Kaptin - a sense of loss most certainly, but not of one particular airline, but simply of an industry - hey, I'm the first to admit that it's nostalgia to a certain degree. But I'm proud of the fact that I did know a better time.
Wizofoz - I do not claim that ALL budget carriers are unsafe or inefficient. There are many around the world that proove their quality in operation. However, it's easier to look like a budget carrier than it is to look like a full-service carrier. All you need do is have a big mouth and claim underdog status. Its the oldest marketing trick in the book - ask Freddie Laker, and Branson after him.
VB is a pretender to the budget side of the industry. If Ansett hadn't collapsed
VB would have already been dead for many months. And please dont tell me that AN's collapse was part of
VB's strategy. Further, the fact that
VB has any reliability at all is a testament to the aircraft manufacturer more than to the airline.
I'm not against the budget carrier philosophy per se, as I believe it fills a need in many markets. I believe that there is a market in Australia for it as well. But heed my warnings -
VB is not doing it right. It's the most well documented statement amount budget carriers - "don't forget your business plan and philosophy".
VB has.
VB is operating well above its capability.
Your quote - "Old aircraft, dodgy practices and running on a shoestring certainly do add to risk. The type of operator I am talking about (and
VB is modelled on) are usually well capitalised, use young fleets and attract competant staff."......
...
VB wasn't well capitalised - and RB is not the sort to keep digging into his own pocket....attract competent staff?....exactly when are they supposed to show up?