Polot wrote:

VS is in no financial position to try and bust into crowded hub markets like ORD as the third string. It will be a destination with limited to no competition.

VS has been flying to ORD during the pandemic with cargo, it’s not far fetched to see them just change that into a scheduled flight and add some passengers. That said, based on VS’s comments it’s not ORD and I don’t necessarily disagree with your premise-just pointing out the existing cargo element can change the economics.

SAN does seem to tick all the boxes

TPA or SAN

SunsetLimited wrote:

Richard Branson was recently in MSY for the opening of the Virgin Hotel and he made a statement to the effect of they are seeing if they can make the numbers work when a reporter asked him if VS would ever fly to MSY. Not that I think it’ll happen, just throwing it out there. Really nice hotel, btw.

BA is set to return to LHR-MSY this week, at only 3xWk, and loads are terrible.... actually, no less terrible than what AUS is seeing for similar dates, and actually slightly better than LHR-BNA/BWI last time I looked; but still pretty low.

Doubt competition on the secondaries is on anyone's mind right now.

Hartford, CT?
PHX?
AUS to complete with BA+AA with the help of DL?
SLC to complement DL's flight?

I don't see ORD for the leisure component. I don't see RDU neither due to AA's stronghold in NC. I don't see FLL due to its approximate short distance to MIA.

Since the NEW route is VS specific. There is a chance that DL may already fly that route and let VS take over of add additional flight on VS. The more I think about it, SLC makes more sense

I'm still sticking with MSP with an outside chance of it being PDX or DEN.

jbs2886 wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

CaptainLeo wrote:

I wouldn't discount RDU at all. As a DL focus city it would go head to head with AA and compliment the return of CDG next summer.

RDU area isn’t just leisure. It’s a big business market also.

Up above you say RDU isn’t a leisure market, it’s only business. Now you say it “isn’t just leisure.”

AA’s London flight was started and subsidized by GSK many years. Every market is some leisure but international Raleigh is business. It only supported LHR and CDG in the past and those flights haven’t resumed yet.

VS said this was primarily a leisure market.

Virgin does well in two situations: when they fly to a hub, ATL, controlled by a partner & when they fly to a city where the market share is spread among several airlines like JFK, BOS, or LAX.

My guess is either AUS or DEN. Both were mentioned a few years back as potential new destinations. The former seems more likely because of the lack of VS service in the large and growing Texas market.

ORD doesn’t work because of the dual UA/AA hubs and the over-saturation of London flights as a result. Unless one of the hubs closes, you’ll likely never see passenger VS back at ORD.

If AUS is added, I could see BNA added as well further down the road, post 2023 when the new IAB gates open at BNA.

chonetsao wrote:

Hartford, CT?
PHX?
AUS to complete with BA+AA with the help of DL?
SLC to complement DL's flight?

I don't see ORD for the leisure component. I don't see RDU neither due to AA's stronghold in NC. I don't see FLL due to its approximate short distance to MIA.

Since the NEW route is VS specific. There is a chance that DL may already fly that route and let VS take over of add additional flight on VS. The more I think about it, SLC makes more sense

Actually, DL has dropped SLC-LHR. It would not be surprising if VS took it over (the same happened with SEA).

I would be extremely surprised if it is PHX or SAN. Both are important markets, but OW monopolies to LHR. I am sure the JV has way better chances of making these cities work from CDG/AMS (connections + no non-stop competition). They need some feed for these places to work.

Given that they haven't even seen how AUS-AMS will work, it is hard to see them try AUS-LHR.

Given that they have not even resumed PDX-AMS (nor even SEA-LHR), I find it extremely unlikely that they would attempt PDX-LHR (especially if BA is also planning it).

I agree with the view that it has to be either some place with good O&D to London or some place with DL feed. My bets are on TPA or SLC/MSP.

TPA makes a lot of sense for its immense O&D traffic.

onwFan wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

Hartford, CT?
PHX?
AUS to complete with BA+AA with the help of DL?
SLC to complement DL's flight?

I don't see ORD for the leisure component. I don't see RDU neither due to AA's stronghold in NC. I don't see FLL due to its approximate short distance to MIA.

Since the NEW route is VS specific. There is a chance that DL may already fly that route and let VS take over of add additional flight on VS. The more I think about it, SLC makes more sense

Actually, DL has dropped SLC-LHR. It would not be surprising if VS took it over (the same happened with SEA).

