ASA allows VT's "Plane Relief" campaign
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Coventry/Yorkshire, United Kingdom
Age: 37
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASA allows VT's "Plane Relief" campaign
Found this on Virgin Train's website - End of the domestic airliner? If this is the case, it'll be bad news for Eastern Airlines if Virgin is sucessful in taking over the East Coast franchise.
There's another story above it from when they re-launched a voyager train using bio-fuels, about how Virgin Atlantic also ordered a number of 787s - which is a whole other can of worms.
ASA rejects Easyjet’s complaints
Virgin Trains has seized on the Advertising Standards Authority’s rejection of Easyjet’s complaint against its advertising and will now extend its popular and successful Plane Relief Plus campaign to encourage air travellers to ditch the plane for the train.
Already, thousands of customers flying between London, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow have ditched the plane for the train, swapping their plane boarding cards for a free Virgin Trains First Class ticket sampling train services which are beating airlines hands down on price, frequency, punctuality and environmental protection. The special offer has now been extended to include all flights up until the end of July.
The fresh campaign taking on the airlines comes as the ASA rejects Easyjet’s complaint that Virgin Trains’ Go Greener, Go Cheaper advertisement contained misleading statements and unqualified calculation of comparative carbon emissions of trains and planes.
Virgin Trains stands by its advertising statements and the fact that its Pendolino trains emit 76 percent less CO2 than the same trip by car or plane. This was determined in a study by Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management Ltd., an independent consulting company, and was based on flights between London, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow.
Virgin Group founder Sir Richard Branson said: “I have enormous respect for Easyjet and all that they’ve achieved, and therefore I’m saddened when they shoot themselves in the foot. A Virgin train is clearly way ahead of short haul commercial aircraft on carbon emissions, even without us putting one fifth of our electricity back into the grid.
“More and more customers are giving up short haul airline travel in favour of the train, citing the environment as one of the principal reasons for doing so. The ASA ruling can leave them in no doubt that they are right to do so.”
During the past year, Virgin Trains’ Moving Annual Average punctuality for trains between Glasgow and London arriving within 15 minutes of scheduled time rose from 80.3 to 85.3 percent, while Easyjet’s average punctuality between Glasgow and Luton fell from 86.7 to 73.1 percent. The airline suffered a 9.4 percent reduction in passengers on the route during this period, and its average punctuality between Glasgow and Stansted also fell, from 86.2 to 71.6 percent. At the same time Virgin has seen a 25 percent growth on their London to Glasgow route.
Information last updated: 06 June 2007, 16:00
There's another story above it from when they re-launched a voyager train using bio-fuels, about how Virgin Atlantic also ordered a number of 787s - which is a whole other can of worms.
ASA rejects Easyjet’s complaints
Virgin Trains has seized on the Advertising Standards Authority’s rejection of Easyjet’s complaint against its advertising and will now extend its popular and successful Plane Relief Plus campaign to encourage air travellers to ditch the plane for the train.
Already, thousands of customers flying between London, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow have ditched the plane for the train, swapping their plane boarding cards for a free Virgin Trains First Class ticket sampling train services which are beating airlines hands down on price, frequency, punctuality and environmental protection. The special offer has now been extended to include all flights up until the end of July.
The fresh campaign taking on the airlines comes as the ASA rejects Easyjet’s complaint that Virgin Trains’ Go Greener, Go Cheaper advertisement contained misleading statements and unqualified calculation of comparative carbon emissions of trains and planes.
Virgin Trains stands by its advertising statements and the fact that its Pendolino trains emit 76 percent less CO2 than the same trip by car or plane. This was determined in a study by Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management Ltd., an independent consulting company, and was based on flights between London, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow.
Virgin Group founder Sir Richard Branson said: “I have enormous respect for Easyjet and all that they’ve achieved, and therefore I’m saddened when they shoot themselves in the foot. A Virgin train is clearly way ahead of short haul commercial aircraft on carbon emissions, even without us putting one fifth of our electricity back into the grid.
“More and more customers are giving up short haul airline travel in favour of the train, citing the environment as one of the principal reasons for doing so. The ASA ruling can leave them in no doubt that they are right to do so.”
