Virgin signs for the A330

Ah, the first VS aircraft that will fly long-haul on just two engines!:eek:

I’m sure its probably been said before, but isnt it ironic that VS used to say “4 engines 4 long-haul” on the side of some of their aircraft, and yet now they have ordered and are going to be flying just 2 engines on some.

And, I still prefer the old scheme to this latest one…the font that is used on the “virgin atlantic” wording at the front is just awful (far too big, not bold/”Virgin” enough), and the white c/s on the main fuselage makes it look just a lot cheaper than it used to.

That said though, could this be Virgin’s strategy in terms of ways of saving money and adapting to the market conditions by choosing to use smaller aircraft and not applying as much paint or trying to make as much of a statement as they used to; compared to BA’s current strategy which appears to take it out on their staff first and foremost, usually by attacking their pay-packets or working conditions.

Times change , many airlines fly longhaul with only 2 engines.
Engines are more advanced and so are well able to handle the longhaul sectors.
I hate the revised paint job , where is the Union Jack ?

I don’t think that is in the same livery as the 747s are. Seems to be flat red and white, rather than the nice metallic light silver and dark red on the 747s!

but like BA, Virgin appears to have ditched the Union Jack!!!!!!!

Assuming that the new livery is rendered in the same way as on the B747, the “white” isn’t actually white.

It’s a slightly metallic pearl grey finish, which looks very nice indeed when the sunlight catches it,

Ah, the first VS aircraft that will fly long-haul on just two engines!:eek:

I’m sure its probably been said before, but isnt it ironic that VS used to say “4 engines 4 long-haul” on the side of some of their aircraft, and yet now they have ordered and are going to be flying just 2 engines on some.

And, I still prefer the old scheme to this latest one…the font that is used on the “virgin atlantic” wording at the front is just awful (far too big, not bold/”Virgin” enough), and the white c/s on the main fuselage makes it look just a lot cheaper than it used to.

That said though, could this be Virgin’s strategy in terms of ways of saving money and adapting to the market conditions by choosing to use smaller aircraft and not applying as much paint or trying to make as much of a statement as they used to; compared to BA’s current strategy which appears to take it out on their staff first and foremost, usually by attacking their pay-packets or working conditions.

love the velvety red on the cs. Looking good!

First Aircraft of the Order has Recently took to the Skys for the first time out of Toulouse In full Livery!

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgin-Atlantic-Airways/Airbus-A330-343X/1862967/&sid=331da2d10546d1b09a980337cf177c2e

I should have said new “Cheap leases on NEW BUILD quads” Granted there are 747 parked up but they are all used.
close to the same.

Rgds Cking

This still doesn’t stack up. The original announcement regarding the order was in June 2009, at which time VS said they had ordered 10x A330’s, of which 4 would be leased, and they would buy the remaining 6 themselves. They have since gone on to arrange sale and leaseback deals on the remaining 6 aircraft.

If they’d wanted A430s, they’d have ordered them and gone through the same process. However, the fact that they cancelled 6 remaining A340-600 orders once they firmed up the A330 deal in January this year would suggest their preference is for the twin over the quad.

I think another reason that he had ordered the 330 is the lack of cheap leases on quad jets.

That I am not convinced about. Even in this economy there are almost no A330s parked. However, there are a few A346s parked, including a few new builds that where not taken up, Iberia for instance.

The A330 will serve them well, no doubt about it. I have been on the A330 to the USA a few times on KLM. Very nice flight!

I should have said new “Cheap leases on NEW BUILD quads” Granted there are 747 parked up but they are all used.
To put them back into service would require a maintenance input to service them and to reconfigure them to his layout, all adding to the cost. Also in the long term operating secondhand aircraft from different operators is a pain because they are all slightly different. Different operators choose different options and this causes higher maintenance costs. The often quoted example was the pilots pen holder on the 747. At one point there were FOURTY FOUR different options to choose from! Just imagine the different options available across the avionics. My airline operated a bunch of second hand aircraft from a variety of sources once and basicaly we had a different maintenance manual and parts catalogue for each aircraft.
When you buy ten new builds the will always be exactly the same or very close to the same.

