Virgin Atlantic

[EI-BUD]

Chaps;
EI have 2 319s committed to BHD for next summer, a 3rd will be doing some flights from LGW including daily Gatwick Knock rotation and an evening Gatwick Belfast City rotation to bring the route to 4 daily. That would suggest Gatwick based unit being changed to 319. Your suggestion would sound plausible otherwise.

Hangar6;

Are there rumours a foot that BA will consolidate its operations at T2 for itself and IB.? Thus bringing all business under one roof..?

While taking transfer bus between 5 and 1 yesterday I saw T2 construction, be amazed if it was complete in 2013.!

Ei-bud

[Skipness One Echo]

Virgin are looking to be the anchor tennant in the new T2 in the absence of bmi. It's now opening in early 2014 I believe, EI will also be moving in and T1 will be demolished! BA are staying split between the larger T5 and Oneworld in T3. There will be loads of room when and if, VS move out.

[rog747]

virgin seem to be an oddity right now rather surprisingly its happened under
the nose of RB although i think his beloved airline is not his main interest anymore.

no airline alliance by now

big fleet variation now with more types to come..330 340 x 2 types
747 787 and maybe 777
A380 is well stalled now despite launch order years ago

huge bucks in spending out on 747-400 fleet refurbs
why not get rid of them and get the 2 engined fleet sooner ie more 330's and 777-300er
cutting fuel costs seems to be the word du jour down at virgin towers so am puzzled why keep the 747's ?

so much for four engines for long haul but times do change.

no wonder money is tight but tinkering again with short haul (how many times have VAA played with this)

business class
(upper class suite) is well past its sell by now and VAA haven't caught up with the rest of the legacy carriers in a new product only a re-hash of the now old and increasingly unpopular suite.
the new UC suite re-vamp is too slow to roll out at the moment and only 330's have it right now...
too much product inconsistency for premium class passengers, hence complaints rising...
many flights going out with cabin crew down. hence service issues.

stupid condescending PA announcements treating passengers as if they are
out on a Friday night booze up and must behave themselves or woe be tide them...sorry but they are gut churning.

on-board food in all classes is going down and down in quality and quantity.
too many complaints about not enough food loaded for upper and premium
cabins. (let alone the poor Y's)

the LHR clubhouse is one thing that pax love and performs well.

shame after 25 years of brand loyalty and product awareness that alot of loyal pax are not sticking with them. its decision time soon and
virgin should decide where and with whom they belong...

i used to handle VAA 747's from 1989 for many years and the product then in economy/ mid and upper was superb.
good food, plenty of it
a good seat, v good legroom great movies and wonderful crews...

hard to go back to basics ? i don't think so

[PAXboy]

so much for four engines for long haul but times do change.


I think it has been reliably established that this was Airbus sponsored.
Times have changed. If they insisted on sticking with 4 - and continued to lose money - would they be criticised for not moving with the times?

I have never worked for them, just a satisfied customer for 26 years.

[CabinCrewe]

There will be no 777's at VS

[davidjohnson6]

VS have won the Edinburgh + Aberdeen bmi slots

BBC News - Virgin Atlantic offered Heathrow links to Edinburgh and Aberdeen (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-20384801)

[spannersatcx]

346's are going more 330's coming.

[LGS6753]

Does the commencement of three new domestic routes mean VS are more likely to join an alliance, to fill their capacity with transfer pax and compete more effectively with BA?

[xray one]

Does the commencement of three new domestic routes mean VS are more likely to join an alliance, to fill their capacity with transfer pax and compete more effectively with BA?

Yes, they now have something to offer. Whether they are wanted is another matter

[DaveReidUK]

Does the commencement of three new domestic routes mean VS are more likely to join an alliance, to fill their capacity with transfer pax and compete more effectively with BA?

Yes.

Give yourself a Star. :O

[OltonPete]

Routes News - United Airlines would (http://www.routes-news.com/news/item/773-united-airlines-would-%E2%80%98love-to-have%E2%80%99-virgin-in-star-alliance)

Pretty clear endorsement from one of the major airlines in the alliance.

Pete

[Fairdealfrank]

It does appear likely that Star would be the Alliance of choice both for VS and the existing Star members. The demise of BD has considerably weakened LHR as a Star hub, and admitting VS (with its new domestic routes) would help remedy this a bit.

[dublinaviator]

One of their Vice Presidents also said they'd love to have Aer Lingus in Star, doesn't mean its gonna happen...

[bermudatriangle]

when do the man-lhr flights start ?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "One of their Vice Presidents also said they'd love to have Aer Lingus in Star, doesn't mean its gonna happen..."

Fair comment, wouldn't EI be more likely to rejoin oneworld if they were inclined to be in an alliance?

[DaveReidUK]

when do the man-lhr flights start ?

31st of March.

[BALHR]

Now I think that VS is a fairly decent airline and I think SRB is a good businessman, but the trouble that we cannot sustain 2 major full-service carriers, the European aviation market has changed since its was formed in the 80s, BAs main competitors are not from the UK, but in Mainland Europe

To make matters worse, LHR is full and we don't have the capacity to serve as many destinations as they do in FRA/MUC, CDG, MAD and AMS, having 2 British full-service airlines competing for the same routes is not a good use of the limited space at LHR

Remember no nation in Europe (bar Germany and in that case due to the Cold War) has any more than 1 full-service airline (in fact Europe is heading towards 2-3 full-service airlines for the whole region

Hence VS (unless SRB is prepared to keep funding its losses) needs to either:

1: Agree a "peace deal" with BA, this will mean in the long run (when SRB retires or decides to call it a day), BA will buy VS, until then BA would buy a 49% stake (from Singapore Airlines), then BA and VS "agree" not to compete with each other on routes (this will mean VS will pull out of all routes that BA also serve, while launching new routes to destinations not served by either airline) and lastly VS joining OW

2: VS should offer to buy BA from IAG (to pay for the restructuring of IB) with the financial support of *A carriers (like when AC bought CP), BA will for a time become a subsidiary of VS and is gradually integrated into VS, then it will also join VS

[PAXboy]

British Airways That's two novel approaches in one post! But it's not going to go either of those ways.

The reason is the same in both case. History shows that a good VS / bmi link did not happen in the 1990s due to male pride and that is the same reason why neither of these will happen.

Also, the long haul competition today is moving rapidly from Continental Europe to the Middle East.

[BALHR]

British Airways That's two novel approaches in one post! But it's not going to go either of those ways.

The reason is the same in both case. History shows that a good VS / bmi link did not happen in the 1990s due to male pride and that is the same reason why neither of these will happen.

Also, the long haul competition today is moving rapidly from Continental Europe to the Middle East. Well its shame SRB running VS with more passion than business sense, but he has done it before, he sold Virgin Express to its rival SN, So it is not the first time he would do a deal with a rival, he also did the same in relation to Virgin Records

Also yes, BA also has to compete with carriers in the Middle East (well some of them anyway), anyway my point is that unless VS changes that way it does things then the future is not looking bright for them

[Skipness One Echo]

As ever some novel thinking but let me try and explain why it's not a great idea.

Firstly, SRB does not run VS, indeed he has very little to do with the company on a day to day basis. There actually is room for more than one long haul airline, the UK is one of the biggest travel markets for long haul and VS has done well without killing off BA.

The reason France only has one is more to do with politics than market forces! Virgin ATLANTIC does not go anywhere near the Middle East for most of it's passengers. Indeed the short haul operation is overdue and is needed to shore up the home market.

As for VS buying BA? That's the most interesting comcept one yet. Much of the profitability at BA comes from the ATI agreement with American Airlines. There would be huge competition issues if somehow BA took that agreement into STAR or massive loss of revenue of they had to leave it behind to merge with a much smaller operator like Virgin.

On your other idea this will mean VS will pull out of all routes that BA also serve, while launching new routes to destinations not served by either airline
This would close VS. Every single route from LHR has a head to head with BA, that's where the money is. To move the entire operation into new routes would be financial suicide not to mention massively ****ing off their loyal and frequent fliers. Neither idea has wings IMHO.

[canberra97]

France had UTA as there second full service carrier before it was merged with Air France plus the UK had British Caledonian as it's second force airline untill being merged with British Airways in 1987, so yes some European countries have had 2 full service airlines.

[PAXboy]

British Airways ... So it is not the first time he would do a deal with a rival ...In the 1990s, SRB tried very hard to do a deal with British Midland but it never proceeded. Now, there are many who do not like Branson and his ways and so there are conflicting view and reports as to why it did not happen. But the force being BM/bmi was Sir Michael Bishop and he (it seems clear to me) did not want to do business with SRB.

Also, VS is now a mature business and has to calculate it's risks very differently.

[EI-BUD]

VS is now a mature business and has to calculate it's risks very differently


This is true, but the fact they have limited growth opportunities ex LHR without extra runway capacity poses a problem. They are somewhat isolated, I am not convinced that in its present size and shape (given industry challenges e.g. fuel costs, aircraft costs, etc and the growth of taxes) that it will have a long future.

The business is consolidating and looking at 2012 we will recognise further changes, another reduction in the number of airlines flying in the UK. Malev has disappeared, SAS on very shaky territory. Consolidation will be a key feature in the coming years and regulators may relax the rules in recognition of the challenges that currently exist, what does anybody else think? Perhaps in the interest of jobs in the first instance, debatable comment I know.

EI-BUD

[BALHR]

Firstly, SRB does not run VS, indeed he has very little to do with the company on a day to day basis. There actually is room for more than one long haul airline, the UK is one of the biggest travel markets for long haul and VS has done well without killing off BA.

SRB may no longer run the company day-to-day, but he is the still the owner and any major decision (including deals with BA), hence I am suggesting that the way he runs (where relevant) has more to do with passion rather than business sense

Britain's Air Travel Market is more or less the same size as lets say France, Germany (which is the exception to this due to the Cold War), Spain and Italy which only sustain 1 full-serivce carrier and you have to remember that BA (although not IAG) is making some profit in this market and VS is not, VS is also falling behind BA in terms of its route network as well (because it holds far less slots at LHR), while the BA/VS rivalry will not cause one to go bust, it will get increasingly unsustainable in the long run

BMIs demise was a wake up call for the UK, it cannot sustain (most of all full-service) the number of carriers that are based in the UK, with expansion of our airports proving difficult you also have to factor the space our airports to launch new routes (which are needed), rather than launch routes that already are operated with at least 2 airlines

The reason France only has one is more to do with politics than market forces! Virgin ATLANTIC does not go anywhere near the Middle East for most of it's passengers. Indeed the short haul operation is overdue and is needed to shore up the home market

The reason France had one full-service carrier is not just because of politics, remember France used to have 3 (Air France, UTA and Air Inter), but the reason that changed was that the French Government saw that having 3 was not sustainable with the looming liberalisation of Europe's air travel market, so the decision was due to economic and political reasons

There is nothing stopping another full-service airline operating from France, but the trouble is that it is not sustainable (as BA found out), the only other airlines operating in France today are either Regional (some of which are part of Air France), LCC or charter

As for VS buying BA? That's the most interesting comcept one yet. Much of the profitability at BA comes from the ATI agreement with American Airlines. There would be huge competition issues if somehow BA took that agreement into STAR or massive loss of revenue of they had to leave it behind to merge with a much smaller operator like Virgin.

About AA, we know it is in BK and up for sale, US (a current *A member) is the leading contender to buy it, if *A carriers can make sure that AA/US becomes a *A member (in return for financing a deal, which will mean AAs creditors have less of a say in AA/US), if they refuse, *A carriers could then finance UA to have a go at bidding for AA (I feel that UA would be the best merger partner for AA)

So that BA/AA ATI could be folded into the *A ATI if VS buys BA and UA or US buys AA (thus gaining the large revenues from the BA/AA ATI), it will create some competition issues, but you have to remember that the ST (consisting of AF, KL, DL etc) is also a strong player on the TATL market in its own right so there will not be too many competition issues to deal with

On your other idea

Quote:

"This will mean VS will pull out of all routes that BA also serve, while launching new routes to destinations not served by either airline"

This would close VS. Every single route from LHR has a head to head with BA, that's where the money is. To move the entire operation into new routes would be financial suicide not to mention massively ****ing off their loyal and frequent fliers. Neither idea has wings IMHO.

Well the trouble with BA/VS competing on the same routes is that (because there is a lack of capacity in our airports) it leaves little space to launch new routes to the emerging markets (South America is the biggest problem) which could be profitable, remember the transition to new routes could be aided with funds from BA (they would be partners in the case of the first plan)

As for passengers and FFs, you have to member that under my first plan, BA/VS (until SRB retires and BA fully buy VS) would be effectively operating as one airline and this the passenger experience/FF Programmes will gradually be integrated, so the only effect to those people would be that more routes for BA/VS passengers and the gradual disappearance of VS

[BALHR]

France had UTA as there second full service carrier before it was merged with Air France plus the UK had British Caledonian as it's second force airline untill being merged with British Airways in 1987, so yes some European countries have had 2 full service airlines.


Both examples pre-dated the liberalisation of the European Air Travel Market and the rise of LCCs, and in both cases UTA and BCal where not sustainable in the long run once that it ended (they only ever where due to the fact they where designated routes they could serve and other airlines where given other routes, which is no longer allowed today)

The only example is Germany left and that is due to the Cold War (which meant LH could not serve West Berlin)

[rog747]

virgin flights are busy busy busy
but they are not making any money

they get rid of NBO route and months before it closes its busy in all classes.
cargo was good but they used 340-300 which has weight issues on the route.

CPT never been all year round, but now SAA has pulled off may see VAA
pick up on that. you never saw many south africans on VAA.

HKG you can never get a seat that easy and for years they could have operated 2 most days. same with JNB and that could have been 747 all the time.

MCO 2 x 747 a day from LGW but now you cannot take your kids out of school
will that route go down the pan except in school hols

SirRB maybe had not had his eyeball on his beloved airline like he used to...
his son and daughter seem not that interested in playing with planes which is a pity although the daughter looked like she was being groomed to
get involved, not sure if that is still on or off.

he is personally cash rich so would he would inject into VAA again before
the accountants got nasty.

i'm not comfy with VAA getting involved in short haul, been there done that more than once and it was costly and did not shine.

i think VAA are facing what BA had to do years ago and it will be painful

[chipsbrand]

After many years trying to manage strategy in ther UK airline industry I think the only route forward for VS is to sell out to IAG. IMHO VS has no independent future. It has tried hard to compete but it has found that that course only means losses.

[BALHR]

In the 1990s, SRB tried very hard to do a deal with British Midland but it never proceeded. Now, there are many who do not like Branson and his ways and so there are conflicting view and reports as to why it did not happen. But the force being BM/bmi was Sir Michael Bishop and he (it seems clear to me) did not want to do business with SRB.

Also, VS is now a mature business and has to calculate it's risks very differently.

The big question is that what will happen to VS in the near future, their failed deals with BMI where they last chance to at least start securing their long term future, but now it is a airline that is being run more by passion rather than business sense, SRB is the only reason why it is still around, so what happens after he retires?

Will his children be willing to keep running VS?

Hence why I suggested those 2 ideas

[Cyber Bob]

Neither of the latter two options proffered are viable for VS. VS will do whatever they can to retain their identity and certainly wouldn't emabark and any form of venture with BA etc.

That said, it's no secret that VS are fighting a tough battle to retain it's independance and compete with the bigger players/partnerships. I should imagine that discussions have been held with regards to partnerships and alliances. Couple of sticking points would be

Retaining it's brand
Having partner airlines dumping air miles on them

That's perhaps why there has been no movement on that front - question is, for how long though?

Just my two penneth worth
All the best
CB

[V_2]

BMI used to codesare with VS at LHR, providing significant pax traffic. Now BA control those routes, VS I imagine has lost most of this revenue stream; which I believe is the main reason Virgin has decided to start its own short haul routes where BMI used to provide so well. If this proves successful, it could well help turnaround its finances. Also, having some kind of shaul haul network/larger catchment area must surely help its chances of getting into an alliance?

they get rid of NBO route and months before it closes its busy in all classes.cargo was good but they used 340-300 which has weight issues on the route.True, it was always very busy. And pax could not understand why a route that was always packed was being axed. Except that actually flights were being cancelled and passengers merged onto 1 flight. Instead of daily, towards the end it went maybe 3-4 times a week. Futhermore the 343's that served it are being phased out, and the new A330s are better served for other routes (like the extra new JFK thats starting, VS0025 I believe?)

CPT never been all year round, but now SAA has pulled off may see VAApick up on that. you never saw many south africans on VAA.Actually, from experience, I'd say a good 50% + of pax were South African, although very often also dual nationality British/Europe/US green cards etc. SAA and VAA also codeshare, so maybe VAA will just stick to annually JNB and offer pax a connecting flight to CPT. Remember when not flying CPT VAA go ORD instead, which is another high yield service!

Interesting times

[Skipness One Echo]

SRB is a figurehead, he does not run VS and it is not a family business. I agree they took their eye off the ball for a bit but no A380, swapping A346s for A330s and finally getting into domestic, if all done properly could yield good results. I am not their biggest fan but credit where it's due now.
STAR alliance membership is a must, I understand SRB's reluctance, but the world has changed. Get all of that new gear into T2 at LHR and ask the question again in three years.
SRB is right in one thing, when competiton goes, the consumer loses. I am a fan of BA but look at LHR-GLA fares these days. Ouch.

[Cyrano]

About AA, we know it is in BK and up for sale, US (a current *A member) is the leading contender to buy it, if *A carriers can make sure that AA/US becomes a *A member (in return for financing a deal, which will mean AAs creditors have less of a say in AA/US), if they refuse, *A carriers could then finance UA to have a go at bidding for AA (I feel that UA would be the best merger partner for AA)

So that BA/AA ATI could be folded into the *A ATI if VS buys BA and UA or US buys AA (thus gaining the large revenues from the BA/AA ATI), it will create some competition issues, but you have to remember that the ST (consisting of AF, KL, DL etc) is also a strong player on the TATL market in its own right so there will not be too many competition issues to deal with


Sorry, but none of this stacks up or even comes near to stacking up.

If US Airways buys AA, they will leave Star and join OneWorld. This is a pretty obvious move. That's not just my view, it's the view of Doug Parker, the US Airways CEO, quoted here (http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2012/07/us-airways-would-exit-star-alliance-if-it-merges-with-american/806454/1).

The idea that UA would bid for AA is also fallacious. Consider the scale of network overlap and the antitrust remedies which would be required. In any case, UA can't even manage its own operation consistently these days - what would it gain from trying to swallow another behemoth (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4313978.stm)?

"If VS buys BA"? You might as well propose that flyBE buys Ryanair - it's equally (im)plausible. No disrespect to VS, but they are not even remotely in the same league as BA in terms of either enterprise value or ability to raise finance. And there's the small matter of BA being a 100% subsidiary of IAG (so VS would have to buy IAG to get BA? :ugh:)

Sorry, but no.

Some options for VS as I'd see it:
- BA buys them. Seems unlikely - the almost total route overlap would mean BA having to divest so many slots to get takeover clearance that they'd be left with little of value
- they join Star. Helpful perhaps, but ultimately how much of a game-changer? Some improved connectivity in LHR, e.g. from UA to Asia/Africa, but above all a lot of overlap and a lot of intra-alliance conflict with established connection flows (I'm looking at you, Lufthansa)
- they join the emerging Etihad/AF/KL/Air Berlin axis (whether that ends up being the same as SkyTeam or not), including an equity stake from EY.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “Now I think that VS is a fairly decent airline and I think SRB is a good businessman, but the trouble that we cannot sustain 2 major full-service carriers, the European aviation market has changed since its was formed in the 80s, BAs main competitors are not from the UK, but in Mainland Europe”

Why can the UK not sustain 2 major full-service carriers?

Quote: “Remember no nation in Europe (bar Germany and in that case due to the Cold War) has any more than 1 full-service airline (in fact Europe is heading towards 2-3 full-service airlines for the whole region”

What does the cold war have to do with modern German aviation? AFAIK, Interflug is no longer with us.

Quote: “1: Agree a "peace deal" with BA, this will mean in the long run (when SRB retires or decides to call it a day), BA will buy VS, until then BA would buy a 49% stake (from Singapore Airlines), then BA and VS "agree" not to compete with each other on routes (this will mean VS will pull out of all routes that BA also serve, while launching new routes to destinations not served by either airline) and lastly VS joining OW”

Er, how would shareholders of both organisations be persuaded to agree this course of action?

Quote: “2: VS should offer to buy BA from IAG (to pay for the restructuring of IB) with the financial support of *A carriers (like when AC bought CP), BA will for a time become a subsidiary of VS and is gradually integrated into VS, then it will also join VS”

How could VS afford to buy BA? They couldn’t even scrape up enough readies to buy BD! That aside, it would leave IAG with just one loss-making carrier, so why would they agree?
　
　
Quote: “Britain's Air Travel Market is more or less the same size as lets say France, Germany (which is the exception to this due to the Cold War), Spain and Italy which only sustain 1 full-serivce carrier and you have to remember that BA (although not IAG) is making some profit in this market and VS is not, VS is also falling behind BA in terms of its route network as well (because it holds far less slots at LHR), while the BA/VS rivalry will not cause one to go bust, it will get increasingly unsustainable in the long run”

Quote: “The reason France had one full-service carrier is not just because of politics, remember France used to have 3 (Air France, UTA and Air Inter), but the reason that changed was that the French Government saw that having 3 was not sustainable with the looming liberalisation of Europe's air travel market, so the decision was due to economic and political reasons”


France has Corsair, Spain has Air Europa, both of which do longhaul and domestic, so are similar to Virgin (or how it will be from March 2013). So not the case that they can only sustain one full-service carrier each.

Again you mention the cold war and Germany without explaining what you mean.


Answers and explanations would appreciated please, British Airways.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "SRB is a figurehead, he does not run VS and it is not a family business. I agree they took their eye off the ball for a bit but no A380, swapping A346s for A330s and finally getting into domestic, if all done properly could yield good results. I am not their biggest fan but credit where it's due now."

Steve Ridgeway runs it (for now), Richard Branson has never run it. They are getting their act together now, let's hope it works out.

Quote: "STAR alliance membership is a must, I understand SRB's reluctance, but the world has changed. Get all of that new gear into T2 at LHR and ask the question again in three years."

Yes, alliance membership is now essential, and it has to be Star.

Quote: "SRB is right in one thing, when competiton goes, the consumer loses. I am a fan of BA but look at LHR-GLA fares these days. Ouch."

Exactly right, it's burnt a hole in my pocket too!And no remedy from the useless EU!

BD, you are sorely missed!

