V-Flyer

Genuine questions, and I so so hope the answer is yes and it’s thriving. But I am worried, very worried. What’s everyone else’s views?

Probbaly yes but it won't be the same as it is now - mind you can say the same re many other airlines

How it changes I'm not sure but here are some rambling thoughts.

There will likely be fewer routes. Belfast and Glasgow removed from the schedules for a couple of years. Some fleet rationalisation so the 747s go sooner rather than later (same as other airlines are doing) in favour of more fuel efficient aircraft

I don't see them retrenching from LHR to LGW or vice versa - they will retain both. MAN probably left as is for the short term.

I can see a division between summer and winter routes so some places don't get year round services as now. More links with the joint venture partners so destinations are maintained even via connections.

Other changes to save / generate cash might include monetisation of clubhouses over and above the priority pass link up at some airports and more overt sales of CH access than at present - at least until pointy end numbers pick up.

Maybe closer working with AF-KL so they use club houses rather than have their own at some airports (they may be glad of the potential to save cash themselves) or VS use theirs but that depends on capacity and flight schedule times being compatible

Will be a drive to cut costs everywhere so perhaps less choice of booze brands and mixers - on board and in lounges. Elimination of inflight magazines to save weight (and fuel) and the costs of printing - will be available via download or via the IFE.

Reduced food choices so less options per course. An extension to pre ordering though with a wider range would still alllow a wider choice but reduce waste and costs). Upselling a better menu in economy and PE to earn some extra cash could be rolled out.

I hope Virgin is still around. I not a fan the way many are here, but I've had some decent experiences on VS and wish the staff well. The biggest obstacle they have is that they didn't make money when the going was easier, so it's hard to see how that do in much tougher times. I don't see BA as a monopoly, but I think the VS service on the routes they both fly certainly contributed to the recent improvements in CW. The way pretty much all other countries are protecting airlines suggests something will be found to accommodate VS.

Anyone’s view on twilight check in going?
I personally think it will go or a very much reduced service ie school holidays etc
But hey I’m no expert lol

I hope that this post finds you and your families safe and well.

I’ve been thinking about what the next few months might bring in the aviation sector in the UK, and how VS might chart a path through this.

Much of this is based on my view that the most likely scenario is that every airline will need further assistance from the state in some shape or form in order to get through the present catastrophe.

I think BA’s plan (which if I’m right is ruthless but commercially sound) is to hold off from seeking state aid from the UK for as long as possible in order to: (1) get rid of their most expensive staff; and (2) allow competitors (principally VS)to fail first.

They do this knowing that they are in a strong market position (lower cost base, less competition, no state interference) whether VS accept state aid and/or survive or not. They also know that it is highly unlikely the UK government would allow BA to fail (more so if VS and others have already failed (but the likes of Lufthansa, Air France, KLM remain). I don’t think this applies to VS in the same way as BA.

The recent news of IAG’s Spanish business accepting a state backed loan for Vueling and Iberia drives a coach and horses through IAG’s injection to state aid at group level, and probably also to the position at carrier level (especially if EI receives assistance from the Irish government).

I’m addition, the UK government seem to be realising the importance of the aviation sector to the economy and are preparing to step in.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-healt ... ing%20News


If there is no state aid, I think there is no better time than now for a UK airline to go through an administration process. Usually this kills it because the administrators can not operate the business under the AOC, but that is not a concern at present.

In short, I think VS has a good chance to emerge in some way shape or form, how it does I don’t know and whether it’s ownership will have changed I also don’t know, but I am confident that there will be “a” Virgin Atlantic flying after this is all over.

Dobbo wrote:If there is no state aid, I think there is no better time than now for a UK airline to go through an administration process. Usually this kills it because the administrators can not operate the business under the AOC, but that is not a concern at present.

Doesn't VS have more than 1 AOC though so they could technically still operate during an administration process couldn't they?

They set up a subsidiary company called Virgin Atlantic International Ltd several years ago which I believe has a separate AOC.

Dobbo wrote:I hope that this post finds you and your families safe and well.

I think BA’s plan (which if I’m right is ruthless but commercially sound) is to hold off from seeking state aid from the UK for as long as possible in order to: (1) get rid of their most expensive staff; and (2) allow competitors (principally VS)to fail first.

I've read similar in the news about BA seeking to reduce their cost base by getting rid of their most experienced staff that are on a higher salary contract from old. Something that they have wanted to do for a while but due to trade unions and bargaining power have not been able to. I see that now the bargaining power has changed however I do question how - legally speaking they can specifically get rid of legacy staff? Aren't policies typically that most recent hires are let go? I also would have thought that the more expensive staff on legacy contracts would be due far greater redundancy packages making this actually quite costly.

