Virgin 3.1
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Earth
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Can anyone point me in the right direction with the schedule for future bid imports? Says a Memo will be issued at least 2 weeks prior yet hearing that there are imports the first Monday of each month for the foreseeable. Can any VA guys confirm this?
Thanks
(EX VA. Inactive Pilot)
Can anyone point me in the right direction with the schedule for future bid imports? Says a Memo will be issued at least 2 weeks prior yet hearing that there are imports the first Monday of each month for the foreseeable. Can any VA guys confirm this?
Thanks
(EX VA. Inactive Pilot)
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Not far away
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Announced approximately 50 pilots total currently; some expectations that it will be grown to 70-80+.
Join Date: May 2020
Location: South Islander
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Not far away
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gold Coast is rumoured…but Adelaide was rumoured for (20?) years before eventuating. There’s a new rostering system coming soon which potentially makes things viable that haven’t been in the past. Haven’t heard any rumours nor would imagine any other possible bases other than Gold Coast. Even then it could be an opt in dual base with Brissy - if at all…?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 70
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would be a shame if Virgin did somehow acquire the Ansett brand as Ansett did provide a superb first class service back in its day. Something Virgin is yet to master.
What would be the point in throwing away 23 years of brand building just to resurrect something that went bust 20 years ago?Seriously…If anyone remembered Ansett. It would be the bitter taste of being dudded for their FF points.
Ansett 3.0
’Formally known as Virgin Blue, VAustralia, Virgin Australia 1.0, Virgin NZ, Virgin Samoa, Tiger Airways, TigerAir, Virgin Australia 2.0’
Geez just call it Bain Airways and be done with it. They could change naming each 737 from beaches to naming them after Bain consultants.
’Formally known as Virgin Blue, VAustralia, Virgin Australia 1.0, Virgin NZ, Virgin Samoa, Tiger Airways, TigerAir, Virgin Australia 2.0’
Geez just call it Bain Airways and be done with it. They could change naming each 737 from beaches to naming them after Bain consultants.
Ansett also had decent systems for rostering, flight operations, reservations, check in and load control and proper procedures. Ansett was a REAL airline not full of people that went around saying 'happy Wednesday' doing a little dance and asking how things are in your 'space' (going forward).
My experience is that there's quite a nostalgia for Ansett, although I don't want us to get into this American thing of trying to re-create old, defunct airlines a dozen times over....... how many Pan Am's have we seen now and a year or two ago there was another one rumoured to be in the works.
As for 'brand-building', you mean taking a name from an already well known organisation, putting the word 'Australia' on the end of it, practically copying the logo and typeface of another company then paying exorbitant license fees to use that logo everywhere?? VA apparently can't even provide a coffee cup with the logo on it for their staff without having to pay a royalty fee for each individual item it is applied to, i.e. 100 cups, 100 fees.
Bain would save millions if they changed the name, certainly in license fees anyway. Given their mantra is not wasting money on anything they don't have to, it's only a matter of time before that 'line item' comes before a bean-counter then it'll be interesting to see if the first part of the name survives. At least they could buy the Ansett name only once and the old AN 'starmark' logo still looks pretty smart today, as does the typeface. Another iconic Landor design.
If that were true, Ansett Aviation Training would have changed their name.
My experience is that there's quite a nostalgia for Ansett, although I don't want us to get into this American thing of trying to re-create old, defunct airlines a dozen times over....... how many Pan Am's have we seen now and a year or two ago there was another one rumoured to be in the works.
As for 'brand-building', you mean taking a name from an already well known organisation, putting the word 'Australia' on the end of it, practically copying the logo and typeface of another company then paying exorbitant license fees to use that logo everywhere?? VA apparently can't even provide a coffee cup with the logo on it for their staff without having to pay a royalty fee for each individual item it is applied to, i.e. 100 cups, 100 fees.
Bain would save millions if they changed the name, certainly in license fees anyway. Given their mantra is not wasting money on anything they don't have to, it's only a matter of time before that 'line item' comes before a bean-counter then it'll be interesting to see if the first part of the name survives. At least they could buy the Ansett name only once and the old AN 'starmark' logo still looks pretty smart today, as does the typeface. Another iconic Landor design.
My experience is that there's quite a nostalgia for Ansett, although I don't want us to get into this American thing of trying to re-create old, defunct airlines a dozen times over....... how many Pan Am's have we seen now and a year or two ago there was another one rumoured to be in the works.
As for 'brand-building', you mean taking a name from an already well known organisation, putting the word 'Australia' on the end of it, practically copying the logo and typeface of another company then paying exorbitant license fees to use that logo everywhere?? VA apparently can't even provide a coffee cup with the logo on it for their staff without having to pay a royalty fee for each individual item it is applied to, i.e. 100 cups, 100 fees.
Bain would save millions if they changed the name, certainly in license fees anyway. Given their mantra is not wasting money on anything they don't have to, it's only a matter of time before that 'line item' comes before a bean-counter then it'll be interesting to see if the first part of the name survives. At least they could buy the Ansett name only once and the old AN 'starmark' logo still looks pretty smart today, as does the typeface. Another iconic Landor design.
