As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

In message

, at 14:36:43 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Recliner
remarked:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...cus-on-US.html

Interesting, I hadn't seen that.mi suppose it reflects Virgin's change if
ownership, with Singapore's 49% being sold to Delta, which is using Virgin
almost as an offshoot. I imagine it can feed a lot more of its frequent
fliers from the US on to Virgin's transatlantic routes than it could the
routes to Asia and Africa. But it's still sad to see Virgin pulling back
from its world network (having dropped it's hard fought-for Sydney route a
while ago).

Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was
Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an
iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less for
the same.
--
Roland Perry

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at 14:36:43 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Recliner remarked:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...cus-on-US.html

Interesting, I hadn't seen that.mi suppose it reflects Virgin's change if
ownership, with Singapore's 49% being sold to Delta, which is using Virgin
almost as an offshoot. I imagine it can feed a lot more of its frequent
fliers from the US on to Virgin's transatlantic routes than it could the
routes to Asia and Africa. But it's still sad to see Virgin pulling back
from its world network (having dropped it's hard fought-for Sydney route a
while ago).

Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was
Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an
iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less for the same.

Not quite the same: Virgin Atlantic is still 51% owned by Branson, whereas
he owns very little of Virgin Media which, as you say, is really just a
rebranded NTL. Delta, like Singapore Airlines, wouldn't be allowed to buy a
majority share of Virgin Atlantic. I think it also can't be seen to control
an EU airline, just as Branson had to fight hard to prove he didn't control
Virgin America. Protectionism is alive and well in the airline industry.

SQ never really integrated with Virgin Atlantic, and seemed to treat it
more as an arms length investment rather than an associate (they didn't
even share lounges at Heathrow, nor combine fleet orders). Branson was
always closely associated with VS's management, which he's never been with
Virgin Media, where he just appears in some of the ads. SQ eventually
decided to put its investment up for sale, and when the change did happen,
it didn't affect Virgin's operations as there was minimal integration. SQ
made a loss on the sale, and probably wished it had never made the
investment.

It looks like Virgin, like other European airlines, has been hit hard by
the Middle East Big Three airlines, making some of its long haul Asian,
Australian and African routes unprofitable. It seems to be returning to its
roots (and name), to concentrate on its US routes (where it doesn't have to
compete with Emirates, etc), particularly to Skyteam hubs. I guess VS will
soon join Skyteam, whereas it never joined Star during its many SQ years.

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message

, at 14:36:43 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Recliner
remarked:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...cus-on-US.html

Interesting, I hadn't seen that.mi suppose it reflects Virgin's change if
ownership, with Singapore's 49% being sold to Delta, which is using Virgin
almost as an offshoot. I imagine it can feed a lot more of its frequent
fliers from the US on to Virgin's transatlantic routes than it could the
routes to Asia and Africa. But it's still sad to see Virgin pulling back
from its world network (having dropped it's hard fought-for Sydney route a
while ago).

Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was
Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an
iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less for
the same.

I don't care

But what I do care about is that it helps to prove my prove my point, that
if you have all of the infrastructure required to operate extra flights to
the US, in competition with 6 other airlines, or to obscure parts of the Far
East competing with no-one ...

the extra flights to the US win hands down.

(The fact that the parts of the Far East Virgin have pulled out from aren't
actually obscure, is even more compelling IMV)

I hear Recliner's point that there is obviously extra demand from airlines
to fly these flights from LHR and that if they were allowed to do so the
costs of the expansion would be paid for easily.

But what I don't buy, is all is nonsense that the extra runway will help the
general economy by providing frequent flights (and hence possibilities of
new trade) to (/from) dozens of new (new world) locations - cos it wont.

tim

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

In message

, at 15:19:19 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Recliner
remarked:

Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was
Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an
iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less for the same.

Not quite the same

I'm quite sure it's much more "the same" than the picture you paint
(that picture being what they want us to believe).
--
Roland Perry

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

In message , at 21:22:23 on Wed, 3 Sep
2014, tim..... remarked:

Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was
Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an
iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less
for the same.

I don't care

But what I do care about is that it helps to prove my prove my point,
that if you have all of the infrastructure required to operate extra
flights to the US, in competition with 6 other airlines, or to obscure
parts of the Far East competing with no-one ...

Except I do agree with Recliner that there's been massive new
competition on the Far East routes, and as well as Singapore throwing in
the towel from that direction, the new buyer is clearly interested in
feeding more customers to its own domestic routes.

the extra flights to the US win hands down.

(The fact that the parts of the Far East Virgin have pulled out from
aren't actually obscure, is even more compelling IMV)

I hear Recliner's point that there is obviously extra demand from
airlines to fly these flights from LHR and that if they were allowed to
do so the costs of the expansion would be paid for easily.

But what I don't buy, is all is nonsense that the extra runway will
help the general economy by providing frequent flights (and hence
possibilities of new trade) to (/from) dozens of new (new world)
locations - cos it wont.

It already is, so the only effect of a new runway will be "more of the
same", rather than "stuck at the current amount".

On the other hand, if Gatwick gets the runway, expect Heathrow flights
that don't generate transit (aka hubbing) passengers to be displaced by
ones which do. The result being that Heathrow will become even more
hub-orientated, even if the number of flights a day remains the same.
--
Roland Perry

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

In article , (Mizter T) wrote:

On 03/09/2014 13:50, Roland Perry wrote:
[...]
Gatwick is as convenient to get to and from as Heathrow for us in
Cambridge.

But presumably Stansted is far better than either?

