Virgin America Elevate - Virgin needs to add more routes from DFW

Currently my two choices are LAX and SFO, which is good, since I go and visit a special person in LAX :)

However, it would be great if they had a flight into Chicago, Boston, and NYC.

Currently my two choices are LAX and SFO, which is good, since I go and visit a special person in LAX :)

However, it would be great if they had a flight into Chicago, Boston, and NYC.

I think you have wait to bring more aircraft. You will see it. Try to be more patiently for a while. If they have enough aircraft availability. VX will able start more new route from DFW.

Currently my two choices are LAX and SFO, which is good, since I go and visit a special person in LAX :)

However, it would be great if they had a flight into Chicago, Boston, and NYC.

I think that VX will eventually start more service from DFW, but it will take a while. They need more aircraft and also have to determine if taking on AA will be of value.

Currently my two choices are LAX and SFO, which is good, since I go and visit a special person in LAX :)

However, it would be great if they had a flight into Chicago, Boston, and NYC.

Slinger, where you already a member of a legact FF program out of DFW? With the fare war going on, I can't tell if the people crowding VX/AA out of DFW are just fare shoppers or truly interested in finding a new airline...

I think that VX will eventually start more service from DFW, but it will take a while. They need more aircraft and also have to determine if taking on AA will be of value.

Right. I think you have wait for a while. If they have enough more aircraft available. Try to be more patiently for a little bit longer.

It would seem an unprofitable idea for VX to go up against AA's major hub, as well as UA and DL, which feed from DFW to their hubs. It would seem a better idea for VX to establish a mid-country hub (e.g. MCI, STL, MEM) where competition would be less fierce. AA will not stand by and let VX take any measurable amount of traffic away from them without crushing VX with unprofitable fares.

It would seem an unprofitable idea for VX to go up against AA's major hub, as well as UA and DL, which feed from DFW to their hubs. It would seem a better idea for VX to establish a mid-country hub (e.g. MCI, STL, MEM) where competition would be less fierce. AA will not stand by and let VX take any measurable amount of traffic away from them without crushing VX with unprofitable fares.

Very true. DFW is a dumb station for VX to be in. They don't have the ground strength to assault AA, and the flying public is happy to have VX around not to give them any business, but because it lowers AA tariffs. When VX is forced to withdraw in this war of attrition the locals will resume complaining about high AA prices.

I strongly agree (and have said so on other threads) that VX ought to adopt a value-fund strategy when it looks for stations. Stop beating its head against the wall in ORD and DFW and find underappreciated, underserved places where it can unlock demand: MCI, STL, MEM, yes but also CVG, PIT, ABQ, TUS, IND, MSY, CMH. There are lots of underserved airports with tumbleweeds blowing down empty concourses where the local Chamber of Commerce would slay the fatted calf for the VX welcome gala. In DFW, though, nobody notices.

I consulted for a little while with a small west coast-based steakhouse chain that will never expand into Las Vegas or New York because the competition is so fierce and they'll get killed... they pick out second-tier cities like Scottsdale and Minneapolis where they'll be seen as a top-five restaurant overnight. Smart. VX should do that.

Very true. DFW is a dumb station for VX to be in. They don't have the ground strength to assault AA, and the flying public is happy to have VX around not to give them any business, but because it lowers AA tariffs. When VX is forced to withdraw in this war of attrition the locals will resume complaining about high AA prices.

I strongly agree (and have said so on other threads) that VX ought to adopt a value-fund strategy when it looks for stations. Stop beating its head against the wall in ORD and DFW and find underappreciated, underserved places where it can unlock demand: MCI, STL, MEM, yes but also CVG, PIT, ABQ, TUS, IND, MSY, CMH. There are lots of underserved airports with tumbleweeds blowing down empty concourses where the local Chamber of Commerce would slay the fatted calf for the VX welcome gala. In DFW, though, nobody notices.

I consulted for a little while with a small west coast-based steakhouse chain that will never expand into Las Vegas or New York because the competition is so fierce and they'll get killed... they pick out second-tier cities like Scottsdale and Minneapolis where they'll be seen as a top-five restaurant overnight. Smart. VX should do that.

