Virgin Atlantic
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems Virgin Atlantic are dropping the Hong Kong-Sydney extension for a new focus on the North Atlantic with Delta. Effective from May, and means Hong Kong base will close. Rather ruthless on the timing or perhaps a much needed focus shift that was years overdue.
Important information about our Hong Kong - Sydney service | Virgin Atlantic
Is Hong Kong really a good market for them going forward? They're now dwarfed by five a day Cathay and BA using new A380s and B77Ws. Perhaps a US city might be a better more JV friendly focus?
Important information about our Hong Kong - Sydney service | Virgin Atlantic
Is Hong Kong really a good market for them going forward? They're now dwarfed by five a day Cathay and BA using new A380s and B77Ws. Perhaps a US city might be a better more JV friendly focus?
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 4th Feb 2014 at 13:35.
Why is this ruthless on timing ? VS are giving 3 months notice and offering rebooking to those affected after flights end in addition to the required refund option.
Yes, VS could give 12 months notice, but they also need to be commercial about their operations as well.
Yes, VS could give 12 months notice, but they also need to be commercial about their operations as well.
end of Hong Kong - Sydney service
no surprise there then but what i do not know is the reasons as to why no agreements to code-share VS with Virgin Australia (Voz) were ever implemented...
you have two airlines set up by the same guy and he does not want them to mix and match? then after fighting for years for the right to fly LON-SYD he walks away...
its boggling that VS DAILY flies to DXB, HKG, LAX, SFO and JNB but Voz has not made any attempts seemingly to want fly the London pax onto Australia
Voz could have op'd these routes to meet the VS a/c coming in/out from LHR
DXB-PER SYD MEL
JNB-PER
HGK-SYD MEL BNE
LAX/SFO-MEL SYD BNE
they could have marketed a round the world service as well
instead Virgin Oz flies standalone alone from LAX and SFO to Oz
THEN teams up with Etihad via AUH as has Qantas teams up with Emirates via DXB
bizarre!
you have two airlines set up by the same guy and he does not want them to mix and match? then after fighting for years for the right to fly LON-SYD he walks away...
its boggling that VS DAILY flies to DXB, HKG, LAX, SFO and JNB but Voz has not made any attempts seemingly to want fly the London pax onto Australia
Voz could have op'd these routes to meet the VS a/c coming in/out from LHR
DXB-PER SYD MEL
JNB-PER
HGK-SYD MEL BNE
LAX/SFO-MEL SYD BNE
they could have marketed a round the world service as well
instead Virgin Oz flies standalone alone from LAX and SFO to Oz
THEN teams up with Etihad via AUH as has Qantas teams up with Emirates via DXB
bizarre!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bearded billionaire's "empire" has always been smoke and mirrors. He has a bare majority in VS but that doesn't mean he runs the show. Virgin America is an American firm which uses Virgin branding and in which the Virgin Group has a holding, not full control. It's the same with Virgin Blue, control was never Branson's and it's much less so nowadays after a boardroom battle. Both companies do pretty much their own thing, the relationship is distant as they're independent firms in different markets linked only by a name and some presence of the Virgin Group on the board. SRB is merely wheeled out for the odd photocall, which as he get's older, gets creepier. Remember him in his pants on the apron at EDI launching Virgin Little Red?
Richard Branson?s cheeky lift-off | The Sun |Feeds|Smartphone|Scotland
Sadly SRB still sees little Virgin standing up against an anti-competitve BA whereas the world moved on with a refreshed BA battling a strong Lufthansa / STAR branding and an enhanced KLM / Air France group, not to mention the Delta / AF / KL on the North Atlantic and the similar combined Continental/ United / Lufthansa tie up. That's before you get to looking East at Cathay, Singapore, Emirates, Etihad and Qatar, Virgin ceased to be a major issue for BA long ago and under SRB, Virgin never moved on from that. "Four engines for long haul"? Perhaps today is Day One of a more sensible and commercially focused approach? Hope so.
Richard Branson?s cheeky lift-off | The Sun |Feeds|Smartphone|Scotland
Sadly SRB still sees little Virgin standing up against an anti-competitve BA whereas the world moved on with a refreshed BA battling a strong Lufthansa / STAR branding and an enhanced KLM / Air France group, not to mention the Delta / AF / KL on the North Atlantic and the similar combined Continental/ United / Lufthansa tie up. That's before you get to looking East at Cathay, Singapore, Emirates, Etihad and Qatar, Virgin ceased to be a major issue for BA long ago and under SRB, Virgin never moved on from that. "Four engines for long haul"? Perhaps today is Day One of a more sensible and commercially focused approach? Hope so.
oh lord that pants pic is very upsetting
I'm surprised the Virgin Sydney flight lasted as long as it did. The Europe - Australia route has long been a bloodbath for the European based airlines and Qantas. For years the Asian carriers and more lately the Middle East carriers have been progressively taking over that market with their lower costs, more attractive schedules and better service. Airlines like KLM, Lufthansa, Air France / UTA, Austrian / Lauda, Alitalia, Olympic, JAT and others have already stopped operating the Australian routes in their own right. Some have disappeared altogether whilst others now codeshare on the very airlines that replaced them.
The way Qantas are going it won't be long before their last two Europe flights into LHR are replaced with Emirates tails, whilst BA are now down to a single token daily 777 to Sydney.
All part of the trend towards globalization and alliances, which Virgin appear to have finally caught onto with their tie up with Delta.
The way Qantas are going it won't be long before their last two Europe flights into LHR are replaced with Emirates tails, whilst BA are now down to a single token daily 777 to Sydney.
