Jump to content

Talk:Virgin Atlantic/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Mistaken

Virgin Atlantic does not fly to Amsterdam. Have you not noticed that the only way Virgin Atlantic makes money is to offer long-haul flights? I don't think a 45 minute flight to Amsterdam is regarded as long-haul. I have also tided up the list of destinations. (And removed Amsterdam from the list, -- also check the Virgin Atlantinc website if you don't believe me!

Response

Hmm, if someone is unsure about something don't you think it would be better to reply politely and helpfully, it wasn't their fault that they were unsure. Not everyone knows the difference between longhaul and shorthaul flights and which airlines do what.

Shorthaul: Ryanair etc Longhaul: Virgin Atlantic, Emirates Airline etc

Melbourne?

Not sure it's worth including Melbourne as a destination, as it's only via a codeshare. If we were to include it, then why not the other codeshare destinations (which would be a *very* long list, including America West, Continental, Singapore, etc, etc, alliances) [Pete/V-Flyer.com]

Spaceport?

I'm fairly sure the spaceport must be linked to Virgin Galactic but I don't have any sources / firm knowledge so I won't change it for the moment.Iancaddy 22:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

G-VHIP → G-VRED

According to Jethro's UK and Ireland Airline Fleet Listing, registration G-VHIP was changed to G-VRED. This change was likely done by Virgin Atlantic because both G-VHIP and G-VLIP would have shared the same two letter identification: IP or "India Papa". Also, it seems delivery dates for what is now G-VRED and G-VYOU were either changed or mistakenly entered; those were corrected as well. NcSchu 13:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources: [1], [2]

G-VSHY

Yeah, Just like G-VHIP to G-VRED, G-VSHY Changed Its Name from Madam Butterfly To Claudia Nine. It was Cloud Nine But the Aircraft Was Christend By Claudia Schaffer Or something so its now claudia nine. Im pretty Sure that Plane goes to Dulles By where i live. I usually watch Planes there And She comes in quite often. Im pretty sure my dad is taken her to heathrow in like a month. Please, correct me if i'm wrong

172.143.11.120 15:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I used to work for the airline having served them for 5 and a half years as cabin crew. Routes are not fleet specific apart from Orlando, Vegas and the Caribbean. These are operated by 747-400's from LGW and MAN (not Vegas). The other 747-400's, A340-600's and A340-300's do go everywhere else. It normally depends on seasonal loadings. IAD (Washington) is not just operated by G-VSHY, it is operated by all of their fleet. They even change it last minute sometimes if operational requirements dictate this. Hope this helps a little more.

BA/AA Merger vs. Partnership

Branson is often quoted as referring to BA and AA attempting to merge, but U.S. law prevents this. BA and AA did unsuccessfully attempt to gain antitrust immunity but a "merger" was never attempted. I can find no sources of information to support the premise that BA and AA attempted to merge, other than via online discussion groups or Branson using the term "merger" during an interview.

Incidents and accidents

All the incidents listed appear to be non notable. I have deleted one from the 24 august for being particularly unnotable - but I propose that the rest could be deleted, most of them are justs bad day at the office incidents that happen all the time to most airlines. MilborneOne 21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Some of them are pretty notable in the aviation community, and compared with those on other Wikipedia Airlines pages I think the ones currently there should stay. I do however agree with your removal of the 24 August accident. Tailstrikes and the like cause sufficient damage to the aircraft and put it out of service for weeks, perhaps even longer. That's why most of those should be left. NcSchu 02:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Query as to why yesterday's incident was removed? Leda74 00:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a notable incident per WP:AIRLINES. NcSchu(Talk) 01:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Further Reading

Not sure on the ISBN, I only rented the book from my local library and recently returned it, however Sir Richard Branson's autobiography, comically named 'Losing my Virginity' is a very good read and there is a lot of information on how pulling the airline together is done from the inside. W022a 17:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Hi, I came over here to copyedit this page but unfortunately the POV in some of the sections was really distracting. I removed the copyedit because the POV needs much more attention. I'm not comfortable with this topic to edit. Leah 02:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you perhaps be a bit more specific. I have done some major format changes recently but haven't really touched the actual information portrayed, so if you could be more specific I could attempt to fix it. Thanks. NcSchu 19:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The only part I can see is POV is the "Flying with Virgin" section, which I think could be dispensed with completely. It is very trivial, not wikified, and not really encyclopedic.--Shantavira 09:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be completely removed, seeing as though it's an airline, an encyclopedic article on it should at least comment on the interior. I feel like the title is perhaps a bit biased, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NcSchu (talk • contribs) 22:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
I don't see the POV problem with Flying with Virgin. They're describing the various amenities of the various service levels offered by Virgin. Is the wording too flamboyant? Perhaps a little too much? I don't know. It looked fine to me. 216.144.250.115 09:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Subsequent Developments

The section about Virgin's unsuccessful attempt to merge with bmi to create a new, more powerful rival for BA at Heathrow is recurring, unsubstantiated airline industry rumour.

Try to think about it logically. Why should Virgin seek to acquire an airline that is neither the UK's largest nor its most profitable airline for a hell of a lot of money to get access to that carrier's highly prized slots at London's premier airport, resulting in ownership of an airline whose mainline operations have not made any money in their own right ever since 9/11? The only reason bmi has been able to book a profit in recent years was because Lufthansa and SAS, its two big minority shareholders, are contractually obliged to absorb 90% of the losses incurred by the joint venture they set up with bmi in 1999 to run its short-haul scheduled routes from Heathrow and Manchester in return for having acquired a stake in bmi's holding company, which was valued at over half a billion pounds at that time. Not only was bmi very badly affected by significantly reduced transatlantic transfer traffic at Heathrow in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but it was also leapfrogged by easyJet and Ryanair, which took advantage of the established scheduled airlines' disarray during that period, both in terms of economies of scale as well as in terms of profitability. This means that bmi has struggled ever since to match the two leading no frills operators' much lower costs and their far superior financial performance. In addition, recent surveys trying to establish the perception of brands and the value people place on them have found that the bmi brand does not seem to be as valuable as the BA, Virgin or easy brands. Keeping this in mind as well as the fact that bmi has considerable pension liabilities towards its work force and stripping out the value of the airline's Heathrow slots, makes it clear that the airline has a fairly low "intrinsic" value and thus really isn't as attractive a takeover target for potential suitors such as Virgin Atlantic or British Airways as some commentators claim.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that this article should only include information that can be substantiated (as opposed to industry/internet rumours).

an anonymous reader, 17-01-2007

I concur with most of the above comments and have therefore decided to remove the relevant passages from the article.