I would be extremely surprised if it is PHX or SAN. Both are important markets, but OW monopolies to LHR. I am sure the JV has way better chances of making these cities work from CDG/AMS (connections + no non-stop competition). They need some feed for these places to work.

Given that they haven't even seen how AUS-AMS will work, it is hard to see them try AUS-LHR.

Given that they have not even resumed PDX-AMS (nor even SEA-LHR), I find it extremely unlikely that they would attempt PDX-LHR (especially if BA is also planning it).

I agree with the view that it has to be either some place with good O&D to London or some place with DL feed. My bets are on TPA or SLC/MSP.

It’s not SLC. DL-VS coordinate schedules. DL didn’t cut SLC-LHR while commenting it may return in 2023, only for VS to add the route weeks later. Plus there’s virtually no market SLC-LHR, and they’re hinting the new route will focus on premium leisure. I would put my bets on a few weekly MAN/LON-Florida frequencies.

There’s also been rumors that VS would pick-up MSP and/or DTW, so my alternate pick would be one of these.

My pet peeve: VS merely said it’d be a new route. VS may define a new route as one it wasn’t flying at the time of COVID, so the a.net petty police can stay away.

Would Virgin fly to a destination like MLB? TUI is coming to town with multiple 787's daily to the UK. This is shaping up to be a decent destination for British travelers. With the beach right there and a short drive to the cruise port, it could be an option. I just don't know if the Space Coast has enough business travel demand. It may be more viable if/when they get a Brightline station next to the airport. I recognize this market is likely in no way the type of destination Virgin flies to. Just curious.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

onwFan wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

Hartford, CT?
PHX?
AUS to complete with BA+AA with the help of DL?
SLC to complement DL's flight?

I don't see ORD for the leisure component. I don't see RDU neither due to AA's stronghold in NC. I don't see FLL due to its approximate short distance to MIA.

Since the NEW route is VS specific. There is a chance that DL may already fly that route and let VS take over of add additional flight on VS. The more I think about it, SLC makes more sense

Actually, DL has dropped SLC-LHR. It would not be surprising if VS took it over (the same happened with SEA).

I would be extremely surprised if it is PHX or SAN. Both are important markets, but OW monopolies to LHR. I am sure the JV has way better chances of making these cities work from CDG/AMS (connections + no non-stop competition). They need some feed for these places to work.

Given that they haven't even seen how AUS-AMS will work, it is hard to see them try AUS-LHR.

Given that they have not even resumed PDX-AMS (nor even SEA-LHR), I find it extremely unlikely that they would attempt PDX-LHR (especially if BA is also planning it).

I agree with the view that it has to be either some place with good O&D to London or some place with DL feed. My bets are on TPA or SLC/MSP.

It’s not SLC. DL-VS coordinate schedules. DL didn’t cut SLC-LHR while commenting it may return in 2023, only for VS to add the route weeks later. Plus there’s virtually no market SLC-LHR, and they’re hinting the new route will focus on premium leisure. I would put my bets on a few weekly MAN/LON-Florida frequencies.

There’s also been rumors that VS would pick-up MSP and/or DTW, so my alternate pick would be one of these.

My pet peeve: VS merely said it’d be a new route. VS may define a new route as one it wasn’t flying at the time of COVID, so the a.net petty police can stay away.

okay, what?

1st, It says a new US destination. CCO even says new destination operating by summer 2022. All of virgins US destinations not flying at the time of COVID are scheduled

2nd Who even goes to MSP or DTW for leisure

3rd DL cut SLC-LHR permanently says TPG unless you have a different source

4th you say theres virtually no market for SLC-LHR? Yet eurowings is adding FRA SLC.

Clipper73 wrote:

FLYKTPA wrote:

The article specifically mentioned a mix of business and leisure… so why would anyone suggest DTW or MSP, IAH etc as they lack the leisure component? It’ll probably be DEN, AUS or SAN. Something with a good mix of leisure and business.

Because DTW and MSP cater to both segments of the market through connections. I agree with you on DEN and SAN but not so much AUS. I don't think many people are plotting a leisure vacation to AUS.

