Great Western Coffee Shop

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51433720?fbclid=IwAR0L0J_qThXfkfwX7R-dH6ETGAUxb_QfXA-7Vm-gtum94708gz3pByTf6bI

Pretty amazing story!

"Riding the jet" (stream) eastbound on the North Atlantic is of course nothing unusual - as many have I expect, I've done both Toronto and New York to London in around 6 hours. An hour less than that is impressive.

I see Virgin Atlantic doing their best to get some publicity out of this also - they had a New York to London flight at similar timings that was only a minute slower - their publicity pointing out that their brand new Airbus 350-1000 burnt 22 tons less fuel doing this than the ageing BA 747-400 that took the record.

Ironic from the airline that used to paint "4engines4longhaul" on the side of their aircraft, but they never miss the opportunity for some publicity against their great rival.

BA are of course "sweating the assets" on their 747's, which will see out their days (another 3 to 4 years) on the North Atlantic, where no doubt they make them a lot of money (and were "paid for" years ago).

Though none of the reports I've seen have mentioned it, I would assume a similarly impressive record (but at the other end of the speed scale) will have been set by planes flying west into that wind. Just how long did they take, or could they vary their route to avoid the worst of the winds?

I flew out to Phoenix at the end of last year in an "elderly" BA 747 and was pleasantly surprised by the internal state of the 26 year old aircraft. It had obviously been refurbished in the not too distant past and was in very good condition. The seats looked and felt good, the in flight entertainment was very good (manged the whole of "Chernobyl" !), in fact, everything worked !

One report said that Westbound flights were taking up to two and a half hours extra for their trips !

Indeed, I went to Antigua and back last November from/to Gatwick in a couple of the "beach fleet" 777's, which are also now around 20 years old - they don't look it from a passenger point-of-view though (and I daresay don't under the skin either).

BA still do most of their maintenance in-house (at Heathrow and Cardiff for the long-haul fleets) and seem to look after these older aircraft very well.

How many hours slower than Concorde’s best is that?  ;)

If you’ve paid for travelling Business or First you aren’t getting great value for money with less time to enjoy what you’ve paid for. If you’re travelling economy you will be very pleased with the shortened flight times.

Just over 2 - Concorde record JFK to LHR was 2hrs 52min, set in 1996 - or about 10 minutes less than the fastest run you can do on an IET from London to Plymouth! (as an example)

I have to disagree with that............if you are flying economy the flight time always seems like an eternity   :D

In contrast my last two journeys in a BA747 and 777 they have both felt rather tired, even up front. The overall environment in a 787 or A350 is streets ahead. BAs club world cabin is well past its sell by date too (much prefer Virgin’s Upper Class) so good to see they are now fitting a new design.

Have never had the priviledge, but have done premium econ on both and Virgin's Premium still knocks spots off WT+ on BA (although the latter has improved, and was decent on our recent trip back from Antigua). Yet to sample the 787 or A350 of either, but I hear great reports of the A350 especially.