go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Wed Aug 08, 2001 10:46 pm

In the uK following the annoucement from BA and AA that they want to increase co-operation with regard to heathrow to new york richard branson is planning a massive advertising campaign to fight this development.

Personally i think he needs to calm down.

BA/AA sharing profits will not be the end of virgin altantic.Virgin are well respected in the uk for their flights and i dont see them massively losing ground to BA/AA.

BA will need to give some slots to Virgin and i think this is would be fair move by BA and one although not publicily said will probably be forced by the eU whether BA likes it or not.

what branson has to realise is that consoldation in the aviation industry is still going to continue.
BA/AA can never fully merge, however increasing co-operation is a way to get round of this.

But virgin cant complain too much when they are 49% owned by Singapore airlines, which happens to own around 40% of sri lankan and 25% of air new zealand with SQ wanting to increase its stake as well as buy a stake in air india.

Branson at the moment doesnt own virgin,he morgaged his stake to llyodstsb, a british bank to raise fund for other ventures.

What i think will occur is ba giving up landing slots to virgin or to SQ who is desperate to fly london to new york, though at the moment it could do through the 3rd party laning rights system which allows air india to fly from heathrow to new york.

Bmi(british midland) dont seem to be screaming too mvcuh, this is probably because they are now in the worlds largest alliance and happen to be 25% owned by Lufthansa.

Easyjet and ryanair are beating BA over low fares and this doesnt affect them.in fact i seeonly branson kicking up a storm.

yet is BA/AA deal went through then it would pave the way for more link ups which can only benefit virgin because it could have closer ties with CO and with SQ.

northwest and klm already have a closer relationship than BA/AA and i think the EU after much wrangling will allow it to occur due to politics.The last time BA and AA tried it i believe the airline world wasnt ready but in an age of co-operation i think this is the next step.Also BA was still seen as thatchers airline, something which has drifted away.

The british government will support the plan because it will bosst british tourism which needs help.The british government is much more friendly in europe than before.

BA last time has the dirty tricks fight with virgin still hanging over them, however whilst i dont think BA were angels and i dotn really want this to turn into a BAvs Virgin contest, i feel that the fuss has died down.

its very difficuly for some airlines to merger because of national indentity fears therefore the BA/AA plan can be the blueprint for a new aviation industry.

Branson needs to welcome change and provigdng the deal isnt as cosy as the last(which at the moment it doesnt seem to be) then i think it will pass.

Therefore i would recommend that branson keeps his 6million to invest in some of his failing businesses rather than fight a proposal which could see virgin increase its power through close co-operation with sq and cO.

this time virgins part of a bigger family,its no longer a pluckly david against goliath.

krgds to you all and comments welcomed altough please lte this be an informed discussion and not a BA and Virgin slanging match.
too much time people swoop down and attack British airways.
ps i actually do like virgin!
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
B747-437B
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Wed Aug 08, 2001 11:59 pm

Singapore airlines, which happens to own around 40% of sri lankan and 25% of air new zealand with SQ wanting to increase its stake as well as buy a stake in air india.

EMIRATES owns 40% of SriLankan and not Singapore Airlines.

The Singapore Airlines bid for Air India is all but dead at this point.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 12:32 am

Singapore Airlines and TATA have no comment to make so far about the AI deal, therefore it is not "all but dead at this point".

Anyway, I support Richard Branson, after all, competition is needed and the UK Government (Labour, the best (except in their Air Transport rules)), can't smile much as it has rejected SIA for 13 years to fly from the LHR to the US and bmi for a long time as well.

I look forward to the adverts. Does it have a website? I am throughly interested.

Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
David_itl
Posts: 5946
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 12:45 am

Isn't it about 9 routes and not just the one. I note that the BHX-ORD, MAN-ORD, MAN-JFK and GLA-ORD routes weren't included in the profit-sharing plan. I wonder why?

Heathrow slots won't be handed out to Virgin or Singapore Airlines; BA and AA will be asked to divest themselves of some and then there will be a queue of airlines wanting to get hands on them, bmi british midland included. It would be interesting to see which BA routes would be affected by this handover.

I would back Richard Branson in his action as the "sheep" alliance (BAAA  Wink/being sarcastic ) would have the lion's share of the LHR-USA market; for Virgin (and bmi) to impact on these routes would take a fair amount of time unless they can find suitable equipment in a short space of time (i.e. perhaps the available MAS 747-400s) to inaugurate new services and increase frequency on others.

The only way for Singapore Airlines to get 5th freedom flights from LHR to the US would be if the Bermuda II treaty is replaced by an "open skies" policy. However, time is short for a British-American deal; I believe that from January, the EU will be negotiating "open skies" agreements instead of the individual countries in the EU. However, I have heard rumours of MAN-USA services by Singapore Airlines next year...no doubt BA will cry foul about that.

