BNE From Australia, joined Mar 2000, 3156 posts, RR: 13 Posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5737 times:
Melbourne could join Sydney as a future Australian hub for Virgin Atlantic, according to its new Australia general manager Jonathan Harding.
He told Travel Today the Victorian state capital was on the radar although no firm plans are yet in place. Asked if Melbourne was on the cards, Harding said: “I think so. We are getting passengers flying from Melbourne and onto our Sydney to London route so there is certainly the possibility.”
Initially however, he said Virgin was committed to its daily Sydney route. "It takes two to three years make money but we launched Sydney less than two years and we have just started making a profit,” Harding said.
Sam1987 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 940 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5482 times:
Quoting BNE (Thread starter): Melbourne could join Sydney as a future Australian hub for Virgin Atlantic
Do you mean destination rather than hub?
A LHR to MEL service operated by VS probably wouldn't be profitable. BA has recently cut down services to Oz; it axed MEL and cut capacity on the SYD route.
Quoting BNE (Thread starter): We are getting passengers flying from Melbourne and onto our Sydney to London route
Surely that is a reason not to operate a service direct to MEL, because it will just take passengers from its SYD service?
Next flights: LGW-LBA-LGW, LHR-SIN-SYD, SYD-BKK-LHR, LGW-GRO, GRO-CIA, CIA-MAD, MAD-LGW
Kevin777 From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1154 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5454 times:
Maybe VS just started making money on LHR-SYD, but looking at the middle East carrier's fleet growth and aggressive expansions I don't think VS should be too certain that this will continue.
In this light, a service to MEL seems like a rather bad idea. Maybe there'll be a bit to gain from OS' withdrawal from VIE-MEL soon, but still... launching new services EU-Australia when the M.E. carriers are building up capacity enough to transport the entire population of MEL and SYD to Europe simultaneously, I don't think it's a good idea.. Sadly though, I love VS!!!
Kevin777
"I was waiting for you at DFW, but you must have been in LUV" CPH-GOT-CPH-GOT-CPH-GOT-CPH...
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5369 times:
Quoting BNE (Thread starter):
Initially however, he said Virgin was committed to its daily Sydney route. "It takes two to three years make money but we launched Sydney less than two years and we have just started making a profit,” Harding said.
I'm glad to hear VS is finally making on this route...a few A.net members were questiong the viability of this route for VS....
That being said, I'm a bit curious as to how this potential new route would pan out..
Concorde001 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1230 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5330 times:
Quoting Sam1987 (Reply 1): A LHR to MEL service operated by VS probably wouldn't be profitable. BA has recently cut down services to Oz; it axed MEL and cut capacity on the SYD route.
If I'm not mistaken, BA did not stop flying to MEL because the flights were unprofitable. Rather, BA needed the four 744s deployed on the route for their expansion, particularly India and China, where higher profits could be made than flying to MEL.
HKGKaiTak From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1050 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5014 times:
Contrary to seemingly everyone here I think MEL is a great idea for VS, given that there's no European airline presence there (or won't have soon), VS would certainly get good business.
Now, which Asian port will this flight route through I wonder ...
And I was surprised to read in that article that the SYD flight is starting to be profitable, obviously they're starting to fill the HKG-SYD sector rather well.
6thfreedom From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3267 posts, RR: 22 Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4989 times:
Quoting Sam1987 (Reply 1): A LHR to MEL service operated by VS probably wouldn't be profitable. BA has recently cut down services to Oz; it axed MEL and cut capacity on the SYD route.
What BA did has nothing to do with profitability of the sector.
Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 2): launching new services EU-Australia when the M.E. carriers are building up capacity enough to transport the entire population of MEL and SYD to Europe simultaneously, I don't think it's a good idea..
Ummm, last time I checked, QR could not secure adequate entitlements to launch services, and EK was blocked from further expansion. I think the timing for VS to enter is perfect. Mid East carriers blocked, while BA and OS suspensions means more pax for them to pick up!
Quoting Concorde001 (Reply 4): If I'm not mistaken, BA did not stop flying to MEL because the flights were unprofitable. Rather, BA needed the four 744s deployed on the route for their expansion, particularly India and China, where higher profits could be made than flying to MEL.
Spot on. Someone that knows that they're talking about!
Kevin777 From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1154 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4879 times:
Quoting HKGKaiTak (Reply 6): Now, which Asian port will this flight route through I wonder ...
Maybe KUL like OS do (did..)??? Maybe SQ wouldn't be happy about SIN? Could VS obtain 5th freedom on HKG-MEL?
Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 7): Ummm, last time I checked, QR could not secure adequate entitlements to launch services, and EK was blocked from further expansion. I think the timing for VS to enter is perfect. Mid East carriers blocked, while BA and OS suspensions means more pax for them to pick up!
Yes.. but isn't it just a matter of time before ME carriers obtain more of these rights?? With all their a/c on order they'd do all the lobbying in the world to put them to work. Of course VS could fill the void in between, but if it took two years to reach profitability on LHR-SYD, this might not be worth it.
