prismwiz

I believe AA has JFK flights and AS has EWR flights from SEA-NYC.

Hawaii would require ETOPS for the A320's and is at the end of their range, in case of high head winds there is not a landing strip 200 miles away from ITO.

I will agree that VX is not a hub and spoke airline because its "hubs" are not in good connecting places (SFO is the farthest west major airport in the Continental USA). However, VX not adding routes like SEA-SAN which has one airline going 13X a day with high yields shows that they are bound by a SFO/LAX mentality that will eventualy kill them.

flyboy777

Yes, AS/AA have flight to New York but not really with any frequency, enough to satisfy the demand for an AMERICAN or ALASKA flight on the route. I wouldn't consider either to be a major player on the route.

Yes, ETOPS would be required. A319 is well in range of Hawaii with headwinds since the overall flight times are very similar. A320 family aircraft can stay in the air for hours upon hours & I'm not talking the -LR or ACJ versions. BMED (now bmi) fly it's fleet exclusively on sectors this length from Heathrow to the Middle East & Africa.

prismwiz

Based on a random date (3/27/08) AS has 2 SEA-EWR flights, AA has 1 SEA-JFK flight, CO has 3 SEA-EWR flights, DL has 3 SEA-JFK flights, and B6 has 1 SEA-JFK flight. Although, in the summer B6 adds an additional SEA-JFK flight. Excluding the summer seasonal B6 flight, you wouldn't consider AS with 1/5 if the flights to be a major player. AS and AA combined bring 3 flights, equal to DL or CO.

Sorry, I read your post as the A320 would be the plane, not the A319, my bad.

nermaljcat

Isn't there a requirement that the plane has to be able to complete the distance on one engine if it is over open ocean?

I remember reading something about that somewhere... I think it might have been in an article about the 777 or 787? Maybe I'm imagining things? I'm sure there would be many ppl here who could clarify either way.

audio-nut

Ouch, not more transcon. VX does not have the cash reserves to fight transcon battles.


SX is not a hub and spoke airline. NK should now be considered a hub and spoke airline. WN might not be hub and spoke but they funnel a lot of traffic over certain "hubs" (i.e. BWI).

Is it clear? There is enough demand on each short haul route to justify service. Connectivity is just the icing on the cake.

prismwiz

SX is hub and spoke just as Alligent and Ryan Air are hub and spoke airlines, they put everyone through their hubs where their planes are based. SX has GSO and CMH. NK is some P2P (DTW/ATL/MYR routes) and some hub (FLL). WN is P2P with enough critical mass that connections naturally happen. The truth is that VX will expand and fight for survival but unless there is an extraordinary occurance like UA pulling out of SFO/LAX, oil going down to $70 barrel, or foriegn ownership laws are voided VX will die a quick and painful death like DH. I hope to be proven wrong because no young airline deserves to die.

BOS and ORD/MDW will most likely be opened but unless there is a radical change into profit VX may not be around long enough to open PDX or BUR (cities they should open)

audio-nut

I guess we differ on what the word "hub" means. I consider a hub to be a place to connect passengers, thus FR, SX and G4 are point to point carriers. You take a hub to mean a base of operations. Your definition makes almost every airline in the world a hub and spoke carrier, including WN and B6.

I think a young airline deserves to die if their business plan is flawed. VX's plan is flawed at $100/barrel oil. IMO it's also flawed at $70/barrel oil.

Word on the street is that things are getting very tense at the Burlingame office.

flyboy777

ETOPS is an acronym for Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards, an International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rule permitting twin-engined commercial air transports to fly routes that, at some points, are farther than a distance of 60 minutes flying time from an emergency or diversion airport with one engine inoperative. ETOPS is also known in the air transport industry by the tongue-in-cheek backronym Engines Turn or Passengers Swim.