Spurious argument about easyJet and Ryanair as they fly from LTN (and to a lesser degree LGW) and STN respectively with them collectively offering no long-haul flights; it is the lack of competition on long-haul flights which is the main thrust of Richard Branson's arguments.

David/MAN 351 and counting
 
CRJCA
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2001 10:35 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 5:26 am

Didn't Branson just put in a bid for USAirways? I know about Global, but I believe Branson has made a bid as well. How would THAT change things?
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 5:41 am

THAT wouldn't change thing smuch as it is a rumour. However it would be v. v. v. interesting.

Good for the EU to decide I say. Good old Europe. Overriding the Labour Gov policies on Air Transport. Hoorah for them. Hoorah for SIA! Hoorah for bmi British Midland! Hoorah for me.

However, i'm still looking for an ad...
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
ryanair
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 1:41 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 6:42 am

I think there is a point here, because the UK market especially lhr is very different to the rest of Europe, where similar alliances exist.

Even if lhr were opened to any UK or US Airline wanting to fly between the two countries, it would still leave BA/AA with a massive advantage, as the two main established carriers. OK, so BA could transfer a few slots over, which could end up in the hands of NW etal (even if terminal access could be solved), fine. However, when it comes to expansion BA has slots to play with, because of the mass of European Ops it flies at great loss, meaning it's pretty unlikely BA/AA would loose any trans atlantic frequency, in other words there would be no balancing affect.

It might be claimed the fact more US CArriers into lhr would be more competitive, but how many of these will simply be flights transfered from Gatwick? Will the people of Detroit rush en mass to nwa.com and book tickets to London just because they can experience flying nw to lhr? No! So, without some huge increase in demand will the airlines lay on loads of extra flights? No! They'llstick to existing frequencies, but move them to lhr.

When you look at flights to Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Zurich (not so much the case now) where alliances have operated, the number of airlines (ie. competition) flying between the US and those countries has reduced as companies have had to withdraw unable to compete against the big alliances.

I accept Branson is a drama queen. I'm undecided as to should the deal go through, but things aren't as clear cut as is sometimes made out by interested parties.

I'm interested by the code share aspect, with very different products on offer (for example there sure ain't more room on BA Coach, or flat beds in AA Business, or World Traveller Plus at all), any ideas how that would work. I wouldn't be happy if I'd bought more room in coach and ended up with Ba's 31inch pitch on a 744? The reason I ask is both AA and BA have placed a lot of emphisis recently on how their particular products are different to everybody elses, especially for BA surely that's a major problem?
 
ryanair
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 1:41 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 6:46 am

I think there is a point here, because the UK market especially lhr is very different to the rest of Europe, where similar alliances exist.

Even if lhr were opened to any UK or US Airline wanting to fly between the two countries, it would still leave BA/AA with a massive advantage, as the two main established carriers. OK, so BA could transfer a few slots over, which could end up in the hands of NW etal (even if terminal access could be solved), fine. However, when it comes to expansion BA has slots to play with, because of the mass of European Ops it flies at great loss, meaning it's pretty unlikely BA/AA would loose any trans atlantic frequency, in other words there would be no balancing affect.

It might be claimed the fact more US CArriers into lhr would be more competitive, but how many of these will simply be flights transfered from Gatwick? Will the people of Detroit rush en mass to nwa.com and book tickets to London just because they can experience flying nw to lhr? No! So, without some huge increase in demand will the airlines lay on loads of extra flights? No! They'llstick to existing frequencies, but move them to lhr.

When you look at flights to Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Zurich (not so much the case now) where alliances have operated, the number of airlines (ie. competition) flying between the US and those countries has reduced as companies have had to withdraw unable to compete against the big alliances.

I accept Branson is a drama queen. I'm undecided as to should the deal go through, but things aren't as clear cut as is sometimes made out by interested parties.

I'm interested by the code share aspect, with very different products on offer (for example there sure ain't more room on BA Coach, or flat beds in AA Business, or World Traveller Plus at all), any ideas how that would work. I wouldn't be happy if I'd bought more room in coach and ended up with Ba's 31inch pitch on a 744? The reason I ask is both AA and BA have placed a lot of emphisis recently on how their particular products are different to everybody elses, especially for BA surely that's a major problem?
 
B747-437B
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 7:18 am

Singapore Airlines and TATA have no comment to make so far about the AI deal, therefore it is not "all but dead at this point".

You don't say? I'll pass that on to the AI management and see what they think about it. They are working on that assumption, but I'll tell them that you know better.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 7:28 am

Thought you were familiar in the chat room. No wonder I had bad tones from you.

You do pass it on for me will you. Could you give me an e-mail address please. How you gonna do it? Please do tell, I am highly intrigued.

