Boeing74741R wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

BA usually hover at about £300 return from heathrow but have seen it as low as £240 return.

You are far more likely to see lower fares if those LHR slots go to someone else. There is a long list on the LHR slot waiting list who are willing to come in and lower the fares.

Specifically for London-New York? Unlikely to be significantly cheaper than that I'd say, especially as APD would be reflected in the cost of the final ticket. Currently APD is £80 for Y passengers (as well as VS PE passengers) and £176 for business class or higher (or basically anything with legroom at 40" or greater). Add on top that whatever LHR's fees are which are reportedly not cheap and the cost of buying LHR slots to begin with, I'm not sure fares can go any lower to a point where it's possible to make money. Also if an airline can get away with charging more or whatever the market will bear, you bet they will.

£240 return is great if you can snag it, but I bet most of the costs on that flight would have already been earned in First/Club World so they can afford to sell Y seats cheaply as it's just profit. I've even had BA employees tell me up front is where their money is made and the back is where they just make extra profit. Compare that to an alternate airline of your choice such as a LCC who need the Y fares to cover more of the costs.

I recall tphuang mentioning JetBlue in this thread a few times in the past. Besides the fact they don't yet have the aircraft to do the flight and having little-to-no brand awareness this side of the Atlantic Ocean, it wouldn't surprise me if COVID-19 delays their TATL aspirations for a few years. Additionally, I still think JetBlue would be better off serving another London airport initially to test the market. Those who've been seeking very low TATL fares haven't grumbled at going to LGW for Norwegian or STN when Primera were still in business.

tphuang wrote:

GDB wrote:

tphuang wrote:

You are far more likely to see lower fares if those LHR slots go to someone else. There is a long list on the LHR slot waiting list who are willing to come in and lower the fares.

Who though? Airlines, that even survive, are going to be doing one thing, contracting.
When VS are on the brink of going under, when the consistently profitable BA are contemplating losing 12000 of 42000 staff, I have to ask, do you quite understand what is happening?

Do you really think some new entrant is going to get into this business in the near to medium term, what's that saying about the best way to lost money, start an airline. That. On Crack.

Because those of us, whoever we work for, with this Sword Of Damocles above our heads, do get it.
I don't want to come over old git who has seen it all, however I have not, no one of this site who has been in the industry has either, since it is unprecedented.

Easyjet has said they wanted to get into LHR. They could definitely lower fares on intra-Europe travel. JetBlue would lower the fares on JFK/BOS-LHR market far more than VS. Chinese airlines would love to have more LHR slots.

VS provides very little in terms of lowering fares out of LHR since its JV partner is still going to be around regardless. I'm sure DL will get a few of VS slots out of this.

As I said before, the number of front line aviation jobs is proportional to capacity, not on the number of airlines. When demand comes back, those aviation jobs will come back.

Sure, the next 2 or 3 years will be tough, but they will be tough regardless of whether VS is around or not. How many of VS's front line workers are getting paid right now? So if having VS around operating a bare bone schedule is not employing anyone, what's the basis of this employment argument?

The number of front line aviation jobs with full salary will be about the same a year from now regardless of whether or not VS is around. The only question is the breakdown between the airlines. Having VS around would just mean more cuts at other airlines.

tphuang wrote:

No, JetBlue is looking to get as many slots at LHR as it possibly could. It's TATL might get delayed until 2022, but that would be it. They will significantly cut the J fares if they can offer a reasonable schedule.

Keep in mind, VS itself does not offer any additional competition in the TATL market, since its JV partner will still be around and likely to get some of its slots. Aside from JetBlue, Easyjet and chinese carriers can all add additional competition which VS simply does not provide. The competition argument for VS is very weak.

tphuang wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

airhansa wrote:

300? Are you talking about Norwegian or Air Lingus? EI has $500 return to NY.

BA usually hover at about £300 return from heathrow but have seen it as low as £240 return.

You are far more likely to see lower fares if those LHR slots go to someone else. There is a long list on the LHR slot waiting list who are willing to come in and lower the fares.

Arion640 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

BA usually hover at about £300 return from heathrow but have seen it as low as £240 return.

You are far more likely to see lower fares if those LHR slots go to someone else. There is a long list on the LHR slot waiting list who are willing to come in and lower the fares.

