Rjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 21 hours ago) and read 8306 times:
I was reading some other threads about people who feel Richard Branson shouldn't be allowed to start a carrier in the US. I was wondering what everyone thinks about it; below are my arguments.
Richard Branson starting a Low Cost carrier would be FANTASTIC for Americans if you actually take the time to think about it. Thousands of Americans would have jobs, these people will take their new salaries and spend the money, etc. Then you have the airline side of it. The order for planes will probably go to Boeing. Plus all of the support services of the airline (any catering, maintenance, etc) will be handled by Americans, hence more money. And finally thousands of people will fly who otherwise might not have. So a person living outside SFO might decide to fly to ATL for a trip. This person will probably spend money renting a car, a hotel room, shopping, eating etc.
Also, the too many airline argument just isn't true. Out of all the majors, how many are making money? Then there's also ATA, JetBlue, Alaska, Hawaiian, Aloha, Midwest, Frontier and AirTran. Most of these airlines don't even compete with each other on ANY routes, and Branson has stated that Virgin America won't compete with B6 or WN ( speaking of which B6 and WN don't compete head to head on any routes either) And also, don't forget that LoCos low fares encourage people to fly who otherwise wouldn't. There aren't a set # of pax who all the airlines are competing for.
Basically, I think people who are against it for pure nationalistic reasons should rethink their stance. If some people want to go out and invest their money in an airline then power to them. If they can make that airline suceed and thrive, more power to them.
TBCITDG From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 921 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (12 years 20 hours ago) and read 8148 times:
I am a firm believer of competition so long as it is fair, and that everyone plays with the same rules.
One of the things that really put me off the whole "Branson" airline theme is that they really like to get things their own way.
They always try to exude an image of "underdogs" when in reality they want special treatment from the Goverment of the state/country where they set up operations.
They "expect" consessions regarding terminal space, landing fees, and in reality anything else they can avoid to pay.
One needs only look at the fiasco regarding them and "Airport Coopoeration" RE: fees they needed to pay if they wanted to use a particular terminal. They came out in the media with the "poor us" image and "look how much they want us to pay".
If they didi not want to pay, easy, keep on using the facilities that they had.
Like I said before, I am for competition, but wherever they start up in the States, they will try to do everything they can to tilt the playing field in their favour!!
ZASpringboks From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 18 hours ago) and read 7979 times:
I hate to say this, but yes! I do. I am pro American all the way, but maybe it takes a Britt Bully to come in here and teach the American Carriers a little lesson on how to do things the right way. I'm talking about Song and every other carrier that needs a good jumpstart. I'm hoping in the end, the American carriers get pushed around just enough to say "We're not going to take it anymore!"
Col From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2239 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (12 years 12 hours ago) and read 7847 times:
It makes me laugh when people bring up the comment on how many US jobs will be lost by the majors who are trying to recover. How long will our taxes be used to put a small plaster on a fully exposed chest wound. Majors brought all these problems onto themselves for many years, large slaries, strong unions and same ole, same ole. More jobs will be lost by the majors soon, they can't continue to bleed cash. These lost jobs will be picked up by Virgin US. Virgin US isn't the problem affecting majors, Management/Unions are.
Luv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12341 posts, RR: 44
Reply 11, posted (12 years 12 hours ago) and read 7837 times:
I was going to say no, and I still feel that it should be no, tho after reading Col posting I am leaning towards let him start up. I still feel he is going to get back some of what he gave BA and AA when they tried to code share so that should slow that start up down a little.
N6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 12 hours ago) and read 7822 times:
Since when should the US Government be in the business of limiting competition within a for-profit sector of the economy?
PRINAIR is obviously conflicted - look at his profile. How would he like it if the government, in addition to restricting Branson from starting an airliine in the US set wages for all airline employees? If you support one, how can you not support the other?
Pe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19549 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (12 years 12 hours ago) and read 7815 times:
Competition normally results in higher standards or lower prices or both. Accordingly, it is good for the average consumer. Yes, Virgin America might result in the loss of jobs in other airlines, but then the airline business is all about the survival of the fittest. If you aren't fit enough, you don't survive. It's as simple as that. Go Virgin America!
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 17449 posts, RR: 49
Reply 18, posted (12 years 10 hours ago) and read 7669 times:
There's nothing to debate, the new Virgin America airline will be an American company which is licensed to use the Virgin Brand.
It will be based in the USA and have 75% of it's ownership in the hands of US investors, Branson will have 25%.
It's similar to Coke and Pepsi agreements with bottlers abroad, Coke and Pepsi in Countries outside the US is owned, operated and manufactured by people of that Country. The local bottler is licensed to market, use the brand name and "recipe" for Coke or Pepsi.
Debating Virgin America is mute because it's an American company, Branson is a minority investor.
Beltwaybandit From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 10 hours ago) and read 7628 times:
You would not ask this question if it was Donald Trump or any other American. The concept of "letting" someone start a business is generally alien in the US except when talking about airlines (and a few other things). So what you are really saying is, should we drop the foreign control issue?
Recent DOT action on DHL suggests that the limit can be circumvented by separating the airline operations (aircraft, crew, maintenance, etc.) from the booking and marketing side. I'm sure Branson's all over this.
Do I want a creative, competitive addition to this industry? Sure, but I would hope that his focus is no building yields (not undercutting price) and offering a service worth paying more for.
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8526 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (12 years 10 hours ago) and read 7579 times:
Heck yeah, let him in!
Compete or die. That's the rule of free markets (except when it comes to American companies paying twice the market price of sugar because our government is wrongly subsidizing a few growers even though Australians can grow it for cheaper. Ditto for our high price orange juice and steel protectionism....GRRRR! C'mon Bush be a CONSERVATIVE!!!).