Well goodnight.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
co/ba
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 1:55 pm

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:22 am

I don't know all of the dynamics of this proposed alliance however, the last time this was attempted there was talk of AA working BA flts in the U.S. and BA handling AA flts in the U.K. Is this still in the plan? Would this result in loss of BA jobs in the U.S.? If this would result in a loss of BA jobs in the U.S. I would have to oppose this alliance no matter how much I would love to see CO at LHR which still does not guarentee competitive slots into LHR at the moment
 
Adam84
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 9:15 am

The webpage about this is at
http://www.american-britishairways.com

 
v jet
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 9:04 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 9:24 am

Ryanair,
Codeshare should not present a problem. At the time of booking either the airline itself, or tvl agent if you are using one should inform you that the flt is a codeshare and say for eg this is operated by a BA aircraft. It is up to you whether you then take it or not. The codeshare flts are flagged as such in res systems.
 
VS11
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 10:33 am

Richard Branson should not calm down nor should any aviation fan when competition is at stake.
Had Sir Richard calmed down in 92 when BA played dirty tricks, or at any other anti-competitive event Virgin Atlantic would have probably been nonexistent by now. Think of Virgin Atlantic and the way it had transformed airtravel. I can't imagine what airtravel would have been like without Virgin Atlantic. And that is why Richard Branson should not calm down - we all benefit from competition and that is why we should not allow anticompetitive deals to occur. BA is losing money because it has backwards thinking, and is looking for some artificial way to stay profitable. No BA/AA deal for them. Unless they reinvent themselves and be competitive, no pity for them.
 
B747-437B
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 11:59 am

You do pass it on for me will you. Could you give me an e-mail address please. How you gonna do it? Please do tell, I am highly intrigued.

You can send your email directly to me, and I will have it forwarded to them. In case you didn't know, my dad is Senior Manager - Inflight Services Department at Air India. Thanks.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 3:41 pm

The only way Richard Branson could get involved in a bid for U.S. Airways would be in a diminished role, since foreign ownership in U.S. airlines is limited to 25%, and I don' think Richard would want to be pushed to the back of a bid for U.S. Airways. I admire Branson (read several bios and the book on the Virgin business model) and see him as a crusader for the common man. I rank him up there with Herb Kelleher as an icon of the airline industry, mavericks that wouldn't let the big boys push them around.
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 4:15 pm

B747-438B: Could I have the e-mail address please? I promise not to send more than one e-mail a month.

Well VS11, I agree. I didn't think of the Dirty Tricks.! That coming from a person who's read the book "Dirty Tricks" twice!

I support this. Does he still have the "No Way BA/AA" on the planes?
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
ryanair
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 1:41 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 5:52 pm

VJet: I know all that, but unfortunately most UK Travel Agents don't seem to, unless it's a package holiday to Spain 90% don't have a clue (I seriously doubt many even know what codeshare means, I mean that quite seriously), you're right they 'should' inform you. Believe me I speak as the voice of experience on that score, half of all the times I've flown Codeshare I was told nothing.

My point is, both companies have staked their future strategy for well being on their differentiated products (it's the root of BA's entire strategy) and diluting that on key markets (especially BA) puts all that under question, it sounds petty, which usually it would be, but AA/BA have built up their inflight products importance so high in terms of their business strategy, here I think it's important.

They say they're going to make their livings the following way. BA wants to capture the small but big spending top end high yield crowd, which it won't do with AA's product. AA wants to capture numerious but less big spending full fare economy market, which it can't with World Traveller. To me, that is a problem.
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 7:12 pm

This the same Richard Branson who when moving into Australian Skies sent any and every company with Virgin in hteir name a cease to exist trading under that name or they would sue the pants off them ???

 
VgnAtl747
Posts: 1333
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 3:59 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 7:42 pm

I support Branson. He's got the guts to go after this, let him.

Go Canada!- C'mon, what is it with you and anti-Virgin posts. You said yourself your aunt works for them.
Work Hard. Fly Right. Continental Airlines
 
deskdriver
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2000 10:18 pm

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 9:59 pm

Virgin are more concerned about the Bermuda II agreement being cancelled. This agreement means that only 2 US carriers & 2 UK carriers can operate between the 2 countries from Heathrow. The airlines involved UA, AA, BA & VS. If BA & AA make a success of their tie up Open skies will not be far behind
 
JAL
Posts: 3875
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2000 12:37 pm

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 9:59 pm

I really think that Branson should calm down.

I support BA/AA propose alliance , as it would help them better compete with rivals like Star.
Work Hard But Play Harder
 
KUGN
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2000 4:36 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Thu Aug 09, 2001 10:29 pm

Richard Branson, crusader for a common man? When was that? In some of his balloon adventures? Far cry from it. He is only good marketeer, showman, and "in crowd" man for celebrities. Crusade for common folks is just a nice wrap for the '90s humanists. Check list of Branson's pals, his books are full of their glossy photos in upper decks.

If we can talk about crusaders for common people among airline execs, I'd point to Southwest founder. But should airline execs be crusaders or smart busnessmen/women? Now, I'd point to Continental CEO.
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Fri Aug 10, 2001 6:05 am

Singapore can fly heathrow to new york under current agreements, if air india can do it then so can sQ.

Mancester flights arent mentioned because this isnt a full scale merger.

Im sorry about the sri lankan, im so used to SIA owning others that it slipped my minds.

ps im not that anti-branson, im just saying he needs to clam down.

he was justified in the early 90s but now virgin is a big boy and if it cant take the heat it should get out of the kitchen.The worlds moved on from dirty tricks and I dont think Branson is going to whip up support this time.

the uK government is desperate to increase tourism, terminal 5 will go ahead and the bA/AA deal will be oked because virgin isnt a small player any more, its backed by SIA and bmi is 25% owned by lufthansa.
Virgin also has a codeshare partner, cO and KLM/Northwest are very close.

BA/AA have been waiting to ponce and now in the pole position in the consoladation of the aviation industry.BA let bmi expand without fuss, didnt kick up a storm over virgin being owned 49% by SIA.

The British are behind BA once more, the thachter tag is dying and dirty trciks being forgottern.

Virgin wont complain to much if BA help with the fuss over open skies.I dont think virgin want the competition either, although all that would happen is more Heathrow flights and no more gatwick.

Delta etc wont substain both.Open skies is going to be difficult when the government is under pressure not to raise the overall number of flights to heathrow by too much.

they will sideline open skies in order to get terminal five passed.

BA/AA are acting now before the EU gets extra powers and I dont think Branson realises he is no longer the darling he once was.He would have got more support if he didnt sell out to SIA and then morgaged the rest.

BA are well prepared to through the sink at branson.easyjet and ryanair wont get involved, bmi will get canned over lufthansa. AF wont be taken any notice of and will get their delta closeness thrown up them and klm wont start because bA still wants a stake and its got the closest friendship of them all.

any star alliance carrier wont be in a position to complainwhen their alliance is closer than oneworld.

in fact BA are very clever over this and will get what they want, especially if branson keeps expanding throughout the world, tries to merge virgin blue with ansett, takes on AC and tries to buy a stake in a US carrier.

if branson attempts a closer relationship with any other carrier BA will point to it.

I dont see BA doing dirty tricks, just getting what they
want.

and before we start on BA finances prehaps you should look at bransons.

It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Fri Aug 10, 2001 6:06 am

Probably those "No way BA/AA" on his aircraft were too small... Now let him replace the whole airline name to this paranoid logo - then he'll be able to make it so huge! Big grin
 
David_itl
Posts: 5946
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Fri Aug 10, 2001 6:36 am

Singapore can fly heathrow to new york under current agreements, if air india can do it then so can sQ

They've tried for years to fly LHR-JFK; why on Earth haven't they introduced that route if they can?!?!?

It needs years of inter-governmental talking to allow 5th freedom flights. It took over a year before Pakistan International to begin their MAN-JFK service and a similar amount of time for Olympic's postponed MAN-BOS service.

David/MAN: 350 and counting
 
B747-437B
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Fri Aug 10, 2001 9:27 am

if air india can do it then so can sQ

You are obviously extremely clueless about the realities of the airline business. AI was the first Asian carrier to operate transatlantic services back in the early 1960s and has maintained the LHR-JFK route continuously since then. They have been operating that route longer than ANY of the other carriers in the UK-US market (and that includes DL, NW, UA, AA, CO, US, BD, VS and BA - although the BA/BOAC link can be argued). Comparing a grandfathered in, bilaterally approved service like that with a startup (which is what SQ is in comparison) trying to break into the LHR-USA market is like comparing chalk and cheese.

The day SQ gets 5th freedom LHR-JFK while Bermuda II is still in effect will simply not arrive. Thats all I have to say.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
co/ba
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 1:55 pm

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Fri Aug 10, 2001 2:18 pm

First off I don't think the alliance will get approval. The first reason being concerns over competition. Everyone is going to complain about slots. Will BA give up prime slots to competion? I doubt it. The second problem will be with the unions concerning who will work flts in the other carriers cities which could lead to job loss
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Fri Aug 10, 2001 8:56 pm

Unions arent powerful in the UK, ba will run roughshod over them, like it has always done.

Its an alliance and profit sharing on the new york-london routes, not a full scale merger.

The concerns about competition will be thrown back in every airline face that suggests it.Virgin cant complain because its 49% owned by SIA and because it isnt a plucky little carrier anymore.

Bmi wont complain because Ba will point to lufthansa backing and the fact its in the star alliance, far more cosy than one world.

United wont raise too many objections since they are in the star alliance and AA backed them over the failed merger with us.

Delta/AF are cosy together and northwest/klm is the model that ba and aa wish to focus on.

BA/AA will get their way this time, if BA has too decrease slots then so be it but why should it have to give up slots? This isnt a merger, its co-operation and its what other carriers do.If it was more, say purchasing a stake in each other or a full merger then of course BA and AA would be in for a tough time.

