Virgin America
Join Date: May 2004
Location: all over the shop
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lucifer
exactly the same as Virgin Blue in Australia.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I think you are correct, but complicated perhaps by it being new, and run by an Australian CEO - not sure exactly why it was allowed, while Qantas cannot be owned by Texas Pacific outright?
Paxing All Over The World
jimworcs
Ahh, what indeed?
It used to be the shipping lines that were seen as part of a country's international prestige. Ships were 'flying the flag'. Then shipping was overtaken for speed and glamour by the airlines in the 1950s and 60s. The shipping lines faded as the ever larger aircraft took, first, their passengers and then their freight. They had to 'flag out' to save money and then reinvented themselves for cruising whilst the container ships completed the take over of the freight market.
Airlines still have the glamour for the politicians and press hence the public thinking so as well. We regularly hear the Brits refer to the 'flag carrying British Airways' which is technically incorrect as the airline is no longer nationalised, but having a Union flag painted on the a/c is still seen as a vital bit of marketing.
In all of this, the Americans are still behind Europe on the place of airlines in the national psyche and that is a big part of this. Further compounded by the events in the Middle East and the USA feeling vulnerable on all fronts.
BUT ... this is just a simple exercise to maintain jobs for their own companies who pay the wages of the American govt and it's agencies and that is perfectly clear and understood. It would appear that the new airline has not correctly met the current regulations. They might have chosen this route to see what they could get away with but there will be no doubt that they will have a plan 'B' and 'C' to put in a different structure. That will happen pretty fast and the airline will operate a bit later than planned.
What is so special about airlines that they need such protection?
It used to be the shipping lines that were seen as part of a country's international prestige. Ships were 'flying the flag'. Then shipping was overtaken for speed and glamour by the airlines in the 1950s and 60s. The shipping lines faded as the ever larger aircraft took, first, their passengers and then their freight. They had to 'flag out' to save money and then reinvented themselves for cruising whilst the container ships completed the take over of the freight market.
Airlines still have the glamour for the politicians and press hence the public thinking so as well. We regularly hear the Brits refer to the 'flag carrying British Airways' which is technically incorrect as the airline is no longer nationalised, but having a Union flag painted on the a/c is still seen as a vital bit of marketing.
In all of this, the Americans are still behind Europe on the place of airlines in the national psyche and that is a big part of this. Further compounded by the events in the Middle East and the USA feeling vulnerable on all fronts.
BUT ... this is just a simple exercise to maintain jobs for their own companies who pay the wages of the American govt and it's agencies and that is perfectly clear and understood. It would appear that the new airline has not correctly met the current regulations. They might have chosen this route to see what they could get away with but there will be no doubt that they will have a plan 'B' and 'C' to put in a different structure. That will happen pretty fast and the airline will operate a bit later than planned.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: all over the shop
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lucifer
while Qantas cannot be owned by Texas Pacific outright?
)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a shame...
My opinion, and only that...
It used to be, maybe still is, that the U.S. considered the U.S. airline industry a "Strategic Industry"...meaning that, in time of war, the assets, personnel, etc., would be used for/by the military. With that in mind, they (Congress) has always been reluctant to allow really any kind of foreign ownership/control of a U.S. carrier. I don't think it's so much a marketing (protectionist) thing...again, only my opinion (an uneducated opinion, I fully admit).
Further, in my humble opinion, I think it's a shame to perpetuate this doctrine. At this point, we're a global economy, and most of the stuff made in the world is made world-wide. So, Boeing aircraft are no longer made just in Seattle, but parts for each and every Boeing are made in dozens of countries throughout the world. There is no control there for the U.S. government to ensure a steady, uninterrupted supply of parts for aircraft. (Many of Boeing parts are made in China, for example!!!)
Most of the Toyotas sold in America are made in America, while many parts for GM's Chevrolet are made outside the U.S. So, if we Americans want to maintain the protectionist stance, it's way too late!!!!!
Again, in my humble, uneducated opinion, I really don't see how Virgin America will cause any problems for the airline industry in America...problems that haven't already been caused by deregulation. (I don't want to open a can of worms with this issue.)
As it's supposed to be, the key to success in business is to be able to supply a product or service that is wanted/needed by the customer, at a price the customer is willing to pay, and at a cost structure that enables a profit. No question, deregulation has defined this for the U.S. airline industry.