Huh?? Not planning leisure vacations to Austin? Never heard anyone say that Austin is a massive tourism market before. This is a first

PITFlyer330 wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

onwFan wrote:

Actually, DL has dropped SLC-LHR. It would not be surprising if VS took it over (the same happened with SEA).

I would be extremely surprised if it is PHX or SAN. Both are important markets, but OW monopolies to LHR. I am sure the JV has way better chances of making these cities work from CDG/AMS (connections + no non-stop competition). They need some feed for these places to work.

Given that they haven't even seen how AUS-AMS will work, it is hard to see them try AUS-LHR.

Given that they have not even resumed PDX-AMS (nor even SEA-LHR), I find it extremely unlikely that they would attempt PDX-LHR (especially if BA is also planning it).

I agree with the view that it has to be either some place with good O&D to London or some place with DL feed. My bets are on TPA or SLC/MSP.

It’s not SLC. DL-VS coordinate schedules. DL didn’t cut SLC-LHR while commenting it may return in 2023, only for VS to add the route weeks later. Plus there’s virtually no market SLC-LHR, and they’re hinting the new route will focus on premium leisure. I would put my bets on a few weekly MAN/LON-Florida frequencies.

There’s also been rumors that VS would pick-up MSP and/or DTW, so my alternate pick would be one of these.

My pet peeve: VS merely said it’d be a new route. VS may define a new route as one it wasn’t flying at the time of COVID, so the a.net petty police can stay away.

okay, what?

1st, It says a new US destination. CCO even says new destination operating by summer 2022. All of virgins US destinations not flying at the time of COVID are scheduled

2nd Who even goes to MSP or DTW for leisure

3rd DL cut SLC-LHR permanently says TPG unless you have a different source

4th you say theres virtually no market for SLC-LHR? Yet eurowings is adding FRA SLC.

What do you mean what?

1) A “new” destination can merely mean “new” to VS. Airlines regularly market resumptions of routes as “new” if they haven’t been tried in years. Yes, I know the a.net police doesn’t agree with this.

2) They said the route would serve business and leisure travelers alike. That could mean via connections, again it’s a.net police getting petty with word choice as they always do. As I wrote, I’d place my bets on FL service, but there have been rumors floating for many weeks in a pilots’ forum that VS will pick-up either MSP or DTW.

3) Wrong. TPG merely noted the route had been pulled - they never cited any sources for input. The SLC media did quote a spokesperson who made a genericy statement that the route may return in 2023.

4) Yes, because DL has actually flown the route so we have data. Surprise!

My guess is it will be SLC. LHR-TPA might be in the cards as well, since it seems VS served that city before.

usdcaguy wrote:

My guess is it will be SLC. LHR-TPA might be in the cards as well, since it seems VS served that city before.

DL-VS coordinate on scheduling, so why would DL pull SLC-LHR only for VS to re-add the route nearly 8 weeks later? DL could’ve merely “transfer” the route and bookings over, as it’s done in the past (not on this specific route).

I would agree TPA is the most logical destination, since it’s an easy sell. Beyond TPA, I’ll stick with VS doing something at MSP or DTW (taking a few, or all, weekly frequencies, or adding a couple extra frequencies).

Beyond that, markets like AUS take time to develop and have the potential to lose large amounts of money. I doubt VS/DL will take that risk status quo…

Clipper73 wrote:

FLYKTPA wrote:

The article specifically mentioned a mix of business and leisure… so why would anyone suggest DTW or MSP, IAH etc as they lack the leisure component? It’ll probably be DEN, AUS or SAN. Something with a good mix of leisure and business.

Because DTW and MSP cater to both segments of the market through connections. I agree with you on DEN and SAN but not so much AUS. I don't think many people are plotting a leisure vacation to AUS.

Austin absolutely has plenty of leisure travel. I’ve just booked a leisure vacation to AUS and I’m just about the last millennial I know to check it out for a vacation. It’s a hot vacation spot these days - they have tons of events and festivals and a reputation for food and night life.

and the weird thing.... they don't have enough planes to operate MAN-LAX and MAN-ATL next summer but will operate a new route with this apparent lack of planes. And the cheeky people have asked those who would use those MAN services for "understanding" of this issues they face.

Kno wrote:

Clipper73 wrote:

FLYKTPA wrote:

The article specifically mentioned a mix of business and leisure… so why would anyone suggest DTW or MSP, IAH etc as they lack the leisure component? It’ll probably be DEN, AUS or SAN. Something with a good mix of leisure and business.

Because DTW and MSP cater to both segments of the market through connections. I agree with you on DEN and SAN but not so much AUS. I don't think many people are plotting a leisure vacation to AUS.

Austin absolutely has plenty of leisure travel. I’ve just booked a leisure vacation to AUS and I’m just about the last millennial I know to check it out for a vacation. It’s a hot vacation spot these days - they have tons of events and festivals and a reputation for food and night life.

Yes agreed - Austin has plenty to see and do to attract leisure travellers with certain interests and also ticks the box with business travellers. Fully agree with your comments above. AUS could certainly be a goer since DL is trying to expand its presence there but nothing like what AA are doing and an aggressive AA+BA says to me VA may stay away in the current climate. As for the rest...

I don't rate the chances of DEN particularly, but its certainly not out of the picture. RDU - no. DTW served previously so, no. FLL - possible but seems risky / unlikely in current environment. MSY no if BA are doing it. SAN no if BA are doing it. Could also be MSP for aforementioned reasons. Also possibly SLC? TPA?

Based on all the comments here so far, it seems like the general consensus for this route has been narrowed down to AUS, DEN or TPA... From here, I think it really depends on whether the emphasis for this route will lean more towards business or leisure traffic. AUS seems moderately business-oriented, while TPA has a decent amount of leisure traffic. DEN could go either way, IMO.

I've never flown on VS before, but they seem to have more of a premium-style product, which is why AUS would probably be my guess.

Until BA officially announces plans for PDX, I wouldn't rule that out either...

NZ321 wrote:

MSY no if BA are doing it. SAN no if BA are doing it.

LHR-MSY resumes this upcoming Thursday. LHR-SAN has already resumed.

BA are flying all these relaunched routes but with new restrictions almost daily with the inevitable new scary Omicron variant, what's the load factors on the NA in winter in a pandemic?

For a WAG here, I say VS is picking up the now dropped CHS route. Very premium leisure route ( not so strong business ).

How much "marketing assistance" is going to be given

skipness1E wrote:

BA are flying all these relaunched routes but with new restrictions almost daily with the inevitable new scary Omicron variant, what's the load factors on the NA in winter in a pandemic?

To North America they've actually been really very high with just a couple of exceptions. The premium loads are unlike I've anything I've ever seen in the winter and even most summers! There's a lot of pent up demand.

The problem is that the lower yielding traffic is put off by testing costs and the potential 2-3 day isoation in the UK so some of the Y loads will soften over the next few days.

Loads to JNB and CPT have dropped off since the red list addition but they're being flown daily now whereas before when SA was on the red list it wasn't flown at all or just once or twice per week.

You get the feeling any destination in the USA could make money for anyone at the moment.

BA777FO wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

BA are flying all these relaunched routes but with new restrictions almost daily with the inevitable new scary Omicron variant, what's the load factors on the NA in winter in a pandemic?

To North America they've actually been really very high with just a couple of exceptions. The premium loads are unlike I've anything I've ever seen in the winter and even most summers! There's a lot of pent up demand.

The problem is that the lower yielding traffic is put off by testing costs and the potential 2-3 day isoation in the UK so some of the Y loads will soften over the next few days.

Loads to JNB and CPT have dropped off since the red list addition but they're being flown daily now whereas before when SA was on the red list it wasn't flown at all or just once or twice per week.

You get the feeling any destination in the USA could make money for anyone at the moment.

Indeed; this weekend alone, I have 6 friends that are in Europe this weekend for a quick getaway before the holiday season.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

usdcaguy wrote:

My guess is it will be SLC. LHR-TPA might be in the cards as well, since it seems VS served that city before.

DL-VS coordinate on scheduling, so why would DL pull SLC-LHR only for VS to re-add the route nearly 8 weeks later? DL could’ve merely “transfer” the route and bookings over, as it’s done in the past (not on this specific route).

I would agree TPA is the most logical destination, since it’s an easy sell. Beyond TPA, I’ll stick with VS doing something at MSP or DTW (taking a few, or all, weekly frequencies, or adding a couple extra frequencies).