[take-off]

What is the reason for VS85 Las Vegas changing to a A330 from a 747?
Am in process sorting dates and prices out for a Vegas holiday as this years got put off for several reasons, but was looking forward to going on a 747:ok:. Is this likely to be long term , or would it be better booking from Gatwick as some freinds going live in midlands, one other thing, is there any great difference in comfort between 2 planes, sorry for all the questions, but it is large chunk of money about to spend, as thinking would prefer direct flight rather than the change in chicago with AA we had last year, and being couped up on a 757 not so fun either( although the 738 we had from chicago to vegas seemed far more comfortable i.e more legroom???) thanks for any help too people .

[ETOPS]

What is the reason for VS85 Las Vegas changing to a A330 from a 747?

Probably increased competition. BA now run daily from LHR with 747 equipment and 4 time a week from LGW using T7s........

[take-off]

I know BA have put new service on at Gatwick , would that effect Manchester Much? Mind I guess Thomas cook adding extra Flights next year from Man is extra competition too?

[Cyber Bob]

VS 85 is out of MAN. Change is more than likely due to fleet movement. From a travelling perspective, the A330 is much more comfortable than the 747 in terms of the whole environment. In addition, the A330 comes with all singing and dancing in-flight entertainment, something that the 747's are receiving/about to receive . Equally as important is that the 85 is non stop from MAN, so why consider the change in ORD?. Go fly and enjoy, Take Off

[take-off]

The last flight we did was with American from Manchester to Vegas, with change , thats why looking for a direct.

[Cyber Bob]

You'll need 'Non-stop' as a direct service means that a flight can land elsewhere en-route to it's destination. The VS85 is a non-stop service, direct from Manchester to Vegas.

[take-off]

Thanks cyber bob:ok:

[Cyber Bob]

No worries - and don't risk it all on 17 black!!!

[Skipness One Echo]

VS085 / 086 is an A330 on some dates this winter, however for next summer, MAN gets two based B747s.

[BALHR]

Neither of the latter two options proffered are viable for VS. VS will do whatever they can to retain their identity and certainly wouldn't emabark and any form of venture with BA etc.

That said, it's no secret that VS are fighting a tough battle to retain it's independance and compete with the bigger players/partnerships. I should imagine that discussions have been held with regards to partnerships and alliances. Couple of sticking points would be

Retaining it's brand
Having partner airlines dumping air miles on them

That's perhaps why there has been no movement on that front - question is, for how long though?

Just my two penneth worth
All the best
CB


The First option would make sure VS is still around until SRB Retires, which will be sometime in the 2020s (after which it is fully absorbed into BA), so they will retain their identity, but they will become a memeber of OW and and "partner airline" to BA, but their operations would be more profitable than they are currently now (due to the fact they would no longer have to compete with BA) and able to launch new routes from London that are not currently around

The second option would of course secure VSs future after SRB retires, since that they would become the UKs full-service carrier and thus be sustainable for the long term, to finance the deal they would have to get finance from other *A partners (like when AC bought OW member CP), who would benefit from a *A friendly partner at LHR

As far as I could see, there are no other options for VS if it wants a sustainable long term future

SRB is a figurehead, he does not run VS and it is not a family business. I agree they took their eye off the ball for a bit but no A380, swapping A346s for A330s and finally getting into domestic, if all done properly could yield good results. I am not their biggest fan but credit where it's due now.
STAR alliance membership is a must, I understand SRB's reluctance, but the world has changed. Get all of that new gear into T2 at LHR and ask the question again in three years.
SRB is right in one thing, when competiton goes, the consumer loses. I am a fan of BA but look at LHR-GLA fares these days. Ouch.


SRB might not run day to day, but since he ultimately owns the airline, VS management need to get his approval on major matters, hence why I suggested that he is reponsible for the fact they are (foolishly) competing with BA, rather than partnering them

I hope their new domestic routes are sucessful, but I don't have much hope (certainly are going to be profitable for sure), The only reason BA even retains the routes to other regions in the UK (they have given up on all the other ones) is not because they make money, but because they make money for long-haul

I am suprised that VS are not launching London-Glasgow flights, you would have thought that would be a route that need competition, then again if BMI could not susutain it, how would VS?

Also the new A330s are being replacing the A340-300s, not the A340-600s, they will replaced seperately (along with the 747-400s) with either the A350-1000, 777-300ER or 777-9X (if VS are prepaired to wait)

Lastly while joining STAR would help VS, partnering with BA/OW is the best solution for them

If US Airways buys AA, they will leave Star and join OneWorld. This is a pretty obvious move. That's not just my view, it's the view of Doug Parker, the US Airways CEO, quoted here (http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2012/07/us-airways-would-exit-star-alliance-if-it-merges-with-american/806454/1).


I am not disputing the fact that management of US want a combined AA/US to be a OW partner

What I am saying is that *A would not be keen on that happening, UA has a fairly close partnership with US (which fill the gaps where UA does serve in America)

If *A carriers want US to remain in their allaince (and/of if they want a VS takeover of BA to work) then they could provide financial help to the airline to help it fund their takeover of AA, which would be also of benefit to US due to the fact that will not have to give AAs creditors more of a say in the running of AA/US

However I would say that US feel marginlised within *A (they are not part of their ATI on TATL routes), hence the their attempt to buy AA and in effect, its membership of OW, so they will have to be convinced that a combined AA/US is better off staying in *A

I also feel that a AA/US merger is not a good idea, for a start US does not bring much to the table, apart from hubs in the South East/South West of America and the shuttle service, but nothing in relation to Trans-Pacfic for example and very little Trans-Atlantic wise either, plus AA/US would have to close (at the very least) their hub at PHL and maybe scale down PHX

Which I am suggesting a UA-AA merger is the best option for both airlines (plus it is unlikely to leave *A anytime soon)


The idea that UA would bid for AA is also fallacious. Consider the scale of network overlap and the antitrust remedies which would be required. In any case, UA can't even manage its own operation consistently these days - what would it gain from trying to swallow another behemoth (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4313978.stm)?


Firstly the BBC is not really relevent and here is why I feel UA-AA is a good thing

Firstly UA has little presense in the South-East of America, they also have a problem in relation to routes to Latin America and they could do with more slots at LHR

AAs biggest problem is that they are lacking in the Pacific and the face they (and UA) are having to deal with a fragmented makrets in Chicago, LA and NYC

So if UA and AA merged, those problems would be solved, UA would gain AAs MIA hub, which is pretty profitable and serves emerging markets in Latin-America, AA also has a lot of slots/routes at LHR, which would be very useful to UA and UA-AA would be able to consolodate the fragmented markets in NYC, LA and Chicago. UA would also gain AA's profitable hub at DFW

Lastly, their fleets are fairly similar, both are more or less the same age and both are a lot of fleet types (A320, 737, 757, 767, 777)

As for anti-Trust, well it would be only be a small problem, which I would break it down:

Lets look at the domestic market, if AA and UA merged the combined airline would only hold 27.1% of the US Domestic Market, hardly a monopoly, remember Southwest/Air Tran hold 26% and Delta nearly 19%

AA and UA share only 3 hubs, they are LAX, ORD and NYC (in this case JFK and EWR), UA-AA would hold 40% of the NYC markets (All Airports in NYC) and LAX (not counting other airports in LA area), so it means that both markets will still have a lot of competition

ORD would become a fortress hub like UAs hubs in EWR and IAH and AAs hub in MIA and DFW, in the case of ORD, it will face strong competion from Chicago's other main airport MDW in the form of Southwest (who hold a near 90% market share at that airport)

As for International routes, Trans Pacific and Trans Atlantic routes would still face a lot of competition from Delta and its partners in ST or in the case of US-Africa fall behind them

So really the competition issues are not enough prevent a UA-AA merger 9 also feel UA-AA should then buy F9, to help the hub at DEN compete with Southwest)

The reason why UA is having teething problems is because they still have finished their merger with CO and remember that merger was pretty much a merger of equals (literally)

"If VS buys BA"? You might as well propose that flyBE buys Ryanair - it's equally (im)plausible. No disrespect to VS, but they are not even remotely in the same league as BA in terms of either enterprise value or ability to raise finance. And there's the small matter of BA being a 100% subsidiary of IAG (so VS would have to buy IAG to get BA? :ugh:)



How could VS afford to buy BA? They couldn’t even scrape up enough readies to buy BD! That aside, it would leave IAG with just one loss-making carrier, so why would they agree?


VS cannot afford to buy BA on its own, but if it recived finance from *A partners (who would be interests in gaining a friendly partner at LHR and do a massive blow to BA), then I don't see why not, for example they did exactly the same thing in relation to *A member Air Canada's buyout of Canadian Airlines (who was a member of OW), which gave *A a advantage over OW in that region


What does the cold war have to do with modern German aviation? AFAIK, Interflug is no longer with us.


I am not talking about Interflug, I am talking about Air Berlin, remember (sorry if it seems patonising) that after WW2 Germany was occupied by 4 diffrent nations that where the main players of the Allies, weirdly Berlin (within the Soviet Zone) was also occupied by the 4 powers, later on the US (plus UK and France) fell out with the USSR and thus meant that Germany was split between "West" (allied to USA/NATO) and "East" (Allied to USSR/China/WP), but the problem with Berlin was that it also applied to Berlin, even though it was within East Germany, after the USSR failed to regain West Berlin and East Germany had to make do with East Berlin, those 4 powers agreed a deal in relation to Berlin

On the question of Air Travel, they made it clear that only British, American, where allowed to serve West Berlin, hence Lufthansa was locked out of was once a major hub for them, hence BA/AF/PA and a fair number of airlines from those nations flew to that airport (among those Airlines was Air Berlin, which at the time was a charter carrier)

When Germany was reunified, Lufthansa was allowed to serve Berlin, however time took its toll and Berlin was a shadow of its former self in the early 90s, so LH could not set up a sustainable hub in that city, at the same time the Germans wanted (before the deregulation of the European Air Travel Market) those British/French/american carriers to pull out of Berlin (bar serving routes from overseas) for reasons of fairness at the time, so those airlines either shut down their operations or sold them to Air Berlin (which was moving towards becoming a Full-Service Carrier and had moved from America to Germany)

It is only now that Lufthansa is now planning to set up a focus city in Berlin and now Air Berlin is both a full service carrier and OW member, so Germany does have 2 full service carriers and that is due to the cold war, if Lufthansa was allowed to serve West Berlin, then Air Berlin would have never bben forms and Germany would have only 1

[Blighty Pilot]

British Airways - I am in awe of you! 21 years old and you know sooooo much! You're obviously destined for politics or journalism.
Promise me you won't lower yourself and join us mere mortals in the flight deck of an aeroplane as I'm not sure I could cope with the enthralling, not to mention opinionated, conversation!

Have you been studying hard at your university or old style local poly and been fed all this stuff by an expert lecturer? Let me guess - an economics student with a PPL or a Air Transport and Management course? :ugh::ugh:

[Cyber Bob]

Good shout Blighty!

British Airways - I admire your sentiment and certainly your enthusiasm however the only way that BA will absorb VS (Not the other way round) is if VS goes belly up.

VS will no doubt fight tooth and nail to remain independant however it's likely that it will join an alliance at some stage in the future - it's the way aviation is heading. Reason why they haven't joined one thus far is more than likely due to the points I've raised.

Please feel free to add more ideas, views, spin, conspiracy theory but please bear in mind that most people's attention span wanes after two para's!. Could print off and take your next tomb with me on my next trip - but although probably entertaining and enlightening - bunk time is bunk time after all :ok:

All the best
CB

PS. Reason why VS ain't operating GLA - LHR/LGW - haven't got the rights to do so. GLA - LHR wasn't included within the remedy slots they've recently acquired.

[MUFC_fan]

Reason why VS ain't operating GLA - LHR/LGW - haven't got the rights to do so. GLA - LHR wasn't included within the remedy slots they've recently acquired.


It's not that the airline don't have the right, they just don't have the slots or aircraft to do so.

Any EU airline could start LHR-GLA if they had the slots, it's just that VS aren't willing to use their current long haul slots to fly to Scotland and back!

I think that's a point people are missing. The slots on offer, yes, are there to be used on certain routes to satisfy the authorities but that doesn't mean they can't use their current slots to start domestic services either.

[Skipness One Echo]

hence why I suggested that he is reponsible for the fact they are (foolishly) competing with BA, rather than partnering them
1,915 words of utter tosh mate! What ARE you on about? This statement above, shows the level of your commercial know how. They compete because they have to, they compete where the market will allow. To suggest VS go away and make profits on all those pretendy routes that can make money that BA one assumes just didn't know were there, that's naive bordering in stupid. It really is, let's not beat about the bush.
The second option would of course secure VSs future after SRB retires, since that they would become the UKs full-service carrier and thus be sustainable for the long term, to finance the deal they would have to get finance from other *A partners (like when AC bought OW member CP), who would benefit from a *A friendly partner at LHR
What? Where's BA gone? Vanished in a puff of whatever you're smoking? You do know good old friendly STAR partner Singapore already owns 49% of VS? How's that investment worked out? Well? No, they've been trying to sell it.
Also the new A330s are being replacing the A340-300s, not the A340-600s,
Wrong, they're replacing A340-600s, several having left the fleet already.
UA has a fairly close partnership with US
Not so much domestically, it's the same as having TG and SQ in STAR, they still hate each other.
Which I am suggesting a UA-AA merger is the best option for both airlines (plus it is unlikely to leave *A anytime soon)
Nonsense, UA are struggling to manage the CO intergration, a behemouth the size of a combined AA-UA/CO would be frightening prospect for competition. That thing you don't seem to get around which is front and centre of why a lot of what you are writing about has to remain a fantasy.
those British/French/american carriers to pull out of Berlin (bar serving routes from overseas) for reasons of fairness at the time, so those airlines either shut down their operations or sold them to Air Berlin (which was moving towards becoming a Full-Service Carrier and had moved from America to Germany)
It wasn't done for "reasons of fairness", BA launched Deutsche BA to try and hold market share when LH got Berlin access but the market chose Lufthansa.

[aeulad]

Apologies if this has been reported already but it would seem Avion Express will be operating 3 A320s on VS' behalf for their ABZ, EDI and MAN schedules.

Kind regards

Mike

[cornishsimon]

I suppose the question has to be, will VS keep to domestic at LHR, or could we see some similar ops into LGW ?

would solve the problem with BA dropping MAN-LGW wouldnt it ?

cs

[rog747]

EZYJET have picked up this route haven't they?

[BALHR]

France has Corsair, Spain has Air Europa, both of which do longhaul and domestic, so are similar to Virgin (or how it will be from March 2013). So not the case that they can only sustain one full-service carrier each.


Corsair is part of TUI (A Travel Agent), it is mainly a charter carrier and the scheduled destinations are tourist oriented, so I would not count it as a “Full-Service” Carrier, Also they do not serve any domestic routes, they only serve Africa and North America

Air Europa is makes a better case for being a full-service carrier however, but it’s still operarates fair number of charter routes, I would compare then to Monarch and Air Berlin

So my case still stands that France and Spain can only sustain 1 full-service carrier


Why can the UK not sustain 2 major full-service carriers?


Because times have changed since VS was formed in the 80s, the market has been deregulated and hence BA has to now compete with LCCs, carriers in mainland Europe and now Gulf Airlines, they puts a lot of preassure on margins, what maks the problem worse is that there is a lack of space to lanuch new routes from LHR, hence it is not a good idea for VS to keep operating services on routes that alresdy have competition already

VS also has a porblem with the fact it does to have enough slots to have a route network that is big enough to make it a viable alternative to BA

[ryansf]

Apologies if this has been reported already but it would seem Avion Express will be operating 3 A320s on VS' behalf for their ABZ, EDI and MAN schedules.
The newest of which, according to their own website, is 17 years old!! The oldest being 21. One to avoid I think...:eek:

[BALHR]

British Airways - I am in awe of you! 21 years old and you know sooooo much! You're obviously destined for politics or journalism.
Promise me you won't lower yourself and join us mere mortals in the flight deck of an aeroplane as I'm not sure I could cope with the enthralling, not to mention opinionated, conversation!

Have you been studying hard at your university or old style local poly and been fed all this stuff by an expert lecturer? Let me guess - an economics student with a PPL or a Air Transport and Management course? :ugh::ugh:


I have based the information on my post on several years of research and this is my opinion alone, I am not suggesting that what you are suggesting is pointless, I am just stating that I disagree

British Airways - I admire your sentiment and certainly your enthusiasm however the only way that BA will absorb VS (Not the other way round) is if VS goes belly up.

VS will no doubt fight tooth and nail to remain independant however it's likely that it will join an alliance at some stage in the future - it's the way aviation is heading. Reason why they haven't joined one thus far is more than likely due to the points I've raised.


I would agree with that, but surely you would also agree that unless they change their insistance that they should retain their independence, they face a losing battle to compete with their rivals


1,915 words of utter tosh mate! What ARE you on about? This statement above, shows the level of your commercial know how. They compete because they have to, they compete where the market will allow. To suggest VS go away and make profits on all those pretendy routes that can make money that BA one assumes just didn't know were there, that's naive bordering in stupid. It really is, let's not beat about the bush.



What VS is doing is not sustainable for the long term, there is a lack of space at our airports, the UK needs to launch routes to emerging markets (like South America for example) and there has been incresing competition in the past 20 years for both BA and VS, BA cannot operate new routes to those markets because there is a lack of space at LHR, hopefully that will be fixed now they have bought BMI, but the problem for VS is that because they failed to buy BMI, they have fallen further behind BA in relation to route network


What? Where's BA gone? Vanished in a puff of whatever you're smoking? You do know good old friendly STAR partner Singapore already owns 49% of VS? How's that investment worked out? Well? No, they've been trying to sell it.



In that option VS has bought BA with the financial help of *A, who would gain from the fact they have a friendly partner at LHR, the reason Singapore Airlines wants out is because they see what SRB cannot see, VS model is not sustainable in the long run in its current form


Wrong, they're replacing A340-600s, several having left the fleet already.



Some A340-600s are being withdrawn, but the entire fleet of A340-300s is being withdrawn and will so by next year, the reason why VS has ordered A330-300s is that the 787-9s they ordered have been delayed several times over

The remaining A340-600s are to be replaced (along with the 747-400s) wth another aircraft

Virgin closing on selection of 747-400 and A340-600 replacement (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/virgin-closing-on-selection-of-747-400-and-a340-600-replacement-377897/)


Not so much domestically, it's the same as having TG and SQ in STAR, they still hate each other.



Despite the fact they have a pretty extensive coadshare agreement and almost merged at least twice (the second time they found a even better partner in the form of CO)

I would describe it more as a love-hate relationship


Nonsense, UA are struggling to manage the CO intergration, a behemouth the size of a combined AA-UA/CO would be frightening prospect for competition. That thing you don't seem to get around which is front and centre of why a lot of what you are writing about has to remain a fantasy.



Firstly I have shown in detail that it is not the case (are you sure you have read what I have wrote on the matter?), they combined domestic share would be barely higher than Southwest/AirTran's domesitc share and the only hubs they have in common and pretty fragmented markets and would remain so even after a UA-AA merger

If you disagree with my detailed statements on the matter, would you mind explaining it in detail?


It wasn't done for "reasons of fairness", BA launched Deutsche BA to try and hold market share when LH got Berlin access but the market chose Lufthansa.


I agree on the reasons why BA gave up on DBA, but the reason they had to do it was that the Germans (this was just before deregulation) felt British/French/American airlines has traffic rights within Germany, they German airlines where deinied at the time

The same reason was why Pan Am was forced to sell their German traffic rights to LH (and well as the fact they where financialy desperate)

[Skipness One Echo]

I have based the information on my post on several years of research
We really want you to expand on this one.
If you disagree with my detailed statements on the matter, would you mind explaining it in detail?
No, I'll let someone else have a go, you're living in a dream world, your detailed statements do not reflect the commercial and competitve reality. In short, you don't know the difference between apples and pears in a marketplace.

Anyhoo we can't allow "British Airways" to hijack the Virgin thread, think of spin they'd put on that one!

So in other news, I understand the three leisure A330s will be getting a LHR layout but still flying from LGW. The last A330 is due back from China Airlines imminently bringing the fleet up to full strength at ten, alongside eight refitted B744s on the beach fleet which really ought to see those Skytrax reviews getting better.

[GlasgowBoy]

Virgin will never acquire BA. Regardless of who's funding it, it will NEVER pass the regulatory hurdles. Ditto for United buying American!

Enjoyed the Virgin-BA-United-American discussion however - made me laugh!:ok:

So in other news, I understand the three leisure A330s will be getting a LHR layout but still flying from LGW. The last A330 is due back from China Airlines imminently bringing the fleet up to full strength at ten, alongside eight refitted B744s on the beach fleet which really ought to see those Skytrax reviews getting better.

Does anyone know if this will affect their GLA-MCO route? Going by the VS website, it's showing as A333 with the 744 during the peak school holiday periods. As was the case last year.

So if VSXY/VINE/VKSS will be refitted to a 3-class config, does this mean that GLA will see only 744 service to MCO? Obviously, the only time the route has been 3-class is when the 744s have operated. It's a massive jump to go from Zero J one year, to 33J the next.

Apparently VS have been impressed with how their S13 GLA programme has sold thus far, so I wonder if we'll see the 744 for the full duration of the summer programme. Here's hoping!:ok:

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Corsair is part of TUI (A Travel Agent), it is mainly a charter carrier and the scheduled destinations are tourist oriented, so I would not count it as a “Full-Service” Carrier, Also they do not serve any domestic routes, they only serve Africa and North America

Air Europa is makes a better case for being a full-service carrier however, but it’s still operarates fair number of charter routes, I would compare then to Monarch and Air Berlin

So my case still stands that France and Spain can only sustain 1 full-service carrier"

So they do charter work, so what! Many carriers do, including full service ones. It can be a nice little earner. Don't know about VS, but BA do, and BD did, charter work.

SS, like VS, isn't in an alliance, UX is in Skyteam.

The case is not made: France and Spain can and do sustain more than one full-service carrier each.

Quote: "Because times have changed since VS was formed in the 80s, the market has been deregulated and hence BA has to now compete with LCCs, carriers in mainland Europe and now Gulf Airlines, they puts a lot of preassure on margins, what maks the problem worse is that there is a lack of space to lanuch new routes from LHR, hence it is not a good idea for VS to keep operating services on routes that alresdy have competition already"

Fascinating stuff, but not an answer to the question: why can the UK not sustain two full-service carriers.

The UK had three full service carriers till recently - and that's just those at LHR!

Now it has two (probably because of some bizarre management decisions at BD) and this is likely to continue.

But what about those not based at LHR, BE and T3 for example, don't they count just because they're "regional"?


Don't suppose there's any danger of you answering the other questions in post #618 properly.....

[crewmeal]

Virgin Atlantic to lease Avion Express aircraft for short-haul routes? - Business Traveller (http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/virgin-atlantic-to-lease-avion-express-aircraft)

I sincerely hope that if Virgin take on this wet lease(s) the interiors will be upgraded and not left in the state they were offered to Monarch during the summer.

