Flying to New York - BA or Virgin?
- Thread starter chris.tarry85
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I've used them a number of times and have never really been disappointed except for the time I got one of the crap old A340-300's to Vancouver with IFE that was on a loop rather than on demand...
I'm not a fan of small single aisle planes for transatlantic flights. If you are in the school of thought that says 'a plane is a plane' its fine but objectively it's probably the worst aircraft type to fly transatlantic. On a long flight it's nice to have space to walk around etc which IMHO you just don't get on planes better suited for a trip to Spain.
[TW]Fox;29029169 said:
I don't travel transatlantic very often, but I travel extensively to the Asia Pacific and Virgin are distinctly below par compared to Singapore, Etihad, Qatar to name a few. Maybe I was unlucky with the A340 and A330 (the A330 was slightly better). The food was awful and the inflight entertainment was not particularly great either.
Snap! An hour ago booked tickets for end of the month for £345 as well, decided on Delta. It's funny a week ago the price was £360 but I had to wait to make sure I could get the time off work...then it went up to £440 about 3 days ago. Today finally got the all clear from work and it's gone down to £345 so it was good I didn't book. BA/Virgin always seem to have the exact same price...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,775
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
Virgin are good!
To be fair everyone is sub par compared to the Asian carriers - they are simply better.
Whereas Transatlantic Virgin are not credibly worse than anyone else really.
It's been a while since I've enjoyed a flight with Virgin, their planes (to be fair I've only flown A340 recently) have really rubbish interiors that seriously need a refurb, service has been so-so at best and entertainment hit and miss.
As for BA - I think their 777 is one of the better economy experiences, they're one of the only airlines to still use a 3-3-3 configuration rather than 3-4-3. The 747 tends to be a bit crap due to a dated interior, a refurbished one would probably be decent. I've only flown on the 787 once but would avoid in future - The seats are extremely narrow, poorly shaped and the leg room (especially towards the back) is terrible. One irritating thing about BA is that the entertainment system tends to be located in a large metal box where your feet should be!
It's a relatively short flight to NY however so I'd go with the cheapest!
As for BA - I think their 777 is one of the better economy experiences, they're one of the only airlines to still use a 3-3-3 configuration rather than 3-4-3. The 747 tends to be a bit crap due to a dated interior, a refurbished one would probably be decent. I've only flown on the 787 once but would avoid in future - The seats are extremely narrow, poorly shaped and the leg room (especially towards the back) is terrible. One irritating thing about BA is that the entertainment system tends to be located in a large metal box where your feet should be!
It's a relatively short flight to NY however so I'd go with the cheapest!
We did the same over Christmas, expected BA but got awful AA instead. Would never fly with AA again, but never had a bad flight with BA.
[TW]Fox;29029653 said:
But why is that? Surely once Emirates and others start tapping into the American market, Virgin, BA, Delta etc will start losing customers? It's only a matter of time. I can get stand by tickets for Emirates, but at present their USA flights are so expensive it was still cheaper for me to fly Virgin to JFK.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 1,169
Business on Virgin isn't terrible
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,481
- Location
- ST4
BA, Virgin don't go all the way.
But I would have to say, business on BA is better.