During the past year, Virgin Trains’ Moving Annual Average punctuality for trains between Glasgow and London arriving within 15 minutes of scheduled time rose from 80.3 to 85.3 percent, while Easyjet’s average punctuality between Glasgow and Luton fell from 86.7 to 73.1 percent. The airline suffered a 9.4 percent reduction in passengers on the route during this period, and its average punctuality between Glasgow and Stansted also fell, from 86.2 to 71.6 percent. At the same time Virgin has seen a 25 percent growth on their London to Glasgow route.
Information last updated: 06 June 2007, 16:00
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: England
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I make a round trip every 2nd or 3rd week to collect/return my 6 yr old son from the ex in Edinburgh. I park up at T1, pretty much get straight on the bmi flight up to EDI, nip downstairs to get/return Jnr, back up and onto same plane, fly back down to LHR. Takes less than 5 hours - how's a train .... Virgin or not .... going to do that for me? I appreciate this is an unusual routine but ........
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Age: 56
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm working in London and living in Edinburgh. Have been for more than 2 years now.
Until the beginning of the year I commuted with BACon via LCY. Typical routine:
Monday morning: 6:15 alarm, 6:45 taxi, 8:00 flight, arrive in (Central) London office 10:45
Friday evening: leave office 1400; 1600 flight; home by 1830
Time door to door (assuming no delays): 4 hours. Typical cost: around £240.
My routine now is:
Monday morning: 5:00 alarm, 5:30 taxi, 5:50 train from Edinburgh. Arrive in London office 10:30
Friday evening: leave office 1415: 1500 train; home by 1945
Time door to door (assuming no delays): 5 hours 30. Typical cost (1st class): around £240.
So if it takes 1 hour 30 more, why do I take the train ?
1. I have internet access on the train - it's slow but I can carry on working throughout the journey
2. Can make phone calls (quietly in the vestibule ends, obviously
)
2. I can get up and walk around at any time
3. Can carry whatever sized luggage I like
4. Don't have to strip to my underpants, or leave behind bottles of liquid before I board the train
5. Don't have to sit in a crowded departure lounge
6. (Secondary reason) Following the BACon sell-off I made a policy decision to spend less of my company's money with BA because of the way it treats its non-Heathrow based staff or customers.
If I'd been flying via Heathrow or Gatwick, the time differential would be even less - and the scope for delays even more. So for domestic business travellers, as the rail network is upgraded and trains are improved, and in parallel airport delays and security requirements make transiting airports more time-consuming, travel by rail is becoming more and more a viable option.
I accept that for leisure travel it's maybe a different story. I guess people are more willing to put up with delays/hassle etc. if it's only once a year / every few months.
13Alpha
Until the beginning of the year I commuted with BACon via LCY. Typical routine:
Monday morning: 6:15 alarm, 6:45 taxi, 8:00 flight, arrive in (Central) London office 10:45
Friday evening: leave office 1400; 1600 flight; home by 1830
Time door to door (assuming no delays): 4 hours. Typical cost: around £240.
My routine now is:
Monday morning: 5:00 alarm, 5:30 taxi, 5:50 train from Edinburgh. Arrive in London office 10:30
Friday evening: leave office 1415: 1500 train; home by 1945
Time door to door (assuming no delays): 5 hours 30. Typical cost (1st class): around £240.
So if it takes 1 hour 30 more, why do I take the train ?
1. I have internet access on the train - it's slow but I can carry on working throughout the journey
2. Can make phone calls (quietly in the vestibule ends, obviously
)2. I can get up and walk around at any time
3. Can carry whatever sized luggage I like
4. Don't have to strip to my underpants, or leave behind bottles of liquid before I board the train
5. Don't have to sit in a crowded departure lounge
6. (Secondary reason) Following the BACon sell-off I made a policy decision to spend less of my company's money with BA because of the way it treats its non-Heathrow based staff or customers.
If I'd been flying via Heathrow or Gatwick, the time differential would be even less - and the scope for delays even more. So for domestic business travellers, as the rail network is upgraded and trains are improved, and in parallel airport delays and security requirements make transiting airports more time-consuming, travel by rail is becoming more and more a viable option.
I accept that for leisure travel it's maybe a different story. I guess people are more willing to put up with delays/hassle etc. if it's only once a year / every few months.