[BALHR]

No, I'll let someone else have a go, you're living in a dream world, your detailed statements do not reflect the commercial and competitve reality. In short, you don't know the difference between apples and pears in a marketplace.


Ditto for United buying American

Hold on, you still have not explained (as well as other posters) why UA-AA would a "frightening prospect for competition" despite the fact that (as I have shown) that it would not be the case

Here is the statement (again) stating why I am saying my point about this:


Firstly UA has little presense in the South-East of America, they also have a problem in relation to routes to Latin America and they could do with more slots at LHR

AAs biggest problem is that they are lacking in the Pacific and the face they (and UA) are having to deal with a fragmented makrets in Chicago, LA and NYC

So if UA and AA merged, those problems would be solved, UA would gain AAs MIA hub, which is pretty profitable and serves emerging markets in Latin-America, AA also has a lot of slots/routes at LHR, which would be very useful to UA and UA-AA would be able to consolodate the fragmented markets in NYC, LA and Chicago. UA would also gain AA's profitable hub at DFW

Lastly, their fleets are fairly similar, both are more or less the same age and both are a lot of fleet types (A320, 737, 757, 767, 777)

As for anti-Trust, well it would be only be a small problem, which I would break it down:

Lets look at the domestic market, if AA and UA merged the combined airline would only hold 27.1% of the US Domestic Market, hardly a monopoly, remember Southwest/Air Tran hold 26% and Delta nearly 19%

AA and UA share only 3 hubs, they are LAX, ORD and NYC (in this case JFK and EWR), UA-AA would hold 40% of the NYC markets (All Airports in NYC) and LAX (not counting other airports in LA area), so it means that both markets will still have a lot of competition

ORD would become a fortress hub like UAs hubs in EWR and IAH and AAs hub in MIA and DFW, in the case of ORD, it will face strong competion from Chicago's other main airport MDW in the form of Southwest (who hold a near 90% market share at that airport)

As for International routes, Trans Pacific and Trans Atlantic routes would still face a lot of competition from Delta and its partners in ST or in the case of US-Africa fall behind them

So really the competition issues are not enough prevent a UA-AA merger


If you (or others) still think there are competition issues with a AA-UA merger after reading this, then I am more than happy to hear it (along with anything you or others disagree who disagree with my statement

Virgin will never acquire BA. Regardless of who's funding it, it will NEVER pass the regulatory hurdles.

All the routes that both BA and VS compete on also have competition from at least 1 other airline (bar LHR-ACC and that is only because Ghana International went bust), my first option however would prevent VS and BA competing on the same routes (which would go around that competition issue)

Also a combined BA/VS/OW would hold still hold a smaller proportion of slots then lets say AF/KL/ST at AMS and CDG and LH/*A at FRA and MUC

So they do charter work, so what! Many carriers do, including full service ones. It can be a nice little earner. Don't know about VS, but BA do, and BD did, charter work.

SS, like VS, isn't in an alliance, UIX is in Skyteam.

The case is not made: France and Spain can and do sustain more than one full-service carrier each.

My point is that Corsair's main business (unlike BA/VS/AF for example) is charter and full-service scheduled flights are basicly "on the side" in other worlds it is like French equivalent of Thomson, Air Europa business puts charter and scheduled on equal terms, so it is a "hybrid carrier" like Monarch (which like UIX is owned by a travel operator)

BA and VS charter work is "on the side" its main business is still operating full-service scheduled flights (although VS has close ties with travel operator Virgin Holidays)

So my case stands that pretty much none of Europe's nations can sustain any more than 1 full-service carrier, apart from Germany (due to the cold war) and Britain

[Blighty Pilot]

Can anyone else sense a Captain Thrush amongst the ranks?

[Cyber Bob]

British Airways has adopted the 'Andy Gray style of commentary' - keep talking and all being well, some if it may make sense!.

Keep at it fella:ok:

CB

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "My point is that Corsair's main business (unlike BA/VS/AF for example) is charter and full-service scheduled flights are basicly "on the side" in other worlds it is like French equivalent of Thomson, Air Europa business puts charter and scheduled on equal terms, so it is a "hybrid carrier" like Monarch (which like UIX is owned by a travel operator)

BA and VS charter work is "on the side" its main business is still operating full-service scheduled flights (although VS has close ties with travel operator Virgin Holidays)

Oh dear, that's just splitting hairs. Sounds like a lost argument.

Quote: "So my case stands that pretty much none of Europe's nations can sustain any more than 1 full-service carrier, apart from Germany (due to the cold war) and Britain"


You appear to have all the answers (not necessarily all correct of course!), so perhaps you would like to enlighten the rest of us why you believe that only the UK and Germany in Europe can sustain more than one full service carrier.

[EI-BUD]

Any official word on what airline will operate UK domestics for Virgin?

Also are there rules that dictate the airlines must detail at the time of the booking who will operatet the flight? BA (where they know in advance) state on the booking who will operate the flight, e.g. if it were Titan etc.

No references to the carrier on Virgin booking, only states 319.

EI-BUD

[DaveReidUK]

Any official word on what airline will operate UK domestics for Virgin?

See posts #303 and #308 above. Not sure what you mean by "official", I'm not holding my breath for an announcement by VS at this stage.

[EI-BUD]

Sorry Dave I hadnt seen those posts.
Thanks.

[BALHR]

Fascinating stuff, but not an answer to the question: why can the UK not sustain two full-service carriers.

The UK had three full service carriers till recently - and that's just those at LHR!

Now it has two (probably because of some bizarre management decisions at BD) and this is likely to continue.

But what about those not based at LHR, BE and T3 for example, don't they count just because they're "regional"?


Because the competion from other airlines and combine that with the issues with the world economy is facing, means that it is only going to get harder to compete with those airlines, hence the last thing we need is 2 UK-Based Full-Service Airlines competing on routes where there is already stong competition

We are the only nation in Europe (along with Germany) that has this, but due to the incresing competition this cannot go on, what makes things worse is that there is a lack of space at LHR to launch routes to destinations in the emerging world, the last thing we need is those slots being used to add further competition on routes that already have competition

The only reason VS is still running and refusing to sell out is due to SRB, once he retires what will happen after that?

If we do need a 2nd Full-Serivice carrier, we already have one, its called KLM

[fjencl]

:ugh::ugh::ugh:Oh no, Oh no.......the 5 days of peace and quiet that we had on here has been shattered again........:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[BALHR]

British Airways has adopted the 'Andy Gray style of commentary' - keep talking and all being well, some if it may make sense!.

Keep at it fellahttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

CB


Well none of the users of this forums have come up with a detailed explanation on why you still think a UA-AA merger would be "Anti-Competitive" despite the fact the evidence I have given has proved it is not the case

Oh dear, that's just splitting hairs. Sounds like a lost argument.

Don't you see that Corsair is the "Thomson Airways" of France and Air Europa is the "Monarch" of Spain

Surely you cannot suggest that Thomson and Monarch are "Full-Service" Carriers?


You appear to have all the answers (not necessarily all correct of course!), so perhaps you would like to enlighten the rest of us why you believe that only the UK and Germany in Europe can sustain more than one full service carrier.


I would disgaree on how correct my answers are, but the reason Britain has 2 full-service carriers is due to SRBs stubborness and passion and in the case of Germany, LH being locked out of Berlin due to the Cold War and Berlins ecnomic decline until recently for the same reasons

By the way, Air Berlin is to be honest in some parts more like Monarch that a full-service carrier and it is pretty much in business mainly thanks to Eithad

[BALHR]

:ugh::ugh::ugh:Oh no, Oh no.......the 5 days of peace and quiet that we had on here has been shattered again........:ugh::ugh::ugh:


The reason why is because I have been busy...

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "I would disgaree on how correct my answers are, but the reason Britain has 2 full-service carriers is due to SRBs stubborness and passion and in the case of Germany, LH being locked out of Berlin due to the Cold War and Berlins ecnomic decline until recently for the same reasons

By the way, Air Berlin is to be honest in some parts more like Monarch that a full-service carrier and it is pretty much in business mainly thanks to Eithad"


Have to say that "SRBs stubborness" and "Cold War and Berlins ecnomic decline" are not valid reasons. Think again.
Many carriers are taking on "hybrid" characteristics as they attempt to deal with difficult circumstances.

Very early on, carriers such as BD and EI and several North American carriers, for example, started charging for catering on shorthaul flights.

Then came booking with credit card charges.

Others got involved in charters and holidays in varying degrees, as well as running standard longhaul flights, for example, BA, VS, UX, SS.

U2 has adopted allocated seating and is chasing business travellers, while FR remains a pure "no frills" operation.

Then there's your example of the similarities of AB and ZB.

Things are not always as cut and dried as they appear at first.

[easyflyer83]

It's funny how people put ZB slightly above low cost. They are nothing but low cost these days and they are certainly not comparable with AB!

[Dannyboy39]

What you can compare AB with ZB is the financial position. In 2003, Air Berlin had a turnover of 863m Euro and a small profit. Monarch have just announced their numbers and had a similar amount of turnover (for the group as a whole).

I can't see why, Monarch couldn't have been the "next" Air Berlin? Their past was very much charter/low cost operations and have diversified into cities and business flights - something which Monarch have tried very recently with flights to Milan, Munich and Rome. Some of which have failed miserably.

I think a theoretical purchase of Jet2 would open Monarch up to a host of routes from the North of England plus another 40ish aircraft, which would double the size of the airline, putting them on an equal footing to TUI.

Obviously the board at Monarch would have no appetite for this considering their 45 aircraft plan from 2021.

Maybe I'm talking rubbish!

[easyflyer83]

I'd see jet2 taking over Monarch rather than vice versa. That said, I don't see either of them making acquisitions.

[LBIA]

Looks like Delta Air Lines is trying to buy Singapore Airline's 49pc stake in Virgin now which would open them up to joining the Sky Team Global Alliance.

Delta plots to take control of Virgin Atlantic - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9717090/Delta-plots-to-take-control-of-Virgin-Atlantic.html#)

[davidjohnson6]

This might be a naive question but I don't really understand what Virgin would add to Skyteam, apart from increased capacity on the LHR-JFK route and a few other bits and bobs. I'm left wondering if this might be a repeat of bmi but without the wealthy parent company picking up the bill for any losses.

Virgin fly to relatively few major Skyteam hubs in the world diminishing the capacity for exchange of feed. Furthermore, Virgin have yet to do any real flying from Heathrow to Manchester, Edinburgh or Aberdeen - making for relatively undeveloped routes, at least from a VS perspective. It all seems like quite a long term play before any significant benefits will accrue to either VS or DL

Comments anyone ?

[toledoashley]

There will be more than just Atlantic, and I wouldn't be surprised to see involvement from the other Virgin airlines, and Etihad. Domestic/European from Heathrow could be operated by Air France or KLM, in Virgin branding...

[first_solo]

Domestic/European from Heathrow could be operated by Air France or KLM, in Virgin branding... by Cityjet??;)

[compton3bravo]

What would Virgin add to Delta and Skyteam - valuable slots at Heathrow maybe David?

[Aero Mad]

Domestic/European from Heathrow could be operated by Air France or KLM, in Virgin branding...
by Cityjet??

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/CityJet_(Virgin_Atlantic)_BAe_146-200_Aragao.jpg

[compton3bravo]

That picture with the Virgin tail reminds me of the Club Air B727s on the Luton-Dublin services in the 1980s. A story going the rounds in those days was when RB was visiting Luton and one of B727s landed displaying a multitude of colours on its fuselage and RB seeing it is said to have uttered the words ******* JESUS CHRIST and it was known effectionately thereafter as above!

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Looks like Delta Air Lines is trying to buy Singapore Airline's 49pc stake in Virgin now which would open them up to joining the Sky Team Global Alliance.

Delta plots to take control of Virgin Atlantic - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9717090/Delta-plots-to-take-control-of-Virgin-Atlantic.html#)"

Does the 51% majority shareholder have any say in who the minority 49% shareholder sells to, or can SQ just sell to anyone, whether Branson approves or not?

Are there any bi-lateral agreements between the UK and US about foreign ownership of airlines, and percentages thereof?

It is likely to be about LHR slots so another reason to expand LHR and stop the (non) availibility of slots being such an issue

If DL got 49% and and AF/KL got the rest, it would almost certainly be BD all over again: asset stripping of slots while VS dies a slow death being progressively robbed of its routes with the slots are reallocated to DL, AF and KL.

That said, AF made a horlicks of the LHR-LAX route, so that may deter them from operating North American routes from LHR. Maybe there is scope for South American routes as there's little competition, but they are already push those pax through their hubs at CDG and AMS. There maybe scope for DL to do more flights to their USA hubs, ATL, JFK, etc..

[davidjohnson6]

compton - yes, there would be some more Skyteam aligned LHR slots, but for Skyteam to make effective use of those slots would to some extent mean Virgin killing off some of their existing tried-and-tested routes in favour of routes to Skyteam-aligned destinations. As an example, how does a Heathrow-San Francisco or Heathrow-Dubai route really benefit Skyteam, when Pairis-CDG and Amsterdam both already have excellent local feed from all over Europe as well as plentiful long haul flights ?

Furthermore, if Delta wants access to some LHR slots, would they really need to spend the money on a 49% equity stake in VS and not have majority control of the company or (combined with AF-KL) buy a 51% stake in VS ? A major equity stake seems an awfully expensive way of accessing a handful of Skyteam-friendly slots at one airport - the risk of overpaying comes to mind.

I believe that Singapore Airlines have already written down the equity stake in VS in their accounts to zero - so they have already taken the accounting pain. Assuming SQ intend to remain within Star Alliance, SQ will want to make things as expensive as possible for Skyteam to gain a significant increase in LHR slots, extracting as much cash as they possibly can out of Delta.

I'm not saying that Delta taking a 49% (or more) stake in Virgin would be a bad thing - I just haven't seen a convincing agrument yet and hope someone can persuade me as to the merits of such a deal.

toledoashley - why would AF-KL choose to operate flights outside the UK to/from Heathrow in Virgin branding and pay a royalty fee to Beardy and make use of existing valuable slots used for CDG/AMS services, when AF-KL can instead take those same passengers to Paris/Amsterdam in their own branding on existing services and not have to worry about leaking customers to another airline ?

[fjencl]

BBC News - Singapore Airlines in talks on Virgin Atlantic sale (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20576420)

[LGS6753]

FDF -

As Virgin is a private company, there will be a shareholder's agreement which will determine the rights of the shareholders in respect of representation, investment and divestment.

[airhumberside]

As an example, how does a Heathrow-San Francisco or Heathrow-Dubai route really benefit Skyteam, when Pairis-CDG and Amsterdam both already have excellent local feed from all over Europe as well as plentiful long haul flights ?
Such routes would benefit Skyteam in the London market. I doubt many business travellers at least are going to be doing LHR-CDG-DXB or LHR-CDG-SFO for example when there are plenty of non-stop options available. If Skyteam, or DL/AF have decided they want to have a larger share of the London market, they need to offer a wider range of non-stop destinations covering key global cities, Skyteam hub or not

What VS brings is a presence in most major long haul markets from London. Being able to offer non-stop LON-Tokyo, LON-Hong Kong, LON-Los Angeles can only help Skyteam in the London market, and also in the foreign markets concerned as well

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "FDF -

As Virgin is a private company, there will be a shareholder's agreement which will determine the rights of the shareholders in respect of representation, investment and divestment."

Thanks for the info, LGS6753, this implies that SQ would need Branson's approval to proceed?



Quote: "Such routes would benefit Skyteam in the London market. I doubt many business travellers at least are going to be doing LHR-CDG-DXB or LHR-CDG-SFO for example when there are plenty of non-stop options available. If Skyteam, or DL/AF have decided they want to have a larger share of the London market, they need to offer a wider range of non-stop destinations covering key global cities, Skyteam hub or not.

What VS brings is a presence in most major long haul markets from London. Being able to offer non-stop LON-Tokyo, LON-Hong Kong, LON-Los Angeles can only help Skyteam in the London market, and also in the foreign markets concerned as well"

Yes, this is what VS could bring to the Skyteam table, or to Star now that BD is no more.

If Skyteam want to build up a serious LHR hub, thus giving them three hubs very close to eachother, there is no need (from a Skyteam point of view) to have one or more of its members buy into some or all of VS. They just need to invite VS on board as presently constituted to provide this. This could mean VS heading off to LHR-4 which would then need a UK arrivals facility.

[BALHR]

Have to say that "SRBs stubborness" and "Cold War and Berlins ecnomic decline" are not valid reasons. Think again.
Many carriers are taking on "hybrid" characteristics as they attempt to deal with difficult circumstances.

Very early on, carriers such as BD and EI and several North American carriers, for example, started charging for catering on shorthaul flights.

Then came booking with credit card charges.

Others got involved in charters and holidays in varying degrees, as well as running standard longhaul flights, for example, BA, VS, UX, SS.

U2 has adopted allocated seating and is chasing business travellers, while FR remains a pure "no frills" operation.

Then there's your example of the similarities of AB and ZB.

Things are not always as cut and dried as they appear at first.

I used the terms "SRBs stubborness" and "Cold War and Berlins ecnomic decline" as basic terms for detailed reasons why Britain and Germany have ended up with more than 1 full-service (or hybrid in you must) carrier

If you want to know those reasons in detail then I am more than happy to explain

I agree on you point about airlines becoming more like "hybrid carriers", also it is not the case that its LCCs that are the ones that doing credit card charges, the only "compulsory charge" Full-Service Carriers do is "fuel surcharges" their use has fallen in recent years

I would also make the point that my point about full-service carriers also includes "hybrid" airlines as well

It would be interesting to see how Easyjet will become in the near future however...

Also how come you are still suggesting that Corsair, they are a charter airline (like Thomson) who do scheduled services "on the side"

As for Air Europa, they are more like Monarch and they are also owned by travel agents

BA and VS do Charter, but they are on the side and their main business is still providing full-service scheduled services

VS admitting however have close ties with Virgin Holidays, but don't provide charter flights on their behalf, although most of the routes out of LGW are mostly customers from that travel agent

It's funny how people put ZB slightly above low cost. They are nothing but low cost these days and they are certainly not comparable with AB!

I compared both airlines on the basis that both have business model that consists equally both of charter and scheduled flights (although both are increasing preferring the latter)

[BALHR]

Looks like Delta Air Lines is trying to buy Singapore Airline's 49pc stake in Virgin now which would open them up to joining the Sky Team Global Alliance.

Delta plots to take control of Virgin Atlantic - Telegraph

Is it me or has it been suggested before over a year ago?

Air France-KLM/Delta mull Virgin Atlantic acquisition | News | Breaking Travel News (http://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/air-france-klm-delta-mull-virgin-atlantic-acquisition/)

Anyway I don't think it is a good idea in my opinion, for a start VS is being squeezed by BA for a start and Air France-KLM (who would have to involved in a deal like this) is in a rather poor financial state, the only benefit out of all of this is that they gain more market share on the LHR-JFK route (which can be done if they merged with AA), all their other needs in Europe and even the UK are well served by Air-France-KLM

I fear that this is going to end in a LH/BD/BA style mess

[BALHR]

by Cityjet??

Although they have served on behalf of VS in the past, I highly doubt if they will do it this time around, unless VS wants Avro RJ85s on those routes

Its more likely it will come from Air France or KLM (who both have the aircraft VS is planning to use

Does the 51% majority shareholder have any say in who the minority 49% shareholder sells to, or can SQ just sell to anyone, whether Branson approves or not?

Are there any bi-lateral agreements between the UK and US about foreign ownership of airlines, and percentages thereof?

It is likely to be about LHR slots so another reason to expand LHR and stop the (non) availibility of slots being such an issue

If DL got 49% and and AF/KL got the rest, it would almost certainly be BD all over again: asset stripping of slots while VS dies a slow death being progressively robbed of its routes with the slots are reallocated to DL, AF and KL.

I think SQ would need the agreement of SRB in terms of selling its stake, hence why they would have little chance of selling it to BA for example (as I have suggested)

Also UK/EU law states that Non-EEA airlines can have a maximum of a 49% shareholding in any EEA-based airline

North America/EEA is fine in terms of bi-lateral agreements, everywhere else depends on the state, but to make sure that they don't lose (where the EEA as a whole don't not have a single agreement) out VS would have to remain based in the UK (on paper at least)

[dublinaviator]

Aer Lingus are to announce in the next 24 hours that they are to commence short-haul flights from next March on behalf of another airline:

The Sunday Business Post - News - Aer Lingus expected to announce short-haul tie-up (http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Aer+Lingus+expected+to+announce+short-haul+tie-up/id/19410615-5218-50bd-f79d-ba2594956139)

It has to be Virgin Atlantic...

[Cyrano]

compton - yes, there would be some more Skyteam aligned LHR slots, but for Skyteam to make effective use of those slots would to some extent mean Virgin killing off some of their existing tried-and-tested routes in favour of routes to Skyteam-aligned destinations. As an example, how does a Heathrow-San Francisco or Heathrow-Dubai route really benefit Skyteam, when Pairis-CDG and Amsterdam both already have excellent local feed from all over Europe as well as plentiful long haul flights ?
...
I'm not saying that Delta taking a 49% (or more) stake in Virgin would be a bad thing - I just haven't seen a convincing agrument yet and hope someone can persuade me as to the merits of such a deal.

Skyteam in general and AF in particular have eyed up the UK market for many years - you'll recall for example the commercially disastrous AF LHR-LAX service which lasted a whole season back in 2007. APD notwithstanding, there is a huge O&D market to and from the UK, including significant business flows, and for UK-originating traffic (business traffic in particular) there is now no significant competitor to BA on most point-to-point long-haul routes from London - and Skyteam covets this.

I wouldn't see a DL/AF-owned Virgin killing off any tried-and-tested routes as long as they were profitable; similarly, though, I wouldn't see VS basing its network on long-haul connecting feed through LHR. AF/KL have far stronger hub operations in CDG/AMS (as you rightly say) and won't dilute those. So IMHO the main rationale for Delta and AF to buy Virgin is to compete effectively with BA for (especially UK-originating) point-to-point traffic on the more lucrative long-haul routes.

To be honest, a Skyteam-aligned VS makes much more sense to me than a Star-aligned one. In Star, United already covers LHR-US routes pretty well, so there wouldn't be so much network upside there for the alliance (and more competition for Virgin). VS would also face intra-alliance competition to India, S Africa and Japan.

Conversely, VS isn't competing much with Skyteam carriers on its existing network. No competition to India, S Africa or Japan. And some scope to codeshare with Aeroflot on LHR-SVO and as a consolation prize pick up some of the Russian traffic which the recent scarce capacity hearing denied them.

I can't judge whether DL would end up paying over the odds for the share of VS. But I do find myself wondering: if DL invested in Virgin Atlantic, would the next step be for them to buy out Virgin America? ;)

[BALHR]

Aer Lingus are to announce in the next 24 hours that they are to commence short-haul flights from next March on behalf of another airline:

The Sunday Business Post - News - Aer Lingus expected to announce short-haul tie-up

It has to be Virgin Atlantic...

