777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11852 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 13 hours ago) and read 5602 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
If US Airways have many flights from SFO then Virgin America will shorely impact on US the most and it could even sadly be the final nail in the US coffin. If Virgin compete on US routes then it will impact US the hardest as they are still very fragile.
Azul320 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 281 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 13 hours ago) and read 5560 times:
US barely has a presence at SFO with very few routes to the eastcoast. Vigin America would most likely affect United's large scale operation at SFO. If low fare start up Vigin America were to actually get up and running and be known for an on-time perfomance they would have to face the hurrendous delays I hear about out of SFO. WN backed out of SFO to OAK many years ago because of that.
BoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 8 hours ago) and read 5385 times:
I believe JetBlue mostly and other LCC will be impacted most - Both JetBlue and Virgin have the same image of frills with low cost, both airlines will serve SFO and New York as their hubs.... Also, Virgin America will serve premium markets and no secondary cities. Hawaii sounds interesting...can the A320 make it out there???
There are folks no matter what will only travel the majors(ME!!!), and those of you who don't have NO loyalty whatsoever and they will go after price of LCC.
ChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4012 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 8 hours ago) and read 5375 times:
I think TED and Virgin will go head-to-head, much like Song and JetBlue are now. In fact, in that battle JetBlue 'seems' to be winning, with Song in a holding pattern (at best) while B6 ramps up this fall at LGA and BOS.
Virgin USA perhaps picked SFO as their operational HQ because to add another LCC into the nearly-saturated east coast quagmire is a recipe for certain failure. Better to get your feet wet in a region not yet saturated with LCCs, and that means the west coast. And that means a showdown at high noon with TED ('A part of UniTED,' as the tag line likes to say).
SevenHeavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1146 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 5288 times:
I hope I am wrong but I seriously doubt that Virgin America would enter the west coast-Hawaii markets. The current legacy carriers that serve these routes (predominantly AA, UA, DL) have a hard time operating these routes at a profit. Flights to the islands are often used purely as a means of relieving frequent flyers of their miles!. There is also the added expense associated with operating long overwater segments (US west coast - Hawaii is the longest oceanic sector in the world where there is absolutely no land in between). I believe the nearest diversion if the Hawaiian islands are below minimums is Midway and this obviusly means large reserves of fuel need to be carried. An A320 could operate the 5 hour sector but could not carry the required contingency fuel without a severe payload penalty. AQ uses B73G's but these aircraft have slightly better range than the A320.
To get back to the original question Virgin America will, if successfully marketed and grown have the biggest impact on TED and UA from SFO and also on Jetblue because of their presence in OAK (and SJC!). To a lessor extent they could also take a slice out of Southwest and Alaska in certain markets.
In a nutshell they will put the squeeze on any carrier operating to the bay on routes in which they compete.
Aa717driver From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1566 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 5181 times:
The HNL alternate issue isn't an issue. Other than a typhoon, when was the last time that ALL suitable airports in the islands were shut down with no warning? (Dec. 7, 1941 notwithstanding...) A 767-300 from STL had no more options for diversion than an A320 from SFO.
The fact that the legacy carriers operate that route IS exactly why VA might do it. Also, they may try to take a bite out of ATA's sardine flights. IMO.
VA will not impact JB in SFO. The few people who drive to OAK from San Fran may switch to VA but I doubt it. VA will draw from the disaffected legacy pax. UA, DAL and AA could be the big losers. Also, NW pax connecting to East Coast cities served by VA might be lured away.
Again, I believe the market share will shift from the low service legacy carriers to the leather-clad, PTV-equipped new breed LCC's.TC
FLY2LIM From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1183 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 5060 times:
Someone said that B6 would be affected in SFO. Last time I checked, B6 didn't fly into SFO, only OAK and SJC.
This is what I feel the main impact will be as far as VA. At this time, there are few options from SFO to places like LAS and PDX. Many of those options are out of OAK and SJC. I think that VA will offer a new "alternative" and it will have a domino effect. For example, all the people who live in SF and the peninsula will no longer need to go to a different airport to fly to LAS or other short flights like that. That's my opinion. I think everyone will be affected. Curiously, I think that VA will not compete directly with WN and B6 because those two are only operating out of OAK and SJC.
More choices, and I welcome them.
SevenHeavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1146 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 5031 times:
There are a number of old threads asking why LCC's haven't tried Hawaii flights in the past. The answer always seems to be the same: Cost. I still say that as much as I would like to see it these flights are unlikely to happen. For an LCC they are difficult to make money on - even east coast - florida markets have some higher yield, last minute business traffic and this is often what makes the difference between a profit and a loss. Granted they are nowhere near what the legacy carriers have charged for "walk up" fares but they are still far higher than the restrictive promotional fares that make up a large part of LCC's ticket sales. Couple this with the added cost of operating long over water ETOPS flights and the routes become very risky for carriers which need consistently high load factors to break even.
From what I've seen so far Virgin America is going to be aiming itself squarley at JB's business, with a similar high-end approach to the LCC model. I find it hard to believe that JB will emerge unaffected assuming that the two comptete on the same routes. UA lost business from SFO when JB started flying from OAK so why would these customers not be prepared to go back to flying from SFO if the price was right?.
Again I hope I am wrong but so far no LCC has been willing to make the jump to operate Hawaii flights, maybe one day this will change but it certainly would not be a wise move for a newly established (and therefore relatively vulnerable) LCC.
StearmanNut From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 5022 times:
They will all suffer with exception of WN. If Virgin does what I think it will do, all major airlines in the US will have two WN type operations to contend with. UA, AA, DL, and all others will have to make some major operational changes to stay in the game, barring another national tragedy.
If wishes were horses, a Tail Dragger I would fly...
Mikey711MN From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1395 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (9 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 4992 times:
One thing I think that has been universally agreed upon is that SFO is so thoroughly delay-prone that Virgin America's startup there seems a bit of a shaky decision. Which leads me to the conclusion that they, too, know this and are therefore looking to immediately displace market share where they can, thusly creating a zero-sum effect on operations at SFO. Now while I'm not sure which routes are most suspect (read: lucrative for LCC startup), my guess is that a few of UA's hub operations will be the first target mostly because they've got the most to lose and they're limited in their resources to compete at SFO for any sizeable entrenchment.
Hz747300 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2004, 1647 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (9 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 4988 times:
UA. No question. However, that said, UA is used to dealing with SFO, and it is prone to delays as it is built in the foggiest part of the bay area. I hope it works for Branson though, and I still think Austin, TX would be ideal for a LCC with coastal connections. It just was not glamorous enough for the glory hog.
Wilco From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 355 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (9 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 4951 times:
UA without a doubt. Virgin America is gonna go after those transcon SFO-NYC and SFO-WAS routes..... I seriosuly doubt VirginAmerica will touch HNL, not at first at least: these routes bleed too much money.
Here is my less technical opinion: take the jetblue route map and look at it in the mirror- a lot of transcon traffic from SFO (like Jetblue's JFK) as well as traffic up and down the Western States.
Lono From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1335 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (9 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 4888 times:
I was thinking not so much trans con flights... But I think Virgin will start north south flights out of SFO... Much like Alaska...and Alaska has been successful focusing on west coast service... and Alaska has been able to leverage pricing up until now... I have to think Alaska will be hit hardest as their turf will become a war zone... Much like JetBlue did on the east coast...to DL
Northwest717 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 4872 times:
I think probably jetBlue because Virgin America is offering the same sort of product that jetBlue does. I heard that their cabin would include PTVs (correct me if I am mistaken) and they are operating A320s. They might even latch on to the same routes as jetBlue. I dunno, just my $.02.