Virgin Scaremongering
Thread Starter
Virgin Scaremongering
Tonight the media is trawling around a story that Virgin will launch in the next few days (probably Monday) an advert in the form of a letter from Sir Richard where he says that passengers feel more secure flying with Virgin and their four engine 747s and A340s. It also alludes to security in the US compared with the UK.
If there is any truth to this rumour, I find it amazing that Virgin would take this route. It smacks of desperation and I'm sure Virgin staff would be as mortified as anyone that their company was taking such a route. We are not going to get through this crisis by breaking ranks and casting aspersions on one another.
Hopefully, the media may just be flying a kite and trying to stir things up (in which case I know they've succeeded with me!) In which case I apologise in advance for giving such a rumour credence. On the other hand....
If there is any truth to this rumour, I find it amazing that Virgin would take this route. It smacks of desperation and I'm sure Virgin staff would be as mortified as anyone that their company was taking such a route. We are not going to get through this crisis by breaking ranks and casting aspersions on one another.
Hopefully, the media may just be flying a kite and trying to stir things up (in which case I know they've succeeded with me!) In which case I apologise in advance for giving such a rumour credence. On the other hand....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin's Branson attacks rivals
London - Virgin boss Richard Branson has ignored an unwritten code between airlines not to criticise each other over safety, by attacking baggage-screening methods and the number of engines used by rivals, newspaper reports said on Saturday.
Branson has attacked US airlines for not imposing mandatory X-raying of luggage following the September 11 hijackings, which saw knife-wielding terrorists crash American commercial planes into New York's World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, outside Washington.
He has also suggested Virgin flights are safer than those run by British rival BA.
"On domestic flights in America, they are still not X-raying bags," Branson told The Daily Mirror.
"I find it incredible that airlines are refusing because of the cost. In the UK, all bags are X-rayed, including hand-luggage. Why not in America?"
Since September 11, Branson has tested security on his own airline by carrying scissors in his overnight case on two flights to the United States and one to the Middle East, he told the paper.
"When they found the scissors I had packed, I praised and thanked the people who picked up on them," said Branson.
In an open letter to be published in advertisements, Branson also suggests Virgin is safer than British Airways (BA), claiming long-haul passengers feel more confident on board his four-engine aircraft than on twin-engine aircraft, according to The Times.
BA is the biggest transatlantic operator of the Boeing 777, the largest passenger aircraft powered by only two engines, The Times said.
"We only fly four-engine aircraft on intercontinental routes. This costs us more than other airlines, but we know from talking to passengers that it increases their confidence," Branson reportedly writes.
A BA source told The Times: "This is a very dubious tactic by Virgin. There is an unwritten code that airlines do not attack each other on safety grounds."
Following September 11, Virgin announced it planned to reinforce flight deck doors and add security bars as a short-term measure to keep pilots safe from hijackers.
It is also considering additional bullet-, heat- and shock-proof doors with video cameras and digital locks, ensuring only crew members can enter.
BA has said it may arm pilots with stun-guns and install surveillance cameras in passenger cabins. - AFP
London - Virgin boss Richard Branson has ignored an unwritten code between airlines not to criticise each other over safety, by attacking baggage-screening methods and the number of engines used by rivals, newspaper reports said on Saturday.
Branson has attacked US airlines for not imposing mandatory X-raying of luggage following the September 11 hijackings, which saw knife-wielding terrorists crash American commercial planes into New York's World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, outside Washington.
He has also suggested Virgin flights are safer than those run by British rival BA.
"On domestic flights in America, they are still not X-raying bags," Branson told The Daily Mirror.
"I find it incredible that airlines are refusing because of the cost. In the UK, all bags are X-rayed, including hand-luggage. Why not in America?"
Since September 11, Branson has tested security on his own airline by carrying scissors in his overnight case on two flights to the United States and one to the Middle East, he told the paper.
"When they found the scissors I had packed, I praised and thanked the people who picked up on them," said Branson.
In an open letter to be published in advertisements, Branson also suggests Virgin is safer than British Airways (BA), claiming long-haul passengers feel more confident on board his four-engine aircraft than on twin-engine aircraft, according to The Times.
BA is the biggest transatlantic operator of the Boeing 777, the largest passenger aircraft powered by only two engines, The Times said.
"We only fly four-engine aircraft on intercontinental routes. This costs us more than other airlines, but we know from talking to passengers that it increases their confidence," Branson reportedly writes.
A BA source told The Times: "This is a very dubious tactic by Virgin. There is an unwritten code that airlines do not attack each other on safety grounds."
Following September 11, Virgin announced it planned to reinforce flight deck doors and add security bars as a short-term measure to keep pilots safe from hijackers.
It is also considering additional bullet-, heat- and shock-proof doors with video cameras and digital locks, ensuring only crew members can enter.
BA has said it may arm pilots with stun-guns and install surveillance cameras in passenger cabins. - AFP
But Richard Branson (I'm not a fan BTW) has a point. The slowdown in traffic is due to passengers being frightnened by the terrorist attacks. Non airline people I talk to are very concerned about safety issues and ask closely whether my cockpit door is secure.
If Virgin, despite its economic plight, is investing in safety then it is surely justified in advertising the fact. It is, after all, what the public care most about.
Some airlines are being totally cynical and taking the attitude 'fingers crossed it won't happen to us so we won't waste an investment in safety'. Never mind other marketing aspects there must be a case for convincing your client base that you have taken all measures possible to prevent access to the cockpit by terrorists.
On the cockpit door issue I am baffled by the attitude of BALPA in not campaigning for reinforced lockable cockpit doors.
Other critical parts of our society are denied to the general public. Tube trains, bus cabs, mainline railways cabs, nuclear power station control rooms and others besides. Airline cockpits are different apparently.
