Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Are The Chances For Mr. Branson?  
User currently offlineAzeem From Pakistan, joined Jul 2000, 137 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 8 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3034 times:

Any ideas as to what are the chances for Sir Rchard Branson to start his own small airline in the US.



40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2960 times:

Zero. US law forbids any foreign person or company from owning controlling interest in a US carrier. If he wants to transfer his citizenship, then I can think of three low-cost/low-fare air carriers that have flight certificates and need cash to either restart or pay their bankruptcy debt.


Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2895 times:

He'd be mad to do that in the foreseeable future, given the current economic climate. Maybe in 5-10 years. Maybe when the US finally give up their medieval business laws. But until then, zero.

For now, he'll probably concentrate on expanding Virgin Blue, linking up Virgin Atlantic to Australia, and eventually forming an offshoot (Virgin Pacific) based there. Oh, and making/keeping Virgin Atlantic profitable during the inevitable airline crisis should that dude steering the USA at the moment start a war in Iraq...

Regards

Ikarus


User currently offlineHaveric From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1247 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2882 times:

a several yr old quote from Sir Richard:

It is really a ludicrous situation. When I open a Virgin Megastore in New York, I am welcomed with open arms, just as Tower Records is in London. But try to operate an air service between New York and Boston, using U.S. aircraft and U.S. crew, and governments scream that I am mad!


User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2838 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Protectionism is the keyword here.




In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineOzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5001 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2830 times:

He may be able to pick up 49% of UA with 25% voting rights in a few weeks.
Virgin United anyone?



Next Up: STL-LGA-RIC-ATL-STL
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 2772 times:

God, that would be pure bliss.

I love United, but I love Sir Richard too... I can only imagine that it would make life much more interesting.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

N


User currently offlineFpdonald From United States of America, joined Aug 2002, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2721 times:

Remember the days when "Richard" had to cater alcohol round trip from the UK due to his record? I do.

I'm not sure that record still carries weight, but anything is possible. Think Laker!

Never say never!


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16812 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (11 years 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2650 times:

"medieval business laws"

So giving foreign companies access to the US Domestic market (40-50% of the world's air travel is within the US) is a fair trade for what? Four or five flights into Heathrow for CO and DL, no way.

It's also very different than say Chrysler being bought by Daimler,

A very large percentage of airline employees (especially pilots and mechanics) are members of Reserve or Guard Units, they rely on their employers to protect their jobs when they get called up for service.

With German opposition to US action against Iraq, and France's history of oppostion to other US military operations (Libya) what would protect US pilots and mechanics who are called to active duty from being descrimidated or fired because of a companie's or countries political beliefs.




Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2631 times:

Ikarus:

I don't know about you, but I resent the commander and chief of my country being called a "dude". My brother is a tanker witht the 10th AD and several of my close friends are also in the military. They are the ones at the tip of the spear, and GWB knows that. I can see and understand that he will only use military force if necessary.

Enough political messes...

STT757:

If a foreign company wants to do business in the US, they must follow US law, and so if we recall our reserve pilots, they must let those pilots go.

Finally:

I think Sir Richard (he was knighted, wasn't he? If not, he should be.) would be a great leader for a US airline. It's just that Federal Law doesn't allow it. Personally, I have no problem with people from the UK, Australia, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Iceland or Ireland, and maybe a few other countries owning a controlling interest in a US carrier, as long as that carrier is based in the US.



Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2547 times:

Elwood, I use the term dude only as severest statement of disrespect to that person. Rest assured, I would never use the term for someone I can take seriously.

User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2524 times:

Ikarus:

I think the man duely elected according to the rules set forth in the Constitution (and, unfortunately, the state of Florida...) and commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world is someone you can take seriously. Contrary to popular opinion, he's not an idiot. He's at least smart enough to surround himself with people who are smarter than he is.

By the way, have you looked at Canada's leaders? SHEESH!

(Oh, should you wish to continue this, contact me via e-mail at elwood@juno.com - Ikarus only!)



Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8047 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2515 times:

Branson, I agree, would be mad to step into the US domestic market right now, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better as well.

Bush is a plonker. "Dude" is paying the man a huge compliment. And he's going to lead America straight down the toilet. Give him another eighteen months and you will be astonished at how quickly things got bad. ASTONISHED.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineBucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2481 times:

Tell ya what Mr. Branson, I will support your efforts to start up an airline in the US the day you go to your own government and get them to allow a US airline to start operations in the UK. Until then you are just a greedy hypocrit.

User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2469 times:

Elwood, thanks for the offer, but there's a good reason I've been avoiding the non-av forum for a few months now! I get too excited (read: angry) about politics and try to limit myself to more pleasant things...  Big grin

Regards

Ikarus


User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2461 times:

Ikarus:

No problem. Your opinion is yours, my opinion is mine. I was offering so we didn't have to keep exchanging political views in the forum!  Smile

Seriously, tho, I don't think Congress is going to change that law, so Richard is going to have to change citizenship before he can operate a US carrier.




Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4041 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2433 times:

Bucky707,

"Tell ya what Mr. Branson, I will support your efforts to start up an airline in the US the day you go to your own government and get them to allow a US airline to start operations in the UK. Until then you are just a greedy hypocrit."

They could do that tomorrow if they wanted to, the UK government does not have a problem with foreign ownership of airlines. LH and SAS own 49% of Bmi, so it's possible for another country to own shares in a UK airline. SQ also own 49% of the shares in VS too.

What he wants to do is start a US airline based in the US, but your stoopid laws would only allow him to own 25% of it, but he wants a higher % so he has more muscle on the board and so it would be a majority his airline, like all the other Virgin companies, he owns the majority share.

Also SIR Richard Branson has been campaigning for the UK government to agree to an open skies policy with the US, but as the UK only has a small bargaining tool compared to the US, we are not going to give your airlines access to LHR until we get something in return,(like more foreign ownership or rights to pick up pax and fly to internal destinations) which the US government is not allowing.

You also accuse him of being a greedy hypocrite, that's rich coming from a citizen of the greedyist country on earth, where people are encouraged to be greedy from birth, that also shows in the size of most of your fellow countrymen and the size of your cars and use of the earths resources to run them (25% of the Earths population using 50% of the worlds Oil). Now who's greedy ?.

All Sir Richard is trying to do is make things better for the consumer by going up against long established large organisation's monopoly's so that the consumer gets better service and standards for less $$.


 Smile



"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2425 times:

The U.S. airline industry is one of the few industries in the U.S. that has such strict ownership rules. All of the other transportation related industries allow foreign companies to own significant shares in them, yet the airline industry is still a 'hands off' area for foreign investment. Considering the shape of the industry now, perhaps foreign ownership should be welcomed into the airline industry, because some more airlines are bound to go under. If allowing someone like Richard Branson to have a majority stake in an airline in order to save thousands of jobs, then the federal gov't needs to realize that maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing at all. I mean we're not talking about having Virgin Atlantic or British Airways flying U.S. domestic flights, rather having foreign ownership of airlines in order to help people keep their jobs or to get jobs with these airlines. The unemployment rate is still not dropping like they have hoped, and a sizable portion of those that have become unemployed within the last year have come from the airline industry. Would the government rather have these people stay on the dole until their benefits run out (and many of them lose their unemployment benefits 12/28/02, when the benefits extension runs out) or would they like to see them back at work?

User currently offlineAamd11 From UK - Wales, joined Nov 2001, 1058 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2398 times:

Well Said Leezyjet,

The oil thing especially, a rather excessive use of Oil is clearly seen over in North America as a whole, with a huge number of people driving 50year old cars [which do about 2miles to the galon] and the newer thirstier SUVs!

What will the UK get out of OpenSkies if it is done the way the US wants it?
Let me think..... Nothing!
We give them Access to all our airports and in return we expect the same.

What i cannot grasp is Why can the two countries declare war together and co-operate heavily on bombing places, and yet they cannot settle an agreement on being able to fly into each others airspace.
Surely if there is such a frienship between the two nations like that, they can agree terms allowing each other to fly on each countries air routes!