I'm not convinced they can unlock demand out in the Midwest on second-tier airports. Didn't seem to work for Skybus and Independence Air. It's not working so well for Frontier in MKE.

It seems to me what VX should be doing is flying where people want to go, and ignore the fact that some of those places may be DL hubs, or US hubs, or UA hubs, or AA hubs. Work on bridgeheading the most popular city pairs from SFO/LAX, and go from there.

It seems to me what VX should be doing is flying where people want to go.... Exactly -- people in those underserved cities want to go to SFO, LAX, LAS, BOS, NYC. To your point about F9, I'm not convinced anybody wants to go to MKE, and Skybus and Independent Air were such ill-conceived, stillborn operations, I don't think they really bear comparison to VX. Skybus was trying to get people to fly from Bellingham, Washington to Columbus, Ohio, for goodness sakes, in miserable tuna-can conditions. VX could be trying to get people to fly from MSY, CVG, STL, MEM, etc. to SFO and LAX in great conditions. A little different story.

Exactly -- people in those underserved cities want to go to SFO, LAX, LAS, BOS, NYC.

Sure, but not in enough numbers to really even make 1x319 service reasonable, let alone carpet-bombing 4x/5x.

Also consider that a lot of VX's proposition is their F, and most importantly, getting people to pay for it. Really, there are legions of people in flyover country aching to drop a couple grand on MCI-SFO?

Everything I've seen, going back to Branson and Cush talking about the target market, indicates that VX is primarily going for urban dwellers with disposable income and a tech skew. This doesn't fit OMA and ABQ. At all. It does fit places like SEA and PDX, MSP and ATL, though. So that's where I think they should be firing their guns.

I might add that WN has a much better pitched product for the markets you are suggesting (all-coach, so no having to worry about finding people to buy F seats in smaller markets that don't have demographics like the Bay Area), a keen sense for finding niches to make money, and it would be easy-peasy to route Texas/Chicago-Midwest-LAX/SFO-intra-California/LAS/PHX/PDX... and doesn't. If you're telling me this is a hugely profitable market that somehow WN is completely overlooking, even though they have better ability to exploit it than VX does, in terms of what they could offer, you have a fairly high burden of proof to convince me. (And the sad truth is that NYC is so slot-restricted that it would be madness to pass up much larger markets to fly ABQ-JFK.)

Sure, but not in enough numbers to really even make 1x319 service reasonable, let alone carpet-bombing 4x/5x.

Also consider that a lot of VX's proposition is their F, and most importantly, getting people to pay for it. Really, there are legions of people in flyover country aching to drop a couple grand on MCI-SFO? Only 8 seats per F cabin, so you don't need "legions" -- you need about 6 per flight, coaxed over from UA or DL or AA. I think it's eminently doable if they improved frequencies and the FF program.

As for the gross numbers... sometimes market share is swiped and sometimes it's created. The example that always sticks in my mind is one I saw in the early '80s when I was a young reporter covering transportation issues in Burlington, VT. PeoplExpress opened BTV-EWR with a couple of stretch 727s. Everyone laughed because BTV was mainly serviced by Twin Otters and F27s, but the traffic swarmed out of the woodwork! Soon PE was running six or seven 727s a day through there. Imagine -- 1000 enplanements a day for EWR and beyond, from a county of only 35,000 or 40,000! Nobody would have believed it, but PE drew customers from all over with its unique proposition: cheap seats, full-size jets, good connections. Then when they went bust BTV quieted down again, and today except for B6 the traffic is mostly RJs with expensive seats. But the point is VX, or anyone thinking outside the box, has the power and potential to change the game anytime.

They're not really changing anything right now, though, with their dainty and cautious nibbling at major markets they'll never crack. As Wayne Gretsky said, you miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take.

PeopleExpress was an all-coach, no-frills airline flying secondhand jets, no? Sounds more like G4 than VX (and G4 is doing what you are suggesting- expanding into a lot of places without lots of service out in the boonies... and is making much more profit than VX is). I don't know if that model would work for VX.

Another huge factor now that wasn't a problem back then is costs are a lot higher, mostly due to fuel. 1000 enplanements at really low prices could have turned a profit in the 80s, but now ALL airlines are running at really thin margins, so the PE model back then simply wouldn't work now.

...the PE model back then simply wouldn't work now. Not saying the PE model remains valid... simply saying innovation, of whatever sort, can make markets when most people are sitting back shaking their heads and saying X or Y will never work. VX seems paralyzed in this respect.

My son, who is a private pilot and plugged into pilot culture, confirms remarks posted elsewhere in this forum about VX morale being rock-bottom and heading south. Pilots depressed about way-low pay rates are decamping en masse. It's such a shame... you've got a great product, a formerly motivated workforce and an industry and public screaming for alternatives... and nothing's happening owing to cautious, unimaginative management and marketing.

The USA as a whole pays pilots fairly low compared to other countries like Europe/Asia/Australia. But VX drags that statement down even further, to Skybus levels.

Its got to the point where VX flight crew obviously see no potential or point in hanging around, especially if there is some sort of profit-scheme involved. They can head to Asia or Australia where the market is booming and earn $140,000 as a F/O and well over $200,000 for a Captain just with a LCC. Europe is the same. EK needs shitloads of flight crew over the next few years, good starting point for those looking for invest in the future.

Its got to the point where VX flight crew obviously see no potential or point in hanging around, especially if there is some sort of profit-scheme involved. They can head to Asia or Australia where the market is booming and earn $140,000 as a F/O and well over $200,000 for a Captain just with a LCC. Europe is the same. EK needs shitloads of flight crew over the next few years, good starting point for those looking for invest in the future.

Exactly -- when my son finishes school he'll be eyeing the Far East as a work base, not the States. There's unlikely to be much of a future for him here, but China alone will need something like 63k pilots in the next 10-15 years. It's sad on many fronts but we'll be encouraging him to emigrate and not look back.

...AA will not stand by and let VX take any measurable amount of traffic away from them without crushing VX with unprofitable fares.



Yet AA will willingly publish fares below break-even to fill planes against a competitor 1/15 their size. If anything is getting crushed, it's AA's ability to make profit domestically. With a strategy like this, its no wonder an AA bankruptcy is rumored just around the corner.

The USA as a whole pays pilots fairly low compared to other countries like Europe/Asia/Australia. But VX drags that statement down even further, to Skybus levels.

You know what happened to Skybus? They losing the money due to high costs of the fuel. Which is why SX CEO who have no choice to cease operation. It was reason why it's spend too much money to paying the fuel. It's won't be disappointing for Skybus. Why they never save the money to boost more specific route and etc. Why can't have connectivity the flight through CMH. It's extremely importance for the passengers' rights to needed put on next flight out. Those passengers who don't have to pick it up the bags at baggage claim and doesn't need to recheck-in again. It will save the time to put on next flight.

Very true. DFW is a dumb station for VX to be in. They don't have the ground strength to assault AA, and the flying public is happy to have VX around not to give them any business, but because it lowers AA tariffs. When VX is forced to withdraw in this war of attrition the locals will resume complaining about high AA prices.

I strongly agree (and have said so on other threads) that VX ought to adopt a value-fund strategy when it looks for stations. Stop beating its head against the wall in ORD and DFW and find underappreciated, underserved places where it can unlock demand: MCI, STL, MEM, yes but also CVG, PIT, ABQ, TUS, IND, MSY, CMH. There are lots of underserved airports with tumbleweeds blowing down empty concourses where the local Chamber of Commerce would slay the fatted calf for the VX welcome gala. In DFW, though, nobody notices.

There is no longer such a thing as an "underserved" market in the deregulated airline environment of today. If a market enjoys less service today than yesterday, it is only because some smart people understand the importance of deploying assets to where the best possible return on investment appears. VX is smart in going to ORD and DFW; they offer more opportunities to earn revenue in rock solid business markets by 12 noon than the other markets you mentioned combined. MCI, STL, MEM, CVG, PIT, IND, and CMH were all hubs for airlines at one point...they now join the large pile of failed airline strategies since deregulation.