Beyond that, markets like AUS take time to develop and have the potential to lose large amounts of money. I doubt VS/DL will take that risk status quo…

Sometimes a city getting a foreign carrier like VS is a big deal, so often it's announced as "new service". Serving MSP/DTW would be a good choice, but often DL will try to push its own metal through its hubs and offer foreign carrier service to spoke cities like IAD/ORD/SFO/HOU, etc. where it has less of a presence.

If I had a guess, I would go with TPA. For the size of the market, it has fairly limited European service. I recognize it does have London service, but with it being a vacation destination/cruise port, it would be a pretty good candidate. Given the size of ship that Virgin Voyages uses and plans to use, the Tampa Port would be right sized. They currently sail out of Miami and San Juan is coming in 2022. The company has another ship coming in 2023 but no port information has been made available at this time.

The top destinations since the re-opening of travel have been New York, Florida, and Las Vegas.
Keep in mind, Delta owns 49% - so whatever decision is made, it could be argued it would need to have some sort of capability or compliment to the Delta network.

Detroit isnt a leisure destination? Lol

In all seriousness SLC attracts lots of Europeans for the national park circle. You dont see alot ski but lots want to visit us national parks. Very different then what you find in Europe. Delta hub for connections is a plus.

PHX you have lots of golf and dessert things to do. I've seen Brits there on vacation.

SAN Meh bet that's low yielding but could happen. It meets the criteria.

I could see BNA or AUS. Its def a mix of business and leisure. That place is on fire like den,slc,aus for just new expansion on everything. I could easily see it being BNA or AUS for all the same reasons.

stlgph wrote:

The top destinations since the re-opening of travel have been New York, Florida, and Las Vegas.
Keep in mind, Delta owns 49% - so whatever decision is made, it could be argued it would need to have some sort of capability or compliment to the Delta network.

Delta doesn’t own 49% anymore they wrote off their investment

“ It also took a $770 million write-down in its Aeromexico investment after suffering financial losses and the Mexican airline filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. And Delta took a $200 million charge on its investment in Virgin Atlantic.”


https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/14/pan ... llion.html

Boof02671 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

The top destinations since the re-opening of travel have been New York, Florida, and Las Vegas.
Keep in mind, Delta owns 49% - so whatever decision is made, it could be argued it would need to have some sort of capability or compliment to the Delta network.

Delta doesn’t own 49% anymore they wrote off their investment

“ It also took a $770 million write-down in its Aeromexico investment after suffering financial losses and the Mexican airline filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. And Delta took a $200 million charge on its investment in Virgin Atlantic.”


https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/14/pan ... llion.html

You need to learn what you're reading.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

Detroit isnt a leisure destination? Lol

In all seriousness SLC attracts lots of Europeans for the national park circle. You dont see alot ski but lots want to visit us national parks. Very different then what you find in Europe. Delta hub for connections is a plus.

PHX you have lots of golf and dessert things to do. I've seen Brits there on vacation.

SAN Meh bet that's low yielding but could happen. It meets the criteria.

I could see BNA or AUS. Its def a mix of business and leisure. That place is on fire like den,slc,aus for just new expansion on everything. I could easily see it being BNA or AUS for all the same reasons.

LOL. From LHR, neither DTW nor SLC draws any material local leisure traffic. SLC operated as a summer seasonal route until 2019… a.k.a non-Ski season. It operated year-round for a single year, and by all accounts underperformed, with frequent cuts in frequency and reductions in capacity.

But it’s not going to be SLC, anyway - DL cut the route nearly two months ago. One more time: DL/VS coordinate scheduling, so if there was an intention to operate SLC next summer, it would still be in the skeds.

Nor do BNA and AUS draw much leisure traffic from Europe. Destinations like BNA and AUS require large amount of marketing resources and have the potential to lose large amounts of money - doubtful VS/DL will head down that path. Remember, DL’s capacity to LHR is significantly less than pre-COVID.

It’s either going to be a sun destination that sells itself, like TPA, or something to do with MSP/DTW. (A popular pilot forum has been insisting for two months that VS would be taking over MSP or DTW.)

VS sole comment is that it will be a new destination that will serve business and leisure passengers a like. That’s about as generic a statement you can get, despite all the Inspector Gadgets on the case here.

