Page 1 of 1

Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:45 pm
by qf789
Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic are seeking a deeper partnership. VA submitted an application to the ACCC last week, refer to application in full in following link

https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/pu ... ERSION.pdf

Benefits of the proposed alliance include both carriers working together on joint pricing, inventory management, scheduling coordination, network planning and marketing, as well as product alignment, airport operations, joint procurement and tenders for corporate contracts. Both carriers will extend the existing codeshare and reciprocal frequent flyer benefits which includes VA codesharing on VS flights to LHR from HKG and LAX and VS codesharing on VA services from HKG and LAX to Australia plus selected domestic services.

The proposed agreement would see VS codeshare on VA services from Australia to New Zealand and VA would codeshare on VS UK and Ireland services from LHR.

https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... -atlantic/

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:02 pm
by SeanM1997
I hope this will make the Manchester-Los Angeles flight more attractive, and encourage the route to go year round

London-Los Angeles only has 81% load factor so this could help boost this. London-Hong Kong is at 83% and if timings were better, could see this increasing

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:14 pm
by JamesCousins
SeanM1997 wrote:
I hope this will make the Manchester-Los Angeles flight more attractive, and encourage the route to go year round

London-Los Angeles only has 81% load factor so this could help boost this. London-Hong Kong is at 83% and if timings were better, could see this increasing


If thesebyear round LFs are accurate they seem pretty good to me for an established 'legacy' carrier? But definitely some nice room to grow there :D

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:32 pm
by chepos
Side observation, just stepped off VS182 LAX MAN this morning. I was surprised how busy the flight was, considering the season recently started. A Virgin Australia partnership would help boost the flight, but departure ex LAX to MAN would have to be earlier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:12 pm
by Chemist
Two Virgins having a twosome.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:17 pm
by sonicruiser
Can't believe it took them this long to connect the dots

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:54 pm
by MoKa777
sonicruiser wrote:
Can't believe it took them this long to connect the dots


I am thinking the same thing!

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:06 pm
by DobboDobbo
One thing that isn’t clear to me is whether this might cut across VS’s existing agreements in this part of the globe (which I think include a variety of deals with CX, ANZ and SQ).

Can anyone shed any light on this point?

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:26 pm
by Motorhussy
I wonder if this what bearing this will have on upcoming fleet purchases? VS has order for 787, A350 and possibly A330neo families. VA must be some way through an assessment of what their fleet is going to look like.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:16 pm
by tullamarine
Motorhussy wrote:
I wonder if this what bearing this will have on upcoming fleet purchases? VS has order for 787, A350 and possibly A330neo families. VA must be some way through an assessment of what their fleet is going to look like.

VA are in no hurry to replace its exiting widebody fleet. The A330s have an average age of 6 years whilst the 77Ws have an average age of 9 years. VA owns all but one of its 777s and the secondhand market for widebodies is terrible at the moment so selling the 77Ws would just result in an unnecessary loss.

They will eventually replace both probably with a single type and the 789 and A359 would be the two obvious candidates but I doubt this will be on their agenda for 3 or 4 years at least.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:35 pm
by m007j
MoKa777 wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:
Can't believe it took them this long to connect the dots


I am thinking the same thing!


You'll have to forgive them, they're both Virgins. Give 'em some time to lean about how this stuff works, will ya? :duck:

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:42 pm
by eamondzhang
m007j wrote:
MoKa777 wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:
Can't believe it took them this long to connect the dots


I am thinking the same thing!


You'll have to forgive them, they're both Virgins. Give 'em some time to lean about how this stuff works, will ya? :duck:

Comment of the day! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

tullamarine wrote:
Motorhussy wrote:
I wonder if this what bearing this will have on upcoming fleet purchases? VS has order for 787, A350 and possibly A330neo families. VA must be some way through an assessment of what their fleet is going to look like.

VA are in no hurry to replace its exiting widebody fleet. The A330s have an average age of 6 years whilst the 77Ws have an average age of 9 years. VA owns all but one of its 777s and the secondhand market for widebodies is terrible at the moment so selling the 77Ws would just result in an unnecessary loss.

They will eventually replace both probably with a single type and the 789 and A359 would be the two obvious candidates but I doubt this will be on their agenda for 3 or 4 years at least.

And VA's financially not in a position to do major purchases like replacing its widebody fleets IMHO.

Michael

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:01 pm
by questions
I pulled this off of wikipedia. Is this the current breakdown of ownership for VA? It's an interesting group.

