Pgtravel From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 446 posts, RR: 2 Posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 20921 times:
It's official. The DOT has issued its order (pdf) saying that Virgin America is foreign controlled and won't be allowed to fly.
Check out the appendices in the back of the order where they have diagrams of the ownership structure. (I also included a copy of the first diagram in my blog if you'd rather not open a PDF.) That is one heck of a confusing structure that was probably just begging to be shot down.
They also say that the license agreement to use the Virgin America name is too restricting on the business so that it gives Branson some measure of control that he can't have.
ChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4246 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 20699 times:
Quoting JetBlueAUS (Reply 2): In all honestly, we don't need another air carrier in the United States. I back the DOT's decision 100%.
Well, while we're being honest, we don't need all the ones that DO have licenses either.
I wasn't on either side of this Virgin America thing, but it's kinda funny hearing all the 'woo-hoo's' from people who work at some of the carriers that would be better off deceased or otherwise swallowed up.
KPWMSpotter From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 477 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 20526 times:
What can Virgin America do now?
I really doubt that they are going to just give up on their planes and investments they've made so far. Can they appeal the decision, or will they have to re-organize their staffing structure and give it another go at applying?
Even if the market and the business community has shown that it is not supportive of a new airline, I don't see Branson as one to just give up...
JetBlueAUS From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1145 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 20525 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13): The DOT is not making a statement regarding airline (over)competition but about ownership regulations that Virgin America needs to prove they comply with.
Let me rephrase: I back the DOT's decision 100% regarding foreign control. However, I am expressing my own opinion when it comes to another receiving the OK for them to start operating in the United States
Not all of us can be heroes, some of us can only stand on the sidewalk and clap as they go by.
Isitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 20359 times:
Quoting Eatmybologna (Reply 7): for one, believe that in no way should fair competition be supressed
If 9-11 would not have happened, the airlines would be prosperous and VA
would be allowed. Note all the upstarts since de-reg. Most, of course, are gone but there has been quite a few to take to the skys since 1978.
All the carriers have been into hard times least WN. I see now that AA is going to take a loss in the fourth Q of 2006, so this no to VA thing is not a surprise.
If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.