Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Virgin America Expects License Application Reject  
User currently offlineJimyvr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5073 times:

http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articl...15_N22340344&type=comktNews&rpc=44

Quote:

NEW YORK, Dec 22 (Reuters) - Virgin America Inc., a low-cost airline with a name made famous by British entrepreneur Richard Branson, expects the U.S. government to reject its application to start flying, a spokeswoman said.

The company announced earlier on Friday that it had completed the last formal step in the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration's airline certification review and only needed approval from the Department of Transportation.


[Edited 2006-12-22 23:39:47]

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7405 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5072 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jimyvr (Thread starter):
NEW YORK, Dec 22 (Reuters) - Virgin America Inc., a low-cost airline with a name made famous by British entrepreneur Richard Branson, expects the U.S. government to reject its application to start flying, a spokeswoman said.

Good, the last thing we need is another airline.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineBlrBird From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5070 times:

Quoting Jimyvr (Thread starter):
NEW YORK, Dec 22 (Reuters) - Virgin America Inc., a low-cost airline with a name made famous by British entrepreneur Richard Branson, expects the U.S. government to reject its application to start flying, a spokeswoman said.

Why would they say anything like that even before DOT's announcement?



from star dust....
User currently offlineFloridaflyboy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2007 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5069 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 1):
Good, the last thing we need is another airline.

I do tend to agree with you on that one. I just wonder on what grounds the rejection will be based.



Good goes around!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5095 times:

It was obvious from day 1 they were trying to circumvent the rules, at least to anyone objective.

I wonder if all the foreign execs starting up SkyBus are going to have the same problem.

It's simple guys: FOREIGN CONTROL IS NOT ALLOWED. You can't try to disguise it, as we aren't that dumb...  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5078 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
It was obvious from day 1 they were trying to circumvent the rules, at least to anyone objective.

I wonder if all the foreign execs starting up SkyBus are going to have the same problem.

It's simple guys: FOREIGN CONTROL IS NOT ALLOWED. You can't try to disguise it, as we aren't that dumb...

Wow.. that hardly seems to represent a free market position now doesn't it. Who cares who owns it? I never understood these stupid protectionist sorts of laws.  Sad



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineGlideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1603 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5000 times:

Quoting Jimyvr (Thread starter):
Quote:
NEW YORK, Dec 22 (Reuters) - Virgin America Inc., a low-cost airline with a name made famous by British entrepreneur Richard Branson, expects the U.S. government to reject its application to start flying, a spokeswoman said.

The company announced earlier on Friday that it had completed the last formal step in the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration's airline certification review and only needed approval from the Department of Transportation.

Good. We don't need them. I like the current state of Global Interaction. I'm ready for Pax Americana.  angel 



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13508 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5000 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 5):
Who cares who owns it?

The U.S. government, as there is always the slim possibility that civilian aircraft may be needed in time of war and/or national emergency. Can't have a potential conflict of interest if those aircraft are foreign-controlled.


Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 5):
Wow.. that hardly seems to represent a free market position now doesn't it.

Oh spare me - you're grasping at straws here. Fact of the matter is that every industry has some degree of regulation, and wishing Virgin America to not start flying is wise since they will inevitably weaken the industry, not strengthen it.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineGlideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1603 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4977 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 7):
The U.S. government, as there is always the slim possibility that civilian aircraft may be needed in time of war and/or national emergency. Can't have a potential conflict of interest if those aircraft are foreign-controlled.

Exactly. A largely unknow fact by Non-US citizens.  checkeredflag 



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24803 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4893 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
FOREIGN CONTROL IS NOT ALLOWED.

Which is really a shame in this day and age of globalization.

The US and its consumers by not allowing the industry to seek out foreign capital and cross ownership, if anything becomes the looser in this.

Just as with countless other industries national barriers mean less and less these days except with US airlines which are stuck abiding by archaic protectionist rules drafted in the 1930s.

I'm all for a vibrant and competitive US industry, however closing ourselves off the outside is certainly not the answer to providing true competitive benefits and choices for the consumer and nation.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4784 times:

"The law prohibits a foreign equity stake of more than 25 percent in a U.S. airline.

British-based Virgin Group, which has stakes in airlines in Europe, Australia and Nigeria, holds a 25 percent stake in the company"

Uh........ I don't think you need an MBA to understand those sentences. Sounds like another case of desperate airlines trying to stall startups.