PantLoad
It used to be, maybe still is, that the U.S. considered the U.S. airline industry a "Strategic Industry"...meaning that, in time of war, the assets, personnel, etc., would be used for/by the military. With that in mind, they (Congress) has always been reluctant to allow really any kind of foreign ownership/control of a U.S. carrier. I don't think it's so much a marketing (protectionist) thing...again, only my opinion (an uneducated opinion, I fully admit).
Further, in my humble opinion, I think it's a shame to perpetuate this doctrine. At this point, we're a global economy, and most of the stuff made in the world is made world-wide. So, Boeing aircraft are no longer made just in Seattle, but parts for each and every Boeing are made in dozens of countries throughout the world. There is no control there for the U.S. government to ensure a steady, uninterrupted supply of parts for aircraft. (Many of Boeing parts are made in China, for example!!!)
Most of the Toyotas sold in America are made in America, while many parts for GM's Chevrolet are made outside the U.S. So, if we Americans want to maintain the protectionist stance, it's way too late!!!!!
Again, in my humble, uneducated opinion, I really don't see how Virgin America will cause any problems for the airline industry in America...problems that haven't already been caused by deregulation. (I don't want to open a can of worms with this issue.)
As it's supposed to be, the key to success in business is to be able to supply a product or service that is wanted/needed by the customer, at a price the customer is willing to pay, and at a cost structure that enables a profit. No question, deregulation has defined this for the U.S. airline industry.
PantLoad
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No-one (I think) has yet mentioned the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, which I think is a further factor in this whole equation for the Americans, who want to have ownership over their airline fleets for reasons of national security. I think the Fleet has been invoked 2-3 times in its existence.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GCC - don't think CRAF is mandatory
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=173
Looks to me like they get incentives to join but are not obliged to.
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=173
Looks to me like they get incentives to join but are not obliged to.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northwest operates a lot of Asian flights that do not originate or end in the US.
UPS and I think Fedex both have Asian bases that only fly in Asia, and only hire american pilots.
UPS and I think Fedex both have Asian bases that only fly in Asia, and only hire american pilots.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Virgin is not in control of the American entity, then it is lending its name to an airline, which it hopes will be good for the brand. If the airline makes huge losses or gains a reputation for rude in flight service, Virgin will have no control over improving things.
So, will Richard Branson bungy jump off the Golden Gate Bridge 0n launch day - he will play his part in making sure that everyone is aware of the new brand. But he has sold a franchise to local investors, and he hopes they will manage it nicely for him.
So, will Richard Branson bungy jump off the Golden Gate Bridge 0n launch day - he will play his part in making sure that everyone is aware of the new brand. But he has sold a franchise to local investors, and he hopes they will manage it nicely for him.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: California
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Motion of Virgin America, Inc. for Extension of Time
http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.c...docketid=23307
Motion of Virgin America, Inc. requesting an extension of time of three business days, until January 16, 2007, to file its Objections and response to the Department's Show Cause Order rendered on December 27, 2006 in the above-captioned matter.
Motion of Virgin America, Inc. requesting an extension of time of three business days, until January 16, 2007, to file its Objections and response to the Department's Show Cause Order rendered on December 27, 2006 in the above-captioned matter.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin America
U-turn on Virgin boosts ‘open skies’ hopes
By Doug Cameron in Chicago and Kevin Done in London
Published: March 20 2007 19:57 | Last updated: March 20 2007 23:30
US authorities on Tuesday reversed their opposition to plans by Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Group to launch a domestic US carrier in a move that could soothe lingering European opposition to a new transatlantic aviation treaty.
The UK entrepreneur’s long-running efforts to launch San Francisco-based Virgin America had been caught in the political crossfire of efforts to reach a EU-US agreement.
ADVERTISEMENT
EU transport ministers are due to vote on the “open skies” proposal on Thursday, amid signs the UK will not block an agreement, though there are concerns that political opposition could reignite in the US.
The tentative approval for Virgin America from the US department of transportation – which blocked the application last December – was viewed as an effort to calm fears in Europe that the pact was unbalanced.
The Virgin America application was unconnected to the open-skies proposal, which would deregulate route access and promote co-operation in safety and security matters. However, the DoT decision is viewed as an attempt by the US to signal that it will address continuing European concerns about the airline investment climate in negotiating a second-stage agreement.
Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, on Tuesday lobbied US president George W. Bush to persuade Washington to commit to greater liberalisation at a later date.
Government insiders made it clear that the UK, while seeking concessions before the vote, would not try to block the pact.
Virgin America was on Tuesday night examining the US decision, with final approval requiring the airline to replace its US-born chief executive because of his close ties to Sir Richard.
