LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22021 posts, RR: 51 Posted (11 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3115 times:
In further sign of the the Virgin carriers more closely aligning themselves, Virgin America and Virgin Australia joint filed with the DOT for permission to commence joint codeshare services.
Per the application, and consistent with open-skies agreements, the Virgin Australia plans to place its VA designator code on services operated by Virgin America within the United States in conjunction with foreign itineraries.
Carriers state they intend to commence codeshare services in July via points to/from Los Angeles.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
nycdave From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 518 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (11 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2797 times:
Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 1):
I thought that was the whole point to starting the "Virgin" group of airlines to begin with?
Not at all. Due to national laws and restrictions at the time of formation, codesharing was at most a future possibility going into business. No, each was formed as a business, aiming for profit, largely due to Richard Branson having some inexplicable (from a business standpoint) love of commercial aviation! The very different services/niches filled by the various Virgin carriers ought to be proof enough that, while under the same global brand, they were/(are) independent businesses with different strategies... Which are increasingly harmonizing offerings across the brands, in anticipation of further global integration.
smi0006 From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 1380 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2753 times:
Interesting indeed, I must confess I wonder why it took them so long; It took them a while to establish an interline agreement, and thus far they only do bags not boarding passes. I hope we see more synergies between the airlines both operationally and marketing activities.
Minor segway... anyone have any ideas how long the DJ designator will be around before the whole company becomes VA?
gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5216 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (11 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2552 times:
Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 1): I thought that was the whole point to starting the "Virgin" group of airlines to begin with?
Again! There is NO such thing as a "Virgin" group of airlines in the normal way we use the word "group". Each is "independently owned & operated". There was no master plan to form a group of airlines, (at least up to Virgin America, I don't know why that was started) each was started as a response to specific local conditions in the local political/economic environment.
The only thing they have in common is that they license the brand name "Virgin" from the Virgin Group in the UK, there is no requirement in that license for them to cooperate with other "Virgin" branded airlines(AFAIK), so expecting them to act like they were a true group is unrealistic. That said this greater cooperation is a good step in the right direction.
RWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2157 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (11 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1625 times:
Quoting ryu2 (Reply 8): Why doesn't Virgin Australia start SFO service, since it's the main hub for Virgin America?
As far as I'm concerned, there is no reason the Virgin group of airlines should for their own alliance, and feed each others flights. We just need a VS flight to S. America, and a scissor hub city to work from. I could see Virgin Australia heading to SFO, and give some competition to UA, since QF pulled out. UA is very complacent on that route, IMHO.
Next Flights: AS PDX-SEA-KOA on DH4/738 in F, HA KOA-OGG on 717 in Y, AS OGG-PDX on 738 in F
mogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1513 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 12): Sure one day they could end up in SFO, however keep in mind LA is a much larger local market to/from Australia.
Add in the bonus feed from DL and now VX @ LAX, its only tips the scales even further.
But isn't it an over-saturation out of LAX ?
LAX-SYD (5x) : QFx2, VA, UA, DL
SFO-SYD (1x) : UA monopoly (ever since QF handed the keys to the kingdom over)
Seeing as QF's international "kingdom" is allegedly losing hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and of all the routes to cancel QF chose SFO, I can't imagine it's something anyone is rushing to pick up.
mogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (11 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1307 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 18): Seeing as QF's international "kingdom" is allegedly losing hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and of all the routes to cancel QF chose SFO, I can't imagine it's something anyone is rushing to pick up.
"Kingdom" was referring to the gravy train of SFO-SYD that UA can now price gouge as they please, not QF's network
Funny you mention that since QF defenders all insist that SFOSYD was printing cash left and right for QF, but somehow they're willing to murder a cash cow in order to start DFW
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22021 posts, RR: 51 Reply 20, posted (11 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1180 times:
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 17): What's the source of this statistic ? And what's the equivalent metric for LAX (UA or total)
You can ultimately derive it from DOT stats, but my number was from a "Hub Profile" that was produced as part of the merger workup analysis.
More specifically for SFO in 2009 mere 43.1% of about 7mil United enplanements were local compared with 79.4% of the 5.6mil at LAX.
Some UA SFO routes had connectivity rates as high as 75-80% range, for example SEA where 82% of customers to/from SEA connected to another flight. Very few UA SFO flights actually were under the 50% mark - MCO, JFK, BOS being notables. Compared to LAX, where it was almost reverse, with the bulk of enplanements being local, and only a few flights having very high component of connections - Hawaii and some UAX being those.
Ultimately, SFO as with IAD has flying that is significantly oversized for its local market, and must rely on feed to maintain its size.
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 19): "Kingdom" was referring to the gravy train of SFO-SYD that UA can now price gouge as they please, not QF's network
United does not operate in a vacuum. Segment pricing is still competitive as you have other carriers in the market still. For example NZ, VA, QF, DL, HA, etc all offer SFO-SYD fares which keeps things competitive.
[Edited 2012-06-14 22:06:39]
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 15714 posts, RR: 48 Reply 21, posted (11 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1168 times:
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 19): Funny you mention that since QF defenders all insist that SFOSYD was printing cash left and right for QF, but somehow they're willing to murder a cash cow in order to start DFW
As a general rule, airlines don't cancel profitable flying, no matter what anyone on a.net says.