Media Bias Against VB?

[Sunfish]

I'm starting to wonder if there is a deliberate media bias against VB? It seems to be coming from the Sydney press. Wonder why?

[TIMMEEEE]

Sunfish, did you actually consider that the media is sick and tired of shameless publicity stunts and "lack of substance" as quoted by the media when serious questions about business are asked to Richard Branson and he gives some half-arsed frivolous response?

Yes Sunfish, and if you believe Branson he is the "third" airline to fly to Europe and is here to break the evil duopoly that BA/QF have created!!!
The fact that SQ, MH, CX, JL, EQ etc have been totally ignored means that he treats the Australian public like fools.

Yeah great that Virgin Atlantic is coming to Oz and I've got no qualms there, but do you see Sheik Fahed Abdul Aziz Mohammed bungy jumping into the MCG or doing something equally ridiculous to advertise that, say, Emirates is coming to a capital city near you????

The public are a bit more discerning than that, especially after they compare VA's fares to Europe.

[AIRWAY]

but do you see Sheik Fahed Abdul Aziz Mohammed bungy jumping into the MCG or doing something equally ridiculous to advertise that, say, Emirates is coming to a capital city near you????

His choice...

"Ridiculous" is your word, not mine, you don't like his stunts... I like it... He is a PR/Marketing genious

Now regarding Virgin Atlantic fares, i got a £615 return to Australia not the cheapest, but it is not the most expensive compared to other airlines. The thing here is, no one is ever pleased, someone has something to complain about and it just goes on and on and on. Give it a couple of months ( to see if the stunt paid off ) and let's see if Virgin's new route to Australia will be a success or a failure.

[Buster Hyman]

Sunfish. Are you Brett Godfrey?:rolleyes:

Just had a look at VS SYD-LHR return in Premium economy...AUD6000!!

[Cactus Jack]

Sunfish. Given your previous posts and your clear bias against Qantas, why don't you just come out and suggest that Qantas are behind the negative publicity. You are particularly transparent, and not particularly smart.

[hughgoagogo]

And the gleeming article from the Australian's aviation "expert" about the Rat's new foray into China had nothing to do with traveling to Shanghi in the big sleeper seat and being plied with piss and lobster!!!! talk about cash for comment :yuk:

[Whiskery]

TIMMEEEE the Sheik doesn't have to pull any media stunts. The Emirates are sponsor to, arguably, the most popular football club in Victoria. ;)

[TIMMEEEE]

Sunfish,

Lets look at some facts of life here.

Your marketing genius was asked some questions relating to business and gave some useless hyped response.
Fortunately some discerning members of the media saw this and wrote stories accordingly.

Its almost now as if the attitude is, 'whats that twit Branson going to do next.....sacrifice himself to the Gods?".

Branson's Virgin empire is holding its own in Australia and is hardly setting the relevant industries on fire.

Virgin Blue is making a profit (hard not to domestically in Oz) but their profits and yields are down.
Their share price is over 10% below issue price - and thats in a bull market seeing the Australian Share Price index at record highs!
When questioned about this Branson gave some luke warm response that lacked any real insight.
The VB low cost model now has some serious competition that is severly hampering VB's growth and profitability.

Virgin Mobile is very mediocre profit wise and is hardly offering anything remotely competitive.
It's hardly innovative and the other providers are cheaper and more creative when it comes to plans/billing etc.
Virgin Mobile tried to tap into the youth market but failed to realise that the other Telco's were offering great deals with extra handsets, free SMS etc for existing customers for their kids.

Virgin Records is publiclycomplaining because their competition primarily is HMV Superstores that seem to pop up very close to Virgin Stores and offer a larger range.

Virgin Credit cards have hardly anything extra to offer and you have to talk to some patronising schoolkid for customer service that loves to say, "like, I dont know, I'll talk to my supervisor but".
Bare in mind that alot of Virgin Blue groundstaff applied for the Virgin credit card and apparently were knocked back for whatever reason. There's a great advert for them!

And finally if it wasnt for Singapore Airlines buying 49% of Virgin Atlantic they would have almost certainly gone by the wayside after 9/11.
If not then SARS would have finished them off.

