Talk:Virgin Atlantic/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spaceport? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  G-VHIP → G-VRED 

message: 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)
thread_title:  G-VSHY 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not a notable incident per WP:AIRLINES. NcSchu(Talk) 01:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidents and accidents 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Further Reading 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Subsequent Developments 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Virgin Formation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Current Fleet Data

message: Does anyone have revenue and profit numbers for this corporation? Annandale 01:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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%. It seems the only way to get recent numbers is to buy a subscription. NcSchu 04:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Financial information please

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Flying with Virgin

message: 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)
replies: text: I called it Vandalism because you removed relevant information with seemingly no second thought. NcSchu 02:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. I agree the new routes should go back, and have re-instated them. richi 09:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizarre Accusation of Vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: my thoughts exactly, just wanted to confirm that was the concensusRaseaC 23:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumours? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Media Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's in the read so removed from the info box, for the sake of consistency RaseaC 15:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  ... richi 11:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Virgin Upper Class is a pure BUSINESS CLASS (J-designated) product.  This mainline 744 is showing 44 Upper Class seats, 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)
thread_title:  Virgin Upper Class is First Class 

message: 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)
replies: text: A couple of references I have found , . 82.44.26.36 10:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SRB "President" of VAA 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Agreed not notable. MilborneOne 11:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Comments? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Image of A340 in maintenance hangar

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent change 

message: Is there really a need for the Singapore Airlines info at the bottom of the page? RaseaC 10:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No they are only shareholders - removed. MilborneOne 11:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. I removed it ... richi 22:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also removed VAA from Template:Singapore_Airlines ... richi 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singapore Airlines? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ownership by a holding company

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Please don't merge this back again ... richi 18:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'll try to get it done by Thursday.  NcSchu(Talk) 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Fleet Section Clean-Up 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cabin section reversions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Routes in 2007 

message: having (British Pounds) in the opening paragraph just looks wrong, any comments? RaseaC (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have amended the article in line with the Manual of Style guidlines on currency (WP:$). I can't see how there is any confusion arising from use of the "£" symbol without providing further information in this British article, about a British airline. SempreVolando (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Per WP:$ 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)
replies: text: Fair enough, no objections from me. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: don't see why not, doesn't affect my use of Wikipedia. RaseaC (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Pounds? 

message: Hi, per the complaint here, I have rectified the image. Ryan4314  (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: RFC started (see below). Ryan4314  (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  25th anniversary photo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cabin Baggage Allowance 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  RfC: Should this photo be added? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Manchester a "focus city"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sponsors 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Update 

message: 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)
replies: text: True not really needed. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Livery information in the fleet table 

message: 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)
thread_title:  code share between cyprus airways. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A330s lease out 

message: 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)
thread_title: Upheld?

message: ...mentions passenger fuel surcharges, which is not mentioned in the text. Needs expanding. Rumiton (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Cloudbound (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Boxed quote

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV