V-Flyer

Well, that's that then, bye bye VS if that's the case, see here.

I do find it incredulous that VS could, if it wanted to, continue to grow at LHR without resorting to the tactics of spoiling to get thrown a few slots, and also that LGW, MAN, and GLA have loads of room to grow, as does BHX for example. I can't see however how these apocalyptical statements help VS's long term viability - even while agreeing with him that the Government's approach to air transport and LHR especially is akin to an ostrich, and sand.

Sorry, but I think this just SRB getting free column inches n( I agree that it hardly makes VS seem it is committed to the future

buns

Seems a load of flannel to me.

Nonsense and spin...

Trying blame the LHR 3 on the reason VS aren't expanding ??

Hasn't stopped others taking a foothold in for instance MAN (emirates being a classic example)..

Can see a major own goal with this announcement... To the advantage of BA

SRB just seems to be headline grabbing again, much like a week or so ago when he declared that BMI ought not to be sold, quietly go the way of the dodo, and VS then pick up the domestic slack.

I do wonder sometimes, for someone who has been so successful, if his brain engages fully before he opens his mouth. LHR isn't the only UK airport than can be expanded into - and despite having a vested interest in a third runway - I cant see the logic of throwing his toys out of the pram just because LHR isn't a viable expansion location at present.

Short sighted in the extreme.

I totally agree about headline grabbing, but it's increasingly looking like foot-in-mouth and own goal scenarios ... and frankly I'm getting fed up with it. But also, if someone who reads the Torygraph is thinking of booking a VS flight and reads that Virgin Group isn't going to invest, might they just think perhaps to plan with a competing carrier who looks like they are investing :w .

Put your time and attention into the airline, and stop whinging!

I've always favoured a 3rd runway at LHR but with only a limited expansion in slots (and none to be awarded to BA if I was running things). the 3rd runway would improve efficiency of landing and take off and bring the % occupancy down and help when there are weather/ATC delays etc

A 'new' London airport is all very well but whihc airlines are going to use it? Unless there is a decision to close LHR down and move ALL operations to the new site it is not going to work - that would take a very brave Government (and cost them a fortune in compensation to BAA unless BAA are given the operational rights)

Afterall how many airlines have swicthed from LHR to LGW because of the change in ownership (which was supposed to improve competition between them)

The LHR slots could have been obtained in VS wanted them for expansion. I seem to remember seeing somewhere that VS' overall slot allocation has gone down in the last few years.

Doesn't that fly in the face of the rational behind ordering the 787's? Longer range to fly direct to places such as Rio, Hawaii and Perth.

http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/tridion/ ... 523607.pdf

Darren Wheeler wrote:Doesn't that fly in the face of the rational behind ordering the 787's? Longer range to fly direct to places such as Rio, Hawaii and Perth.

http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/tridion/ ... 523607.pdf

Well, given VS history of aircraft ordering, let's expect them to be cancelled ... mind you, hasn't VS already taken the compensation for late delivery?

Hold on - many other airlines have increased frequency and/or added new routes in the last 5 years, from LHR.
So, where are they getting the slots from? My guess is, they bargained and bought them from someone.
Indeed, many many airlines have downscaled over the past 5 years due to the "blah blah tough economic times" etc. - Meaning either freely available or "for sale" slots must have been there to snap up, no?!

So why didn't VS just do that...?

Dont VS 'rent' out some of their LHR slots though to other airlines? Sure I read somewhere AF use (or did use) rented VS slots.

This probably goes on quite a lot as well between other airlines.

slinky09 wrote:Well, given VS history of aircraft ordering, let's expect them to be cancelled ... mind you, hasn't VS already taken the compensation for late delivery?

Interesting you should say that Slinky - I was in a meeting with the head of Airfield Ops Planning at LHR the other week, where the long term plans of airlines are looked at and matched up to possible infrastructure shortfalls (gates, airbridges etc) within the airport over a time frame of about 5/6 years. VS long term plan - which was submitted by VS in January - contains no mention of A380 requirements (in terms of double height gates), whereas BA is already constructing its engine test bays at LHR to handle the A380s they are getting in 2013.

Looks like we won't be seeing a VS branded A380 at LHR untill at least 2018.

I do wonder if HS2 will make much of a difference? I read that when it (finally) opens Birmingham International will be closer to central London then London Stansted. As it stands BHX is only an hour and 15 from Euston already.

I know LHR is seen as the centre of the world for UK travel, but is that really the case?

One interesting piece of research I would like to see is where are passengers into Heathrow coming from, or where is their destination once they arrive into LHR? How many are actually south of Watford?

On the five flights a day to NYC how many of those passengers would be better served from MAN or BHX with this being closer to their homes / work destinations?

Mat

Ah the well known self publicist found a mast. I was a bit worried, he had been quiet of late.

I can kind of see SRB's point about Heathrow, even if the article does smack a little of showboating. For all the talk of building a new London airport or spreading the burden amongst regional airports, unless there's a wholesale adoption of that from day one, you've got a problem with flight connections. For VS, which has a comparatively small route network, they need to fly to-and-from well-served hubs in order to fill their planes. I wouldn't be terribly keen, for instance, at the idea of flying into London then having to get a train connection to Birmingham to continue my journey. That's when a flight via Amsterdam starts to look like a more attractive proposition, sidelining the British carriers entirely.

Cutting Heathrow out of the discussion does seem like a mistake, and I say that as someone who was brought up living next to it. If Heathrow was to close, or at least be substantially shrunk in favour of an estuary super-airport, it would do an awful lot more damage to the economy stretching from Slough to Hounslow than the proposal to build a third runway in Sipson. Take a look at Google Maps - SIpson is remarkably low-density population given its proximity to a major international airport.