This isnt the early 90s andas soonas branson wakes up to this, the sooner he can stop wasting his 6 million and help parts of his business.
He isnt some cruasder, hes a businessmen worried that people much rather fly with BA/AA rather than himself, though i cant see what his problem is since Virgn is a very popular carrier.

Open skies wont be an issue with this because it wont lead to more routes, it will be delta transferring overto heathrow along with other, causing more traffic at heathrow when BAA(airport owners) are trying to make sure that traffic doesnt increase too much because they want terminal five.

the plan wont lead to masive job losses.

with regard to SIA, whats stopping BA/AA offering to help get sia the rights it wants, this would shut virgin up because its backed by sia. because 5th freedom rights arent the same as the closed skies policy.

whats stopping SIA flying from gatwick, its only closed skies at heathrow.
if co can start flying from stansted this year and if delta et all can fly from gatwick, then why the hell sia doesnt go for that option i dont know.


this time BA/AA have picked the right moment.

It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Fri Aug 10, 2001 10:28 pm

"whats stopping SIA flying from gatwick"

Why do you think! Gatwick! No thank you. LHR. Yes please. The reasons are obvious.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
B747-437B
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Fri Aug 10, 2001 11:12 pm

whats stopping SIA flying from gatwick, its only closed skies at heathrow.

Are you really this clueless or are you giving us your best Desmond Yip impression?

Why don't you go to your local library and pull out the Bermuda II agreement one of these days. That will outline EXACTLY who can fly between ANY AIRPORTS in the United States and the United Kingdom and under what flag. I don't recall Singapore Airline being included there.

The specific restriction about Heathrow slots being allocated only to those airlines grandfathered in pre-1991 is merely one aspect of Bermuda II. There are other, more important items in the treaty as well.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
David_itl
Posts: 5946
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Fri Aug 10, 2001 11:36 pm

Its an alliance and profit sharing on the new york-london routes, not a full scale merger

As I mentioned previosuly, it's not just a single route. From the BA press release:

The new alliance includes a profit sharing arrangement covering nine transatlantic routes between London and Boston, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Raleigh/Durham, St. Louis and San Francisco

Then we have this:

causing more traffic at heathrow when BAA(airport owners) are trying to make sure that traffic doesnt increase too much because they want terminal five.

Therefore, you'll be condemning BA's business plans then, in going for smaller aircraft on the same frequency because this policy will not help the South East meet forecast demand.

It would also be a curious philosophy as I would have thought they would need to "prove" that LHR is already bursting at the seams and that airlines are tripping over themselves to gain access to LHR; I believe Emirates noticed a 20 to 25% increase in loads when they transferred one of their LGW services to LHR when the Traffic Distribution Rules were relaxed - other airlines may also experience this effect.

David/MAN: 349 and counting
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Sat Aug 11, 2001 1:07 am

The overall BAA plans for heathrow say that they dont envisage growth at heathrow growing by a massive increase.In order to get terminal five, baa are effectively, putting a limit on traffic at heathrow.

i repeat singapore can fly from gatwick if it wanted but its desperate for heathrow, ive read Bermuda II.We only have closed skies over heathrow .

im not codemming the BA plan, im saying that you wont get massive slots changes or see delta flying from heathrow because BAA dont want to upset the locals too much.ba may say they want to share profits etc with other routes but the cruix of the matter is the heathrow-ny routes.

That what BA/AA having been going for, next year the eu may open the skies as it gets extra power, bA/AA are covering themselves.

if they add extra routes so be it, at the end of the day it isnt a full scale merger.

nobody needs to prove that heathrow is full, its accepted by all sides of the arguement.

i find puzzling that one so against heathrow as yourself to seem to be supporting expansion.

"causing more traffic at heathrow when BAA(airport owners) are trying to make sure that traffic doesnt increase too much because they want terminal five.

Therefore, you'll be condemning BA's business plans then, in going for smaller aircraft on the same frequency because this policy will not help the South East meet forecast demand. "

im not condemming BA for going for smaller aircraft.I didnt say that this wont meet demand, show me were i said it did.

BAA dont want heathrow traffic to carry on increasing because as part of the plan to get terminal five increased they are saying that there will be a ceiling on heathrow.

im saying that BA giving up slots wont slove the problem because delta et allwill simply leave gatwick and transfer to heathrow-what ive said is that is going to put BAA in a very difficult position.

and im sticking to my postion that richard branson wont win.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
B747-437B
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Sat Aug 11, 2001 1:34 am

i repeat singapore can fly from gatwick if it wanted but its desperate for heathrow, ive read Bermuda II.We only have closed skies over heathrow .

Forget it. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. There is NO OPEN SKIES AGREEMENT between the United States and the United Kingdom - PERIOD! The Heathrow slots and carriers issue is completely seperate from that.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
sdate747
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2000 4:55 pm

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Sat Aug 11, 2001 2:07 am

Does anybody recall all the dirty tricks BA pulled to stifle the growth of VA into the 1st rate world class airlines it is today? I think Richard Branson is absolutely justified - AA/BA would be too large of a partnership.