If that is the case, maybe they could also rebrand LHR-Ireland flights under "Virgin Ireland" branding! (and transfer their slots at LHR to VS)

[dublinaviator]

If that is the case, maybe they could also rebrand LHR-Ireland flights under "Virgin Ireland" branding! (and transfer their slots at LHR to VS)

Why in the hell would they do that? Especially when they still have a code share with BA...

The Virgin brand is non-existent between Ireland and the UK. Aer Lingus on the other hand is very well known. If it does turn out to be Virgin, I could still see Aer Lingus having some type of brand presence, even if its just an "operated by Aer Lingus" logo on the aircraft.

[BALHR]

Skyteam in general and AF in particular have eyed up the UK market for many years - you'll recall for example the commercially disastrous AF LHR-LAX service which lasted a whole season back in 2007. APD notwithstanding, there is a huge O&D market to and from the UK, including significant business flows, and for UK-originating traffic (business traffic in particular) there is now no significant competitor to BA on most point-to-point long-haul routes from London - and Skyteam covets this.

I wouldn't see a DL/AF-owned Virgin killing off any tried-and-tested routes as long as they were profitable; similarly, though, I wouldn't see VS basing its network on long-haul connecting feed through LHR. AF/KL have far stronger hub operations in CDG/AMS (as you rightly say) and won't dilute those. So IMHO the main rationale for Delta and AF to buy Virgin is to compete effectively with BA for (especially UK-originating) point-to-point traffic on the more lucrative long-haul routes.

To be honest, a Skyteam-aligned VS makes much more sense to me than a Star-aligned one. In Star, United already covers LHR-US routes pretty well, so there wouldn't be so much network upside there for the alliance (and more competition for Virgin). VS would also face intra-alliance competition to India, S Africa and Japan.

Conversely, VS isn't competing much with Skyteam carriers on its existing network. No competition to India, S Africa or Japan. And some scope to codeshare with Aeroflot on LHR-SVO and as a consolation prize pick up some of the Russian traffic which the recent scarce capacity hearing denied them.

I can't judge whether DL would end up paying over the odds for the share of VS. But I do find myself wondering: if DL invested in Virgin Atlantic, would the next step be for them to buy out Virgin America?

If AFD (Air France-KLM + Delta) want to establish a proper hub (for medium/long haul + O&D) at LHR (good luck with that one! :hmm:) then they need to then buy further slots on behalf of Virgin, since VS long haul route network trails behind BA's long-haul route network, which cannot be fixed when you only hold 3% of LHR's slots

The only good reason that I see is that DL gains extra TATL frequencies and additional slots for AFD, maybe for DL they might take on VS's A330s and 747s as well

Lastly, I doubt if AF has the financial resources to finance the deal, DL might, but the EU would not let them do it alone

As for Delta buying Virgin America, I don't see it happening, VA are getting burned at SFO by UA and their LAX base is little better, I see them entering BK and shutting down, I suppose DL might take their A319s/A320s however (DL have a habit of taking on very good used planes)

If there is any airline in America (or even anywhere), that DL should by, then it is AA (which would be a great benefit to Delta, though UA is still a better merger partner for American)

[BALHR]

Why in the hell would they do that? Especially when they still have a code share with BA...

The Virgin brand is non-existent between Ireland and the UK. Aer Lingus on the other hand is very well known. If it does turn out to be Virgin, I could still see Aer Lingus having some type of brand presence, even if its just an "operated by Aer Lingus" logo on the aircraft.


Sorry, it was just a thought...

[fjencl]

Well I am sure over the coming days we will be finding out if it's aerlingus and avion express that are both going to be operating the virgin Atlantic domestic flights from LHR to MAN, EDI & ABZ.

[Cyrano]

If AFD (Air France-KLM + Delta) want to establish a proper hub (for medium/long haul + O&D) at LHR (good luck with that one! :hmm:) then they need to then buy further slots on behalf of Virgin, since VS long haul route network trails behind BA's long-haul route network, which cannot be fixed when you only hold 3% of LHR's slots

The only good reason that I see is that DL gains extra TATL frequencies and additional slots for AFD, maybe for DL they might take on VS's A330s and 747s as well

Lastly, I doubt if AF has the financial resources to finance the deal, DL might, but the EU would not let them do it alone

As for Delta buying Virgin America, I don't see it happening, VA are getting burned at SFO by UA and their LAX base is little better, I see them entering BK and shutting down, I suppose DL might take their A319s/A320s however (DL have a habit of taking on very good used planes)

If there is any airline in America (or even anywhere), that DL should by, then it is AA (which would be a great benefit to Delta, though UA is still a better merger partner for American)

I understand that you have strong views about how the airline world should be, and yet the world stubbornly continues to fail to align itself to your proposals.

If AFD (Air France-KLM + Delta) want to establish a proper hub (for medium/long haul + O&D) at LHR (good luck with that one! :hmm:) then they need to then buy further slots

I have not suggested that AF/KL/Delta want to establish a hub at LHR. On the contrary: AF/KL each have a large and functional hub already. Why would they want another? The UK point-to-point market is enough of a prize.

The only good reason that I see is that DL gains extra TATL frequencies and additional slots for AFD, maybe for DL they might take on VS's A330s and 747s as well

Air France/KLM does not need more slots in LHR. DL does not need to "take on" VS's A330s and 747s. I appreciate that you are a fan of the "the bigger the better" approach but in the real world, there is no clear benefit to Delta taking over VS routes and aircraft. VS has a strong brand in the UK and this brand (along with its LHR presence) is a large part of its attraction to a potential investor.

Lastly, I doubt if AF has the financial resources to finance the deal, DL might, but the EU would not let them do it alone
Reports state that DL would acquire SQ's 49% and AF would possibly take a further stake (potentially much less - it could be just a few percent).

If there is any airline in America (or even anywhere), that DL should by, then it is AA (which would be a great benefit to Delta, though UA is still a better merger partner for American)
Hint: pretending that regulatory and antitrust constraints don't exist doesn't actually make those constraints go away.

[goldeneye]

With Singapore Airlines touting the possibility of selling its stake in Virgin Atlantic, what are the chances that Etihad may want to buy the 49%.
They do have a stake in Virgin Australia and they are looking at Jet Airways.

[BALHR]

I have not suggested that AF/KL/Delta want to establish a hub at LHR. On the contrary: AF/KL each have a large and functional hub already. Why would they want another? The UK point-to-point market is enough of a prize.

What I meant was that as an O&D based focus city for long haul flights, AFD would have to buy further slots after buying VS, because VS in its current form simply does not have the long haul route network that can compete with BA and they can’t do anything about that with 3% of LHR’s slots

Also do you think they DL would reroute their AMS-BOM service from LHR?


Reports state that DL would acquire SQ's 49% and AF would possibly take a further stake (potentially much less - it could be just a few percent).


In that case if it turns as you (and others) are suggesting, then I suppose AF-KL can afford it, if they stick to a maximum of 15%

Air France/KLM does not need more slots in LHR. DL does not need to "take on" VS's A330s and 747s. I appreciate that you are a fan of the "the bigger the better" approach but in the real world, there is no clear benefit to Delta taking over VS routes and aircraft. VS has a strong brand in the UK and this brand (along with its LHR presence) is a large part of its attraction to a potential investor.


AF-KL might not need more LHR slots, but DL does, its USA-LHR services are around half of what UA and AA provide, so they are likely to use VS’s slots to launch more services from America to LHR (Also, what would happen to VS’s LGW base under DL/AF-KL ownership?)

Remember also that DL operates both the A330-300 and 747-400 and is well known for buying quality used aircraft of types they already have or are of similar type (most recently buying additional MD-90’s and 717’s), they could the VS A330 fleet for international expansion or replace older 767-300/300ERS and as for the 747-400s, well DL could use them for either international expansion or replace their older 747s (DL fleet includes some of the oldest 747-400s flying)

Lastly (this coming from VS several times and thinks they are a great airline), VS might have a great brand, but they are falling behind BA long-haul wise, for that to change (if they want to keep VS as a going concern) they would have to invest quite a lot and all that would do is drive yields down for both BA and VS

Frankly all I can see out of this (unless they shut VS down and take on its 747s, A330s and LHR slots) it’s that DL/AF-KL would spend money on VS, restructure the airline and then they would see that all that was for nothing and they would sell up, by then the only airline willing to buy VS is BA

Which would be similar to what LH did to BD, LH is a very profitable airline and they could cope with the losses that came from the LH/BD/BA deal (along with buyouts of LX, OS and SN), but would the same apply to DL and AF-KL? (Depending on how much of a stake they take on)

If AF-KL took on a small stake in VS (so that a DL takeover would be legal under EU law), then they would just about cope with a VS belly-up, but if they took a 51% stake for example then it could put the whole airline in trouble and unless the French and Dutch governments are prepared and allowed to bail-out the airline, if not then they would either:

1: Sell assets such as CityJet (maybe retain the Paris ops), Transavia and cargo ops

2: Put themselves up for sale

3: Shut down (this would be only as a last resort)

As for DL however, they would face a massive blow to their operations and they would become a takeover target (the last time DL was in trouble, US make an unsuccessful bid for the airline) or maybe even enter BK again or survive as an independent airline but face hard times ahead (when the US economy is not exactly thriving)

DL are better off buying AA or AS (or even both), because both those airlines would be of benefit overall for DL

As for your claims that I have a “the bigger, the better approach”, it’s not as simple as that, I feel that it’s not just about size, but yields, management, labour relations, route network, capacity and maybe other factors that makes a airline

The reason why I am suggesting a UA and DL are better merger partners for AA is that it would work out better for AA than merging with US, that airline would be of no benefit for AA and would not fix the problems AA are facing (lack of Trans-Pacific, Labour Relations), which would be mostly fixed by merging with UA or DL


Hint: pretending that regulatory and antitrust constraints don't exist doesn't actually make those constraints go away.


You talk about those constraints, however a combined DL-AA would barely have any bigger share of the domestic market than Southwest/AirTran, AA and DL share no hubs apart from JFK, and a combined DL/AA at NYC would be around the size UA is currently at NYC, so what competition problem do you see in a DL-AA merger?

You have to remember that America has too much competition in their aviation market for their airlines to be sustainable financially (even after reducing their service, undercutting their staff and BK), America needs to see this sooner rather than later.

[Hangar6]

Soooooo

EI to provide wet lease for ALL VS domestic from S13 using Dublin based crews.....

great news for EI :D

[fjencl]

I understood that Avion Express were going to be operating for Virgin? They have been recruiting for LHR based crews for several weeks now with a start date of March 2013 which ties in with the Virgin timing for their domestic services.

Wonder who Avion Express are going to be operating for if its correct that EI are going to do all of the Virgin Domestic uk services then.........

[Hangar6]

Well I can say that its not VS but of course they had to make a bid for the franchise , wet lease and that means proof of crew, equipment etc.

But on this occasion they lost out .

[Skipness One Echo]

so what competition problem do you see in a DL-AA merger?
The sheer <swear> size of the operation and overwhlming market share in certain strategic markets!!!! How can you *not* get that???

It's a behemouth of an idea. Have your years in commercial business management taught you nothing? Oh wait....

[ETOPS]

Take a look at this news report....

www.thesundaytimes.co.uk (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Industry/article1172853.ece)

[EI-BUD]

So lets say AF KLM was successful, would this be an opportunity for Cityjet to operate the domestic ex LHR and not EI as previous hinted? A return to Virgin Atlantic by Cityjet!!


May give a life line to Cityjet.? I am not so confident that AF KLM is the right partner 1. I sense that it will be similar scenario as LH + bmi, 2. Don't AF KLM have enough of their own worries to deal with now financially, rather than investing in VS.

[goldeneye]

I think it's unlikely that SRB will sell up VS completely. I'm still of the opinion a Middle East carrier (EY my best guess) will be a surprise buyer for SQ's stake. I may be wrong but I don't see AF/KLM coming in to this.

[Cyrano]

So lets say AF KLM was successful, would this be an opportunity for Cityjet to operate the domestic ex LHR and not EI as previous hinted? A return to Virgin Atlantic by Cityjet!!


May give a life line to Cityjet.? I am not so confident that AF KLM is the right partner 1. I sense that it will be similar scenario as LH + bmi, 2. Don't AF KLM have enough of their own worries to deal with now financially, rather than investing in VS.

In answer to your first question: no. CityJet has the wrong fleet and in any event AF is moving forward rapidly on offloading them (short listed buyers already in the data room).

Second, if you look at the proposed VS deal structure, Delta would be doing the heavy lifting in terms of buying 49% of VS - AFKL would theoretically only need to acquire a couple of percent. AFKL do indeed have their own worries, but nor can they afford to put strategy on hold while they sort out their house.

And in any case the announcement about VS/EI should appear in the next couple of days.

[beamender99]

Willie Walsh: Virgin Atlantic brand could soon be history - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9733506/Willie-Walsh-Virgin-Atlantic-brand-could-soon-be-history.html)

[davidjohnson6]

Mr Walsh - that's a very large pot you have there. Would you like an extra big spoon with which to do the stirring ?

[Skipness One Echo]

He's making a very good point. What would be the value to Delta of almost owning one of your competitors?
Think of the difference in the cultures between Delta, a *very* particular culture, certainly before taking over NWA and Virgin Atlantic. There are no fleet synergies worth mentioning. The temptation to reduce VS to a LGW based beach fleet and allow DL to take on AA/BA with a proper sized LHR operation would be an awesome prospect in ATL. Remember some 10/38 Virgin aircraft are on leisure routes from LGW and MAN / GLA, Delta could happily keep Virgin Atlantic going as a concern, possibly flying the ten A330s on these routes. The aging B744s and remaining A340s could be rolled over as more DL capacity is added into LHR. SRB's mantra of competition is maintained as DL and BA/AA are very much competitors in the same markets.

It's like BMI Baby. Why buy it to run it when you could do it better yourself, except in this case you need to buy it for the slots. Virgin have ~ 22 daily departures out of LHR, very tempting but not overwhelming for any operation to take over and run.
Tempting options would be replacing Virgin capacity to EWR and JFK to give a properly competitve offering on the very lucrative LHR-JFK, up against, again, AA/BA.

[BleedingOn]

Questions for those that know more than me on these matters...

The remedy slots that are to be operated domestically by EI on a wet lease, is there any restriction in their issuance that requires them to be used solely for EDI/ABZ indefinitely? Can they be "transformed" into long haul slots at a later date?

Also, is there any restriction on using a wet lease operator for these slots? Would Virgin be required to take them "in house" after a certain period of time?

[MCDU2]

I have seen 3 years mentioned after which all bets are off. I honestly can't see them operating in the long term domestically. Much more profit to be made flying further afield.

[Omnipresent]

The slots cannot be converted to long-haul (apart from the routes mentioned in the EX decision - Cairo etc). They can only be used for the specified routes for six IATA seasons after which they can be used for other short-haul routes in Europe.

[Cyrano]

Questions for those that know more than me on these matters...

The remedy slots that are to be operated domestically by EI on a wet lease, is there any restriction in their issuance that requires them to be used solely for EDI/ABZ indefinitely? Can they be "transformed" into long haul slots at a later date?

From the EC judgement (PDF) (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m6447_20120330_20212_2452290_EN.pdf):
1.3.1 As a general rule, the Slots obtained by the Prospective Entrant from IAG as a result of the Slot Release Procedure shall be used only to provide a Competitive Air Service on the Relevant City Pair for which the Prospective Entrant has requested them from IAG through the Slot Release Procedure. These Slots cannot be used on another city pair unless the Prospective Entrant has operated the Relevant City Pair for which these Slots have been transferred for a number of full consecutive IATA Seasons (“Utilisation Period”).
1.3.2 The Prospective Entrant will be deemed to have grandfathering rights for the Slots once appropriate use of the Slots has been made on the Relevant City Pair for the Utilisation Period. In this regard, once the Utilisation Period has elapsed, the Prospective Entrant will be entitled to use the Slots obtained on the basis of these Commitments exclusively to operate services on any European Short-haul City Pair or the Identified Long-haul City Pairs (“Grandfathering”).

The "Utilisation Period" is defined as 6 IATA seasons (3 years). Once 3 years is up, VS can use them either for any short-haul service or for Cairo, Moscow or Riyadh (the "Identified Long-haul City Pairs"). But on the basis of a cursory read of the Commitments (and I'm happy to be proven wrong), VS is not allowed to use these slots for any other long-haul services after 3 years.

Also, is there any restriction on using a wet lease operator for these slots? Would Virgin be required to take them "in house" after a certain period of time?

I don't think there's any restriction, and that makes sense in my view. The purpose of the remedies is to enforce competition to BA on short-haul routes. From the consumer's point of view, that competition is the same (i.e. a VS-marketed flight, with various other codeshares) whether or not the red A320 happens to have a tiny green shamrock beside the entry door.

[Skipness One Echo]

Sir Richard Branson makes £1m challenge to Willie Walsh - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9734802/Sir-Richard-Branson-makes-1m-challenge-to-Willie-Walsh.html)

Seems Mr Walsh has touched a nerve! SRB wants to "bet a million pounds".
That sounds worrying desperate! He needs to rise above that sort of thing as ut sounds as though the good night doth protest too much. It's getting wierd......

[Torquelink]

Some possible reasons why Delta/AF-KLM might want to keep the VAA brand rather than just use slots (suppositions not facts):


Brand loyalty - if brand ditched no guarantee pax will stay with Delta
Higher yields route for route than Delta - use Delta leverage to reduce costs and therefore make VAA profitable
Route rights to the East from LHR
Airlines evolving into multi-brands like hotels - VAA brand could be rolled out elsewhere targetted at specifc demographic
No deal with SRB without brand retention for at least five years (as per article)

Any others?

[GEB74]

Somewhat lost in all the hoohaa, but Virgin have actually handed 3 of the remedy slot pairs back to BA.
The 3 MAN rotations are timetabled using existing Virgin slots that were leased out to other carriers.
6 EDI and 3 ABZ means 3 slots not taken up.
Now, i know they had to use them on limited routes and they didn't get Moscow rights and Cairo is f****d right now, Riyadh is not a good place to send an aircraft with Virgin emblazoned on it etc etc, but yet another example of a half hearted, half arsed effort from Virgin.
Gifted precious slots on a plate and hand a quarter of them back to the competition:ugh:

[BasilBush]

I'm not sure that VS have handed back the slots to BA. Presumably if VS don't intend to use the remaining slots then they go back to the slot trustee. The slot trustee should then re-offer them to other airlines who might be prepared to operate the relevant routes. If there is anyone, of course. At least that's how I assume it would work.

[GEB74]

Basilbrush - true to an extent. But if nobody else comes forward, back to BA the slots go. Now that another Carrier (Virgin) is starting Scottish to LHR, do you seriously think a third airline will come forward?
Moscow has been divvied our rights wise so can't see owt happening there.
Cairo is a basket case in waiting
Air France from Nice?........:p:p
I don't know about the rights on Riyadh, but unless Saudia are allowed more flights to UK, then thats a no go as well.
I'm pretty confident Virgin have just gifted these slots back to BA

[PAXboy]

Brand loyalty - if brand ditched no guarantee pax will stay with Delta

Ain't that the truth! I do not travel so much these days but VS are still my preferred long haul carrier and if they went, I would have to reconsider all other carriers before choosing. However, I am not a typical pax as I am extremely picky about carrier and the specific aircraft and I willingly pay more to get my choice.

Having never travelled on Delta, I know little about them but one can say that there is no buzz of 'difference' or 'special' such as one hears about, say, Singapore or some of the new Middle East carriers.

I have travelled on United, North West (as they were) Eastern (as they were) and Continental (before Bethune and before it's sale) and recall most of the trips as being unmemorable and some downright horrible. One long haul on United in Y ensured that I did not repeat the mistake.

I have very deliberately never crossed the Pond on anything other than BA or VS and cannot imagine me deciding that Delta was the way to go without a lot of people I know telling me it was worth my money. Oh, and a Team with several carriers that are on my personal no-fly list?

[Serenity]

Well I've crossed the pond on BA, Virgin, American and Delta.
I would rate the attentiveness and customer service to be best from the US carriers.
I'm afraid the British standards of service have fallen well below par over the past decade, and it shows.
Time to buck up Britain.

Not to mention that going eastbound I found Cathay, Malaysian and co surpass the lot!!

[Cyrano]

Somewhat lost in all the hoohaa, but Virgin have actually handed 3 of the remedy slot pairs back to BA.
The 3 MAN rotations are timetabled using existing Virgin slots that were leased out to other carriers.
6 EDI and 3 ABZ means 3 slots not taken up.
Now, i know they had to use them on limited routes and they didn't get Moscow rights and Cairo is f****d right now, Riyadh is not a good place to send an aircraft with Virgin emblazoned on it etc etc, but yet another example of a half hearted, half arsed effort from Virgin.
Gifted precious slots on a plate and hand a quarter of them back to the competition:ugh:

The remedy slots were for EDI, ABZ, MOW, CAI, RUH and NCE, and 7 of them were limited to EDI/ABZ. No remedy slots to MAN were available so VS would have had to use their own slots for MAN anyway.

So if VS had taken on the 3 additional slots you think they should have taken, they would have had to either start CAI/RUH/NCE or else increase frequency on EDI or ABZ beyond the existing levels (i.e. an additional aircraft). What do you suggest they should have done with these "slots on a plate"?

If you read the actual Commitments (link in my 10 Dec post above), you'll see (section 1.1.3 on p.173) that if VS operates EDI and ABZ for a year, it's entitled to apply for the remaining slots and use them for any European short-haul route. That seems a pretty reasonable deal to me.

If you want to have a pop at VS, fine, be my guest :cool:, but maybe best to at least do so based on facts?

[Basil]

. . that Virgin won't survive. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9736344/Willie-Walsh-wagers-Sir-Richard-Branson-a-knee-in-the-groin-that-Virgin-Atlantic-wont-survive.html)

Virgin Atlantic brand would be consigned to the history books if US giant Delta buys a 49pc stake

He suggested a £1m wager would not be fair as Sir Richard is a “billionaire banker”.

“I don’t think a million pounds would hurt him, I don’t have a million pounds so maybe a bet that would be as painful to him as it might be to me – so maybe something like a knee in the groin,” Mr Walsh said.

The IAG chief said he didn’t know Sir Richard very well but “on the limited occasions” he had met him he hasn’t seen anything that would “make me want to meet him again”.

[Shamrogue]

Delta seals deal for 49% of Virgin Atlantic | News | Travel Trade Gazette (http://www.ttgdigital.com/news/delta-seals-deal-for-49-of-virgin-atlantic/4686118.article)

[fjencl]

Wow things have moved very quickly with that deal........