Additional reporting by Chris Adams in London and Andrew Bounds in Brussels
By Doug Cameron in Chicago and Kevin Done in London
Published: March 20 2007 19:57 | Last updated: March 20 2007 23:30
US authorities on Tuesday reversed their opposition to plans by Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Group to launch a domestic US carrier in a move that could soothe lingering European opposition to a new transatlantic aviation treaty.
The UK entrepreneur’s long-running efforts to launch San Francisco-based Virgin America had been caught in the political crossfire of efforts to reach a EU-US agreement.
ADVERTISEMENT
EU transport ministers are due to vote on the “open skies” proposal on Thursday, amid signs the UK will not block an agreement, though there are concerns that political opposition could reignite in the US.
The tentative approval for Virgin America from the US department of transportation – which blocked the application last December – was viewed as an effort to calm fears in Europe that the pact was unbalanced.
The Virgin America application was unconnected to the open-skies proposal, which would deregulate route access and promote co-operation in safety and security matters. However, the DoT decision is viewed as an attempt by the US to signal that it will address continuing European concerns about the airline investment climate in negotiating a second-stage agreement.
Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, on Tuesday lobbied US president George W. Bush to persuade Washington to commit to greater liberalisation at a later date.
Government insiders made it clear that the UK, while seeking concessions before the vote, would not try to block the pact.
Virgin America was on Tuesday night examining the US decision, with final approval requiring the airline to replace its US-born chief executive because of his close ties to Sir Richard.
Additional reporting by Chris Adams in London and Andrew Bounds in Brussels
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: STN
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin America
Virgin America planning low-cost transatlantic flights
16.04.07
Virgin America, the new budget airline part owned by Sir Richard Branson, is planning to operate low cost transatlantic flights, the Daily Mail reports. It could see the airline take on Ryanair in a cut-price air war on the lucrative transatlantic routes.
Full story here- http://www.uk-airport-news.info/heat...ws-160407a.htm
The newspaper also speculates that other US no-frills airlines - including Southwest and JetBlue - are planning to join in the transatlantic scramble.
16.04.07
Virgin America, the new budget airline part owned by Sir Richard Branson, is planning to operate low cost transatlantic flights, the Daily Mail reports. It could see the airline take on Ryanair in a cut-price air war on the lucrative transatlantic routes.
Full story here- http://www.uk-airport-news.info/heat...ws-160407a.htm
The newspaper also speculates that other US no-frills airlines - including Southwest and JetBlue - are planning to join in the transatlantic scramble.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sitting in Union Square this lunchtime it was quite interesting to watch one of the Virgin America A320s buzzing San Francisco for half an hour or so, being followed by what looked to be the same chaseplane that Boeing usually use for their publicity shots!
I assume we can expect a huge blaze of publicity from the airline in the next few weeks and days...
I assume we can expect a huge blaze of publicity from the airline in the next few weeks and days...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Profits Plunge At Virgin Atlantic
Virgin Nigeria losses hit Virgin Atlantic
Virgin Atlantic, the long-haul airline group controlled by Sir Richard Branson, suffered a steep fall in profits last year including growing losses at its Virgin Nigeria affiliate.
Singapore Airlines, which owns a 49 per cent stake in Virgin Atlantic Ltd, the group which includes Virgin Atlantic Airways, Virgin Holidays and a 49 per cent stake in Virgin Nigeria Airways, is reviewing the future status of its holding in view of Virgin Atlantic's weak financial performance.
According to the report and accounts filed by Virgin Atlantic Ltd, the group's retained profit plunged from £60.3m to £6.6m in the financial year to the end of February.
Sir Richard, president of the airline group, said that it had been hit by added cost pressures including the increased price of fuel, the impact of the security alerts at London Heathrow airport, its main operating base, in August last year, and administration costs arising from the UK government decision to double air passenger duty from February this year.
The group is also being hit by big losses at Virgin Nigeria, which started flying two years ago and which is facing heavy costs to start up new routes.
During the year, Virgin Nigeria started flying new routes to Calabar and Sokoto in Nigeria, Dakar in Senegal, and Dubai, but was forced to close the Dubai route because of "adverse market conditions".
According to the Virgin Atlantic Ltd accounts, Virgin Nigeria made an operating loss of £39.8m, up from a loss of £32.9m a year earlier.
Excluding the Nigerian carrier, the group's operating profit fell from £65.5m to £43.3m. Including Virgin Nigeria the group's operating profit fell from £32.6m to £3.5m.