I take your point about paying Branson anything, but the fact is that brand awareness is what advertisers actually pay for. Ansett would have zero brand awareness in most people under 40.
I am also in no doubt that Ansett really was a first class operation as far as the passengers went. Too bad it was owned by people with an ultimately different agenda
The customer base for simulator training is completely different to the customer base of an airline. Who cares what the training organisation is called? The reason its still called that is the name is as good as any, and they don’t have to change the signage.
I take your point about paying Branson anything, but the fact is that brand awareness is what advertisers actually pay for. Ansett would have zero brand awareness in most people under 40.
I am also in no doubt that Ansett really was a first class operation as far as the passengers went. Too bad it was owned by people with an ultimately different agenda
I take your point about paying Branson anything, but the fact is that brand awareness is what advertisers actually pay for. Ansett would have zero brand awareness in most people under 40.
I am also in no doubt that Ansett really was a first class operation as far as the passengers went. Too bad it was owned by people with an ultimately different agenda
Look, you're probably right that it's been so long now, many people weren't alive when Ansett was still going. There is likely some value in the brand but it would have to be very cleverly handled in the transition.
However, like I said also, don't want to become one of those places where we're constantly trying to re-invent things from the past, which became part of the past for a reason.
I take your point about the agenda of the owners. My personal opinion is that Ansett was doomed the day Murdoch and Abeles took it over from substantial control (managerially if not shareholder wise) from Reg Ansett.
One was interested in using it as leverage for expansion into Europe and to patronise his transport empire and the other was only really ever interested in its media assets and associated businesses. When the chips were down years later, any of those assets which could have been divested to get the airline through bad times were gone and likely with nothing in the pockets of Ansett as a result of the divestment. Just look what happened to the DC-9s.
short flights long nights
Well, a brand is a brand and brand awareness is a pretty generic thing.
Look, you're probably right that it's been so long now, many people weren't alive when Ansett was still going. There is likely some value in the brand but it would have to be very cleverly handled in the transition.
However, like I said also, don't want to become one of those places where we're constantly trying to re-invent things from the past, which became part of the past for a reason.
I take your point about the agenda of the owners. My personal opinion is that Ansett was doomed the day Murdoch and Abeles took it over from substantial control (managerially if not shareholder wise) from Reg Ansett.
One was interested in using it as leverage for expansion into Europe and to patronise his transport empire and the other was only really ever interested in its media assets and associated businesses. When the chips were down years later, any of those assets which could have been divested to get the airline through bad times were gone and likely with nothing in the pockets of Ansett as a result of the divestment. Just look what happened to the DC-9s.
Look, you're probably right that it's been so long now, many people weren't alive when Ansett was still going. There is likely some value in the brand but it would have to be very cleverly handled in the transition.
However, like I said also, don't want to become one of those places where we're constantly trying to re-invent things from the past, which became part of the past for a reason.
I take your point about the agenda of the owners. My personal opinion is that Ansett was doomed the day Murdoch and Abeles took it over from substantial control (managerially if not shareholder wise) from Reg Ansett.
One was interested in using it as leverage for expansion into Europe and to patronise his transport empire and the other was only really ever interested in its media assets and associated businesses. When the chips were down years later, any of those assets which could have been divested to get the airline through bad times were gone and likely with nothing in the pockets of Ansett as a result of the divestment. Just look what happened to the DC-9s.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 70
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, a brand is a brand and brand awareness is a pretty generic thing.
Look, you're probably right that it's been so long now, many people weren't alive when Ansett was still going. There is likely some value in the brand but it would have to be very cleverly handled in the transition.
However, like I said also, don't want to become one of those places where we're constantly trying to re-invent things from the past, which became part of the past for a reason.
I take your point about the agenda of the owners. My personal opinion is that Ansett was doomed the day Murdoch and Abeles took it over from substantial control (managerially if not shareholder wise) from Reg Ansett.
One was interested in using it as leverage for expansion into Europe and to patronise his transport empire and the other was only really ever interested in its media assets and associated businesses. When the chips were down years later, any of those assets which could have been divested to get the airline through bad times were gone and likely with nothing in the pockets of Ansett as a result of the divestment. Just look what happened to the DC-9s.
Look, you're probably right that it's been so long now, many people weren't alive when Ansett was still going. There is likely some value in the brand but it would have to be very cleverly handled in the transition.
However, like I said also, don't want to become one of those places where we're constantly trying to re-invent things from the past, which became part of the past for a reason.
I take your point about the agenda of the owners. My personal opinion is that Ansett was doomed the day Murdoch and Abeles took it over from substantial control (managerially if not shareholder wise) from Reg Ansett.
One was interested in using it as leverage for expansion into Europe and to patronise his transport empire and the other was only really ever interested in its media assets and associated businesses. When the chips were down years later, any of those assets which could have been divested to get the airline through bad times were gone and likely with nothing in the pockets of Ansett as a result of the divestment. Just look what happened to the DC-9s.
