- Thread Starter
- #16
i dont think that Richard Brandson is a nut.. if he open a domestic virgin carrier here...he will be bringin alot job opportunities to people
Virgin America
- Thread starter trolly dolly
- Start date
----------------
On 8/12/2003 11:52:21 PM trolly dolly wrote:
i dont think that Richard Brandson is a nut.. if he open a domestic virgin carrier here...he will be bringin alot job opportunities to people
----------------
On 8/12/2003 11:52:21 PM trolly dolly wrote:
i dont think that Richard Brandson is a nut.. if he open a domestic virgin carrier here...he will be bringin alot job opportunities to people
----------------
If he comes to america, he will be taking traffic away from existing carriers and replacing the capacity with lower paying jobs, no pensions, and exporting at least 49% of the profits. When it's time for heavey MX, expect it to be done in Ireland.
----------------
On 8/12/2003 8:29:21 AM Farley wrote:
"Well, others were posting stuff about Virgin America in here, so I figured I'd also put it under JetBlue"
Good reason.
----------------
On 8/12/2003 8:29:21 AM Farley wrote:
"Well, others were posting stuff about Virgin America in here, so I figured I'd also put it under JetBlue"
Good reason.
----------------
Remember when I said somebody would come along with "Jet pink"? Congratulations. Unfortunately, you don't have an international route structure to fall back on or a fortress hub. All you have is a name. I can see the advertising campaign now "next time you need to fly that red eye, why be blue when you could be sleeping with 4 young Virgin Flight attendants...." Just curious though, when he hires a bunch of roach jockeys to fly his jets for 20% less than you make, forcing you to take a paycut to stay solvent, will you be singing the praises of non-union carriers?
Whatever it is, it will be a current Virgin Atlantic US destination. They serve Boston, JFK, Newark, Dulles, Miami, Orlando, Las Vegas, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.
I don't think this airline, if it ever gets off the ground, will necessarily be based at an existing Virgin Atlantic destination. If it will be a LCC, as Sir Richard has stated, then it really won't have much to do with Virgin Atlantic, which has always emphasized its premium products. Why would VS want its Upper Class passengers to transfer from their A340/747 sleeper seats onto all-coach 737s? And the logistics of building a hub operation around the existing transatlantic flights would bring with it all sorts of baggage (among other things...pun intended) inconsistent with the low-cost model.
Just look at Virgin Blue and Virgin Express, neither of which is designed to feed Virgin Atlantic. They are stand-alone discount carriers that simply happen to have the Virgin name, and barely have any more relation to Virgin Atlantic than the Megastores do. Virgin America, or whatever it is called, may very well end up serving at least one of the VS gateways, but I don't think its ultimate purpose will be to feed passengers onto international flights.
In any event, will somebody please move this thread off the JetBlue board?
Just look at Virgin Blue and Virgin Express, neither of which is designed to feed Virgin Atlantic. They are stand-alone discount carriers that simply happen to have the Virgin name, and barely have any more relation to Virgin Atlantic than the Megastores do. Virgin America, or whatever it is called, may very well end up serving at least one of the VS gateways, but I don't think its ultimate purpose will be to feed passengers onto international flights.
In any event, will somebody please move this thread off the JetBlue board?
----------------
On 8/11/2003 6:43:46 PM LambertMan wrote:
I was just wondering where Virgin America would have its hub at. Here are a few places that come to my mind:
1. PIT-Mediocre O&D (5 million), but if US pulls out there will be no dominate carrier, and it has no LUV presence, something it has over STL.
1. STL-Much better O&D (10 million), but has a strong LUV presence and a decent AA presence for now, but I believe the cuts from AA are supposed to keep coming, you can bet on it, good postioning, right in the middle of the country, could serve business markets where LUV doesnt, ATL, BOS, JFK, MIA, ORD, MSP just off of O&D alone.....you get the picture I think. (Assuming US, B6, FL, or F9 dont setup shop)
3. MSY-For its size, good O&D at 9 million a year, no dominate carrier, and its decently positioned, slightly south, but not bad.
