PDA

View Full Version : Virgin challenges Qantas on US route - smh.com.au story


Taildragger67
24th Sep 2006, 08:48
From smh.com.au; this would suggest they've got equipment lined up?

Virgin challenges Qantas on US route
Jason Koutsoukis
September 24, 2006

AIR fares to the US may be slashed, with discount airline Virgin Blue expected to announce plans within the next two months to fly across the Pacific.

The airline's executives are finalising details that would lead to it competing head-to-head with Qantas on one of its most profitable routes.

Qantas has a virtual monopoly on the busy trans-Pacific route, carrying about 75 per cent of passengers. Its only competitor is the US-based United Airlines. Virgin Blue is currently negotiating with the Federal Government to get greater access to the US.

The airline's chief executive Brett Godfrey wants a minimum seven flights to the US, which the airline believes it would need to compete effectively with Qantas and United.

Virgin Blue is controlled by transport giant Toll Holdings. The company's founder, Sir Richard Branson, owns a 25 per cent stake through his Virgin Group. "The package is not yet finalised," a senior Virgin Blue source said.

Source: The Sun-Herald

bushy
24th Sep 2006, 08:57
That's what Ansett did isn;t it???

Higs
24th Sep 2006, 09:27
Well Ok. I'll start the ball rolling...

What type would they operate? And would the big "sir" have much say in the it???
Oh.. and is it going to be a seperate operation?

Go to it lads:eek:

chemical alli
24th Sep 2006, 09:58
the angst amongst certain individuals when it comes to qf and the so called wholly grail (pacific route) amazes me.the empire was founded on the kangaroo route which currently is just about an open skies policy.yes the red rat protects itself well when it comes to the pacific,but exactly what is the seat per kilometer break even point ?
with all the backstabbing and b"#$ching with regards to jstar,virgin,auz airline pay awards i guess the queue will once again be long to sign up for vb pacific crewing requirements .
i at least hope that they look at 777 or 787 because we all eagerly await the big bus

Wingspar
24th Sep 2006, 10:27
It wasn't so long ago that the holy grail was the Japanese route.
Now look at it!
Reducing market....JAL withdrawing...
Competiton is necessary, let's just hope for the VB guys and girls that BG gets it right!

Wiley
24th Sep 2006, 17:59
Anyone know what equipment Virgin plan to operate on the transPacific route?

Metro Boy
24th Sep 2006, 21:02
The word is A340's.

Grivation
24th Sep 2006, 23:00
...and the million dollar question -

Who is going to crew it? :E

Break Right
24th Sep 2006, 23:52
Virgin Atlantic initially then our close bros Pacific Blue!!!:mad: Watch this space.:ok:

Warped Wings
25th Sep 2006, 02:16
B777 is my guess - a far more efficient aircraft. Just look how well the A340 is selling!

As for Pacific Blue getting the flying - would depend to the VB EBA outcome I would think, though pilot moral would certainly nosedive if the flying went elsewhere.:suspect:

Offchocks
25th Sep 2006, 02:21
CAPTBOB

I don't think you are quite correct there............Ansett flew SYD-HKG which was/is a significant route for Qantas. They also both serviced Taipei and Kansai.

weasil
25th Sep 2006, 02:56
I say it's about time, I hope it happens.

alangirvan
25th Sep 2006, 03:36
Seven frequencies? So, I think this means VB wants to start with a daily service between SYD and LAX. They can use handmedown A340-300s or 747-400s from Virgin Atlantic, or perhaps 777-300ERs or 777-200LRs white tails (from Emirates?).

VB might feel they owe a bit to their home town - BNE - and if they want to serve MEL, that would be better if it could be a non stop, which would affect choice of fleet.

If they fly to LAX they will be using the US West Coast's least popular gateway (you use that airport because you have to,) SFO would be nicer except on foggy days

So, if VB gets seven weekly frequencies, and that is the limit, they may find themselves reaching the limit very quickly.

Other point - United is not a minor competitor, and should not be written off. Every Southern Summer recently, UAL has added three weekly flights on SYDLAX and SYDSFO, making 10 services per week on each route. UAL has recently expanded its flights on the North Pacific - if UAL thought it could make money from running a second daily SYDLAX service year round it would find the planes somewhere.

IF UAL gets its act together it will be very strong competition for both Qantas and Virgin Blue

Wingspar
25th Sep 2006, 05:18
Very interesting proposal indeed!
VB would be very optimistic if it threw 744's on the pacific. That is very serious capacity! However it all depends on the what entitlements they get. They have stated they want frequency in the way of at least seven services per week. Something smaller in capacity then....but what? Discount the A340....777 blows it's economic backside out of the water, even Airbus acknowledges that. However it would be cheap to lease/buy and the chances of getting 777's in the short term are slim.
Then of course is UA. After it restructures and can see a buck to be made, it will go for it!
Like I said I hope BG get's the formula right!

sinala1
25th Sep 2006, 05:37
Virgin Atlantic initially

How could/would this work? Wet/damp lease? A340 type-rated guys from VS, who have the right to live and work in Australia (ie Australian passport), seconded to VB/PB to fly VH registered aircraft?
:{

Aussie
25th Sep 2006, 05:53
Anyone know how soon they plan on starting ops?

Aussie

The_Cutest_of_Borg
26th Sep 2006, 00:37
Interesting that this announcement does not seem to have affected the QF share price. Maybe the drop in oil prices is seen to be a much bigger offset?

sinala1
26th Sep 2006, 03:06
The announcement has not really been made yet - when they announce routes/aircraft type/frequencies etc, maybe then it will have more impact? :confused:

Much Ado
26th Sep 2006, 03:30
I tend to think the US airlines like UA are a bit constrained at present through there CH11 machinations and getting furloughed pilots back online...plus I think they are focused on China (Beijing) and other high yield routes.