Also, and I know I'm disagreeing with almost all on this thread now, but BA withtracting from LHR-MEL because a/c was needed on other routes should ONLY be a temporary reason for this. BA would be very aware of this. An airline - and particularly a major player like BA - would not pull out of a route for good just because it doesn't have capacity. And let's not forget that OS withtracted because it was making quite big losses.. I know that VS might have a bette shot than VS because of more p-t-p, but still I think it would be a risky option for VS.
BUT STILL.... VS RULES.. and I wish them ALL THE BEST!!!
Kevin777
"I was waiting for you at DFW, but you must have been in LUV" CPH-GOT-CPH-GOT-CPH-GOT-CPH...
Kesflyer From Australia, joined Aug 2005, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4801 times:
Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 7): What BA did has nothing to do with profitability of the sector.
If they pulled out just due to lack of aircraft, then surely they will return when they get more aircraft.
Honestly cannot see this happening. A profit is a profit and if it existed, BA woudl still be flying into MEL. They just do not want to compete on this route anymore with the likes of EK and QF.
EK and QF have the kangaroo route sewn up for now and VS offers a viable alternative.
6thfreedom From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3267 posts, RR: 22 Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4737 times:
Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 10): Quoting Kesflyer (Reply 9):
A profit is a profit and if it existed, BA woudl still be flying into MEL.
Spot on...
How can you possibly over simplify the issue.
If Melbourne generated say $20mi in profit utilising 3 aircraft for daily services, but BA could gnereate $10 mil per year for daily BOM-LHR, $10 mil per year for LHR-xx for aircraft 2, and $10 mil for LR-xxx suing aircraft three, trust me, they would cut MEL or any route for that matter.
Kevin777 From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1154 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4720 times:
Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 12): How can you possibly over simplify the issue.
If Melbourne generated say $20mi in profit utilising 3 aircraft for daily services, but BA could gnereate $10 mil per year for daily BOM-LHR, $10 mil per year for LHR-xx for aircraft 2, and $10 mil for LR-xxx suing aircraft three, trust me, they would cut MEL or any route for that matter.
1) Don't think BA generates any profit on LHR-BOM, but that's another thread...
2) If what you mention were the case, then BA would find extra capacity somewhere, for sure - you don't let ten millions go just because you don't have the capacity. I know that you don't find a 747 in the local 7-11, but surely it could be done in a matter of months if $ 10 mill. was at stake.
Kevin777
"I was waiting for you at DFW, but you must have been in LUV" CPH-GOT-CPH-GOT-CPH-GOT-CPH...
Lovinitflyboy From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 116 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4680 times:
Quoting Kesflyer (Reply 9): Honestly cannot see this happening. A profit is a profit and if it existed, BA woudl still be flying into MEL. They just do not want to compete on this route anymore with the likes of EK and QF.
The UK to Australia route is a profit share route for BA and QF, through the codeshare with QF, BA still get a share of the profit even though the don't fly there anymore! I'm sure the same applied to the other Australian cities that BA pulled eg: PER, ADL and BNE.
VHXLR8 From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 500 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4672 times:
Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 2): when the M.E. carriers are building up capacity enough to transport the entire population of MEL and SYD to Europe simultaneously
Hmmm, transporting close to 10 million people simultaneously?? They must be planning some HUGE increases in capacity.
BCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 18 Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4645 times:
LHR-MEL was a profitable route for BA, but because 3.5 aircraft were needed to operate a daily service in both directions, and the aircraft were on the ground for most of the day at MEL, it was not a high earning route. This is even more so when you consider also that two separate cabin and two separate flight deck crews are needed for each service in both directions (and the crews are away from base for 10 days in total), that fares for the route were roughly the same as between LHR and the western seaboard of the USA, and that LHR-MEL did not attract as much premium traffic as LHR-SYD. BA has a JSA with QF. If QF was happy to operate the route on their own, sharing revenues with BA in accordance with the JSA, and BA could make a better profit if they reallocated their aircraft to other routes, then that was a sensible business move on BA’s part.
Personally I cannot see VS entering, let alone succeeding, on the LHR-MEL route, particularly as all other European airlines have realised that the economics of the route are not attractive.
I am also dubious that VS is making any profit on the LHR-SYD route. First because SYD is really an extension of VS’s LHR-HKG service. VS had said that because of high loads on the LHR-HKG leg, there was limited availability of seats for the HKG-SYD leg where their daily service competes head-on with CX and QF’s multiple frequency services. Remember that VS are now reducing their capacity on the LHR-HKG leg. Secondly, SYD is only operated, as Branson believes it is a privileged route for his brand, and his co-directors are aghast that VS entered the UK-Australia route. VS would hardly admit they were losing money on the LHR-SYD route, if that was the case.
Remember also: It has been often stated that due to the economies of the operations, BA would not hesitate to pull out of the Australian market if they could. The statement of VS flying to Melbourne did not come from Branson (who customarily makes all announcements for new VS’s routes), or from the top of VS, but from their new Australian General Manager who said, “….there were no firm plans yet in place.”