There is no longer such a thing as an "underserved" market in the deregulated airline environment of today. If a market enjoys less service today than yesterday, it is only because some smart people understand the importance of deploying assets to where the best possible return on investment appears. VX is smart in going to ORD and DFW; they offer more opportunities to earn revenue in rock solid business markets by 12 noon than the other markets you mentioned combined. MCI, STL, MEM, CVG, PIT, IND, and CMH were all hubs for airlines at one point...they now join the large pile of failed airline strategies since deregulation.

Having a hub in one of those cities isn't the same as serving them - 1x daily SFO-STL or LAX-PIT (for instance) might work quite well.

Still, I do agree that there aren't really 'underserved' markets, but the real question is can they actually earn that revenue in ORD or DFW? If they just get into fare wars with AA or anyone else, then the might as well have the planes serve routes that don't have the potential of ORD or DFW, but actually pull more revenue.

Yet AA will willingly publish fares below break-even to fill planes against a competitor 1/15 their size. If anything is getting crushed, it's AA's ability to make profit domestically. With a strategy like this, its no wonder an AA bankruptcy is rumored just around the corner.

AA is one of the few U.S. legacy carriers not to have reorganized. Even if (and appears more likely) they go Ch 11, it is unlikely they would concede any of their major routes from DFW to another carrier (e.g. SFO AA passengers would still connect through DFW for many int'l routes). I would think a station like MEM, which has mostly regional jets and is DL's less significant hub, would be a better choice for mid-continent routing and competitiveness.

Still, I do agree that there aren't really 'underserved' markets, but the real question is can they actually earn that revenue in ORD or DFW? If they just get into fare wars with AA or anyone else, then the might as well have the planes serve routes that don't have the potential of ORD or DFW, but actually pull more revenue.

Introductory fares are just that; introductory. They are in place to let new markets acquaint themselves with the level of service and amenities VX offers over AA in the hard product category; something not terribly hard to do nowadays. By offering ridiculously low fares in new markets, the customer can try a new entrant without the substantial risk and regret accompanied by a full fare. Once a critical mass is achieved, no doubt you'll see substainable fares emerge. Try pricing VX in the LAX to FLL/JFK in F class. You'll see what I mean.

The USA as a whole pays pilots fairly low compared to other countries like Europe/Asia/Australia. But VX drags that statement down even further, to Skybus levels.

Its got to the point where VX flight crew obviously see no potential or point in hanging around, especially if there is some sort of profit-scheme involved. They can head to Asia or Australia where the market is booming and earn $140,000 as a F/O and well over $200,000 for a Captain just with a LCC. Europe is the same. EK needs shitloads of flight crew over the next few years, good starting point for those looking for invest in the future.

Very poorly researched statement. Historically, US carriers lead the way in compensation and working conditions. Southwest pays their Captains an industry leading scale; without widebodies, over-water, red-eyes, or international flying. True, some of the int'l carriers like CX, EK, QR may offer generous compensation and benefits, but you need it when you fly to the 3rd world armpits they do in order to attract talent. Additionally, without a pilot's union, EK crews are substantially more "productive" i.e. fly way more hours than a comparable american crewmember with the same type rating. If there is any issue about pilot pay discrepencies, blame the US pilot unions. They helped institutionalize the system that lavishes 6 figure salaries for B777 and B747 captains flying under 400 hours a year, at the expense of new hire regional jet and turboprop first officers, who make less than a bartender at Applebees.

Introductory fares are just that; introductory. They are in place to let new markets acquaint themselves with the level of service and amenities VX offers over AA in the hard product category; something not terribly hard to do nowadays. By offering ridiculously low fares in new markets, the customer can try a new entrant without the substantial risk and regret accompanied by a full fare. Once a critical mass is achieved, no doubt you'll see substainable fares emerge. Try pricing VX in the LAX to FLL/JFK in F class. You'll see what I mean.