FLYERZ wrote:I've read similar in the news about BA seeking to reduce their cost base by getting rid of their most experienced staff that are on a higher salary contract from old. Something that they have wanted to do for a while but due to trade unions and bargaining power have not been able to. I see that now the bargaining power has changed however I do question how - legally speaking they can specifically get rid of legacy staff?

Because companies make roles, not people, redundant.

In the case of senior cabin crew at least, the roles and job descriptions on the different fleets are quite different. Eurofleet has Pursers. Worldwide has Cabin Service Directors and (I think they're now called) Customer Service Leaders. Mixed Fleet has Customer Service Managers who have very different responsibilities in terms of people management etc.

BA could say that the senior cabin crew roles on Eurofleet and Worldwide no longer fit the needs of the business and are being made redundant.

For BA cabin crew that joined the airline after 1997 the salary differences to Mixed Fleet are probably not that great. The real efficiency gain is from having all cabin crew at Heathrow doing both short and long-haul flying. The savings from this alone will run into tens of millions a year.

mitchja wrote:Doesn't VS have more than 1 AOC though so they could technically still operate during an administration process couldn't they?

They set up a subsidiary company called Virgin Atlantic International Ltd several years ago which I believe has a separate AOC.

Hi Mitch - it’s not my area, but I think the subsidiary would fall under the administration of the parent - I suspect it would make it easier to set up a pre-pack with the assets transferred to VAIL.

It might be a feasible option, but I don’t know the situation with a number of things, so it might not work in practice (eg what is the situation re the charges on slots if there is a change of control?)

FLYERZ wrote:

Dobbo wrote:I hope that this post finds you and your families safe and well.

I think BA’s plan (which if I’m right is ruthless but commercially sound) is to hold off from seeking state aid from the UK for as long as possible in order to: (1) get rid of their most expensive staff; and (2) allow competitors (principally VS)to fail first.

I've read similar in the news about BA seeking to reduce their cost base by getting rid of their most experienced staff that are on a higher salary contract from old. Something that they have wanted to do for a while but due to trade unions and bargaining power have not been able to. I see that now the bargaining power has changed however I do question how - legally speaking they can specifically get rid of legacy staff? Aren't policies typically that most recent hires are let go? I also would have thought that the more expensive staff on legacy contracts would be due far greater redundancy packages making this actually quite costly.

Again it’s not my area but BA would set out their headcount requirement and the types of roles within that, seek voluntary departures, then if not they would have to set out some justifiable (and lawful!) criteria to score remaining staff on in order to decide / select those it wants to keep.

Dobbo wrote:

FLYERZ wrote:

Dobbo wrote:I hope that this post finds you and your families safe and well.

I think BA’s plan (which if I’m right is ruthless but commercially sound) is to hold off from seeking state aid from the UK for as long as possible in order to: (1) get rid of their most expensive staff; and (2) allow competitors (principally VS)to fail first.

I've read similar in the news about BA seeking to reduce their cost base by getting rid of their most experienced staff that are on a higher salary contract from old. Something that they have wanted to do for a while but due to trade unions and bargaining power have not been able to. I see that now the bargaining power has changed however I do question how - legally speaking they can specifically get rid of legacy staff? Aren't policies typically that most recent hires are let go? I also would have thought that the more expensive staff on legacy contracts would be due far greater redundancy packages making this actually quite costly.

Again it’s not my area but BA would set out their headcount requirement and the types of roles within that, seek voluntary departures, then if not they would have to set out some justifiable (and lawful!) criteria to score remaining staff on in order to decide / select those it wants to keep.

Another factor is statutory redundancy pay. The longer you've served for the company, the more they would have to pay you to leave, but this is capped. In any case, I would have thought the unions would negotiate a settlement that goes above what BA are required to pay by law.

I know things can change fast in aviation, but it would seem VS are still planning ahead for next year...

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-03may20/

One that catches my eye is the yet-to-be-launched Manchester-Delhi route going year-round 3x weekly, with LAX moving to the A330-300.

VS075 wrote:I know things can change fast in aviation, but it would seem VS are still planning ahead for next year...

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-03may20/

One that catches my eye is the yet-to-be-launched Manchester-Delhi route going year-round 3x weekly, with MAX moving to the A330-300.

I think this illustrates the importance of VS’s development at MAN to the north of England (and I hope the north of England’s importance to VS).

If VS survives, and it’s a big if, I hope this focus on growing at MAN continues.

VS075 wrote:
Another factor is statutory redundancy pay. The longer you've served for the company, the more they would have to pay you to leave, but this is capped. In any case, I would have thought the unions would negotiate a settlement that goes above what BA are required to pay by law.

In one email / statement i saw BA made it clear that unlike previous head count reductions that hey would not be offering anything more than their contractual / statutory requirements.