All part of the trend towards globalization and alliances, which Virgin appear to have finally caught onto with their tie up with Delta.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems Virgin Atlantic are dropping the Hong Kong-Sydney extension for a new focus on the North Atlantic with Delta. Effective from May, and means Hong Kong base will close. Rather ruthless on the timing or perhaps a much needed focus shift that was years overdue.
Heard the new 777-8X will be able to do it and carry a payload. Maybe the A350 might be able to as well.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet most of the costs involved here is by having to keep a hub, personnel, aircraft, service going for that last leg.
Heard the new 777-8X will be able to do it and carry a payload.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Singapore's ULR ops direct to the USA are probably instructive on how desirable pax find that type of service. Now canned, I get the impression it never really took off as they would have liked (pardon the pun!).
re ULR it is just possible that LON-PER non-stop might be the most desirable route for someone
QF mooted a few years ago they were interested (before the Arab tie-up) but at the time the a/c around still had a westbound penalty
all seems to have gone quiet on that front.
as i said in my post above the boardroom battles that have been mentioned here inflicted on VS and Voz have done them no favours when an obvious tie up with hubs at DXB JNB and LAX could have fed pax onto Voz...even a BOM hub was an option to open up India through to oz.
very strange indeed and beggars belief not to use your brand...
QF mooted a few years ago they were interested (before the Arab tie-up) but at the time the a/c around still had a westbound penalty
all seems to have gone quiet on that front.
as i said in my post above the boardroom battles that have been mentioned here inflicted on VS and Voz have done them no favours when an obvious tie up with hubs at DXB JNB and LAX could have fed pax onto Voz...even a BOM hub was an option to open up India through to oz.
very strange indeed and beggars belief not to use your brand...
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it's "even more reasons" at all. VS was an irrelevance in the UK-Australia market faced with the competition, especially the Gulf competition. How many successful ultra-long-range routes can you point to around the world? Is there really a demand to be squeezed into an economy seat for 20+ hours rather than stopping and stretching your legs in the middle? Plus the advantage of a hub midway is that the hub airline can use larger aircraft with lower seat costs, so can price more aggressively.
Singapore's ULR ops direct to the USA are probably instructive on how desirable pax find that type of service. Now canned, I get the impression it never really took off as they would have liked (pardon the pun!).
ULH may have attractions for F or J pax, or those in a desperate hurry, but hell for those in Y. Not surprised that SQ's got canned!
Paxing All Over The World
1) Sorry the VS extended leg to SYD has gone, I was reckoning to use that in November!
2) ULH to PER: being able to do it technically and being able to do it at a price that folks will pay? But I agree, the cost of making it happen will probably be out gunned by the financial benefits of a making it two sectors, as detailed above by others.
3) For VS: They started as an independent at the right time but world events over took them. The consolidation into the alliances and the emergence of the mid-east carriers? Not much could have stood against that. If they had thrown in their lot with one of the big groups earlier? It might have worked, now it's a bit late. They will probably remain their current size.
4) The failure of Virgin group to link:
Having got three independent carriers with distinctive styles to NOT make a high level link up so that they could share pax and RTWs??? How did they miss that? They didn't have to merge, they could be their very own alliance with a small global co-ordinating centre. Heck, they even own a telecomms company to facilitiate the links with expertise and buying power! The others must be so relieved (and amused) that they failed.
I dare say that someone thought of it - but it is exactly the kind of brave step that the Virgin Group used to do. Take an established market and shake it up. The alliances have to shoe horn themselves under one brand - having first invented the 'OneWorld' etc. When Virgin already HAD a brand that was known around the world. Sheesh!
2) ULH to PER: being able to do it technically and being able to do it at a price that folks will pay? But I agree, the cost of making it happen will probably be out gunned by the financial benefits of a making it two sectors, as detailed above by others.
3) For VS: They started as an independent at the right time but world events over took them. The consolidation into the alliances and the emergence of the mid-east carriers? Not much could have stood against that. If they had thrown in their lot with one of the big groups earlier? It might have worked, now it's a bit late. They will probably remain their current size.
4) The failure of Virgin group to link:
- V Atlantic
- V Austalia
- V America
- V Balloon trips
- V Holiday company
- V Cruise company
Having got three independent carriers with distinctive styles to NOT make a high level link up so that they could share pax and RTWs??? How did they miss that? They didn't have to merge, they could be their very own alliance with a small global co-ordinating centre. Heck, they even own a telecomms company to facilitiate the links with expertise and buying power! The others must be so relieved (and amused) that they failed.
I dare say that someone thought of it - but it is exactly the kind of brave step that the Virgin Group used to do. Take an established market and shake it up. The alliances have to shoe horn themselves under one brand - having first invented the 'OneWorld' etc. When Virgin already HAD a brand that was known around the world. Sheesh!
That SIA direct flight to JFK was on an A345 that was all business/first. Only 90 seats on board IIRC. If that didn't work between two of the wealthiest and most financially important cities in the world.......
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That SIA direct flight to JFK was on an A345 that was all business/first. Only 90 seats on board IIRC. If that didn't work between two of the wealthiest and most financially important cities in the world.......
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't work as it's most people's idea of hell even in First or Business.
I do a lot of long haul in business and anything over 10 hrs - I've lost the will to live. Needs a break / stop over. That's why the sand carriers do so well.
Ultra long haul will never work until hypersonic propulsion becomes normal and affordable.
I do a lot of long haul in business and anything over 10 hrs - I've lost the will to live. Needs a break / stop over. That's why the sand carriers do so well.
Ultra long haul will never work until hypersonic propulsion becomes normal and affordable.
The failure of Virgin group to link:
V Atlantic
V Austalia
V America
V Balloon trips
V Holiday company
V Cruise company
V Atlantic
V Austalia
V America
V Balloon trips
V Holiday company
V Cruise company
