Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
tphuang
Posts: 5197
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:26 pm

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.

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.
 
Westerwaelder
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:46 pm

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.


Setting up a new operation at a different airport is a costly enterprise. I doubt that anyone will have an appetite or the means for setting up something meaningful anytime soon. VS don't hold enough slots to make a viable short haul operation for U2. They would be up against BA and multiple Europen airlines to begin with on high frequency business routes.
 
Westerwaelder
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:58 pm

The results are in and the number of carriers on routes from LHR to the US has decreased. That means less competition so the effect of the JVs is anti-competitive. You can spin it as you wish but the numbers don’t lie.[/quote]

I am sorry but you are clutching for straws here. All of the main players are still there. Very much so. Who are the airlines no longer flying LHR to the US? KU and was it PK with their single flight a day? Or NZ on LAX? They are beyond niche in a market that requires reach and frequency and where flyers are locked in by FF schemes (OK, NZ is in Star but they still have UA).

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.
 
Boeing74741R
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:44 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:01 pm

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.


If you say so.
 
Arion640
Posts: 3060
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:43 pm

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.


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

Please tell me the long list.
 
Westerwaelder
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:53 pm

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.


And even they have other worries for the foreseeable future. London to New York is a market dominated by FF programmes in premium cabins and hyper competitive in economy. Look at all the players that have come and gone that offered neither. I can see a case for JetBlue but not anytime soon. And itxs not needed on this city pair either.
 
Bhoy
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:50 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 1:57 pm

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.

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. :roll:
 
tphuang
Posts: 5197
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:10 pm

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. :roll:

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:
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.

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
Posts: 901
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:20 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:30 pm

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 .
 
Westerwaelder
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:35 pm

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. :roll:


The VS slots by themselves will not be enough/timed right for U2 to set up a reasonable LHR operation. Many of the key short haul routes from LHR are (well, were and maybe will be again?) high frequency. U2 have a policy of trying to be no1 or no2 airline at any significant base to have sufficient pricing cloud. Not sure, if the VS slots would give them that?
 
Westerwaelder
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:41 pm

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. :roll:

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.


It's a tough gig. They'll have to rely on their own FF base for premium traffic and will have no feed the UK end. Many larger corporates in the UK need a bit more of a network than just BOS and NYC from London. They would certainly add flavour and a nice niche option. Not that niche has been wildly successful in the LON to NYC market.
 
Cedar
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:07 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:53 pm

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
 
tphuang
Posts: 5197
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:58 pm

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


Maybe selling LHR slots to BA/DL and whoever else is interested would be able to pay off some of these loans. With DY likely gone from LGW, there is no major competitor with LH operation at LGW. VS should be able to get all the slots they need.

Their current business plan clearly doesn't work and only really benefits DL. Consolidating to LGW with no DY/BA competition may or may not work, but they will at least have enough space to set up a hub, which they clearly can't do at LHR. Transitions to more of a leisure carrier which is now an empty space in the LH space.
 
Arion640
Posts: 3060
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:31 pm

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. :roll:


You’re right. It would be the Chinese carriers buying up all the empty slots. China again, coming pretty alright out of this pandemic.
 
Boeing74741R
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:44 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:15 pm

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.


Of course VS have done nothing to lower fares within Europe, simply because VS don't operate any routes within Europe, so it's an unfair comparison. The only route where VS does compete is with easyJet from London to Tel Aviv, but even then VS only entered that market recently and offer a completely different product to easyJet, as well as the potential for onward connections at LHR. A fairer comparison for Europe would be easyJet and Ryanair versus BA, especially as BA's short-haul offering in Europe is practically no different to easyJet given they've switched to buy-on-board.

As for Chinese carriers, what are their cost bases like and how much of that is down to things such as average salaries compared to Europe and some of them being backed by the Chinese government?
 
VS11
Posts: 1661
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:17 pm

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
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:55 pm

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
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:05 pm

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
 
VS11
Posts: 1661
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:09 pm

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.


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.
 
jomur
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:36 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:10 pm

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.
 
Junglejames
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2019 4:07 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:30 pm

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
 
VS11
Posts: 1661
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:36 pm

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


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.
 
