Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Set For Virgin US Order  
User currently offlineKl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5197 posts, RR: 15
Posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4467 times:

Virgin US, the proposed new low-cost airline, is poised to announce an order for up to 30 Airbus aircraft in a deal that will further the European manufacturer's inroads into the fast- growing sector.

The deal could be worth as much as $1.6bn at list prices, although such large orders are usually heavily discounted.

An announcement could come as early as next week, together with a decision about where the new airline will be based. The location is expected to be either San Francisco or Boston.

Source: Financial Times

Full article : http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1079420653366&p=1012571727092



34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3221 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4198 times:

Considering the Virgin fleet are hovering over the dying US Airways carcass like vultures, it makes sense to consolidate with an Airbus fleet when there may be easy pickings coming up in that area.

IMHO
MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineKl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5197 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3890 times:

If Virgin is interested in the US Air leftovers, why does this article state that only SFO and BOS are main candidates for a hub?

User currently offlineTekelberry From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1459 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3801 times:

Not only does a foreign company sweep in and try to steal business from US companies, but it doesn't even attempt to help our economy at all by thinking about Boeing.

User currently offlineRoberta From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3766 times:

It is to my understanding that more of the A380 will be American than the 7E7

User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3748 times:

I read a statement this morning by a Boeing executive who outlined clearly they offered their 737 NG's at a very competitive price, included pilot training, discounted spares support, and Connexion inflight entertainment, but it still doesn't seem to be enough!!! Boeing is certainly giving a great effort, Airbus' prices just seem to always be lower.

User currently offlineLN-MOW From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1908 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3704 times:

Not sure if I remember right, but I believe I read somewhere that Goodrich won a contract for cabin modifications of the A380 ... which may mean that some of this work will take place at Everett .. ??




- I am LN-MOW, and I approve this message.
User currently offlineRjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3617 times:

Not only does a foreign company sweep in and try to steal business from US companies, but it doesn't even attempt to help our economy at all by thinking about Boeing.

It isn't a foreign company. It will be majority American owned. And I'd like you to tell this argument to the thousands of AMERICANS who will be employed as a result of Virgin America.

I do agree with you that they should have ordered Boeing..Even though a good share of Boeing planes are built overseas and a good share of Airbus planes built in the US....But either way, thousands of Americans will be employed, thousands of people will be able to afford to fly, etc etc, the chain goes on.


User currently offlineAs739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6161 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3555 times:

ki911...Its says Boston or San francisco cause those are the two of three cities being considered for the HQ of VS USA.The third is IAD from last I heard.

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineTu114 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3549 times:

Tekelberry -

I don't wish to seem rude, but your post is precisely calculated to cause maximum irritation to all who are not american. It's actually pretty frustrating to the rest of the world that the US persistently preaches "free trade" to the rest of the world (the definition of "free trade" being "access for american companies") but when a foreign company comes to America it's all daggers and insults. If you want free trade, then you have to accept free trade. Gracefully.



User currently offlineUAMAYBACH1239 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 221 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3488 times:

If virgin will have any chance of making it SFO would have to be ruled out.
Before 9/11 after AA bought reno air and made an attempt to expand out of the bay area between the afternoon low ceilings , and rain the had no choice but to cancel the flts. UA traffica dominated the skies and slots even more so. those odds could cripple a LCC.



a/c flown 737-222/322/522 757/747-1-2-4, 767-2-3, 777-2-3, A319-20, DC10-10-30, L1011-3-5, 727-222adv, MD85-90 flyourfri
User currently offlineKanebear From United States of America, joined May 2002, 953 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3394 times:

WN couldn't even make SFO work due to delays... Virgin US is going to have enough teething problems starting up even WITHOUT the problems that are endemic to SFO.

User currently offlineGilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3037 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3385 times:

Not only does a foreign company sweep in and try to steal business from US companies, but it doesn't even attempt to help our economy at all by thinking about Boeing.

Comments like this really piss me off when from small minded individuals who cannot back up their claims!!!

For a start a foreign company is not allowed to have more than a 49% in a US airline, meaning the other 51% has to come from a US backer.

Over 35% of components going into an Airbus aircraft are from US suppliers!

The airline will be providing valuable employment to locals and contribute to the local economies wherever Virgin US chooses to open it's HUB.

I don't know how people in the US feel, but in the UK if a company chooses to base itself here (regardless of the industry) we would grateful for the employment and opportunities it brings regardless of where the company originates.

You don't see many European's complaining when our national airlines order US aircraft over Airbus.