Pimpom123 12:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Formation

I always thought that Virgin's initial foundations were as quoted from Richard Branson himself that he got stuck somewhere and chartered an aircraft selling the remaining seats to other stranded passengers and thus Virgin were formed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.44.250 (talk • contribs)

A nice little story but I'm afraid not much more than that. He was approached with a business proposition, like the idea and went from there. I don't know the later details of how he took over the company though. Spanky Deluxe 11:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Although not related to Virgin Atlantic, that did actually happen (pre-VS days I think). Somewhere in the Caribbean, see "Losing my Virginity" for info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.44.41 (talk • contribs)

Current Fleet Data

Somebody recently tried delete the current fleet data table which was reverted. The original deleter has not commented but I would like to suggest the information on entertainent systems and suite should be removed as these are just copied from the referenced website, I would also argue that this information is not encyclopedic. MilborneOne 22:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not encyclopedic for you perhaps, but as Virgin Atlantic aircraft do not all have the same system and that is one core component of the airline it should stay. NcSchu 22:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I would have to argue that the entertainment system on an aircraft has very little general interest. I doubt that they are the only airline with lots of different entertainment configurations. Anybody who was interested could follow the links provided from which the data has been copied. MilborneOne 12:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Former Fleet

I would suggest that the list of former aircraft should be removed, none of the aircraft are notable. It is not something that is done in other airline articles. MilborneOne 22:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This I do agree should be removed, all it does is add excess page area but as the aircraft aren't in the fleet they don't serve any real purpose. Although just because it isn't on other airline pages doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be on this one. It seems as though the only purpose it has is to catalogue the previous names of the aircraft beacause it is something unique about Virgin Atlantic aircraft. NcSchu 22:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Done - Adrian Pingstone 23:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Could I please suggest that while an ENTIRE list of the former fleet is not required, a summary is included (i.e. numbers and any notable aircraft such as first aircraft, first of a certain model, crashed etc.) as information relating to former fleets is included in some other aircraft articles and a) may be interesting to others b) in my opinion (and maybe others) is a big part of an airline's history.Samvanewyk 13:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's even less encyclopedic to have a summary, and although aircraft make an airline they are just despensible pieces of machinery. We have already mentioned in the article the first aircraft that Virgin Atlantic got and that is good enough. None of the other aircraft is notable.NcSchu 20:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. One could argue that if they are just dispensable pieces of machinery why bother having any literature regarding the fleet at all? While the information in list form did add excess page area a table remedies this while still including the information. I fail to see why including the information is an issue, if people don't want to read it they don't have to, however, if even one user wanted or needed the information then it has served a purpose and therefore should be included.
In my opinion this is simply a case of picking and choosing the most relevant aspects to include. The page needs more cleaning and removing the former fleet table, a table that is not present on almost every other airline page, helped that. The existing/future fleet simply has more relevance because it is literally what makes up the airline, although as that table gets longer and longer it will probably soon need condensing as well. NcSchu 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't say what exactly should be done but if nothing else there needs to be space for mentions of some notable aircraft. Some that might have been relevant to a particular incident or some that have been named, i.e. The Spirit of Sir Freddie which was a plane named (although I don't think it ever flew) after Sir Freddie Laker due to Richard Branson's admiration of the former businessman. Maybe something along the lines of "Virgin Atlantic currently has x 747s, y Bla Blas and z Pink Elephants in service, started with x planes and in its life so far has gone through y planes, x 747s, y Bla Blas and z Pink Elephants. Notable aircraft include: (then in list form) Bla Bla Plane - The first aircraft ever flown, Bla Bla Again - A plane named after xxxx etc etc". I agree that a full list of aircraft isn't that far fetched an idea to have on here but maybe it should go in a page of its own, like TV Shows have their lists of episodes in a separate page. Thoughts? Spanky Deluxe 13:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I just managed to figure out what you were saying and like the idea. I think that a separate subpage for the list that used to be on the page is a good idea. My only point is that the information that used to be on the page was, in my opinion, noteworthy. It was a part of the airlines history and there seems to be no real reason to exclude it. I use wikipedia for reference and once used the data, therefore it has served a purpose, if it does so again then great, if not atleast it's available.RaseaC 15:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with that, my only complaint about the table was having it on this page. What should we call it? "Virgin Atlantic Airways' Past, Current, and Future Fleet"? NcSchu 17:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a good compromise, if we were going to put all of the fleet data onto a separate page a title along the lines of what you suggest would be fitting, or simply 'Virgin Atlantic fleet' with a short summary on the main page (much along the lines of the destinations section). Alternatively we could have a separate page simply for the retired fleet, titles 'Virgin Atlantic retired fleet' which just includes the list that used to be on the main page. However, I'm more in favour of all of the tables being on a new subpage and only a summary on the main page although I'm not sure what the done thing is and that is only my opinion.

