![]() |
Don't forget the Virgin group only owns 25% of DJ.
|
And DJ has brought in ex-QF management in a big way (who seem to be intent in converting DJ from what it was to be what they wanted QF to be).
|
Originally Posted by Traveloguy
(Post 14558741)
Don't forget the Virgin group only owns 25% of DJ.
Originally Posted by number_6
(Post 14559365)
And DJ has brought in ex-QF management in a big way (who seem to be intent in converting DJ from what it was to be what they wanted QF to be).
|
Originally Posted by justin_krusty
(Post 14560633)
Plenty of rumours about that they are losing patience in getting a license to use the Virgin brand internationally (blocked by SQ, hence PB & VA), and may rebrand the entire group as VA or something similar. This would help signal a change from the old regime.
Perhaps they can purchase the Ansett name off the administrators and re-brand the airline into what it fast appears to becoming. (the positive bits that is) :D |
Originally Posted by Traveloguy
(Post 14562836)
I would not be surprised to see this happen.
Perhaps they can purchase the Ansett name off the administrators and re-brand the airline into what it fast appears to becoming. (the positive bits that is) :D |
Originally Posted by Lonely Flyer
(Post 14563389)
Why would you want to rebrand it Ansett.
Most importantly it means that the company (DJ) can consolidate over 1 brand rather than 4 it currently uses which is bizarre since they are not really trying to segment their market in the QF/JQ kind of way. |
Originally Posted by Lonely Flyer
(Post 14563389)
Why would you want to rebrand it Ansett.
|
Originally Posted by Traveloguy
(Post 14563585)
Recognised brand and can be used both within and out of Australia. It also has an emotional attachment for many Australians. As it has been a while since the brand was around, most negative aspects of the brand have faded leaving most people aware of only the positive.
Only to the elderly and any positives have faded. Its relationship with NZ will only bring back anger as was it not NZ that drove it into the ground after being severely beaten by previous owner Pete Abels Most importantly it means that the company (DJ) can consolidate over 1 brand rather than 4 it currently uses which is bizarre since they are not really trying to segment their market in the QF/JQ kind of way. |
Originally Posted by justin_krusty
(Post 14560633)
Plenty of rumours about that they are losing patience in getting a license to use the Virgin brand internationally (blocked by SQ, hence PB & VA), and may rebrand the entire group as VA or something similar. This would help signal a change from the old regime.
In a rash of DJ stories from that site:-
|
Given they have dropped NZ domestic (from OCT), I presume the logical chice would be Virgin Australia and rebrand Pacific Blue, Virgin Blue and V Australia into the common name branding.
|
Originally Posted by bugayev
(Post 14563669)
It also gets SQ off their back in terms of the whole naming thing, and allows them (being Ansett) to re-enter the Star Alliance.
Somne key points from their prospectus http://www.virginblue.com.au/cms/gro...t/u_000658.pdf Page 70 - Virgin Group own the "Virgin" and "Virgin Blue" names - License agreement until 2015 - Name is licensed until 2015 - Can only be used for domestic and no other worldwide places (presumably to protect Virgin's chances of franchising the brand in other markets) and the interesting bit - 0.5% royalty on revenue patable to Virgin Group. Capped at 1.5 times the amount paid at end of 31 MArch 2004 So no mention of SQ blocking anything (wives tale)..... and it seems that Virgin Group have been losing out on commission due to the cap. So presumably any blocked roads over the "Virgin" name are about commission payable going forward as currently PAc Blue and V Aus would not be paying commission. |
Originally Posted by AN_Boy
(Post 14661806)
If oyu look at the Virgin Blue prospectus - there is nothing about SQ blocking the name. It is actually Virgin Group (which has no SQ ownership) that has the restrictions on the Virgin Blue brand licensing.
... So no mention of SQ blocking anything (wives tale) The prospectus no doubt states the true legal position. But SQ's clout through its part-ownership of VS would give it ample political power to persaude Virgin Enterprises to block any wider licensing of the Virgin name. You wouldn't expect that to get written up in a prospectus, would you? |
All pretty interesting - the last few years when I have flown down to the Australian Open, the Umpires Information Sheet has said (something along the lines of) "Please indicate your flight preferences - note, we will use the best pricing between Qantas, Virgin Blue, Jetstar and Tiger Airways, as well as others, to get you to Melbourne as economically for Tennis Australia as possible."
This year, it says: ".........Please be aware that VirginBlue is a sponsor of Tennis Australia, accordingly flights will be booked on VirginBlue where practicable." The last few years of umpiring, QF have been a major sponsor ot the Australian Open, and QF have got the majority of the flights as far as officials are concerned. DJ seems to have spent some serious bucks here...... Dave |
SQ blocking is not a wives tale. It was communicate to me by a mate who is quite senior management at V Australia.
As for the Australian Open, DJ realised their sponsorships weren't returning on their investment. With the tennis, and Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras they are contracting the organisations they sponsor to force sales through their attendees to DJ, such as Flight Centre's Mardi Gras packages. |
Originally Posted by Globaliser
(Post 14661453)
I notice that Branson had something to say about this: Virgin name to stay – Branson
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:08 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.