4. MCI-Good O&D at almost 10 million, airport right now looks like a ghost town, has a big LUV presence that may make them shy away. (bigger LUV presence than STL)
Second tier competitors:
COS, ABQ, AUS, IND (gate space???), and IAD.
And one other thing, will this be a feeder flight for a Virgin Atlantic LGW flight? I would bet on it. Let me hear your take on these issues.
----------------
AAAGGGHHH! Some of you people just don't get it. If you are set up to be a low-fare carrier than you don't start thinking about "where can I get the highest yield?". Your above logic is so faulty. Lets compare STL and PIT. Why does STL have double the O&D traffic of PIT? .... Because they have lower fares. The PIT passengers have been held captive by some of the highest fares in the country.On 8/11/2003 6:43:46 PM LambertMan wrote:
I was just wondering where Virgin America would have its hub at. Here are a few places that come to my mind:
1. PIT-Mediocre O&D (5 million), but if US pulls out there will be no dominate carrier, and it has no LUV presence, something it has over STL.
1. STL-Much better O&D (10 million), but has a strong LUV presence and a decent AA presence for now, but I believe the cuts from AA are supposed to keep coming, you can bet on it, good postioning, right in the middle of the country, could serve business markets where LUV doesnt, ATL, BOS, JFK, MIA, ORD, MSP just off of O&D alone.....you get the picture I think. (Assuming US, B6, FL, or F9 dont setup shop)
3. MSY-For its size, good O&D at 9 million a year, no dominate carrier, and its decently positioned, slightly south, but not bad.
4. MCI-Good O&D at almost 10 million, airport right now looks like a ghost town, has a big LUV presence that may make them shy away. (bigger LUV presence than STL)
Second tier competitors:
COS, ABQ, AUS, IND (gate space???), and IAD.
And one other thing, will this be a feeder flight for a Virgin Atlantic LGW flight? I would bet on it. Let me hear your take on these issues.
----------------
If you are truly looking for a hub than I would suggest MidAmerica. Long runways, middle of the country, no competition. Of course you airline-executive-wannabees will start trying to figure out the yield. All I can thinkof is that it is lower cost than anywhere else you could put a hub. Using yield as your basis is what got the majors into their morass. They started making business decisions on where they could make the most money. Then employees came and struck until they got a lion's share of the pot and LCC's drive down the yields on so many routes that the majors can't make a profit.
If I were VA I would go to Baltimore and enter some kind of international agreement with SW (and maybe AirTran). Let those carriers get the passengers to the East Coast and Virgin America will get them across the pond.
----------------
On 8/13/2003 10:55:40 AM AAG2000 wrote:
"I don't think this airline, if it ever gets off the ground, will necessarily be based at an existing Virgin Atlantic destination. If it will be a LCC, as Sir Richard has stated, then it really won't have much to do with Virgin Atlantic, which has always emphasized its premium products. Why would VS want its Upper Class passengers to transfer from their A340/747 sleeper seats onto all-coach 737s? And the logistics of building a hub operation around the existing transatlantic flights would bring with it all sorts of baggage (among other things...pun intended) inconsistent with the low-cost model."
They would do it because, quite frankly, there's money in it. Hub and spoke airlines extract a 30% revenue premium due to connecting traffic. How can Jetblue compete with the same or lower wage structure and 10 pax per plain connecting from a high revenue international flight?
"Just look at Virgin Blue and Virgin Express, neither of which is designed to feed Virgin Atlantic. They are stand-alone discount carriers that simply happen to have the Virgin name, and barely have any more relation to Virgin Atlantic than the Megastores do. Virgin America, or whatever it is called, may very well end up serving at least one of the VS gateways, but I don't think its ultimate purpose will be to feed passengers onto international flights."
Virgin has anounced that they plan on serving Australia soon. The purpose would not be a a feeder of Virgin Atlantic, however, rest assured he will gladly go after and accept the incremental revenue provided by connecting traffic.
