Aerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2928 posts, RR: 4 Posted (8 years 1 month 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1895 times:
There have been rumours floating about lately of SQ divesting its 49 percent interest in Virgin Atlantic.
If this were to occur, would the provision for the limitation of the use of Virgin's name for Virgin Blue to domestic Australian flights only, be repealed? I ask because DJ is gathering itself quite a plethroa of brands (Pacific Blue, Polynesian Blue and soon V Australia). I'm sure it would be more worthwhile for DJ to standardise on the Virgin name.
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6179 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1786 times:
According to one of the posts in one of the threads about DJ starting Transpac service, the provision is not restricted to DJ or Oz but rather applied to ANY airline starting international ops under the Virgin brand required SQ approval. The poster also said that it was a perfectly normal provision in a brand licencing agreement. I presume SQ was approached but declined the approval.
In these circumstances I think it would depend on who SQ sold their 49% holding. If it was back to the Virgin group I would expect V Australia become Virgin Australia as quickly as the press launch can be organised. However if it was sold to another airline group or an investors group then the same condition may very well be included and they may veto the use of the brand.
Aerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2928 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1776 times:
Interesting. Seems such a waste to lose the opportunity to link so many similarly branded carriers around the world with an international operation. Even Virgin Pacific would be good, comparable to Virgin Atlantic.