Etihad Airways (21%)
Nanshan Group (22.4%)
Singapore Airlines (19.8%)
HNA Group (13%)
Virgin Group (8%)

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:13 pm
by tullamarine
questions wrote:
I pulled this off of wikipedia. Is this the current breakdown of ownership for VA? It's an interesting group.

Etihad Airways (21%)
Nanshan Group (22.4%)
Singapore Airlines (19.8%)
HNA Group (13%)
Virgin Group (8%)

That is correct. Unfortunately Australian takeover laws mean it is very hard for anyone to go beyond 20% ownership. It is possible that HNA and Etihad may be sellers at the right price but whether any of the other existing shareholders would be buyers is unknown given it would mean they would have make a general takeover bid for all shares as they would go above the 20% threshold.

You can see that Etihad and Nanshan are both currently just over the 20% limit which is possible but you can only do this very slowly and their amounts relate more to the reduction of total shares on offer following a share buyback rather than actual share purchases on their behalf.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:44 am
by SCFlyer
I do have to wonder whether if DL could make it a 3-way DL/VS/VA partnership on both the TransPacific and TransAtlantic JVs.

As for VA's ownership structure, HNA, Etihad and even at one point SQ had been rumoured at selling out at VA in recent times due to financial problems at the former two organisations, and the later organisation hasn't been happy with their investment in VA (per the 2018 Reuter's article where SQ directly blames VA for a profit downturn).

People are going to have to stop relying on their "so-called" saviour SQ to buy out VA as they are clearly not interested.

Although unlikely, IMO the best outcome for VA is for both EY and HNA to exit the VA register, with one of the stakes to DL, and the other stake to the (VS/Stobart consortium) that bought Flybe. This would bring the Virgin (VS) Group/Stobart consortium/DL group to 50% of VA, without having to initiate a takeover requirement under Australian laws.

Whether if SQ and Nanshan wants to remain (or wants out in SQ's case) would be up to them, the former may still want the VA partnership for their own flights to SIN and beyond.

Whether if VS and VA continues to work at arms length from SkyTeam is up to the CEOs at both airlines, history suggests they will keep at arms distance

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:04 am
by RWA380
MoKa777 wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:
Can't believe it took them this long to connect the dots


I am thinking the same thing!


When VX was flying, I did wonder if the Virgin Airlines could have formed their own alliance ie ... oneworld, skyteam or star, just only virgin branded carriers. Anyway that was then.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:45 am
by Lufthansa
While not a bad idea VA needs some attention long haul. Firstly their ownership structure means basically there's too many
cooks in the kitchen. SQ obviously want to direct everything their way frequent flyer wise. Ditto for Etihad. The Chinese will
have their own agenda.

Next the small number of A330s and 777s is problematic. They need a couple more 77W's as BNE really needs to be daily to compete.
Reintroducing Melbourne a few times a week isn't enough it won't get the business market back. UA and QF both have premium heavy
cabins out of MEL and both are daily or more. As DL get's the A350s in house, switch some of the 77Ls to MEL and let VA go daily again
BNE LAX.

QF and American just got approved so they need to act fast. Americans product was surprisingly well received down here
with the 77W and the two will be no doubt keen to get it back.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:30 am
by tullamarine
Lufthansa wrote:
While not a bad idea VA needs some attention long haul. Firstly their ownership structure means basically there's too many
cooks in the kitchen. SQ obviously want to direct everything their way frequent flyer wise. Ditto for Etihad. The Chinese will
have their own agenda.

Next the small number of A330s and 777s is problematic. They need a couple more 77W's as BNE really needs to be daily to compete.
Reintroducing Melbourne a few times a week isn't enough it won't get the business market back. UA and QF both have premium heavy
cabins out of MEL and both are daily or more. As DL get's the A350s in house, switch some of the 77Ls to MEL and let VA go daily again
BNE LAX.

QF and American just got approved so they need to act fast. Americans product was surprisingly well received down here
with the 77W and the two will be no doubt keen to get it back.

VA is principally a domestic airline so that is where they should direct their maximum attention. It is unlikely they will expand their long-haul int'l presence much in the foreseeable future beyond the current HKG and LAX services. It is also unlikely they want to go daily on BNE-LAX with 77Ws which is probably too big a plane for the route. In a perfect world, a 788 or A338 would suit VA for BNE-LAX.