Dmoney
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:53 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:09 pm

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



This chap is entirely wrong but also right. What do airlines, New York restaurants and dumb "tech" startups have in common? Customer experience subsidized by investor capital because they are cool or hot or whatever. People love planes "aerosexuals" as MOL calls them, so despite being a terrible business they never have that much trouble raising cash. Moxy seems a great way to burn money. Dumb VC's love the next big thing so they've heavily subsidized your Uber ride or delivery service for a decade in the belief they can make up for unit losses with volume. Boring rich finance guys in NY after the first few million think owning a restaurant will give them a personality.

All of which to say they subsidized these things. Margins weren't high enough especially through the cycle. And it was bad game theory with everyone cutting their own throat. Consolidation and failures will happen and prices will rise to actually cover the cost of capital of the airlines.
 
airhansa
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:18 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Fri May 01, 2020 12:05 am

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. :roll:


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


Technically, it's the rest of the world that is coming pretty alright out of the pandemic. I'm viewing the pandemic as a western problem rather than as a global problem, and the history of Chinese epidemics and SARS/MERS might lead to Asian consumerism up-bounding quicker than Western consumerism.
 
User avatar
adambrau
Posts: 334
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:44 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Fri May 01, 2020 12:55 am

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.
JFK Friendly
 
Junglejames
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2019 4:07 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Fri May 01, 2020 2:51 am

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
 
User avatar
adambrau
Posts: 334
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:44 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Fri May 01, 2020 5:00 am

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


Well in my case it was the only flight but regardless of that it wasn't bad. Plane clean crew friendly well groomed.

I am USA based so used to pretty inconsistent service but until recently lots of options. My past is mainly *A (*G for life) but I think Virgin, if it makes it through this storm, will be a strong competitor with the DL/AF/KL JV. Let's see what happens to Norwegian in the next few days....
JFK Friendly
 
jomur
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:36 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Fri May 01, 2020 7:21 am

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.


EasyJet isn't a ULCC....... LCC maybe.
 
User avatar
adambrau
Posts: 334
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:44 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Fri May 01, 2020 7:28 am

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?
JFK Friendly
 
Westerwaelder
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Fri May 01, 2020 7:52 am

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.


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
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Fri May 01, 2020 7:54 am

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.


My bad. The LGW flights and connecting flights are just perception? I thought they were real. Shows how gullible I am.
 
Westerwaelder
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Fri May 01, 2020 7:59 am

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.


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
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Fri May 01, 2020 8:04 am

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.


The remedy slots doesn't work because some routes need a hub on one end. With or without JVs.
 
Boeing74741R
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:44 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Fri May 01, 2020 8:16 am

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.


That's partly what happens when you have a route all to yourself, especially since Thomas Cook collapsed and the only other direct option outside of London for many is irregular charters with TUI to Sanford (Melbourne from 2022). VS have progressively extended the length of their season operation GLA-MCO over the years, so whatever their prices they seem to be doing something right there. There may well be scenarios where it is cheaper to go via LGW, but I'm not sure all families with kids are prepared to do that unless the savings really are substantial.

I also think VS will charge as much as the market will bear, so if people at GLA and MAN are prepared to pay a couple of hundred quid more for a direct flight than go indirectly, then they will charge accordingly. BA and other airlines will do the same.

Maybe there's an argument that MCO flight prices have been too cheap for too long?
 
VS11
Posts: 1661
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Fri May 01, 2020 12:46 pm

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?


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.
 
Westerwaelder
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Fri May 01, 2020 1:32 pm

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.


I wonder if it's you who doesn't understand how US airlines work? Very few places (NYC for example or BOS) work on a OandD basis. The rest are all either subsidised (LHR - RDU) or are need a hub to make it viable. That is how they gain efficiencies and minimise risk. That is how they work. That is not going to change and I don't see how getting rid of JVs is impacting on this.

And as for not understanding how JVs work: as long as there is plenty of competition, Brexit will not impact on JVs because besides you and a few A.netters, nobody considers co-located airports or connecting options not as relevant competition. As stated above. Connections will stay and so will competition. So why would JVs disappear?
 
Staralexi
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sat May 02, 2020 8:34 am

Would Branson have done better with his airline investments by buying BA shares when they were first floated?
 
