Cookies & Privacy Is Richard Branson right to say no to four-engined airliners? - Airline News - Civil Aircraft - Aviation Forums - Flightglobal Airspace

Is Richard Branson right to say no to four-engined airliners?

Bookmark and Share Skip to the end

rated by 0 users
This post has 4 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
First Officer
Michael Targett Posted: Mon, Sep 17 2007 9:47 AM

Richard Branson can usually grin his way out of any PR difficulty from broken-down trains to failed business ventures and still end up with positive headlines.

The Virgin founder's conversion to all things green has seen him declare that he will from now on only buy twin-engined airliners, depsite the fact that the entire 38-strong Virgin Atlantic fleet has four engines, and the airline has six A380s on order.

Only five years ago, at the Farnborough air show, Virgin flew in an A340-600, emblazoned with the slogan "4 engines 4 long haul", the spin being that you'd rather have three spare if one spluttered out over the North Atlantic or Sahara ... presumably avoiding the need to have to make a U-turn.

Our current Question of the Week on flightglobal asks whether you think his change of heart is the right decision.

The count is pretty split at the moment - 50% vs 50% the last time I looked, but what's driving your opnion?

Have your say ...

 

Editor Flightglobal.com

Top 200 Contributor
Cabin Crew
jimyvr replied on Mon, Sep 17 2007 4:41 PM

 He has the rights to say whatever he wants, because, as clearly stated, it's simple Airbus+Virgin PR stunt on the A340-600.

Whether Branson is flamboyant or serious or not, he still have the rights to change tune.  In fact, who doesn't change their thoughts on all issues as time changes?
 

Top 50 Contributor
First Officer
This is a classic example of 'Greenwash'.  The simple answer is that the choice of aircraft is purely an economic one for the commercial aviation industry.  Given the previous PR spin regarding 4-engined operations, one can now only surmise that environmental matters take precedence over safety decisions with respect to fleet planning matters. Yikes! Confused
Not Ranked
Ground Crew
MarkZerafaGilson replied on Tue, Sep 18 2007 11:13 AM

 

Personally, I'm much happier flying a four-engined plane, but engineering-wise, I believe a twin is superior as it has:

  • lower weight 
  • fewer parts to go wrong
  • fewer systems to maintain
  • reduced pilot workload as there are less systems to monitor
  • two engines less to maintain

 The new generation of high-bypass engines makes twin-engined long-haulers a very feasible reality.

 But, if I were ever to fly transatlantic, I'ld be very disappointed if I were to find a 757, 767 or A330 at the gate... I still remember my rides on 4-engined beasts... Boeing 707s and 720s, and for an aviation buff, seeing those engines on the wings made you feel you were on something special.

 Branson is more of a businessman than anything else, but he's showing corporate social responsabliity by going for more economic aircraft... which ultimately also makes business sense. I admire the guy's guts to withdraw from his previous position to assume a more public-friendly position.

Top 50 Contributor
First Officer
aviator1 replied on Tue, Sep 18 2007 11:42 AM

I have to agree that it all comes down to public perception and social responsibility; something that Richard Branson is extremely good at!!! Surprise

History in the making
 
Page 1 of 1 (5 items) | RSS