A^A MD-11


User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So giving foreign companies access to the US Domestic market (40-50% of the world's air travel is within the US) is a fair trade for what? Four or five flights into Heathrow for CO and DL, no way.

Don't expect to get everything and give nothing, it doesn't work that way. US airlines want access to Heathrow, the world's most prestigious and lucrative destination, if u want that, you have to give back something in return. Either cabotage rights or a bigger slice of foreign ownership, you have to give up your practice of protectionism to enter LHR. LHR is a goldmine for many airlines and the UK will not allow foreign airlines full access in return for jackshit.

Sir Richard is a highly respected man in the aviation world, if you're not gonna give him access, you might aswell not give it to anyone.

Arsenal@LHR



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineBucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2358 times:

so UK laws allow 49% ownership of an airline. Thats great, but it still does not allow, say Delta or American, to start flying domestic UK routes. I would even agree to allowing foreigners to own 49% of a US airline. But until we get full reciprocity, Branson can cry all he wants. Yeah, he may be advocating open skies between the US and UK, but he has never uttered a word about opening up the domestic UK market. Besides, he was never in favor of opening up LHR while his airline was in the formative years. Face it, Virgin was allowed to succeed largely because of the protectionism given it by the UK government at LHR. By the way, I am not a citizen of the UK, and I don't care what title your queen has given him.

User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days ago) and read 2340 times:

Typical UK spin at work here.

The US does not expect cabotage within the UK. Nor will it give cabotage within the US. We just want greater access to Heathrow, and in exchange UK airlines will get greater access to the US. THEY WILL NOT GET FOREIGN OWNERSHIP RIGHTS, so get over yourselves already.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4041 posts, RR: 53
Reply 22, posted (11 years 8 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2344 times:

Bucky707,

Why would any US carrier want to operate domestic flights within the UK anyway ?. Do you realise how small this country is ?. The longest flight between the major cities is only just over an hour, what would be the point in United or American or whoever operating their own a/c on such short sectors ?. To stand any chance of making any money, they would need to serve LHR and this would not be practical for 2 reasons.
1. There are no slots available (pretty damn important don't you think) and if they were to use their own slots they already have, I'm sure they would rather get a fully loaded 777 airborne to the USA, rather than an empty one to hop to MAN or GLA or where ever.
2. LHR is already served by 2 airlines that operate domestic flights to all the major cities in the UK (except BHX which is too near), these being BA and BD so there isn't really any need for another one, especially with Easyjet at Luton about 45 mins drive away.

AC used to operate from YYZ-GLA-MAN, so it's possible for foreign airline's to fly domestically in the UK, they just ain't allowed to pick up pax, a few other airlines have also operated internally too.

It's a little bit different in the good ol' US of A though as it's a much bigger country, so it's more practical for foreign airlines to be able to serve more than one destination with one a/c.

If Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair finally agree on anything to do with the open skies, the best the US can hope for is more access to LHR, as we don't have anything else practical to offer.


"Besides, he was never in favor of opening up LHR while his airline was in the formative years."

Well would you be if you were trying to make your new airline bigger ?, that's just common business sense.

"Face it, Virgin was allowed to succeed largely because of the protectionism given it by the UK government at LHR."

Guess that was that after the fight against the government to finally get access to LHR then ?, also the government was not protecting Virgin, it was too busy trying to protect BA from Virgin.

 Smile




"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlineBucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (11 years 8 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2317 times:

Leezyjet, you are right, there really is nothing that the UK could offer, domestically. That is one point I disagree with ever allowing foreign airlines to fly domestic US routes. (by the way, just like with the AC example in the UK, foreign airlines can fly within the US. They just cannot pick up passengers)There really is no one who can reciprocate with an equal market. But the principle is there. If you want access to our markets, then allow us access to yours. Don't worry though, Branson will get his chance. The US government is the biggest group of wimps on the planet. Time after time, they have allowed foreign access to US markets without requiring full reciprocity. I have no doubt that enough money from the right lobbyist will once again buy off our goverment.

