Yes, F9 has been selling those 4 Airbus aircraft. What about A320 will being accepted delivered is coming in February 2008, am I right? I'm sure F9 will gets which specific routes will be taken from DEN. Because F9 has been reduction some Mexican flights. It doesn't good enough the loads some specific cities from USA-Mexican.

i'm guessing... based on everyone's comments about the need for more planes for vx to service this route... that the miami route ain't happening anytime soon. no?

Is there anyway to monitor the delivery of VX aircraft? Wikipedia has this info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_Deliveries

Not sure how accurate it is though? And I'm guessing it doesn't include the IFE fitting etc.

I hope they get lots of planes soon. Then they'll be free to start opening more routes.

I don't understand the table. Why are some of the "opr"s greater than the "del"s? I assumed "opr" stands for operating?

Answering my own question:

Apparently they are operating leased or 2nd-hand aircraft until orders can be fulfilled. Anyway, I was able to get up-to-date information from Airbus.com, and the correct number for A320 is 19 ordered, 9 delivered, 14 in operation (same as on wikipedia). I think those extra 5 would work great for SFO-MIA and LAX-MIA. ;-)

I don't think your plan would acheive much. Just a very stawn out network. VX, as a relatively small & growing airline needs to concentrate it's resources on places where it wants to gain market share. By simply allocating aircraft to single daily frequencies, what do you acheive. Besides, there are more than enough options for those 300 SAN-MIA pax with other carriers.

If your saying that VX is stupid to think about JFK-MIA, then they were stupid to go SFO/LAX-JFK! They can penetrate the market if they focus their resources & tey started off on one of the toughest, yet high profile markets of them all. I have a feeling that they plan to add trans cons & join the dots on the west coast from SFO & LAX. JFK will see services to MIA. I can see the following happening.

SFO/LAX to PDX/DEN/MIA
JFK-MIA
SEA-JFK (eventually - although this is probably just to make me feel better)

Which is extremely expensive. well pointed out. when Virgin ATLANTIC looked at upgrading there B747-200s with a new IFE system, it worked out cheaper buying new B747-400s with the system already installed. That's how muc interiors can cost, especially ones as complicated as VX's

The difference between SFO/LAX and JFK/MIA is that they have a *far* more compelling product than the competition in SFO/LAX. JFK/MIA would mean competing with JetBlue and their most popular route. Although it is a more compelling product than JetBlue to people like me, I don't think it would be to the majority of travelers on that route.

Yes, VX was stupid to attempt SFO/LAX-JFK as a start up route. Stay out of JFK all together unless VX wants to feed INTL flights. WN worked fine staying out of NYC/BOS. Not that I don't want VX in JFK, as a pax I love it because I often go to NYC to see family, but competition is just too much.

VX should look at O/D with minimal service so they can set their own airfare. On SAN-MIA most people prefer a non-stop, definetly enough to capture 1/2 of the traffic on a 1X daily A320. VX would have market share under my plan, just in less competitive markets like SAN and SEA. Add JFK and ORD later, focus on routes where VX can set their own prices and not have to deal with slots in the future.

VX's route planners are probally not giving SEA-JFK more than a glance, if B6 won't increase SEA-JFK to 2X daily year round there is not enough market in the premium LCC niche. VX shouldn't compete against B6, F9, WN, or FL especially, not without a FF program that attracts biz pax.

If VX were to open JFK-MIA with their limited JFK slots then B6 would cut some JFK-NE flying, add 1X daliy E190 NE-FL and use the saved slots for JFK-MIA.

I think that VX made a mistake picking SFO as its base and LAX as a secondary. They should have made SEA their base and SAN being secondary.

I don't agree that VX should avoid routes like SFO-JFK. Unlike every other airline in the US, VX's mission appears to compete on service just as much as price. There are a lot of o/d high rev passengers on SFO-JFK who are sick of United's arrogant attitiude that it doesn't need to provide decent customer service to keep customers.