Agreed- and I don't think VX's introductory fares, which were $149-ish, were that outrageously unprofitable on SFO/LAX-ORD/DFW (in other words, I think VX wasn't really giving away the store- if AA was going to be hurt it was going to be because VX starts bleeding off paid F fares, plus it will be harder for them to fill cabins with higher fares once a slug of seats enters the market) . I've booked similar fares on AS out of SEA. Consider that a couple of years ago VX was flying $99 o/w transcons...

The bottom line I think is that VX needs to be flying to the "big cities" first, ORD and DFW being two of the obvious candidates, but there are still more out there (MSP, ATL and so on). I just don't think JFK-ABQ or LAX-OMA are going to work very well.

Agreed- and I don't think VX's introductory fares, which were $149-ish, were that outrageously unprofitable on SFO/LAX-ORD/DFW (in other words, I think VX wasn't really giving away the store- if AA was going to be hurt it was going to be because VX starts bleeding off paid F fares, plus it will be harder for them to fill cabins with higher fares once a slug of seats enters the market) . I've booked similar fares on AS out of SEA. Consider that a couple of years ago VX was flying $99 o/w transcons...

The bottom line I think is that VX needs to be flying to the "big cities" first, ORD and DFW being two of the obvious candidates, but there are still more out there (MSP, ATL and so on). I just don't think JFK-ABQ or LAX-OMA are going to work very well.

That being said; I priced out SAN-DAL/DFW R/T midweek on UA/CO/AA/DL and found nothing better than $543-$625 all in Y non refundable. WN was no better than $230, with the obligatory stops and plane changes in various armpits in the southwestern US. Yet VX priced LAX-DFW R/T at under $200 with all taxes and fees! So of course I booked it.

Made me think; if the legacies can extract a yield premium in the SAN - DFW market, and VX still has $89 o/w 7 days out from LAX with a flat out superior hard product; then something is amiss here. Either its the glaring lack of head to head LCC competition in the SAN-DFW citypair; or time sensitive SAN based travelers are just out of luck when needing something in this city pair. $625 in Y with no additional miles or status accrual seems way too pricey for a mileage run. (To be fair I did price LAX-DFW on AA and found plenty of availability at the $89 o/w fare 7 days out; just didn't feel like making the commute to fly in AA's tired Y cabins.)

Very true. DFW is a dumb station for VX to be in. They don't have the ground strength to assault AA, and the flying public is happy to have VX around not to give them any business, but because it lowers AA tariffs. When VX is forced to withdraw in this war of attrition the locals will resume complaining about high AA prices.

I strongly agree (and have said so on other threads) that VX ought to adopt a value-fund strategy when it looks for stations. Stop beating its head against the wall in ORD and DFW and find underappreciated, underserved places where it can unlock demand: MCI, STL, MEM, yes but also CVG, PIT, ABQ, TUS, IND, MSY, CMH. There are lots of underserved airports with tumbleweeds blowing down empty concourses where the local Chamber of Commerce would slay the fatted calf for the VX welcome gala.


Very few though that have sufficient volumes of O&D traffic, and specifically corporate and premium O&D traffic, to make an airline hub/focus city work.

Of your potential airports, STL, PIT and CVG might work, but aside from those three I can't think of any underserved airport that has the type of Fortune 500 HQ penetration to support extensive operations from an airline like VX.

Even those three, despite having good corporate HQ presences, may still not be big enough in overall population/O&D traffic terms to support VX's niche model.

AA is not what it was when Legend tried to set up shop in the DFW area. I would suggest that DFW is exactly the type of market that VX needs to be in: lots of overall population; lots of corporate (strong penetration of Fortune 500 HQs) and premium traffic; lots of urban affluents; business links to VX's other focus cities...

I would suggest that DFW is exactly the type of market that VX needs to be in: lots of overall population; lots of corporate (strong penetration of Fortune 500 HQs) and premium traffic; lots of urban affluents; business links to VX's other focus cities...