----------------
On 8/13/2003 10:55:40 AM AAG2000 wrote:
"I don't think this airline, if it ever gets off the ground, will necessarily be based at an existing Virgin Atlantic destination. If it will be a LCC, as Sir Richard has stated, then it really won't have much to do with Virgin Atlantic, which has always emphasized its premium products. Why would VS want its Upper Class passengers to transfer from their A340/747 sleeper seats onto all-coach 737s? And the logistics of building a hub operation around the existing transatlantic flights would bring with it all sorts of baggage (among other things...pun intended) inconsistent with the low-cost model."
They would do it because, quite frankly, there's money in it. Hub and spoke airlines extract a 30% revenue premium due to connecting traffic. How can Jetblue compete with the same or lower wage structure and 10 pax per plain connecting from a high revenue international flight?
"Just look at Virgin Blue and Virgin Express, neither of which is designed to feed Virgin Atlantic. They are stand-alone discount carriers that simply happen to have the Virgin name, and barely have any more relation to Virgin Atlantic than the Megastores do. Virgin America, or whatever it is called, may very well end up serving at least one of the VS gateways, but I don't think its ultimate purpose will be to feed passengers onto international flights."
Virgin has anounced that they plan on serving Australia soon. The purpose would not be a a feeder of Virgin Atlantic, however, rest assured he will gladly go after and accept the incremental revenue provided by connecting traffic.
----------------
----------------
On 8/13/2003 12:08:29 PM Busdrvr wrote:
They would do it because, quite frankly, there's money in it. Hub and spoke airlines extract a 30% revenue premium due to connecting traffic. How can Jetblue compete with the same or lower wage structure and 10 pax per plain connecting from a high revenue international flight?
----------------
On 8/13/2003 12:08:29 PM Busdrvr wrote:
They would do it because, quite frankly, there's money in it. Hub and spoke airlines extract a 30% revenue premium due to connecting traffic. How can Jetblue compete with the same or lower wage structure and 10 pax per plain connecting from a high revenue international flight?
----------------
If there's so much money in connecting passengers from domestic to international flights and vice versa, why are AA, UA, etc. losing money hand over fist while the airlines who lack that connecting traffic, such as B6, WN, and FL, are raking it in? By your logic, DL--who can fly you to JFK and then on to your choice of European destination--should have kicked JetBlue's butt out of JFK a long time ago.
The problem is that, along with additional revenue, there are also significant costs and inefficiencies. What happens when the one flight from LHR is delayed? Do you hold the 10 connecting flights, thereby pissing off several hundred domestic passengers, or do you piss off (and accommodate, on your dime) the 10 high-yield connecting passengers?
Besides, as I mentioned before, what high-yield (i.e., premium class) passenger on VS is even going to want to connect to a cattle-car 737 packed with screaming babies? If this domestic airline is an LCC, then I would think VS would want to keep its premium customers away from it at all costs.
Sure, Sir Richard could try to capture that business by starting up a premium domestic product designed to feed high-yield passengers to and from the transatlantic flights. But he has stated that he wants to create an LCC. I don't see how he can have it both ways.
"If there's so much money in connecting passengers from domestic to international flights and vice versa, why are AA, UA, etc. losing money hand over fist while the airlines who lack that connecting traffic, such as B6, WN, and FL, are raking it in? By your logic, DL--who can fly you to JFK and then on to your choice of European destination--should have kicked JetBlue's butt out of JFK a long time ago"
Labor Cost, Labor cost and Labor cost (plus a small dose of "fadism"). By your logic, all the hub carriers would suddenly become profitable if they just drop all international flying, and domestic connections. Just to clarrify, at east 30 of SWA's traffic is connecting traffic, and Valujet and FRNT operate somewhat traditional hubs complete with RJ's. Mesa's version of Lorenzo (Orenstein) recently said in an interview that if DAL, U, or UAL had JB's labor cost, they'd be the most profitable airlines in the world. There has been a drop off in international revenue due to the terrorism threat for US carriers. when that goes away, revenue will rebound. BTW, had Sept 11 and the tech meltdown NOT happened, DAL likely WOULD have crushed JetBlue.