What between London and New York? Jet blue is the only airline I can think of currently.

Please tell me the long list.

tphuang wrote:

GDB wrote:

tphuang wrote:

You are far more likely to see lower fares if those LHR slots go to someone else. There is a long list on the LHR slot waiting list who are willing to come in and lower the fares.

Who though? Airlines, that even survive, are going to be doing one thing, contracting.
When VS are on the brink of going under, when the consistently profitable BA are contemplating losing 12000 of 42000 staff, I have to ask, do you quite understand what is happening?

Do you really think some new entrant is going to get into this business in the near to medium term, what's that saying about the best way to lost money, start an airline. That. On Crack.

Because those of us, whoever we work for, with this Sword Of Damocles above our heads, do get it.
I don't want to come over old git who has seen it all, however I have not, no one of this site who has been in the industry has either, since it is unprecedented.

Easyjet has said they wanted to get into LHR. They could definitely lower fares on intra-Europe travel. JetBlue would lower the fares on JFK/BOS-LHR market far more than VS. Chinese airlines would love to have more LHR slots.

Bhoy wrote:

easyJet wouldn’t really lower fares infra-Europe just because they were at LHR... BA are already scraping the bottom of the barrel with Unbundled fares. They can’t get much cheaper than those, especially with the high cost of slots at LHR (note that easyJet are only interested in LHR if a third runway is built, increasing capacity there and therefore lowering slot prices).

As to Chinese carriers, sure, they want to open long thin vanity routes to places no one outside China’s ever heard of. That’ll really bring the price of flying down for Joe Bloggs.

Arion640 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

BA usually hover at about £300 return from heathrow but have seen it as low as £240 return.

You are far more likely to see lower fares if those LHR slots go to someone else. There is a long list on the LHR slot waiting list who are willing to come in and lower the fares.

What between London and New York? Jet blue is the only airline I can think of currently.

Please tell me the long list.

Bhoy wrote:

tphuang wrote:

GDB wrote:

Who though? Airlines, that even survive, are going to be doing one thing, contracting.
When VS are on the brink of going under, when the consistently profitable BA are contemplating losing 12000 of 42000 staff, I have to ask, do you quite understand what is happening?

Do you really think some new entrant is going to get into this business in the near to medium term, what's that saying about the best way to lost money, start an airline. That. On Crack.

Because those of us, whoever we work for, with this Sword Of Damocles above our heads, do get it.
I don't want to come over old git who has seen it all, however I have not, no one of this site who has been in the industry has either, since it is unprecedented.

Easyjet has said they wanted to get into LHR. They could definitely lower fares on intra-Europe travel. JetBlue would lower the fares on JFK/BOS-LHR market far more than VS. Chinese airlines would love to have more LHR slots.

easyJet wouldn’t really lower fares infra-Europe just because they were at LHR... BA are already scraping the bottom of the barrel with Unbundled fares. They can’t get much cheaper than those, especially with the high cost of slots at LHR (note that easyJet are only interested in LHR if a third runway is built, increasing capacity there and therefore lowering slot prices).

As to Chinese carriers, sure, they want to open long thin vanity routes to places no one outside China’s ever heard of. That’ll really bring the price of flying down for Joe Bloggs.

tphuang wrote:

Bhoy wrote:

easyJet wouldn’t really lower fares infra-Europe just because they were at LHR... BA are already scraping the bottom of the barrel with Unbundled fares. They can’t get much cheaper than those, especially with the high cost of slots at LHR (note that easyJet are only interested in LHR if a third runway is built, increasing capacity there and therefore lowering slot prices).

As to Chinese carriers, sure, they want to open long thin vanity routes to places no one outside China’s ever heard of. That’ll really bring the price of flying down for Joe Bloggs.

When I look at intra-Europe fares, U2/FR always are much cheaper than network airlines. These two have done more to lower fares in Europe than VS. That's for sure.

As for Chinese carriers, they lower fares to all of East/Southeast Asia and Australia, not just China. VS has done nothing to lower fares to these regions.

Arion640 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

You are far more likely to see lower fares if those LHR slots go to someone else. There is a long list on the LHR slot waiting list who are willing to come in and lower the fares.

What between London and New York? Jet blue is the only airline I can think of currently.

Please tell me the long list.