There is a familiar pattern to assaults by gadfly entrants on fortress hubs. It goes like this:

1. Locals resent hostage pricing by entrenched hub airline, complain endlessly.
2. Upstart competitor plants flag with lower prices on cherry-picked city pairs.
3. Entrenched hub airline matches the upstart's prices, perhaps throws in 2X bonus miles. Locals cheer.
4. Locals ignore upstart, happily book hub carrier for cheap, bank miles, praise effects of competition.
5. Upstart entrant exits sadly. Hub airline raises prices back where they were before.
6. Locals resent price hikes by entrenched hub airline, resume complaining endlessly.

As predictable as the rising and setting of the sun, and no good for VX.

VX offers a superior product than AA-- so while I fly AA, when I go to LAX or SFO I still give some business to VX b/c I want them to stay in DFW. Itd be great if they added flights to NYC- certainly there would be enough market for that. DFW/ORD would not be wise as that is the second largest AA hub.

Giving "some" business to VX is helpful, but that is not enough to keep it viable at DFW. AA offers 10 flights to/from SFO - VX offers 3. It's difficult to imagine that VX can compete on routes where AA so dominant.

There is a familiar pattern to assaults by gadfly entrants on fortress hubs. It goes like this:

1. Locals resent hostage pricing by entrenched hub airline, complain endlessly.
2. Upstart competitor plants flag with lower prices on cherry-picked city pairs.
3. Entrenched hub airline matches the upstart's prices, perhaps throws in 2X bonus miles. Locals cheer.
4. Locals ignore upstart, happily book hub carrier for cheap, bank miles, praise effects of competition.
5. Upstart entrant exits sadly. Hub airline raises prices back where they were before.
6. Locals resent price hikes by entrenched hub airline, resume complaining endlessly.

As predictable as the rising and setting of the sun, and no good for VX.

I'd like to point out that in SFO, AA got kicked off of SFO-BOS, despite showering DEQM. So it's not as grim as you portray.

I'd like to point out that in SFO, AA got kicked off of SFO-BOS, despite showering DEQM. So it's not as grim as you portray.

AA was already weak and retrenching at SFO; I'm sure the VX effect hasn't helped at all.

I'd like to point out that in SFO, AA got kicked off of SFO-BOS, despite showering DEQM.

AA was already weak and retrenching at SFO; I'm sure the VX effect hasn't helped at all.

Neither SFO nor BOS were / are fortresses for AA. Not the hills the airline is prepared to die on.

PeoplExpress opened BTV-EWR with a couple of stretch 727s. Everyone laughed because BTV was mainly serviced by Twin Otters and F27s, but the traffic swarmed out of the woodwork! Soon PE was running six or seven 727s a day through there. Imagine -- 1000 enplanements a day for EWR and beyond, from a county of only 35,000 or 40,000! Nobody would have believed it, but PE drew customers from all over with its unique proposition: cheap seats, full-size jets, good connections. Then when they went bust BTV quieted down again[.]

So you would advise VX follow the PE model - to its logical end?

Not sure that is such a smart idea.

[S]o the PE model back then simply wouldn't work now.

I don't think the PE model worked that well back then either, obviously.

So you would advise VX follow the PE model - to its logical end? PE went bust not because it is a dumb idea to stimulate new traffic, but because the airline didn't have the data systems back-of-house to support strategic yield management and revenue optimization. AA ran PE into the weeds with superior software, not lower prices or better airplanes or service. It's a different world today. I would advise VX to stimulate traffic outside impregnable fortress hubs, but buy a computer or two for backup which I suspect they've already done. :)

I don't think the PE model worked that well back then either, obviously.

It worked like gangbusters as long as PE wasn't competing directly with the legacy carriers. As a pipsqueak newbie flying BUF-EWR for $19 PE did very well. When they entered EWR-ORD hourly and EWR-LWX for $99, etc., the legacies took notice. Playtime was over and they lowered the boom. PE's history was 50% incredible success, 40% increasing struggle, then the last 10% mortal chaos and cratering.