I've put together what I have in mind, I'm new here so you'll have to excuse the lack of images, basically I've copied and pasted the existing data onto a separate page, I've left the main article alone. Is this what everyone else had in mind? If not please let me know! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Atlantic_fleet RaseaC 17:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well first of all the page should really be "Virgin Atlantic Airways fleet" and I think the subpage should only contain the tables, and leave the writing on the main page. NcSchu 19:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, the only reason 'Atlantic' was omitted is because I literally copied the address of the 'destinations' subpage and changed one word. However, I agree with you, because it's a page title it should be the long-form, despite the rest of the article referring to 'Virgin Atlantic' or simply 'Virgin'.RaseaC 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed duplicate data from main page and added redirect to your page. The transition is complete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NcSchu (talk • contribs) 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
I have no problem with the separate page, it was the long list of former aircraft that I thought was a slippery slope. Still dont see why it has to have "suite" (whatever that is) or entertainment systems. We dont detail avionics fits and thousands of other variables between each aircraft. MilborneOne 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think your concerns could be considered just but my thinking is that, as an encyclopedia, more information is better than less. I think that due to Virgin's history with regards to entertainment systems the information should remain, because it is in table form it doesn't add any excess page space, it simply provides more information. RaseaC 23:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Financial information please

Does anyone have revenue and profit numbers for this corporation? Annandale 01:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a private company not traded on any market so I'm not sure whether it regularly releases revenue and profit numbers. The latest numbers I found were from 2005 stating a net income of 40.7 million USD with a one year sales growth of 37.3%.[3] It seems the only way to get recent numbers is to buy a subscription. NcSchu 04:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Flying with Virgin

I recently simplified and made this paragraph more encyclopedic and removed a lot of trivia and advertising - on the basis this is an encyclopedia and not a Virgin promotional website. This has been reverted by an IP user - I obviously have problems with the 3rr rule if somebody puts all the content back in again - anybody else have an opinion ? MilborneOne 11:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your decision. We really only need brief information here because the in depth information is available on websites made for the material. NcSchu 20:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre Accusation of Vandalism

Someone called NcSchu just undid my edits, classing them vandalism. I object. Feel free to remove fact tags as you see fit, but please don't play silly buggers. richi 02:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I called it Vandalism because you removed relevant information with seemingly no second thought. NcSchu 02:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
No, Nick. I removed some out-of-date info. and some that was duplicated at Virgin Atlantic destinations. K? richi 02:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion, I mistakenly grouped some of your edits with the edits of the unknown user. However I do think the new destinations should be listed still on the main page or put into the existing paragraph. NcSchu 03:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I agree the new routes should go back, and have re-instated them. richi 09:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Rumours?

Is the below really necessary:

There have been rumours that Virgin Atlantic will eventually phase out the Boeing 747s and introduce replacements; being the A380 and Boeing 787. There is also rumours that Virgin will phase out the A340-300s. Replacing them with brand new A340-600 aircraft. Both of these comments are not official statements made by Virgin Atlantic

fine if a reliable source can be found but simply because it states 'rumour' several times surely this needs to go?RaseaC 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no real way of varifying a rumor, and wikipedia is not the place for any type of rumor, therefore it has been removed. NcSchu 21:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
my thoughts exactly, just wanted to confirm that was the concensusRaseaC 23:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Media Section

Does anyone either object or support creating a media section as Virgin Atlantic does feature quite prominently in a few films.

If Media Section is a codeword for Popular Culture and Trivia items then we could probably do without it ! Appearance in films in not particularly notable. MilborneOne 21:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Name

Someone has added Ltd. to the info box. While this is the 'legal name' for the airline I can't find another airline article that also lists the legal name, making VA the exception. For consistency should this not be reverted? Have tried to contact the editor re: but no reply. RaseaC 13:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS dictates that legal names should be used for all companies in the lead. So whilst it isn't necessary in the infobox (feel free to remove) it is required under MOS for all companies. --Russavia 14:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It's in the read so removed from the info box, for the sake of consistency RaseaC 15:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Upper Class is First Class

People keep reverting my edits that Virgin Upper class is First Class. This IS a first class level. Please see the following articles:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/1280736.html

http://www.vacationidea.com/airlines/virgin_atlantic_first_class_travel.html

http://www.vacationidea.com/airlines/virgin_atlantic_first_class_travel.html

I have flown Upper class and it does not have DOZENS and DOZENS of seats as the person who undid my edits mentioned. Also, business class tickets do not cost $10,000 from LA to London. Please stop undoing my edits and realize I am correct. Thanks.

Hi, you are wrong. Please see the VA website, this is the difinitive source on the subject. The sources you added are also incorrect so feel free to bring that to their attention. Premium economy is a completely different class from economy BUSINESS or first, and this is common knowledge. Flying the airline does not make you right, afterall who hasn't flown VA Upper Class? I'm no expert but you appear to be coming very close to receiving a ban if you continue to revert the valid edits of registered, respected users. Do something constructive or go away and annoy someone else. (rant over) RaseaC 11:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. "J" is not the designation for international first class. It is the designation for "premium business class." Google for "premium business class" j for more cites than you can shake a stick at. Or if you're pushed for time, just try [4] ... richi 11:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Virgin Upper Class is a pure BUSINESS CLASS (J-designated) product. This mainline 744 is showing 44 Upper Class seats[5], too many to be considered an international first class product. If you want real first class on a European carrier, fly Lufthansa or British Airways. Jendeyoung 01:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jendeyoung (talk • contribs)

The fact that it cost $10,000 to fly London-LA just means that Virgin is very expensive, in fact it is far cheaper to fly BA FIRST than Virgin Business (Upper) class. While although I have not yet travelled in either class (Premium Economy on BA is the highest class I have ever flown) it is clear that Upper Class is the business class product of Virgin regardless of how over-priced it is. If you want to fly true First Class then in Europe than fly British Airways, Lufthansa or Air France. SJHQC (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

SRB "President" of VAA

There has been some misunderstanding of SRB's new role in VAA as "President" of the airline. I can confirm that this is his new official title. Richard is being referred to as "President" in the latest VAA press releases and news articles and all staff have been informed of this new title. The page has been amended accordingly. 82.44.26.36 10:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A couple of references I have found [6], [7]. 82.44.26.36 10:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Any Comments?

Recently RVd this:

Saftey On Board Videos Virgin Atlantic is often noted for their animated saftey on board videos. Although equally as informative as many other airlines saftey on board videos, they often cause humour among the public as the animated charachters go about having a safe flight. In His autobiography, Jeremy Clarkson says "Virgin Atlantic have a stupid approach to saftey videos!)

