New British Airway advert.

cml387

New BA ad. I know it's Big Airways but you don't have a soul if this doesn't bring a lump to your throat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4JdQi60an0

cyrusdvirus

cml387 wrote: »

New BA ad. I know it's Big Airways but you don't have a soul if this doesn't bring a lump to your throat:

I meant to go looking for that last week!!

Tenger

cml387 wrote: »

....I know it's Big Airways but you don't have a soul if this doesn't bring a lump to your throat:

Absolutely........

....in a way the comparison between this and the Virgin 25th anniversary advert shows the different image of each airline, professionalism and heritage versus sassy and sexy.


Apparently there is another 1 or 2 to be released in the series. Love the older iconic airlines that merged to form BA as we know it.

cml387

Accurate down to the VC 10 cockpit I notice.

David086

I heard somewhere that the ad was to smooth over the industrial disputes. Something which Aer Lingus need also.

January

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041597/The-20m-new-BA-promotion-campaign--uses-rival-Virgin-plane.html

STEVE35

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chjN5SerNeQ

STEVE35

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=RUQJiFARd80

Lustrum

They're great videos and great history. As for the Daily Mail, I don't for a second believe that BA had to superimpose their livery on to a Virgin 747, after all they have 57 of their own in service that they could have used!

Tenger

Lustrum wrote: »

They're great videos and great history. As for the Daily Mail, I don't for a second believe that BA had to superimpose their livery on to a Virgin 747, after all they have 57 of their own in service that they could have used!

Well to be fair it was the ad agency rather than BA themselves who produced the advert. And in reality is was merely a previously used CGI image the was used, not an actual VS B747. I would assume they used a CGI image to ensure clarity and perhaps having a 'prop/stand-in' B747 would have disrupted daily operations from T5?

Fair play to the BA engineer who spotted it. The image is no longer than 2 seconds.

chewits

That is one seriously **** cool advert.

Far cry from aviation today though. No matter how hard BA try to fancy it up.

amen

very nice add

Nonoperational

Brilliant.

Tropheus

Some of the footage looks familiar. I'd say Duxford.

dubdaymo

I know it's Big Airways but you don't have a soul if this doesn't bring a lump to your throat

I'm prob the odd one out here but I disagree. This is an unwelcome reminder of the lousy times when air travel was only for the snobs and the snooty. Luckily times have changed.

cyrusdvirus

chewits wrote: »

That is one seriously **** cool advert.

Far cry from aviation today though. No matter how hard BA try to fancy it up.

What gave it away? The Dehavilland Dragon? The DC3? The BOAC Livery?

kona

dubdaymo wrote: »

I'm prob the odd one out here but I disagree. This is an unwelcome reminder of the lousy times when air travel was only for the snobs and the snooty. Luckily times have changed.

Thats precisley when Aviation started, erm taking a "nose dive". Now its turned into a race to the bottom.

shannon_tek

Wonderful Advert.

dubdaymo

kona wrote:

Thats precisley when Aviation started, erm taking a "nose dive". Now its turned into a race to the bottom.

So, leaving aside for the moment the actual beauty of the aircraft on view in the ad, can you clarify that you are not happy that flying is for everyone and that you'd prefer it to be the preserve of the rich?

kona

dubdaymo wrote: »

So, leaving aside for the moment the actual beauty of the aircraft on view in the ad, can you clarify that you are not happy that flying is for everyone and that you'd prefer it to be the preserve of the rich?

To a certain extent yes. People expect their flights to cost less than their taxi fare these days. Its off topic from the advert, if you want to debate it start another thread.

amdublin

Great ad

I love the virgin one though as well

dubdaymo

kona wrote: »

To a certain extent yes. People expect their flights to cost less than their taxi fare these days. Its off topic from the advert, if you want to debate it start another thread.

The original poster commented that the ad brought a lump to his throat. I disagreed and explained why. If anyone then went "off-topic" it was YOU by further stating that aviation has "nose-dived" since those days with which I also disagree.
Technically the ad is well done and, no doubt, cost a fortune to make. As a historical record it does remind us of what flying was like but will it bring in even one extra passenger for BA which, after all, is the usual purpose for an ad? Thanks for clarifying your position of who should be allowed to fly.

