PDA

View Full Version : Virgin Blue's Pacific plans take flight


Wirraway
23rd Apr 2006, 15:56
Mon "Melbourne Age"

Virgin Blue's Pacific plans take flight
By Michelle Grattan, Canberra
April 24, 2006

Virgin Blue is stepping up its push to break into the lucrative Pacific route with the formation this month of a high-level 10-member team to test the airline's chosen business model.

One issue the team is examining is the possibility of the airline landing somewhere other than the existing major ports for flights from Australia.

Virgin Blue CEO Brett Godfrey told The Age last night the airline had already solicited interest from some airports "outside the traditional mainstream of Los Angeles and San Francisco and we will be talking to others".

Using alternative airports could reduce costs. Communities looking for economic stimulation could offer attractive deals, the benefits of which could be passed on to Virgin Blue customers.

The seriousness of Virgin Blue's efforts is shown by its external recruiting of senior executives to spearhead the Trans-Pacific Project Team.

Rod Nelson, a former CEO of Air Niugini and also of Hazelton Airlines, is leading the group, reporting directly to Mr Godfrey, for whom the Pacific enterprise is a pet project.

Rod Mahoney, an expert in aircraft selection, has come directly from Airbus Industrie, where he headed its representation in the Asia-Pacific region. Gordon McKenzie, formerly with Virgin Atlantic and Virgin America, brings international airline experience to the domestic carrier. Also on the team is Tony Wheelens, a former senior negotiator for the Government on airline agreements, who will be working on the vital issue of access to enough flights to make the route viable for Virgin Blue.

Virgin Blue needs approval from the United States Government to fly at least a daily service to have the critical mass to start up. It would eventually need to fly between 14 and 21 services a week, which would include a service from Melbourne.

Current arrangements for new Australian entrants to the US market would only permit four services a week. The Australian Government has already started talks in Washington to increase Australian access, and Virgin Blue is fairly confident it can get enough flights.

The airline's representatives are preparing to be back in Canberra next month to brief ministers and senior officials on their progress. They tested the water with ministers late last year.

Cabinet would almost certainly be sympathetic to a Virgin Blue bid to fly the route. Earlier this year, the Government rejected Singapore Airlines' application to do so.

With the recent Toll takeover of Patrick Corporation, Virgin Blue will be controlled by Toll. Toll chief Paul Little has said it will take up to 18 months to decide the future of Patrick's 62 per cent holding in the airline.

Mr Godfrey said the ownership change "shouldn't make a difference" to the plans for the Pacific route "provided we could substantiate the final business plan to the full board".

The sale of Virgin Blue to foreign interests would cloud the future of its Pacific aspirations, as the rights to fly the Pacific rest predominantly with Australian and US-owned airlines.

The Virgin Blue Pacific route team is examining models of service, including having single- or two-class flights.

The team's project will take several months. Virgin Blue has previously said it would take two years from February this year before it could be set to fly the route. But it is likely to come under Government pressure to start earlier.

=====================================================

UNOME
23rd Apr 2006, 16:13
Brett Godfrey....talk about the luckiest son of a gun I ever....:hmm:

3 Holer
23rd Apr 2006, 23:45
Yes, but still not as lucky as the Old man!

Going Boeing
24th Apr 2006, 00:03
Mon "Melbourne Age"
Virgin Blue's Pacific plans take flight
Rod Mahoney, an expert in aircraft selection, has come directly from Airbus Industrie, where he headed its representation in the Asia-Pacific region. =====================================================

He comes directly from Airbus so he'll recomend the B777-300ER - Not!!!

:p

qcc2
24th Apr 2006, 03:21
VB international is trying to avoid lax and sfo. wherelse could they land on the west cost? anyone any ideas?

whipping boy
24th Apr 2006, 04:15
The airline's base is Brisvegas(sic) so what's wrong with the real Vegas.I know I failed geography at school but it's almost west coast,otherwise San Diego or Seattle.

Tony Soprano
24th Apr 2006, 04:34
On the West Coast they could land at Oakland instead of SFO, kind of a hike though. Long Beach ? instead of LAX. Orange County and San Jose I think are too small to handle Trans Pacific Flights.

wirgin blew
24th Apr 2006, 05:13
What about Viva Las Vegas, San Diego, Portland, Seattle or Phoenix?

Is the range too far for some of these cities if for example they used BNE as the starting point?

Surmount
24th Apr 2006, 14:19
Isn't Seattle where Virgin USA is to be based when it starts that would make sense to fly to their hub if aircraft range permits

Going Boeing
24th Apr 2006, 20:10
What about Viva Las Vegas, San Diego, Portland, Seattle or Phoenix?
Is the range too far for some of these cities if for example they used BNE as the starting point?

Range wouldn't be an issue from BNE to those ports but Las Vegas to BNE mid summer may be an issue due to density altitude constraints.

The selection of destinations must also look at on-carriage as a lot of US bound pax go further than the West coast. :)

pakeha-boy
24th Apr 2006, 20:53
Portland,Seattle,Las Vegas,and maybe Oakland would be the obvious and best choices.....lower landing fee,s,all have long runways,all are served by America West/USAirways,Alaska,Frontier,Southwest (and other major airlines)for ease of connections,facilites match or better than the "larger" airports,these airports are well-equiped and would welcome these flights,no flow,...and a host of other positive attributes.