"Besides, as I mentioned before, what high-yield (i.e., premium class) passenger on VS is even going to want to connect to a cattle-car 737 packed with screaming babies?"
One who needs to get to Syracuse. BTW, what percentage of VA's pax are "premium", and just ask any JB employee, cattle car seating IS premium if they get a TV
Labor Cost, Labor cost and Labor cost (plus a small dose of "fadism"). By your logic, all the hub carriers would suddenly become profitable if they just drop all international flying, and domestic connections. Just to clarrify, at east 30 of SWA's traffic is connecting traffic, and Valujet and FRNT operate somewhat traditional hubs complete with RJ's. Mesa's version of Lorenzo (Orenstein) recently said in an interview that if DAL, U, or UAL had JB's labor cost, they'd be the most profitable airlines in the world. There has been a drop off in international revenue due to the terrorism threat for US carriers. when that goes away, revenue will rebound. BTW, had Sept 11 and the tech meltdown NOT happened, DAL likely WOULD have crushed JetBlue.
"Besides, as I mentioned before, what high-yield (i.e., premium class) passenger on VS is even going to want to connect to a cattle-car 737 packed with screaming babies?"
One who needs to get to Syracuse. BTW, what percentage of VA's pax are "premium", and just ask any JB employee, cattle car seating IS premium if they get a TV
----------------
On 8/13/2003 1:56:56 PM Daedalus wrote:
busdrvr statement:
"There has been a drop off in international revenue due to the terrorism threat for US carriers. when that goes away, revenue will rebound."
Well there is good news and bad news with this.
The good news is that your statement is true, for the most part. The bad news is that the threat of terrorism against US carriers will be not be abating anytime in the next 100 years or so.
----------------
On 8/13/2003 1:56:56 PM Daedalus wrote:
busdrvr statement:
"There has been a drop off in international revenue due to the terrorism threat for US carriers. when that goes away, revenue will rebound."
Well there is good news and bad news with this.
The good news is that your statement is true, for the most part. The bad news is that the threat of terrorism against US carriers will be not be abating anytime in the next 100 years or so.
----------------
You are unfortunately correct, HOWEVER, the PERCEPTION of the threat is the only thing that has to change. The threat BEFORE 9/11 was GREATER than it is now, however that wasn't the perception. Those in the industry knew of some of those threats. They just didn't get media play. hopefully the FBI and CIA will be successful in thwarting future attacks before they happen
I agree with your point about perception being the driving force, but here too the 24-hour media outlets have driven the hysteria up to stratospheric levels, only to be interrupted with brief reports about Kobe Bryant's rape trial. This I'm afraid is not going to die away anytime soon. MSNBC / CNN / FOX have the FBI and CIA trumped big time.
busdrvr statement:
"There has been a drop off in international revenue due to the terrorism threat for US carriers. when that goes away, revenue will rebound."
Well there is good news and bad news with this.
The good news is that your statement is true, for the most part. The bad news is that the threat of terrorism against US carriers will be not be abating anytime in the next 100 years or so.
"There has been a drop off in international revenue due to the terrorism threat for US carriers. when that goes away, revenue will rebound."
Well there is good news and bad news with this.
The good news is that your statement is true, for the most part. The bad news is that the threat of terrorism against US carriers will be not be abating anytime in the next 100 years or so.
Dear Mr. BUSDRVR,
It's been such a long time....
It's not just being non-union that matters to me. It's working for a group of people who care and who run a better airline. It's not having to listen to the ALPA spin on things.
By the way, I love that J4J thing you guys have going. What a great deal!
It's been such a long time....
It's not just being non-union that matters to me. It's working for a group of people who care and who run a better airline. It's not having to listen to the ALPA spin on things.
By the way, I love that J4J thing you guys have going. What a great deal!
Similar threads