User currently offlineKl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5197 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3303 times:

I agree, Not really the smartest post I've seen today.... With the economic troubles in Europe at the moment it's nice to see Airbus scoring a goal. It doesn't matter where, America is not exclusive boeing territory...... If the world was like that we wouldn't have any Boeings in Europe anyway, or China and the rest of the world....... New companies like Virgin US bring new jobs, while eliminating some un efficient ,unwanted posts of other companies......

User currently offlineAs739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6161 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3287 times:

I think what you guys don't realize is after 9/11 and United cutting back 100 flights, ATC problems are not as bad as they use to be. VS may not be able to make SFO work cause of the prices really! It cost a lot to run out of this airport.
UAMAYBACK...SFO has no slots, its not a slot restricted airport. AA expanded out of the Bay Area but not at SFO, that has nothing to do with weather. AA built up SJC only to downsize when the computer industry slowed and the Silicon Valley jobs started to dry up. They have never had a huge operation at SFO ( max 25-30 flights ).
What makes SFO any worse then BOS, PHL, or EWR....nothing anymore!

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3232 times:

Not only does a foreign company sweep in and try to steal business from US companies, but it doesn't even attempt to help our economy at all by thinking about Boeing.

Its not "stealing" business. Its winning it.

Nobody has a "right" to business in a free market. This isn't Red China, although you couldn't tell that by speaking to any of our ranking leaders.

N


User currently offlineFrugalqxnwa From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3214 times:

As739x,

The last time I flew through SFO I was delayed several hours because of weather and ATC, and that was December 2001. SFO has a nice airport, but the delays are still around and need to be worked on before any sane LCC will think about hubbing there. My vote goes for BOS. Logan does not have the problems that SFO does (or so I think), and with US taking a beating VirginUS would be smart to base itself in the east where there might be a large market opening up in the next several years.


User currently offlineKl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5197 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3180 times:

''Not only does a foreign company sweep in and try to steal business from US companies, but it doesn't even attempt to help our economy at all by thinking about Boeing.''

Huh? What's a Boeing?


User currently offlineAs739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6161 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

Frug,

I find my flying through BOS just as bad. On your second comment, I agree completly that the east would be better for them though its getting mighty flooded with carriers back there. I just don't think that ATC will be the reason VS stays away from SFO at a hub. Now as headquarters, that could be different. SFO could be the HQ, but not the majors ops center, Just a thought!

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineMNeo From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2004, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3106 times:

For all u A$$holes bashing the new "BRITISH" company with Airbusl orders and how its not helping the economy look at this:

Since no US airlines are owned by the goverment it really makes no diffrence who controls the company. Both AA,UA,DL and VS-US will pay taxes, will emplay US citzens who then will pay taxes, will Buy up land for HQ,HUBs and will pay taxes on the land and will use US fuel which has taxes on it. the only thaing that matters is who will get the big $$. in one case its the rich fata$$ american or the rich and not so fata$$es European.

PS sorry no spell check but i hope i get the piont acress



Powered by Maina
User currently offlineKl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5197 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3086 times:

Maybe a stupid question , But why SFO or BOS? Wouldn't it be more logic if you start with one hub to base it in the 'middle' of the country?

Again, only my 2 eurocents..

KL911


User currently offlineTekelberry From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1459 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3063 times:

I knew right off the bat I'd have to defend myself in this thread, so here goes.

And I'd like you to tell this argument to the thousands of AMERICANS who will be employed as a result of Virgin America.

LCCs are hurting the majority of the airline industry. They're great for consumers, but they hurt majors. I would think the cutbacks and job losses from pre-existing US carriers due to the LCCs' presence would be worse than the few jobs Virgin creates. However, this would probably get accomplished with or without Virgin America.

I don't wish to seem rude, but your post is precisely calculated to cause maximum irritation to all who are not american. It's actually pretty frustrating to the rest of the world that the US persistently preaches "free trade" to the rest of the world (the definition of "free trade" being "access for american companies") but when a foreign company comes to America it's all daggers and insults. If you want free trade, then you have to accept free trade. Gracefully.

I don't speak for the entire country. I am offering my opinion. Do I like the fact that jobs from the US are being outsourced to other countries? No. For some reason, you were under the assumption that I thought it was a great idea. It's always boggled me that whenever someone from the US, or any other country for that matter, states their opinion, then people think that opinion is also the view of their country's government.

Over 35% of components going into an Airbus aircraft are from US suppliers!

Are you saying purchasing an aircraft from a foreign company helps the US economy more than purchasing from a US company? Otherwise, what's your point?