But are there enough high rev pax to go to VX over PS? Are there enough people willing to take less flights per day than UA? Are there enough people who would be fine without a FF program?

I say no to all three of my questions for SFO-JFK, LAX-JFK, and a possible MIA-JFK. VX should stick with routes that are more likely to be profitable (SAN/SFO/LAX/SEA-MIA, SAN/LAX/SFO-SEA, SEA/PDX/LAX-IAD, SFO-BUR/SNA/ONT, SAN/SFO/LAX-PDX) rather than battle with many airlines on SFO/LAX-JFK.

Obviously B6 is the more relevant competitor on these routes, yet other legacy carriers manage to fill planes down there. Whilst I agree, the yield may not be perfect, I reckon using VXs superior product they can make some room.

What you are saying here is that VX has got it all wrong & should look for less high profile destionations & fill in the gaps where other airlines don't or rarely fly. I must say that the people at Virgin America are very experienced in the field that they work & don't randomly allocate routes & aircraft. There's a bit more to think about than "ooh, people want to go frfom A to B - put an Airbus there...". JFK & ORD are the bi places with the biggest market. With the numerous unique selling points, VX will carve out more of a market than at secondary destionations.

As for the main bases, since it is a Virgin company, it was announced that it's first base would be a destionation served by Virgin Atlantic. The west coast is relatively underserved compared to other major regions of the States. Seattle is being evaluated by VS but Virgin have a presence in SFO & LAX already. Not that this is really an issue but that's what they announced.

As for SEA & SAN being bases. SEA is swamped with AS flights & have a very VERY loyal group of frequent fliers & a strong network. It would be a relatively small market with few undnerserved destionations. SAN just doesn't have enough for the front end. San Francisco & Los Angeles are the biggest cities with the busiest airports on the west coast - VX planted themselves there for good.

Uniteds "arrogant" attiude has resulted in things like the trans con Premium.Service. & the first flat beds in the states (although there slow, there here!). I've found Uniteds customer service to be very good. I'm totally with you about VX staying on SFO-JFK but UA aren't arrogant...

There sure are. If you look at the relatively small number of people posting about VX on FlyerTalk, you need to understand we are a MINORITY group of travelers. You might think you know how to design the routes for an airline, but in fact, VX is doing nicely with their current route structure.

You don't see schedules being cut. VX premium seats on transcon flights are full. Passengers who can choose UA p.s. Economy vs VX Economy - it's a no-brainer in terms of what's provided. VX wins hands down. UA offers 34" pitch and power, VX offers 32" pitch in a more comfortable seat, with IFE, power and a more pleasant in flight crew.

There seems to be no shortage of people willing to fly VX w/o a launched FF program. And for that matter, I can't tell you how many people I see on UA who have no FF number on their boarding cards. People book on price, mostly, and with VX offering their product through multiple sales channels, they are getting a fair share of the market.

Bottom line - they get people who shop on price. They get people who shop for in flight amenities and they get people who appreciate reasonable premium cabin prices. Sounds like a winner to me - even on highly competitive routes.

The "lack of an FF" argument holds no weight with me. They do have an FF program, and if you take a flight now, you are earning "points" or whatever it ends up being. They've also promised to release details soon, so the status quo will change overnight.

I don't see it. SFO-MIA would be the natural first choice, but there's clearly not enough O/D demand, or else WN or B6 would already be flying from the Bay Area to Fort Lauderdale, and they're not. Amongst the legacy airlines, AA is the only one that flies nonstop to South Florida from the Bay Area, and that's because they have a hub at MIA.

I don't know what the loads are like on AA, but I'd be interested in knowing.

If you think it's reasonable for AA to have the nonstop SFO-MIA "because they have a hub in MIA", then isn't it reasonable for VX to have a nonstop SFO-MIA because they have a hub in SFO? Isn't this how the hub/spoke system works? For example, I'll be changing all of my SEA-IAH-FLL, SEA-SLC-FLL, SEA-ATL-FLL, and SEA-PHX-FLL to SEA-SFO-MIA when VX comes online.