[JJ51435]

Air UK should have been. The name implied it.

[JJ51435]

Pan American World Airways was the de facto “national” carrier of the USA. Although not a government-owned airline, it was the first US-based international airline and it carried the American flag to every corner of the world. We should regard American Airlines, Southwest Airlines and Continental Airlines as Texan airlines, United Airlines as a Chicago-based airlines, JetBlue as a NYC airline, Virgin America as a San Francisco airline and USAirways as a Philadelphia airline. As a matter of fact, every airline in the USA is regional considering that a “region” in America is easily the size of Europe…

[ConstantFlyer]

JJ51435 – I think “national” carriers are different from “flag carriers”. I’m afraid your geography is a bit skewed, though: Europe – from the Atlantic to the Urals – is larger than the USA in both area and population.

[NTarrant]

JJ – Air UK was British Island Airways renamed but essentially it was a regional airline not a national

[jason1976]

The answer to this one is simple: The UK has no designated flag carrier. What is a ‘flag carrier’ anyway? It isn’t so much who the people of the UK perceive as their flag carrier. It is more about what airline represents the UK (or australia) around the world.

While Virgin Atlantic has a high profile in several countries (ie the few they serve) if you ask someone in the majority of North America, South America, Asia, the Far East or Africa to name a UK airline (or name the UK flag carrier) the majority will say BA. In fact in many areas VA would never have been heard of. Likewise V Australia or Virgin Blue. I’m sure most people around the globe would be more familiar with the airline ‘with the big red kangaroo on the tail’.

Anyway, if you google ‘uk flag carrier’ most of the sources, such as wiki, will name BA. Although once again, the UK has NO officially designated flag carrier. Same as the US.

BA is by far the largest airline. It has 245 aircraft flying to 150 destinations around the world.

Compare this to Virgin: 37 aircraft flying to 30 destinations.

Of course none of this matters really. Do you fly with an airline just because its the ‘flag carrier’? Of course not. Its down to image, preference, price……which I think are more the points that mark raises in his posts.

From my experience BA and VA are two very different beasts. And both are like marmite (or vegemite!!). You either love them, or hate them. Both have their loyal followers that wouldn’t dream of ‘flirting’ with the other.

Virgin represents modern, cheeky. BA representents business-like, heritage. Some love the informal approach of Virgin. Others hate it. A couple I was chatting with on a BA flight recently (a Lord and Lady no less) were appalled they were referred to as ‘mate and luv’ on a recent Virgin flight and vowed never to return! lol On the flipside, some find BA too ‘stuck up’. It’s all down to personal perception.

If you do have a look at review sites like skytrax.com though one thing sticks out about Virgin Atlantic…..perhaps they over-hype themselves JUST a bit as most people seem to think the product has deteriorated (if they are returning customers) or, they were expecting more (if they were VA virgins!).

Oh, one more point Hess. The UK government recently gave their business to VA which undercut the BA tender. However this does not apply to the royal family. On multi-national tours the royal family will still tend to fly BA. However, it is custom that the airline of the country the queen is visiting to provide the transport. For example, when Wills recently travelled to OZ it was down to the OZ government to sort out his ride (QF).

[Hess963]

Thanks Jason…so the Royal Family can actually be sure that they are always flying the flag carrier..right ? NZ for New Zealand, AC for Canada, QF for Australia…

I like the comparison with the marmate/vegemite–you really rather like it or hate it. About the experience of VS crews to be too informal—during my flights I was never been spoken as “mate” or some sort of…
It depends on your FA during that flight–but I am sure, if you tell them not to refer to you like that–they will remember it. While on the other hand–I never find BA FAs too stuck up..in contrary some are too informal and cheeky in a way..which I quote with grin or a direct comment–then we had the normal pax-FA attitude again. It is always the matter of how you let the FAs treat you and the way you behave towards the FAs and CSM onboard.

[continentalclub]

To clarify: UK Prime Minister Brown recently chartered a Virgin Atlantic aircraft for a specifc trip. This has occurred once only so-far and was an individual arrangement.

Whether it had anything to do with Sir Richard Branson’s reported embarrassment at being photographed boarding a British Airways Boeing 747 in January 2008, en route to Beijing with the PM, is entirely open to conjecture:

http://bit.ly/dt0A8m

Certainly, no ongoing contracts were signed and since HM Government is obliged to seek best value for any charter, subject to availability, security and PR considerations, then it may or may not use Virgin, BA or any other acceptable carrier/provider in future.