"NO WAY BA/AA" !!!
 
Jetstreamer
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 5:52 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Sat Aug 11, 2001 3:55 am

Sir Richard is a very calm person and if you had ever met him you would know that. All he is doing is protecting his business. BA/AA are trying to do exactly the same.

Go Canada needs to calm down, have a good read of Bermuda II and stop harping on about VAA being 49% owned by SIA/51% mortgaged to LloydsTSB.
 
V1-Rotate
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 11:12 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Sat Aug 11, 2001 10:22 am

Branson does indeed need to calm it.Basically,HE hates competition.Furious over Air Canadas attempt to play him at his own game(anti-VS ads all over London),made a proper song and dance over BMI starting U.S. ops.He sometimes reminds me of a spoilt,only child who throws tantrums when he can't get everything his own way.(I AM an admirer of the airline I must add)
The big thing that put me off Mr Branson was seeing him on national TV almost in tears when he lost his bid for the national lottery in the UK.These were not tears for the common man,these were tears for himself.He saw a massive cash cow taken away from him.At no time in his campaign did he ever declare what his operating costs would be,I wonder why???
Then I went and read Tom Bowers' biog of him,which I recommend all you Bransonites should read! Has he sued yet? No...again I wonder why??
Wake up and smell the coffee,he's a greedy businessman,nothing more.
 
VS11
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Sun Aug 12, 2001 10:43 pm

Something that many people have overlooked is that Richard Branson is trying to leverage access to LHR in order to get the US let foreign (British) carriers operate flights solely within the US. The basic reasoning is why LHR should be open to US carriers if the US domestic market is closed to foreign airliners. If LHR is open to all American carriers then the competition for flights between London and the US will be very tough mostly for British carriers, and why should British carriers face competition in the LHR market from American carriers if American carriers do not face competition from British carriers on the American market.
Second, competition will be really affected if two out of 4 airlines supposed to operate a flight between LHR and an American airport converge into one. Profit sharing means that they will act as one airline. For competition's sake, LHR could be open to any airline but then the US will have what they want - open LHR without making their domestic market open to everyone, or let's say British. I am not British but I do think that open LHR for American carriers without American skies open for British carriers will adversely affect British economic interests.
Third, Richard Branson is not greedy. He is an enterpreneur - he sets up new companies from scratch, develops markets and industries and the best part is, that the consumers benefit from these. However, in order to do this, you need massive investment, especially for the airline business.
Branson does not believe in the stock market - one of the sources for huge investment, and accordingly he does not float his companies (first and last time was Virgin Music and he bought the shares back at the original price so people do not lose money from Virgin Music stock).
So he needs to finance his companies through loans, or in the case of VS by selling 49% to SIA in order to get cash to further invest.
Granted, Virgin Atlantic is not what it was in the early 1990s. Still, compared to BA or AA it is small. BA/AA have deep pockets - they can collude and set cheaper prices. Other airliners in the same market would have to do the same. But if they do not have so deep pockets they cannot survive in the long run.
It took 17 years for Virgin Atlantic to become what it is now. And Sir Branson fought for this, and had to face dirty competition from bigger companies with deeper pockets, companies that never had to fight to get things, that never had to fight the status quo.
Take BA - massive national airline. It had and still does everything, including the Concorde - which was given to them for free. BA got privatised in the middle of a scandal facing competition charges from Sir Freddie Laker ("The Spirit of Sir Freddie"). There was a trial in the US and it was a serious one. It took Thatcher to have Reagan stop the trial in order to get BA privatised, otherwise BA probably would not have been privatised.
And guess what, the trial was for collusion - TWA, PanAm and BA colluding to lower prices so that Laker Airways goes bankrupt and leaves the market, which eventually happened, and that is why Sir Freddie sued them. It took top level political interference into the US judicial system to get the trial over and BA privatised.
And the situation is almost identical now, instead of Sir Freddie, it is Sir Richard.
And do not say if Richard Branson does not like the airline business he should not be in it because if he wasn't in it Virgin Atlantic would not exist, and the bottom line is that you and me - the regular consumers are affected by this.
We do enjoy cheaper prices and PVTs and all kind of amenities and we do expect superb service but we never think what it takes to have them. Without VS introducing them for economy class, no other airline would have done so. For comparison, BA still does not have PVTs in the Economy class in most of the their LHR-East Coast flights, neither Lufthansa. And these are companies with deep pockets that can afford to please their customers if they choose so but they don't.
So do not be so light-hearted about the AA/BA deal, and do not judge Sir Richard harshly. He can shut down his companies and still be well-off. But we will suffer from the loss of Virgin Atlantic. I would not like to live in a world without Virgin Atlantic.
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Mon Aug 13, 2001 12:26 am

I havent said that we shouldnt have a virgin atlantic, i have respect for virgin, in fact read my comments, i havent critised the airline.

i dont have a chip on my shoulder, frankly its childish for people to attack me as a person when the majority of people on this thread agree with me that branson isnt a saint and does need to come down.