Tenger

I agree with both sides here.
I love the advert, it gives a sense of nostalgia. I have been obsessed with aircraft and flying for 25 years at this stage. (Visits to SNN with my granddad when I was 6-7 years old)

The flipside is that if the old style (pre-1970's) airline business had of remained the same I may never have gotten a chance to fly as often as I have, so the nostalgic dream would still be an unattainable dream for so many people.

I think the mid-90's were a good balance between accessibility to the public and levels of service onboard.

Aviation these days (unless you are in business class) has been reduced to the same as getting on a train/bus. Not that you need more than that when heading to the UK. I am in 2 minds about this whole transformation of the industry.

If I was rich I would want flying to be expensive, (closet snob here!) but as I am definitely not rich I am very happy that airlines offer more accessible fares!!

Nonoperational

It's a piece of nostalgia and it does the job very well. Wouldn't agree with you at all dubdaymo... Would you rather a collage of 100 Ryanair 738s or Easyjets 319s?

dubdaymo

gpf101 wrote: »

Wouldn't agree with you at all dubdaymo... Would you rather a collage of 100 Ryanair 738s or Easyjets 319s?

No, I wouldn't rather such a collage. Nothing more boring aviation-wise than a rake of Aer Lingus 320's, Ryanair 737's or easyJet 319's. But you seem to have not really understood the points I made. The ad is technically good (so you don't agree with me?), the planes are beautiful to look at (so you don't agree with me?) but, good and all as that is, it is also a reminder of those bad old times when most ordinary people like me could not afford to fly. Therefore, it doesn't bring a lump to my throat which was the point made by the original poster and where I disagreed with him. If you are not happy, like kona, that everyone can afford to fly nowadays then, of course, we are in disagreement on that particular point.

Tenger

dubdaymo wrote: »

..............But you seem to have not really understood the points I made. The ad is technically good (so you don't agree with me?), the planes are beautiful to look at (so you don't agree with me?) but, good and all as that is, it is also a reminder of those bad old times when most ordinary people like me could not afford to fly. Therefore, it doesn't bring a lump to my throat which was the point made by the original poster and where I disagreed with him........

I see where dubdaymo is coming from. Personally I don't invest so much thought into reacting to the advert. I merely see a beautiful ad that invokes nostalgic images of the glory days of aviation. Therefore I do not agree with his opinion. (the bit about reminding him of the elitist aviation that existed before the 1970's)

But his opinion, while contrary to the majority, is still valid. No need to knock it just because you don't agree with his logic.

cml387

dubdaymo wrote: »

No, I wouldn't rather such a collage. Nothing more boring aviation-wise than a rake of Aer Lingus 320's, Ryanair 737's or easyJet 319's. But you seem to have not really understood the points I made. The ad is technically good (so you don't agree with me?), the planes are beautiful to look at (so you don't agree with me?) but, good and all as that is, it is also a reminder of those bad old times when most ordinary people like me could not afford to fly. Therefore, it doesn't bring a lump to my throat which was the point made by the original poster and where I disagreed with him. If you are not happy, like kona, that everyone can afford to fly nowadays then, of course, we are in disagreement on that particular point.

Whatever..:rolleyes:

Davidth88

I love this advert, brings back great memories ( the VC10 in particular ) . Watching them from the Queens Building at LHR , the weird whistle noise they made as they taxied.

Interesting they missed out the Trident , the workhorse of BEA/ BA shorthaul for the 1970s/ early 1980s.

Does anyone else find a certain irony when they show the Concorde screaming past the B747

Killinator

Loved the ad, but on first viewing noticed the wings on the 747 as Concorde flys past are not flexed upward as it would be in flight,
I wonder is it a good or a bad thing that I noticed that:D

And who couldn't love the sight of a 747 heading straight towards the camera at take off, or seeing the 'burners on Concorde light up!

silverharp

some wag put this together, nice for the music if nothing else. As for the orginal advert, a bit pompus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHtrub3k8KI