The Royal Family is subject to completely separate arrangements and protocols. If they are not otherwise engaged in operational duty, and the limited range is not an issue, then the two BAe 146s, three Agusta A109s or six BAe 125s of the No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron may be used (and paid for) by members of the Royal Family.

When they are unavailable, or their use impractical, the Royal Family will either fly scheduled or will charter based on best value and national interest. In general, British Airways has won this business but, I believe, on a few occasions airline charter companies have been utilised.

The term ‘flag carrier’ is a media construct and actually has no official or legal meaning whatsoever.

[Hess963]

Thanks Continentalclub for the brief infos. Actually no one here really will be that angry, if the Royal Family would be flying CathayPacific or Singapore Airlines, if they prove to have the best value for that trip and save taxpayers money and sensible too. Of course–it will stir something up–when we see the Queen sitting in CX or SQ F cabins–but I believe that is it? I personally believe it is the right decision to consider taking other sensible options than sticking to obsolete procedures in order not to break old style of protocols or whatever.

[asteriosozounis]

For me the UKs flag carrier is the one that represent us a nation and I’ve got to say is not Virgin Atlantic and most definite is not Easyjet. I would say is British Airways.

[JJ51435]

Odd that HM’ s Government does not have its own aircraft. No Royal Air Force One?!?

[Uncledude]

BMI’s Majority Shareholder are Germany based..so the’re OUT

Virgins Majority Shareholders are Singapore and Luxembourg based..so the’re OUT

FlyBE’s Majority Shareholder is Jersey Based..so the’re OUT

EazyJets Majority Shareholder is Greek ..so the’re OUT

Monarchs Majority Shareholder is Swiss..so the’re OUT

FlyThomson Majority Shareholder is German..so the’re OUT

45% of BA will be Spanish..so that will not be a Totally Britsh Airline anymore. So the’re OUT

So that leaves us with Thomas Cook Airlines

[continentalclub]

I’m not sure where you’re based, Hess, but I can absolutely assure you that there is not a chance in this World that a Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines aircraft would be chartered for a Royal Family flight from the UK. It’s also highly unlikely that a senior member of the family would fly scheduled on one from London, as both LHR-direct destinations for CX and SQ are served by UK and even Commonwealth carriers.

It would be a PR disaster for the family (and for the UK) from a pure brand point of view – before the inevitable ‘green’ issue of an aircraft being positioned from c14 hours away and then back again simply for a Royal charter reared its head. Then there’d be all the new behind-the-scenes security relationships that would have to be set up and goodness-knows what else; all at great cost.

Those who have ever seen pictures of the Royal Apartments, the Royal Train or HMY Britannia, will know that HM Queen is apparently largely unmoved by the overly-luxe. To that end, it is unlikely that she would be swayed by a slightly larger HD TV screen.

With regard to there being a Government-owned longhaul aircraft at the disposal of Ministers of State and the Royal Family, a la Air Force One, this has been discussed on numerous occasions and has been discounted on grounds of cost by Whitehall, and also with an eye to UK public opinion which is reportedly opposed to the idea.

[Hess963]

Don’t worry even I can’t imagine that Her Majesty would ever fly a different airlne beside the UK or Commenwealth airlines. It is more likely they chartered a private jet before ever considering such notion. But just to be objective here–what is the problems with CX and SQ?–are not Hongkong and Singapore former colonies and their airlines CX and SQ could be seen as Commonwealth carriers as well ?

I am just curious — do everyone here beside Continentalclub think it is really a PR disaster to take CX and SQ, if it is primarily because of economical reasons and try not to waste taxpayers money unnecessarily ?

[NTarrant]

I think that you will find UncleDude that Thomas Cook is mainly German. Jersey is also part of the UK and therefore that rules out your theory about Flybe.

Actually Hess I would agree with ContinentalClub, there would be a right splash across the media if HRH travelled with CX or SQ, unpatriotic, should fly with a British airline (be that BA or VS). Neither HKG or SIN are members of the Commonwealth, even if they are former colonies.

[VintageKrug]

Jersey is most certainly not part of the UK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey

[Author]

Posts