Virgin Atlantic

[TOM100]

You have to ask though why has VS not been able to turn a profit even in the good times ?

[dc9-32]

I wonder if the interested party in the space shares are Chinese.

[PAXboy]

There may be other competition Jet II but there are more likely to involve two sectors via a hub. Direct flights from the UK will be limited.

[Sharklet_321]

Originally Posted by GROUNDHOG

Should that read trying to sell ....?

Exactly - not sure who in their right mind would be buying Galactic shares right now

[LadyL2013]

As far as I'm concerned, as long as VS is saved, it can only be a good thing. I will never understand people's joy at airlines going under. VS has some of the best T&Cs for it's employees and are IMO one of the few UK airlines that dont feel like they just want you to sit down, shut up and not bother the CC. It would be a great shame to lose them.

The same people taking joy in their demise will be the same people whining when their only choice is limited and massively overpriced.

Good luck to everyone at VS. I really hope to see you come out the other side and fly with you again.

[bainsey]

I couldn't agree more

[Rutan16]

There are many in another place “blue and .net” certainly wishing the worst on Virgin for sure .

Many/most either Americans where businesses have an opportunity to survive through Chapter 11 (true existing shareholders take the haircut but the business survives) and a Chinese gentleman pontificating and I have to laugh - The Chinese aviation industry is the largest ponzi scheme on the planet - the debt burden larger than many small countries entire GDP !

[116d]

Originally Posted by Rutan16

There are many in another place “blue and .net” certainly wishing the worst on Virgin for sure .

Indeed. The thread in question would make for depressing reading if you're a VS employee.

Some are also trying to conflate the issue with their own hatred of SRB.

[DomyDom]

Virgin Atlantic Summer 2021 flights

Great that VS have announced plans to fly from Heathrow, Manchester and other airports next summer.

[JSCL]

Originally Posted by DomyDom

Great that VS have announced plans to fly from Heathrow, Manchester and other airports next summer.

I have to be honest, the exclusion of Vegas from Manchester astounds me. That was consistently a very busy flight for VS. I don't need the 'yields' lecture - I know that - but to leave Vegas open at Manchester really does surprise me.

[MANFOD]

Originally Posted by JSCL

I have to be honest, the exclusion of Vegas from Manchester astounds me. That was consistently a very busy flight for VS. I don't need the 'yields' lecture - I know that - but to leave Vegas open at Manchester really does surprise me.

Have to agree with you there. I can only assume it was after they had decided on LHR schedules, including ex LGW destinations, that they looked at what was available for MAN given the reduced fleet and staffing. It will be interesting to see whether there are daily services to JFK and ATL and the frequencies to MCO, LAX and BGI.
That's assuming of course ........

[AirportPlanner1]

Vegas could be a much trickier sell than Orlando. Indoor casinos and huge hotels v outdoor theme parks and more low rise accommodation accessed externally...

[MANFOD]

Originally Posted by AirportPlanner1

Vegas could be a much trickier sell than Orlando. Indoor casinos and huge hotels v outdoor theme parks and more low rise accommodation accessed externally...

Possibly, but it was reported a few years back that the route was attracting some wealthy footballers for example in Upper Class. I stand to be corrected but I think originally frequency was only 2 x weekly. It had increased to 4 x weekly and weren't there plans to make it 6 x weekly in S19. Whether that happened, I'm not sure, but remember also Virgin was in competition with TCX for part of the time so would have been a sole operator in S21. It was seasonal but did it go year round briefly? And apart from casinos and huge hotels, there is the attraction of the Grand Canyon not too far away. The other potential for LAS was that it could be linked in on Virgin Fly-Drive holidays with say LAX. The same would have applied with LAX and SFO had the latter flights continued.

MCO on the other hand was up to 12 or 13 flights weekly in peak season. Let's see what they plan for S21 if they survive. Family holidays there can work out very expensive and it remains to be seen to what extent discretionary spending will suffer next year.

[116d]

Originally Posted by AirportPlanner1

Vegas could be a much trickier sell than Orlando. Indoor casinos and huge hotels v outdoor theme parks and more low rise accommodation accessed externally...

There's also the fact that not everyone's final destination when flying with VS to MCO is the Orlando area and some people incorporate other parts of Florida as part of their holiday on top of the parks. When I last flew with them to MCO in 2016, we were in Florida for 2 weeks and upon arrival picked up our hire car for the 2hr drive to the St Petersburg area (I accept such a long drive isn't everyone's cup of tea after a 9hr flight). We only spent the final 3 nights in the Orlando area and it was partly because it would just be a short drive to the airport to end the holiday.

Besides loadings and profitability, I can only assume VS and Virgin Holidays have data that indicates that the vast majority of passengers on its LAS flights are only going to Vegas. I've never been to Nevada but it would seem there aren't many other destinations within a reasonable distance of LAS that people could travel to, though it's possible to drive to the LA area within 4-5 hours.

Another big difference between MCO and LAS is that MCO saw up to double daily flights in the peaks, whereas LAS was always a few times a week and a seasonal operation for the last few years. When you factor in the expected short-term slump in demand, it's probably one of those routes that don't look viable despite the fact VS are/were the sole carrier on the MAN-LAS route after the demise of Thomas Cook.

I suppose if people do want to go to LAS there are one-stop options in the interim or to fly with VS to LAX and spend 4-5 hours driving there.

[Wycombe]

Besides loadings and profitability, I can only assume VS and Virgin Holidays have data that indicates that the vast majority of passengers on its LAS flights are only going to Vegas.

Did a holiday a few years back with VS where we flew LGW-LAS, had 3 days there (which is enough for most), picked-up a camper and spent the next 10 days doing canyons, deserts, valleys etc, ending-up in a campground south of LA, from where we flew home LAX-LHR.

At least if we did this in future it would all be out of 1 UK Airport!

Granted that no one really knows how long it'll be until previous levels of travel return, but VS used to fill sometimes 5 744's a day (LGW x2 daily at least, MAN up to 2, GLA/BFS) from the UK to MCO and I can't see that capacity ever coming back again - which means if demand does return (or even half of it) prices will be high! (but I guess that's what they want)

[TOM100]

I still don’t understand why they couldn’t make a profit in the good times - can anyone explain ? and how this can be viable going forward. I too think they are good for competition and service initiatives but why couldn’t they make money ? A serious question not a dig.....

[WhatTheDeuce]

The licensing fee for the Virgin brand was designed to move profits from VS to a Virgin group company off-shore with zero tax.

[JSCL]

Originally Posted by WhatTheDeuce

The licensing fee for the Virgin brand was designed to move profits from VS to a Virgin group company off-shore with zero tax.

What, you mean like Starbucks, Apple etc?

That's a loop being very tightly closed and it'll become less effective in the years to come.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by WhatTheDeuce

The licensing fee for the Virgin brand was designed to move profits from VS to a Virgin group company off-shore with zero tax.

So actually VS are more viable and commercially effective without the self imposed restraint of the group licensing agreement. So not beyond saving for all those wanting so many good people out of work!

[SWBKCB]

So actually VS are more viable and commercially effective without the self imposed restraint of the group licensing agreement. So not beyond saving for all those wanting so many good people out of work!

Saving yes, but not by the taxpayer. You can't have your cake and eat it.