VS in the Economist..

Doesn't make for a very positive read if you're a fan of VS, thought I'd share for those that perhaps hadn't seen it.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2014/10/virgin-atlantics-woes

Not exactly encouraging is it

It's not, but I think it's probably quite a fair assessment.

VS just about held its own against BA as the sexy little British maverick. But the increasing might of the three global alliances and the aggressive competition from high quality far & middle eastern carriers leaves it looking very isolated.

In the grand scheme of things VS is a tiny player and its best chance of survival is as Delta UK in all but name. The current strategy may be unpopular with loyal FFs but the old one clearly wasn't working.

I agree. I think the viability of an international airline flying to destinations around the world largely on a once daily schedule is very limited outside of the US. I love VS and fortunately travel with them largely to the US and Caribbean but from all other destinations VS faces an uphill struggle. They're facing the reputation and market share of BA, the ME3 who dominate Asia and Australasia as well as 3 airline alliances. I don't see any room for VS to grow to be perfectly honest and if we look elsewhere in Europe (France, Spain, Netherlands) their markets are dominated by the flag carriers (AF,IB,KLM) or low cost carriers. There are no secondary full service airlines like VS in these markets and I guess there's a reason for that.... The closest secondary airline I could think of is Air Berlin to Lufthansa. They also have the benefit of higher demand in domestic flights, as well as european/short haul feeders which VS don't.

Maybe it would be better if VS solely concentrated on the USA and the Caribbean and try to expand that market ,just a thought

That's pretty much what's happening Blacky.

At LGW, MAN and GLA they're continuing to focus on the profitable holiday routes to MCO, LAS and the Caribbean. If, as rumoured, a couple of the ex-LHR 747s transfer to the LGW fleet in 2015/16 they may expand those routes still further.

While at LHR they're increasingly focusing on providing connections through DL's main hubs (ATL and DTW) while using the smaller but more cost-effective 333s and 787s to increase frequencies and therefore more effectively compete with BA at JFK, LAX, SFO & MIA.

Gumshoe, I've just posted that indeed VS have increased number of flights from Glasgow next year and I was wondering what metal would be doing it, looks like you've answered my question.

One thing that concerns me about the article is the 44% load factor, is this just the Manchester route? As the article states (but wrongly rolls out over other routes) the MAN flight has plenty of competition from other modes such as train so it will only be transfer passengers using those flights. Tbh I was surprised when LR started the MAN flights in the first place, or at least using a jet and not a Q400.

Edinburgh and Aberdeen however are a different kettle of fish. Business users cannot go by train to London and back from Edinburgh in the same day. Longhaul passengers will not go by train if they have connecting flights. I would be surprised if the load factors on these flights are as bad, so really we're looking at one route out of 3 performing poorly. So pull the MAN route.

So basically another rehash of the "LR to close" story? Those of a conspiratorial frame of mind may wonder what is going on....

Gumshoe, I've just posted that indeed VS have increased number of flights from Glasgow next year and I was wondering what metal would be doing it, looks like you've answered my question.

One thing that concerns me about the article is the 44% load factor, is this just the Manchester route? As the article states (but wrongly rolls out over other routes) the MAN flight has plenty of competition from other modes such as train so it will only be transfer passengers using those flights. Tbh I was surprised when LR started the MAN flights in the first place, or at least using a jet and not a Q400.

Edinburgh and Aberdeen however are a different kettle of fish. Business users cannot go by train to London and back from Edinburgh in the same day. Longhaul passengers will not go by train if they have connecting flights. I would be surprised if the load factors on these flights are as bad, so really we're looking at one route out of 3 performing poorly. So pull the MAN route.

MAN probably has the lowest overall loads, but it has the highest proportion of passengers connecting into or off long haul flights which was, of course, the whole raison d'être of LR.

I'm also sceptical about the 44% load stat - it's not up to date and from my own experience and that of other V-Flyers, flights have been getting progressively busier this year. EDI in particular.

But given the three MAN slots at LHR are VS's to do as they please with - unlike the ABZ and EDI slots which are heavily restricted - it may well be that the powers that be decide they'd be more profitably used on TATL routes.

The story is current although the figures are from May. There is no doubt that if things don't rapidly improve the bean counters from Delta will be looking at all of VS operating costs. Deltas own business product, like AA and UNITED is a lot less jazzy and more akin to BA. To these bigger airlines profit is king and even if VS added more passengers it's not necessary going to yield the same profit. IAG even though BA is returning good profits is still enhancing I.e. Extra seats on short haul aircraft less legroom in club Europe, so I think that VS will eventually be pressured by Delta to cut costs even further and we can expect further "enhancements" in the clubhouses and on board .