Any objections? It pretty much un-noteworthy, unencyclopedic and uncited. In my opinion the safety briefing rarely warrants a mention (unless were talking about Song RIP).RaseaC 23:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's highly irrelevant and poorly written nevertheless. It makes at least four unsubstantiated claims as well. The article is better off without it. NcSchu(Talk) 01:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed not notable. MilborneOne 11:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Image of A340 in maintenance hangar

The very wonderful Adrian Pingstone recently removed this, reasoning that the quality was very poor. I cleaned the image up and re-added it. Adrian's still not happy with it, it seems. I agree that the quality's not magnificent, but I'd prefer to see the article with it than without, or a suitable replacement. Any other editors have any comment? Here's the new version ... richi 16:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think it's very good. The main problem is that it was clearly taken through the window of another aircraft, a rather dirty window I might add, and there is consequently a lot of "fog" around the picture. The angle is a bit too head-on as well. I suppose if no other picture of the hangar can be found we should probably leave it however. NcSchu(Talk) 16:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it should stay, it's a bit more interesting than the generic in-flight pic on every other article. Replace when a suitable replacement becomes available. I read this guy's reply to the matter and until he is officially named "The All Seeing, All Knowing High God Of Wikipedia Images" his opinion is as important as everyone else's and I think whatever is decided democratically here should be the case. RaseaC 18:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Now now, be fair. Adrian does contribute some very good images. Anyway, pending additional discussion, I'll re-add the tidied version. Thanks for your thoughts and everyone feel free to continue the discussion ... richi 18:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
An A340 in maintenance.
Yes it's me, the very wonderful Adrian Pingstone. If you came across this image in Britannica or Encarta what would you think? I'd be well annoyed, but I suppose you wouldn't. There's no detail whatever in the aircraft, none of the maintenance equipment can be seen and the pic is covered in patches and blobs, and its horribly grainy. So what purpose does the pic fulfil and what can the reader learn from looking at it (except that aircraft sometimes go into hangars, which fact has nothing directly to do with Virgin Atlantic). Let me know! - Adrian Pingstone 19:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I would be very surprised if I found this on Britannica or Encarta but it's unfair to compare Wikipedia to either, as this is by far a more superior encyclopedia with more information, articles, facts and images than probably both put together. The reason I would be surprised is because you don't see many pictures like this at all compared to the endless images of planes taking off or landing, let alone in an encyclopedia. What makes Wikipedia great is that you can find information on the most obscure subjects and indeed images depicting the 'different' side of a subject. I could ask you what any of your pictures on this page teach us, other than that planes fly. We all know what a plane looks like up close and I for one don't really care what maintenance equipment looks like, it's simply the view shown here that justifies its inclusion.RaseaC 20:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I have to agree with Adrian Pingstone the image should be removed it does not contribute anything to the article even if the quality was better.MilborneOne 23:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent change

I recently reverted this (which was tagged onto the end of one of an incident summary): The aircraft's commander, Captain Tim Barnby and his crew were subsequently praised in the AAIB accident investigation report for their cool handling of the emergency. I don't think this is noteworthy, crew members are often commended for they way in which they act in emergencies and either way it isn't particularly noteworthy. Any comments? RaseaC 21:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree that it is not really needed, notable or not it this only a summary and any detail should be on the related article. Interesting to note that this aircraft is planned to be the first A340 to be scrapped, suggestions are that it was never right after the this incident.MilborneOne 11:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines?

Is there really a need for the Singapore Airlines info at the bottom of the page? RaseaC 10:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No they are only shareholders - removed. MilborneOne 11:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
A 49% shareholding is still a shareholding, and still means a relationship between the Virgin and SIA. Restored.--Huaiwei 13:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The person added it back. I'm not going to revert yet it because it will undoubtedly lead to a revert war, but if the editor doesn't weigh in on this discussion that won't be my problem. I agree there's no need for the template. The editor claims that VS is a member of the SIA group, but this is completely and utterly false. The SIA group is an affiliate of Virgin Atlantic, a completely different thing. Putting the template at the bottom makes it seem like Singapore Airlines holds a majority stake in Virgin Atlantic, which it does not. NcSchu(Talk) 12:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
If you could provide evidence to show that this airline is not a member of SIA Group, I shall voluntarily remove it. Check SIA's annual reports [8], where Virgin Atlantic is listed as an associate within the SIA Group of companies, just as Tiger Airways is (which SIA also holds 49%, but freqently refered to as a "subsidiary" of SIA). And may I enforce the point that the template specifically says "related companies", which in no way suggests majority ownership. Just five of those companies listed in the template are majority owned.--Huaiwei 13:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
By definition a company is an associate of as long as less than 50% is owned, which is the case with SIA Group and Virgin Atlantic. If we're going to leave the template on then I must object to having the "related companies" link redirect to Singapore Airlines subsidiaries as this incorrect. NcSchu(Talk) 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to support NcSchu's point about the template that it is misleading in that it declares the airline as a subsidary, which it is not. Just read the Singapore Airlines annual report and noticed that Virgin Atlantic Limited is listed as an associated company not a subsidary company. That means that it is not a member of the "Singapore Airlines Group" just a company Singapore Airlines have invested in. But note that the Singapore Airlines investment is in Virgin Atlantic Limited (a holding company) which is not the same company as Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (the airline) the subject of this article. MilborneOne 20:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above two comments. Including the box is mis-leading. A share in the company doesn;t warrent that info here. It should be removed. Consesus reached. RaseaC 21:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I removed it ... richi 22:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I also removed VAA from Template:Singapore_Airlines ... richi 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Some comments:

  • If "Singapore Airlines investment is in Virgin Atlantic Limited (a holding company) which is not the same company as Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (the airline) the subject of this article", then could anyone explain why this article kicks off with "Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (usually referred to as Virgin Atlantic) is a British airline which is owned by Richard Branson's Virgin Group (51%) and Singapore Airlines (49%)."? Why is the parent company stated as Virgin Group, and not Virgin Atlantic Limited?
  • I realise now that the link to SIA subsidiaries is probably inaccurate. Now that the link has been removed, can anyone still assert that a associated company has no relation to SIA?
  • All companies listed SIA Annual Report's SIA Group list of companies are undeniably part of it. See Singapore_Airlines#Corporate_management for details. Is anyone here going to dispute the inclusion of Virgin Atlantic in that section and table?--Huaiwei 02:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Virgin Atlantic was removed from the template, while Tiger Airways (I have since changed it to the holding company) still remains. Is this a case of double standards?--Huaiwei 02:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it's a case of an edit sequence: the first edit was to remove VAA, later I edited the template to simply remove the implication that this was a list of subsidiaries. Then, real life intervened. Now I'm back, I've re-added VAA ... richi 09:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ownership by a holding company

It's generally understood that ownership of SRB's private companies are often complex. I guess the distinction between VAAL and VAL is one example. IMHO, either the article ignores this rather academic distinction, or it should have a decent cite or two ... richi 15:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this whole thing greatly confuses me, and there doesn't seem to be any distinction or even a reference to a difference between VAAL and VAL. NcSchu(Talk) 18:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Just because the Virgin groups is complex does not mean we should ignore it. Virgin Atlantic Limited is a holding company that owns: Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited, Virgin Holidays, Virgin Nigeria Airways Limited (49%), Virgin Aviation Services amongs others. Virgin Atlantic Limited is 51% owned by Virgin Group and 49% by Singapore Airlines Limited. All this can be found with a good google but I wont change the page again till I can get proper citable evidence - like the Virgin Atlantic Limited annual report! if it exists. Although to say that the parent of the airline is the Virgin Group is a bit simplistic.MilborneOne 18:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to answer the queston on the edit summary does VA Ltd really exist: [Virgin Atlantic Limited] (English Company No. 03552500); [Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited] (English Company No. 01600117).MilborneOne 18:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merger Proposal

The result was merge into Virgin Atlantic Airways#Fleet. Conditions apply: The registration table will be left in the article. -- Golich17 21:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that Virgin Atlantic Airways Fleet should be merged into this article as the main fleet table, as well as the retired fleet table are both small in size and they wouldn't take up much space in the article. However, I have always said that registrations have no place in an airline article, therefore during the merge, the registration table would be left out, and we will therefore most likely change the name of the article to Virgin Atlantic Airways Fleet Registation, or something like that.--Golich17 16:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It was removed because it took up too much room, adding it back in will simply make the page crowded again. The information is relevant but it's just too much to have all on this main page. Look a couple topics above to see a larger discussion on the separation. NcSchu(Talk) 16:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't merge this back again ... richi 18:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
That is incorrect. I do not see how a table so small would take up room on the page. Your not making sense. If you precisely read what I inputted, you would have saw that I said to keep out the registration table, as in my opinion they are useless. As with most every other airline page, the fleet table is in the page, and Virgin Atlantic Airways page is not nearly as long or capacitated as other pages, so your theories regarding the table taking up space are irrelevant!--Golich17 18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I disagree with both the merger and the removal of information. And I'm sorry to say, but your personal history on the inclusion of registration information is irrelevant. I support leaving in the registrations for Virgin Atlantic because Virgin Atlantic is a special case. Part of Virgin Atlantic's identity is the way it names its aircraft and chooses their registrations. There's also the problem of having so many different aircraft seat configurations and IFE systems that the fleet table benefits in that way as well. Given my stance on this then I do not want it merged back in. NcSchu(Talk) 16:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I still do not believe this article is paticulary special that it doesn't include a fleet table. Almost every airline page has the table included and it is probably the most interesting part of the article, which you are taking out. Including it would also remove the hassle of having to click on the link to the page and wait for the page to load. While it may only take a second, it would be more convienent if it all was on one page. I am still sticking with my prior decision to merge the table. Every airline page has, gives this one no reason, even if it influences its history. Although like I said, to remove that long table of registrations, we can simply leave that (AND ONLY THAT) on the page. Merge the fleet and retired fleet tables in this page. If people want to see the registrations, let them do so by clicking the link, however since most people I would say would just like the general information of the fleet counts, stick with the tables I suggested.--Golich17 18:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I must have been tired when I read your original post, because I didn't realize that you wanted to only merge back the smaller fleet tables. I'm okay with that. Sorry for the confusion. NcSchu(Talk) 20:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well i'm glad to hear that. So if it is okay with everybody, I can do it immediately.--Golich17 21:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fleet Section Clean-Up

I requested a clean-up of the Fleet section because I believe things in the article can now be taken out due to the fact that we added the two tables back. Also, some information in the section can be removed or dragged and dropped.--Golich17 19:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going to do a complete rewrite of the section, do you mean that you've requested someone from the powers-that-be to clean it up, or are issuing just a general request? I don't know how these things work. NcSchu(Talk) 20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I just don't feel like doing it basically, but I wanted everyone to know that it does need to be done. Anyone pretty much who knows what they are talking about can do it, and i'm sure your re-write would be fine. Go for it!--Golich17 19:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to get it done by Thursday. NcSchu(Talk) 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Success (I hope). I mostly did a reorganization-rephrased sentences, combined thoughts into paragraphs, and removed irrelevant thoughts-rather than a complete rewrite since I thought most of the information was well phrased. I know some of the end tid-bits are a little choppy, but I thought they should be included and I couldn't really transition them into the rest of the section. NcSchu(Talk) 01:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Cabin section reversions