Branson doesnt like competition, correct, he likes to moan, let when others fight back then its not allowed, he has one rule for his companies and a rule for everyone else.

And its right he doesnt like stock markets either, thats why virgin group isnt floated, because it would encounter critism over its finances, you may say ah but you said you didnt want to attack virgin, but hey i asked for this not to be about ba dirty trciks but some people have lowered the standard of comments to this level so im going to respond, and im not attacking an great airline in virgin, im simply stating that everything isnt always rosey.

richard bransons virgin group is losing money, thats the cruix of the matter, individual success with virgin atlantic, granted its a success story but branson was tkaing money from the airline and moving it to other parts of his businesses then he realised he couldnt expand his airline and sold it out.

i will carry on about virgin being backed by SIA, if thats allowed then the BA/AA ALLIANCE(not a merger) should be allowed to go ahead and what i have said all along is that richard branson does need to clam down, hes wasting 6 million that could be better used for his failing businesses rather complaining about an agreement which isnt a merger.

it seems it one rule for BA and another for the rest, if bmi and lufthansa can be so close and if the star alliance can be so close and if virgin can be backed by sia then i dotn see why BA/AA cant have a proper alliance since delta and air france are pally and northwest/klm are the closest of the all.

the point of this thread is that richard branson needs to calm down, that what the title is, not an excuse to ramble on about events occuring ten years ago or attacking me because some idiots dont know how else to respond.

i also agree with some of the points made by the last post, it would be unfair if us carriers get what they want without the british carriers being treated the same as branson does a lot for the industry but this isnt a merger, if it was i would support it.

i wouldnt want to live in a world without virgin atlantic but i wouldnt want to live in a world where airline growth and the economy of britain is restricted by those seeling to keep the status quo because their emontions affect the situation.

let BA/AAhave their alliance, others with do the same, this is a business, not a day care nursery and its survival of the fittest and since virgin has a good product and is backed by a cash rich airline i dont see it going bankrupt because of this deal.

I see branson doing well out of this because he can forge closer links with other airlines.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Mon Aug 13, 2001 12:39 am

I have notice that dear richard hasnt been complaining about competition in austrialia and new zealand and i notice he hasnt complained about singapore airlines trying to get its mits on anz and ansett and then merger bits of virgin blue with ansett.

funny that.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
VS11
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Mon Aug 13, 2001 1:38 am

First, I have no recollection of attacking personally anyone in the forum. If someone feels personally attacked, I appologize - It has not been my intention to offend anyone.
Second, Go Canada misses one very important fact. The alliances KLM/Northwest and mbi/Lufthansa have NO relevance to the proposed AA/BA deal. Why? Because both companies within those alliances do not fly out of Heathrow to the same US airports!!!!!!!
This is not about alliances in general. This is about an alliance in a highly restricted and profitable market.
You have 4 airlines that are allowed to fly between LHR and every single US airport -e.g JFK. Two of these 4 want to work as one - that is the problem. Richard Branson faced the reality of alliances, and not alliances in general is the issue.
KLM and Northwest serve different markets, so do bmi and Lufthansa. But the proposed deal is between AA/BA in a market served by both airlines. Besides AA and BA work together in one alliance -OneWorld.
So the deal is HUGELY anticompetitive and should not go ahead. The events I mentioned in my last post could have happened 10 years ago but they are still relevant.
As far as the other businesses of Richard Branson are concerned, I have no idea where you take your information. As private companies, I assume they are not required to disclose their income statements. And the argument of Branson's pulling out money out of one venture into another is exactly 10 years old, and does not have any relevance to the topic. He may or may not be doing so - he is the owner and can do whatever he wants with his money. Even if some of the companies are less successful than others - that is completely normal - that is the nature of business. But Branson tries all the time, he goes into different industries and his presence is felt. He has a passion to enter new markets and introduce new products and services, and consumers benefit from these, even if not all ventures are successful all the time. And this is what counts.
 
ryanair
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 1:41 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Mon Aug 13, 2001 2:04 am

Branson has been complaining abuot competition in Australia, quite a lot actually. He won't have much to say about New Zealand, he doesn't fly there.

Baa will say anything to anyone if it thinks it'll benefit Baa, I once worked for them and it's the way they operate, they're by no means a bad company infact they were very good to me, but they come from the Whitehall Sir Humphrey school of manipulation. Take the T5 stuff for what it is, PR.