Lufthansa takes a A-340 in Portland on a daily basis to Frankfurt and the loads average 90%.For those on the long haul who fly into LAX,we all know that gets old,these places would be a welcome change....PB

Waka Rider
24th Apr 2006, 22:06
My only thoughts are how bloody slow the A340 are even the newer long bugger -600 series econ speeds do not seem that high if your going across the Atlantic let alone across the huge Pacific ow. You would have to whatch out for being passed by Maui and his ancestors. I know speed is not eveything ( big picture ) but having sat from Madrid to Santiago and Santiago to Auckland in the A340 thinking even an ERJ145 goes faster than these things in ECON. Never again would rather have a deep and meaningful with me ex finacee about aspects of my personality and morales than go through travelling the globe @.78

DJ747
25th Apr 2006, 01:39
Start with the bases that Virgin Atlantic already fly to, there's a hint for you. Then you have your genuine around the world ticket airline.

Boyscout
25th Apr 2006, 02:47
Ontario would be a go. That airport has come a long way over the last few years. It is an Alaskan & DHL hub now with great infrastructure. It is akin to the 'Badgery's Creek' of LA, out in the heartland but only 1 hr from LAX by car. Not sure how it would go with a 380, but the 340-5/6 would be fine. Not glamorous but very practical. Wouldn't be too close to the crew hotel though, no doubt somewhere salubrious like 'East LA'.

Taildragger67
25th Apr 2006, 12:10
How about HNL then onto ANYWHERE else in the US...

swm
26th Apr 2006, 05:08
Ontario, CA is definitely an option - international airlines from North, Central and South America fly there as well as domestic carriers that service rest of the US. It's around 35-40 miles from downtown LA one 1 freeway (i've done it in less than an hour!). Regular shuttle buses and conveniently located to Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside Counties. Two parrallel runway, one 12,000 feet. Also on the way when driving to VEGAS!! Long Beach (10,000 feet) is even closer to downtown LA (405 freeway ... aka parking lot..)

Gravox
28th Apr 2006, 05:26
Taildragger
My understanding is the problem with flying via HNL is that from HNL to main land USA would be considered a domestic flight and passengers can't be uplifted for this sector. I believe Air New Zealand had this problem at one time.

Taildragger67
28th Apr 2006, 15:24
Gravox,

I see. Sounds fair - I think that's cabotage or something? I think the US is pretty bolshie about such things.

That said, I wonder how the Rat gets around it for LAX-JFK??

Also, my thinking was pretty much purely as a tech stop - as Qantas used to do eg. when QF4 was a Classic to SFO and used to put down in 'lulu.

Romeo Delta
28th Apr 2006, 19:29
Orange County and San Jose I think are too small to handle Trans Pacific Flights.

Orange County is definitely too small. Already overcrowded, and a runway of only 5,500 ft or so.

San Jose, however, used to have regular American Airlines flights to NRT. Their main runway is over 10,000 ft. The airport and city itself is closer to Silicon Valley than the other two (SFO or OAK). So it can be done, and it has potential.

I'd also say Ontario has more potential over Long Beach. Ontario already has facilities for international flights. I'm not sure that Long Beach has sufficient facilities for regular international flights. The terminal is really small, and commercial movements are limited by government mandate (somethng like 30 a day). I don't think Ontario has that restriction.

OhForSure
29th Apr 2006, 00:34
That said, I wonder how the Rat gets around it for LAX-JFK??

I don't believe they uplift any pax... that would explain it.


SFO is no doubt the go... thats where Virgin America are (or at least were last I heard) planning to start from... Atlantic also fly in there regularly. New terminal, with numerous connections available, as well as 'round the world' services. Fog could become a problem though at times, especially when combined with SYD/MEL at the other end!

You can forget Portland... too reliant on other airlines to deliver to final destination... you need a better catchment area.

Don't know if OAK is set up for INTL flights (customs, quarantine, holding etc).

Animalclub
30th Apr 2006, 05:36
I don't believe they uplift any pax... that would explain it.

Not quite right... if QF carry them into LAX they can uplift them for NYC.

Australia has/had a similar situation twixt CNS and SYD for CX... SYD and MEL for a few carriers.

Bazzamundi
1st May 2006, 22:42
My understanding is that QF cannot uplift any pax from LA apart from the ones who have arrived on one of the three early morning QF flights from either Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne. These pax all originate in Australia on QF flights.

B772
4th May 2006, 04:55
VB international is trying to avoid lax and sfo. wherelse could they land on the west cost? anyone any ideas?

Ps. Try San Bernardino International (KSBD) which is 18nm W of KONT (Ontario) and 59nm W of KLAX . I have been told Virgin Atlantic is considering KSBD as an alternative to KLAX for their future A380 operation to the West Coast due to low landing and other charges, no traffic congestion and a new terminal building.

Of interest there are 6 airports with an IF procedure within 21nm, the closest being at 4nm and 9nm.

KSBD is the former Norton Airforce Base and RWY 06/24 (3000Mx60M) is rated for the A380 at 1,300,000 lbs. Has latest state of the art ILS.

If you are ever in the area check out KCNO (Chino) which is 21nm W of KSBD and 40nm from KLAX. Chino is home to approx. 1,000 aircraft.

Elroy Jettson
4th May 2006, 10:41
Why not think outside the square? How about Tijuana? At least they would be the only VIRGIN that that town had seen for a looong time! :}

I know, I know, I'll see myself out....:ouch:

(PS, how do you get to be an aircraft purchasing expert? Is there a TAFE course I can do, or an internet based MBA or something? I wonder if he was the guy that told QF to go the light weight floors??? What a cool job!) :8

dinoburner
7th May 2006, 09:24
I can see it now, flights packed with footy teams for end-of-season debauch at TJ's! ;)