Compete or die. You can always use fresh blood in the airline industry.
Caetravlr From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 914 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (12 years 10 hours ago) and read 7529 times:
As much as I hate the fact that it could hasten the demise of an airline like USAirways, there really is no question as to whether or not the new carrier should be "allowed". If it follows the rules and regulations regarding commerce and ownership in the U.S., then there really is no way to prevent it, and there shouldn't be, that is why the laws are set up the way they are, and the reason capitalism has worked so well over the years. As I stated in a thread yesterday, I don't like the timing, and I don't like the fact that it will not create new markets and open up flying to new people who wouldn't otherwise fly, but it will be a business of siphoning off customers who would otherwise fly other airlines in this time of overcapacity in our country.
Bash me all you want, I understand a free market economy, and it works. Survival of the fittest. There is no law or logical reason to keep this company out, I just wish it would be at a point when our economy was a little stronger.
Only my opinion.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her. - W.C. Fields
Elwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (12 years 8 hours ago) and read 7435 times:
I have no issues with cabotage - the allowing of international carriers to operate domestic US routes - so long as American carriers are allowed to do the same thing in those countries.
For example: Richard Branson calls all of his ventures "Virgin" because he incorporates them or their holding companies in the British Virgin Islands. As part of the British Commonwealth, the Virgin Islands are technically part of the EU (I'm not exactly sure of their legal definition).
In any event, so long as US carriers are allowed to fly domestic routes within the boundaries of the country's whose carriers are flying in the US, I have no problem.
But the issue is so messed up because of the uncertain definition of the EU (is it a trade alliance, a confederation of states, or a sovereign nation-state?), I don't think it should happen until that is cleared up, and the definition of places like the Virgin Islands is determined.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
: I don't think the definition of the EU is uncertain - for the purposes of commerce, it is a Single European Market. Diplomatically and militarily ther
: I actually have my doubts that Branson would enjoy any cost advantage versus Southwest, JetBlue, Frontier, Airtran or Spirit. If he wants to enter the
: i love how some people actually try thier hardest to control what others do. mr. branson, come to the US! i'd love to see those virgin tails more ofte
: The market looks like it is pretty well saturated as is. I doubt he would make a go of it however, unless he thought he could make money at it. Love h
: Would Herb Kelleher be allowed to start "Southwest UK" or "Southwest Europe"? If the answer is yes, then let Branson in. If the answer is no, then tel
: "Also, the too many airline argument just isn't true. Out of all the majors, how many are making money? Then there's also ATA, JetBlue, Alaska, Hawaii
: N6376M...I am not "conflicted" You know nothing about what you are talking about.
: Elwood64151 "For example: Richard Branson calls all of his ventures "Virgin" because he incorporates them or their holding companies in the British Vi
: Of course he should. After all, the American flyers do deserve to fly in style that only Virgin can offer. It will set standards for other American do
: I believe there is still too much capacity in the US system. If someone were to go permanently, then maybe this would be a good idea. I still have a s
: Yes, he should be allowed to do it.. The traditional big airlines in the USA suck. Let's be very honest about it.. they aren't good at much except pro
: I think san fran is the ideal market for this venture. It is a market that would like a little more sophistication than WN offers and, is rip for the
: >>Hey whoever made the comment about herb keller being able to start Southwest UK or EU, consider this. How many countries does Ford sell cars in?
: We don't need another cherry-picker airliner running Airbuses from the North to Florida..... I like AA's term for the LCC's - limited choice carriers.
: Yeah, bring him here. I heard his people were visiting SFO the other day, evaluating it as a HQ.
: There were similar "foreign ownership" questions back in the '80s when Rupert Murdoch was trying to start up the FOX Television Network. He got around
: I think he should be able to as long as he doesn't start a LCC, nothing against them (this is not that kind of thread). But, if he was as good a busin
: COTXDFW777AA, I was just thinking about this last night but there are now several categories for airlines. LCC doesn't have to mean Southwest. All new
: Branson has done nothing but bring innovation and new blood to the airline industry. He started a great thing in Vigrin Atlantic, and went on to make
: I have mixed feelings on Sir Branson coming over to the US. I LOVE Virgin..I think he is increadable. I love everything about them! I think there are
: NWAFA, just wondering but how do you define too many carriers? As long as businessmen are willing to fund carriers and there are gates and slots for t
: I think it comes down to financial health..the more carriers there are, the least chance an airline can keep a strong financial health.
: I don't think that comparison works at all. The more carriers there are, the better it is for the consumer. If an airline needs to charge outrageous p
: Hey, if Arnie can become Governor of California, why not!
: well, its ok for american companies to come over to England and push other companies out of business. For starters lets say McDonalds. If yanks can sp
: There is a problem though that our national air transportation isn't necessairly self-supporting. The LCC's cherry-pick profitable routes, while netwo
: Don't forget that CO and NW have foreign minority ownerships (SAS with CO and KLM with NW), but under 25% of each company per US laws. Don't forget th
: I think he should it will Help our econmy. Com'on in Branson
: There are hardly too many carriers in the US. There was overcapacity, but not too many airlines. More airlines generally equals more competition.
: Anyone who really honestly pulls the 'too much competition' card here should really take a step back and understand business and capitalism. The Unite
: The simple answer is YES u live in a free country (so GWB says).so why shouldnt he have the right to fly and make money.
: There is a problem though that our national air transportation isn't necessarily self-supporting. The LCC's cherry-pick profitable routes, while netwo
: Let him start the airline. Branson is just putting up a business not taking over a state. It's just like any other regular business that starts in thi