13Alpha
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fly to/from MAN and you can add another hour onto that journey 13Alpha. I never plan to get to the airport less than 90 minites before departure, just too risky with airport security delays. As for getting your bags when you get back into MAN, 
. Am seriously thinking of packing a sleeping bag, plenty of opportunity for 40 winks whilst waiting for the baggage belt to spring into life. Mind you, LGW N Terminal isn't much better. Is it really beyond the wit of man to develop a more efficient method of reuniting pax with their hold baggage? 
Unless airports and airlines shake up their act I can see a fairly bleak future for domestic air travel in the UK. The train is slowly becoming a viable competitor.
. Am seriously thinking of packing a sleeping bag, plenty of opportunity for 40 winks whilst waiting for the baggage belt to spring into life. Mind you, LGW N Terminal isn't much better. Is it really beyond the wit of man to develop a more efficient method of reuniting pax with their hold baggage? Unless airports and airlines shake up their act I can see a fairly bleak future for domestic air travel in the UK. The train is slowly becoming a viable competitor.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Coventry/Yorkshire, United Kingdom
Age: 37
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like they said in the report - they didn't contrast the London/Eding. route - Manchester to London.
Depends which line you use, but you can commute Leeds to London in Two Hours (one way)
Take into account security, weather/fog, and now ticket prices - the train is looking better to travel on...
Infact, until the 'Plane Relief' campaign, I didn't know any airline flew between Manchester and London, because it just seemed too short a distance - I recall a college of mine saying his dad did, and that it saved him time - I then told him about the above, and he tried it. They go by train now.
ONE OF US! ONE OF US! (Sorry, just felt I had to.
)
The train is going to become a BIG competetor in the near future - there has been talk of intoducing 500km/h Mag-Lev trains (currently being developed at Emmsland, Germany - and currently in service between Shanghai airport and Shanghai) to the UK. Should be interesting...
Even further in the future - but not likely to happen at all - a transatlantic tunnel, using pressurised underwater floating tunnels - frictionless - and scientists/futurists estimate it would take 90 minutes to go from New York to London - at somewhere in the region of 3000mph.
That is if you want to travel in a tunnel suspended under the Atlantic...
Speaking of which - we're taking a trip to the apple ourselves - did you know it's cheaper to get a westbound QM2 cabin than to fly first class on Virgin?
Depends which line you use, but you can commute Leeds to London in Two Hours (one way)
Take into account security, weather/fog, and now ticket prices - the train is looking better to travel on...
Infact, until the 'Plane Relief' campaign, I didn't know any airline flew between Manchester and London, because it just seemed too short a distance - I recall a college of mine saying his dad did, and that it saved him time - I then told him about the above, and he tried it. They go by train now.
ONE OF US! ONE OF US! (Sorry, just felt I had to.
)The train is going to become a BIG competetor in the near future - there has been talk of intoducing 500km/h Mag-Lev trains (currently being developed at Emmsland, Germany - and currently in service between Shanghai airport and Shanghai) to the UK. Should be interesting...
Even further in the future - but not likely to happen at all - a transatlantic tunnel, using pressurised underwater floating tunnels - frictionless - and scientists/futurists estimate it would take 90 minutes to go from New York to London - at somewhere in the region of 3000mph.
That is if you want to travel in a tunnel suspended under the Atlantic...
Speaking of which - we're taking a trip to the apple ourselves - did you know it's cheaper to get a westbound QM2 cabin than to fly first class on Virgin?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> Even further in the future - but not likely to happen at all - a transatlantic
> tunnel
Well now lets see... Russia plans a tunnel to America. London to New York by train. What a train journey that would be!...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1680121.ece
> tunnel
Well now lets see... Russia plans a tunnel to America. London to New York by train. What a train journey that would be!...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1680121.ece
Russia plans $65bn tunnel to America
Russia has unveiled an ambitious plan to build the world’s longest tunnel under the Bering Strait as part of a transport corridor linking Europe and America via Siberia and Alaska.
The 64-mile (103km) tunnel would connect the far east of Russia with Alaska, opening up the prospect of the ultimate rail trip across three quarters of the globe from London to New York. The link would be twice as long as the Channel Tunnel connecting Britain and France.
Russia has unveiled an ambitious plan to build the world’s longest tunnel under the Bering Strait as part of a transport corridor linking Europe and America via Siberia and Alaska.