DL/VA already have a JV so the reason they don't grow trans-Pacific at the moment would be a conscious choice. Services across the Pacific used to be very profitable particularly when QF and UA were the only participants but recently yields have gone way down; adding more services in advance of demand isn't a recipe for profits.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:43 am
by Gemuser
tullamarine wrote:
Lufthansa wrote:
While not a bad idea VA needs some attention long haul. Firstly their ownership structure means basically there's too many
cooks in the kitchen. SQ obviously want to direct everything their way frequent flyer wise. Ditto for Etihad. The Chinese will
have their own agenda.

Next the small number of A330s and 777s is problematic. They need a couple more 77W's as BNE really needs to be daily to compete.
Reintroducing Melbourne a few times a week isn't enough it won't get the business market back. UA and QF both have premium heavy
cabins out of MEL and both are daily or more. As DL get's the A350s in house, switch some of the 77Ls to MEL and let VA go daily again
BNE LAX.

QF and American just got approved so they need to act fast. Americans product was surprisingly well received down here
with the 77W and the two will be no doubt keen to get it back.

VA is principally a domestic airline so that is where they should direct their maximum attention. It is unlikely they will expand their long-haul int'l presence much in the foreseeable future beyond the current HKG and LAX services. It is also unlikely they want to go daily on BNE-LAX with 77Ws which is probably too big a plane for the route. In a perfect world, a 788 or A338 would suit VA for BNE-LAX.

DL/VA already have a JV so the reason they don't grow trans-Pacific at the moment would be a conscious choice. Services across the Pacific used to be very profitable particularly when QF and UA were the only participants but recently yields have gone way down; adding more services in advance of demand isn't a recipe for profits.


The thing you are all forgetting is that VA DOES NOT operate international services! VA International (or whatever its currently called) is a totally seperate company with different shareholders (any body got a current list?) and it does not AFAIK include any of the foregin airlines currently holding shares in VA. This was done, just like Ansett International before them, to keep the international airline Australian. You might want to include that in your speculation.

Gemuser

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:17 am
by Lufthansa
Gemuser wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
Lufthansa wrote:
While not a bad idea VA needs some attention long haul. Firstly their ownership structure means basically there's too many
cooks in the kitchen. SQ obviously want to direct everything their way frequent flyer wise. Ditto for Etihad. The Chinese will
have their own agenda.

Next the small number of A330s and 777s is problematic. They need a couple more 77W's as BNE really needs to be daily to compete.
Reintroducing Melbourne a few times a week isn't enough it won't get the business market back. UA and QF both have premium heavy
cabins out of MEL and both are daily or more. As DL get's the A350s in house, switch some of the 77Ls to MEL and let VA go daily again
BNE LAX.

QF and American just got approved so they need to act fast. Americans product was surprisingly well received down here
with the 77W and the two will be no doubt keen to get it back.

VA is principally a domestic airline so that is where they should direct their maximum attention. It is unlikely they will expand their long-haul int'l presence much in the foreseeable future beyond the current HKG and LAX services. It is also unlikely they want to go daily on BNE-LAX with 77Ws which is probably too big a plane for the route. In a perfect world, a 788 or A338 would suit VA for BNE-LAX.

DL/VA already have a JV so the reason they don't grow trans-Pacific at the moment would be a conscious choice. Services across the Pacific used to be very profitable particularly when QF and UA were the only participants but recently yields have gone way down; adding more services in advance of demand isn't a recipe for profits.


The thing you are all forgetting is that VA DOES NOT operate international services! VA International (or whatever its currently called) is a totally seperate company with different shareholders (any body got a current list?) and it does not AFAIK include any of the foregin airlines currently holding shares in VA. This was done, just like Ansett International before them, to keep the international airline Australian. You might want to include that in your speculation.

Gemuser


We all know this is just a legal arrangement to get around traffic right laws, no different to what it was at Ansett. It's no different to shelf companies in
the IT industry leasing their "technologies" or logos to some companies in some tax haven and some bankers make a nice profit for their little part. As you
rightly pointed out technically they don't operate it so they have to be careful about how they "lease to themselves". The point remains though, if VA
want business traffic and not be long haul leisure (theres a good market there if done right but its more about cost) then these key routes need
to be daily.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:34 am
by tullamarine
The thing you are all forgetting is that VA DOES NOT operate international services! VA International (or whatever its currently called) is a totally seperate company with different shareholders (any body got a current list?) and it does not AFAIK include any of the foregin airlines currently holding shares in VA. This was done, just like Ansett International before them, to keep the international airline Australian. You might want to include that in your speculation.