I've met Branson too, he is quiet and not particularly pleasant, which doesn't make him right or wrong about anything. I know the way he felt about the lottery by one of those weird twists of fate, I got to sit there while he had a meeting about it (which was quite cool!) the guy was asolute in his confidence in his own correctness, believed without question he was best and had steam coming out his ears he wasn't getting his own way
. Branson will not be moved on this one. Mind you he's a little too popular to get any favours from New Labour......
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

VS11

Mon Aug 13, 2001 2:19 am

Actually BA, or BOAC as it was then, DID pay for it's Concorde's. Well the 5 they originally ordered anyway. The cost per aircraft escapes me, but it was 20% greater than a 747 in 1972 prices.
When it returns to service, it will be interesting to see if Branson is again a regular customer for the BA service as he was before, using his airline staff discount of course.
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

BA/AA Reasoning Behind The Deal

Mon Aug 13, 2001 2:26 am

from bbc news online(12.8.2001)

BA and AA seek US approval


American Airlines and British Airways have formally sought US antitrust immunity for a new alliance, their second attempt at cementing their relationship in three years.
The application was lodged with the US Transportation Department late on Friday night and immunity would allow the pair to code and profit share.

BA's partnership with AA is wrapped up in complex negotiations for an "open skies" agreement to liberalize aviation between the United States and Britain.

A key issue will again be whether the airlines would give up any take-off and landing slots at London's Heathrow airport, the stumbling block for the applications failure in 1999.

Virgin Atlantic, which last time ran a high profile, "No way BA/AA" campaign and is expected to again oppose the tie-up.

The biggest

BA, Europe's largest airline, and AA, the largest airline in the world, argue that changes in the industry in recent years means there is now more competition to their One World alliance.

Since 1996, new competing alliances have emerged and Paris and Frankfurt have become rivals to Heathrow.

BA and AA argue that clearance was of "vital strategic importance" for them to compete with those alliances which have anti-trust immunity.

An alliance would also involve combining frequent flier programs, international routes and scheduling, marketing, pricing and cargo.

"The American/British Airways alliance will significantly improve consumer convenience and choice, produce operating efficiencies that will create greater value for passengers and shippers," the companies said in their application.

It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
VS11
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

BA And The Concorde

Mon Aug 13, 2001 2:39 am

First, BOAC was a government company then, and was made to buy the Concorde because BOAC did not want to buy them!!! And that is a fact. The British Government did not want to be embarrased by not even the BOAC buying the Concorde. The two governments - British and French - made the national companies BA and AF buy the Concorde for no one else would, and that would have been an incredible embarassment after the billions of pounds invested in the Concorde.
Second, BA and Virgin Atlantic have a self-ticketing agreement - so just as Branson can get a discounted ticket on the Concorde, so BA employees can get discounted tickets on VS flights. I do not see anything wrong in that.
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: BA And The Concorde

Mon Aug 13, 2001 2:59 am

State-owned BOAC might have been, but they did want the aircraft, maybe not the number first proposed in the 1960's (8). And they DID have to pay for them, after all in 1972 the UK manufacturer, BAC, was a private company.
The development costs were written off.
Branson has every right to fly on any airline, strange he often chooses evil-empire, monolithic, baby-eating British Airways.
If he had any principals he'd have used AF Concordes.
I remember when BA did maintenance on his rather old, several different user 747's in the 1980s. If a bunch of extra defects were found, and the aircraft went out a bit late, BA were trying to scupper him by denying him aircraft. If the 747 went out a bit early, they hadn't done a proper job.
 
VS11
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Mon Aug 13, 2001 3:15 am

GDB -
I cannot say how often Branson flies BA Concordes. But if he chooses to fly BA's Concordes rather than AF's that might be because he is located in London rather than Paris? What do you think? If you lived in London, would you go to Paris to fly on AF Concorde. That would be countering the whole idea of flying supersonic to get somewhere fast.....
Also, I am not the personal advocate of Branson. I have met him, I would be happy to work for Virgin Atlantic. My posts were defending his campaign against the AA/BA deal. I cannot comment on any single act Branson does.
But to use the argument of GoCanada -if the heat is too much for Branson he should go out of the kitchen- to counter his point that the AA/BA deal is to let these innocent companies compete against Star Alliance and the like. If AA and BA feel the heat and it is too much for them, then probably they should leave the kitchen - thus the problem with LHR slots will be solved!!!
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

VS11

Mon Aug 13, 2001 3:28 am

Well Branson was always banging on about how he was going to lease an AF Concorde, it was always BS for press consumption, AF would have fleeced him cost-wise!
It just seems strange to use the airline he so despises.
In fact, his obssession with BA reminds me of Lord King's personal obssession with Branson 10 years ago, the old duffer let Branson get to him, and we know how that clouded his judgement.
So for his own good, Branson does need to calm down.
 
nycank
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 6:47 pm

RE: Richard Branson Needs To Calm Down.

Wed Aug 15, 2001 2:45 pm

For anything substantial to shake out, US-UK have to thrash out a post Bermuda II agreement. Do a search on the parliamentary debates to get the
UK perspective on this. And for the US pespective -- ahem! ahem!!

Or do a search on the old posts in this group and see if there are relevant URLs  Smile/happy/getting dizzy