An attitude exists that cabin staff have a critical role to play in some kinds of cockpit crisis. BUT . . . this is not a regulatory requirement. After all there is no requirememnt for freight aircraft to have a third crewmember in the event of pilot incapacitation. Historically, Sep 11th is unlikely to be the only time a crime of this magnitude is perpetrated. The risk of another hijack attempt and subsequent destruction of part of a major city must be more serious than an extremely unlikely double incapacitation.
Comments ladies and gentlemen please.
[ 17 November 2001: Message edited by: Wig Wag ]
If Virgin, despite its economic plight, is investing in safety then it is surely justified in advertising the fact. It is, after all, what the public care most about.
Some airlines are being totally cynical and taking the attitude 'fingers crossed it won't happen to us so we won't waste an investment in safety'. Never mind other marketing aspects there must be a case for convincing your client base that you have taken all measures possible to prevent access to the cockpit by terrorists.
On the cockpit door issue I am baffled by the attitude of BALPA in not campaigning for reinforced lockable cockpit doors.
Other critical parts of our society are denied to the general public. Tube trains, bus cabs, mainline railways cabs, nuclear power station control rooms and others besides. Airline cockpits are different apparently.
An attitude exists that cabin staff have a critical role to play in some kinds of cockpit crisis. BUT . . . this is not a regulatory requirement. After all there is no requirememnt for freight aircraft to have a third crewmember in the event of pilot incapacitation. Historically, Sep 11th is unlikely to be the only time a crime of this magnitude is perpetrated. The risk of another hijack attempt and subsequent destruction of part of a major city must be more serious than an extremely unlikely double incapacitation.
Comments ladies and gentlemen please.
[ 17 November 2001: Message edited by: Wig Wag ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
The 'unwritten law' about safety is more attributable to superstition than anything else - the feeling that if (like Qantas) you advertise that you've never had an incident then a couple of weeks later you will.
Certainly, I think that it is entirely appropriate to highlight the differences in security between Europe (generally good) and the States (generally awful) - as not to do so means that you're colluding in brushing this very important issue under the carpet - and that's got to be bad for everyone.
Certainly, I think that it is entirely appropriate to highlight the differences in security between Europe (generally good) and the States (generally awful) - as not to do so means that you're colluding in brushing this very important issue under the carpet - and that's got to be bad for everyone.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Gods Country
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...'if Virgin despite its economic plight'....The reason VS and all other UK airlines Xray bags is because they have to under DOT regulations, not because of some extra self imposed virtue.
Perhaps Branson is not waving but drowning?
Perhaps Branson is not waving but drowning?
Guest
Posts: n/a
What does Richard Branson think about the safety potential was/is of his virgin express,virgin sun etc. If four engines is better from a safety point of view why isn't virgin express using BAE 146 then.
Dick by name Dick by nature.
However only if it's all true.
Dick by name Dick by nature.
However only if it's all true.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but Virgin Express don't go over large stretches of Ocean or more importantly over Africa or Siberia for hours on end, anyone see that progamme on Yakutsk the other night in the UK. Jolly cold. and as for diverting to Chad or Congo....
Lufthansa ran adverts this summer along the 4 engine lines. They had a picture of a pax looking out of the window at the wing, two engines in place, whilst something like a 777 peeled away in the middle distance. The strapline went something like "Our passengers have a smarter view".
It suprised me at the time that Lufty chose this marketing campaign at the time.
WWW
It suprised me at the time that Lufty chose this marketing campaign at the time.
WWW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Crewrest - I fail to see how it is more important not to ditch in the Atlantic than the North Sea. The gist is that it is safer flying on a 4 engine aircraft than 2 I think that implication applies no matter how far you go.
Also more engines equals more checks more potential to go wrong and I think after what happened to the AA flight on Monday, if the thing had had 20 engines on it it probably wouldn't have made any difference.
Years ago I used to work a lot on boats and small ships. Most only had one engine. You just get a good engineer and give him the finances to look after it properly.
Also more engines equals more checks more potential to go wrong and I think after what happened to the AA flight on Monday, if the thing had had 20 engines on it it probably wouldn't have made any difference.
Years ago I used to work a lot on boats and small ships. Most only had one engine. You just get a good engineer and give him the finances to look after it properly.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mainfrog2, you appear to be missing the point. An engine failure on a twin is a "land ASAP", on a quad it's an "abnormality". If you lose an engine on a twin in the middle of Siberia you will end up in Yakutsk, or Irkutsk or somewhere equally nice (unless your captain has huge balls 
), in a quad you'll probably carry on to destination.
Those members of the "4 engines mean twice as many things can go wrong" club - presumably that means singles are the safest of all......??
), in a quad you'll probably carry on to destination.Those members of the "4 engines mean twice as many things can go wrong" club - presumably that means singles are the safest of all......??
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: England
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are more twice as likely to have engine problems on a 4 engine aircraft though, and considering until recently VS used to operate a huge number of classics which probably have many more tech problems compared to a new 777.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Would most of the routes that VS take ie North America, Far East and Africa take them mainly over land anyway.I would think it's only if you are going to Australia or New Zealand that you go over large expanses of water.
Take your point about engines but how many single engine aircraft can get 300+ people USA without making about 20 trips.
[ 17 November 2001: Message edited by: mainfrog2 ]
Take your point about engines but how many single engine aircraft can get 300+ people USA without making about 20 trips.
[ 17 November 2001: Message edited by: mainfrog2 ]
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ether Space
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desperation if you ask me, lay off 154 pilots then attack better managed companies. His only reason for 4 engined a/c is that he's got a massive lease cost on the 400,s which they can,t get out of, without some extraordinary high penalty. Also he doesn,t really own the airline anymore-- 49.9% to Singapore and the rest mortgaged to the banks!, hmmm.