The 64-mile (103km) tunnel would connect the far east of Russia with Alaska, opening up the prospect of the ultimate rail trip across three quarters of the globe from London to New York. The link would be twice as long as the Channel Tunnel connecting Britain and France.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trains are not really that green
Although the British Airline Pilots Association appear to have succumbed to the Man made global warming propaganda, they have nevertheless produced a comprehensive rebuttal to the ‘aviation is bad for the environment brigade’. If you would like to arm yourself with knowledge with which to defend your profession then it can be found here: http://www.balpa.org/BALPA-Camp/Avia...orrections.pdf (from the BALPA public website).
Pages 44-47 are particularly interesting. An important point made is that in the UK only 40% of trains run on electrified lines – the vast bulk on the commuter routes in the SE. Many trains running between London and the North are diesel powered. The not exactly aviation friendly Commission for Integrated Transport published a report
http://www.cfit.gov.uk/docs/2001/rac...exec/index.htm where it is admitted that “emissions (from high speed diesel trains) are greater than the equivalent air journey”.
A close look at the Virgin Trains website http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/gogreener/tandc.aspx (Go Greener , terms and conditions) reveals the following data for their latest CrossCountry Voyager trains:
Virgin Trains CrossCountry - Voyager
Notes
Data in italics were provided by Virgin Trains
Assumptions
Assume fuel consumption per train km is standard for all Virgin CrossCountry services
Fuel consumption for the Voyager fleet, year 2005/6 99,000,000 litres gas oil
Total fleet kilometres, year 2005/6 30,107,318 km
Fuel consumption for the Voyager fleet, year 2005/6 3.3 litres/km (derived from above)
Average number of seats per train 217
Load factor of Virgin CrossCountry trains 0.55
Average number of passengers per train 119 (derived from above)
Fuel consumption per passenger 0.028 litres/pass.km (derived from above)
CO2 emissions for gas oil 2.69 kg/litre (Defra 2005)
Conversion miles to km 1.609
CO2 emissions per passenger kilometre 0.0741 kgCO2/pass.km (derived from above)
CO2 emissions per passenger mile 0.1192 kgCO2/pass.km (derived from above)
Source: ECCM Ltd 2007
The interesting figure is the fuel consumption per passenger. We can readily compare that with the aircraft we fly. On the domestic routes that I fly, the Voyager uses only 20% less fuel per passenger than my 80% loaded airbus. A somewhat surprising figure for many people I would suspect.
Pages 44-47 are particularly interesting. An important point made is that in the UK only 40% of trains run on electrified lines – the vast bulk on the commuter routes in the SE. Many trains running between London and the North are diesel powered. The not exactly aviation friendly Commission for Integrated Transport published a report
http://www.cfit.gov.uk/docs/2001/rac...exec/index.htm where it is admitted that “emissions (from high speed diesel trains) are greater than the equivalent air journey”.
A close look at the Virgin Trains website http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/gogreener/tandc.aspx (Go Greener , terms and conditions) reveals the following data for their latest CrossCountry Voyager trains:
Virgin Trains CrossCountry - Voyager
Notes
Data in italics were provided by Virgin Trains
Assumptions
Assume fuel consumption per train km is standard for all Virgin CrossCountry services
Fuel consumption for the Voyager fleet, year 2005/6 99,000,000 litres gas oil
Total fleet kilometres, year 2005/6 30,107,318 km
Fuel consumption for the Voyager fleet, year 2005/6 3.3 litres/km (derived from above)
Average number of seats per train 217
Load factor of Virgin CrossCountry trains 0.55
Average number of passengers per train 119 (derived from above)
Fuel consumption per passenger 0.028 litres/pass.km (derived from above)
CO2 emissions for gas oil 2.69 kg/litre (Defra 2005)
Conversion miles to km 1.609
CO2 emissions per passenger kilometre 0.0741 kgCO2/pass.km (derived from above)
CO2 emissions per passenger mile 0.1192 kgCO2/pass.km (derived from above)
Source: ECCM Ltd 2007
The interesting figure is the fuel consumption per passenger. We can readily compare that with the aircraft we fly. On the domestic routes that I fly, the Voyager uses only 20% less fuel per passenger than my 80% loaded airbus. A somewhat surprising figure for many people I would suspect.
