Virgin Blue's Pacific plans take flight
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin Blue's Pacific plans take flight
Mon "Melbourne Age"
Virgin Blue's Pacific plans take flight
By Michelle Grattan, Canberra
April 24, 2006
Virgin Blue is stepping up its push to break into the lucrative Pacific route with the formation this month of a high-level 10-member team to test the airline's chosen business model.
One issue the team is examining is the possibility of the airline landing somewhere other than the existing major ports for flights from Australia.
Virgin Blue CEO Brett Godfrey told The Age last night the airline had already solicited interest from some airports "outside the traditional mainstream of Los Angeles and San Francisco and we will be talking to others".
Using alternative airports could reduce costs. Communities looking for economic stimulation could offer attractive deals, the benefits of which could be passed on to Virgin Blue customers.
The seriousness of Virgin Blue's efforts is shown by its external recruiting of senior executives to spearhead the Trans-Pacific Project Team.
Rod Nelson, a former CEO of Air Niugini and also of Hazelton Airlines, is leading the group, reporting directly to Mr Godfrey, for whom the Pacific enterprise is a pet project.
Rod Mahoney, an expert in aircraft selection, has come directly from Airbus Industrie, where he headed its representation in the Asia-Pacific region. Gordon McKenzie, formerly with Virgin Atlantic and Virgin America, brings international airline experience to the domestic carrier. Also on the team is Tony Wheelens, a former senior negotiator for the Government on airline agreements, who will be working on the vital issue of access to enough flights to make the route viable for Virgin Blue.
Virgin Blue needs approval from the United States Government to fly at least a daily service to have the critical mass to start up. It would eventually need to fly between 14 and 21 services a week, which would include a service from Melbourne.
Current arrangements for new Australian entrants to the US market would only permit four services a week. The Australian Government has already started talks in Washington to increase Australian access, and Virgin Blue is fairly confident it can get enough flights.
The airline's representatives are preparing to be back in Canberra next month to brief ministers and senior officials on their progress. They tested the water with ministers late last year.
Cabinet would almost certainly be sympathetic to a Virgin Blue bid to fly the route. Earlier this year, the Government rejected Singapore Airlines' application to do so.
With the recent Toll takeover of Patrick Corporation, Virgin Blue will be controlled by Toll. Toll chief Paul Little has said it will take up to 18 months to decide the future of Patrick's 62 per cent holding in the airline.
Mr Godfrey said the ownership change "shouldn't make a difference" to the plans for the Pacific route "provided we could substantiate the final business plan to the full board".
The sale of Virgin Blue to foreign interests would cloud the future of its Pacific aspirations, as the rights to fly the Pacific rest predominantly with Australian and US-owned airlines.
The Virgin Blue Pacific route team is examining models of service, including having single- or two-class flights.
The team's project will take several months. Virgin Blue has previously said it would take two years from February this year before it could be set to fly the route. But it is likely to come under Government pressure to start earlier.
=====================================================
Virgin Blue's Pacific plans take flight
By Michelle Grattan, Canberra
April 24, 2006
Virgin Blue is stepping up its push to break into the lucrative Pacific route with the formation this month of a high-level 10-member team to test the airline's chosen business model.
One issue the team is examining is the possibility of the airline landing somewhere other than the existing major ports for flights from Australia.
Virgin Blue CEO Brett Godfrey told The Age last night the airline had already solicited interest from some airports "outside the traditional mainstream of Los Angeles and San Francisco and we will be talking to others".
Using alternative airports could reduce costs. Communities looking for economic stimulation could offer attractive deals, the benefits of which could be passed on to Virgin Blue customers.
The seriousness of Virgin Blue's efforts is shown by its external recruiting of senior executives to spearhead the Trans-Pacific Project Team.
Rod Nelson, a former CEO of Air Niugini and also of Hazelton Airlines, is leading the group, reporting directly to Mr Godfrey, for whom the Pacific enterprise is a pet project.
Rod Mahoney, an expert in aircraft selection, has come directly from Airbus Industrie, where he headed its representation in the Asia-Pacific region. Gordon McKenzie, formerly with Virgin Atlantic and Virgin America, brings international airline experience to the domestic carrier. Also on the team is Tony Wheelens, a former senior negotiator for the Government on airline agreements, who will be working on the vital issue of access to enough flights to make the route viable for Virgin Blue.
Virgin Blue needs approval from the United States Government to fly at least a daily service to have the critical mass to start up. It would eventually need to fly between 14 and 21 services a week, which would include a service from Melbourne.
Current arrangements for new Australian entrants to the US market would only permit four services a week. The Australian Government has already started talks in Washington to increase Australian access, and Virgin Blue is fairly confident it can get enough flights.
The airline's representatives are preparing to be back in Canberra next month to brief ministers and senior officials on their progress. They tested the water with ministers late last year.
Cabinet would almost certainly be sympathetic to a Virgin Blue bid to fly the route. Earlier this year, the Government rejected Singapore Airlines' application to do so.
With the recent Toll takeover of Patrick Corporation, Virgin Blue will be controlled by Toll. Toll chief Paul Little has said it will take up to 18 months to decide the future of Patrick's 62 per cent holding in the airline.
Mr Godfrey said the ownership change "shouldn't make a difference" to the plans for the Pacific route "provided we could substantiate the final business plan to the full board".
The sale of Virgin Blue to foreign interests would cloud the future of its Pacific aspirations, as the rights to fly the Pacific rest predominantly with Australian and US-owned airlines.
The Virgin Blue Pacific route team is examining models of service, including having single- or two-class flights.
