skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 2373 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9447 times:
Todays Times is quoting Steve Ridgeway of Virgin Atlantic pushing BAA to make his airline the "anchor tennant" at the new T2. Also, apparently VS have always wanted to fly short haul from LHR. Apparently.
A move to T2 would be a step up in the passenger experience, and given it will be missing BMI, I guess the space is there. Would mean moving the Clubhouse though. A good move if it comes off I think. The short haul stuff remains nonsense on stilts in my view however. STAR anyone?
GCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1104 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 9105 times:
Quoting skipness1E (Thread starter): Steve Ridgeway of Virgin Atlantic pushing BAA to make his airline the "anchor tennant" at the new T2.
Given that the new T2 (along with T5) are going to offer, by far, better pax experiences than T3 or T4 this makes a lot of sense from Virgin's viewpoint. It would also allow room for T3 to be re-developed to properly serve OW (primarily BA overflow and AA). However, if I was Star, especially UA and AC, I would resist strongly VS becoming the anchor tenant and allowing the Star requirements / experience to be subjugated to VS's parochial demands.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7343 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 9083 times:
Quoting GCT64 (Reply 3): Given that the new T2 (along with T5) are going to offer, by far, better pax experiences than T3 or T4 this makes a lot of sense from Virgin's viewpoint. It would also allow room for T3 to be re-developed to properly serve OW (primarily BA overflow and AA). However, if I was Star, especially UA and AC, I would resist strongly VS becoming the anchor tenant and allowing the Star requirements / experience to be subjugated to VS's parochial demands.
The logical alliance for Virgin Atlantic would be Star, if that happens then VS should be in T2.
sevenheavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1126 posts, RR: 10 Reply 5, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8905 times:
Quoting GCT64 (Reply 3): However, if I was Star, especially UA and AC, I would resist strongly VS becoming the anchor tenant and allowing the Star requirements / experience to be subjugated to VS's parochial demands.
Lets assume VS stayed away from STAR, what are these "parochial" demands that VS are making that would impact the STAR experience so dearly?
Behind the scenes, this is nothing new. VS have always been involved/consulted in a potential move to T2. Ultimately they are a hub carrier. Why shouldn't they have access to new facilities. BA rightly had access to T5, and made a huge number of demands on the BAA, most of which were agreed to. In the interests of fairness surely another base carrier should be given similar access to new facilities as they become available?
All that said, there are a number of different plans behind the scenes that may or may not conspire together and make some interesting developments with regards to VS, STAR, domestic routes, etc. etc. Maybe there is a bigger plan. We shall see...
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3016 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8893 times:
VS moving out of T3, thus allowing it to become exclusively BA/OW is the most logical answer to the challenges posed by the demise of BD. I thought however that VS would complain bitterly about the possibility of having to move.
SKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1325 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8594 times:
I wonder if BA will keep an operation at T2 as T1 will close and T3 just does not have the capacity for increased BA ops, then again with all the Star ops moving to T2 I would guess that some gate space will open.
As we are so used to from VS now, I reckon it is just anothier MOL/Branson style hollow wolf-crying lie
Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319), OSL-LHR (321), LHR-ARN (320), ARN-VXO (S34), VXO-BMA (ATP), ARN-LHR (763), LHR-CPH (320), C
tonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1174 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8463 times:
If VS move to T2 then it may free up enough space for BA to consolidate its T1/T3 services alongside its OW partners in T3 and give them an upgraded facility of they take over the VS check in area.
irregking From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 132 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5887 times:
Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 7): As we are so used to from VS now, I reckon it is just anothier MOL/Branson style hollow wolf-crying lie
They do cry a lot don't they?....... and that really makes me start to wonder; if the whole Aviation Business always shrugs MO'L and Branson off as cry-babies, when will these 2 have enough and step into the limelight with an explosion bigger than a Sydney New Year's eve firework?
I am not really invested in stories about Ryanair nor Virgin as I don't particularly care about these 2 airlines, but I have the feeling that they are putting their money on the "who's laughing NOW?" moment....
Worked on: A300,310,319,320,321,332,333,342,343,346,380,B732/3/4/5,744,DC10 -- Currently working on: A380 only
mikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5719 times:
Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 5): Why shouldn't they have access to new facilities. BA rightly had access to T5, and made a huge number of demands on the BAA, most of which were agreed to. In the interests of fairness surely another base carrier should be given similar access to new facilities as they become available?
Fairness is not an option when discussing European carriers.
Chapter 11 and EK's relationship with DXB blew that baby out of the water years ago.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
gingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 853 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5203 times:
Rightly so.
VS is a UK carrier, and they should have access to the best facilities at LHR. I don't believe BAA will bow to any pressure from STAR carriers assuming VS doesn't join, because if you're going to give in to demands from BA, then it's only right you give concessions to VS for a similar opportunity.
UK carriers should always come first and have access to the best facilities at all UK airports. Just as carriers in other countries should have access to the best facilities their respective airports offer.
Ps76 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4669 times:
Hi!
It would quite a big move. Virgin doesn't just have a few ticket desks at T3. It has a big area all to itself with a big red Virgin logo in neon and stuff. I'm sure the new T2 will be much nicer though so they would like to move there. I wonder if the gates will be able to handle the widebodies of Virgin's fleet.
As for flying shorthaul I think there are too many carriers in that market already. British Airways, Easyjet, Ryanair and all the European airlines flying into London. I could be wrong though,
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7343 posts, RR: 7 Reply 14, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4561 times:
IF Virgin did move out of T3 then Terminal 3 would be a OW terminal. Since Skyteam moved to T4 in 2009 with non-aligned airlines. Terminal 2 has been designated the future Star Alliance terminal at LHR. THe BIG question is what would Emirates do with its 5 A380 flights daily ?
ual777uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4526 times:
Quoting gingersnap (Reply 11): I don't believe BAA will bow to any pressure from STAR carriers assuming VS doesn't join, because if you're going to give in to demands from BA, then it's only right you give concessions to VS for a similar opportunity
With the likes of UA, AC and LH to name but a few, there is a lot of airlines there that can assert quite a lot of pressure if they need to and I am sure BAA would not brush that aside. T2 was always going to be *A Terminal and now VS wants to gate crash the party. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
GCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1104 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4494 times:
Quoting ual777uk (Reply 15): T2 was always going to be *A Terminal and now VS wants to gate crash the party. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
That's exactly what I was alluding to earlier (although I inextricably omitted LH from my list of big, powerful, Star presences at LHR!). If VS does not join Star, it is not obvious that VS and LH/UA/AC (etc.) could both live side by side and simultaneously optimise their respective pax experiences (unless BAA somehow "split" the terminal into two virtual terninals - all purple and red and clubshousey at one end and black, grey, muted browns and understated germanic efficiency at the other). If I was a major Star airline I would be nervous about VS's "anchor tenant" comment.
Perversely, the outcome of a VS move to T2 to sit alongside (or as part of) Star is, in the long run, probably most beneficial to BA and OW as they will get to re-build T3 optimised to meet their needs (and will connect it seemlessly to T5) and they will definitely be the "anchor tenant" there.
This just isn't an argument for opposing a potential move for VS into T2. Wherever you go in the world the base carrier will be afforded varying degrees of favouritism when it comes to the facilities available to them. FRA, DFW, DXB, etc. etc.
Besides, the notion that it would split the terminal just doesn't hold any water. Being " all purple and red and clubhousey" is meaningless. For a start, no one except those that are supposed to be there would ever see the clubhouse, and the BAA have very strict regulations on how much an airline can "brand" it's property. Take T5, it's been tailored to BA but that doesn't mean they were able to fit it out like a giant marketing suite, or the inside of one of their aircraft.
IF, VS and Star were to coexist as independent operators in T2 it really wouldn't be the huge issue you imply. How many airlines coexist relatively happily (aside from the occasional inevitable marking of territory) in T3 now? Or in T4, or in MUC or HKG?
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 2373 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (10 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3856 times:
Emirates are non aligned and staying put in T3. The rules are not absolute, some non aligned carriers are not in T4. Like VS, Emirates have invested heavily in lounge infrastructure, and a four gate A380 pier would be empty with only QANTAS each day.
slinky09 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 592 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3204 times:
Quoting robertlondon (Reply 12): Don't SQ still have a major shareholding in VS ?
If VS do go down the alliance route it seems likely that STAR would be their first choice. Think that's a given !
But SQ is seeking to divest itself of that. Also, I wouldn't guarantee anything about VS joining an alliance, I hear that of the two options open there are powerful airlines who don't want VS in them, no idea who but it's all very political apparently. That said, VS branded airlines coming together will be a great thing and a decent codeshare / reciprocal benefits partner in the US is sorely needed now that CO as a partner has gone.
Quoting Ps76 (Reply 13): It would quite a big move. Virgin doesn't just have a few ticket desks at T3. It has a big area all to itself with a big red Virgin logo in neon and stuff.
And DTCI and the world's best lounge, both of which VS has invested heavily in, so a lot of cost in any move but VS must see the benefit in it if it is true. T2 will alow for further expansion too, gates at T3 are very full.
Quoting GCT64 (Reply 16): Perversely, the outcome of a VS move to T2 to sit alongside (or as part of) Star is, in the long run, probably most beneficial to BA and OW as they will get to re-build T3 optimised to meet their needs (and will connect it seemlessly to T5) and they will definitely be the "anchor tenant" there.
And that's no bad thing, if T5D happens and the rumoured shuttle train connection extension reaches T3, it will be good and pragmatic for BA to have T5 and a lot of T3 as well as its partners.
Quoting mikey72 (Reply 21): I am of the mind that as consolidation increases VS will become more and more unique.
It's up to VS to make sure that it is unique in all the right ways.
VS will never be huge...so what....does it matter ?
ual777uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3176 times:
Quoting mikey72 (Reply 21): I am of the mind that as consolidation increases VS will become more and more unique
Or more and more squeezed and left on the side lines depending on how you want to look at it?
25 TeamInTheSky: As I am a pretty avid follower of SkyTeam, from remembering articles and other talking, it would seem that your statement would only apply to Star. M
26 mikey72: Not really. Considering the appeal of VS to its niche market at an airport with the O&D LHR has to offer we have got to a point where the competi
27 virgincrew: I couldn't agree more - VS needs to remember what they set out to be and go back to that model of working - I really think they are finally heading i
28 mikey72: Even if they did reach 'legacy carrier proportions' (whatever that is) and the market could support that considering everything else British carriers
30 Aisak: I think "designated" has a more flexible meaning than most of us here think. Terminal 4 was designated for Skyteam and non-aligned and I still fail t
31 tcxdegsy: I might be niave, but why? Surely there's argument about all carriers getting access to great facilities, to attract business to the Airport, therefo
32 sevenheavy: Firstly, it's not a case of VS "getting their toys back in their pram"! Normal, civilised negotiations regarding VS potentially moving to T2 have bee
33 gingersnap: Well in the case of VS, it would be completely unfair to deprive them of the best facilities outside of T5. LHR is their largest base, so they will r
34 mikey72: Whilst attempting to not take sides I think it was fairly obvious from the outset that the most sensible option given their size and presence at LHR
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 2373 posts, 
From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1148 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7343 posts, 
From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1325 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1174 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 132 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