[Edited 2006-12-23 01:26:26]

User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4753 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 7):
The U.S. government, as there is always the slim possibility that civilian aircraft may be needed in time of war and/or national emergency. Can't have a potential conflict of interest if those aircraft are foreign-controlled.

Right because the British and American's aren't going to side on an issue together...  sarcastic 

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 8):
Exactly. A largely unknow fact by Non-US citizens.

Remember strategic interests next time you say anything about Airbus funding!

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 9):
Which is really a shame in this day and age of globalization.



Quoting Laxintl (Reply 9):
I'm all for a vibrant and competitive US industry, however closing ourselves off the outside is certainly not the answer to providing true competitive benefits and choices for the consumer and nation.



Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 10):
Uh........ I don't think you need an MBA to understand those sentences. Sounds like another case of desperate airlines trying to stall startups.

 checkmark 



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineBillReid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 988 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4732 times:

This may be posturing.
With the push for consolidation the DOT is would be caught between a rock and a hard place if they diasaprove.
The door should be open for more business.



Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
User currently offlineFlyinryan99 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4713 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
I wonder if all the foreign execs starting up SkyBus are going to have the same problem.

IIRC, the funding is put up through American Institutions and the execs are going to be based in CMH. I may be wrong, but that's the impression I was under. The problem VA is having, are the investors not being American Institutions. Their execs are in SFO and it is run from there. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I understand it.


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4664 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 11):
Right because the British and American's aren't going to side on an issue together...

That's no the point. If somebody wants to change the law, do it through the congress, not through DOT. Besides, It's gonna open the gate for other investors from other countries, which might not be very friendly to the US, to ask for the same permission.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 11):
Remember strategic interests next time you say anything about Airbus funding!

Totally two different case. US domestic air market does not bear any effect on other countries, and the fact that US domestic airline market is already competitive, would not change if foreign ownership is allowed.

Airbus vs. Boeing is another case. It affects the competition of world aircraft manufacturers.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 9):
Which is really a shame in this day and age of globalization.

The US and its consumers by not allowing the industry to seek out foreign capital and cross ownership, if anything becomes the looser in this.

Just as with countless other industries national barriers mean less and less these days except with US airlines which are stuck abiding by archaic protectionist rules drafted in the 1930s.

I'm all for a vibrant and competitive US industry, however closing ourselves off the outside is certainly not the answer to providing true competitive benefits and choices for the consumer and nation.

Really? Globalization? I am not an American, and I don't know if I will stay in the US after my education. If you want to talk globalization, why don't you open your immigration gate to foreigners to get jobs here. Let them compete for your job. After all, it's globalization, and economy wins if the best does what it's best at.

The fact is that a country sets its own limitation to what is socially acceptable and not acceptable. That's what we call law. It is up to a country and its population to decide what's best for them, hence democracy.

US airlines industry has enough competition, and opening it to foreign ownership would have minimal impact on the competition itself. The carrier might kill another Airline, but in the end, consumer will see minimal difference.

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4636 times:

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 14):
Totally two different case. US domestic air market does not bear any effect on other countries, and the fact that US domestic airline market is already competitive, would not change if foreign ownership is allowed.

Not at all.. to play devil's advocate, Airbus/EADS are of vital interest to the EU in the event a war breaks out and they have no allies and need someone to build their planes.... And the only reason the US Domestic Air Market doesn't 'bear any effect on other countries' is because the US won't let other contries participate!

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 14):
Airbus vs. Boeing is another case. It affects the competition of world aircraft manufacturers.

The only reason it's any different is the US won't *allow* a Brit to own a US airline... otherwise your statement would prove false.

Both are protectionist, self-serving rackets..



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4605 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 15):

Both are protectionist, self-serving rackets..

The job of the govt... Wink



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 960 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4518 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 15):

The only reason it's any different is the US won't *allow* a Brit to own a US airline... otherwise your statement would prove false.

Both are protectionist, self-serving rackets..

 redflag   redflag   redflag 

The U.S. has consistently remained one of the most open and objective nations in granting travel rights, bilateral agreements, and "free market" aviation policies.

The fact is, transportation serves an incredibly sensitive role in the function of any industrialized nation. For that reason, domestic transportation and domestic infastructure should remain in the control of domestic investors. That goes for the U.S., Germany, Australia, or who ever.

U.S. cabatoge rules allow foreign investors to own 49% of a domestic airline. From an investment standpoint, that allows ample opportunities to make a profit by creating an airline. It does however require 51% of U.S. firms to hold the remaining share. There is tremendous capital available in the U.S. right now, so why change and/or circumvent the law?

