VA has got alot of efforts going and they have the legs that will result in eventual certification
They started a web page
www.letvafly.com/
to support certification.
Please visit the web page and add your name.
Any aviation enthousiast should always support a new startup.
Only those in fear of something better would be against this.
Lets hope they fly to ORD, IND, IAD, BOS, SFO, LAX, JFK, EWR, SRQ, DTW, FLL, CMH, STL, SEA, PDX, YVR, MSY, DFW, PHL, PIT, ATL, YYZ and alot more...
Tell me where they should fly?
Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
-
- tozairport
- Posts: 467
- Joined:
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
A) This is insanely old news. That web site has been around for a long time.
B) You said, "Any aviation enthousiast should always support a new startup." While I'm not sure what an "enthousiast" is, I do consider myself an aviation enthusiast, and I could not be more against Virgin West. They are a foreign owned company, no question. That is illegal in the US. Letting them fly will open the pandora's box to foreign ownership and you will see the working conditions, safety, and rights of US employees and passengers affected dramtically. If Virgin America is allowed to fly, then any US carrier should be able to fly ANY route within the EU. Fair is fair.
C) "Only those in fear of something better would be against this." - What a BS statement. They should fly right back to the Airbus factory or have only 25% foreign investment, as the law allows. Trying to do an end around the law can not be allowed.
B) You said, "Any aviation enthousiast should always support a new startup." While I'm not sure what an "enthousiast" is, I do consider myself an aviation enthusiast, and I could not be more against Virgin West. They are a foreign owned company, no question. That is illegal in the US. Letting them fly will open the pandora's box to foreign ownership and you will see the working conditions, safety, and rights of US employees and passengers affected dramtically. If Virgin America is allowed to fly, then any US carrier should be able to fly ANY route within the EU. Fair is fair.
C) "Only those in fear of something better would be against this." - What a BS statement. They should fly right back to the Airbus factory or have only 25% foreign investment, as the law allows. Trying to do an end around the law can not be allowed.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
I myself and 99.9% of the USA population could give a flying you know what if they are ever certified.
Another start-up carrier trying to cherry pick the major routes and undercutting prices by using newer planes with a young work force. Why don't they just call it JetBlue West? And when their operarating and maintainance cost increase over time......
Just what the market needs.
Most people in the USA don't know or care who SRB is either.
Another start-up carrier trying to cherry pick the major routes and undercutting prices by using newer planes with a young work force. Why don't they just call it JetBlue West? And when their operarating and maintainance cost increase over time......
Just what the market needs.
Most people in the USA don't know or care who SRB is either.
-
- LASoctoberB6
- Posts: 1936
- Joined:
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
im an enthusiast and i would like to see a different airline flyin around for a change. you ppl are just mad because Sir Branson has money, fame, and all that other celebrity stuff and hes intrested in aviation.
[NOT IN SERVICE] {WEStJet}
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
Virgin America can start ops once the British government opens up LGW and LHR. I'm all for competition, but you've got to give something to get something here.
-
- flyboyseven
- Posts: 803
- Joined:
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
I think it would be very cool to see another airline in the US market. Why are you complaining that the prices will go down? It would bring a different perspective into the American market. That would be good for everybody.
As long as the number of take-offs equals the number of landings...you're doing fine.
-
-
lightsaber
Moderator
- Posts: 21202
- Joined:
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting Cba (Reply 4): Virgin America can start ops once the British government opens up LGW and LHR. I'm all for competition, but you've got to give something to get something here. |
I'd go one step further. An open skies agreement that gives both sides a leg up. Utilizing LGW, LHR, FRA, or CDG slots/limits (add Berlin airport of choice too) to restrain competition... won't work.
Virg A will eventually fly.
But not with their weird structure first proposed.
Lightsaber
3 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 2): Another start-up carrier trying to cherry pick the major routes and undercutting prices by using newer planes with a young work force. Why don't they just call it JetBlue West? And when their operarating and maintainance cost increase over time...... |
If this was simply the case, with no DOT issues, they have every right to start flying here, as does any other start-up airline (as long as DOT requirements are met).