[beamender99]

49% Sold to Delta for $360.00 Million
Delta seals deal for 49% of Virgin Atlantic | News | Travel Trade Gazette (http://www.ttgdigital.com/news/delta-seals-deal-for-49-of-virgin-atlantic/4686118.article)Unable to access the full details so try this

BBC News - Delta to buy Virgin Atlantic stake from Singapore Airlines (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20680680)

[irishlad06]

There have been at few rumours flying around that the remainder slots will be used to NCE which EI will also fly for them. ill wait til its confirmed.

[CKT789]

Does Virgin Atlantic have any marketing deals with Virgin America? If so, how are these affected by this deal?

[jabird]

they would have had to either start CAI/RUH/NCE

I'd love to see the VS staff parties on the RUH run!

He needs to rise above that sort of thing as ut sounds as though the good night doth protest too much. It's getting wierd......

Nothing wrong with a bit of free publicity, Beardie has been doing it for years, but MOL has got much better at it.

I just yawned when he said he "could have sued". For what? WW made a prediction based on a perfectly reasonable assessment of the market. Nothing actionable at all, unless we really have descended into a sue everyone for everything mentality! At least our American cousins have the 1st Amendment for that!

And then I love it when the Bearded one complains that BA have the most slots at Heathrow, our biggest airport.

Well Euston is our most important long haul railway station, and guess who has ALL the daytime long haul slots?

Pop over to St Pancras for a "rival" service from East Midlands Trains, and guess which company is behind them AND Virgin Rail? Yup, Stagecoach on both counts!

Hate to say it, but Sir Beardie is no longer the shwashbuckling renegade I grew up admiring. Just a very tired gamekeeper.

[SWBKCB]

Hate to say it, but Sir Beardie is no longer the shwashbuckling renegade I grew up admiring. Just a very tired gamekeeper.

Never trust a hippy...

[GEB74]

Cyrano - correct about no remedy slots available for Manchester.
You very conveniently sidestepped the fact that the only reason Virgin are bothering to start a useless frequency of 3 daily to MAN is that they had to been seen to do something with the slots they had leased out BEFORE they could apply for the remedy slots - hence the earlier announced Manchester service.
So they've lost the revenue from leasing out three slots to enable them to operate a half assed schedule to MAN that will almost certainly lose them money to enable them to bid for 12 slots pairs of which they have only taken up 9.
Lose revenue, to lose money, to give a quarter of the slots back to your competitor..........Great business, not.
If they launch 3 daily NCE, fair play to them.
If nobody else goes for the slots and Virgin get the opportunity to use them on a European route in 2014, where do YOU see them rushing to serve?? My interpretation is that they couldn't use the slots for MAN as it is domestic, so they couldn't free their own 3 slots back up for long haul. The promise of these slots on looser terms in 2014 is worthless to Virgin if you can't operate long haul with them.

[lexoncd]

So really all thats changed is Delta now has the 49% share Singapore had. Beardy always retains that crucial 51% holding. KLM/Air France buying the remaining 51% would now seem wide of the mark.

[Cyrano]

Cyrano - correct about no remedy slots available for Manchester.
You very conveniently sidestepped the fact that the only reason Virgin are bothering to start a useless frequency of 3 daily to MAN is that they had to been seen to do something with the slots they had leased out BEFORE they could apply for the remedy slots - hence the earlier announced Manchester service.
So they've lost the revenue from leasing out three slots to enable them to operate a half assed schedule to MAN that will almost certainly lose them money to enable them to bid for 12 slots pairs of which they have only taken up 9.
Lose revenue, to lose money, to give a quarter of the slots back to your competitor..........Great business, not.
If they launch 3 daily NCE, fair play to them.
If nobody else goes for the slots and Virgin get the opportunity to use them on a European route in 2014, where do YOU see them rushing to serve?? My interpretation is that they couldn't use the slots for MAN as it is domestic, so they couldn't free their own 3 slots back up for long haul. The promise of these slots on looser terms in 2014 is worthless to Virgin if you can't operate long haul with them.

Not sure that I "very conveniently sidestepped" anything. :hmm: I don't work for Virgin and have no reason to defend them. You're quite right that they had to show they were using the MAN slots before being able to apply for the other remedy slots (as a result, Aer Lingus (the former lessee of the slots) is facing some LHR schedule adjustments next summer).

FWIW, I am not at all convinced by the economics of the MAN service either - indeed, I'm not particularly convinced by EDI or ABZ, for that matter, but I see the play as being more of a long-term one: hang in there for three years and if it's not working, then switch the slots to other short-haul.

Is that a smart move? Well, let's say it seems a bit smarter now that DL with its deep pockets owns 49%, and will likely seem a bit smarter still if/when AF/KL takes a stake somewhere down the road.

Where do I see Virgin "rushing to serve", in your words? 3 daily NCE would be overkill and would lose them money (even if it earns them your respect ;) ) But in a year or two I could imagine them using the slots for (for example) a VS/AF service to CDG, freeing up some of AF's LHR slots to enable some more Delta transatlantic services (with a bit of timing juggling, just as AF and KL made space in LHR for DL and their then-partner CO when OpenSkies came about).

I think AF/KL will come into this picture in a year or two (Delta's CEO used the word "accretive" in today's press conference when asked about this, i.e. AFKL and AZ can be added on to the bilateral DL/VS joint venture) and at that point the slot puzzle becomes easier to solve.

I understand that in your view it makes no business sense for VS to have incurred losses to be able to acquire slots, and then not to take up all the slots. I can question various aspects of VS strategy, but if they figured that the least loss-making thing they could do with those last 3 slots would lose them more than they'd ever get back in the future, I can't necessarily fault them for that specific decision.

C.

[jdcg]

Please could someone explain to me: the slots that VS (3 of 8) has returned, do they now get used by BA and do they have to be used LHR to CAI / RUH / NCE?

[chipsbrand]

The biggest problem that VS are going to have on their domestic routes is that there is no way the product can be competitive with BA. The issue is frequency. They will be operating 3 pd on MAN (against BA with 11), 4 on EDI (against BA with 13) and 3 on ABZ (against BA with 11). Presumably their own priorities will be on their own connecting traffic and even for this they will have weak schedules. In terms of appeal to business traffic their offering is so bad that they are unlikely to be able to compete for any significant corportae traffic. Certain financial losses on a large scale would seem to be the inevitable result. I wish them luck but...

[V_2]

You're quite right that they had to show they were using the MAN slots before being able to apply for the other remedy slots (as a result, Aer Lingus (the former lessee of the slots) is facing some LHR schedule adjustments next summer).

I always thought that Cyprus Airways were leasing the original slots. This article (amongst others) suggests they are too: Virgin Atlantic to enter short-haul market | ATWOnline (http://atwonline.com/airline-finance-data/news/virgin-atlantic-enter-short-haul-market-0820)

Did Aer Lingus have some others too? Just curious

[BasilBush]

GEB74 - I think that the unused slots could be used to free up the MAN slots after a year (if no other airline has claimed them in the meantime). The EC decision states that they can be used on any European city pair, and this is defined as the EU, Norway etc. The last time I looked, the UK was still in the EU!

So VS would be able after a year to shift the MAN slots to long haul, and use the currently unallocated remedy slots to continue to operate MAN.

[WHBM]

The biggest problem that VS are going to have on their domestic routes is that there is no way the product can be competitive with BA. The issue is frequency. They will be operating 3 pd on MAN (against BA with 11)
I recall back in the 1980s Dan-Air got licences on Heathrow to Manchester, which they operated 3 times daily against BA who had their hourly Shuttle.

No reservations needed on thr Dan-Air flights either because they typically had 25% loads, and sometimes less. That was with fully flexible tickets where you could readily transfer onto their flights if your company had issued you with a BA ticket.

I can't quite see either how the three flights will be "scheduled to connect" with Virgin's fair number of long-haul flights, when these are all somewhat evenly spread throughout the day.

[TSR2]

I recall back in the 1980s Dan-Air got licences on Heathrow to Manchester

Yes and their biggest problem that killed the route was that their aircraft had to park on a remote stand at LHR and pax had a lengthy bus ride to the terminal. I hope VS will not be disadvantaged in the same way.

[Cyrano]

I always thought that Cyprus Airways were leasing the original slots. This article (amongst others) suggests they are too: Virgin Atlantic to enter short-haul market | ATWOnline (http://atwonline.com/airline-finance-data/news/virgin-atlantic-enter-short-haul-market-0820)

Did Aer Lingus have some others too? Just curious

That's interesting! I'm pretty sure Aer Lingus had at least one slot leased from VS, so maybe that's where the three slots came from? 2 from CY and 1 from EI?

[colegate]

I have been loking in detail at the VS domestic schedules as published today in Business Traveller. They are truly shockingly bad both from an aircraft utilisation point of view and from a passenger demand point of view. Start with LHR/MAN. No early morning departure. First flight is 0920 and then nothing before 1620. From MAN first flight is 0650 and then next is 1220. You have to be cynical about how these schedules can in any way be attractive for point to point traffic or connecting traffic. For example who is going to use an 0650 flight for a connection at LHR at,say,1200? or 1500?
ABZ is a classic business route where the train competition is dire. VS first flight from LHR is 0930 and then nothing until 1530.
In the other direction the first flight is at 0635 and then nothing until 1155.
On EDI where the frequency is better the gaps still look horrible. Deps ex LHR are 0645 0910 1120 1515 1625 1950. It is as bad coming south.
When you put it into an aircraft plot there are two aircraft on the ground at LHR for approx 3 hours in the middle of the day. There is a lot of operational integrity but it is very slack on aircraft utilisation and on crew utilisation and therefore high on unit costs.
The whole thing looks like a commercial "train wreck". My professional background in things like aircraft scheduling and airline marketing just tells me this thing cannot work

[Gpik]

ABZ - LHR arrival 0815.
MAN - LHR arrival 0800
EDI - LHR arrival 0810

Connects with LAX 1125, MIA 1245, BOM 1035, JFK3 0920, SFO 1100, NRT 1200, IAD 1130. all within 3 hr connection.

ABZ - LHR arrival 1335.
MAN - LHR arrival 1330.
EDI - LHR arrival 1250.

Connects with BOS 1500, LAX23 1515, JFK9 1650, EWR1 1600. All generally within 3 hr connection

ABZ - LHR arrival 1915.
MAN - LHR arrival 1900.
EDI- LHR arrival 1905.
EDI- LHR arrival 2015

Connects with ACC 2230, CPT 2105*, DEL 2150, DXB 2110, HKG 2125, JNB 2030, LOS 2220, EWR 2010. All 3ish hour connections

Return.

LHR - ABZ Departure 0930
LHR - MAN Departure 0920
LHR - EDI Departure 0645 (HKG only)
LHR - EDI Departure 0910

Connects from BOS 0720, HKG 0450, JNB 0650, BOM 0750, JFK4 0620, JFK46 0740, IAD 0655.

LHR - ABZ Departure 1530
LHR - MAN Departure 1610
LHR - EDI Departure 1515 and 1620

Connects with DXB 1415, LAX8 1335,

LHR - ABZ Departure 2015
LHR - MAN Departure 2010
LHR - EDI Departure 1950

Connects with ACC 1740, DEL 1755, LOS 1655, PVG 1655.

LHR - EDI obviously connects with more flights in the middle of the day.

Sorry colegate, connections seem to work?

I understand your point about a/c utilisation however VS have there hands tied with slots available. No?

[Blighty Pilot]

:D:D:D:D:D

Finally! Someone who realises why the flights are scheduled at certain times and why the shorthaul product is being established. This venture is 99.99% about feeder traffic to the long haul product. Of course VS will be delighted to carry pax between ABZ,MAN, EDI and LHR but the aim of the game is to feed their LH network.
In the future, as and when the Delta tie up gets approval, then someone from ABZ will be able to travel to anywhere in the USA via LHR and JFK without the need to reclaim baggage or check in at various airports - hopefully a seemless transition (especially using the clubhouse if applicable :ok:).

[colegate]

Excellent analysis Gpik. But I have looked through the BA schedules and on every one of those routes they have better connections and all of them are through the same terminal at LHR. Operating connecting flights through 2 different LHR terminals will be a substantial disadvantage for VS. And Blighty Pilot Virgin has argued publicly that they will be bringing competition to domestic routes. Their public arguments have not been about connecting flights.

[DaveReidUK]

And Blighty Pilot Virgin has argued publicly that they will be bringing competition to domestic routes.

Yes, they have and yes, they will.

Their public arguments have not been about connecting flights.

Well it probably never occurred to VS that it wouldn't be obvious to everyone why they're doing it.

[WHBM]

In the future, as and when the Delta tie up gets approval, then someone from ABZ will be able to travel to anywhere in the USA via LHR and JFK without the need to reclaim baggage or check in at various airports - hopefully a seamless transition......
I am always dismayed by these statements about the various airline tie-ups or launching additional flights from hubs, that refer to a "new" ability to make connections as if it was analogous to the Second Coming of Christ.

A generation ago you could connect from EVERYTHING to EVERYTHING at Heathrow, and indeed most other points, in this manner, courtesy of the standard IATA agreement of the time. It was the carriers themselves that threw this "seamless transition" away.

Furthermore you have been able to transfer from Aberdeen to "anywhere" (actually not) in the USA all along, courtesy of BA and their longstanding partner American through Heathrow, KLM and their longer-standing partner Northwest (now Delta) through Amsterdam, etc. All we have now is another me-too operation.

By the way, the last time I looked these new domestic flights were to be operated into T1, Virgin operate out of T3, and Delta operate out of T4. That is going to lead to goodness-knows how many misdirected pax and Seamlessly Lost connecting bags.

[islandhopper]

I think you'll find that the new Virgin domestic will operate alongside longhaul in T3 ,where a new domestic arrivals area is being created for them allowing the connections to work easily.

[Skipness One Echo]

This venture is 99.99% about feeder traffic to the long haul product.
I understand this is a tricky squaring of a circle though as without decent hijgh fares on P2P, a fraction of a long haul revenue leaves the short haul deeply in the red. This remains true of BA and more so of BMI in later years.

[BA318]

Islandhopper I think you'll find the flights will operate from T1 and then T2 when it opens. It was announced a while back.

Virgin Atlantic Airways - Popup (http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/gb/frequentflyer/offersandnews/latestnews/newrouteaug12.jsp)

[WHBM]

I understand this is a tricky squaring of a circle though as without decent hijgh fares on P2P, a fraction of a long haul revenue leaves the short haul deeply in the red. This remains true of BA and more so of BMI in later years.
You are correct. BA not only have well over half the pax on Heathrow-Scotland P2P (which I derive from discussion with seatmates over the years), but also the "loss" caused by low attribution of through fares to the domestic sector, although appearing in the accountants books as such, will get nodded through by WW and the board who understand these things and the corporate benefit to long-haul. BMI's issue was that they had no long-haul out of Heathrow, and in latter years such traffic was just an accounting gift to their fellow Star Alliance partners. They got the long-haul benefit, while BMI took the connecting leg low revenue share losses.

[V_2]

I think you'll find that the new Virgin domestic will operate alongside longhaul in T3 ,where a new domestic arrivals area is being created for them allowing the connections to work easily.

That is very interesting news. Do you have any sources?

Virgin atlantic seem to think otherwise...

Manchester operating terminals (http://virginatlantic.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/744/related/1)
London/Manchester service - Upper Class extras (http://virginatlantic.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/746)

[goldeneye]

T1 is due for demolition once T2 opens, I believe T2 is going to have the ability to handle domestic where as T3 does not have that facility, hence the connection from T1 to T3. Is T4 capable of domestic and international ?

[Gpik]

VS have confirmed that they will not be moving there long haul ops to T2, Domestic ops will move to T2 in 2014 and they are discussing options with BAA to build some facility at T3 for domestic ops. DL and VS have also confirmed that they are looking at ways to consolidate their ops in T3 once the JV approved.

[Gove N.T.]

"A generation ago you could connect from EVERYTHING to EVERYTHING at Heathrow"
You still can if the carriers have interline agreements.
Carriers haven't "thrown this seamless transition away". Many pax now book their flights themselves - usually on a point to point (PTP) basis using the cheapest fare for each carrier and often the shortest (sometimes under the MCT)connection time - I mean who wants to stay at LHR longer than necessary (or any airport for that matter). So with separate tickets comes separate contracts and no permission to interline (through-check) baggage.
Through fares are still quoted and bags may be through checked based on interline agreements in accordance with the IATA Resolution 780e.
I suspect that there will be some moves to accommodate VS/DL which has the whole of the south wing checkin area at T3. SQ recently "borrowed" space there from VS. Star Alliance has been accommodated.
LHR transfer baggage mishandling has significantly reduced with the advent of inter-terminal baggage tracking and the BRS. It is true that the more times you handle a bag the more likely it is to be mishandled but VS has an excellent record of safe delivery on the right flight/right day.

[WHBM]

VS has an excellent record of safe delivery on the right flight/right day.
Isn't that because (until this latest development) they haven't had any connecting flights ? !!

If I were Delta I would want Virgin in Skyteam with me. And Skyteam are firmly based in T4.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "T1 is due for demolition once T2 opens, I believe T2 is going to have the ability to handle domestic where as T3 does not have that facility, hence the connection from T1 to T3. Is T4 capable of domestic and international ?"

AFAIK, plse correct if it is wrong: (1) VS domestic will be in LHR-1 where there is an underused domestic pier; (2) when LHR-1 is demolished this will shift to LHR-2 where there will be a domestic arrivals area (as in LHR-5); (3) VS will move its entire LHR operation to LHR-2 taking the space originally earmarked for BD.


LHR-1 to LHR-3 is an easy transfer, whether on the airside bus or landslide via the tunnels that link the terminals and the bus/rail/tube stations.

Will BA move its LHR-1 operation to LHR-2 as well?

LHR-3 and LHR-4 do not have domestic arrival areas.

[Skipness One Echo]

Will BA move its LHR-1 operation to LHR-2 as well?
When T1 closes, the T1 operation moves to T3 as the STAR airlines will be moving to T2. What happens to BHD/DUB/LBA remains to be seen, as they need a domestic or CTA facility which will only be available for the T5 routes.

[WHBM]

I see a lot of discussion about how good the Delta onward connections will be for Virgin pax going onward in the USA.

However, the current Virgin routes, and the Delta network in the USA, do not mesh together well at all. The main hubs for Delta are (in rough order) Atlanta, Detroit, Minneapolis, and Salt Lake. Virgin serves none of these.

Virgin's principal operations are to JFK, Los Angeles, etc. Although Delta are a major player at JFK, they do not have a lot of domestic connectivity there, most are low frequency and/or to other major places already served directly from London by one or the other of the two carriers. If you have ever actually tried to make a connection at JFK, it's probably the worst gateway for that in the USA. Delta's main domestic hub in the New York area is now La Guardia, which they have built up substantially in recent years.

Los Angeles is in a far corner of the USA and offers few onward connecting possibilities.

I certainly don't see Delta handing any market share from London to Atlanta or Detroit etc over to Virgin; these are some of their most profitable routes.

[PAXboy]

LAX is a good jump off for HNL but Delta use the 767 a great deal and it's always been one of my least favourite. I'll continue to make my own choice of who I travel with.

As to them joining the Team? Not for a goodly while, methinks.

[BALHR]

understood that Avion Express were going to be operating for Virgin? They have been recruiting for LHR based crews for several weeks now with a start date of March 2013 which ties in with the Virgin timing for their domestic services.

Wonder who Avion Express are going to be operating for if its correct that EI are going to do all of the Virgin Domestic uk services then.........


Would it not be better to base the crews in London?


So lets say AF KLM was successful, would this be an opportunity for Cityjet to operate the domestic ex LHR and not EI as previous hinted? A return to Virgin Atlantic by Cityjet!!

May give a life line to Cityjet.? I am not so confident that AF KLM is the right partner 1. I sense that it will be similar scenario as LH + bmi, 2. Don't AF KLM have enough of their own worries to deal with now financially, rather than investing in VS.


Cityjet would need to get some A319s/A320s from AF-KL if they do gain the contract

On the other matter, AF/KL/DL is making a mistake in buying into an airline (a rather decent one) that a business model that no longer makes sense in the aviation market that has changed since its formation

If DL want more LHR slots/bigger share of TATL, they can get that and more by buying AA


I think it's unlikely that SRB will sell up VS completely. I'm still of the opinion a Middle East carrier (EY my best guess) will be a surprise buyer for SQ's stake. I may be wrong but I don't see AF/KLM coming in to this.


That might be the case, but the trouble is that SRB cannot live forever, so before he retires (unless his children are interested), he would have to sell up and the only partner that makes sense is BA, whether SRB likes it or not, if not, then he should put his money where its mouth is…


EY would make a disastrous mistake in investing in VS; I hope they look at the failure that was EK’s investment in SriLankan Airlines



Willie Walsh: Virgin Atlantic brand could soon be history - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9733506/Willie-Walsh-Virgin-Atlantic-brand-could-soon-be-history.html)

I doubt it would be within 5 years, but unless SRB is prepared to buy BA from IAG (not very likely…) then it would be within 20 years (when SRB retires), because by then VS would have been squeezed by its rivals and like I have said before, their business plan is on the stubbornness and passions of SRB

The only way a deal with VS would work for DL is to basically transfer everything to Delta (LHR slots, 747-400s, A330-300s etc) and maybe DL could launch some UK-India routes in the process (they have a limited presence in India compared to United and that will get worse over time

[BALHR]

He's making a very good point. What would be the value to Delta of almost owning one of your competitors?
Think of the difference in the cultures between Delta, a *very* particular culture, certainly before taking over NWA and Virgin Atlantic. There are no fleet synergies worth mentioning. The temptation to reduce VS to a LGW based beach fleet and allow DL to take on AA/BA with a proper sized LHR operation would be an awesome prospect in ATL. Remember some 10/38 Virgin aircraft are on leisure routes from LGW and MAN / GLA, Delta could happily keep Virgin Atlantic going as a concern, possibly flying the ten A330s on these routes. The aging B744s and remaining A340s could be rolled over as more DL capacity is added into LHR. SRB's mantra of competition is maintained as DL and BA/AA are very much competitors in the same markets.

It's like BMI Baby. Why buy it to run it when you could do it better yourself, except in this case you need to buy it for the slots. Virgin have ~ 22 daily departures out of LHR, very tempting but not overwhelming for any operation to take over and run.
Tempting options would be replacing Virgin capacity to EWR and JFK to give a properly competitve offering on the very lucrative LHR-JFK, up against, again, AA/BA.