A market pair like Detroit and London is going to have a fair amount of leisure travel in terms of VFR (visiting friends and relatives) traffic. Leisure travel doesn't have to mean vacation travel.

stlgph wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

The top destinations since the re-opening of travel have been New York, Florida, and Las Vegas.
Keep in mind, Delta owns 49% - so whatever decision is made, it could be argued it would need to have some sort of capability or compliment to the Delta network.

Delta doesn’t own 49% anymore they wrote off their investment

“ It also took a $770 million write-down in its Aeromexico investment after suffering financial losses and the Mexican airline filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. And Delta took a $200 million charge on its investment in Virgin Atlantic.”


https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/14/pan ... llion.html

You need to learn what you're reading.

Instead of a snide comment, if I posted something wrong, then provide the correct information.

Indy wrote:

A market pair like Detroit and London is going to have a fair amount of leisure travel in terms of VFR (visiting friends and relatives) traffic. Leisure travel doesn't have to mean vacation travel.

The comment was a simple ‘it will serve both business and leisure travelers alike.’ DTW and MSP both serve business and leisure travelers throughout the DL network through their hubs.

Snickering and DTW and MSP and then mentioning AUS and BNA shows the ignorance of this forum. AUS and BNA do not draw significant domestic tourism via air, let alone tourists traveling 5,000 miles from the UK.

Boof02671 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Delta doesn’t own 49% anymore they wrote off their investment

“ It also took a $770 million write-down in its Aeromexico investment after suffering financial losses and the Mexican airline filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. And Delta took a $200 million charge on its investment in Virgin Atlantic.”


https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/14/pan ... llion.html

You need to learn what you're reading.

Instead of a snide comment, if I posted something wrong, then provide the correct information.

A write-off is an accounting action that reduces the value of an asset while simultaneously debiting a liabilities account.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

Indy wrote:

A market pair like Detroit and London is going to have a fair amount of leisure travel in terms of VFR (visiting friends and relatives) traffic. Leisure travel doesn't have to mean vacation travel.

The comment was a simple ‘it will serve both business and leisure travelers alike.’ DTW and MSP both serve business and leisure travelers throughout the DL network through their hubs.

Snickering and DTW and MSP and then mentioning AUS and BNA shows the ignorance of this forum. AUS and BNA do not draw significant domestic tourism via air, let alone tourists traveling 5,000 miles from the UK.

If AUS doesn’t draw leisure travel then why is WN and AA making it focus cities with lots of domestic destinations?

Boof02671 wrote:

If AUS doesn’t draw leisure travel then why is WN and AA making it focus cities with lots of domestic destinations?

It is a decent size market. How many of those flights are designed to serve the AUS market and people flying out for leisure and returning? I'm not a country music fan, but if I had to pick AUS or BNA for vacation, I'd probably pick BNA 10 out of 10 times. That said, both cities already have London service and I suspect there isn't enough demand to/from either location to support a 2nd flight. if either location were to get it, it would likely be BNA. There is at least a reason for an international traveler to want to visit Nashville. What big draw does Austin have?

Boof02671 wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

Indy wrote:

A market pair like Detroit and London is going to have a fair amount of leisure travel in terms of VFR (visiting friends and relatives) traffic. Leisure travel doesn't have to mean vacation travel.

The comment was a simple ‘it will serve both business and leisure travelers alike.’ DTW and MSP both serve business and leisure travelers throughout the DL network through their hubs.

Snickering and DTW and MSP and then mentioning AUS and BNA shows the ignorance of this forum. AUS and BNA do not draw significant domestic tourism via air, let alone tourists traveling 5,000 miles from the UK.

If AUS doesn’t draw leisure travel then why is WN and AA making it focus cities with lots of domestic destinations?

no, Austin is the point of sale. They are taking austin residents to those places especially leisure like Reno jacksonville fort Myers sarasota Denver salt lake and more

Boof02671 wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

Indy wrote:

A market pair like Detroit and London is going to have a fair amount of leisure travel in terms of VFR (visiting friends and relatives) traffic. Leisure travel doesn't have to mean vacation travel.

The comment was a simple ‘it will serve both business and leisure travelers alike.’ DTW and MSP both serve business and leisure travelers throughout the DL network through their hubs.

Snickering and DTW and MSP and then mentioning AUS and BNA shows the ignorance of this forum. AUS and BNA do not draw significant domestic tourism via air, let alone tourists traveling 5,000 miles from the UK.