Again, based on your reasoning, we would have no competition - if the market can take another JetBlue, one of the more successful airlines over the past 10 years, the so be it. If their costs increase in time, and they can't make a profit, they won't be around (unfortunately not true for the legacies) - let the market decide that.
So, we have new rules regarding start-ups now?? Must be an old work force, and prices cannot be lower than the legacies, and oh, no flying where the legacies fly either?
Now, must have nn% USA owned - that's a different matter!
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
-
- sparklehorse12
- Posts: 512
- Joined:
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting Tozairport (Reply 1): They are a foreign owned company, no question. That is illegal in the US. Letting them fly will open the pandora's box to foreign ownership and you will see the working conditions, safety, and rights of US employees and passengers affected dramtically. |
So let me think about this......
1. A nation who 'love' choice and competition don't like foreigners owning companies based in the US yet your country and government support 'free trade' and champion the 'free marketeer' doctrine...isn't that totally hipocritical?
2. It would be American companies operating abroad who champion union busting which compromises the rights of employees, safety and career paths for dedicated employees - you are a hipocrite!
Just look at the sharks circulating QF right now, they will, and I quote ..."working conditions, safety, and rights of Australian employees and passengers affected dramtically"
The above you say is a trend set by US companies......
Airlines Flown : QF,NW,AA, CX, AC, MH, SQ, DJ, NZ, TG, PG,US, FJ, J8, AN, DD, JQ
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting BillReid (Thread starter): Lets hope they fly to ATL |
Delta will squash their sorry ass like a zit. Remember JetBlue's short appearance in the ATL scene? Especially with a moron like Fred Reid running the show, an ex DL cronie himself, DL would see to it that his efforts are foiled.
| Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 2): Most people in the USA don't know or care who SRB is either. |
I agree- he's just a novelty item, about as useful as a Spencer's store. I don't think there's anything special or cool about the Virgin label anywho, I buy my CD's at cheaper venues anyways
DeltaGuy
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
-
- AirframeAS
- Posts: 9865
- Joined:
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting Bond007 (Reply 7): If this was simply the case, with no DOT issues, they have every right to start flying here, as does any other start-up airline (as long as DOT requirements are met). |
You say one thing and then state the opposite? Which is it?
| Quoting Sparklehorse12 (Reply 8): 2. It would be American companies operating abroad who champion union busting which compromises the rights of employees, safety and career paths for dedicated employees - you are a hipocrite! |
We are talking about the airline industry, not Wal*Mart/McDonalds. Two totally separate things.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 2):
Most people in the USA don't know or care who SRB is either. |
That's mostly irrelevant, although more people in the USA probably know he is before they could name the Vice President of their own country. That aside, he's probably one of the most well known entrepreneurs worlwide.
| Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 9):
I agree- he's just a novelty item, about as useful as a Spencer's store. I don't think there's anything special or cool about the Virgin label anywho, I buy my CD's at cheaper venues anyways |
Well, he's been pretty successful at being "just a novelty item".
| Quoting Tozairport (Reply 1):
Letting them fly will open the pandora's box to foreign ownership and you will see the working conditions, safety, and rights of US employees and passengers affected dramtically. |
They would have the same labor laws applied to them as any other business - what does ownership have to do with it?
Yes, the same labor laws that the great US family owned business Walmart has to stick to!
Jimbo
[Edited 2007-02-12 15:48:07]
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting Sparklehorse12 (Reply 8): 1. A nation who 'love' choice and competition don't like foreigners owning companies based in the US yet your country and government support 'free trade' and champion the 'free marketeer' doctrine...isn't that totally hipocritical? |
There are many corporations in the United States that are foreign owned, and very little rioting in the streets has come about as a result. For instance, Chrysler Corporation is known as Daimler-Chrysler now.
