I haven’t my self used 747-200 when travelling. So, I have question about that: Virgin is receiving Classics from New Zealand (was it?) so I am wondering why they buy old Jumbos instead of new ones? Are those Classic models as comfortable as -400 srs and are they much more fuel thirsty?
By: KabirT - 3rd May 2001 at 16:55
RE: 747 Classic vs new planes
The Boeing 747 has still a long way to go. Well as the competition is rising, the 747 will have to shut down someday, the A340 is a good example which can gobble up the 747. The 747 sales have gone down 38%(i red it somewhere). The A380 will never take the place of the 747, the 747 is a magnificent aircraft, although i would like to take a ride in the 380, but i would prefer to avoid it, i think the ideal size of a large capacity long-range jet is the 777 or the 340.
By: james - 2nd May 2001 at 21:58
RE: 747 Classic vs new planes
I hope that boeing will introduce new versions of the 747. It would be a shame to see such a magnificent aircraft leave the skies. As the A380 is going to be so large there surely is going to have to be some intermediate size aircraft in operation. Many destinatons will not require such enormity. Will that not be the market for new 747’s?
Although the 380’s look great, the 747’s still top it for me. I think they’re quite sexy looking!!!!
By: Kabir - 5th September 2000 at 15:00
RE: 747 Classic vs new planes
Hello,
This question came to my mind to when VIrgin planned to come to India it was bringing a A340. But suddenly they changet to the 747-200.
regards
Kabir
By: Arabella-Cox - 4th September 2000 at 21:32
RE: 747 Classic vs new planes
The 747-200s Virgin are buying are mid life airframes from Cathay and ANZ, both with RR engines, introducing a third engine type to the company’s B747 fleet.
They are needed to help expand on routes which won’t yet warrant a 400 series capacity and will also replace some of the older airframes (G-VMIA and G-VOYG already scrapped).
I nearly flew back from SFO to London on G-VZZZ a couple of weeks ago when I volunteered to be off loaded from the 400 (G-VAST) on the LHR flight and put on the LGW trip. My seat wasn’t needed but I doubt if, as a passenger, there would have been any discernable difference (apart from the winglets on the 400 being visible from the cabin) and the 200 and 400 have no range problems on trips from London to the US west coast.
No doubt when the A340-600s start to arrive, all the 200s will quickly vanish.
By: Arabella-Cox - 4th September 2000 at 21:32
RE: 747 Classic vs new planes
The 747-200s Virgin are buying are mid life airframes from Cathay and ANZ, both with RR engines, introducing a third engine type to the company’s B747 fleet.
They are needed to help expand on routes which won’t yet warrant a 400 series capacity and will also replace some of the older airframes (G-VMIA and G-VOYG already scrapped).
I nearly flew back from SFO to London on G-VZZZ a couple of weeks ago when I volunteered to be off loaded from the 400 (G-VAST) on the LHR flight and put on the LGW trip. My seat wasn’t needed but I doubt if, as a passenger, there would have been any discernable difference (apart from the winglets on the 400 being visible from the cabin and the 200 and 400 have no range problems on trips rom London to the US west coast.
No doubt when the A340-600s start to arrive, all the 200s will quickly vanish.
By: V1 - 17th August 2000 at 17:41
RE: 747 Classic vs new planes
I assume Virgin have acquired the 747-200’s because they are cheaper to purchase than an A340 or 747-400. The airline is expanding rapidly and probably hasn’t got time to wait for factory fresh aircraft to be delivered, the 747 classics are a good alternative, and passengers still like them. As long as the aircraft have been refurbished with a modern interior and all the usual Virgin refinements, they should be every bit as comfortable as their younger brother, the 747-400.
Sign In
August 17, 2000 at 12:01 pm