Calling U.S. domestic aviation a "racket" is both dumb and a cheap shot. Fares have been so low that many carriers bled multi-billion dollar loses over the course of several years. Even now that many legacies have "recovered," fares remain artificially low.

The last 18 months have exposed just how vulnerable the U.S. economy is to foreign intervention, hell OPEC has as much power as the Federal Reserve. Free market does not mean handing security of domestic affairs to whomever has an open checkbook. Transportation is absolutely vital to the American economy, and Virgin America needs to play by the existing rules...


User currently offline77411 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4503 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 11):
Remember strategic interests next time you say anything about Airbus funding



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 5):
Wow.. that hardly seems to represent a free market position now doesn't it. Who cares who owns it? I never understood these stupid protectionist sorts of laws.

Most governments protect there flag carriers. I seriously doubt the governments of France, Germany, or the UK government would allow an American Airline to come in and purchase one of their flag Carriers. I know it is a start up airline but the rules apply so you have to deal with it and if your cheating the system then you deserve to get denied. Have them follow the rules and then let them fly. Sure American carriers would benefit from tighter financial ties from stronger foreign carriers but nobody knows what would happen if foreign ownership percentage was increased or total ownership was allowed. Just face it some industries are considered off limits for national reasons.


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4492 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
It was obvious from day 1 they were trying to circumvent the rules, at least to anyone objective.

I wonder if all the foreign execs starting up SkyBus are going to have the same problem.

It's simple guys: FOREIGN CONTROL IS NOT ALLOWED. You can't try to disguise it, as we aren't that dumb... Wink

You're completely right. It's just the law in this country (and surprise, many other countries as well, Lufthansa is only allowed to be up to 50% foreign owned before the law allows the company to rectify this....). Japan privatized its post office, but FedEx is not allowed to buy it. Things of vital importance to a country must be protected. America has some of the most liberal laws anywhere in this regard.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 5):
Wow.. that hardly seems to represent a free market position now doesn't it. Who cares who owns it? I never understood these stupid protectionist sorts of laws. Sad

It's not protectionism, foreign owners own all sorts of different things in this country, telecom, banks, manufacturing, service, all assortment of different businesses, but certain issues of vital importance to the wellbeing of the nation, issues like national security, any nation must protect. The airlines are too important to allow any conflicts of interest which foreign ownership might create, should the aircraft be needed in time of war, likewise, the airlines are too central to transportation of people, cargo, letters, etc. in this nation. Domestic ownership rules are to ensure this isn't disturbed for any reason, and in issues of international law, make it far easier for the US gov't to step in, if need be, with fewer complications. For a number of reasons, it makes sense, and similar laws are in place all over the world. Please bear in mind that it was not long ago European governments owned their national airlines (some still do, or own significant shares).

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 8):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 7):
The U.S. government, as there is always the slim possibility that civilian aircraft may be needed in time of war and/or national emergency. Can't have a potential conflict of interest if those aircraft are foreign-controlled.

Exactly. A largely unknow fact by Non-US citizens. checkeredflag

We're not the only nation to have that. Nations all over have similar laws for the same reasons we do. This isn't the only industry which foreign ownership is not allowed in.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 9):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
FOREIGN CONTROL IS NOT ALLOWED.

Which is really a shame in this day and age of globalization.

Not really, even in the age of globalization, nations have to protect their vital interests and security. Again, the US is not the only nation that has laws like this..... globalization and free markets are alive and well

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 11):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 7):
The U.S. government, as there is always the slim possibility that civilian aircraft may be needed in time of war and/or national emergency. Can't have a potential conflict of interest if those aircraft are foreign-controlled.

Right because the British and American's aren't going to side on an issue together... sarcastic

That's not the point, if we allow Brits to own US airlines, we have to open it up to Saudis, Brazilians, French, Chinese, and firms from everywhere else to own American airlines, and at some point, it may not be someone who sides with the US, moreover, in terms of international law, the US government has more powers over domestic owners of businesses as well. Would Britain allow a group of US investors to buy British Airways? Australia demanded QF be bought by a majority Australian coalition. Countries everywhere have the same rules like this.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 15):
Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 14):
Airbus vs. Boeing is another case. It affects the competition of world aircraft manufacturers.

The only reason it's any different is the US won't *allow* a Brit to own a US airline... otherwise your statement would prove false.

Both are protectionist, self-serving rackets..