NYC isn't the only market out of LHR that could use lower fare stimulation. Certainly JetBlue would lower J fares on JFK/BOS-LHR far more than what VS has done.

Galwayman wrote:

Rumour has it BA may not reopen Gatwick sadly, but if this did happen maybe VS could sell it's LHR slots and consolidate back to LGW without having to access taxpayers money . ..... and then maybe interline with easyjet etc .

Cedar wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

Rumour has it BA may not reopen Gatwick sadly, but if this did happen maybe VS could sell it's LHR slots and consolidate back to LGW without having to access taxpayers money . ..... and then maybe interline with easyjet etc .

VS has no LHR slots to sell - they were used as collateral against a 300 mill GBP loan under the VAA AOC
Their LGW operation are under a separate AOC for VAIL.

Cedar

Bhoy wrote:

tphuang wrote:

GDB wrote:

Who though? Airlines, that even survive, are going to be doing one thing, contracting.
When VS are on the brink of going under, when the consistently profitable BA are contemplating losing 12000 of 42000 staff, I have to ask, do you quite understand what is happening?

Do you really think some new entrant is going to get into this business in the near to medium term, what's that saying about the best way to lost money, start an airline. That. On Crack.

Because those of us, whoever we work for, with this Sword Of Damocles above our heads, do get it.
I don't want to come over old git who has seen it all, however I have not, no one of this site who has been in the industry has either, since it is unprecedented.

Easyjet has said they wanted to get into LHR. They could definitely lower fares on intra-Europe travel. JetBlue would lower the fares on JFK/BOS-LHR market far more than VS. Chinese airlines would love to have more LHR slots.

easyJet wouldn’t really lower fares infra-Europe just because they were at LHR... BA are already scraping the bottom of the barrel with Unbundled fares. They can’t get much cheaper than those, especially with the high cost of slots at LHR (note that easyJet are only interested in LHR if a third runway is built, increasing capacity there and therefore lowering slot prices).

As to Chinese carriers, sure, they want to open long thin vanity routes to places no one outside China’s ever heard of. That’ll really bring the price of flying down for Joe Bloggs.

tphuang wrote:

When I look at intra-Europe fares, U2/FR always are much cheaper than network airlines. These two have done more to lower fares in Europe than VS. That's for sure.

As for Chinese carriers, they lower fares to all of East/Southeast Asia and Australia, not just China. VS has done nothing to lower fares to these regions.

Westerwaelder wrote:

To conclude that the exit of a handful of single route and often one flight a day airlines makes Heathrow to the US less competitive in a meaningful way makes no sense. You need three meaningful airlines/groups to keep it honest and we have that - with or without the help of VS. It's still way more competitive across the Atlantic than any other European gateway.

VS11 wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

To conclude that the exit ofr= a handful of single route and often one flight a day airlines makes Heathrow to the US less competitive in a meaningful way makes no sense. You need three meaningful airlines/groups to keep it honest and we have that - with or without the help of VS. It's still way more competitive across the Atlantic than any other European gateway.

Really? Which 3 groups fly from LHR to BOS/PHL/JFK/MIA/SEA/DFW before the virus situation? Do tell!

VS11 wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

To conclude that the exit of a handful of single route and often one flight a day airlines makes Heathrow to the US less competitive in a meaningful way makes no sense. You need three meaningful airlines/groups to keep it honest and we have that - with or without the help of VS. It's still way more competitive across the Atlantic than any other European gateway.

Really? Which 3 groups fly from LHR to BOS/PHL/JFK/MIA/SEA/DFW before the virus situation? Do tell!

Westerwaelder wrote:

VS11 wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

To conclude that the exit ofr= a handful of single route and often one flight a day airlines makes Heathrow to the US less competitive in a meaningful way makes no sense. You need three meaningful airlines/groups to keep it honest and we have that - with or without the help of VS. It's still way more competitive across the Atlantic than any other European gateway.

Really? Which 3 groups fly from LHR to BOS/PHL/JFK/MIA/SEA/DFW before the virus situation? Do tell!

I was responding to your argument that the number of competitors from LHR dwindled to a point that JVs became anti competitive. I say the only drop outs are immaterial and make no change to transatlantic competitiveness from LHR.