This is a copy of a message I added to User talk:Golich17 just now: Hi there. You seem to dislike the current text, but other editors don't like your replacement. Can I suggest we discuss this in the talk page, rather than have this escalate into a revert war? What I'd like to see happen is we discuss what changes are needed to the section and come to proper consensus. Thanks ... richi 10:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I have found on many pages that this seems the best way to layout a Cabin section. It gives details, generalizes facts, and explains everything straight-forward. Of course, there can be certain parts that can be written in a different way, but other than that, the way it is written is far from an advertisement. Words in the cabin section I edited were more so an advertisement, which is why I re-wrote it.--Golich17 00:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The current edit states the facts in good form. I read through the section and have found no exaggerated claims, no exaggerated language, nothing that makes it sound like an advertisement. Your edit turns the crafted paragraphs into laundry lists of anything that is offered, something that doesn't need to be included and that downgrades the quality of the article. Most airlines have those things that you list, it's better to elaborate on the relevant information, and in a good form too. NcSchu(Talk) 01:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I am unaware as to what Cabin section you are reading. Text such as "The Upper Class seat is claimed by the airline to be the biggest fully flat bed compared with any other airline's business class service (it is at least 202 cm long and 84 cm wide at the shoulders), but they are not the only airline to make this claim" is by far written as an advertisement. "but they are not the only airline to make this claim" is more so supporting Virgin and other airlines in an advertisement form. Like I said before, yes you may think of it as a laundry list, but really it does explain what each class has to offer, where these do not. They do not point out any details whatsoever regarding the class, so the cabin section is pretty much pointless in this article.--Golich17 16:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
"but they are not the only airline to make this claim" is actually removing bias from the statement that VS has the biggest bed, because multiple airlines make the same claim. NcSchu(Talk) 18:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
But it lacks professionalism. It doesn't sound right either. It doesn't go with the flow, if you get what I mean.--Golich17 19:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I wanted also to question the assertion that the Upper Class suite includes some sort of iPod connectivity. Not when I've flown in J, on either LHR or LGW routes, as far as I noticed ... richi 23:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
[9] "Virgin Atlantic is pleased to offer power leads for selected Apple iPods. This service is available in all Upper Class cabins." NcSchu(Talk) 23:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I attempted a compromise with my edit. I didn't really change that much but I tried to integrate more information based off of what Virgin Atlantic's website said for each cabin. I also switched the order of the cabins and added a one sentence intro because I thought information worked better if it built off of the previous, lower class, information. I really hope this works for everyone, but with any type of information as this it's always difficult to determine (as we've seen) what is and isn't advertising. But just to reassure everyone, everything there is true, nothing is exaggerated, and if it "sounds" like advertising that's probably just because of the service that is offered and not so much an error on our editing. Thanks. NcSchu(Talk) 15:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

While I still do not agree with the edits, they are better. Thanks for your cooperation with the disputes I have had on this page.--Golich17 00:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

New Routes in 2007

Now that the new routes launched by Virgin Atlantic this year have all commenced, and 2007 itself is drawing to a close, is the 'New Routes in 2007' sub-section relevant anymore?

I can understand the basis for inclusion for new upcoming routes but these are all now regular destinations and listed on the Destinations page accordingly.

Does anyone object to the removal of this section? SempreVolando 13:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we did this last year too, and then just re-added the subsection once a new destination was announced. I don't really care either way, though I didn't realize how utterly pathetic the destination section is by itself. NcSchu(Talk) 14:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

British Pounds?

having (British Pounds) in the opening paragraph just looks wrong, any comments? RaseaC (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have amended the article in line with the Manual of Style guidlines on currency (WP:$). I can't see how there is any confusion arising from use of the "£" symbol without providing further information in this British article, about a British airline. SempreVolando (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Per WP:$ I've wikilinked the symbol instead -- as the MOS says, "some editors" like to do this. Hope that's not too objectionable for everyone ... richi (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, no objections from me. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
don't see why not, doesn't affect my use of Wikipedia. RaseaC (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

25th anniversary photo

Hi, per the complaint here, I have rectified the image. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Won't add anything to the article. It is, afterall, just another picture of a VS 747. I vote it stays out. RaseaC (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
RFC started (see below). Ryan4314 (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cabin Baggage Allowance

I added some factual information about Virgin's carry-on baggage allowance, which MilborneOne decided he must immediately remove. Ummm...why?? It was all factual and verifiable information, which many people could find useful to know.

Firstly, detailing an airline's baggage allowance on said airline's wikipedia page is TOTALLY justifiable.

Secondly, Virgin's allowance is SIGNIFICANTLY low. One bag weighing no more than 6kg, compared with British Airways' allowance of two bags (one standard and one laptop-case size bag) with NO weight restriction. Ameican Airlines allow two items weighing up to 18 kg. Air France allow two items weighing up to 12kg.

So Virgin's allowance is HALF of the LOWEST competitor. Sorry MilborneOne, but that IS significant. I don't see why it should be removed from the Virgin Atlantic wiki page just because YOU don't think it's relevant.

78.129.231.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC).

I removed your addition as it was unreferenced and not particularly notable. The first sentence had the statement amongst the lowest in the industry which is not an encyclopedic statement. Still dont think baggage allowance is notable, but if it is the lowest and you can provide a WP:reliable source for that then others can decide if it is notable. The limit is strictly enforced... is just not encyclopedic and is unreferenced opinion, it is hard to believe that this is not usual industry standard and therefore not notable. Most airlines will allow a small second item.. so do Virgin and a list is at http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/gb/passengerinformation/baggage/handbaggage.jsp you give an example of a laptop not being allowed which is not particularly notable, I suspect if it was part of your 6kg allowance it would be. You mention British Airways allowing a standard-sized bag and one laptop-sized bag that is not really relevant to Virgin unless you can provide a reliable reference that Virgin's approach is non-standard (FlyBe for example does not allow Laptops for economy passengers). So it is really a matter of providing reliable references to these facts and for other editors to judge if they are notable enough for inclusion. Please remember this is an encyclopedia not a travel guide. MilborneOne (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that information on baggage allowances does not belong in an encyclopedia, it is trivia. It would belong in WikiTravel or other "advice to air travellers" type websites, but not in an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a customer service rant to me, keep it out. This is an encyclopedia, not a travel agent.RaseaC (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it sounds like you guys are all part of some "Old Boys" club of aircraft nuts. One man's "trivia" is another man's useful information. 78.129.231.2 (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we are, unfortunately we're also realists and the fact of the matter is we're here to provide useful information about the airline as a whole, we're not a one-stop-shop for people heading off on their holidays. RaseaC (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why "trivia" such as seat pitch ARE included in your (sorry, THE) article. In case you have forgotten, the article is not YOURS. So come on then...I would like an explanation from each of you aircraft nuts on why seat pitch is relevant, because frankly I think it's trivia, and therefore I might have to remove that and any other "trivia" as I see fit ! 78.129.231.2 (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an aircraft nut so I can happily say go away unless you have something useful to add. As WP editors we've all developed a pretty thick skin when it comes to trouble makers such as yourself. Seat pitch is included as a comparison between airlines in almost every other airline article, baggage allowance isn't, and it certainly isn't valid if it's simply included to take a pop at the airline. RaseaC (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should this photo be added?