Legally you are correct but for all practical purposes they are the same and they get their capital from the same pool and Paul Scurrah is CEO of both.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:58 am
by LH658
That's good hopefully one of them can start LHR - Perth or Darwin. I know their HKG route exchange passengers. Great to see both Virgins working together, they should abstain from divesting into each other haha.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:40 am
by tullamarine
LH658 wrote:
That's good hopefully one of them can start LHR - Perth or Darwin. I know their HKG route exchange passengers. Great to see both Virgins working together, they should abstain from divesting into each other haha.

DRW is a never. It can barely sustain a 737 to SIN. LHR-PER is also probably the same. VA has no LHR slots and wouldn't be interested anyway. VS doesn't want to go to AU using its own metal hence the HKG connection.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:07 am
by LH658
tullamarine wrote:
LH658 wrote:
That's good hopefully one of them can start LHR - Perth or Darwin. I know their HKG route exchange passengers. Great to see both Virgins working together, they should abstain from divesting into each other haha.

DRW is a never. It can barely sustain a 737 to SIN. LHR-PER is also probably the same. VA has no LHR slots and wouldn't be interested anyway. VS doesn't want to go to AU using its own metal hence the HKG connection.


Apparently it a cash cow for BA, and Oneworld. So VA or VS should try to get it fair share.... VS can lend one of it slots to VA or VS can just operate itself. I think they should try it. I really love to see Virgin terminal in Australia, operating just for Virgin Atlantic/Australia flights. Transferring pax via HKG is fine, while HKG is already a O&D city for SYD, MEL, and HKG.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:14 am
by SCFlyer
LH658 wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
LH658 wrote:
That's good hopefully one of them can start LHR - Perth or Darwin. I know their HKG route exchange passengers. Great to see both Virgins working together, they should abstain from divesting into each other haha.

DRW is a never. It can barely sustain a 737 to SIN. LHR-PER is also probably the same. VA has no LHR slots and wouldn't be interested anyway. VS doesn't want to go to AU using its own metal hence the HKG connection.


Apparently it a cash cow for BA, and Oneworld. So VA or VS should try to get it fair share.... VS can lend one of it slots to VA or VS can just operate itself. I think they should try it. I really love to see Virgin terminal in Australia, operating just for Virgin Atlantic/Australia flights. Transferring pax via HKG is fine, while HKG is already a O&D city for SYD, MEL, and HKG.


BA doesn't fly LHR-PER, and IIRC doesn't codeshare on QF's LHR-PER-MEL & v.v flight.

I'm sure VA/VS has done the business case whether to jump in against QF on LHR-PER and it probably concluded that it won't work out for them.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:31 am
by LH658
SCFlyer wrote:
LH658 wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
DRW is a never. It can barely sustain a 737 to SIN. LHR-PER is also probably the same. VA has no LHR slots and wouldn't be interested anyway. VS doesn't want to go to AU using its own metal hence the HKG connection.


Apparently it a cash cow for BA, and Oneworld. So VA or VS should try to get it fair share.... VS can lend one of it slots to VA or VS can just operate itself. I think they should try it. I really love to see Virgin terminal in Australia, operating just for Virgin Atlantic/Australia flights. Transferring pax via HKG is fine, while HKG is already a O&D city for SYD, MEL, and HKG.


BA doesn't fly LHR-PER, and IIRC doesn't codeshare on QF's LHR-PER-MEL & v.v flight.

I'm sure VA/VS has done the business case whether to jump in against QF on LHR-PER and it probably concluded that it won't work out for them.


I meant to say QF, still BA gets plenty of transfer pax going to Scotland, Europe, and etc which is something VS lacks, European services. Maybe a service from AF or KLM to PER, and pax can connect on wards with VA.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:39 am
by NTLDaz
You can get some very good prices on VA/VS to LHR via either HKG or LAX. Some awful connection times. Improve the timings and it becomes a legitimate and desirable option to London. There are a lot of Velocity members in Australia.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:42 am
by Gemuser
tullamarine wrote:
The thing you are all forgetting is that VA DOES NOT operate international services! VA International (or whatever its currently called) is a totally seperate company with different shareholders (any body got a current list?) and it does not AFAIK include any of the foregin airlines currently holding shares in VA. This was done, just like Ansett International before them, to keep the international airline Australian. You might want to include that in your speculation.


Legally you are correct but for all practical purposes they are the same and they get their capital from the same pool and Paul Scurrah is CEO of both.

BUT they have different shareholders. That is the point! The VA (D) board does not have free rain over the VA(I) board, who must, under the corparaations laws, act in the intrest of the VA(I) shareholders NOT the VA (D) shareholders. The fact that Paul Scurrah is CEO to both is irrelevant as far as reponsiability to shareholder go.
While I don't know I suspect that this is why VA(I) has supposedly not cooperated with some of the VA(D) shareholder as much they might want.

Gemuser

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:20 am
by tullamarine
Gemuser wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
The thing you are all forgetting is that VA DOES NOT operate international services! VA International (or whatever its currently called) is a totally seperate company with different shareholders (any body got a current list?) and it does not AFAIK include any of the foregin airlines currently holding shares in VA. This was done, just like Ansett International before them, to keep the international airline Australian. You might want to include that in your speculation.


Legally you are correct but for all practical purposes they are the same and they get their capital from the same pool and Paul Scurrah is CEO of both.

BUT they have different shareholders. That is the point! The VA (D) board does not have free rain over the VA(I) board, who must, under the corparaations laws, act in the intrest of the VA(I) shareholders NOT the VA (D) shareholders. The fact that Paul Scurrah is CEO to both is irrelevant as far as reponsiability to shareholder go.
While I don't know I suspect that this is why VA(I) has supposedly not cooperated with some of the VA(D) shareholder as much they might want.

Gemuser

I have never heard there was any tension between VAI and VA. Can you give a topic where they have disagreed and not cooperated?

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:39 am
by TC957
Motorhussy wrote:
I wonder if this what bearing this will have on upcoming fleet purchases? VS has order for 787, A350 and possibly A330neo families. VA must be some way through an assessment of what their fleet is going to look like.

VS doesn't have any more 789's on order.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:35 am
by westgate
What is the current situation with connections at LAX and HKG ? Are their flights coordinated at both airports to provide a layover of only a few hours each way ? Or in some possible itineraries is there something like a 10 hour layover or overnight stay required ? And if they aren't already coordinated, are there any plans to do so in the future ?

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:41 am
by Gemuser
tullamarine wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
tullamarine wrote:

Legally you are correct but for all practical purposes they are the same and they get their capital from the same pool and Paul Scurrah is CEO of both.

BUT they have different shareholders. That is the point! The VA (D) board does not have free rain over the VA(I) board, who must, under the corparaations laws, act in the intrest of the VA(I) shareholders NOT the VA (D) shareholders. The fact that Paul Scurrah is CEO to both is irrelevant as far as reponsiability to shareholder go.
While I don't know I suspect that this is why VA(I) has supposedly not cooperated with some of the VA(D) shareholder as much they might want.

Gemuser

I have never heard there was any tension between VAI and VA. Can you give a topic where they have disagreed and not cooperated?

I said between VA(I) and the indivual SHAREHOLDERS of VA(D) NOT between VA(I) & VA(D). It was reported that NZ wanted to shut down most/all of VA(I) & direct their traffic on to NZ which lead to NZ quiting their shareholding. There was also something about SQ wanting something done by/to VA(I), I do not remember any details, was probably just a rumor.

Gemuser

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:51 am
by SCFlyer
tullamarine wrote:
Lufthansa wrote:
While not a bad idea VA needs some attention long haul. Firstly their ownership structure means basically there's too many
cooks in the kitchen. SQ obviously want to direct everything their way frequent flyer wise. Ditto for Etihad. The Chinese will
have their own agenda.

Next the small number of A330s and 777s is problematic. They need a couple more 77W's as BNE really needs to be daily to compete.
Reintroducing Melbourne a few times a week isn't enough it won't get the business market back. UA and QF both have premium heavy
cabins out of MEL and both are daily or more. As DL get's the A350s in house, switch some of the 77Ls to MEL and let VA go daily again
BNE LAX.

QF and American just got approved so they need to act fast. Americans product was surprisingly well received down here
with the 77W and the two will be no doubt keen to get it back.

VA is principally a domestic airline so that is where they should direct their maximum attention. It is unlikely they will expand their long-haul int'l presence much in the foreseeable future beyond the current HKG and LAX services. It is also unlikely they want to go daily on BNE-LAX with 77Ws which is probably too big a plane for the route. In a perfect world, a 788 or A338 would suit VA for BNE-LAX.