Star, OW and Skyteam all offer flights to their hubs in the US and more. Directly and indirectly. Your arguments are increasingly flawed. A huge proportion of transatlantic traffic is not point to point anyway - particularly for DL. Some routes are only viable because they are hub to hub and therefore PHL is an odd one to quote. No one cries foul about DL to DTW, SLC or MSP because they understand the structure. DL tried and saw no future in PHL. MIA is another hub to hub with no hub on either end for anyone but OW so tricky but itxs available with a one stop connection by both Star and Skyteam.

You are refusing to see the bigger picture of nothing is ever only LHR to XXX. There is competition from Gatwick (or was but none of us know yet what will happen so that's all we got to go by) and via plenty of European gateways.

Westerwaelder wrote:

VS11 wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

To conclude that the exit of a handful of single route and often one flight a day airlines makes Heathrow to the US less competitive in a meaningful way makes no sense. You need three meaningful airlines/groups to keep it honest and we have that - with or without the help of VS. It's still way more competitive across the Atlantic than any other European gateway.

Really? Which 3 groups fly from LHR to BOS/PHL/JFK/MIA/SEA/DFW before the virus situation? Do tell!

PHL, BOS and MIA were available to anyone as remedy slots and no one could make anything off the routes. And DL tried hard... so sometimes if there is no competition on a specific route it's because one player is all it can take

Junglejames wrote:

I think some people are too keen to see low air fares.
Then when they do get low air fares through low frills services, they then expect full service airlines to offer the same prices without lowering service levels. Lower service levels to compete, and the howls of complaint are deafening.

No sorry, air fares have to be fair and able to sensibly keep airlines going whilst offering a decent service, even when things go wrong.
They need to be fair to the airline, passengers and staff. The lower the fares, then often the worse the conditions for staff. The worse the service level onboard, or the frequency of flights.

People often complain about BA prices. But the aircraft are full, and it allows the airline to make decent enough profits. Profits that this current situation show are needed. They are managing to survive, just.

Norwegian offered cheap fares across the Atlantic. Look what happens when the going gets tough.

I've sometimes compared BA and say easyjet just for a laugh (I'd never fly easyjet) and whilst BA may be more expensive, they offer a more frequent service, with flights covering a better selection of arrival and departure times. I will pay for that flexibility.

People talk of the chinese wanting more slots, and it would lower fares. That is not a good thing. We need to learn to pay a decent going rate for flying. All the increased competition does is lower standards, and gets people too used to paying below the going rate.

For those price sensitive folks, just lookout for the bargains that pop up when there is capacity to fill.





Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Arion640 wrote:

Bhoy wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Easyjet has said they wanted to get into LHR. They could definitely lower fares on intra-Europe travel. JetBlue would lower the fares on JFK/BOS-LHR market far more than VS. Chinese airlines would love to have more LHR slots.

easyJet wouldn’t really lower fares infra-Europe just because they were at LHR... BA are already scraping the bottom of the barrel with Unbundled fares. They can’t get much cheaper than those, especially with the high cost of slots at LHR (note that easyJet are only interested in LHR if a third runway is built, increasing capacity there and therefore lowering slot prices).

As to Chinese carriers, sure, they want to open long thin vanity routes to places no one outside China’s ever heard of. That’ll really bring the price of flying down for Joe Bloggs.

You’re right. It would be the Chinese carriers buying up all the empty slots. China again, coming pretty alright out of this pandemic.

Junglejames wrote:

I think some people are too keen to see low air fares.
Then when they do get low air fares through low frills services, they then expect full service airlines to offer the same prices without lowering service levels. Lower service levels to compete, and the howls of complaint are deafening.

No sorry, air fares have to be fair and able to sensibly keep airlines going whilst offering a decent service, even when things go wrong.
They need to be fair to the airline, passengers and staff. The lower the fares, then often the worse the conditions for staff. The worse the service level onboard, or the frequency of flights.

People often complain about BA prices. But the aircraft are full, and it allows the airline to make decent enough profits. Profits that this current situation show are needed. They are managing to survive, just.

Norwegian offered cheap fares across the Atlantic. Look what happens when the going gets tough.

I've sometimes compared BA and say easyjet just for a laugh (I'd never fly easyjet) and whilst BA may be more expensive, they offer a more frequent service, with flights covering a better selection of arrival and departure times. I will pay for that flexibility.

People talk of the chinese wanting more slots, and it would lower fares. That is not a good thing. We need to learn to pay a decent going rate for flying. All the increased competition does is lower standards, and gets people too used to paying below the going rate.

For those price sensitive folks, just lookout for the bargains that pop up when there is capacity to fill.





Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

adambrau wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

I think some people are too keen to see low air fares.
Then when they do get low air fares through low frills services, they then expect full service airlines to offer the same prices without lowering service levels. Lower service levels to compete, and the howls of complaint are deafening.

No sorry, air fares have to be fair and able to sensibly keep airlines going whilst offering a decent service, even when things go wrong.
They need to be fair to the airline, passengers and staff. The lower the fares, then often the worse the conditions for staff. The worse the service level onboard, or the frequency of flights.

People often complain about BA prices. But the aircraft are full, and it allows the airline to make decent enough profits. Profits that this current situation show are needed. They are managing to survive, just.

Norwegian offered cheap fares across the Atlantic. Look what happens when the going gets tough.

I've sometimes compared BA and say easyjet just for a laugh (I'd never fly easyjet) and whilst BA may be more expensive, they offer a more frequent service, with flights covering a better selection of arrival and departure times. I will pay for that flexibility.

People talk of the chinese wanting more slots, and it would lower fares. That is not a good thing. We need to learn to pay a decent going rate for flying. All the increased competition does is lower standards, and gets people too used to paying below the going rate.

For those price sensitive folks, just lookout for the bargains that pop up when there is capacity to fill.





Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I am a bit of legacy lover but I took Easyjet JMK - MXP and the 2 -something hour flight was pretty decent. Had a half-bottle of Tattinger and a sandwich and before I knew it we were descending with a stunning overhead view of Venice. The tickets were not cheap but the schedule was perfect. That was my only flight on an European ULCC and experience well exceeded my expectations.

Going forward, looks like social distancing will push prices up. Initially.

Junglejames wrote:

adambrau wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

I think some people are too keen to see low air fares.
Then when they do get low air fares through low frills services, they then expect full service airlines to offer the same prices without lowering service levels. Lower service levels to compete, and the howls of complaint are deafening.

No sorry, air fares have to be fair and able to sensibly keep airlines going whilst offering a decent service, even when things go wrong.
They need to be fair to the airline, passengers and staff. The lower the fares, then often the worse the conditions for staff. The worse the service level onboard, or the frequency of flights.

People often complain about BA prices. But the aircraft are full, and it allows the airline to make decent enough profits. Profits that this current situation show are needed. They are managing to survive, just.

Norwegian offered cheap fares across the Atlantic. Look what happens when the going gets tough.

I've sometimes compared BA and say easyjet just for a laugh (I'd never fly easyjet) and whilst BA may be more expensive, they offer a more frequent service, with flights covering a better selection of arrival and departure times. I will pay for that flexibility.

People talk of the chinese wanting more slots, and it would lower fares. That is not a good thing. We need to learn to pay a decent going rate for flying. All the increased competition does is lower standards, and gets people too used to paying below the going rate.

For those price sensitive folks, just lookout for the bargains that pop up when there is capacity to fill.





Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I am a bit of legacy lover but I took Easyjet JMK - MXP and the 2 -something hour flight was pretty decent. Had a half-bottle of Tattinger and a sandwich and before I knew it we were descending with a stunning overhead view of Venice. The tickets were not cheap but the schedule was perfect. That was my only flight on an European ULCC and experience well exceeded my expectations.

Going forward, looks like social distancing will push prices up. Initially.

But-
People that fly easyjet are helping to lower standards elsewhere. That's fine, but don't complain that BA now want you to buy everything onboard in economy. Or that their new narrow bodies cram the seats in.

I keep hearing the term-
"Oh, it wasn't too bad"
"It was better than I expected".

All terms designed to say one thing, without actually saying it-
"It wasn't actually good enough".

Well, we have nobody but ourselves to blame.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

adambrau wrote:

I am a bit of legacy lover but I took Easyjet JMK - MXP and the 2 -something hour flight was pretty decent. Had a half-bottle of Tattinger and a sandwich and before I knew it we were descending with a stunning overhead view of Venice. The tickets were not cheap but the schedule was perfect. That was my only flight on an European ULCC and experience well exceeded my expectations.

Going forward, looks like social distancing will push prices up. Initially.

jomur wrote:

EasyJet isn't a ULCC....... LCC maybe.

VS11 wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

VS11 wrote:

Really? Which 3 groups fly from LHR to BOS/PHL/JFK/MIA/SEA/DFW before the virus situation? Do tell!

PHL, BOS and MIA were available to anyone as remedy slots and no one could make anything off the routes. And DL tried hard... so sometimes if there is no competition on a specific route it's because one player is all it can take

You are just making statements in further support of the anti-competitive nature of the JV's. Your statement simply proves the argument that the remedy of divesting slots doesn't work and the JV's still result in fewer competitors and overall a less competitive market. So the natural conclusion is that the JV's have to be dissolved. Plain and simple.

VS11 wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

VS11 wrote:

Really? Which 3 groups fly from LHR to BOS/PHL/JFK/MIA/SEA/DFW before the virus situation? Do tell!

I was responding to your argument that the number of competitors from LHR dwindled to a point that JVs became anti competitive. I say the only drop outs are immaterial and make no change to transatlantic competitiveness from LHR.

Star, OW and Skyteam all offer flights to their hubs in the US and more. Directly and indirectly. Your arguments are increasingly flawed. A huge proportion of transatlantic traffic is not point to point anyway - particularly for DL. Some routes are only viable because they are hub to hub and therefore PHL is an odd one to quote. No one cries foul about DL to DTW, SLC or MSP because they understand the structure. DL tried and saw no future in PHL. MIA is another hub to hub with no hub on either end for anyone but OW so tricky but itxs available with a one stop connection by both Star and Skyteam.

You are refusing to see the bigger picture of nothing is ever only LHR to XXX. There is competition from Gatwick (or was but none of us know yet what will happen so that's all we got to go by) and via plenty of European gateways.

You just proved my point - there is a perception of competition but not actual competition. Either way, when the Brexit transition period is over the JV's will be challenged.

VS11 wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

VS11 wrote:

Really? Which 3 groups fly from LHR to BOS/PHL/JFK/MIA/SEA/DFW before the virus situation? Do tell!

I was responding to your argument that the number of competitors from LHR dwindled to a point that JVs became anti competitive. I say the only drop outs are immaterial and make no change to transatlantic competitiveness from LHR.

Star, OW and Skyteam all offer flights to their hubs in the US and more. Directly and indirectly. Your arguments are increasingly flawed. A huge proportion of transatlantic traffic is not point to point anyway - particularly for DL. Some routes are only viable because they are hub to hub and therefore PHL is an odd one to quote. No one cries foul about DL to DTW, SLC or MSP because they understand the structure. DL tried and saw no future in PHL. MIA is another hub to hub with no hub on either end for anyone but OW so tricky but itxs available with a one stop connection by both Star and Skyteam.

You are refusing to see the bigger picture of nothing is ever only LHR to XXX. There is competition from Gatwick (or was but none of us know yet what will happen so that's all we got to go by) and via plenty of European gateways.

You just proved my point - there is a perception of competition but not actual competition. Either way, when the Brexit transition period is over the JV's will be challenged.

VS11 wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

VS11 wrote:

Really? Which 3 groups fly from LHR to BOS/PHL/JFK/MIA/SEA/DFW before the virus situation? Do tell!

PHL, BOS and MIA were available to anyone as remedy slots and no one could make anything off the routes. And DL tried hard... so sometimes if there is no competition on a specific route it's because one player is all it can take

You are just making statements in further support of the anti-competitive nature of the JV's. Your statement simply proves the argument that the remedy of divesting slots doesn't work and the JV's still result in fewer competitors and overall a less competitive market. So the natural conclusion is that the JV's have to be dissolved. Plain and simple.

jomur wrote:

VS also have high fares on routes they have no competition, GLA -MCO is expensive with VA. Its £100's cheaper to fly to go via LGW with BA. Even MAN-MCO is getting much more expensive.

Westerwaelder wrote:

VS11 wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

PHL, BOS and MIA were available to anyone as remedy slots and no one could make anything off the routes. And DL tried hard... so sometimes if there is no competition on a specific route it's because one player is all it can take

You are just making statements in further support of the anti-competitive nature of the JV's. Your statement simply proves the argument that the remedy of divesting slots doesn't work and the JV's still result in fewer competitors and overall a less competitive market. So the natural conclusion is that the JV's have to be dissolved. Plain and simple.

We are going around in circles. If you really believe a removal of all JVs will get airlines queueing up to fly LHR - PHL then I have nothing further to say in this debate. I didn't see anyone but US and BA on the route before their JV. Maybe one last point if I may: it is exactly the partnerships with large US carriers (block space agreements in the past, now profit share) that have helped VS when the going got tough. Remember the first time they "co-operated with DL"? Then CO? Now again DL? But I guess the answer is that evil competition forced their hands. It is always someone else's fault isn't it?

Westerwaelder wrote:

As for your constant repetition of Brexit will challenge the JVs, it's another fantasy. LH and KL will continue to fly to the UK and will continue to offer connections to destinations across the world. Just like BA will offer the same from destinations in Europe. Why would that change? EK or TK are not in the EU and yet don't just fly UK customers to Dubai or Istanbul...

Westerwaelder wrote:

The remedy slots doesn't work because some routes need a hub on one end. With or without JVs.

VS11 wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

VS11 wrote:

You are just making statements in further support of the anti-competitive nature of the JV's. Your statement simply proves the argument that the remedy of divesting slots doesn't work and the JV's still result in fewer competitors and overall a less competitive market. So the natural conclusion is that the JV's have to be dissolved. Plain and simple.

We are going around in circles. If you really believe a removal of all JVs will get airlines queueing up to fly LHR - PHL then I have nothing further to say in this debate. I didn't see anyone but US and BA on the route before their JV. Maybe one last point if I may: it is exactly the partnerships with large US carriers (block space agreements in the past, now profit share) that have helped VS when the going got tough. Remember the first time they "co-operated with DL"? Then CO? Now again DL? But I guess the answer is that evil competition forced their hands. It is always someone else's fault isn't it?

You are the one making the circles. I am still unclear what point you are trying to make. My point has been very simple and straightforward and supported by evidence. Yet again you make a post that you think is weakening my argument when it is doing the total opposite - if the only two carriers on a route effectively merge then the impact is anti-competitive. If you don't understand the purpose of the anti-trust laws, then do some research.

Westerwaelder wrote:

As for your constant repetition of Brexit will challenge the JVs, it's another fantasy. LH and KL will continue to fly to the UK and will continue to offer connections to destinations across the world. Just like BA will offer the same from destinations in Europe. Why would that change? EK or TK are not in the EU and yet don't just fly UK customers to Dubai or Istanbul...

You are completely lost on what the JV's do and mean. You are talking about connecting options between UK and US and, of course, they will continue to exist as they have existed for decades before Open Skies even existed. Again, do some research.

Westerwaelder wrote:

The remedy slots doesn't work because some routes need a hub on one end. With or without JVs.

That simply is not true. But thanks again for another post supporting my argument. The AA/BA JV provides a lot of capacity and frequency that other US carriers can only match from their hubs, which is exactly what makes it very anti-competitive.

Staralexi wrote:

Would Branson have done better with his airline investments by buying BA shares when they were first floated?

adambrau wrote:

jomur wrote:

EasyJet isn't a ULCC....... LCC maybe.

My bad. I've only flown EZY that once ULCC and LCC is the same thing to me. What's the difference?

joeyw wrote:

Look's like VS is getting ready to ditch LGW(?) - all 747s are (or will be this week) trnfr'd to MAN while the remaining 333s at LGW will relocate to LHR.

After this is complete, LGW will have no VS aircraft parked.

This week planned activity:
G-VAST, Boeing 747 – LGW->MAN§
G-VROS, Boeing 747 – LHR->MAN*
G-VROY, Boeing 747 – LHR->MAN*
G-VGEM, Airbus A330 – LGW->LHR*
G-VNYC, Airbus A330 – LGW->LHR*
G-VUFO, Airbus A330 – LGW->LHR*

Cedar wrote:

joeyw wrote:

Look's like VS is getting ready to ditch LGW(?) - all 747s are (or will be this week) trnfr'd to MAN while the remaining 333s at LGW will relocate to LHR.