That's more of a side effect. There are legitimate reasons for such laws.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5607 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4466 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 17):
The U.S. has consistently remained one of the most open and objective nations in granting travel rights, bilateral agreements, and "free market" aviation policies.

Yeah, BUT it is the among MOST protectionist in other areas, particularly the argricultural and services sectors.

You want to see a true free trade nation? Look to NZ!

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 960 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4437 times:

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 20):
Yeah, BUT it is the among MOST protectionist in other areas, particularly the argricultural and services sectors.

BUT that has absolutely nothing to do with the relevant subject matter. We are talking about: 1) Ownership, not import/export regulations and 2) Commercial aviation

Not to mention, you are way off base about the U.S. services industry being protectionist. They are the ones going "off-shore" faster than anyone.


User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5607 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4410 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 21):
Yeah, BUT it is the among MOST protectionist in other areas, particularly the argricultural and services sectors.
BUT that has absolutely nothing to do with the relevant subject matter. We are talking about: 1) Ownership, not import/export regulations and 2) Commercial aviation

Do you really think that one does not affect the other? Sorry the real world does not necissarily work that way in all cases. Despite that lopped sided so called FTA the Oz government signed with the US, both sides of politics have linked the matters, no movement on the ag sector, no open skys policy.

The US services sector is very highly protected. Try and start serving the US market from within the US in services, almost impossiable. Which is one part of the reason you are having so much off shoring.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4362 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 15):
The only reason it's any different is the US won't *allow* a Brit to own a US airline... otherwise your statement would prove false.

Wait what? tell me how foreign policy ownership for US domestic market has any anti-competitive effects on the Foreign airline market?

How does not owning an airline in US domestic market affects foreigner negatively?

Airbus's and Boeing's subsidy has a direct impact to each others' market. Boeing does not have to be an owner or invade Airbus's market to feel the effects.

I am wondering how do you feel if a stranger come to your place and open a shop right on your front yard and say, "I am entitled to open my business here for the sake of competition."

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13508 posts, RR: 62
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4121 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 11):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 7):
The U.S. government, as there is always the slim possibility that civilian aircraft may be needed in time of war and/or national emergency. Can't have a potential conflict of interest if those aircraft are foreign-controlled.

Right because the British and American's aren't going to side on an issue together...

And if the law was written to say, "Any foreign government EXCEPT Great Britain," you'd be upset about that instead.  sarcastic 

Quoting BillReid (Reply 12):
This may be posturing.

Precisely - you lessen the blow by making a big deal out of it far in advance.
It's no different than saying you expect earnings to be lower than expected a few weeks before you actually report quarterly results so the market doesn't punish you as badly for not meeting your numbers.

Virgin America is terrified of looking like a failure if the DOT turns them down, so they lessen the fallout by saying, "Well, like we said - we EXPECTED that." It also probably helps them by floating the "..and thanks to these archaic rules, we can't start bringing low fares to our consumers!" balloon to the public.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
25 AirframeAS : Agreed! They are just trying to blow smoke up the public's butt to save face and avoid embarassment. If they really knew this might happen, why did t
26 Hiflyer : May I suggest that this is really not news to VA simply because they have already released out a significant portion of their existing fleet? Much ado
27 Osiris30 : I'm not agreeing with them either... but.. I'm not going to be two faced and call for the abolition of government involvement with Airbus, while turn
28 Post contains links ANCFlyer : The thread below was started first. Both have quality conversation. We don't however need two on the same topic. Since this is the second, and therefo
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...
Virgin America Revving Up! posted Sat Dec 2 2006 17:04:50 by Xpfg
TAM Leases 2x A320 From Virgin America posted Fri Nov 10 2006 11:32:48 by WINGS
Virgin America Sends Second Plane To SFO posted Mon Nov 6 2006 23:50:35 by Xpfg
Virgin America Inching Closer To Start posted Sat Oct 21 2006 01:56:50 by Planenutz
RDU Supports Virgin America With Letter To DOT posted Wed Oct 18 2006 08:16:19 by Aamr
Time Lapse Video Of Virgin America A320 In Paint posted Sat Oct 14 2006 19:19:54 by Clickhappy
Virgin America Lets Public Name Planes posted Thu Oct 12 2006 02:39:21 by Cubedweller
Virgin America Readies For Takeoff posted Tue Oct 10 2006 05:25:53 by JetBlueAUS
Virgin America In SFO posted Sat Oct 7 2006 22:45:16 by Xpfg
Where Will Virgin America Fly And When? posted Wed Sep 27 2006 06:10:14 by Mainrunway