Right or wrong, pro or con, the United States has laws forbidding foreign ownership or majority control of airlines based in the United States...much like Australia, I believe. Virgin America has yet to prove they meet the restrictions imposed by those laws...no proof, no certificate.
I do believe Virgin America's "issues" just got a whole lot worse than being denied a certificate...with WN stating their intention to begin service to SFO in the future.
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
Maybe they will fly, but it's not looking good. They will arrange it to get FAA approval, but that is not going to be their real problem.
I've said it before, WN, UA, AA, DL, NW, TZ, CO, FL, US and F9 allowed something to happen at JFK 7 years ago. None of them thought an LCC would fly out of JFK. With B6 in the mix, it certainly will not happen again.
It has everything to do with capitalism and free market. Competition at its best.
It's no accident WN and B6 are headed to SFO.
M
I've said it before, WN, UA, AA, DL, NW, TZ, CO, FL, US and F9 allowed something to happen at JFK 7 years ago. None of them thought an LCC would fly out of JFK. With B6 in the mix, it certainly will not happen again.
It has everything to do with capitalism and free market. Competition at its best.
It's no accident WN and B6 are headed to SFO.
M
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting Bond007 (Reply 11): They would have the same labor laws applied to them as any other business - what does ownership have to do with it? Yes, the same labor laws that the great US family owned business Walmart has to stick to! |
The EU has similar laws limiting foreign ownership of airlines. The EU limit is 49.9%. Aside from the minor difference in percentage limitations, how is it any different?
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting Cba (Reply 4): Virgin America can start ops once the British government opens up LGW and LHR. I'm all for competition, but you've got to give something to get something here. |
IMO European law allows 49.9% foreign Non-EU ownership. SO who's laws are more protective?
I seen no proof that they are foreign owned, just a group of US airlines who always argue against competition because they don't want it.
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting BillReid (Reply 16): What is SRB? |
| Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 17): You are the thread starter and advertising for VirginAmerica and do not know? Stick with what you know in the future. |
ChiGB1973, wouldn't it have been easier to just answer his question...just because he started the thread doesn't mean he knows lazy people who can't type out Sir Richard Branson type SRB instead...
-
- AirframeAS
- Posts: 9865
- Joined:
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 17): Quoting BillReid (Reply 16): What is SRB? You are the thread starter and advertising for VirginAmerica and do not know? Stick with what you know in the future. M |
The OP should have known who SRB is. May I suggest doing some research before starting threads in the future?A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 14): The EU has similar laws limiting foreign ownership of airlines. The EU limit is 49.9%. Aside from the minor difference in percentage limitations, how is it any different? |
No different at all. My point was that a foreign corporation operating in the USA must abide by the same labor laws as everyone else - "you will see the working conditions, safety, and rights of US employees and passengers affected dramtically". Not sure why the 'rights of US employees and passengers' will be "affected dramatically".
If anything they might be affected dramatically - for the good - compared to the rights of employees and pax of some US owned airlines!
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 19): The OP should have known who SRB is. May I suggest doing some research before starting threads in the future? |
Because Lord knows everything on this forum is well researched!
-
- floridaflyboy
- Posts: 1609
- Joined:
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 19): The OP should have known who SRB is. May I suggest doing some research before starting threads in the future? |
My guess is he knew who Sir Richard Branson is, but didn't catch on to the abbreviation.
Good goes around!
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
I agree - let VA fly. Competition breeds excellence in airline business. If they get squashed by DL, B6, or whoever, who cares? At least they put forth an effort to bring some diversity to the American market.
Oh yeah, and lay off the OP - I spent about five minutes trying to figure out what the hell 'SRB' meant.
Oh yeah, and lay off the OP - I spent about five minutes trying to figure out what the hell 'SRB' meant.
-
- AirframeAS
- Posts: 9865
- Joined:
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting N911ME (Reply 23): If they get squashed by DL, B6, or whoever, who cares? |
I believe the American Taxpayer would care very, very much if VA folds!