DL/VA already have a JV so the reason they don't grow trans-Pacific at the moment would be a conscious choice. Services across the Pacific used to be very profitable particularly when QF and UA were the only participants but recently yields have gone way down; adding more services in advance of demand isn't a recipe for profits.


Not to mention the upcoming QF/AA JV will likely add a few extra services (& reshuffle a few) while maintaining capacity at best, due to the 744 retirements on the SFO route. Although there are rumours of AA taking over the less than daily (x2-3 weekly for each city) MEL-LAX & BNE-LAX evening terminators, I don't find this likely.

The Pacific in general would be way down the priority list for DL, but the question has to be asked whether if DL had an influence in both VS (as half-owner) and VA's decisions to apply for the JV.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:18 am
by Obzerva
westgate wrote:
What is the current situation with connections at LAX and HKG ? Are their flights coordinated at both airports to provide a layover of only a few hours each way ? Or in some possible itineraries is there something like a 10 hour layover or overnight stay required ? And if they aren't already coordinated, are there any plans to do so in the future ?


VA’s flights from MEL/SYD to HKG are morning departures which allow for connections on to HX - the original intended reason for going to HKG, so yes there is a wait for the midnight departures on to VS flight to LHR.
Heading the other way, the connection is great.
So for HKG the inconvenience is only in one direction.

For LAX, most Australian departures leave mid/late morning from the east coast to arrive in to LAX early morning, to maximise connections to the rest of North American destinations.

The aircraft sit on the ground till late evening (or in QF’s case they send one to JFK) when they then depart for Aus. The late departure is again to maximise connections inbound to LAX.

LAX times would never be changed because LHR is just not even a factor for these flights.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:34 am
by tullamarine
Obzerva wrote:
westgate wrote:
What is the current situation with connections at LAX and HKG ? Are their flights coordinated at both airports to provide a layover of only a few hours each way ? Or in some possible itineraries is there something like a 10 hour layover or overnight stay required ? And if they aren't already coordinated, are there any plans to do so in the future ?


VA’s flights from MEL/SYD to HKG are morning departures which allow for connections on to HX - the original intended reason for going to HKG, so yes there is a wait for the midnight departures on to VS flight to LHR.
Heading the other way, the connection is great.
So for HKG the inconvenience is only in one direction.

For LAX, most Australian departures leave mid/late morning from the east coast to arrive in to LAX early morning, to maximise connections to the rest of North American destinations.

The aircraft sit on the ground till late evening (or in QF’s case they send one to JFK) when they then depart for Aus. The late departure is again to maximise connections inbound to LAX.

LAX times would never be changed because LHR is just not even a factor for these flights.

Due to the long layovers both QF and VA do maintenance on their long-haul fleets in LAX during the day before the respective A380s and 77Ws return to AU.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:53 pm
by 3AWM
No doubt of benefit to both parties but surely small beans unless other connections or mid-points are added on the Australia side. Any likelyhood of this?

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:32 pm
by tullamarine
3AWM wrote:
No doubt of benefit to both parties but surely small beans unless other connections or mid-points are added on the Australia side. Any likelyhood of this?

If you mean, is there likelihood of VA flying from HKG to other AU ports, then the answer is currently no. There are no available slots in HKG and won't be until the new runway is completed.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:32 pm
by tullamarine
3AWM wrote:
No doubt of benefit to both parties but surely small beans unless other connections or mid-points are added on the Australia side. Any likelyhood of this?

If you mean, is there likelihood of VA flying from HKG to other AU ports, then the answer is currently no. There are no available slots in HKG and won't be until the new runway is completed.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:19 am
by RyanairGuru
3AWM wrote:
No doubt of benefit to both parties but surely small beans unless other connections or mid-points are added on the Australia side. Any likelyhood of this?


If by mid-points you mean connection cities then no. Unless they completely pull them off domestic flights VA do not have enough A330s to cover more international flying. They only entered HKG at the behest of HNA. HX would have already been flying HKG-SYD/MEL if Cathay hadn't maxed out the bilateral allocation from the Hong Kong end.

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:12 am
by ben175
I’d love to see VS give QF a run for their money on PER-LHR. One can dream...

Re: Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic propose deeper partnership

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:10 pm
by Ryanair01
It seems sensible. I flew the HKG connection last year https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1399911

Schedules aren't great, but in economy I got enough FF points for a transatlantic flight, which was insanely generous.