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16812 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (11 years 8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2304 times:

Hell why not scrap the whole thing and start over, don't let anyone fly to Heathrow from the US.

Fact is Heathrow is not "lucrative" without the US flights, ban all flights between Heathrow and the US and BA and Virgin go out of business that same month. While US airlines can (and have) survive(d) just on the US domestic market as they have for 70 years.




Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
25 Post contains images VS11 : STT757 - You are overemphasizing the importance of UK flights to the USA. Remember that just like the US, many countries used to be UK colonies - the
26 STT757 : The US carriers can go to Gatwick or Stansted, so could BA or Virgin. Ban all flights between the US and Heathrow, should be no sweat off BA and VS's
27 VS11 : ST757 - Exactly - Brits may not be jamming BA's flights to Nigeria but probably Nigerians are jamming them - thus, LHR would still be lucrative withou
28 STT757 : Either scrap the whole thing, or let AA/BA merge into ABA Europe and ABA America (kind of like DHL) and give CO ,BMI and DL access. It's not the US's
29 VS11 : STT757 - What's your point? It is not Virgin's or UK's fault that there are more American carriers that want to fly to LHR. It is all about business i
30 Post contains images Leezyjet : Bucky707, Getting back to the point of this thread, what Sir Richard wants is to own a US airline based in the US operated by US crews, what is so wro
31 Arsenal@LHR : It's not the US's fault that there are only three British carriers (BA,BMI,VS) vs 6 US carriers (AA,CO,DL,NWA,UAL,U) who want to fly between Heathrow
32 STT757 : "where are the slots at LHR you folks are craving for?" They already exist, they are in the hands of other carriers who already have them. BA expands
33 STT757 : "what is so wrong with the fact that he is an Englishman" Absolutley nothing, I love Branson aswell as most Americans. The problem is once you set a n
34 VS11 : STT757 - Problem is those slots to Air Romania and alike are given according to international Air Service Agreements between the UK and the respective
35 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : "If the majority of the flights were only to the US, LHR will be much less coveted." ...I HARDLY think that adding service to ATL/IAH/DFW/etc from LHR
36 VS11 : Dear ConcordeBoy - you misunderstood my proposition. It is not about whether the flights to the US are important or not, it is about the importance of
37 ARGinMIA : Please.. if Mr. Branson wants to have an US based airline he can do so in 5 minutes.. just see how the CUETO family (lan chile)got themselfs Florida W
38 Fxra : WHy would anyone in the world think they could start an airline in the US now and be wildly successful?? SO, Mr. Branson by some miracle of Congressio
39 Go Canada! : dont worry any such airline will quickly have half of it sold to another buyer and then morgaged to any old bank that will give tricky dicky more mone
40 David_itl : I believe the EU does allow any EU arline to operate domestically in an EU country e.g. VLM operates LCY-MAN, Ryanair do STN-PIK & STN-NQY and I'm pre
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...
What Are The Chances Of An Equip. Change? posted Sat Jan 21 2006 23:44:13 by Burberry753
What Are The Chances Of UAL Mainline To MDW posted Sat Apr 16 2005 21:13:24 by GalvanAir777
What Are The Chances Of An Embraer Heavy? posted Wed Nov 10 2004 04:22:17 by DLKAPA
What Are The Wires For On 732 posted Thu Jan 15 2004 04:03:38 by SpdBrdConcorde
What Are The Chances Of Seeing B6 Back At ATL posted Tue Dec 9 2003 18:47:23 by Flairport
What Are The Plans For Dusseldorf? posted Thu Dec 4 2003 13:16:00 by KAL744
What Are The Chances?.... posted Mon Jul 21 2003 15:14:47 by AeroGlobeAir7
What Are The Chances That Southwest Would Serve... posted Wed Jul 9 2003 01:28:30 by 727LOVER
What Are The Chances Of Midwest Getting 757s? posted Wed Jan 1 2003 23:24:30 by Nwa320
What Are The Plans For San Bernardino Intl? posted Mon Oct 28 2002 20:41:19 by Maiznblu_757