After this is complete, LGW will have no VS aircraft parked.

This week planned activity:
G-VAST, Boeing 747 – LGW->MAN§
G-VROS, Boeing 747 – LHR->MAN*
G-VROY, Boeing 747 – LHR->MAN*
G-VGEM, Airbus A330 – LGW->LHR*
G-VNYC, Airbus A330 – LGW->LHR*
G-VUFO, Airbus A330 – LGW->LHR*

That wouldn't make sense - VS is operating cargo only flights in May (90 a week) and utilizing some of their larger aircraft to do this. They are also doing cargo charters upon request. Some cargo flights will also operate from Dublin where they have no operation - so some of the aircraft will be re-purposed to operate there.

No sense in paying to keep A/C parked at LGW if you can use them.

Cedar

joeyw wrote:

Look's like VS is getting ready to ditch LGW(?) - all 747s are (or will be this week) trnfr'd to MAN while the remaining 333s at LGW will relocate to LHR.

After this is complete, LGW will have no VS aircraft parked.

This week planned activity:
G-VAST, Boeing 747 – LGW->MAN§
G-VROS, Boeing 747 – LHR->MAN*
G-VROY, Boeing 747 – LHR->MAN*
G-VGEM, Airbus A330 – LGW->LHR*
G-VNYC, Airbus A330 – LGW->LHR*
G-VUFO, Airbus A330 – LGW->LHR*

Cedar wrote:

joeyw wrote:

Look's like VS is getting ready to ditch LGW(?) - all 747s are (or will be this week) trnfr'd to MAN while the remaining 333s at LGW will relocate to LHR.

After this is complete, LGW will have no VS aircraft parked.

This week planned activity:
G-VAST, Boeing 747 – LGW->MAN§
G-VROS, Boeing 747 – LHR->MAN*
G-VROY, Boeing 747 – LHR->MAN*
G-VGEM, Airbus A330 – LGW->LHR*
G-VNYC, Airbus A330 – LGW->LHR*
G-VUFO, Airbus A330 – LGW->LHR*

That wouldn't make sense - VS is operating cargo only flights in May (90 a week) and utilizing some of their larger aircraft to do this. They are also doing cargo charters upon request. Some cargo flights will also operate from Dublin where they have no operation - so some of the aircraft will be re-purposed to operate there.

No sense in paying to keep A/C parked at LGW if you can use them.

Cedar

joeyw wrote:

Shai has announced they won't be flying the A330 fleet during the Cargo/repatriation operation, only 787s and 350s. So the question is why would the 333s be moved from LGW to LHR (assuming parking costs are lower at LGW) - maintenance consolidation? Or preparation for a start-up of a LHR only operation at some time in the future?

Boeing74741R wrote:

Cedar wrote:

joeyw wrote:

Look's like VS is getting ready to ditch LGW(?) - all 747s are (or will be this week) trnfr'd to MAN while the remaining 333s at LGW will relocate to LHR.

After this is complete, LGW will have no VS aircraft parked.

This week planned activity:
G-VAST, Boeing 747 – LGW->MAN§
G-VROS, Boeing 747 – LHR->MAN*
G-VROY, Boeing 747 – LHR->MAN*
G-VGEM, Airbus A330 – LGW->LHR*
G-VNYC, Airbus A330 – LGW->LHR*
G-VUFO, Airbus A330 – LGW->LHR*

That wouldn't make sense - VS is operating cargo only flights in May (90 a week) and utilizing some of their larger aircraft to do this. They are also doing cargo charters upon request. Some cargo flights will also operate from Dublin where they have no operation - so some of the aircraft will be re-purposed to operate there.

No sense in paying to keep A/C parked at LGW if you can use them.

Cedar

It's been 9 years since I last flew in/out of LGW, but am I right in thinking that VS also have a maintenance hangar at LGW?

I agree this doesn't necessarily indicate they are pulling out of LGW for good, but that's not to say it will never happen.

joeyw wrote:

Shai has announced they won't be flying the A330 fleet during the Cargo/repatriation operation, only 787s and 350s. So the question is why would the 333s be moved from LGW to LHR (assuming parking costs are lower at LGW) - maintenance consolidation? Or preparation for a start-up of a LHR only operation at some time in the future?

Could it also be one way of keeping A330 pilots current?