Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

Only Slightly OT - Virgin win EDI & ABZ Heathrow routes

Only Slightly OT - Virgin win EDI & ABZ Heathrow routes

Old Dec 10, 2012, 11:14 am
  #121  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The home of tennis
Programs: BA bronze
Posts: 1,470
Originally Posted by PotNoodle
This just seems like a costly mess, I reckon they won't last long beyond 3 years. Don't get me wrong I hope it does succeed though.

Why didn't the Competition regulators just give the slots directly to Aer Lingus instead of this confusing arrangement? EI is a semi-LCC so would probably be cheaper without a costly wet leasing and Virgin branded excersize.
Whats confusing about a Virgin branded aircraft, crew in Virgin uniforms and a Virgin flight number?

Speedbird218 is offline  
Old Dec 10, 2012, 12:16 pm
  #122  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: City of Kingston Upon Hull
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 4,936
Originally Posted by RobDBA
Originally Posted by PotNoodle
This just seems like a costly mess, I reckon they won't last long beyond 3 years. Don't get me wrong I hope it does succeed though.

Why didn't the Competition regulators just give the slots directly to Aer Lingus instead of this confusing arrangement? EI is a semi-LCC so would probably be cheaper without a costly wet leasing and Virgin branded excersize.
I guess it's because this is the short term solution for Virgin to get everything up and running quickly, I can't imagine they would plan to run the routes long term in this way.

So the cynical would say it is so they can hold the slots with minimal investment until they can convince the authorities to let them use the slots for long haul routes. The less cynical view is that once they have proved the routes are viable they will buy their own airframes and employ their own staff, we'll see....
Feel free to count me as a cynic.
kanderson1965 is offline  
Old Dec 10, 2012, 12:27 pm
  #123  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: City of Kingston Upon Hull
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 4,936
Originally Posted by ian001
Originally Posted by BApilotinsider
Mr WW doesn't seem to think the Virgin brand will last long...

http://www.businesstraveller.com/new...-may-disappear
And Richard Branson responds:

http://www.virgin.com/richard-branso...going-anywhere

Usual childish rubbish from SRB, has he not heard the adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Be interesting if someone took up the 49% stake on offer and then decided that they wanted the airline run their way. I know that SRB has an effective veto with his 51% share however I cannot imagine a buyer becoming a sleeping partner.

My money FWIW, is on WW long term.

Last edited by kanderson1965; Dec 10, 2012 at 1:28 pm
kanderson1965 is offline  
Old Dec 10, 2012, 12:28 pm
  #124  
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges and Environmentally Friendly Travel
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 22,200
Originally Posted by RedMark
Current cheapest BA return from ABZ-LHR is 147 return ( was 98 when bmi was still alive) so lead in fares from Virgin of 99 will do nicely.

Did think they might up the quality of food to take on BA but with Virgin being 48 cheaper no real problem.
If BA were to price match VS on these lead in fares, the net fare would be around 70p each way. What's the bus fare from Castle Street to Holburn Junction these days?
Prospero is offline  
Old Dec 10, 2012, 12:31 pm
  #125  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Programs: BA Gold, Hilton Honors Diamond, Mucci de buveur de gin
Posts: 3,060
1.10 - shocking!
stu1985 is offline  
Old Dec 10, 2012, 1:02 pm
  #126  
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,348
From the Bloomberg wire: " The average fare between Glasgow and Heathrow has increased 34 percent since BMI dropped flights and left the route to British Airways, Virgin Atlantic said. An assessment by the European Union antitrust regulator found that competition out of Londons Gatwick and City airports did not seem to constrain the ability of IAG to increase its prices significantly on the Heathrow-Glasgow route, even for economy restricted fares.
orbitmic is offline  
Old Dec 10, 2012, 1:43 pm
  #127  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Aberdeen
Programs: BA Silver BD Silver
Posts: 305
Originally Posted by Prospero
Originally Posted by RedMark
Current cheapest BA return from ABZ-LHR is £147 return ( was £98 when bmi was still alive) so lead in fares from Virgin of £99 will do nicely.

Did think they might up the quality of food to take on BA but with Virgin being £48 cheaper no real problem.
If BA were to price match VS on these lead in fares, the net fare would be around 70p each way. What's the bus fare from Castle Street to Holburn Junction these days?
Put it this way let's hope First never start an airline !
RedMark is offline  
Old Dec 10, 2012, 1:46 pm
  #128  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The home of tennis
Programs: BA bronze
Posts: 1,470
Originally Posted by kanderson1965
Usual childish rubbish from SRB, has he not heard the adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Be interesting if someone took up the 49% stake on offer and then decided that they wanted the airline run their way. I know that SRB has an effective veto with his 51% share however I cannot imagine a buyer becoming a sleeping partner.

My money FWIW, is on WW long term.
If you own 49% of a privately owned company and one other shareholder owns 51%...you can only ever be a sleeping partner.