No amount of "marketing genius" Sunfish can fix the above mentioned problems, only good old responsible business management and competitiveness which Richard Branson cant always control.

As consumers, Australians dont seem to be concerned with the advertising hype you crave so dearly Sunfish.
We prefer reality, and if we see a good product thats cheaper and more competitive then 9 times out of 10 we'll go for it.
No amount of parachuting, bungy jumping or whatever will change that.
Branson proclaims to "bring on the competition" but after the business is sold they complain about unfare and predatory practices.

As for "cash for comments" Hugo..... do you honestly think in all reality that Virgin Atlantic or Richard Branson has never done this?
No!!
Surely not!!!!
Dont be so damned naive Hugo.


Whiskery - you are absolutely correct.
The Sheikh would actually pay someone else to jump for him!!
Sad though that the most popular footy club in Oz couldnt get an Australian sponsor.
Maybe their price was too high??
Perhaps Richard Branson would like to buy in?????

[Beer Can Dreaming]

That should be the exact title of this thread.

[Sperm Bank]

Sunfish, 10/10 for opening another debate topic. I guess you must be hitting your head against the wall with some responses so far. These VIRGIN HATERS are not capable of common sense discussion or debate. It's all mind numbing rubbish from the same old guard using the same old neanderthal rhetoric. If some of you guys had the capacity to contribute something/anything of worth, I would really love to see it. Do you go to bed at night wondering what it would be like to be happy? I guess happy in your organisation is an oxymoron, but you could at least give it a go hey? Please don't disperse your pent up hatred, invective and vacuous garbage in our direction. You are not achieving anything!

[Ultralights]

Virgin Records is having a hard time because their competition primarily is HMV Superstores that seem to pop up very close to Virgin Stores and offer a larger range.

I know its a little off topic, but i dissagree here, I, through my transport company, have contracts with Virgin records, or should i say, trading as EMI, in Oz! the virgin megastores are a small part of the Virgin records empire.

so every cd you see marked EMI, Ministry of sound, Underground records, eleven, a music company, are all owned by Virgin records. and all get into stores, via me! :D

[Beer Can Dreaming]

Sperm Bank.

It sounds like you do not like the truth when its presented in both a structured and legible manner.

Personally I am not a "Virgin Hater" but I do dislike it when the front man (Richard Branson) tries to sucker the average Australian into believing that he's here to break what has been described as "collusion" between Qantas and British Airways.
What a load of crap Sperm Bank and you know it.

Tell that to the several other airlines that fly to the UK and each one being reasonably competitive.

Perhaps you Sperm Bank would like to contribute something of substance rather than accuse others of not contributing "common sense".

You sound like some disgruntled university arts student that cries the word "fascist" when someone says something they dislike or disagree with.

Yes Sperm Bank, I am very happy with my employer here in beautiful downtown Moonee Ponds.......eh possums!!

[TIMMEEEE]

Ultralights.

All true but why did the Virgin Stores publicly complain of the practice of having the HMV stores open in proximity??

[Icarus2001]

Since this thread is as much about SRB as VB and the media can I recommend a read of the Branson unauthorised biography by Tom Bower. A very interesting read even if you filter out some of the writers' disdain for SRBs practises. It gives some insight in to the man and his methods.

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/1841154008.02._PE20_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[Cactus Jack]

Spermy, why is is that you describe anyone who has the tumerity to critisise Virgin or it's esteemed founder, as using "neanderthal rhetoric". You seem to believe that we as a collective are "not happy", full of "vacuous garbage" and "pent up hatred".

Your comments are bizarre. All because we disagree publicly with the stunts of your leader, and because we question his honesty.

I think your logic is somewhat inverse.

[Johhny Utah]

icarus, I couldn't agree more :ok: I have just finished reading the book, and it seems as though bransons latest stunt at the Virgin Atlantic launch is as per his normal SOPS. i.e something along the lines of
* throw huge stunt to get media attention
* moan to the assembled media about how he is the 'victim' of a larger, established corporation who are out get him
* sell himself as being the defender of the everday man in the street
* make outrageous claims with regards to the company's future performance
* play the clown when asked any insightful questions, or any that attempt to portray him in a less than flattering light
* threaten to sue anyone who dares to challenge his claims

All par for the Branson course it seems. For any doubters out there, perhaps a perusal of his previous claims for the future performance of Vigin Cola, Virgin Records, Virgin Bride, Victory clothing etc would make for interesting reading - i say go for it...:rolleyes:

[Animalclub]

Ultralights ... I'm sure that you will find that Branson has nothing to do with Virgin Records. In his first biography he states that it was sold to cover some other expense... Sony, I believe, bought it.

[Pinky the pilot]

Don't suppose it has occurred to anyone else that one of the reasons that Mr Branson has been so successful in his various ventures is that he recognises the old saying;
"any publicity is good publicity"
Must admit that he seems to have the ability of keeping himself and his interests in the public eye, and seemingly without too much effort!
Only realised this myself halfway through the second bottle of red* for the evening!!:E (Mrs Pinky is away!!)

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.


* A Stonehaven 'Stepping Stone' 2002 Coonawarra Cab Sav.
A PRR of 8/10

[Eastwest Loco]

Buster

Just did a system search, and can actually do Upper Class on a Companion fare for $5610.00 PP plus taxes.

Senior Upper Class $5291.00 + and Premium economy $4360.00+.

Never trust a web booking engine - any of them.

They are like the sheep in the Kiwi farmer and ventriliquist joke - they tell lies.

Generally excellent value.

Best regards

EWL

[one ball]

What's your beef with Qantas, Sunfish? Did they knock you back for a management role???

Where do you come up with all this? Still, it got a few bites.





Pinky..... never use the PC after a bottle. It will be screwed when you crawl out of bed in the morning and you won't remember why!

[Sunfish]

One ball, my beef with Qantas is that it is run exclusively for the benefit of NSW in general and Sydney in particular. In addition it has operated as an effective monopoly for fifty years and conspired with various governments to maintain that situation.

I also suspect its business practices are corrupt since one of its former Directors is under investigation, but I have no proof. I have also said before that "bad things" always seem to happen to its competitors.

Looks like VB is no exception. VB's troubles will stop when they appoint a few more Sydney based Directors, settle themselves in a subserviant position and stop attacking Qantas market share. I've seen this before in another industry.

It is now receiving some competition and it amuses me to see some of the Qantas fat cats screaming like stuck pigs.

[one ball]

Qantas is ... run exclusively for the benefit of NSW in general and Sydney in particular.Because their HQ is in Sydney the company is run exclusively for Sydney. Bizarre.......... :rolleyes:

I'm going to find something good to read in the Book Repository.

[Cactus Jack]

Sunfish, I just cannot work you out, my friend.

Qantas has been based in Sydney since the 1930's. Yes, so it is "Sydney - centric". But thats just geography. Qantas has bases for it's crew all over - and employs people all over. So what if it is HQ'd in Sydney. Where would YOU have it based? Dubbo? You just do not make sense.

Furthermore, which particular "Qantas fat cat" is "screaming like a stuck pig", and exactly what are they screaming about?

You really are losing any shred of credibility.

[Buster Hyman]

Fair call LocoBloko...Note to self: Remember to book next trip with EWL!:ok:

Whiskery & TIMMEEE Don't you guys realise that you lose all credibility when you refer to that rabble of a footy team?:rolleyes:

[Gnadenburg]

Pinky

Sure hope your first bottle better than the second! ;)

Whiskery

That an international airline of such repute, would sponsor a football club of which the majority of the members haven't been South of the Yarra ( thank christ for property prices ), a baffling mystery.

Collingwood supporters more Virgin Blue Collar clientel! :p


Sunfish

Virgin Blue has gotten away with murder with the press. I personally, welcome the awakening!

[TIMMEEEEE]

I agree Buster I have been losing the plot for a while.

Despite the jokes I make about it all, I do have the utmost respect for Branson and Co. It is easy to slag them however in the end they did bring 3000 odd jobs to the table when a lot of people needed them when Ansett when bust.

A lot of the stale management in traditional coompanies dont like Branson but in the end thats the famous Ozzie "tall poopy" thing isnt it.
Best thing is, despite eveything said it would really eat them up at night that such a genuine easy going (abeit publicitiy loving person) has done so well. Someone who is worth a billion odd pounds has obviously done something very very right. :ok:

[Sunfish]

Cacky, in 1979 when Ansett went wide bodied overseas airlines were pleading with us to provide a 747 TFC facility in Melbourne so that they could avoid the obligatory three hour stop in Sydney.

I pushed that argument very strongly and was told to shut up because no one was going to be allowed to interfere with Qantas's monopoly position. It was put to me that "Abeles will have our *** if we challenged Qantas's monopoly of this activity.

As a result of this, a great deal of overseas new investment in the IT industry and in merchant banking went to Sydney - because it was seen to be three hours closer to the rest of the world than Melbourne.

To put it another way, you are an investment banker having to decide where to put your Australian operation. You have just taken the red eye from New York and joined a Qantas flight from the coast. You arrive in Sydney and are told there willl be a wait in the transit lounge while your plane is either serviced, cleaned and reloaded etc.

Where do you decide to base your business?

I've said this before on this forum and nobody has contradicted me.

Furthermore, go to Qantas's American website and try booking flights from the States to Melbourne, or other state capitals without visiting Sydney inbound or outbound. State Governments have been screaming about this for years.

You want a stat dec?

[Howard Hughes]

Furthermore, go to Qantas's American website and try booking flights from the States to Melbourne, or other state capitals without visiting Sydney inbound or outbound.

Sunfish, QF 93/94 to Melbourne or QF25/26 to Brisbane should do the trick, I would have thought!!

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

PS: It would be ludicrous to expect an airline to fly to any other "state capitals", whilst bypassing the east coast!

[Animalclub]

Didn't QF scream when Air Niugini flew from Cairns to Honolulu and Townsville to Singapore. Every international QF pax had to go via SYD to get to anywhere on the East Coast.

[elektra]

The fact that the collusion (i.e. "co-operaration" on fares, scheduling and capacity) between QF and BA has the approval of the ACCC does not make it any less collusion.

All things being equal when you have dominant players such as these two, in priviledged positions (e.g. their slots and gates at each end of the SYD-LHR route) you'll get fewer seats and higher costs than would otherwise be the case. The ACCC has thus far felt that this was not too unacceptable. But it is still collusion, unless we're all happier with a nicer word that means the same thing.

But....the "Qantas has 37 competitors" line has long passed its used by date. On domestic routes, anyone of us could raise some money, buy an old 737-300 and start services within 6 months against VB. Only need an AOC. No other permission required.

But is that true on any (or at least most) international routes? If indeed QF are that competitive then open up the skies SYD-LAX or if they don't like that, leave the SYD routes and allow everyone else free access in and out of Australia from every other capital.

A few years ago, 1985 I think, the Bureau of Transport Economics (or whatever it was called then) produced a draft report which found that the net deadening effect of Qantas' monopoly position was so great that Australia (i.e. consumers and the toursim industry) would be better off in total if it were abolished and a true "Open Skies" policy established. That draft never did get published in that form...QF lawyers made sure it got a substantial re-write...but the truth of the anti-consumer effect of monopoly which was true then, remains true now.

No-one seriously would want QF to fall over. They're not going to, most probably at least. But lets remember that the industry world wide was built by weird egomanic mavericks like Reg Ansett, Branson, Laker, Howard Hughes, Juan Trippe etc etc. People who dreamed and argued and harangued and probably lied and cheated too, to get their own way. Competition means taking on the top end of town and that, if there is one big lesson from deregulation, is what builds change and jobs.

I don't work for VB, never will. But I fly on them a lot and am very glad they're there. If some Sydney journos have had too much free booze on QF to look outside the window and see the real world being rebuilt daily by visionaries, however flawed, then that's their loss. The public can see, and as Emirates has shown internationally, and VB domestically, will vote with their feet.

[Boney]

Sunfish

"my beef with Qantas is it is run exclusively for NSW, Sydney in particular"

Why is it that Melbournites have had such a chip on their shoulders for the last 20 years with my weaner is bigger than your weaner stuff.

People in Sydney actually find it a bit funny as well as sad.

Sunfish, I will let you in on a little secret - they are both traffic congested, over priced $hitholes.

[TIMMEEEE]

TIMMEEEEE.

A pretty lame-duck way of adding an extra letter and pretending you are myself.

Woomera - is this acceptable behaviour to add an extra letter to a username in order to defame and twist someone elses words????'

Perhaps if I were to call myself Woomerra and proclaim that anything goes on this forum you wouldnt look too kindly upon this practice???

TIMMEEEE (4 e's).

[Cactus Jack]

Sunfish? It is 2004, you are 25 years behind the times.

Ansett no longer exists.

Sydney is the biggest city in Oz. It was in 1979, too. And for quite a while before that. Maybe 200+ years?

It should hardly be a surprise that much of our trading, both domestic and international occurs there. I really dont think that this has occurred simply because Qantas makes it difficult for people to get there (although, I have a few problems with your line of reasoning there, too), and if you do believe this, well, here comes the funny farm methinks.

Your argument holds no credibility. I seriously believe that your dislike of Qantas has clouded your judgement. This is akin to asking a Ford fan what he thinks of Holden's. "They are sh1t, mate" he'll tell you every time, without any solid basis.

You can write as many stat dec's as you like, your judgement won't be any more objective for it.

[Sunfish]

Boney and Cacky, it is serious, because it seriously influences the final Australian destination of overseas investment. This translates into investment, growth and jobs.

Its a real concern and when companies benchmark different locations for factories and offices it is one of the things they consider very seriously. Don't take my word for it, I only worked in the field of investment attraction in the mid 90's. Go and look at KPMG's (or whoever) has done the latest annual surveys.

The Kennett Government took this pretty seriously although the current Labor Mob probably doesn't have a clue.

[Cactus Jack]

Betcha the Tassie Government is seriously p1ssed that Qantas don't have direct Hobart LA flights, too. Must be affecting their development!

Sorry Sunny, I think you live in an alternate reality.

BTW, wasn't this thread about media bias against VB? Of which there is none.....

[Sunfish]

Cactus, it seems your economic illiteracy is showing.

And yes, perhaps there will one day be a direct Los Angeles Hobart flight.

You are the one with the alternate reality Cactus. Qantas is a disaster waiting to happen, and when it does, thanks to its Sydney centric policies, no one will give a flying F**K


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04089/290216.stm


And from the PA study of Air New Zealands options commissioned by the NZ treasury.


"Tourism:
l Indirect flights with multiple stops or lay-overs to the ultimate destination create the
opportunity for tourists to spend their money elsewhere other than New Zealand.



"More Reasons
Corporate decisions to locate manufacturing and services operations globally weigh the
availability of direct air service links heavily.
l Successful regional economic development programs hinge on the transparency of
transportation arrangements, both passenger and freight.
l Trend is accelerated by increasing reliance on global sourcing, total logistics and
affordable information and communication system capability."


And from here:


http://www.hamburg-aviation-conference.de/pdf/present2004/Session4_Panel_Barrett.pdf



'Airports and Communities in a Deregulated Market.
Sean D. Barrett,
Economics Department,
Trinity College,
Dublin.
Paper to Hamburg Aviation Conference,
February 20, 2004.'

i quote:

"Before deregulation airlines in Europe concentrated on hub airports. The role of
nonhub airports was to feed the hubs. Noncompeting airlines used hubs as points of
interlining, capacity sharing and price collusion.
Through the grandfather rights system the host national airline gained control of slot
allocation at hub airports which were typically allocated to airlines in order of seniority.
New entrants were typically excluded. The economic rents earned by gaining control
over hub airports were capitalised in the scarcity value of slots."

"DEREGULATED MARKETS.
In Europe’s first major deregulation, the Dublin-London route, fares fell by 55% on the
first day, May 23 1986 from £208IR to £94.99IR. In addition to airline competition there
was airport competition first from Luton and later from Stansted. More than half the
passengers on the Dublin-London air route, now the busiest in Europe and the second
busiest in the world, does not now use Heathrow, the previous monopoly hub.
Repeatedly the case studies show ready transfers of market share to new airports served
by new low cost airlines in Europe. Some of the transfers have been dramatic such as
Stansted which was built as a full-cost airport but avoided by the incumbent airlines"

"The fare savings were obviously the major initial attraction which drew passengers to
the new airports. Then passengers began to like small airports because of short walking
times, quicker check-in, less confusion and better punctuality. Passengers liked the new
airports’ simplicity by contrast with large airports with lengthy walking times, delays at
check-in and security desks and delays caused by waiting for connecting flights. Any
margin of extra glamour in hub airport shopping malls over off-airport shopping in the
past has been long eroded by development of shopping plazas in most cities and towns.
Any so-called glamour of hub airports probably ended forty years ago."