The team's project will take several months. Virgin Blue has previously said it would take two years from February this year before it could be set to fly the route. But it is likely to come under Government pressure to start earlier.
=====================================================
Originally Posted by Wirraway
Mon "Melbourne Age"
Virgin Blue's Pacific plans take flight
Rod Mahoney, an expert in aircraft selection, has come directly from Airbus Industrie, where he headed its representation in the Asia-Pacific region. =====================================================
Virgin Blue's Pacific plans take flight
Rod Mahoney, an expert in aircraft selection, has come directly from Airbus Industrie, where he headed its representation in the Asia-Pacific region. =====================================================
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the West Coast they could land at Oakland instead of SFO, kind of a hike though. Long Beach ? instead of LAX. Orange County and San Jose I think are too small to handle Trans Pacific Flights.
Originally Posted by wirgin blew
What about Viva Las Vegas, San Diego, Portland, Seattle or Phoenix?
Is the range too far for some of these cities if for example they used BNE as the starting point?
Is the range too far for some of these cities if for example they used BNE as the starting point?
The selection of destinations must also look at on-carriage as a lot of US bound pax go further than the West coast.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Portland,Seattle,Las Vegas,and maybe Oakland would be the obvious and best choices.....lower landing fee,s,all have long runways,all are served by America West/USAirways,Alaska,Frontier,Southwest (and other major airlines)for ease of connections,facilites match or better than the "larger" airports,these airports are well-equiped and would welcome these flights,no flow,...and a host of other positive attributes.
Lufthansa takes a A-340 in Portland on a daily basis to Frankfurt and the loads average 90%.For those on the long haul who fly into LAX,we all know that gets old,these places would be a welcome change....PB
Lufthansa takes a A-340 in Portland on a daily basis to Frankfurt and the loads average 90%.For those on the long haul who fly into LAX,we all know that gets old,these places would be a welcome change....PB
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Te Reti
Age: 48
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My only thoughts are how bloody slow the A340 are even the newer long bugger -600 series econ speeds do not seem that high if your going across the Atlantic let alone across the huge Pacific ow. You would have to whatch out for being passed by Maui and his ancestors. I know speed is not eveything ( big picture ) but having sat from Madrid to Santiago and Santiago to Auckland in the A340 thinking even an ERJ145 goes faster than these things in ECON. Never again would rather have a deep and meaningful with me ex finacee about aspects of my personality and morales than go through travelling the globe @.78
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UAE
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ontario would be a go. That airport has come a long way over the last few years. It is an Alaskan & DHL hub now with great infrastructure. It is akin to the 'Badgery's Creek' of LA, out in the heartland but only 1 hr from LAX by car. Not sure how it would go with a 380, but the 340-5/6 would be fine. Not glamorous but very practical. Wouldn't be too close to the crew hotel though, no doubt somewhere salubrious like 'East LA'.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SYD
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ontario, CA is definitely an option - international airlines from North, Central and South America fly there as well as domestic carriers that service rest of the US. It's around 35-40 miles from downtown LA one 1 freeway (i've done it in less than an hour!). Regular shuttle buses and conveniently located to Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside Counties. Two parrallel runway, one 12,000 feet. Also on the way when driving to VEGAS!! Long Beach (10,000 feet) is even closer to downtown LA (405 freeway ... aka parking lot..)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: anywhere the job offer is!
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taildragger
My understanding is the problem with flying via HNL is that from HNL to main land USA would be considered a domestic flight and passengers can't be uplifted for this sector. I believe Air New Zealand had this problem at one time.
My understanding is the problem with flying via HNL is that from HNL to main land USA would be considered a domestic flight and passengers can't be uplifted for this sector. I believe Air New Zealand had this problem at one time.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Gravox,
I see. Sounds fair - I think that's cabotage or something? I think the US is pretty bolshie about such things.
That said, I wonder how the Rat gets around it for LAX-JFK??
Also, my thinking was pretty much purely as a tech stop - as Qantas used to do eg. when QF4 was a Classic to SFO and used to put down in 'lulu.
I see. Sounds fair - I think that's cabotage or something? I think the US is pretty bolshie about such things.
That said, I wonder how the Rat gets around it for LAX-JFK??
Also, my thinking was pretty much purely as a tech stop - as Qantas used to do eg. when QF4 was a Classic to SFO and used to put down in 'lulu.
Wherefore Art I?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near the pointy end... But not TOO near...
Age: 55
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tony Soprano
Orange County and San Jose I think are too small to handle Trans Pacific Flights.
San Jose, however, used to have regular American Airlines flights to NRT. Their main runway is over 10,000 ft. The airport and city itself is closer to Silicon Valley than the other two (SFO or OAK). So it can be done, and it has potential.
I'd also say Ontario has more potential over Long Beach. Ontario already has facilities for international flights. I'm not sure that Long Beach has sufficient facilities for regular international flights. The terminal is really small, and commercial movements are limited by government mandate (somethng like 30 a day). I don't think Ontario has that restriction.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Next to Bay 8
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That said, I wonder how the Rat gets around it for LAX-JFK??
SFO is no doubt the go... thats where Virgin America are (or at least were last I heard) planning to start from... Atlantic also fly in there regularly. New terminal, with numerous connections available, as well as 'round the world' services. Fog could become a problem though at times, especially when combined with SYD/MEL at the other end!
You can forget Portland... too reliant on other airlines to deliver to final destination... you need a better catchment area.
Don't know if OAK is set up for INTL flights (customs, quarantine, holding etc).