This rule allows twin-engined airliners�such as the Airbus A300, A310, A320, A330 and A350 families, and the Boeing 737, 757, 767, 777 and 787 and Tupolev Tu-204 �to fly long distance routes that were previously off-limits to twin-engined aircraft. Contrary to popular/mistaken belief, ETOPS operation has no direct correlation to water, nor distance over water. It refers strictly to single-engine flight times between suitable diversion airfields; regardless as to whether such fields are separated by water, deserts, polar expanses, recurrent (i.e. night-time) airport closures, etc.

ETOPS may be replaced by a newer system, referred to as LROPS, an acronym for Long Range Operational Performance Standards, which will affect all civil airliners, not merely those with a twin-engine configuration. Government-owned aircraft (including military) do not have to adhere to ETOPS. Until the mid-1980's, the term EROPS (extended range operations) was used before being superseded by ETOPS usage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

B777s & A330s were the first aircraft to be designed as ETOPS out of the box, eg. the were certificated from the very begining. Airbus A320 family aircraft could get this certificate easily as (I think) it's awarded based upon a number of hours without engine shutdowns. Hawaii will need about 180 minutes given that it's a 6 hour overwater flight...

nermaljcat

Thanks for that ^ I knew it was something along those lines.

Why doesn't Airbus or Boeing certify their newer versions of the a320 and a319? Perhaps they fear they would sell less of the longer range aircraft?

prismwiz

I use the word "hub" to mean different things for different airlines. For the standard legacy airline like DL or AS I use the word "hub" to conotate connecting. For LCC's like G4 or SX I define their hubs as bases that have their only flights, FA and pilot bases. SX has CMH and GSO. G4 has LAS/SFB/PIE/FLL/IWA/BLI and UTA (last two added recently). G4 only has flights to where they base their planes, SX's only non-CMH/GSO route is PSM-PGD or UST. B6 is not a hub and spoke airline because of their willing to add P2P flights like SLC-BUR and SAN-SEA. WN is not a hub and spoke airline because they fly only P2P routes with connecters being the icing.

Maybe VX does deserve to die, but at their funeral I will weep (figuretivly) real tears. I only bicked $70bbl because that seemed like an unreasnably low # (amazing, 8 years ago oil was near $10bbl). I would hope things are getting tense in Burlingame, I (and everyone else paying attention) could tell you that!

audio-nut

Fair enough. People in the industry would disagree. A carrier that doesn't offer connections doesn't have a hub. Look at the FR route map vs the WN route map. Very similar, yet you call WN a point to point carrier and FR a hub and spoke carrier yet FR will not let a passenger book a connection itinerary and WN will. In fact I would argue that WN on the east coast has built a true connecting hub at BWI. How much of the PVD/ALB/BDL/BUF/ISP/PVD-BWI traffic is O&D? I bet less than 60%.


Maybe I was being a bit coy. I will not disclose the rumors I have heard except to say that VX management now is aware how grim the situation is. I don't think they will make 2009.

707Flyer

Don't dispute what you're saying, you're probably right, but then why did they just announce they were hiring another 1000 people? Why did SRB say they were running ahead of the plan to be profitable in 2 yrs? Why did Fred Reid say loads were "running north of 80%"?

nermaljcat

IMHO codesharing would increase loads a lot. They may not serve many cities yet, but if they could connect you to your destination on another partner, that'd increase their traffic.

Looks like I'll be flying YEG->SFO (and then around the US) towards the end of next month. I'm thinking that I'll fly YEG->SEA on Air Canada, then hop on a VX SEA->SFO flight. If VX was part of *A, then that option would automagically be presented to me on aircanada.com or virginamerica.com and I wouldn't have to explicitly book it that way.

I'm guessing that V Australia will be looking to code-share with VX in Q4 this year, when they start SYD->LAX. I'm surprised VS haven't already (LHR->SFO?).

It would also allow a lot of ppl who are not familiar with VX to try their product (and if Red is installed, like it ).

prismwiz

VX will never be a part of *A, UA would veto. What would codesharing give VX? VS and V Australia would give minimal benifit to VX, only benifiting the other airlines. What airlines would want to codeshare with VX? Other than VS and V Australia.

aviators99

Because audio-nut is talking about rumors, not fact. At least that's how he characterized it. You need to assign it the weight it deserves.