I don't know how people in the US feel, but in the UK if a company chooses to base itself here (regardless of the industry) we would grateful for the employment and opportunities it brings regardless of where the company originates.

Let me clear up a few things. I wasn't trying to say that Virgin America won't be a benefit to our economy. That is still to be determined and I'm eager to find out. I'm open to a lot of new ideas, Virgin America being one. I was simply stating that I find it odd for a foreign company to swarm our country's industry using foreign aircraft (granted some parts are made here).

[Edited 2004-04-29 00:46:48]

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 22, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3030 times:

LCCs are hurting the majority of the airline industry. They're great for consumers, but they hurt majors

This is not the LCC's fault. Its the majors fault.

I am offering my opinion. Do I like the fact that jobs from the US are being outsourced to other countries

I think its awful. That's why I'm a Democrat and I think our corporate taxation laws that make offshoring attractive are ridiculous.

On the other hand, as a consumer, I'm fine with it. I want what I want, for what I have to pay for it. If American workers are too stupid or too selfish, then I will take it from where I can get it.

This isn't outsourcing/offshoring we're talking about. We're talking about an American company that will hire American employees and fund the US economy. If SRB can do that, he deserves his cut.

I was simply stating that I find it odd for a foreign company to swarm our country's industry using foreign aircraft (granted some parts are made here).

Again, I reiterate. Free market, not communism.

N


User currently offlineTekelberry From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1459 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3001 times:

Again, I reiterate. Free market, not communism.

I take offense to being called a communist. I am in no way a communist. I have never said that Virgin America MUST operate Boeing aircraft. All I meant is that if Virgin America wants to show commitment to the US economy, they could have purchasing Boeing. However, they can purchase whatever aircraft they please.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2990 times:

I take offense to being called a communist.

Socialist, then? Protectionist?  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

I don't mean to offend you. But Republicanomics are borderline socialist.

N


25 As739x : KI911....to answer your question and avoid the opther BS back and forth. Its doen't really matter if its in the center of the country or not. Virgin w
26 Tu114 : Protectionism. Isn't that what the EU is vehemently opposed to? Let's think about the US steel industry - did I hear the word tariffs? Either you want
27 Kl911 : As739x , Thanks, I guess I still think in the classical hub way.... But anyway, tthe more LCC's the better for all of us! KL911
28 Post contains images DfwRevolution : Not only does a foreign company sweep in and try to steal business from US companies, but it doesn't even attempt to help our economy at all by thinki
29 Vctony : I tend to like to support US businesses over those of foreign companies. The last thing that the US needs is ANOTHER airline, let alone one flying for
30 Kl911 : Those are the answers I was afraid of, US carriers can fly with their US made aircraft anywhere they want, but a foreign airline has to keep it's 'for
31 Post contains images DfwRevolution : Come on guys, what's the problem? Nothing is the problem, the SEC is not interferring in any way, shape, or form. United, Northwest, jetBlue, Spirit,
32 Kl911 : DfwRevolution, ''The "problem" is just a group of immature A.netters who see aviation as Them vs. US....'' And often also US vs. Them......
33 GlobeTrekker : It may sound harsh, but the strongest always survives. It isn't always pretty or "right", but no matter where you are in the world, you have to rememb
34 Gigneil : The only reason I find it odd that V-USA would order A320s is the fact that the currancy exchange rates still favor Boeing, all other Virgin subsidari
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Qantas Set For $8b Airbus Order-A3XX/A330 posted Sat Nov 4 2000 22:32:01 by VH-BZF
Jet (Sahara) Set For US posted Thu Jun 8 2006 16:35:47 by LAXDESI
More US Cabotage For Virgin posted Fri Mar 31 2006 11:36:39 by ANother
No Airbus 340 For US Airlines? posted Thu Mar 16 2006 09:58:59 by Voyager747
US Airways Set For Expansion... posted Fri Feb 24 2006 06:05:42 by SonOfACaptain
Virgin Nigeria Cleared For Nigeria-US posted Thu Feb 16 2006 06:30:48 by EurostarVA
Airbus Set To Win Sudan Airways Order posted Thu Feb 10 2005 14:02:02 by Flying-Tiger
US-Scotland Set For An Increase Again. posted Sun Oct 10 2004 14:40:52 by GLAGAZ
Article: Virgin USA Order Goes To Airbus? posted Mon Jun 7 2004 21:18:43 by BCAInfoSys
Airbus, Boeing Fight For JAL US$1.7B Fleet Renewal posted Fri Oct 31 2003 10:01:07 by Singapore_Air