Photo is of a VA 747 doing a flypast with the Red Arrows to commemorate Virgin's 25th anniversary. This is a free photo and was a one-off event for VA. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

EXCLUDE I'm a fusspot about quality (we don't need to include poor quality pictures since we can lay our hands on so many good ones). Although the quality seen when clicking on the picture looks reasonable, the full size version is very grainy and blurred on my 1680 by 1050 screen. I don't think further processing would help much - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

EXCLUDE As above, if there was no other picture available then it would be a different matter but as Adrian says, there's so many free, better quality pictures available, it simply doesn't make sense to include it. RaseaC (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
INCLUDE This is a unique photo. To paraphrase from the press coverage of the event, "It (is) just amazing to see this 747 at low level, with the Red Arrows tight on each wing.". The photograph seems more notable then most of the other ones in the article. There is an appropriate space for the photo, in the slogans section next to the "Still Red Hot For 25 Years." The quality is fine for a wikipedia article, though it could be improved by adding more blue to the sky and a bit of post-processing.--Work permit (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
EXCLUDE -- While the photo contains some interesting elements, the quality is poor and this particular event is only one of myriad "snapshots" of Virgin planes in action over the 25 year history of the company. N2e (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Manchester a "focus city"?

The article lists Manchester as a "focus city," yet they fly to only two destinations from this city's airport. During roughly half the year, Virgin Atlantic flies to more destinations than that out of Orlando. How is Manchester a "focus city"?--Oakshade (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't really belong there. I doubt any reliable sources exist that can support its inclusion either. NcSchu(Talk) 15:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As this is unsourced and there's no contention with this opinion, I'm going to remove the claim.--Oakshade (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sponsors

Should the teams that Virgin Atlantic sponsor be included in the article? As it shows the wide varity that Virgin invest in in the article The C of E (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The move...

...what's that about? raseaCtalk to me 18:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Update

It seems to me that this article need a lot of updating. Statements say things will happen, but the date has passed etc. I know its a lot of work, and I will try to update bits I know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.123.49 (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Livery information in the fleet table

Hi. I have removed the livery details from the fleet table. It is wikipedia policy not to have this kind of detail in the fleet table. Click here to see the policy. Besides if a few aircraft are pained in the new livery listing them doesn't provide any encyclopedic value. Many Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

True not really needed. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

code share between cyprus airways.

please dont delete the new code share between cyprus airways. it is true. as it says on cyprus airways news on there web site. it started on the 25th of july. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.112.130 (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A330s lease out

Neither of the two links show that Virgin Atlantic are leasing out the next 3 A333s to China Airlines. Looking at forums, many say that they are receiving them and putting them into service to replace the A343s, but of course a forum isn't evidence, and on articles it is only implied and not confirmed. Does anyone have any links to prove that either they will not be leased out or that they will enter service. Also, on the China Airlines page it only shows that 2 further A333s are to be received, and no notes about being leased from VS, instead it says 'Deliveries until 2013'. --MJLRGS (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Upheld?

We have: In August 2007, BA was fined £271 million by the UK's Office of Fair Trading and the US Department of Justice though this was upheld on account of a guilty plea. How should that read? Rumiton (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Boxed quote

...mentions passenger fuel surcharges, which is not mentioned in the text. Needs expanding. Rumiton (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Cloudbound (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

I've removed the italicized part of "Britain's Conservative Government, which had presided over the collapse of International Leisure Group (ILG) and its subsidiary Air Europe resulting in 4,000 job losses[18] was aware that Dan-Air was on the brink of bankruptcy", as it's sourced to a book by Branson and is blatant POV. --Stfg (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Article name

Should the article be moved to "Virgin Atlantic" as the common name? MilborneOne (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree --JetBlast (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
No objections after more than a week so article has been moved. MilborneOne (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the business trends section and table needed? I only ask as similar tables in the British Airways and British Midland International articles were removed. Cloudbound (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

King who?

In the Competition section there is a statement "King called the CAA's decision, which the Government had endorsed, "a confiscation of his company's property"." Who is this 'King'? The citation linked (citation 13, linked to http://www.acl-uk.org/UserFiles/File/BAA%20TDR%20consultation%20paper%20_LHR.pdf) doesn't mention anything about this incident and looks to be a completely irrelevant document. Flibblesan (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I have added a link to John King, Baron King of Wartnaby for info. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you Flibblesan (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox parent company

Field should reflect a summary of ownership structure, so not every 2% shareholder, but the majors. To only have Virgin Group implies 100% ownership which isn't the case. Refer Virgin Australia Holdings, Virgin Cruises and Virgin Rail Group for other examples. Goldgold12 (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