Good to see someone agreeing on one of my suggestions:

Firstly however, the leisure fleet will consist of a dozen 747-400s once they are refurbished, the LHR will consist of the remaining 747s, A340s and A330s

If DL is going to buy VS (rather than AA), then the only way to make this work is take control and spilt the airline into 2 (Delta UK and Virgin Atlantic)

Delta UK would consist of the “old” VS’s LHR operations/slots/routes, the A330-300s, the A340-600s and the non-leisure 747-400s, it would be 51% owned by Air France-KLM (though letting DL manage things) and 49% owned by Delta

Delta UK's assets and staff will gradually be folded into Delta itself until its becomes an asset-less shell, when that happens Delta UK will shut down and its AOC handed back

The “new” Virgin Atlantic would consist of the leisure 747-400s and the LGW/MAN operations/slots/routes, it would be 51% owned by Virgin Holidays and 49% by Delta UK (which would later be transfered to Delta)


(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9734802/Sir-Richard-Branson-makes-1m-challenge-to-Willie-Walsh.html)
Sir Richard Branson makes £1m challenge to Willie Walsh - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9734802/Sir-Richard-Branson-makes-1m-challenge-to-Willie-Walsh.html)
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9734802/Sir-Richard-Branson-makes-1m-challenge-to-Willie-Walsh.html)

Seems Mr Walsh has touched a nerve! SRB wants to "bet a million pounds".
That sounds worrying desperate! He needs to rise above that sort of thing as ut sounds as though the good night doth protest too much. It's getting wierd......

Why can’t SRB see that BA is not the airline of the era of dirty tricks?

Why can’t he see that BA are by far the best partners for VS?

Why can’t he see the real enemy is not within the UK, but in Europe and the Middle East, along with the North Atlantic?

If he does not like BA competing with VS, then buy the airline of IAG (who could use the money to fix IB, along with preventing BA from being dragged down by the problems at IB)




Some possible reasons why Delta/AF-KLM might want to keep the VAA brand rather than just use slots (suppositions not facts):

Brand loyalty - if brand ditched no guarantee pax will stay with Delta
Higher yields route for route than Delta - use Delta leverage to reduce costs and therefore make VAA profitable
Route rights to the East from LHR
Airlines evolving into multi-brands like hotels - VAA brand could be rolled out elsewhere targetted at specifc demographic
No deal with SRB without brand retention for at least five years (as per article)
Any others?


The problem with VS is that it just cannot compete with BA, LH, EK, and QR, it fix it will cost even more money and then it would end up becoming a battle of the fittest between the Franco-American VS and BA, whoever wins both airlines would take on massive losses and frankly I doubt if DL or AF-KL can even afford it this, DL might but it would get little out of all of this, unlike buying AA…

The only reason airlines use several brands is that either they want to differentiate between their full-service and LCC ops (Qantas-Jetstar) or due to limitations such as bilaterals (Lufthansa-Swiss International-Austrian Airlines-Brussels Airlines) or in the case of Taiwan, political issues

Delta does to have to face any of those issues, it gave up on its LCC for a start (Song) and its base of operations is within one country, if they were interested in operating under different brand name then it would still be using the “Northwest Airlines” and “Pan American” brands

DL could use the VS brand east of LHR; trouble is that they already operate East of Europe under their own brand (AMS-BOM)


Somewhat lost in all the hoohaa, but Virgin have actually handed 3 of the remedy slot pairs back to BA.
The 3 MAN rotations are timetabled using existing Virgin slots that were leased out to other carriers.
6 EDI and 3 ABZ means 3 slots not taken up.
Now, i know they had to use them on limited routes and they didn't get Moscow rights and Cairo is f****d right now, Riyadh is not a good place to send an aircraft with Virgin emblazoned on it etc etc, but yet another example of a half hearted, half arsed effort from Virgin.
Gifted precious slots on a plate and hand a quarter of them back to the competition:ugh:


Can’t they use those 3 slots to make LHR-MAN 6 X Daily?

Certainly help compete with BA’s 8 X Daily Service in terms of long haul connections

Or maybe launch LHR-GLA (if they so desperate to weaken the BA “monopoly” then you cannot find many better routes than that one)

Also is it not the case that VS is appealing the Moscow rights decision?

As for Riyadh, maybe they could paint a burka over the mascot and call themselves “Charisma Airlines” (after the record label that was bought by Virgin) in a similar way to Air Sinai, KLM Asia etc :)

Basilbrush - true to an extent. But if nobody else comes forward, back to BA the slots go. Now that another Carrier (Virgin) is starting Scottish to LHR, do you seriously think a third airline will come forward?
Moscow has been divvied our rights wise so can't see owt happening there.
Cairo is a basket case in waiting
Air France from Nice?........http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif
I don't know about the rights on Riyadh, but unless Saudia are allowed more flights to UK, then thats a no go as well.
I'm pretty confident Virgin have just gifted these slots back to BA

If DL/AF/KL take over the airline, I doubt if those domestic flights will last since they conflict with the their hubs at CDG/AMS, hence making those flights redundant

Also is it not the case that VS is appealing the Moscow rights decision?

What does that UK-Saudi Bilateral sat about UK-Saudi Arabia rights?

Ain't that the truth! I do not travel so much these days but VS are still my preferred long haul carrier and if they went, I would have to reconsider all other carriers before choosing. However, I am not a typical pax as I am extremely picky about carrier and the specific aircraft and I willingly pay more to get my choice.

Having never travelled on Delta, I know little about them but one can say that there is no buzz of 'difference' or 'special' such as one hears about, say, Singapore or some of the new Middle East carriers.

I have travelled on United, North West (as they were) Eastern (as they were) and Continental (before Bethune and before it's sale) and recall most of the trips as being unmemorable and some downright horrible. One long haul on United in Y ensured that I did not repeat the mistake.

I have very deliberately never crossed the Pond on anything other than BA or VS and cannot imagine me deciding that Delta was the way to go without a lot of people I know telling me it was worth my money. Oh, and a Team with several carriers that are on my personal no-fly list?

Delta are considered the “better” of the US carriers, which is not saying much…

Best Airlines in the world: Cathay Pacific Singapore Airlines and Emirates (in my opinion anyway)

Although BA, VS, TK and are few others are fairly good…


The remedy slots were for EDI, ABZ, MOW, CAI, RUH and NCE, and 7 of them were limited to EDI/ABZ. No remedy slots to MAN were available so VS would have had to use their own slots for MAN anyway.

So if VS had taken on the 3 additional slots you think they should have taken, they would have had to either start CAI/RUH/NCE or else increase frequency on EDI or ABZ beyond the existing levels (i.e. an additional aircraft). What do you suggest they should have done with these "slots on a plate"?

If you read the actual Commitments (link in my 10 Dec post above), you'll see (section 1.1.3 on p.173) that if VS operates EDI and ABZ for a year, it's entitled to apply for the remaining slots and use them for any European short-haul route. That seems a pretty reasonable deal to me.

If you want to have a pop at VS, fine, be my guest http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cool.gif, but maybe best to at least do so based on facts?


If DL/AF/KL is still interested in VS Domestic flights then either more LHR-MAN flights or launch LHR-GLA would not be such a bad idea

Of course there are better things they can do, but they would not like it…

. . that Virgin won't survive. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9736344/Willie-Walsh-wagers-Sir-Richard-Branson-a-knee-in-the-groin-that-Virgin-Atlantic-wont-survive.html)
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9736344/Willie-Walsh-wagers-Sir-Richard-Branson-a-knee-in-the-groin-that-Virgin-Atlantic-wont-survive.html)


Virgin Atlantic brand would be consigned to the history books if US giant Delta buys a 49pc stake

He suggested a £1m wager would not be fair as Sir Richard is a “billionaire banker”.

“I don’t think a million pounds would hurt him, I don’t have a million pounds so maybe a bet that would be as painful to him as it might be to me – so maybe something like a knee in the groin,” Mr Walsh said.

The IAG chief said he didn’t know Sir Richard very well but “on the limited occasions” he had met him he hasn’t seen anything that would “make me want to meet him again”.


Does this make WW second on SRB’s “list of people I hate” list?

If Delta want to make the investment work, then WW might be right...

Delta seals deal for 49% of Virgin Atlantic | News | Travel Trade Gazette (http://www.ttgdigital.com/news/delta-seals-deal-for-49-of-virgin-atlantic/4686118.article)
(http://www.ttgdigital.com/news/delta-seals-deal-for-49-of-virgin-atlantic/4686118.article)

DL have just shot themselves in the foot by doing this, certainly I have little hope for this deal considering the terms, its LH-BD all over again…


On this time DL cannot sustain the losses due to the state of the US aviation market, unlike LH


And this is coming from someone who suggests that they should buy an airline which is currently in BK

Does Virgin Atlantic have any marketing deals with Virgin America? If so, how are these affected by this deal?
Maybe DL could pick up their A319/A320 when VA meets its sad end…

[BALHR]

Nothing wrong with a bit of free publicity, Beardie has been doing it for years, but MOL has got much better at it.

I just yawned when he said he "could have sued". For what? WW made a prediction based on a perfectly reasonable assessment of the market. Nothing actionable at all, unless we really have descended into a sue everyone for everything mentality! At least our American cousins have the 1st Amendment for that!

And then I love it when the Bearded one complains that BA have the most slots at Heathrow, our biggest airport.

Well Euston is our most important long haul railway station, and guess who has ALL the daytime long haul slots?

Pop over to St Pancras for a "rival" service from East Midlands Trains, and guess which company is behind them AND Virgin Rail? Yup, Stagecoach on both counts!

Hate to say it, but Sir Beardie is no longer the shwashbuckling renegade I grew up admiring. Just a very tired gamekeeper.


If he can do deals with an Ultra Christian-Homophobic-Scottish Nationalist-Free Marketer-Future Scottish Transport Secretary, then SRB can do deals with an airline that is no longer using illegal means to destory VS and is not the real enemy (they are located in Mainland Europe and the Middle East)


Never trust a hippy...


He would not be the first (or last)…

So really all thats changed is Delta now has the 49% share Singapore had. Beardy always retains that crucial 51% holding. KLM/Air France buying the remaining 51% would now seem wide of the mark.


This is why I think that DL has just shot themselves in the foot by spending hundreds of millions becoming a junior parter in an airline that barely compete with BA/IB/AA, LH/LX/OS/SN/UA/US/TK, AF/KL/AZ/DL, EK and QR and of which its business model is based more on SRB’s ego, passion and stubbornness, the only thing in its favour is that it’s a rather decent airline, but that still did not prevent Kingfishers long and painful (along with ongoing) demise…

Like I said, DL can get what they want from AA, which in comparison is a rather better proposition

Not sure that I "very conveniently sidestepped" anything. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif I don't work for Virgin and have no reason to defend them. You're quite right that they had to show they were using the MAN slots before being able to apply for the other remedy slots (as a result, Aer Lingus (the former lessee of the slots) is facing some LHR schedule adjustments next summer).

FWIW, I am not at all convinced by the economics of the MAN service either - indeed, I'm not particularly convinced by EDI or ABZ, for that matter, but I see the play as being more of a long-term one: hang in there for three years and if it's not working, then switch the slots to other short-haul.

Is that a smart move? Well, let's say it seems a bit smarter now that DL with its deep pockets owns 49%, and will likely seem a bit smarter still if/when AF/KL takes a stake somewhere down the road.

Where do I see Virgin "rushing to serve", in your words? 3 daily NCE would be overkill and would lose them money (even if it earns them your respect http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif ) But in a year or two I could imagine them using the slots for (for example) a VS/AF service to CDG, freeing up some of AF's LHR slots to enable some more Delta transatlantic services (with a bit of timing juggling, just as AF and KL made space in LHR for DL and their then-partner CO when OpenSkies came about).

I think AF/KL will come into this picture in a year or two (Delta's CEO used the word "accretive" in today's press conference when asked about this, i.e. AFKL and AZ can be added on to the bilateral DL/VS joint venture) and at that point the slot puzzle becomes easier to solve.

I understand that in your view it makes no business sense for VS to have incurred losses to be able to acquire slots, and then not to take up all the slots. I can question various aspects of VS strategy, but if they figured that the least loss-making thing they could do with those last 3 slots would lose them more than they'd ever get back in the future, I can't necessarily fault them for that specific decision

I would disagree that DL has “deep pockets”, due to the fact there is too much competition in the US aviation

AF-KL has problems of their own; the only thing that they should is buy enough shares for DL to take control of VS and thus be allowed to reorganise the airline to make it sustainable for the long term…

I don’t think LHR-MAN/EDI/ABZ has a future when all 3 cities are served in a better way (for AF/KL/DL) via AMS/CDG, not LHR

VS is only solution for its long term survival is to buy BA off IAG or do a deal with IAG that involves the gradual takeover of the airline, but securing its short term future

Lastly, CO got those slots (for a vast sum) on their own, not from other ST members

If I was running DL, I would either buy AA or transfer all of VS’s slots to DL for their own purposes

The biggest problem that VS are going to have on their domestic routes is that there is no way the product can be competitive with BA. The issue is frequency. They will be operating 3 pd on MAN (against BA with 11), 4 on EDI (against BA with 13) and 3 on ABZ (against BA with 11). Presumably their own priorities will be on their own connecting traffic and even for this they will have weak schedules. In terms of appeal to business traffic their offering is so bad that they are unlikely to be able to compete for any significant corportae traffic. Certain financial losses on a large scale would seem to be the inevitable result. I wish them luck but...
The same problem is with their long haul network, it’s not as extensive as BA’s and on the routes they compete they are less frequent (in general), what is also against them is that they have only 17 times less slots that BA at LHR, in other words unless they change the way they do things, they will follow the fates of BCal, Dan-Air and BMI…

I recall back in the 1980s Dan-Air got licences on Heathrow to Manchester, which they operated 3 times daily against BA who had their hourly Shuttle.

No reservations needed on thr Dan-Air flights either because they typically had 25% loads, and sometimes less. That was with fully flexible tickets where you could readily transfer onto their flights if your company had issued you with a BA ticket.

I can't quite see either how the three flights will be "scheduled to connect" with Virgin's fair number of long-haul flights, when these are all somewhat evenly spread throughout the day.


And we all know what happened to that airline, BA ended up buying them…

The same went BCal and BMI, who like Dan-Air could not compete with BA for various reasons and its looks like VS will follow…


Yes and their biggest problem that killed the route was that their aircraft had to park on a remote stand at LHR and pax had a lengthy bus ride to the terminal. I hope VS will not be disadvantaged in the same way.


The problem is that VS’s domestic flights are in T1, when they should be in T3 (where all the VS long haul flights are), which is a dangerous mistake, considering the flights they are supposed to connect

They have suggesting moving to the new T2, but not sure how they are going to manage that now that they hooked with Delta (who operate from T4)


Finally! Someone who realises why the flights are scheduled at certain times and why the shorthaul product is being established. This venture is 99.99% about feeder traffic to the long haul product. Of course VS will be delighted to carry pax between ABZ,MAN, EDI and LHR but the aim of the game is to feed their LH network.
In the future, as and when the Delta tie up gets approval, then someone from ABZ will be able to travel to anywhere in the USA via LHR and JFK without the need to reclaim baggage or check in at various airports - hopefully a seemless transition (especially using the clubhouse if applicable http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif).


Is it not the case that someone from can fly to AMS via KLM and fly to several destinations in America (with Delta/KLM)?

The same goes for CDG with AF/KL

Or they can fly to with BA via LHR to a large number of destinations in America and Asia

You can see what Virgin have to deal with and why DL gains little out of all of this

I am always dismayed by these statements about the various airline tie-ups or launching additional flights from hubs, that refer to a "new" ability to make connections as if it was analogous to the Second Coming of Christ.

A generation ago you could connect from EVERYTHING to EVERYTHING at Heathrow, and indeed most other points, in this manner, courtesy of the standard IATA agreement of the time. It was the carriers themselves that threw this "seamless transition" away.

Furthermore you have been able to transfer from Aberdeen to "anywhere" (actually not) in the USA all along, courtesy of BA and their longstanding partner American through Heathrow, KLM and their longer-standing partner Northwest (now Delta) through Amsterdam, etc. All we have now is another me-too operation.

By the way, the last time I looked these new domestic flights were to be operated into T1, Virgin operate out of T3, and Delta operate out of T4. That is going to lead to goodness-knows how many misdirected pax and Seamlessly Lost connecting bags.

Remember, this LHR/ABZ/EDI/MAN operation by VS has little involvement with Delta, if Delta and their partners (Air France-KLM) take full control then they will shut those domestic flights down as soon as they can, because as you say, DL/AF/KL serve the regions via AMS/CDG

The DL/VS deal and the launch of their domestic routes has made the problem of terminal spaces worse, VS has stated it want to move into T2 now that BMI was bought by BA (who were going to be their main tenant along with their *A partners), but now they have no chance

Firstly, can space be made for VS at T4 (maybe move MH and other non-ST members out?) and for a CTA area (for domestic flights) or will HAH have to change their mind about who uses T2 and move ST members (along with VS) to T2 instead of *A members (who I guess will have to move to T4), which means some A380 gates will have to be built at that terminal

Really BAA/HAH needs to change its plans over its Terminals by (in my opinion):

Terminal 1: To be closed and replaced by an expanded Terminal 2

Terminal 2 (AKA Virgin Terminal): Will have to be expanded to cover both the “old” Terminal 2 and Terminal 1, will become home of Skyteam members, Virgin Atlantic and non-affiliated members (the latter will later move when Terminal 6 is built)

Terminal 3: To be closed and replaced by an expanded Terminal 5

Terminal 4 (AKA Star Terminal): Maybe some minor expansion (like additional A380 gates etc.), will become home to Star Alliance members, maybe further expansion when R3 is built

Terminal 5 (AKA British Airways Terminal): will face major expansion over the site of Terminal 3, will become home to BA (all operations at T1, T3 and T5), Aer Lingus (whose LHR ops might be bought by BA), other Oneworld members and further expansion due to R3 or moving LGW ops etc.

Terminal 6: To be built when R3 opens, will house non-affiliated members from Terminal 2

I think you'll find that the new Virgin domestic will operate alongside longhaul in T3 ,where a new domestic arrivals area is being created for them allowing the connections to work easily.


VS plans to operate domestic flights from T1, this due to a fact only T1 has a CTA area (BA has one at T5, which VS cannot use), T2 will have a CTA, but it’s not clear if VS can use it (they want to, but it’s for *A and DL is at T4, which also has no CTA area)

They really need to fix this soon (like asking for a CTA area at T3) to make their domestic flights work


I understand this is a tricky squaring of a circle though as without decent hijgh fares on P2P, a fraction of a long haul revenue leaves the short haul deeply in the red. This remains true of BA and more so of BMI in later years.


BA only makes Domestic work for them due to the fact they connect medium/long-haul and they have a very big long-haul network

BMI did not have that advantage or at least did not get the chance to share it (from *A partners), that aided their demise and the absorption by BA

[BALHR]

You are correct. BA not only have well over half the pax on Heathrow-Scotland P2P (which I derive from discussion with seatmates over the years), but also the "loss" caused by low attribution of through fares to the domestic sector, although appearing in the accountants books as such, will get nodded through by WW and the board who understand these things and the corporate benefit to long-haul. BMI's issue was that they had no long-haul out of Heathrow, and in latter years such traffic was just an accounting gift to their fellow Star Alliance partners. They got the long-haul benefit, while BMI took the connecting leg low revenue share losses.


The problem with Virgin Atlantic is that they don’t have too many long-haul routes either, remember the competition for transfers is not just from BA, but from AF/KL/DL, LH/LX/OS/SN/UA/AC, EK, QR

Virgin already has a large share of the London-Manchester/Glasgow P2P markets, but it’s done by rail and if they get East Coast (they going for another attempt), they will have a large share of the London-Edinburgh/Aberdeen P2P markets

T1 is due for demolition once T2 opens, I believe T2 is going to have the ability to handle domestic where as T3 does not have that facility, hence the connection from T1 to T3. Is T4 capable of domestic and international ?


VS has stated they want to move into T2, however they have now hooked up with Delta, who are based at T4…


VS have confirmed that they will not be moving there long haul ops to T2, Domestic ops will move to T2 in 2014 and they are discussing options with BAA to build some facility at T3 for domestic ops. DL and VS have also confirmed that they are looking at ways to consolidate their ops in T3 once the JV approved.


Hang on, I heard recently that they want to move to T2, remember BD was due to move into T2, trouble is that BA ended up buying the airline…

DL cannot really move into T3, HAH/BAA designated T4 for ST, T3 is O/A380 territory and if there is spare space, BA will call first dibs (they really want to use as little terminals as possible), they would really like a CTA area at T3, of course what they really like is a bigger T5…

"A generation ago you could connect from EVERYTHING to EVERYTHING at Heathrow"
You still can if the carriers have interline agreements.
Carriers haven't "thrown this seamless transition away". Many pax now book their flights themselves - usually on a point to point (PTP) basis using the cheapest fare for each carrier and often the shortest (sometimes under the MCT)connection time - I mean who wants to stay at LHR longer than necessary (or any airport for that matter). So with separate tickets comes separate contracts and no permission to interline (through-check) baggage.
Through fares are still quoted and bags may be through checked based on interline agreements in accordance with the IATA Resolution 780e.
I suspect that there will be some moves to accommodate VS/DL which has the whole of the south wing checkin area at T3. SQ recently "borrowed" space there from VS. Star Alliance has been accommodated.
LHR transfer baggage mishandling has significantly reduced with the advent of inter-terminal baggage tracking and the BRS. It is true that the more times you handle a bag the more likely it is to be mishandled but VS has an excellent record of safe delivery on the right flight/right day.


Is it not the case that HAH has designated T4 as the terminal for ST, DL moving to VS would mess that up, I expect either Skyteam moves to T3 or the new T2 or VS moves to T4


AFAIK, plse correct if it is wrong: (1) VS domestic will be in LHR-1 where there is an underused domestic pier; (2) when LHR-1 is demolished this will shift to LHR-2 where there will be a domestic arrivals area (as in LHR-5); (3) VS will move its entire LHR operation to LHR-2 taking the space originally earmarked for BD.


LHR-1 to LHR-3 is an easy transfer, whether on the airside bus or landslide via the tunnels that link the terminals and the bus/rail/tube stations.

Will BA move its LHR-1 operation to LHR-2 as well?

LHR-3 and LHR-4 do not have domestic arrival areas.


All 3 points (as for as know) are correct, I am not too sure about what BA is going to do how that it’s back to operating in 3 terminals at LHR, which is due to the fact they have bought BD, now I am hearing they are looking at buying EI ops at LHR

What BA really want is a bigger T5 containing all their operations, until then I would say the second best option would be either consolidating at T3 + T5 (which would require a CTA area at T3) or T2 + T5 (this means that BA get to use t of the newest and best terminals at LHR)



When T1 closes, the T1 operation moves to T3 as the STAR airlines will be moving to T2. What happens to BHD/DUB/LBA remains to be seen, as they need a domestic or CTA facility which will only be available for the T5 routes.


Could T5 be expanded enough to cope with BAs/BDs ops at T1, T3, T5 and EIs T1 ops (which they are looking at)?


