Speednews is reporting that Virgin has pushed back delivery of the A380
Controversial, moi?
As for the '4 engines 4 longhaul' logo, I believe that is an Airbus trademark....
But then self-serving publicity stunts are something of a trademark for certain people.
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!"
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Crawley
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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!
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: By the Sea
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380 hits turbulence while still in the factory
Maybe the timing works out anyway?
--ev--
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.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: europe
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Bear Behind
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!)
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: U.K
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