If AUS doesn’t draw leisure travel then why is WN and AA making it focus cities with lots of domestic destinations?

Is that a trick question? It’s because of business, and as mentioned, AUS POS traffic.

Last decade, BNA added roughly 5M local enplanements. As a %, no other airport was even close to that number. But it’s virtually all business and BNA POS — TN’s tourism reports that only a small % of BNA growing tourists, arrived by air.

Indy wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

It is a decent size market. How many of those flights are designed to serve the AUS market and people flying out for leisure and returning? I'm not a country music fan, but if I had to pick AUS or BNA for vacation, I'd probably pick BNA 10 out of 10 times. That said, both cities already have London service and I suspect there isn't enough demand to/from either location to support a 2nd flight.

AUS once sustained *almost* 2 daily London flights when DY flew AUS-LGW simultaneously with BA’s AUS-LHR a few years back. Austin has grown considerably since then. Plus, for the foreseeable future, BA’s daily frequency is downgauged from a 77W to a 788/789 leaving more possible room for a new entrant.

I doubt it’s DEN, while Norwegian have exited BA are very established and UA has (re-)entered DEN-LHR. It will be very hard for VS to go up against two entrenched competitors with a mega-hub at one end.

Im leaning towards AUS. Delta wants to become the ‘legacy of choice’ in AUS (despite being number four in the market) and offering LHR could at least see them move ahead of United in the market.

RyanairGuru wrote:

I doubt it’s DEN, while Norwegian have exited BA are very established and UA has (re-)entered DEN-LHR. It will be very hard for VS to go up against two entrenched competitors with a mega-hub at one end.

Im leaning towards AUS. Delta wants to become the ‘legacy of choice’ in AUS (despite being number four in the market) and offering LHR could at least see them move ahead of United in the market.

DL’s adding AUS-AMS (via KL) next summer. Doubling up with LHR would be very ambitious, especially when DL had no connectivity on either end and has to compete with an 800 lb. gorilla that does. Especially in the Covid era.

Very tiny chance it’ll be AUS.

gregn21 wrote:

Indy wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

It is a decent size market. How many of those flights are designed to serve the AUS market and people flying out for leisure and returning? I'm not a country music fan, but if I had to pick AUS or BNA for vacation, I'd probably pick BNA 10 out of 10 times. That said, both cities already have London service and I suspect there isn't enough demand to/from either location to support a 2nd flight.

AUS once sustained *almost* 2 daily London flights when DY flew AUS-LGW simultaneously with BA’s AUS-LHR a few years back. Austin has grown considerably since then. Plus, for the foreseeable future, BA’s daily frequency is downgauged from a 77W to a 788/789 leaving more possible room for a new entrant.

Keep in mind though DL/VS aren't giving away the farm like DY to stimulate loads. DY went into AUS to poke a finger in their eye.

ORD could work once Delta moves to T5 making easy transfers from int'l to domestic.

Some of the suggestions on here are real head scratchers.

First, they said it will be a new route never flown by VS. That eliminates DTW and ORD.

I doubt it is MSP either, unless DL plans to cutback its MSP-LHR metal flying and replace that with VS, which seams unlikely. More unlikely is that DL/VS would choose to boost MSP-LHR to more than 1x daily given that DTW will only be 1x daily and SLC isn’t operating at all. So not MSP.

Not DEN either. If DL/VS decides to operate 1 flight to the mountain west, it will be to SLC which has no competition and plenty of onward connections offered by DL. It won’t be to DEN which is 100% O/D on both ends, and competes with both BA and UA double daily next summer. If VS couldn’t make ORD work, it won’t be able to make DEN work either.

I would be mildly surprised if it SLC just because it seems illogical for DL to drop its flight before the route gets readded via VS. As WidebodyPTV pointed out, much easier for DL to drop SLC-LHR after VS adds the route, and then transfer ticketed pax from DL to VS metal.

AUS would be a big time money loser. Frankly, I think RDU is far more likely than AUS if that is the type of market being targeted.

ANC or IND would be unique outside the box adds, but the passenger volumes aren’t big enough for a route that is essentially 100% O/D on both ends.

PDX and SAN are possible, even though there is competition with BA.

Most likely is of course Florida, with I think TPA being the front runner. RDU is my dark horse pick, with low odds on PDX or SAN. Everywhere else doesn’t make sense to me.