VS base in Orlando

[no, no, no]

Just wondering whether VS have ever thought of looking at setting up a base in MCO?

They are set up as the main Orlando operator through Virgin Holidays, yet they only offer LGW and MAN. Other destinations to Orlando could make sense, but not if it means putting one aircraft in a new airport just like they have done with MAN - eg one aircraft based in GLA would be costly with inefficiencies, plus it maybe wouldn't warrant a daily service.

HOWEVER - if they based a few aircraft in MCO they could use this to operate to several airports in the UK, and eventually Europe if the open skies ever come about. They could operate a few flights a week to BFS, some to GLA, EDI, BHX, even something like BRS. They could totally dominate the Orlando market from the UK driving out charters etc to a degree (although not completely), without having the set up costs, risk and inefficiencies of aircraft in several UK destinations.

Could this work??

They could maybe also add linking flights in the US with their new Virgin America (if that is still going to happen) just like they are doing with Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Blue in Australia....

[scroggs]

Simple - the Americans would not allow it. Just as we would not allow AA to set up a hub at Heathrow.

The Manchester flights are currently achieved by crews operating LGW-MCO-MAN-MCO-LGW, though the cabin crew are actually Manchester based. The aircraft is rotated from the LGW pool, it is not based at MAN. It is possible Virgin will set up a base at Manchester in the future, but there are no plans in public as yet. Any further UK departure points will be served in a similar way to Manchester. Orlando will remain a destination, not a hub.

[WHBM]

But I believe American and/or United do indeed have crew bases at Heathrow, for cabin crew if not for flight deck.

[Flyrr100]

For Virgin to have a base in Orlando all the FAs and Pilots would have to be residents of the USA. Personally I'd love it, as I'm a US citizen and live in Central Florida. I was hoping VS USA would be here instead of San Francisco.
Sigh...... Still love your airline!

[Re-Heat]

Simple - the Americans would not allow it. Just as we would not allow AA to set up a hub at Heathrow.
I don't think that should make a difference other than to where you are allowed to operate...? So long as it is not a US company trying to operate outside of the permitted routes with non-US registered aircraft, would there be any restriction upon it?

Although BA certainly did do it with Sydney once upon a time, perhaps some local restrictions have prevented it occurring at New York, which one would think would be a logical place to have such a basing for both BA and Virgin...?


On another note - Iberia used to operate A320s/A319s based at Miami to Central America until last year.

[apaddyinuk]

I cant see the Yanks allow it unless it came under Virgin USA's brand. And as for AA not allowed a base in LHR, well I hate to say it but both AA and UA have crew and ground handeling bases in LHR, I think UA still even route most of their far eastern flights through LHR!!!!

[no, no, no]

the Americans would have no grounds not to allow it - it isn't a hub we're talking about - just a few aircraft based there to operate to UK cities -all allowed under the bilateral. All they woudl need would be for their crews etc to be based there as people mentioned. The maintenance could either be done there or swapped with LGW aircraft when needed.

The connecting elemnt would be if Virgin USA, a US registered airline, operated from MCO to elsewhere and codeshared with each other - just like VS do with CO, BA with AA and BD with UA.

[PAXboy]

The problem in setting up a base in the USA is that, for one single base, you have to have all the company and financial infrastructure. The cost of that is massive. All the staff, office space, computer systems, accountants, directors and the rest.

If you are going to set up a US airline (not majority UK owned), then you are competing head on with all the other USA main line carriers. That is not what VS is about!! Especially, if you only base yourself there, in order to fly back to the UK. Further, if times get tough, VS can just cut back on the number of rotations to Florida but, if you have all the staff and office space...?

That is why the new low cost Virgin carrier is going to be a very different animal.

[no, no, no]

but how much staff do you need for a base?????? How much staff do easy have in their bases in Orly, Liverpool, East Mids, Basle etc.

All you need are the operational staff - it will still be ran from the UK so won't need directors etc - all it will need would be crew, check-in staff etc (which they would use what they already have etc).

I'm not talking a radical new venture 0 just a chance for VS to fly from MCO where they are already large, to all over the UK.

Would it have been easier if I had said start flights from Orlando to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol etc without mentioning a base???? Just use Orlando based crews to cut down on crew hotac costs etc????

Just the same old VS as we know now, but flying throughout the UK, but just focusing one on market without having to fly to many destinations from one particualr city!!!

[Hunter58]

You'd also have to find sufficient US residents holding a valid JAA license. I know you can validate the FAA one but it is still a process to be done in Europe.

[thegoaf]

There are no serious legal reasons why VS should not set up a base in MCO if it wishes to do so. Any crew would have to have JAA licences/qualifications to operate G registered aircraft. However, I cannot think of any rational reason why they might want such a base unless they planned to operate G registered aircraft to cities beyond MCO. This is permitted by Bermuda 2, Route Schedule Note 2 but there cannot be any economic case for doing so when the UK/MCO flights are already well loaded.
Sound like this thread is a complete red herring.

[CentreFix25]

I always wondered if it were viable for the charter airlines to open up a base in SFB, it would save on the positioning flights within UK.

[scroggs]

An airline can base its crews at any down-route station to operate distant sectors on flights originating from the home country, as BA did at Sydney for a while. An airline can also have bases for cabin crew at any destination (subject to political agreement) as some US airlines do in London, and Virgin has in Nigeria, China, Hong Kong and Japan. These are 'local employment' deals, which are entered into, at least in part, to grease the political wheels.

Basing aircraft in a foreign country is a quite different proposition, and runs into all kinds of regulatory obstacles which, in effect, make it impossible. To all intents and purposes, what you are proposing is that Virgin starts an Orlando-based airline using G-registered aircraft and JAA-licenced crews. The proverbial snowball's chance in hell springs to mind...!

Virgin is having enough difficulty leaping all the hurdles to establishing a bona-fide US airline; it would not waste its time trying to sneak a quasi-airline past the FAA!

[EK-LHR-LGW-GLA-MAN-B]

Virgin want to open a base at GLA for flights to Orlando and the caribean.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5038380.html

I dont know who it was in this thread said GLA does not have enough demand for daily flights to Orlando, well GLA currently has 9 direct flights to Orlando operated mainly with a mix A330s 767s and 747s.

[scroggs]

Virgin have not said they wish to open a base at Glasgow. The article you mention contains the following statement attributed to Will Whitehorn: "He said Virgin Atlantic would consider long-term plans for flights from Glasgow Airport to Florida and the Caribbean."

'Would consider...flights' does not equate to 'we want to open a base', just as the fact that we want to fly to Hyderabad, Chennai, Rio, Beijing, and a load of other places doesn't mean we want to open bases in them!