Rgds Cking

I think another reason that he had ordered the 330 is the lack of cheap leases on quad jets.
The lease companies proberbly won’t order the 747-800 due to the poor resale value after beardy has finished with them. The A340 is in the same boat. They are a slow seller compared to the 330 with a lot of the present operators being un happy withthem any way.
EROPS will dominate the wold compleatly before too long

Rgds Cking

I actually think it has more to do with the fact that the A330 is cheaper to operate than it’s four engined compatriates on equivelant routes. If he wanted cheap leases then there is a deluge of 744’s sitting in the desert.

The A330’s are an interim measure due to delays in the 787 program, there wasn’t any original intent to order them, so for interim solutions they could have leased 744’s, but the operating costs are too high.

That seems obvious. Twice the engines, twice the potential for an engine shutdown. The thing is, with a quad you still got 75% of power left, with a twin you are down to 50%.

True that you are down 50% of available thrust but not 50% of required thrust. At cruise altitudes and speeds neither engine is running at 100%, perhaps even 80-90%. Rather than flying at .80M a twin engine aircraft could slow to say .60M and still have thrust in reserve on a single engine. In addition, the remaining engine has twice the fuel load available to burn.

At the time, a new rule was brought in for UK Airlines that, simplistically meant: Delay your passengers, pay them for their time. I’m fairly certain that was considered.

Ultimately, the plane flew safely, we must not loose sight of that.

The BA 747 was hardly an incident to be proud of…….

I didn’t say it was. 😉

Which presents no real problems whatsoever as far as I’m aware beyond the fact certain 4 engined aircraft can continue their journey (the 3 engined BA 747 that flew LAX-LHR a few years ago springs to mind) whereas a twin would have to divert if it were far enough away from its destination, although as usual I’m more than happy to be corrected. I’m no expert on such matters!

The BA 747 was hardly an incident to be proud of……the airplane had a second problem enroute, almost ran out of fuel, ended up declaring an emergency and landed short with something like 10,000 lb of fuel remaining (very light for a 747). IMHO, they should have landed somewhere in the U.S. and not attempted an almost Polar oceanic overflight on 3 engines.

I think another reason that he had ordered the 330 is the lack of cheap leases on quad jets.
The lease companies proberbly won’t order the 747-800 due to the poor resale value after beardy has finished with them. The A340 is in the same boat. They are a slow seller compared to the 330 with a lot of the present operators being un happy withthem any way.
EROPS will dominate the wold compleatly before too long

Rgds Cking

That seems obvious. Twice the engines, twice the potential for an engine shutdown. The thing is, with a quad you still got 75% of power left, with a twin you are down to 50%.

Yeh, sorry I think from memory it was on an engine by engine basis, rather than an aircraft basis, but given that I cannot remember what report it was part of then I cannot be certain on this.

The thing is, with a quad you still got 75% of power left, with a twin you are down to 50%.

Which presents no real problems whatsoever as far as I’m aware beyond the fact certain 4 engined aircraft can continue their journey (the 3 engined BA 747 that flew LAX-LHR a few years ago springs to mind) whereas a twin would have to divert if it were far enough away from its destination, although as usual I’m more than happy to be corrected. I’m no expert on such matters!

I’ve long considered the A330 to be one of the more elegant modern commercial aircraft and the Virgin scheme just works. It should be a rather good looking combination, especially on the -300! 🙂

Paul

Furthermore, I’m fairly certain I read somewhere that statistically there were more engine shut downs per million flying hours on 4-engined long haul aircraft than twins.

That seems obvious. Twice the engines, twice the potential for an engine shutdown. The thing is, with a quad you still got 75% of power left, with a twin you are down to 50%.

Ah cool! 😀 Great addition to the VS fleet!