[Edited 2006-10-12 10:09:19]
MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
Leezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4041 posts, RR: 55 Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4420 times:
Quoting BCAL (Reply 17): Remember that VS are now reducing their capacity on the LHR-HKG leg.
No they are not, the capacity is still the same. Sure they were going to start a 2nd daily service, but as this didn't happen then there was no increase in capacity to begin with therefore they haven't reduced anything.
They have done what BA have done on the MEL route, and re-assigned the a/c to a route that they believe they can make more profit on (but did it before the route actually started), although I personally think they would have made more on a 2nd HK than a CPT service, as I hear that HK flights were nearly always full before the SYD extention. However maybe they were trying to pre-empt the new Air New Zealand service and the Oasis Airlines service if that ever starts.
"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
HKGKaiTak From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1050 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4241 times:
Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 8): Maybe KUL like OS do (did..)??? Maybe SQ wouldn't be happy about SIN? Could VS obtain 5th freedom on HKG-MEL?
Maybe that could be where this second HKG-LHR flight comes from, if it comes true again - there was a piece in today's Travel Today about this possibility again by VS's GM here in Oz, which I found a bit weird.
But CX has just gone 3x daily to MEL, as they have in SYD, so how successful a VS flight could be via HKG is a big question.
I was thinking, what about a Chinese port? Say CAN, PVG or PEK? Or maybe something smaller? Certainly the loads (if not the yields) from Oz into China could sustain such a service - if the China-London part loads alright.
Kesflyer From Australia, joined Aug 2005, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4201 times:
Suppose some routes are more profitable than others for BA and for all airlines.
Why don't they just fly a handful of super profit routes and dump the rest.
No airline woudl pull a route if there were $$$ to be made. Sure they may now codeshare with QF and make some $$, however it was a profitable route, then they would be making more $$$ utilising their own aircraft. No question here.. otherwise they woudl simply dump many more routes and simply codeshare with the OneWorld partners.
I mean, why doesn't BA pull out of SYD and make the huge $$$ codesharing with QF.. Simple... they make more going it alone.
One reason that codeshares exist because the airline not actually flying the route cannot make $$$ with their own aircraft. If they could, they would eventually find the aircraft to do so.
VS shoudl fill the void left by BA on this route and goodluck to them.
HKGKaiTak From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1050 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4199 times:
Quoting Kesflyer (Reply 20): I mean, why doesn't BA pull out of SYD and make the huge $$$ codesharing with QF.. Simple... they make more going it alone.
They're "downgrading" one of the SYD flights to 777 soon (next week?) ... so the 3 x 747s would be deployed somewhere else!
Quoting Kesflyer (Reply 20): VS shoudl fill the void left by BA on this route and goodluck to them.
That's their plan, I have a thread coming up about that ...
Kevin777 From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1154 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4037 times:
Quoting Kesflyer (Reply 20): No airline woudl pull a route if there were $$$ to be made. Sure they may now codeshare with QF and make some $$, however it was a profitable route, then they would be making more $$$ utilising their own aircraft. No question here.. otherwise they woudl simply dump many more routes and simply codeshare with the OneWorld partners.
So, you are saying that BA pulled out of LHR-MEL because there wasn't money to be made, right..??
Quoting Kesflyer (Reply 20): VS shoudl fill the void left by BA on this route and goodluck to them.
Well, if BA wasn't making money on the route, then there was not left any market void in the first place, was there? Unless VS should have some pretty huge advantages as opposed to BA flying UK-Aus, and I don't belive that is the case.
Kevin777
"I was waiting for you at DFW, but you must have been in LUV" CPH-GOT-CPH-GOT-CPH-GOT-CPH...
25 Parisien: they have to as it is part of the JSA ! ie BA cannot codeshare all with QF without flying its metal to Australia.
26 Kesflyer: For this to be the case, you are assuming that BA and VS have same cost structure. Just because BA is pulling out, does not mean that there is no mar
27 Chinaeastern: LHR-PVG-MEL would be nice. VS already serves PVG and LHR-PVG sector is doing well while there is no competition on PVG-MEL.
28 Kesflyer: As long as both Oz and Chinese authorities permit. China - OZ growing market !!
29 ANstar: I believe QF filled that void by adding LHR-HKG-MEL
30 Kevin777: Uhhh... yes, that's also what I have said in my previous post.. I don't believe VS has significant cost advantages over BA flying UK-Aus. Same goes f
31 BAStew: MEL was only profitable for BA seasonally. The first idea that was floated before axing the route was to offer MEL as an extension of LHR/SIN/SYD (the
33 BAStew: I agree with Kevin777 here. I reckon that BA and VS would have fairly similar costs on the route. Employee costs may be a little higher at BA but tha
34 6thfreedom: VS would absolute cream the competition on PVG. QF is via SYD with terminal change both ways, while MU and CA operate via SYD outbound, which doesn't
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Mar 2000, 3156 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 940 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1154 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, 
on this route...a few A.net members were questiong the viability of this route for VS....
From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3267 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 4848 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