218
Speedbird218 is offline  
Old Dec 10, 2012, 2:16 pm
  #129  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 3,500
Originally Posted by Prospero
If BA were to price match VS on these lead in fares, the net fare would be around 70p each way.
Ha! BA would get more like 40 of the 100 fare.
710 77345 is offline  
Old Dec 10, 2012, 2:19 pm
  #130  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: City of Kingston Upon Hull
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 4,936
Originally Posted by Speedbird218
Originally Posted by kanderson1965
Usual childish rubbish from SRB, has he not heard the adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Be interesting if someone took up the 49% stake on offer and then decided that they wanted the airline run their way. I know that SRB has an effective veto with his 51% share however I cannot imagine a buyer becoming a sleeping partner.

My money FWIW, is on WW long term.
If you own 49% of a privately owned company and one other shareholder owns 51%...you can only ever be a sleeping partner.

218
If that is the case what would be the point of investing to such an extent? I expect this will be the outcome, no one will want a 49% non controlling share, too much risk with too little control. The alternative, a larger number of minority shareholders with shallow pockets and potentially less interest in the business due to lower stake.

Best thing to do is sell the 49 % back to SRB, as he is so passionate about "his" airline, and let him sink or swim.
kanderson1965 is offline  
Old Dec 10, 2012, 2:26 pm
  #131  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The home of tennis
Programs: BA bronze
Posts: 1,470
Originally Posted by kanderson1965
If that is the case what would be the point of investing to such an extent? I expect this will be the outcome, no one will want a 49% non controlling share, too much risk with too little control. The alternative, a larger number of minority shareholders with shallow pockets and potentially less interest in the business due to lower stake.

Best thing to do is sell the 49 % back to SRB, as he is so passionate about "his" airline, and let him sink or swim.
SQ have had a non controlling interest for a number of years. You might be better to ask the SQ board on the reason why they invested in VS.

Branson owns 51% Unless he decides to sell enough shares to give someone else a controlling interest...he will be the majority shareholder.

Those are the facts.
Speedbird218 is offline  
Old Dec 10, 2012, 2:46 pm
  #132  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: City of Kingston Upon Hull
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 4,936
Originally Posted by Speedbird218
Originally Posted by kanderson1965
If that is the case what would be the point of investing to such an extent? I expect this will be the outcome, no one will want a 49% non controlling share, too much risk with too little control. The alternative, a larger number of minority shareholders with shallow pockets and potentially less interest in the business due to lower stake.

Best thing to do is sell the 49 % back to SRB, as he is so passionate about "his" airline, and let him sink or swim.
SQ have had a non controlling interest for a number of years. You might be better to ask the SQ board on the reason why they invested in VS.

Branson owns 51% Unless he decides to sell enough shares to give someone else a controlling interest...he will be the majority shareholder.

Those are the facts.

I am not disputing the facts, however I personally would not find holding such a large share in a company without having any control of it an attractive investment.
We can only speculate as you say as to why SQ found it attractive at the time but obviously it is no longer attractive to them, and in the present economic climate, probably anyone else.

Maybe the Chinese may want to take a punt, but would any established airline want to? I can't really see what they would get for the money, they couldn't even liquidate the slots without a controlling interest.
kanderson1965 is offline  
Old Dec 10, 2012, 2:54 pm
  #133  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The home of tennis
Programs: BA bronze
Posts: 1,470
Originally Posted by kanderson1965
I am not disputing the facts, however I personally would not find holding such a large share in a company without having any control of it an attractive investment.
We can only speculate as you say as to why SQ found it attractive at the time but obviously it is no longer attractive to them, and in the present economic climate, probably anyone else.

Maybe the Chinese may want to take a punt, but would any established airline want to? I can't really see what they would get for the money, they couldn't even liquidate the slots without a controlling interest.
I may have missed something here, but I don't seem to remember anyone in the thread asking you to buy SQ's stake in VS!
Speedbird218 is offline  
Old Dec 10, 2012, 3:02 pm
  #134  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New York
Programs: BA, LH, VS, Hyatt, SPG
Posts: 3,813
Originally Posted by Speedbird218
If you own 49% of a privately owned company and one other shareholder owns 51%...you can only ever be a sleeping partner.

218
But that's not what DL is going to be. If the off the record briefings are correct, the investment is a pre-cursor to a joint transatlantic business between DL and VS. That business depends not only on regulatory approval but the quality of the relationship between the two parties and if DL is expected to be treated as a silent partner the joint-business will sink. DL is not buying into a heavily loss making business facing major strategic issues to be a silent equity partner.
ian001 is offline  
Old Dec 10, 2012, 3:19 pm
  #135  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: City of Kingston Upon Hull
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 4,936
Originally Posted by Speedbird218
Originally Posted by kanderson1965
I am not disputing the facts, however I personally would not find holding such a large share in a company without having any control of it an attractive investment.
We can only speculate as you say as to why SQ found it attractive at the time but obviously it is no longer attractive to them, and in the present economic climate, probably anyone else.

Maybe the Chinese may want to take a punt, but would any established airline want to? I can't really see what they would get for the money, they couldn't even liquidate the slots without a controlling interest.
I may have missed something here, but I don't seem to remember anyone in the thread asking you to buy SQ's stake in VS!
No, I am not normally in the business of buying airlines. I was only trying to suggest that it may not be an attractive investment for those that do. I suspect you also knew that is what I was implying.
kanderson1965 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.