"The general rule of thumb for estimating the development effects of airports on the
surrounding economies is one thousand jobs per million passengers and about the same in
secondary job impacts. These estimates are derived from Graham’s summary of
employment impact studies at twenty-four airports, seventeen in Europe and seven in
North America."

[Cactus Jack]

Qantas is a disaster waiting to happen, and when it does, thanks to its Sydney centric policies, no one will give a flying F**K

Rather controversial statement, Sunfish. You really show your true colours there.

Sunny? May I politely suggest that you share this tripe with someone who cares?:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[Boney]

Sunfish, you are correct in saying that it does affect investment.

Not a heavy driver myself but I would say one reason would be the extra fuel from say, the United States of Aggression to Melb would mean less frieght up lift etc.

The other thing is Sydney has been promoted as the gateway to Australia for the last 20 years by many different sectors of business and government. I believe this is one reason that the place is just becoming so over crowded. Sydney may live to regret the subtle self promotion.

Potential immigrants just remember the pretty pictures of the Opera House/The Coat Hanger across the creek they have seen while growing up and when they move out here it is a case of "that's where I WANT to live". Latest figures show 20,000 a year are leaving but the population is still growing at a thousand a week. That is, people living here are realising there is not much actual REAL quality of life here but thousands from rural Australia and overseas are still coming.

This is why the Real Estate is such a rip off. The only reason yours truly has been here for a couple of years is because of a decent job although I plan to one of the runners in the new year.

Sorry to get off the topic but I do find it interesting to state the media is anti VB. Every single time there is a "huge" annoucement, the media is there. I remember when VB first started up, RB would often announce the SAME thing twice in the one month and the media, being the bunch of morons they are, fell for it every time.

RB knows the media and most of the general public are brain dead and uses all of it to his business advantage.

And that my friends is why he has millions of dollars and half of us on this forum are wondering how to pay the rent next week. Good luck to him.

Such is life!

[Sunfish]

Boney I guess you are right. As for Cactus, I guess you have never worked for Government have you? State Governments will kill for more international direct flights only QF hasn't provided them in the past and probably won't in future.

Here is a hint, if you want to see off emirates, why dont you provide extra direct flight capacity to Melbourne at Emirate prices and service levels?

[Cactus Jack]

Sunfish, I will very proudly tell you that I have not worked for Government. And I don't particularly care whether or not local, state or federal governments "want" services, or whether it affects "investment". Nor does Qantas, and nor should it.

I'll let you in on something here, Sunfish. Call it Airline Economics and Management 101 if you like.

Qantas does not exist as a "charity" carrier. It exists to make a profit, pure and simple. Long gone are the days where the airline was government sponsored. They sold it, remember? Now there are shareholders who have a right to expect a return for their investment.

Not only that, there are employees, who expect to be secure in their jobs. There are creditors, who expect to be paid. And the list goes on.

Then, along comes Sunfish, who in his dated expectations, desires that Qantas provide route structures which suit the minority, and arguably, will ensure the demise of the airline, because that particular route is not economically sustainable.

Sunfish, you simply cannot suggest that Qantas open up routes "willy nilly" to suit every last person, because the airline will go broke quick smart. You cannot suggest that the airline is a "disaster waiting to happen" - your words - just because the airline doesn't have a timetable to suit your (and your local governments) exclusive needs. Your government should be attracting investment, not expecting Qantas to do it for them.

What you ask for is the tail wagging the dog.

You obviously hail from Melbourne, and you have a "small mans syndrome". Me? I dont live in Sydney or Melbourne, and I probably have other psychological deficiencies. But I can see the errors in your thinking.