User avatar
cv990Coronado
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:38 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sat May 02, 2020 10:12 am

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


I think Branson has done very well with his investment in VS, up until the point when he became too greedy and cancelled the deal to sell to AF/KL.
However, SQ and DL have lost their collective shirts, especially SQ.
SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
 
joeyw
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:56 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sat May 02, 2020 3:47 pm

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*
 
Crossley04
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:50 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sat May 02, 2020 4:02 pm

I think its crazy that airlines such as Virgin need as much help and the little airlines are not screaming out as much but i have to agree airlines such as Virgin and Virgin Australia have big outgoing bills and they have to be paid, after all its not a free world. here is a stunning picture of the A330 Virgin Australia https://bit.ly/3aWwweX Enjoy
Andy Crossley
 
Geoff1947
Posts: 628
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:28 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sat May 02, 2020 9:05 pm

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?


Terms only really work in the US, where they have specific meanings relating to staff T&Cs. Get used generally in other parts of the world without specific meanings.

Geoff
 
Cedar
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:07 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sun May 03, 2020 12:56 am

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
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:56 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sun May 03, 2020 3:11 pm

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


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?

"We will also operate a new cargo destination, Dublin, which we’ll fly to direct from New York and Los Angeles before returning to Heathrow. The new twice-a-week service which starts next week will enable Ireland’s medical technology, electronics and other industries to achieve same-day connections to New York JFK, Los Angeles, Hong Kong, Tel Aviv and Johannesburg. These will be operated using the 787 only, which can carry up to 55 tonnes of cargo.

The cargo-only schedule includes:
17 flights a week to/from JFK
9 flights a week to/from Los Angeles
Twice-weekly services from JFK and Los Angeles to Dublin
Twice-weekly departures from Dublin to London
Daily flights to/from Shanghai
4 x weekly services to/from Hong Kong
Twice-weekly flights to/from Tel Aviv
Three services a week to/from Johannesburg
The resumption of two weekly flights to/from Mumbai from 19th May"
 
DobboDobbo
Posts: 1127
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:02 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sun May 03, 2020 4:32 pm

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*


I am reasonably confident that if VS doesn’t survive in its current form, there is a good chance that “a” VS will emerge from an administration process.

I’m sure that whatever happens tough choices will have to be made, and the presence at LGW may be one such decision. If VS has to shrink its London presence, I suspect the choice will be to preserve scale at LHR and reduce or eliminate LGW. In addition, there's little that VS do at LGW that cannot be done with minimal disruption (or even better) at either LHR or MAN.
 
gunnerman
Posts: 1143
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 7:55 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sun May 03, 2020 4:47 pm

In a way VS is just like BA in that they are both rattling around in their LHR terminals (T2 and T5) with no need for their former LGW operations. If both are still operating later this year there would have to be some almighty deal offered by LGW to tempt them back.
 
Cedar
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:07 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Mon May 04, 2020 1:07 am

Didn't LGW close their North Terminal anyway - where VS operate from.

Cedar
 
Boeing74741R
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:44 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Mon May 04, 2020 1:13 pm

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?
 
gunnerman
Posts: 1143
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 7:55 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Mon May 04, 2020 3:38 pm

removed
 
Cedar
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:07 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Mon May 04, 2020 11:45 pm

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?


They do have a hangar in LGW that is correct. I doubt they will close LGW, their AOC for VAIL is all the carribean routes from LGW.

Cedar
 
airhansa
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:18 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Tue May 05, 2020 7:22 am

I don't consider a future for Virgin Atlantic. The West has been harder hit by the coronavirus than the East, and there isn't any history of SARS to show westerners that nothing bad will happen from flying (we are already starting to see Chinese travel rebound), with the Asian perception of healthcare standards in the West being destroyed (especially UK and Southern Europe).

The West will enter a worse recession than the East. Westerners also have less savings than Easterners. China is still expected to grow economically and India is expected to be the fastest growing country in 2020. All of this might bode well for Australia, but the country's reputation and perception (in terms of healthcare standards and treatment of foreigners) has been destroyed for many Asians.Asians are more likely to travel domestically and within Asia, especially in terms of the fact that spread has been relatively less throughout Asia. Tourist sports in China are already blossoming as they reopen after the coronavirus.

Virgin Atlantic will go the same way as Flybe IMO.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos