will be the Virgin base for the A380. That will be ready in 2006.

I do not know exactly what schedules are planned for the A380 but if you start with the highest density routes in the VS network you begin with JFK. If you assume that there would be a twice daily flight to JFK and a daily LHR-HKG-SYD you have used up all six aircraft on order.

This suggests to me that there is some other reason why this order is being delayed, Perhaps the aircraft itself is behind schedule, although it is unimaginable to me that a company of the competence of Airbus would have a delay of this magnitude. Perhaps it is because Virgin is beginning to realise that the investment in these aircraft is very risky?

Whatever an announcement at this stgae that a long delay is being planned does not seem to make much sense.

[wrenchbender]

This is interesting. Methinks Virgin has un-stated reasons for delaying their delivery dates. LAX today reporting that they will indeed be ready for A380 operations in 2006.

[Wiley]

'wrenchbender', what do you think? maybe seven hundred and seventy-seven ER unstated reasons?

[Bre901]

"Les Echos" (French financial paper) is reporting today that this has to do with rumours about the A380 being overweight by ten tons or so, which would compromise its long range capacity. (website here (http://www.lesechos.fr/jjjdj20040518/lec1_une/une.htm) but only the summary is available for free :* )

Bit surprised that these rumours haven't been posted here before.

[Jordan D]

Also reported on the front page of today's (18/05/04) The Times Buisness Section.

Jordan

[High Speed Descent]

I just heard SQ is sticking to the 2006 delivery! Rumours are that crew training begins this Dec.

[Flight Detent]

Seems to me that Virgin is seeing lots and lots of problems with this latest effort from Airbus during its intro period, and doesn't want to be involved in any of it!

Don't blame 'em!

Cheers

[Ignition Override]

And the designers have a reliable method to evacuate the upper-level cabin in high winds, for example 20 gusting to 30 knots?:ouch:

[Schrodingers Cat]

Wonder which year the charge for these pachydermus blancus will be booked........?:cool:

[eal401]

evacuate the upper-level cabin

Probably similar means to what Boeing have used for the 744 upper deck for the past however many years? :rolleyes:

[under_exposed]

There will be a lot more upstairs on the A380 also is the A380 upper deck higher than the 747 upper deck?

[Digitalis]

The keys to Virgin's point of view seem to be not that the airports slated to take the A380 aren't going to be able to, nor that the aircraft won't be flying, but that the level of service possible at scheduled introduction would not reflect the ambitions of the airline.

The airline has quite ambitious plans for the environment within the aeroplane, and for the level of service delivery throughout the passengers' "travel experience" (yes, I know...!). There do seem to be problems with suppliers not being able to deliver the fully-specced interior at scheduled rollout (Virgin was burned badly in the J2000 fiasco and is in no hurry to repeat the experience) and, while LHR, JFK and LAX all say that they can handle the aircraft from 2006, what they don't say is that there will be considerable compromises in the service offered initially. Virgin wants more than just a parking space and a lot of buses....

They also say in their press releases that they have already exercised some options on the A340-600, are looking at more, and are assessing other options to take up the slack. I would suggest that the B777 is closer than you think.....

[eal401]

under_exposed, the height difference is probably negligable in this example. And the size of the upper deck is irrelevant, the original posted queried doing it in high winds. In that case, it wouldn't matter if it was a 744 or A380, or indeed upper or lower deck, winds would affect all slides.

[MichaelJP59]

Speaking as regular SLF long-haul, and given how long all the processing can take for a 747, I am dreading travelling on an A380.

Chief areas of concern would be mammoth queues and delays for check-in, gate, de-planing, immigration, carousel and customs.

I can readily understand Virgin's desire not to let their passengers be "beta-testers" for the handling of A380s. The debacles that will surely occur will hopefully make sure that things are smoothed out by 2007.

- Michael

[M.Mouse]

And of course it couldn't be that plans are announced with a big fanfare, and all the attendant publicity, before being quietly delayed or dropped.

No, not at all likely.

Now where did I put my copy of the unauthorised biography......

[stormin norman]

Word from virgin is that they've been trying to sell the slots and may plump for the 777.........best they get the paint brushes out and start removing that silly '4 engines for safety' from the side of their cowlings.Seem to remember good old harry goodman buying MD11 slots with a view to an easy profit !

[Digitalis]

I very much doubt Virgin is in the business of ordering aircraft for the relatively trivial justification of trying to profit from delivery slots. Given the huge amount of work that is going on at Virgin for the A380, it would make no sense. Leave that kind of rubbish to car enthusiasts with money to burn!

As for the '4 engines 4 longhaul' logo, I believe that is an Airbus trademark - Virgin's 747s don't carry it, though they do have one saying 'the power of 4'.

[falconflier]

The latest issue of AW&ST mentions that ILFC is negotiating a deal with Virgin for B777-300ERs to replace A340-300s. Just curious if anyone has more info. Thanks.

[Ignition Override]

eal401- good point. Can the 744 offer more options because of the more limited number of people (on a full flight) being assisted by the cabin crew and the four (two on shorter legs) pilots who are next door? Let's ask one of our 400 pilots.

[M.Mouse]

As for the '4 engines 4 longhaul' logo, I believe that is an Airbus trademark....

I don't think so. Even if that was true it is not compulsory to carry it.

But then self-serving publicity stunts are something of a trademark for certain people.

[ETOPS]

On the basis that many of the current VS fleet carry the slogan "4 engines 4 Longhaul" painted in large letters, what would be the eqivalent on their new 777's? - "Er 2 will do!"

[colegate]

Why would VS want the diseconomies of operating three types with very similar range/payload performance, namely the 747-400, A340-600 and the 777-300? Surely by concentrating on one type, namely the A340-600 they could slash their costs by millions of pounds per year?

[Digitalis]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the '4 engines 4 longhaul' logo, I believe that is an Airbus trademark....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't think so. Even if that was true it is not compulsory to carry it.

But then self-serving publicity stunts are something of a trademark for certain people

M.Mouse, you obviously have a big downer on the bearded one, for whatever reason. However, can we leave him out of the discussion? He is not involved in either the purchase or the deployment of Virgin's A380s (or any other aircraft)!

The '4 engines 4 longhaul' is used in Airbus's own advertising, which is why I think it may be a trademark of theirs - added to the fact that the phrase does not appear on Virgin's Boeings. Whatever your opinion of the phrase, it will most certainly have to go if B777s are ordered, as seems likely.

Colegate, if Virgin could get 480 people on an A340-600 on the Orlando or Caribbean routes you might have a point, but at 313 pax they are well short of the ex-Alitalia 744s that cover the bucket and spade routes. In any case, I believe the 346 can't operate on the turning-circles common in the Caribbean. Also, one of the main advantages of the 346 is its freight capacity, which would be wasted on such routes. The 773 is closer to the 744, and could reasonably replace the older 744s at Virgin, but it doesn't really make sense as a 343 replacement. I would have thought that the 772 would be better in that role. Could a mixed 772/773 buy be on the cards? Who knows!

[scroggs]

Flight International's take on it:



Airbus is playing down the significance of A380 launch customer Virgin Atlantic's decision to defer its six orders by 18 months, saying the reasons are unique to the UK airline.

Virgin was due to be the second carrier after Singapore Airlines to receive the 550-seat A380 - and the first in Europe - in July 2006. Deliveries of the Rolls-Royce Trent 900-powered aircraft will not now start until late 2007 after agreement was reached with Airbus to delay the order. Virgin had two A380 delivery positions in 2006, two in 2007 and two in 2008, and according to industry sources has been seeking to sell or lease the aircraft before agreeing the deferral.

Virgin says that it remains "absolutely committed" to the concept of the A380, but will only operate the aircraft when it can "offer the standards on board and on the ground that meet our customers' expectations". The airline adds that "the long lead times required by Airbus for the launch customers to finalise cabin specifications with suppliers meant that we would not be able to develop the innovations we plan for the aircraft in time for 2006 deliveries".

The airline says that it also has concerns "that one or two airports might initially not be able to at least match the standards of handling for the A380 offered for the A340 or Boeing 747".

Airbus says it understands that Virgin "was not ready on its interior configuration. Other airlines are more advanced in knowing what they want to do, because they are not being so innovative."

Los Angeles International is the airport causing the most concern. Last year Airbus and Virgin voiced anxieties about its preparations for the A380 (Flight International, 2-8 December 2003). The manufacturer is playing down those concerns. "We and all the other A380 airlines expect it to be ready," it says.

Virgin's reluctance to become an A380 launch operator is believed to stem from its experience when introducing the Airbus A340-600 in 2002, when it bore the brunt of teething problems with the aircraft and its cabin systems. Industry sources say the airline does not have the appetite to undertake a similar role on the ultra-large A380.

The deferral of the three-year-old contract may also be linked to more recent fleet developments. The airline is finalising an order for at least 20 A340-600s or Boeing 777-300ERs as it aims to grow frequencies and destinations.

[ElectroVlasic]

A380 hits turbulence while still in the factory (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-1118081,00.html)

Maybe the timing works out anyway?

Not only is Airbus facing delays in delivery of the wings for its A380 super-jumbo jet, there is also fierce opposition to the company making essential changes to one of its factories.

--ev--

[capt2ezy]

think you may find that 340-600 will be phased out over time , being replaced by 777-300ER's and more 744's.
ozz will prob be operated by 744 due fact that 340's are using similar fuel burn but 35+ pax less+less freight too.
just a guess mind.

[Digitalis]

The 340-600 is a new addition to the fleet! Virgin has 7 now out of 12 firm orders, with probably more to come. There is no chance of the 346 being replaced by 777/744. The 343 will be the next fleet to retire, and the older 744s will be next (Virgin's newest 744s aren't yet a year old). The 777 or further 346 orders are for expansion, not replacement of anything, anyway.

And the 346 burns as much as a 744? Less freight? Do me a favour - go and check your facts, capt2ezy, you're way off!

[panda-k-bear]

It would be a bit strange for Virgin to announce that they are pulling the A346 when only about 6 weeks ago they announced that they were to lease a further three of the type - doesn't make sense. I'm sure th 773ER could do the job of replacing the A343 whilst allowing for growth, but wouldn't it be more sensible to rationalise the fleet down to 3 types - A346, 744 and (in the future) A380 (2007 still isn't that far away!)

[AhhhVC813]

Panda, yes but when has logic ever come into play when money is involved? Boeing need to get Virgin back into the fold and will doubtless come up with a deal that will involve the 777 becoming part of the Virgin fleet.

[panda-k-bear]

And don't you think Airbus will work to block that in the same way?

[Tallbloke]

Maybe the "4 engines 4 long haul" is a bit of a deal in return for getting a discount? A bit like putting up a sign when you get cheap double glazing? :O