Group turnover rose by 16 per cent from £1.9bn to £2.2bn, while Virgin Atlantic passenger numbers increased from 4.8m to 5.3m.
Full Article: Financial Times
Hopefully Virgin Nigeria will start making a profit soon, otherwise VS will continue to take a hit. Though it is interesting to note that even after excluding VK, VS' operating profit was down by £22m. When Open Skies is introduced in 7 months, how will VS fare?
- Retained Profits down by 90%, from £60.3m to £6.6m in the financial year to the end of February
- Excluding Virgin Nigeria, operating profit fell from £65.5m to £43.3m.
- Including Virgin Nigeria the group's operating profit fell from £32.6m to £3.5m.
- Group turnover rose by 16 per cent from £1.9bn to £2.2bn,
- Passenger numbers increased from 4.8m to 5.3m
Virgin Atlantic, the long-haul airline group controlled by Sir Richard Branson, suffered a steep fall in profits last year including growing losses at its Virgin Nigeria affiliate.
Singapore Airlines, which owns a 49 per cent stake in Virgin Atlantic Ltd, the group which includes Virgin Atlantic Airways, Virgin Holidays and a 49 per cent stake in Virgin Nigeria Airways, is reviewing the future status of its holding in view of Virgin Atlantic's weak financial performance.
According to the report and accounts filed by Virgin Atlantic Ltd, the group's retained profit plunged from £60.3m to £6.6m in the financial year to the end of February.
Sir Richard, president of the airline group, said that it had been hit by added cost pressures including the increased price of fuel, the impact of the security alerts at London Heathrow airport, its main operating base, in August last year, and administration costs arising from the UK government decision to double air passenger duty from February this year.
The group is also being hit by big losses at Virgin Nigeria, which started flying two years ago and which is facing heavy costs to start up new routes.
During the year, Virgin Nigeria started flying new routes to Calabar and Sokoto in Nigeria, Dakar in Senegal, and Dubai, but was forced to close the Dubai route because of "adverse market conditions".
According to the Virgin Atlantic Ltd accounts, Virgin Nigeria made an operating loss of £39.8m, up from a loss of £32.9m a year earlier.
Excluding the Nigerian carrier, the group's operating profit fell from £65.5m to £43.3m. Including Virgin Nigeria the group's operating profit fell from £32.6m to £3.5m.
Group turnover rose by 16 per cent from £1.9bn to £2.2bn, while Virgin Atlantic passenger numbers increased from 4.8m to 5.3m.
Full Article: Financial Times
Hopefully Virgin Nigeria will start making a profit soon, otherwise VS will continue to take a hit. Though it is interesting to note that even after excluding VK, VS' operating profit was down by £22m. When Open Skies is introduced in 7 months, how will VS fare?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess when Open Skies kicks in then VS will face a fare war and they really need a war chest to weather the storm, but they will also need to cut costs to compete effectively. Tough times ahead on the Atlantic.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wherever Carmen says...
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More spin from the Virgin group of companies, undoubtedly this will help its case in its current pay negotiations with its infamously underpaid cabin crew, just read his (SRB's) autobiography where he pleaded poverty with his record/shop staff all those times to avoid paying them their fair wage. while he went onto become one of the country's richest man
This comming from a long term admirer of sir richard.... and no i do not work for any Virgin company.
This comming from a long term admirer of sir richard.... and no i do not work for any Virgin company.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
huh??
Ignition,
Are you sure you got your facts right? You are, presumably, taking about Ryanair, the Irish carrier and the largest European LCC and not Ryan Air (as in Ryan International Airlines)?? Two entirely different companies.
The one you mention sounds very much like Ryan International and NOT Mike O'Leary's mob which is strictly a European LCC. The only commonality is that Ryan is an Irish name and................lots of people get confused between the two.
VB
(P.S. I used to fly for FR in the 90s when they were doing their big EU expansion, and I also happen to live in the US where I am familiar with most airline companies)
Are you sure you got your facts right? You are, presumably, taking about Ryanair, the Irish carrier and the largest European LCC and not Ryan Air (as in Ryan International Airlines)?? Two entirely different companies.
The one you mention sounds very much like Ryan International and NOT Mike O'Leary's mob which is strictly a European LCC. The only commonality is that Ryan is an Irish name and................lots of people get confused between the two.
VB
(P.S. I used to fly for FR in the 90s when they were doing their big EU expansion, and I also happen to live in the US where I am familiar with most airline companies)