Yes, but with very limited destinations. Almost nothing outside
Europe. And even then, the last two European trips booked by household
members used different airports (in particular Gatwick for one on
account of route availability). And of course Stansted is famously no
good for the USA, although during the short periods when that
continent was available, we did use it.

I wouldn't say the destinations reachable from Stansted were "very
limited"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...port#Passenger

How many destinations outside Europe? (OK, I see there's a flight to Las
Vegas planned for next year).

Just because most destinations are in Europe doesn't equate to the
airport serving "very limited destinations" - that would mean just a
few destinations, and there are in fact many.

It's some time since I found they had flights to somewhere I was actually
trying to fly to.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
04:38:40 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, remarked:
Gatwick is as convenient to get to and from as Heathrow for us in
Cambridge.

And Birmingham even more convenient (by road anyway, it probably ties
with Gatwick or Heathrow by train from Ely, except at unsocial hours
when the train services deteriorate).

Rail access to Birmingham airport from Cambridge is much worse

It's not "much" worse, most of the day. I know that the Journey
Planners add a pessimistic connection time at Kings Cross, but the
headline figures are identical from Ely (not everyone lives in
Cambridge, you know!) For all I know the connection times at New
Street have similar pessimisms built in.

The trouble is that you are stuck with such idiocies when booking advance
tickets. And Cambridge is over 6 times the size of Ely, by the way.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 2014-09-03 12:41:52 +0000, David Cantrell said:

If you lived in, for example, Hastings, which airport would you prefer
to go to? Obviously Gatwick, yet Hastings is neither near Victoria or a
Thameslink station.

There are modes of transport other than trains. Luton and Stansted
are mainly reached by car and taxi, and serve a wide area of the Home
Counties and East Anglia as such. Indeed Luton is to a fairly
significant extent a "South Midlands and Home Counties Airport"
rather than a London one.

It's not a convenient airport to reach from Cambridge. It might be if there
was better public transport between there and Hitchin.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

In article , (Mizter T) wrote:

*Subject:* As predicted, Boris Island sunk
*From:* Mizter T
*Date:* Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:27:41 +0100

On 03/09/2014 14:53, Recliner wrote:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:40:12 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

On 02/09/2014 07:57, Recliner wrote:
To no-ones's surprise, Boris Island hasn't made the airport
expansion short
list. Indeed, it's only pressure from Boris that left it on the
list for so
long at all. So what remains are three options, two for Heathrow
expansion,
and one for Gatwick. The business vote strongly favours Heathrow,
but
Gatwick is easier politically. The decision is due after the
election, and
I wonder which will win?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29026484


Gatwick. Eventually.

So why all the procrastination then? The reason they keep deferring
the decision is that Heathrow is the only one that makes economic
sense, but it's politically very difficult. The only safe time to
choose it is right after an election.


It's political dynamite! The parties policies on the airports
question going into the general election could be interesting - that
said, they might well just say 'we'll follow the recommendations of
the Airports Commission', when said recommendations (when they
arrive) aren't likely to offer such an easy get out of jail free
card. Individual candidates might do their own thing anyway.

My reckoning is that Heathrow expansion will ultimately just be too
politically toxic a path to take (remember the widespread pre-2010
opposition).

If a decision was made to expand Heathrow, I wouldn't necessarily
consider that the end of the story.

A bit like student tuition fees then? Kicked into the long grass by the
Labour government with a muddled implementation by the coalition.

I reckon a Labour government would expand Heathrow because they don't have
enough marginal seats at stake. The Tories have some big troublemakers if
they try to do the same. Didn't Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) threaten to
resign and cause a byelection? And Justine Greening (Putney) blocked it
while Transport Secretary and got moved for her pains.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

"tim....." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ...
In message
, at 14:36:43 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Recliner
remarked:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...cus-on-US.html

Interesting, I hadn't seen that.mi suppose it reflects Virgin's change if
ownership, with Singapore's 49% being sold to Delta, which is using Virgin
almost as an offshoot. I imagine it can feed a lot more of its frequent
fliers from the US on to Virgin's transatlantic routes than it could the
routes to Asia and Africa. But it's still sad to see Virgin pulling back
from its world network (having dropped it's hard fought-for Sydney route a
while ago).

Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was
Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an
iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less for the same.

I don't care

But what I do care about is that it helps to prove my prove my point,
that if you have all of the infrastructure required to operate extra
flights to the US, in competition with 6 other airlines, or to obscure
parts of the Far East competing with no-one ...

the extra flights to the US win hands down.

(The fact that the parts of the Far East Virgin have pulled out from
aren't actually obscure, is even more compelling IMV)

I think Virgin lost out to the ME3 on flights to places like Bombay, Cape
Town and Sydney; flights to Delta hubs in the US will be more profitable.
Even BA has pulled all of its Australian routes other than to Sydney, and
Qantas has had to switch its alliance on the Kangaroo route to Emirates.


I hear Recliner's point that there is obviously extra demand from
airlines to fly these flights from LHR and that if they were allowed to
do so the costs of the expansion would be paid for easily.

But what I don't buy, is all is nonsense that the extra runway will help
the general economy by providing frequent flights (and hence
possibilities of new trade) to (/from) dozens of new (new world) locations - cos it wont.

There will be flights to more Asian and maybe South American destinations,
but the first-time new routes take a while to build up large enough loads
to be profitable. Additional flights to the big US hubs can be profitable
much quicker.

For example, BA now has direct flights to Chengdu in China, but I gather
that load factors are lower than the new Austin route. BA probably won't
add additional Chinese cities until Chengdu is in the black. But it
probably wouldn't have added it at all if it hadn't got the bmi slots.