This field is for the parent company only, not an ownership structure summary. That is covered in the article body. There is no ownership infobox field for the airline template I believe. Thanks SempreVolando (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see an issue with not including a major shareholder. If Delta owned 2%, you might have a point. - BilCat (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Because that is not the definition of Parent company. The majority owner / company with majority voting stock is the parent company and there can only be one. If Delta were parent company of Virgin Atlantic then Virgin Atlantic would be a Delta subsidiary, which it is not. Here the confusion I believe is mistaking parent company for ownership structure. The article very adequately refers to Delta's minority interest in Virgin Atlantic. SempreVolando (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I see your point, but it is confusing. The regular infobox for companies allows several fields for relevant ownership, and I see no reason airlines should be treated any different. I'll bring it up on the airline infobox page and see what can be done. - BilCat (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes I have no problem with the ownership structure being listed in an appropriate infobox field, but it definitely shouldn't go in the parent company field, which for now is all we have. Thanks for raising at WP:AIRLINES. SempreVolando (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)From reading the article, the parent company is Virgin Atlantic Limited, a holding company which also owns Virgin Holidays (which is not mentioned in that article). Since we don't currently have an article for the holding company, perhaps we should add it as the parent (assuming this is correct, which I don't!), with its ownership in parentheses/round brackets. - BilCat (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
So in wondering who owns Virgin Group, I found it lists "Currently unknown" in that article's infobox! See Talk:Virgin Group#Difficulty in information, but I'm not sticking my nose into that hornets' nest! -BilCat (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you will find that Delta holds shares in one of the holding companies "Virgin Atlantic Limited" and not the airline itself "Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited", the Virgin group structure is not straightforward (probably on purpose) but Delta don't have shares in the airline itself. The article clearly states this in the intro The airline along with Virgin Holidays is controlled by a holding company, Virgin Atlantic Limited, which is 51% owned by the Virgin Group and 49% by Delta Air Lines. So the Parent Company should actually say "Virgin Atlantic Limited" MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
There may well be a number of holding companies, trusts etc that sit between the trading entity and the ultimate parent/owners. But these are unlikely to be noteworthy enough to justify articles, so the field should reflect the company at the top of each organisation chart for which there is an article.Goldgold12 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Goldgold12 on this one -- Virgin Group is not the sole parent company, it seems far preferable to me to accurately reflect the ownership split in the infobox (irrespective of how this field is named). To do otherwise is simply misleading. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 07:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The field must state ownership, if ownership % splits are to be listed. As it stands, no such field is currently available in the airline infobox. To list several companies in a 'parent company' field is simply incorrect. SempreVolando (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The parent company is "Virgin Atlantic Limited", so that is what should be in the parent field. - BilCat (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 Done. SempreVolando (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Ask the average person who controls Virgin Trains East Coast and they would logically assume Virgin Group, when it actually only has a 10% shareholding, hence why I think important to include. I have started a conversation at WP:AIRLINES that an 'Owner' field be inserted in the Airline infobox in the same manner as the Companies infobox, so this may resolve.
Without an article, having Virgin Atlantic Limited as the parent is of limited value. Holding company articles are allowed, e.g. Virgin Australia Holdings which has multiple subsidiaries that each have an article, but unless Virgin Atlantic Limited has two or more subsidiary articles, not noteworthy enough per WP:BRANCH to justify a separate article. To only have Virgin in 'Parent' or 'Owner' fields IMO misleads by implying 100% ownership. Goldgold12 (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The fact that Virgin Atlantic Limited doesnt have an article doesnt mean it is not a parent, the actual shareholders in Virgin Atlantic Limited if notable can be mentioned, and in fact they are in the article. It is not actually needed in the airline infobox. Virgin Atlantic Limited actually has a large number of subsidaries including Virgin Atlantic Airways, Virgin Holidays, Virgin Vacations. The company reports actually say that the "ultimate holding company" is "Virgin Group Holdings Limited" registered in the British Virgin Islands so it would not be wrong to say that the Virgin Group is the owner but Virgin Atlantic Limited is the holding company that provides company reports, a lot of other companies are in the chain of ownership but very few report more than the basics to companies house. Also note in this case Virgin Atlantic Limited does actually own 100% of the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

VS025, 15 Feb 2016

There is lots of reporting of the return of VS025 this morning due to a laser beam injuring a pilot. IMHO, this incident is not notable enough to be mentioned in the article yet. Let's wait for the AAIB report (if any) or until a conviction is obtained for the perpetrators, then reassess. Mjroots (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding images

I have added an image of the A340 in a hangar at LHR to the Livery section. I know this image came up for discussion in Talk 2007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Virgin_Atlantic/Archive_1#Image_of_A340_in_maintenance_hangar), however, its quality has been improved since then and the livery and logo of the airline has changed so it gives some historical comparison. KlickingKarl (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have removed it again, nothing has changed since 2007 it doesnt add to the article, and you cant really see the livery and logo in the dark hangar at the wrong angle. MilborneOne (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Boom

I tried to challenge the addition of the "Boom Overture" and suchlike in the fleet section and narative. None of the references used mention "Virgin Atlantic" not even Booms own website. If nobody comes up with a reliable reference in the next few days I will remove it again,thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The existing cite isn't entirely clear whether it is Virgin Atlantic or some other Virgin Group entity, true. But a quick search digs up "The first 10 are earmarked for Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Atlantic"[10]; "Virgin Atlantic Airways is the only other known customer. It has pre-ordered 10 aircraft and plans to deploy them on transatlantic routes."[11]. I don't think there's much doubt about Virgin Atlantic's commitment. But I do wonder (as I said in my edit summary) whether this really belongs in the Fleet table, given the very early stage of development. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The Boom website doesnt mention Virgin Atlantic just the Virgin Group so I think this is journalists jumping to conclusions, no press releases from Virgin Atlantic or Boom connecting the two. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
You may well be right that they have put two and two together to make five, but Forbes in particular is definitely a RS so we can't just discard the references. And Virgin Atlantic would seem to be by far the most logical Virgin entity to operate the Overtures. I can't speak for the IP who originally added this to the fleet table, obviously, but I'd be perfectly happy removing it as WP:CRYSTAL and just leaving the speculative mention in the body. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
OK on fleet removal based on Forbes - still not 100% convinced but as you say it is a RS. MilborneOne (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virgin_Atlantic/Archive_1&oldid=1265209665"