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 10): You say one thing and then state the opposite? Which is it? |
No, I said IF they do pass DOT requirements, then let them fly.
I was replying to those comments saying that start-up airlines using young employees and undercutting other airline's prices should not be allowed - which is pure nonsense!
I may not agree with the foreign ownership regulations, but they are what they are.
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 6): Utilizing LGW, LHR, FRA, or CDG slots/limits (add Berlin airport of choice too) to restrain competition... won't work. |
What do you know that I don't know? EU regulation requires that slot allocation at Category 3 airports must be done by an independant coordinator. Independant of airlines, independant of airports and independant of government. In addition new entrants are given priority to slots at any EU congested airport.| Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 14): The EU limit is 49.9%. Aside from the minor difference in percentage limitations, how is it any different? |
In the US the airline's CEO must be an American citizen. Non-americans are bared from participating in any decision re route planning and development, aircraft purchase or fleet planning. It is both Ownership 75% vs 50% and Control where US law is much more restrictive. I've asked this question before, without any response, but why does a US airline's CEO have to be an American Citizen?
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 17): |
| Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 17): You are the thread starter and advertising for VirginAmerica and do not know? Stick with what you know in the future. |
When I three capital letters I think of an airpord code. the Sir Richard Branson SRB would be generally refered to Branson in my book.
Gimme a break you tend to abreviate everything.
GTG BFN LOL IMO
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 22): My guess is he knew who Sir Richard Branson is, but didn't catch on to the abbreviation. |
Also THANK YOU
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
-
- pilottim747
- Posts: 1577
- Joined:
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
This is the US government being over protective of the US airlines. As said above, other US industries have foreign ownership, but the airline industry for some reason gets more restrictive rules.
Restricting foreign ownership is just like refusing open skies agreements with the EU. They both are in place because they protect (perhaps unfairly) US airlines over foreign airlines. And people wonder why service is so poor on US airlines.
Restricting foreign ownership is just like refusing open skies agreements with the EU. They both are in place because they protect (perhaps unfairly) US airlines over foreign airlines. And people wonder why service is so poor on US airlines.
Aviation Photographers & Enthusiasts--Coordinate your life.
RE: Virgin America's Campaign For Gov't Approval.
| Quoting ANother (Reply 26): In the US the airline's CEO must be an American citizen. Non-americans are bared from participating in any decision re route planning and development, aircraft purchase or fleet planning. It is both Ownership 75% vs 50% and Control where US law is much more restrictive. I've asked this question before, without any response, but why does a US airline's CEO have to be an American Citizen? |
I agree but that is testable. Visit DG7 for law.
A EU CEO must also be a EU citizen. A test case was with a EU cargo carrier in Brussels. The CEO was American, but as he was married to a Belgium he had full right to EU citizenship. The law in effect is based on beauracrcy not logic.
USA 3000 has a British Citizen as COO.
AC (Canada) had an American who got a Canadian Passport - Robert Milton.
AA had Carty, wasn't he a Canadian?? And if he was a naturalized American, under Canadian law he would never lose his Canadian citizenship which is illegal under US law.
So in the end it is all protectionism, isn't it?
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: 7673mech, A320B737NGCapt, AC4500, airstatdfw, aloha73g, Angus1, ArtV, Austin787, AZORMP, azstar, B757236GT, BA744PHX, bananaboy, Bblake48, BC77008, Cboyle, CDGIAD, Channex737, davidjohnson6, DC10MD11, DEN1895, eugdjinn, flight152, FLYBY72, GroundStop, haveric, Ishrion, Jal1975, jbs2886, jimmy9irons, jumbojettony, karungguni, kbmiflyer, kriskarch, lhpdx, lhrnue, LongLayover, lw222, MrBretz, Nicknuzzii, Noshow, obelau24, Pilotmansam15, PSU.DTW.SCE, qfatwa, res77W, Rootsman, rtw4010, SantaBarbara, sfojvjets, steex, SumChristianus, TFlintoff24, TheWorm123, Tsull340, UPlog and 306 guests