I see a lot of discussion about how good the Delta onward connections will be for Virgin pax going onward in the USA.

However, the current Virgin routes, and the Delta network in the USA, do not mesh together well at all. The main hubs for Delta are (in rough order) Atlanta, Detroit, Minneapolis, and Salt Lake. Virgin serves none of these.

Virgin's principal operations are to JFK, Los Angeles, etc. Although Delta are a major player at JFK, they do not have a lot of domestic connectivity there, most are low frequency and/or to other major places already served directly from London by one or the other of the two carriers. If you have ever actually tried to make a connection at JFK, it's probably the worst gateway for that in the USA. Delta's main domestic hub in the New York area is now La Guardia, which they have built up substantially in recent years.

Los Angeles is in a far corner of the USA and offers few onward connecting possibilities.

I certainly don't see Delta handing any market share from London to Atlanta or Detroit etc over to Virgin; these are some of their most profitable routes.


The only real benefit for DL is a bigger share on the LON-NYC market, but if really wants that, then they should buy AA (which would give then a even bigger share) and they will also get a bigger NYC share and a much bigger Latin American share

In other words, merging with AA and AS would be perfect for DL and would give them a leading route network; certainly dealing with AAs problems is better than dealing with VS as a junior partner as they try to compete with BA, LH-LX-OX-SN, AF-KL, EK and QR while SRB still in charge

As for DL's split ops in NYC, could they do a slot swap with JetBlue (they get DL's LGA slots and DL gets JB's slots at JFK)

What this will mean is that DL/AA's NYC hub is located at JFK, JetBlue's NYC ops would be at LGA and United remains at EWR

To be honest however VS is a rather good airline, the problem is that they have to share their local market with BA…

[ETOPS]

Too many words son.

You've been told about that before.......

[BALHR]

Too many words son.

You've been told about that
before.......


As I have said before, I don't have the time to respond in real time...

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "VS is only solution for its long term survival is to buy BA off IAG or do a deal with IAG that involves the gradual takeover of the airline, but securing its short term future"

You keep banging on about this, but you fail to explain WHY (1) IAG would sell BA (to anyone) leaving themselves with loss-making IB, and (2) how you think VS could possibly afford it, bearing in mind they could not afford to buy BD. These need answering to retain any credibility on your "VS buy BA" point.

Quote: "If I was running DL, I would either buy AA or transfer all of VS’s slots to DL for their own purposes"

Owning 49% of VS does not give any rights or opportunities to transfer VS slots to DL. It's a similar position to SQ, take 49% of the profits, if/when there are any.

Not convinced that AF-KL are in a position to buyout Branson as they have to sort out the "basket case" (too harsh?) that is AF. Equally not convinced that Branson is likely to sell.

Quote: "What BA really want is a bigger T5 containing all their operations, until then I would say the second best option would be either consolidating at T3 + T5 (which would require a CTA area at T3) or T2 + T5 (this means that BA get to use t of the newest and best terminals at LHR)"

No it doesn't, it needs the underground shuttle link to be extended from LHR-5 and its satelites to LHR-3 and the new LHR-1/2 and all its satelites. Obviously this would be a long term arrangement once the expansion issue is sorted out. A common travel area arrivals section at LHR-3 would be unnecessary duplication.

Quote: "The only real benefit for DL is a bigger share on the LON-NYC market, but if really wants that, then they should buy AA (which would give then a even bigger share) and they will also get a bigger NYC share and a much bigger Latin American share"

Cheaper to buy slots rather than half an airline if increasing New York capacity is the aim. It's already a saturated route, is it 27 flights/day? Is there room for more capacity?

Quote: "If he can do deals with an Ultra Christian-Homophobic-Scottish Nationalist-Free Marketer-Future Scottish Transport Secretary, then SRB can do deals with an airline that is no longer using illegal means to destory VS and is not the real enemy (they are located in Mainland Europe and the Middle East)"

Can we be a little less judgemental please and just name names!

[hampshireandy]

Presumably this new domestic route is to compete with the fast and direct train service between the 2 cities(from london Euston)......good thinking but hang on, isnt the train service operated by err, virgin??!! :ugh:
Did they instigate this route when they thought they had lost their west coast rail franchise to the first group? In the shambles that followed they have held onto the franchise for 2 more years at least.
So is it just me who is wondering why virgin want to compete with themselves??

[Airlift21]

There are now parts of pprune that I just don't want to read anymore. Where runways will go in the UK and other airline/airport/routes topics used to be interesting. It's not a discussion anymore. It's just reading one ppruner's comments all of the time!
I've had enough, which for me, is a real shame.

Airlift



Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Dannyboy39]

"VS is only solution for its long term survival is to buy BA off IAG or do a deal with IAG that involves the gradual takeover of the airline, but securing its short term future"

Crikey! :mad:

[CabinCrewe]

leave him alone. Youve been no stranger to spouting yourself.
If you dont want to read those posts then don't and just ignore.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Presumably this new domestic route is to compete with the fast and direct train service between the 2 cities(from london Euston)......good thinking but hang on, isnt the train service operated by err, virgin??!! :ugh:
Did they instigate this route when they thought they had lost their west coast rail franchise to the first group? In the shambles that followed they have held onto the franchise for 2 more years at least.
So is it just me who is wondering why virgin want to compete with themselves??"

Don't think it's a case of VS competing with itself any more than BA is competing with itself on LHR-ORY and LHR-CDG, LHR-HND and LHR-NRT or LHR-JFK and LHR-EWR.

It's just a case on providing options. So travellers between city centres can go on Virgin trains and others can go on VS. It extends choice.

As for franchise renewal, Virgin could not have known the result so it is unlikely that planning LHR-MAN is linked to this. If it was LHR-GLA may have been included too(?).

It could be that as VS was after the EDI and ABZ remedy slots it may as well build up additional domestic feeder routes. Also, leased out slots had to brought back into VS use in order to qualify for the remedy slots.

It's more likely that this is about connectivity and linked to the demise of BD. VS needs to feed its longhaul flights some of which may otherwise be unviable, and it is possible that VS wants to reduce its dependence on BA for its domestic connections.

[GlasgowBoy]

Hmmm, a member with the username "BALHR" calling for BA to merge with Virgin?? After all, the pair are "perfect partners":ugh::mad::confused:

Three words: NEVER. GONNA. HAPPEN.

One word: COMPETITION.

Oh, and these 4 words can be applied to Delta buying American or indeed United buying American!:ok:

Still, it's good to dream...albeit ridiculously random dreams! More chance of the Queen doing Gangnam Style across the roof of Buckie Palace, than Virgin acquiring BA or vice versa!:p


Aaaanyway, I personally hope to see Virgin launching LHR-GLA feeder flights soon. Failing that, I hope the entire short-haul venture is a roaring success. Ditto the Delta partnership.

I love Virgin!:D

[davidjohnson6]

At her 60th jubilee, Madness played from the roof of Buckingham Palace. For the Olympics the Queen jumped from a helicopter to arrive at Stratford. I'm sure some of her grandchildren have seen gangnam on youtube.

If the Queen Mum could do an impersonation of Ali G at the age of over 100, then I am suee the Queen is capable of making a good effort at gangnam if she wanted to

[Hangar6]

I love them too.....

BALHR is doing finals this year some MBA in chemistry

I think BA could fall to FR , but VS will needs to survive noce to have a decent honest price fixer running an airline as opposed to MOL :D

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Aaaanyway, I personally hope to see Virgin launching LHR-GLA feeder flights soon. Failing that, I hope the entire short-haul venture is a roaring success. Ditto the Delta partnership."

Agreed, good luck to them.

[TopBunk]

If SRB and Virgin are really serious at attempting a feeder for their longhaul, then their best solution would have been to negotiate with MOL to take over the EI routes into LHR (which could also be used to feed DL routes).

Apparently though, they have lost that battle (if not yet the war) as MOL has signed a MOU with BA/IAG.

Having said that, I think there is an awful lot of water to pass under the bridge before any deal for RYR to take over EI is done and dusted, let alone the RYR MOU with BA/IAG to be passed.

We are nowhere near the end game on this ....

[rog747]

virgin are staying in term 3 and not going to T2

and they hope to get the new domestics placed into T3 as well. (note the word 'hope', not are)

re EI wet lease
the flights for Virgin will have both flight deck and cabin crew from EI.
any upper class on-board product enhancement has yet to be announced (if any)

tickets for these flights are now on sale

there is a competition for names for the new domestic aircraft

[Hangar6]

Jesus Mary and Joeseph are we to loose the blessed Saint's names from our aircraft, well holy God, saint's preserve us.:rolleyes:


EI crew are also wearing VS uniforms , which are very smart but St Enda will be shocked when he gets re names , Queen of Edinburgh.......or maybe not

[Cyrano]

Jesus Mary and Joeseph are we to loose the blessed Saint's names from our aircraft, well holy God, saint's preserve us.:rolleyes:

Maybe a compromise can be found: St Richard, St Steve, St Julie,... ;)

[rog747]

LOLLOL jesus mary mother of god LOL

well the new names for the domestic VS a/c have to be female and witty and be in keeping with the routes they are going to fly

i Googled famous Scottish women and came up with Elsie Inglis
Flora Mcdonald
and Lorraine Kelly (as in 'er on telly) and the Krankies

hmm not catchy is it....:{

famous Manchester ladies,,, Bette Lynch sprang to mind
or Elsie Tanner:8;);)


steve? he retires soon

[pwalhx]

How stereotypical to assume that Manchester is just Coronation Street, how about a famous Mancunian lady like Emmeline Pankhurst

[rog747]

Manchester has done all right thank you very much out of 50 years of Corrie lol

don't knock it

[hampshireandy]

£107 LHR-MAN return in april on the vs website, doesnt seem too bad?

[Leg]

Mary sounds good for one of the Airbie... as in Mary Queen of Scots :p

And to add balance, another one could be called John... as in John Knox ;)

Whats your bet one will be Alex though.... :eek:

[Skipness One Echo]

How about Flora MacDonald, The Scottish Heroine. Oh wait, it's been done before!
MC DONNELL - DOUGLAS DC - 10 - British Caledonian Airways (http://www.taxiways.de/DC-10/D10operator/B_Cal.html)

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "If SRB and Virgin are really serious at attempting a feeder for their longhaul, then their best solution would have been to negotiate with MOL to take over the EI routes into LHR (which could also be used to feed DL routes).

Nothing to negotiate.

Quote: "Apparently though, they have lost that battle (if not yet the war) as MOL has signed a MOU with BA/IAG."

Hedging bets perhaps?

Quote: "Having said that, I think there is an awful lot of water to pass under the bridge before any deal for RYR to take over EI is done and dusted, let alone the RYR MOU with BA/IAG to be passed.

We are nowhere near the end game on this .... "

Can't see it happening, the Irish govt won't sell its share of EI to FR, and even if FR was able to takeover EI somehow, the EU would doubtless have something to say on the matter, so a "remedy" situation could exist for the divestment of slots.

[Bigbluebroxi]

Is it likely VS will start the domestic route at GLA, and if so what needs to occur first in order for it to happen?

[CabinCrewe]

Unlikely IMO. Why would they use up additional extra potential long haul slots at LHR to allow that to happen? If they did, it would be at the expense of some of the new planned domestic services EDI//ABZ/MAN. Would expect BA to murder them (as been seen already by the big BA EDI expansion next year to LHR)

[The Big Easy]

What 'big EDI/LHR expansion next year'?

[Leg]

There are no slots available for GLA so it will never happen, BA have a monopoly which is all wrong, but with this anti aviation useless lot in Westminster they will continue to do so.

[Bartek]

What 'big EDI/LHR expansion next year'?
For summer 13 BA is intending not only to keep the 2 x daily 763 flights, but to further increase LHR-EDI capacity by operating more flights using the higher capacity A321. BA looks keen to take the fight on this key short haul route directly to VS.

[xray one]

GLA should and could happen. VAA are using a long haul slot this summer for one of the short haul routes.

It's totally wrong that any carrier should have monopoly on any route.

[pwalhx]

Are there not many routes from regional airports in particular with only one carrier, do you not mean it is wrong to have a single carrier on Heathrow.

[Skipness One Echo]

Glasgow -London is very well served by two carriers serving five airports, EDI more so. BMI lost money at GLA in the end but it's a big market. Is it worth a pile of lucrative LHR slots to VS though?

[LGS6753]

Airline Routes now reporting the VS domestics will be run using A320 equipment, not A319s.

[Cian]

Airline Routes now reporting the VS domestics will be run using A320 equipment, not A319s.


Wonder if this is an indication of demand/forward bookings or of an equipment issue on EIs end? EI currently only have the two A319s with two more due; but they do have a fleet spare A320 already...

The equipment type for the flights is showing "A320-100/200" on Virgin's website anyway.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "GLA should and could happen. VAA are using a long haul slot this summer for one of the short haul routes.

It's totally wrong that any carrier should have monopoly on any route."

Suspect whether VS starts GLA or not will depend on how well they do on ABZ, EDI and MAN. It's not neccessarily just a question of slot availability.

Agree about the monopoly situation in principle, but it's better to have one carrier than no carrier, e.g LHR-NCL.


Quote: "Glasgow -London is very well served by two carriers serving five airports, EDI more so. BMI lost money at GLA in the end but it's a big market. Is it worth a pile of lucrative LHR slots to VS though?"

Doesn't that depends whether we mean city pairs or airport pairs?

Flights to/from LHR (and LGW to a very limited extent) have potential for longhaul transfers with luggage checked through. Flights to/from the other 4 London airports do not.

[DaveReidUK]

The equipment type for the flights is showing "A320-100/200" on Virgin's website anyway.

I think we can safely discount A320-100 ...

[Leg]

As I said, GLA will not happen, if any of the spotters on this thread fancy a wager...? No, didn't think so. :cool:

[xray one]

As I said, GLA will not happen, if any of the spotters on this thread fancy a wager...? No, didn't think so.

In the same spirit as Beardie and Wee Willy (money, not a knee in the nuts) you're on...

[Skipness One Echo]

Glasgow will happen if they are serious about doing this, it's a better bet than ABZ which BMI used to fly with ERJ145s. If they're serious.....

[Leg]

It's all about slots spotters, ain't gonna happen :ugh:

[Skipness One Echo]

Look mate, I might be a spotter but I worked in marketing analytics for long enough to know enough about the market and how it works. Just you keep banging your head.....
Your "analysis" is amateurish as it fails to take into account of the bleeding away of a lot of BMI passengers who will now be using BA. Given the UK is a (the) Virgin core market, they need to steal those passangers back, which is why any domestic network of any seriousness will contain the major markets, of which Glasgow is one. Don't give up the day job eh?

[CaptainDoony]

Glasgow will happen if they are serious about doing this, it's a better bet than ABZ which BMI used to fly with ERJ145s. If they're serious.....

GLA of course did so well for BD that it got dropped completely :D

Regardless, I think they can make it work to all three Scottish airports IF they have the stomach for it.

Which I don't think they have and they'll all be dropped in 1/2 years citing big bad BA, the world's not fair blah blah blah

[Skipness One Echo]

GLA was a great route until British Midland became BMI and nothing much went right from there on in. BD's major issue was not getting enough revenue from partners for carrying all their passengers to LHR. That tells you a lot about bmi.

Remember VS are using "prime" LHR slots on long haul and watching both absolute traffic and market share drop! Now that slow collapse has been arrested recently but consider progress has stalled. ORD still can't be run year round, YVR hardly made much impact and BOS is now on an A343 half the time when it used to be a B747! They are being squeezed badly by AA/BA. Look at MIA, after all these years, still only once daily. They need to fill those flights somehow, tapping core domestic markets is a start.

[ConstantFlyer]

Virgin Atlantic has always focused on the Atlantic (hence the name). Like it or not, the world has changed and there are now different countries competing for the UK's business and leisure traffic.

This has been reflected somewhat in the changes over recent years, with VS adding Asian and African destinations. There will be more changes, and if VS is to succeed, it will embrace them. Should growth in the American market turn to decline, then it planes will, of necessity, fly elsewhere.

[ETOPS]

Just been announced that Craig Kreeger will take over from steve Ridgway.

.ft.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ed4a341e-5979-11e2-ae03-00144feab49a.html#axzz2HNwqmCbd)

No - me neither..........

[BALHR]

You keep banging on about this, but you fail to explain WHY (1) IAG would sell BA (to anyone) leaving themselves with loss-making IB, and (2) how you think VS could possibly afford it, bearing in mind they could not afford to buy BD. These need answering to retain any credibility on your "VS buy BA" point.


1: IAG’s main problem is that both “divisions” face challenges but of a different kind, BA is doing rather well, it has bought BMI and successfully integrated the airline into its own operations and is making profits (no small achievement in this market), but the problem is that due to the fact there are a lack of LHR slots, it barely keeps up with its rivals LH/LX/OS/SN, AF-KL, TK, EK and QR

IB however faces an even bigger problem, surviving in a country that is deep in an economic crisis that is the worst in 70 years; they have cut 20% of the work force and moving routes to Vueling, the region is also facing the prospect that nationalists, the Far-Left and the Far-Right are gaining ground
The question is that do they have the talent and resources to turn round IB without overlooking BA’s challenges and trying to solve them

Now I am sure they do, but if VS (somehow) offers a fairly good deal, IAG might as well take the money and use it to fix IB (along with the fact they can focus on that airline alone)

2: For a start SRB could put his own money into this, also (unlike the failed BD takeover), DL and their ST partners could put their money into this (similar to what happened to the AC/CP merger) as well, and however the chances of this happening are unlikely

And that’s the point, it’s unlikely VS will be sustainable for the long term, its being squeezed by BA, LH/LX/OS/SN, AF-KL, TK, EK and QR (not to mention the various LCCs) and to make matters worse they have little in the terms of a business plan in the time they have been operating, which is based on SRB’s passion, ego and stubbornness

He needs to see that time is running out for his airline, so he needs to end this rubbish about a BA “monopoly” (which it never had and never will) and do a deal with them to secure his airlines short-term future, allow BA/VS to focus on the real “enemy” and to work on the best interests of the UK and their shareholders

DL management have clearly not read “Branson” (the book by Tom Bower), they have also ignored the advice of SIA as well, and I fear that they will be burnt by this deal, which could tip them over the edge once the inevitable selling of VS to BA happens

They should scrap this deal and instead look into merging with AA
If not, then AA should abandon a potentially disastrous merger with US and wait to buy DL out of BK…

Owning 49% of VS does not give any rights or opportunities to transfer VS slots to DL. It's a similar position to SQ, take 49% of the profits, if/when there are any.


Which is why DL are making a mistake in investing into a “basket case” that is VS (no, it’s not too hash a term), they are going to end up like SQ, only this time to could seriously damage the airline

Maybe the CEO’s of DL and AF-KL should read “Branson” (the book by Tom Bower), before continuing to pursue this deal…

Do DL’s shareholders have to agree this deal, if so then they should vote NO!

No it doesn't, it needs the underground shuttle link to be extended from LHR-5 and its satelites to LHR-3 and the new LHR-1/2 and all its satelites. Obviously this would be a long term arrangement once the expansion issue is sorted out. A common travel area arrivals section at LHR-3 would be unnecessary duplication.


They already have an “underground shuttle link” in the form of the Tube and Rail links that serve LHR’s terminals

What they want in the long-term is everything to be at T5 (they should look into demolishing T3 and expanding T5 over that site

Cheaper to buy slots rather than half an airline if increasing New York capacity is the aim. It's already a saturated route, is it 27 flights/day? Is there room for more capacity?


What?, it’s a perfect description of Brian Souter ;)

[BALHR]

Presumably this new domestic route is to compete with the fast and direct train service between the 2 cities(from london Euston)......good thinking but hang on, isnt the train service operated by err, virgin??!!
Did they instigate this route when they thought they had lost their west coast rail franchise to the first group? In the shambles that followed they have held onto the franchise for 2 more years at least.
So is it just me who is wondering why virgin want to compete with themselves??

Virgin Trains is managed separately from Virgin Atlantic (although they are both owned by SRB) for a start; VT serves the O&D market between the 2 cities, VS (is planning to) serve the transit market from Manchester for flights from LHR

I highly doubt this has anything to do with the entire refranchising process, even if Virgin retained the ICWC franchise, the VS flights have still would have happened anyway, because they serve different markets

This has everything to do with the fact BA has bought BMI (who despite strained relations, did provide a lot of transfer traffic for VS), so not rely on their “enemy” for passengers from the regions, they have launched their own flights (trouble is that they face a hard fight with BA over this market and I doubt DL will support them over this, since it has no benefit for them)

I love them too.....

BALHR is doing finals this year some MBA in chemistry

I think BA could fall to FR , but VS will needs to survive noce to have a decent honest price fixer running an airline as opposed to MOL

If they are going to buy any full-service airline (bar EI), it will be LH/LX/OS/SN ;)

http://theairlineblog.********.co.uk/2009/06/ryanair-interested-in-lufthansa.html
If SRB and Virgin are really serious at attempting a feeder for their longhaul, then their best solution would have been to negotiate with MOL to take over the EI routes into LHR (which could also be used to feed DL routes).

Apparently though, they have lost that battle (if not yet the war) as MOL has signed a MOU with BA/IAG.

Having said that, I think there is an awful lot of water to pass under the bridge before any deal for RYR to take over EI is done and dusted, let alone the RYR MOU with BA/IAG to be passed.

We are nowhere near the end game on this ....

There where talks about FR handing EI’s LHR slots to VS, but like the VS/BD talks, we must presume they went nowhere

Whatever the case, I doubt if DL will allow VS to operate LHR-DUB/BHD or even LHR-MAN/EDI/ABZ that VS will soon operate, since those destinations are already linked (for DL) at AMS with the help of their partner KLM

Less water than you think, in fact the stream has run dry. The Irish govt announced today they won't sell their stake to FR. This leaves him unable to get enough shareholder approval, even if the EU passed the deal. It's game over.


Is it not the case that the EU (in return of giving them a bailout), told the Irish Government to sell “state assets” such as their EI stake, also wouldn’t a sale of their stake help reduce the amount of austerity the Irish have to suffer?

[Cyrano]

After many years on PPRuNe, this unrelenting torrent of parallel-universe non-sequiturs has finally driven me to use the ignore list (http://www.pprune.org/profile.php?do=ignorelist) function for the first time.

[gsky]

Suggest you go into politics.

You just love the 'sound' of your own voice.

Perfect for the House of Parliament!!

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "
BALHR
Suggest you go into politics.

You just love the 'sound' of your own voice.

Perfect for the House of Parliament!!"

...but please stay out of the way on the backbenches. The "greasy pole" of political advancement no place for you.

[Iver]

Just read that Craig Kreeger of American Airlines will be the new CEO at Virgin.