2b2
26th Sep 2006, 04:39
yes, please.

been costing more to get to LA than London lately.

Taildragger67
26th Sep 2006, 08:00
Interesting that this announcement does not seem to have affected the QF share price. Maybe the drop in oil prices is seen to be a much bigger offset?

That and the fact that no noises have been made about lowering the fuel surcharge as jet fuel prices hit six-month lows... :=

scramjet
26th Sep 2006, 08:07
Be interesting if an announcement will be made if the VB EBA gets up, rumour is that there is pressure from management along the lines of ---Sign the EBA and you will be able to fly regional jets, International flying etc etc. - If not regional jets will be on AWA's.

Can anyone explain why Singapore hasnt tied up with VB for pacific flying? Singapore already have a tie up with Virgin Antlantic, another equity tie up with VB would get Branson a link around the world from both ends, Singapore access to the pacific route and provide VB with aeroplanes, expertise and cash to take on QF in INTL flying.

VB has limited choice but to leverage its low-cost base to provide a viable business competitor to QF in Domestic and eventually INTL flying.

Taildragger67
26th Sep 2006, 08:15
Can anyone explain why Singapore hasnt tied up with VB for pacific flying? Singapore already have a tie up with Virgin Antlantic, another equity tie up with VB would get Branson a link around the world from both ends, Singapore access to the pacific route and provide VB with aeroplanes, expertise and cash to take on QF in INTL flying.

OK here's my prediction.
1. SIA have been refused permission to operate trans-Pac ex-Aus; that means no rights, so not even code-share.

2. However, despite both UA and SIA being Star, how about this:
- Vir Pac joins Star;
- SIA contributes equity to Vir Pac;
- SIA thus gets investment exposure to Aus-US route;
- punters on Vir Pac services will be able to earn any one of Velocity, Freeway or Kris (or indeed any Star) points;
- UA code-share on some services, allowing them to redeploy capacity to North pacific runs;
- AC possibly does similar;
- NZ also code-shares on Vir Pac services.

Anything structurally wrong with these ideas?

OhForSure
26th Sep 2006, 10:08
Further from the above... with SQ involved in the Virgin ops across the pacific perhaps then they would allow the "Virgin Pacific" name to be used. And all Virgin Blue/Pacific Blue ops could be rolled into "Virgin Pacific", a potentially more worldly image and name.

Intl ops will happen, as will regional. The big questions are... who will operate them and what aircraft will they use?

ennui
26th Sep 2006, 11:16
Ummmmmm.........

Lowest price aircraft and lowest priced crews of course!

Must still be some type rated expats who have made their money and looking for a re-settlement/semi retirement income waiting to come home.

Lots of 7-10 year guys both fleets in the sandpit!

Career progression in Australia seems to start in the Middle East these days.

Going Boeing
26th Sep 2006, 21:42
Hope they attract the guys who are planning on returning from the sandpit and thus make it harder for Jetstar International to crew the A330. Not wanting to tread on the existing DJ crews with that statement but it would make sense for DJ to get a nucleous of pilots with long haul experience when setting up an operation like this.

Break Right
26th Sep 2006, 22:46
Going Boeing you might be right, but there are plenty of long haul experience in virgin that would be very valuable for the set up phase. Time will tell though!!!!:ouch: :ouch:

Bugsmasha
29th Sep 2006, 00:11
Heard many different scenarios on line from people carrying long haul committe members in the jump seat.
1. 777 will be the aircraft
2. Once we start the route, United will pull out and code share with VB
3. (This one refutes point 2) Will be using Delta Airlines gates at LAX as the airport authorities want 20K US to turn around a 777, and Delta will do it for 3K US.
As to who will be flying it is anyones guess. If they are going to pay the J* international pay rate, then the expats who want to come back can have it

longjohn
29th Sep 2006, 06:01
I would be very suprised to see ANY involvement by SIA.

The Singaproeans were shafted by Sir Dick in 2001 by the AN/ANZ/SIA tie up. Chinese have very long memories.

BG had better get the cost structure right. With Qantas the dominant carrier, and UA they will need a strong proposition to attract pax. Lets not forget the future capability of Jetstar International and it's very low cost base.

Finally, even if the DJ boys get the flying, you can bank on the first few aircraft being crewed by returnees from the sand pit. The only thing to stop them would be a pay scale lower than pornstars :{

wirgin blew
2nd Oct 2006, 09:32
Heard many different scenarios on line from people carrying long haul committe members in the jump seat.
1. 777 will be the aircraft
2. Once we start the route, United will pull out and code share with VB
3. (This one refutes point 2) Will be using Delta Airlines gates at LAX as the airport authorities want 20K US to turn around a 777, and Delta will do it for 3K US.
As to who will be flying it is anyones guess. If they are going to pay the J* international pay rate, then the expats who want to come back can have it

Would it be a better experience for pax if VB used UA gates at LAX? I was under the impression that UA have their own facilities for international arrivals seperate to what the rest have to use. This facility means shorter queues for those trying to clear customs.
Can anyone confirm that for me.

:)

Taildragger67
2nd Oct 2006, 09:40
Would it be a better experience for pax if VB used UA gates at LAX? :)

Since when did that matter? :ugh:

SkyScanner
2nd Oct 2006, 09:47
Regardless of which ground handlers/ gates used, LAX is NEVER a pleasant experience!!

AnQrKa
2nd Oct 2006, 18:29
Hey longjohn,

speaking of pornstar,

Are you enjoying the A320.