Virgin Us (airways)?

[Rob]

I posted this on another bulletin board and wonder what you folks think about it.

"As it was becoming clear that the IAM concessions to US Airways were more and more a sure thing, the following news came out about Virgin:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=7350666

The only way I can see for Branson to get Virgin going is to buy 25% of US for about $250 million new capital, reducing RSA's exposure to about 30%, worth about $300 million, a small profit for all their troubles. Lakefield et al. get replaced by the ex-Delta guy et al. Branson has on retainer. (Lots of resignations among the VP's lately, if you have noticed.) Current stockholders would survive (at about $1 a present share - about where it is now) and hope for better days ahead.

The new post-Chap11 US may have costs better than Virgin US could achieve as a startup. It would definitely be a fresh face for everybody - and get rid of all the lingering Allegheny/Piedmont/PSA employee friction - while paying a slight homage to the American predecessor US in its existing name. Branson's pending Airbus buys fit right in. It would provide Virgin US with instant access to New York and Washington of a size that would take years ? decades? to achieve otherwise. It would give US a better post-Chap11 start than any other arrangement other than finding oil on the property or some financial equivalent.

FWIW, I can imagine an AWA version of this story, but the US one works better and would have to be a preferred choice."

 

[UseYourHead]

What about UAL, as Greenbrier Capital is run in part by an ex-CEO of UAL...who has JFK & IAD hub operations...oh and SFO too.

What they do not have is Airbus with CFM engines, something we have and Virgin selected for Virgin America.

I posted this on another bulletin board and wonder what you folks think about it.

"As it was becoming clear that the IAM concessions to US Airways were more and more a sure thing, the following news came out about Virgin:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=7350666

The only way I can see for Branson to get Virgin going is to buy 25% of US for about $250 million new capital, reducing RSA's exposure to about 30%, worth about $300 million, a small profit for all their troubles. Lakefield et al. get replaced by the ex-Delta guy et al. Branson has on retainer. (Lots of resignations among the VP's lately, if you have noticed.) Current stockholders would survive (at about $1 a present share - about where it is now) and hope for better days ahead.

The new post-Chap11 US may have costs better than Virgin US could achieve as a startup. It would definitely be a fresh face for everybody - and get rid of all the lingering Allegheny/Piedmont/PSA employee friction - while paying a slight homage to the American predecessor US in its existing name. Branson's pending Airbus buys fit right in. It would provide Virgin US with instant access to New York and Washington of a size that would take years ? decades? to achieve otherwise. It would give US a better post-Chap11 start than any other arrangement other than finding oil on the property or some financial equivalent.

FWIW, I can imagine an AWA version of this story, but the US one works better and would have to be a preferred choice."

[post="241662"][/post]​

 

[tadjr]

Red is not really my color, but for a chance to work for an airline and company that is well run (by Sir Richard?) I would definitely suffer through the fashion faux pax that I would be. I'm tired of working for a company thats always at the back of the pack and the laughinstock. For a while there we looked like things might be better (at the beginning of the Wolf/Gangwahl era) but alas, that was just a diversion. :unsure:

 

[deltawatch]

"He said Virgin would announce within days who would be the major U.S. investors in his Virgin America airline which would be up and running in 2005, but refused to confirm whether previously touted Green Briar Equity Group would be a lead investor in the budget carrier."

http://au.biz.yahoo.com/041208/19/2e52.html

 

[Rob]

He's been about to announce his investors for a couple years now.

 

[mweiss]

In fairness, it's mighty difficult to launch an airline during weaker economic times.

 

[nycbusdriver]

- while paying a slight homage to the American predecessor US in its existing name.

[post="241662"][/post]​

The name of the Virgin branded airline getting ready to operate in the U.S. is "Virgin America." NOT Virgin US.

http://www.virginamerica.com/

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Because the state of California ponied up 15 million in grant money for Virgin America preferential hiring will go to California residents or displaced California airline workers.

 

[Tarheel]

You can't escape US though. The VP of Rev Mgmt and Network Planning there is from US...

 

[NAPAUS]

I posted this on another bulletin board and wonder what you folks think about it.

"As it was becoming clear that the IAM concessions to US Airways were more and more a sure thing, the following news came out about Virgin:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=7350666

The only way I can see for Branson to get Virgin going is to buy 25% of US for about $250 million new capital, reducing RSA's exposure to about 30%, worth about $300 million, a small profit for all their troubles. Lakefield et al. get replaced by the ex-Delta guy et al. Branson has on retainer. (Lots of resignations among the VP's lately, if you have noticed.) Current stockholders would survive (at about $1 a present share - about where it is now) and hope for better days ahead.

The new post-Chap11 US may have costs better than Virgin US could achieve as a startup. It would definitely be a fresh face for everybody - and get rid of all the lingering Allegheny/Piedmont/PSA employee friction - while paying a slight homage to the American predecessor US in its existing name. Branson's pending Airbus buys fit right in. It would provide Virgin US with instant access to New York and Washington of a size that would take years ? decades? to achieve otherwise. It would give US a better post-Chap11 start than any other arrangement other than finding oil on the property or some financial equivalent.

FWIW, I can imagine an AWA version of this story, but the US one works better and would have to be a preferred choice."

[post="241662"][/post]​

😉 Oh if only it were true... Dreaming during a blizzard is useful - just dont get caught in a mirage of snow! But we can dream cant we!!! 😛

 

[Rob]

mweiss said: In fairness, it's mighty difficult to launch an airline during weaker economic times.


I totally agree, which is why I have my doubts Branson can attempt a de novo startup. Buying a low-cost operation seems to me the only way for him to have anything going in 2006.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Because the state of California ponied up 15 million in grant money for Virgin America preferential hiring will go to California residents or displaced California airline workers.

[post="242708"][/post]​

Sounds like a federal discrimination-in-hiring lawsuit just waiting to be filed.

Interesting that Virgin America is headquartered in New York City, yet has to hire California residents.

 

[TechBoy]

Sounds like a federal discrimination-in-hiring lawsuit just waiting to be filed.

[post="242770"][/post]​

There is no federal law that prohibits discrimination by state in hiring. In fact, many cities have laws that restrict hiring to city residents.

 

[nycbusdriver]

There is no federal law that prohibits discrimination by state in hiring. In fact, many cities have laws that restrict hiring to city residents.

[post="242784"][/post]​

Yes. The hiring of GOVERNMENT employees is often restricted to its own jurisdiction. No city has the power to restrict private corporations in this way.

 

[mweiss]

No city has the power to restrict private corporations in this way.

[post="242813"][/post]​

It's not a restriction. It's an agreement. You want preferential treatment from the local government, you need to give preferential treatment to the local government. In other words, I'm sure that Virgin could start hiring from elsewhere...but then it's bye-bye tax breaks.