Here is the FlightGlobal article:


Virgin Atlantic (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/Virgin%20Atlantic.html) Airways has confirmed the appointment of Craig Kreeger as its new chief executive, replacing outgoing CEO Steve Ridgway.

Kreeger will join Sir Richard Branson's airline on 1 February after a 27-year career at American Airlines, which included several senior vice-president roles.

His immediate priorities will centre on the implementation of Virgin's joint venture with Delta Air Lines, as well as rolling out its new domestic services at London Heathrow airport.

"I am very pleased to welcome Craig Kreeger to Virgin Atlantic as the new CEO," says Ridgway, who announced the end of his 11-year tenure last September.

"He will be taking over at a time when the airline enters a new phase - with the Delta deal to implement, the commencement of short-haul competition for BA on UK domestic routes, as well as the arrival of the ultra-efficient 787 (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/Boeing%20787.html) fleet in 2014."

Kreeger was appointed senior vice-president, customer at American Airlines in 2012, having spent six years as its London-based senior vice-president, international.

He has worked closely with Oneworld alliance member British Airways (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/British%20Airways.html), with whom American Airlines sealed its transatlantic joint venture in 2010, following years of opposition by regulators.

Virgin vociferously lobbied against that partnership, and it is styling its Delta tie-up as an assault on BA's dominant market share at Heathrow.
"I am delighted to be taking on the role of Virgin Atlantic’s chief executive," says Kreeger. "I have been competing with it for many years, but have always admired its laser focus on its people, its products and its customers."



Here is his background from the AA website (looks to have very broad airline experience):

[B]Craig S. Kreeger

Senior Vice President – Customer, American Airlines

Craig S. Kreeger is American’s Senior Vice President – Customer, and has broad responsibilities for the delivery of American’s customer experience. In this role, Kreeger oversees all of American’s domestic, Europe, Latin American and Asia airport operations, Customer Service Planning as well as Flight Service, AA.com, Reservations, Premium Services, the company’s customer experience initiative, and the Jetstream project.

Previously, Kreeger was based in London where he oversaw all of American’s sales and ground operations activities in Europe and Asia. He began that set of responsibilities in December 2003 as Vice President, Europe and Pacific Division. He joined American’s Leadership Team in March 2006 when he was named Senior Vice President – International.
Before moving to London in 2003, Kreeger was American’s Vice President and General Sales Manager, a position he gained in September 1998. In that role, he was responsible for leading American’s sales team and for developing worldwide sales policies.

Previously, Kreeger had been Vice President – Revenue Management where he was responsible for developing and implementing all of American’s domestic and international airfares and for operating the yield management system used by American to allocate seats on flights among various fare categories.

Kreeger joined American in 1985 and has held a variety of management positions in Finance, Banking, Corporate Development, Crew Resources, and Yield Management. He has been an officer of the company since 1995.
Kreeger holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from the University of California at San Diego, and a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of California at Los Angeles.

[Hangar6]

I know for a fact BA have plenty of slots at LHR , given they are launching new routes recently both Domestic, Europe and Longhaul

LHR however has no slots for new entrants they mut rent from incumbents, even BA has rented out slots currently.

So plenty of scope to expand for BA , not much scope for anyone else however, which means BA are going todo just fine for the foreseable , main issue MAY be suitable aircraft i.e plenty of aircraft for domestic shorthaul and mid haul but short on suitable longhaul planes to complete with those Middle East folks

Not sure why anyone thinks BA have a slot shortage but it keeps being mentioned on this forum despite the evidence to the contrary.

VS/DL deal , mystifies me but isnt it a sign that two airlines are aware of the huge potential BA have in the next few years to expand at LHR , especially to USA where they really are dominant. AA are ceeding scheules and capacity to BA so this will ensure BA continue to grow to USA.

Only issue I see for BA at LHR is the need for A380 B787 aircraft to repalce the less fuel effeicent fleet currently used, and I know BA will get that sorted.

Can we move on from BA perceived slot shortage at LHR its not true.

[bushveld]

Word on the street is that he is a decent and knowledgable chap. Best of luck!

[Blighty Pilot]

British Airways - I am in awe of you! 21 years old and you know sooooo much! You're obviously destined for politics or journalism.
Promise me you won't lower yourself and join us mere mortals in the flight deck of an aeroplane as I'm not sure I could cope with the enthralling, not to mention opinionated, conversation!

Have you been studying hard at your university or old style local poly and been fed all this stuff by an expert lecturer? Let me guess - an economics student with a PPL or a Air Transport and Management course?

I posted this some time ago prior to viewing his profile. Call me Mystic Meg!

This guy is a prized plonka - don't let him get to y'all!

[BALHR]

After many years on PPRuNe, this unrelenting torrent of parallel-universe non-sequiturs has finally driven me to use the ignore list function for the first time.


For god sake, the reason why I post everything at once is due to the fact I hardly have any time for PPRUNE.... :mad:

Suggest you go into politics.

You just love the 'sound' of your own voice.

Perfect for the House of Parliament!!

Sadly, that body is locked up for the elite and their political allies :mad:

[Cyber Bob]

New Virgin CEO has been announced.

Mr Craig Kreeger - ex AA Senior VP

BALHR
Your thoughts Sir - then again......................:eek:

[Omnipresent]

Interesting they've chosen a complete outsider from the US and it points to how important the DL JV is for them. Had this appointment been made a few years ago, I would have thought "cultural fit"/knowledge of the Virgin group and brand would have been higher on the checklist. Could be an interesting year ahead!

[DaveReidUK]

unrelenting torrent of parallel-universe non-sequiturs

I have to confess I'm in complete awe of anyone who can come up with such a succinct, pithy and wonderfully appropriate expression to describe what we've all been subjected to.

Oscar Wilde has a worthy successor !

[Heathrow Harry]

I have to agree - its astonishing how much space BALHR takes up.................... its Dilbert-esque at times:ooh:

[EI-BUD]

IBhowever faces an even bigger problem, surviving in a country that is deep
in an economic crisis that is the worst in 70 years; they have cut 20% of the
work force and moving routes to Vueling, the region is also facing the prospect
that nationalists, the Far-Left and the Far-Right are gaining ground


The question is that do they have the talent and resources to turn round IB
without overlooking BA’s challenges and trying to solve them



BALHR, not a valid argument, demand still exists in Spain and IB needs a strategy that focuses on its uniqueness points i.e connectivity to South America, making itself a carrier of choice to the region and also it needs to slim down its cost base. Activity around Vueling and Iberia express is an attempt to shift to cost base on some short haul markets, especially those that are hotly contested.

Back to the point, this is not a valid arguement as I have said Spain has huge inbound tourism and demand is still very strong. Moreover, drawing a parallel. Ireland as an Island is so much smaller geographically and in population terms, and its main 2 carriers are quite profitable. Lets focus on Aer Lingus for comparison as FR it has so many other markets to rely on.

EI is profitable, in the depts of austerity in Ireland, has still returned profit, all the while contending with the leanest competitor in the industry.

These times of crisis are a time to reform, slim down the cost base and become more competitive.

[BALHR]

Word on the street is that he is a decent and knowledgable chap. Best of luck!

Unless he can persuade SRB to allow him to end the "**** BA" policy, all that talent will be wasted on a airline that can barely compete with BA, let along their rivals overseas :{

If I was the CEO of DL, this is what would have happened the mourning after the deal with VS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC1_tdnZq1A

New Virgin CEO has been announced.

Mr Craig Kreeger - ex AA Senior VP

BALHR
Your thoughts Sir - then again......................

While I think he will do alright for the job, I don think him coming from AA would be good for VS creditability...

Anyway he faces a very hard task in having to deal with SRB, after all VS's business plan is based on his passion, ego and stubbornness (not that its a bad airline...), if it is going to work for him, he should abandon the VS-DL deal (while telling them to buy out his former employer before they make a massive mistake in merging with US) and instead form a "partnership" with BA, otherwise he would end up trying (unsuccessfully) save a sinking ship

[Cyber Bob]

BALHR wrote,

" While I think he will do alright for the job, I don think him coming from AA would be good for VS creditability...

Anyway he faces a very hard task in having to deal with SRB, after all VS's business plan is based on his passion, ego and stubbornness (not that its a bad airline...), if it is going to work for him, he should abandon the VS-DL deal (while telling them to buy out his former employer before they make a massive mistake in merging with US) and instead form a "partnership" with BA, otherwise he would end up trying (unsuccessfully) save a sinking ship "

Congratulations BALHR - you've succeeded. I've wet myself laughing so hard. No-one else could have made this up. Brilliant, simply brilliant. Hats off to you Fella :D:D:D

Please tell me that you don't have a scanner!!!

[BALHR]

Congratulations BALHR - you've succeeded. I've wet myself laughing so hard. No-one else could have made this up. Brilliant, simply brilliant. Hats off to you Fella

Please tell me that you don't have a scanner!!!

God any better ideas into how to prevent Virgin Atlantic in following in the tradition of British Caladonian, Dan-Air-Europe and British Midland in ending up in a financial mess and having to be bought by BA?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "

I know for a fact BA have plenty of slots at LHR , given they are launching new routes recently both Domestic, Europe and Longhaul

LHR however has no slots for new entrants they mut rent from incumbents, even BA has rented out slots currently."

So plenty of scope to expand for BA , not much scope for anyone else however, which means BA are going todo just fine for the foreseable , main issue MAY be suitable aircraft i.e plenty of aircraft for domestic shorthaul and mid haul but short on suitable longhaul planes to complete with those Middle East folks"
Exactly, that's another reason LHR needs expanding.

From the travelling public's point of view, fares are often lower ex-LHR because there isn't just one dominant airline (i.e. BA) operating a hub there and having 70%+ of the slots, in contrast to LH at FRA or KL at AMS.

Quote: "Not sure why anyone thinks BA have a slot shortage but it keeps being mentioned on this forum despite the evidence to the contrary.

VS/DL deal , mystifies me but isnt it a sign that two airlines are aware of the huge potential BA have in the next few years to expand at LHR , especially to USA where they really are dominant. AA are ceeding scheules and capacity to BA so this will ensure BA continue to grow to USA."

No co-incidence VS appointing Craig Kreeger with his BA/AA trans-Atlantic joint venture experience. Looks as if VS-DL may attempt tp replicate this.

Quote: "Only issue I see for BA at LHR is the need for A380 B787 aircraft to repalce the less fuel effeicent fleet currently used, and I know BA will get that sorted.

Can we move on from BA perceived slot shortage at LHR its not true.

Agreed.

[Cyber Bob]

"God any better ideas into how to prevent Virgin Atlantic in following in the tradition of British Caladonian, Dan-Air-Europe and British Midland in ending up in a financial mess and having to be bought by BA? "

No - but there are no guarantees for any carriers in the current climate. I very much doubt that BA would be able to buy VS lock, stock and barrel without other players vesting an interest and/or fighting for valuable slots.

CB

PS. BALHR - Do you have a scanner?

[BALHR]

Exactly, that's another reason LHR needs expanding.

From the travelling public's point of view, fares are often lower ex-LHR because there isn't just one dominant airline (i.e. BA) operating a hub there and having 70%+ of the slots, in contrast to LH at FRA or KL at AMS.

However the real competors for any airline based in a major hub are not within the same airport (bar BA/VS) or even within the same country, but other airlines at other major hubs in Europe

No co-incidence VS appointing Craig Kreeger with his BA/AA trans-Atlantic joint venture experience. Looks as if VS-DL may attempt tp replicate this.


If DL want to replicate what BA-AA has done, they are far better off with AA rather VS...


No - but there are no guarantees for any carriers in the current climate. I very much doubt that BA would be able to buy VS lock, stock and barrel without other players vesting an interest and/or fighting for valuable slots.

CB

PS. BALHR - Do you have a scanner?


If BA offered a fairly reasonable price, then it could be posibble, however I doubt if any other airlines are interested, mainly due to if any overseas airline bought into VS (DL I am looking at you...;)), all it will lead to is what what happened when Lufthansa bought BMI...

Also, No I do not have a scanner...

[BALHR]

I know for a fact BA have plenty of slots at LHR , given they are launching new routes recently both Domestic, Europe and Longhaul

LHR however has no slots for new entrants they mut rent from incumbents, even BA has rented out slots currently.

So plenty of scope to expand for BA , not much scope for anyone else however, which means BA are going todo just fine for the foreseable , main issue MAY be suitable aircraft i.e plenty of aircraft for domestic shorthaul and mid haul but short on suitable longhaul planes to complete with those Middle East folks

Not sure why anyone thinks BA have a slot shortage but it keeps being mentioned on this forum despite the evidence to the contrary.

VS/DL deal , mystifies me but isnt it a sign that two airlines are aware of the huge potential BA have in the next few years to expand at LHR , especially to USA where they really are dominant. AA are ceeding scheules and capacity to BA so this will ensure BA continue to grow to USA.

Only issue I see for BA at LHR is the need for A380 B787 aircraft to repalce the less fuel effeicent fleet currently used, and I know BA will get that sorted.

Can we move on from BA perceived slot shortage at LHR its not true.

Really, while they have a lot more slots in LHR that they have had in the past (thanks to their takeover of BMI), it’s still nowhere near enough to have enough short-haul (connections), medium-haul and long-haul routes to compete with its rivals in Europe, I mean look at it this way, BA* currently has 52.5% of the slots at LHR (Along with 20% at LGW), on the other hand Lufthansa has 70% of the slots at FRA and even more so in MUC and Air France-KLM has 60% of the slots at CDG and AMS, all of which can (and do) handle more flights than LHR, that gives them a vast advantage (and I haven’t even got to the other hubs, such as LH’s hubs at ZRH for example)

That is why BA European rivals have more extensive networks to South America (which is taking market share from BA’s sister airline IB), China and Africa than BA, while BA has the advantage in terms of flights to India and America, LH (with help from UA) is now not that far behind in both cases (most of all the latter)

To say that BA has plenty of scope to expand is not true, since LHR cannot expand, so they have to buy as many slot as legally allowed (and really pushing it…) in LHR, LGW (at least until LHR is expanded) and LCY for the time being, the might just be enough for now…

For the long term, BA needs to put a lot of pressure on the government allowing expansion at LHR (and I mean a lot), with the airports of Europe facing NIMBY preassure

The lack of long-haul aircraft can be fixed by delaying retirements and refurbishing them and ordering more planes than they currently have (it’s clear they need more A380s + 787s than they currently have)
The VS/DL deal makes absolutely no sense at all, all they are getting for paying for 49% of VS is a bigger share is a bigger share of the LON-NYC and they paid a massive price for that, not only that but they have “tied” themselves with a airline who’s business plan is based on SRB’s passion, ego and stubbornness

I would suggest to DL that rather than take a massive risk which could help them end up in a financial crisis (which meant they were almost bought by US, luckily they turned themselves around and look where they are now…) and look closer to home…

In fact look toward an airline based only a few hundred miles west of ATL and are neighbours at JFK, it’s a airline that has a large share of the LON-NYC market, has a strong position in Latin America and a large hub in the southwest, however they are in BK due to the fact they have labour issues (something DL does not have, even after merging with NW, who have had a poor record on labour reations) and like when DL was in their position, US is circling round them (remember, a merger with US will bring very little to that airline, so why don’t Delta buy this airline (which also brings the added benefit of allowing DL to better compete with UA in NYC…

As for the name of this airline, well it called American Airlines…

*This figure includes IB, whose flights are effectible operated by BA (to Madrid + Barcelona), but not AA however (should it also be included?)


BALHR, not a valid argument, demand still exists in Spain and IB needs a strategy that focuses on its uniqueness points i.e connectivity to South America, making itself a carrier of choice to the region and also it needs to slim down its cost base. Activity around Vueling and Iberia express is an attempt to shift to cost base on some short haul markets, especially those that are hotly contested.

Back to the point, this is not a valid arguement as I have said Spain has huge inbound tourism and demand is still very strong. Moreover, drawing a parallel. Ireland as an Island is so much smaller geographically and in population terms, and its main 2 carriers are quite profitable. Lets focus on Aer Lingus for comparison as FR it has so many other markets to rely on.

EI is profitable, in the depts of austerity in Ireland, has still returned profit, all the while contending with the leanest competitor in the industry.

These times of crisis are a time to reform, slim down the cost base and become more competitive.


I am not saying that IB is condemned to die and there is not enough demand in Spain (there is, but much less that before), but IB faces massive challenges not just from Spain, but from outside of Europe, even their network to Latin America is being attacked even by fellow OW member LATAM

The problems of Iberia go well beyond the airline, it’s a reflection of Spain as a whole a country with large debts, poor economic growth, banks that badly need bailouts, high (most of all youth) unemployment, harsh austerity, poltical disputes, nationalism etc

Aer Lingus had the luxury of restructuring their business when time where good, so when time went really, really bad, they were able to weather the storm quite well, IB does not have that, while they have been relatively conservative in expansion, they have a high cost base, ordered too many A340s, fails to attract enough of the Premium Market and most of all failed to expand east…

I just feel that both BA and IB face massive (but very different) challenges and rather than IAG face a near-impossible task to fix both of them them, both airlines themselves to fix them while maintaining close ties with each other…

[Cyber Bob]

No scanner eh - ummmmm OK

What course have you enrolled?

[BALHR]

No scanner eh - ummmmm OK

What course have you enrolled?


I prefer not to say (to protect the privacy of my family...) specifcally, but its to do with IT...

[Cyber Bob]

Thanks BALHR - that explains everything!

God Speed

All the best
CB

[BALHR]

Thanks BALHR - that explains everything!

God Speed

All the best
CB

What do you mean?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "No scanner eh - ummmmm OK

What course have you enrolled?"

Clearly not British constitution, politics or representative government...
nor geography...
nor travel and tourism...
nor economics, business or finance...

Quote: "I prefer not to say (to protect the privacy of my family...) specifcally, but its to do with IT..."


Quote: "Thanks BALHR - that explains everything!

God Speed

All the best
CB"

Indeed it does!

[canberra97]

But BALHR posts are so drawn out and to be honest rather boring to read if only they were shorter perhaps they would make for better reading!

[Cyber Bob]

Fairdealfrank - I thank you :D

[BALHR]

Clearly not British constitution, politics or representative
government...
nor geography...
nor travel and tourism...
nor
economics, business or finance...


Why would you say that?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Why would you say that?"

Read back your posts on this and other threads, then YOU tell ME.

[Skipness One Echo]

Fairdealfrank the only way to stop the floods of drivel is not to engage this chap. It is most evidently futile and I even though I am ignoring him, I keep seeing his nonsense quoted back by other more sensible posters.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Fairdealfrank the only way to stop the floods of drivel is not to engage this chap. It is most evidently futile and I even though I am ignoring him, I keep seeing his nonsense quoted back by other more sensible posters."

Should he send his views to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee instead? Its members, at least, would be paid to read them, as part of their day job.

[BALHR]

But BALHR posts are so drawn out and to be honest rather boring to read if only they were shorter perhaps they would make for better reading!


That is due to the fact I barely have any time for posting on this forum, so I make the most of it when I can

Fairdealfrank the only way to stop the floods of drivel is not to engage this chap. It is most evidently futile and I even though I am ignoring him, I keep seeing his nonsense quoted back by other more sensible posters.


SOE, rather than ignoring my posts, can you explain why you disagree with them instead?

Should he send his views to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee instead? Its members, at least, would be paid to read them, as part of their day job.


Doubt if they would even bother...

[canberra97]

BAHLR

Because your posts are generally boring, ridiculous, annoying, persistent, long winded, without any clear knowledge of the aviation industry and to be totally honest just pure pipe dreams to suit your own interest and nothing to do with reality!

[Airlift21]

BALHR

You use the excuse that you don't have much time, so when you do have some spare time, you make the most of it and post as much as possible.

I can guarantee, that most of the readers of this forum work full time and will have even less of that precious time to read and perhaps post something on these pages. However, we don't feel the need to completely monopolize pprune.

Please stop doing it. Give others a chance.
You may want to spend some of your time learning a bit more about aviation. That means reading, without posting so often.

Airlift


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Fairdealfrank the only way to stop the floods of drivel is not to engage this chap. It is most evidently futile and I even though I am ignoring him, I keep seeing his nonsense quoted back by other more sensible posters."

Should he send his views to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee instead? Its members, at least, would be paid to read them, as part of their day job.

Maybe he's sent them to the Davies commission. Perhaps that's why they've been given till 2015...........

[PAXboy]

Previews in the summer, then staff review, roll out in 2014:
Vivienne Westwood designs Virgin uniforms - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/10032909/Vivienne-Westwood-designs-Virgin-uniforms.html)

Yahoo! (http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/dame-vivienne-westwood-designs-virgin-atlantic-uniforms-brings-back-era-of-airline-chic-085604501.html)

Vivienne Westwood Designs Virgin?s new Uniform | Airports International | The Airport Industry online, the latest airport industry news (http://www.airportsinternational.com/2013/05/vivienne-westwood-designs-virgins-new-uniform/13444)

[WOWBOY]

How is the 'little red' product performing?

I was rather intrigued that they decided to enter the domestic market, and have always thought it was something virgin could always crack. I assume GLA is the next route, I was surprised to see ABZ over GLA. Seeing as it was set up in protest for losing the rail franchise, is the future secure now they retained the franchise for few more years.

Assume NCL, BFS and GLA are future markets.


Edit, oh found this quote. Does this mean they can never fly to glasgow,

Speaking yesterday, Mr Branson said that while he was ‘thrilled’ that Virgin had finally been allowed to expand services to Edinburgh and Aberdeen, he was unhappy that they had been prevented from operating out of Glasgow.
‘I would love to be flying to Glasgow as well, but for some bizarre reason the competition authorities, who bequeathed us these slots, didn’t allow us to have the slots to compete with British airways out of Glasgow’, added the millionaire businessman.

Why only glasgow?

[BCALBOY]

The reason it was ABZ and EDI ,is that it was those routes where overlap occurred between BMI and BA. BA was already the sole operator on GLA so the takeover of BMI by BA did not change the competitive position.

IF SRB is so keen to serve GLA as well he needs to fork out to acquire the slots or substitute GLA for other VS routes .He wants the slots given to him.

The spare slots VS had themselves were used for MAN which was obviously preferred over GLA.

There's no chance of NCL , BFS etc unless VS can get slots FOC and even then they would probably use the slots elsewhere unless a condition of being given them was they had to used on BFS or NCL.

[WOWBOY]

Ahhh, thanks BCALBOY. That clears the up regarding GLA slots.

[SealinkBF]

Little Red seems to be doing OK for what is essentially a start up.

I have flown with them three times now and the thing that stands out is the EI crew in VS uniforms - they have all been really excellent - I am not sure what I was expecting but they seem to have a winning way.

Last flight was about 85% full on a Thursday from EDI.

[goldeneye]

I reiterate what SealinkBF says, I flew Little Red a few weeks ago, the service from the crew was brilliant. It's a great offering from VS and I do think BA may need to up their game on Domestic.