Just thinking back on how VS is claimed to offer competition as one of the reasons it should stay. This airline couldn’t even make LHR-DXB work. That is the second largest long haul destination from Heathrow all though it’s probably due to connections onto the Far East. BA has about 3 a day. Like DXB is a popular destination on its own how they weren’t even able to make THAT work Because it wasn’t economically viable. It was probably too competitive for them. Of course.
Maybe it was felt there were more lucrative uses of that slot and aircraft than DXB? When there's up to 9 flights a day from LHR (6 with EK on A380's, plus up to 3 with BA), plus a further 3 daily from LGW on A380's and up to 2 flights from STN, it's a very well served route, though as you say the majority of that are likely to be connecting onwards. I think I read on here a while ago that VS should fly to SIN, but again I think that route is well served from London as it is and it would have made more sense if SQ still had its stake.
The competition claim is very valid, though I don't think it should extend to every single route out there.
This is really correct as they do need the Virgin brand and it's assets like the FFer comminity to sell tickets to the UK market.
True. I suspect DL may not have launched the various routes to MAN, GLA and EDI over the last 5 years if they were going it alone, or at least not within the same scale and timeframe. I flew DL MAN-JFK in 2015 and I will happily admit that one reason I chose DL was the fact I could get VS Flying Club miles.
Why do you lot all hate unions and the working man but want to give a bailout to rich capitalists?
Where have people been bashing unions in this thread? Also, how is a loan a bailout?
The working man claim is valid though seeing as some people on this thread are quite content with letting VS go under along with jobs being lost both directly and within the supply chain.