ASWinters744 wrote:Interesting you should say that Slinky - I was in a meeting with the head of Airfield Ops Planning at LHR the other week, where the long term plans of airlines are looked at and matched up to possible infrastructure shortfalls (gates, airbridges etc) within the airport over a time frame of about 5/6 years. VS long term plan - which was submitted by VS in January - contains no mention of A380 requirements (in terms of double height gates), whereas BA is already constructing its engine test bays at LHR to handle the A380s they are getting in 2013.

I don't think anyone actually expects to see a VS A380 ever - if VS paid any deposit for these I should think the money either went on A330s or will go toward A350s in time.

That leaves the 15 B787s ordered and due from 2015 is it? Do these replace A346s (big downsizing) or do they actually expand VS (as the press releases hinted at). If the latter, how does that connect to what SRB is saying.

Pete wrote:I can kind of see SRB's point about Heathrow

Absolutely agree about that - for any Thames estuary airport to work (and hasn't the location just been designated a protected area?), the government would have to force Heathrow to shut, which = massive compensation, tens of thousands would lose their jobs = massive cost, companies would incur large additional costs for all those located in the M4 corridor = massive additional cost. None of that is built into the plans. On the other hand, if I were BA and I forecast getting Heathrow to myself, I'd be rubbing my hands with glee.

By refusing to consider Heathrow in its review, this government is acting blindly and stupidly - which means it's purely political, not economic, not social, not integrated travel policy. Doh!

Another side to this, is how VS staff might feel about such a pronouncement.

If I worked hard for a company that essentially said (we're giving up on expanding in the UK and are looking abroad", I might feel a tad demotivated.

As for fleet plans, I wonder if there is one, or just an evolving shambles...

Honestly, what is the point?

Concorde RIP wrote:As for fleet plans, I wonder if there is one, or just an evolving shambles...

Honestly, what is the point?

The VS fleet plan is disjointed to say the very least; they just don't seem to be able to develop a coherent strategy towards growth or new aircraft.

Prime example is the way they have handled thier long term infrastructure requests at LHR. All the other major carriers have a clear timeline for delivery of new aircraft, and when they will come on stream...but VS, it's so, if you'll pardon the pun, up in the air.

We describe VS in our Ops briefings as Tipex Airways.

ASWinters744 wrote:We describe VS in our Ops briefings as Tipex Airways.

That is just brilliant ) .

Just my 2 cents worth. Looking at it another way I would say that Virgin like to have all options open - in terms of aircraft and routes and of course as enthusiasts you look forward to seeing new planes in VS livery and that once ordered they will arrive etc.

Can we not agree that the airline industry is a hugely dynamic industry where by the way to stay in business is to be able to have versatility and adapt to changing environments operating loads - climate change - oil prices adverse weather - global economy.

So you may have options on different fleet aircraft but the last thing an airline wants is to have 50 747s or -380: or other a/c flying around costing more to operate - fuel inefficient than be able to adapt to a new operating environment.

As much as many think it annoying - at times I would agree I would love to see a VS380. I think that to be able to still hold onto those delivery slots and have those options open is quite a strategic move. It eliminates having a white elephant in the room. As far as expansion in the UK is concerned - we will have to wait and see.

My thoughts are expand the regions, utilise Glasgow, Manchester and Gatwick, use aircraft like 330-300 and the 787 and 350 to have long haul routes without the need for connection open new markets an partner with European airlines that feed to the regionals, ie. Air France/KLM. To GLA and the GLA-MCO that's where they could have regional growth and a strategy.

What really holds UK aviation back is the government policy and legislation and that is where we should be fighting to lower the taxes on air travel .

I have a degree of sympathy with the argument that aviation in the UK is hampered by government policy - not sure many would have issues with that.

As for an airline keeping options open? Very sensible - fleet planning being but one element of the whole.

However, I'd expect an airline, like any business, to have a strategy and a plan for realising that strategy, with appropriate contingencies etc.

Where's VS strategy then.....?

It's all very well saying "dynamic industry", "at the mercy of oil prices", "cannot control natural or man made events" - but you'll never face all these challenges without a strategy to hang your decisions on. Every single business has risk, it's how you manage that risk.

There are other companies to whom this happened. Some realised their strengths and re-trenched, some realised their weaknesses and re-invented themselves, some dithered and failed.

Simplistic perhaps, but essentially sound business.

So, where does VS stand in the great scheme of things?

I think they're dithering...

sfolhr wrote:Just my 2 cents worth. Looking at it another way I would say that Virgin like to have all options open - in terms of aircraft and routes and of course as enthusiasts you look forward to seeing new planes in VS livery and that once ordered they will arrive etc.

From my experience, it's not a planned action by VS to 'keep all options open', it's a lack of strong leadership and coherent vision for the future of the airline.

No other airline at LHR is so disorganised when it comes to submitting long term plans, and I mean that quite subjectivly. Quite aside from the uncertainty this creates for passengers and crew, it is a pain in the arse for airfield management as we are effectively left guessing what space VS will require in 5 or 10 years.

VS has always held its cards close to its chest, but I fear this is now due to them holding a dud hand, rather than a royal flush.

slinky09 wrote:

ASWinters744 wrote:We describe VS in our Ops briefings as Tipex Airways.

That is just brilliant ) .

Well that's doing Tipex down !

There is at least some substance and sustainability about tipex!

tontybear wrote:

slinky09 wrote:

ASWinters744 wrote:We describe VS in our Ops briefings as Tipex Airways.

That is just brilliant ) .

Well that's doing Tipex down !

There is at least some substance and sustainability about tipex!

Actually I assumed the reference was because Tip-Ex used to contain a substance that could get you high, whereas these days it's a much more uninspiring concoction...