Virgin Atlantic's modus operandi
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga USA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin Atlantic's modus operandi
As far as I can tell Virgin Atlantic only flies to cities that are tourist destinations (e.g., Orlando, Miami, D.C., NYC, Boston, Las Vegas, LA and San Francisco) while they avoid cities like Atlanta, Houston, DFW, Detroit and Philadelphia. Out of ATL DL has four flights/day in the summer while BA has one flt/day. I would fly VS to LGW if they flew out of ATL, but apparently they have no interest in flying here. Does VS fly only to "tourist destinations", at least here in the US?
P.S. I know that they are considering flying to ORD, but in my opinion this is still a fairly touristy city.
P.S. I know that they are considering flying to ORD, but in my opinion this is still a fairly touristy city.
Like those well known Virgin tourist destinations, Lagos and Port Harcourt ... ???!!! (just kidding).
Actually what Virgin serves is city pairs with a significant Origin & Destination (O&D) component to their demand, as Virgin do not have a feeder network at either end. In fact I would think they now have the North American market pretty saturated for their own style of service. They had a go at Chicago before, starting just before 9/11, but gave it up in the downturn.
Atlanta just doesn't cut it because few travellers from the UK have cause to go there (sorry Atlanta !), and while more Atlantans might come to London such a route is always going to be dominated by the major hub operator at Atlanta, Delta, feeding traffic in from multiple destinations. In passing I am often surprised how many Brits, probably the more aviation-naive ones, are sold tickets from London to Orlando that turn out to be connections on Delta through Atlanta (TWA also used to be past masters at this, selling bulk tickets to tour operators for London to Orlando connecting through St Louis of all indirect places).
Chicago might now have just sufficient Virgin-favourable business for one A340-300 a day. Atlanta probably has enough originating business for one Delta flight a day, the rest of the load is made up of connections.
Actually what Virgin serves is city pairs with a significant Origin & Destination (O&D) component to their demand, as Virgin do not have a feeder network at either end. In fact I would think they now have the North American market pretty saturated for their own style of service. They had a go at Chicago before, starting just before 9/11, but gave it up in the downturn.
Atlanta just doesn't cut it because few travellers from the UK have cause to go there (sorry Atlanta !), and while more Atlantans might come to London such a route is always going to be dominated by the major hub operator at Atlanta, Delta, feeding traffic in from multiple destinations. In passing I am often surprised how many Brits, probably the more aviation-naive ones, are sold tickets from London to Orlando that turn out to be connections on Delta through Atlanta (TWA also used to be past masters at this, selling bulk tickets to tour operators for London to Orlando connecting through St Louis of all indirect places).
Chicago might now have just sufficient Virgin-favourable business for one A340-300 a day. Atlanta probably has enough originating business for one Delta flight a day, the rest of the load is made up of connections.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM's point is well made. A good deal of Virgin's business class traffic connects through London from other VS destinations. For the US, Virgin (like BA) seeks to fill Upper and Premium with business passengers, and Economy with tourists (via Virgin Holidays where possible). The balance is different depending on the destination; New York (5 flights daily) is primarily business whereas Orlando (up to 4 flights daily at peak times) is almost entirely holidaymakers.
Virgin has looked and is still looking at further US destinations. Chicago may be restarted, Seattle has been mentioned and maybe a couple of others. It's unlikely we'd go to the heart of Delta's network though!
As for connections, Virgin codeshares with BMI in UK/Europe, and Continental in the US - and others elsewhere - so there is a feeder network, it's just not (yet) in Virgin colours!
Virgin has looked and is still looking at further US destinations. Chicago may be restarted, Seattle has been mentioned and maybe a couple of others. It's unlikely we'd go to the heart of Delta's network though!
As for connections, Virgin codeshares with BMI in UK/Europe, and Continental in the US - and others elsewhere - so there is a feeder network, it's just not (yet) in Virgin colours!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there was an article in last weeks Flight about Virgin commiting to 26 A346's (13 + 13 options) which said that they were looking to compete on all of BAs profitable long-haul routes, although the article said South America and Asia were primary targets, surely the US would be a target as the latter firm-options are delivered in 2007/8?
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which bit of
is at odds with the US being a target for further routes?
However, Virgin has more pressing priorities than extra US routes right now, and the announced new routes (Sydney, Havana, Nassau, plus extra schedules to other current destinations) are going to keep us quite busy enough. The other destinations mentioned in that press release are a 'wish list', and are by no means certain. Even if Virgin takes all 26 of those 346s, we are not going to be in a position to compete with BA on all its long haul routes! And BA isn't our only competitor....
Virgin has looked and is still looking at further US destinations. Chicago may be restarted, Seattle has been mentioned and maybe a couple of others. It's unlikely we'd go to the heart of Delta's network though!
However, Virgin has more pressing priorities than extra US routes right now, and the announced new routes (Sydney, Havana, Nassau, plus extra schedules to other current destinations) are going to keep us quite busy enough. The other destinations mentioned in that press release are a 'wish list', and are by no means certain. Even if Virgin takes all 26 of those 346s, we are not going to be in a position to compete with BA on all its long haul routes! And BA isn't our only competitor....
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One must remember that what Virgin says and what Virgin does are two very different things. Virgin 'cherry pick' the most profitable routes from London, so the idea that they might compete with BA on all their long haul routes is quite ludicrous, rather like their claim to be the UKs 'flag carrier'. You can't blame them for playing the publicity game but you do need to take their publicity with a pinch of salt e.g. the 'BA/Qantas duopoly' on the LHR-SYD route, which has about 20 airlines flying the route!
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I made much the same point about competing with BA! However, the LHR-SYD thing is about 'direct' flights (ie not non-stop, but without an aircraft or flight number change); all the other operators require an aircraft and flight number change at one or more intermediate stops, BA, Qantas and, soon, Virgin are the only ones that don't. It's not a big issue until you see some of the others' total flight times - 33:35 for Malaysian, 33:15 for ANZ, for example.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
I never understood the alleged magic about "direct flights". So what if you can theoretically do a single flight number single aircraft trip from London to Sydney on only two airlines. If you want a quick trip on BA or QF, you voluntarily hub at SIN anyway notwithstanding the single flight number possibilities.
