V-Flyer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12148145

Will be interesting to see if BA or any other airline joins in.

I will be interested to see how this ends up.

Story here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12148145








Edited by mod: Threads merged to avoid duplication....Neil

BAA says there is nothing in the T&Cs about an airline being able to withold fees.

Maybe BAA should just tell Virgin - no pay = no fly.

It's what VS/BA etc would do to a pax who hadn't paid.

It's good publicity isn't it. Whatever happens, it gives the impression that VAA are doing something for their passengers, and it's made the news. Nice bit of spin goign on here I think.

Any publicity is good publicity...

VS have a piont probably, but then it could just go round in circles - and then there's the whole "BA leaving their planes on stand" thing - no-one will win the argument, but it's all good publicity...

locutus wrote:It's good publicity isn't it. Whatever happens, it gives the impression that VAA are doing something for their passengers, and it's made the news. Nice bit of spin goign on here I think.

Personally, I don't think it is. I can't be the only one thinking that VS are very quick to point the finger, especially when it may have a financial gain for themselves. I wish they would just get back to running an innovative, quirky airline and cut the courts, the PR spin and political statements.

Dubaiification - reading your comment made me nod my head, you've a very good point and I hadn't looked at it that way.

Thanks for the thought...

tontybear wrote:
It's what VS/BA etc would do to a pax who hadn't paid.

Perhaps not to one of their top 3 passengers in the world though? As VS probably are to BAA if you get what I mean!

Yes Alex I see what you mean but even though VS are the 2nd biggest airline at LHR it is (I think) only something like 10% of flights and I would imagine that there are other airlines who would hapily take up the slots and the terminal space.

As to financial gain it depends what is in the regulatory regime about this sort of disruption (the same one that gives refunds to airlines (not pax) if things like seating and cleanliness don't meet the set standards). If there is nothing in the regieme then VS has a beef with the CAA and not with BAA.

Not saying that is right but that is the position.

Of course it really is just a PR exercise as VS will have been through their contracts and regulations so know they won't get very much back from BAA.

After from free air time, seems like pointless posturing to me.

Surprised SRB didn't turn up in a santa outfit with a shovel (oh, and some unfeasibly clad elves in tow of course)

I also agree, this is a pointless waste of time. It is of absolutely no benefit for any VS pax.

I'm on the fence here.

Partly thinking it's free publicity and back to the good old days of being the little guy fighting the big, monopolistic behaviour with associated bad service.

However I also agree with mitchja, there is no tangible benefit to us passengers.

Dubaiification wrote:

locutus wrote:It's good publicity isn't it. Whatever happens, it gives the impression that VAA are doing something for their
passengers, and it's made the news. Nice bit of spin goign on here I think.

Personally, I don't think it is. I can't be the only one thinking that VS are very quick to point the finger, especially when it may have a financial gain for themselves. I wish they would just get back to running an innovative, quirky airline and cut the courts, the PR spin and political statements.

I believe they're just using a leaf out of Ryanairs marketing book! (how scary!). To use this as a marketing campaign to show they do 'care' about their pax and what happened to them due to the disruption.

It's sad that easyJet don't fly from LHR, SRB and Stelios could rock up to some random location in London (Houses of Parliament) in an orange snow plough with randomly dotted girls in bikinis clinging on to fully drive this campaign home.