United has some of the worst customer service in the industry. Yes, it has PS from SFO to JFK but those PS flights are bundled with the same bitter gate agents, crabby lounge attendants, outsourced customer service that doesn't know the difference between business class and first class, not to mention a management team that is more interested in merging with a better company than it is in building a strong brand. United's business model is primarily focused on making money on routes with inadequate or no competition. That makes them a prime target for a company like VX.

AA's MIA hub connects people from North America to the dozen or so destinations that AA has in South America. VX has nowhere to go from MIA that is a logical connection. And I don't see people from LAX flying up to SFO to connect to MIA, so that really only leaves SEA as a reasonable connection on the other end.

[QUOTE=flyboy777;9180864]

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.

QUOTE]
I am writing that VX got it mostly wrong chosing routes. SFO-LAX for example. F9 recently (to when VX started) failed on SFO-LAX, F9 has a similar inflight product to VX (without FC), and WN started SFO-LAX recently. Why should VX be any different than F9? SFO-SAN, WN recently started. If WN didn't start it would be a great market but why should VX have to suffer through competing with WN? SFO-IAD is UA hub-hub with strong FF on both sides, why would VX with no feed be able to make money competing against UA at its best? SFO/LAX-JFK, while JFK is the most important market in the country, it is also one of the most competitive. SFO-JFK has no less than UA, AA, DL, B6, and now VX on it. LAX-JFK has UA, AA, DL, QF, B6 from LGB/BUR/ONT, and now VX. VX has amenities that should allow it to leverage a fare premium, that won't happen competing against B6 and ex Song DL. Also for the price sensitive, competing against WN is a no win situation.

VX is not affiliated in any way with VS (except the name and minority owner SRB). VS doesn't profit from VX in any way (at the moment).

I pointed SEA and SAN as starting bases, not for the life of VX. Just like how AS started flying only in AK VX would make initial money from SEA/SAN base until moving on to better things (AS moving to SEA/PDX as hub, LAX as focus city).

Edited to add: SEA and SAN serve as the only viable airport for larger amounts of population than LAX and SFO. LAX is cannabilized by BUR/LGB/SNA/ONT. SFO is cannabilized by OAK and SJC. SEA probally has more people in its imediate cachment (Centralia-Bellingham) than does SFO or LAX. Note: Bellingham does have BLI but it only has nonstops to LAS/PSP/IWA/SLC/SEA. SAN's immidiate cachment is from TIJ-CLD/
While the poster's on FT are definetly a minority, our flying makes up a sizeable minority for the airlines. More people on FT fly more often than other website forums making our ideas porportionaly more important. Note: I do not fly often but from what I have read on FT about people's "exploits" of many flights a sizeable minority of income comes from posters.

(sarcasm on) Yes, how much did VX loose last quater? I'm sure the route planners were responsible for that greatness! (sarcasm off) VX is a suffering airline loosing many millions (I think 32.7) and is not making money, a route is not good unless it makes money.

People who contribute most to the profit of airlines are people who care abot FF programs. An airline can not subsist on flying only during the leisure periods of summer, thanksgiving, winter/february/april breaks.

What website's are VX on? Just VX.com or places like expedia.com, I didn't see VX as an option on expedia.

How does VX win with premium amenities if VX is the cheapest on a route? If people will pay for a better experience VX needs to charge itself as one, then VX will go the way of Maxjet and MGM Grand without the bottom feeder's it needs to survive.

VX never said it would make money in their first quarter - or first year. In fact, I read one report where the first profits are estimated in approximately 5 years. It's a well funded venture.

By the way, first quarter revenues included less than 90 days of flying but 90 days of expense... including aircraft acquisition, and other start-up expenses not normally found in every quarter.

VX can be found when booking through corporate travel sites, including American Express, which many large corporations use and where "least cost carrier" is a business requirement. WN doesn't list with that site. They can also be found on Travelocity and Orbitz.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the route network. I think they've got a good plan and I think there's more excitement to come, soon.

I think you're misunderstanding me. SFO is the hub, not MIA. So the question is where will people from MIA connect to once they get to SFO, not where will people from SFO connect to once they get to MIA.

5 years is a long time for investors to drown money into an airline.

I stand corrected on the first quarter loss. I will hold profit critique until the next quarter is released.

I can't see VX on Travelocity, I see them on Orbitz but it won't pick up airfares, maybe it is in American Express, but VX is not in Orbitz or Travelocity.

Agree to disagree. I think VX has a good product (from what I have read) and that they should not go the way of MGM Grand. I can just hope VX starts expanding more from SEA, connecting SEA-SFO/LAX-JFK/IAD is very out of the way.

Check your facts before making blanket, baseless statements. Over 1,300 people travel between Miami and the Bay Area daily, making it one the country's 75 largest local travel markets.

On 9/11/2007 Sabre Holding announced it would carry VX fares through it's brands, including Travelocity. The technical launch of this arrangement has not yet been completed: http://www.breakingtravelnews.com/ar...70911110325404

Let's see - LAS, SEA, SAN, LAX?

You know, from SFO, or other west coast points, people fly on UA to IAD, CO to EWR or DL to ATL and then connect to east coast cities. There's no reason people can't fly from MIA to any of VX's destinations on the west coast.

Yep. That's my point. I assume you realized my question was rhetorical, right?

Oh, that would explain why I can't see VX flights on Travelocity.

A "logical connection" to me is a connection that costs only 10% of the nonstop route. According to the Great Circle Mapper, a flight from MIA-SFO-XXX is over the nonstop by:
SEA-19.8%
SAN-33.7%
LAS-37.9%
LAX-24.8%

MIA-LAX-SFO is over by 3.6%
MIA-LAX-SEA is over by 21%

There is no logical connection through SFO to MIA from any of the cities VX flies to. SFO is the farthest west major airport in the Lower 48 states, any flight has significant backtracking.

Just for some comparison of connections:
SEA-SFO-SAN is over by 7.8%
SEA-SFO-LAS is over by 26.1%
SEA-SFO-JFK is over by 34.8%
SEA-SFO-IAD is over by 34.3%
SEA-LAX-JFK is over by 41.6%
SEA-LAX-IAD is over by 40.6%
SAN-SFO-IAD is over by 27.2%
SAN-SFO-JFK is over by 24%
LAS-SFO-JFK is over by 33.5%
LAS-SFO-IAD is over by 37.1%

SFO is not a good domestic connector.

That's why UA has more slots and gates than any other carrier at SFO, right, because it's a bad location for connections? :rolleyes:

This is your opinion of a logical connection. First of all, for some of these routes there are no non-stops, or none that have convenient times. For example, I won't take redeyes. So, the (sometimes seasonal) nonstop between MIA and SEA and back will not work for me (I consider an 8am ET flight back to the west coast to be a redeye, since I have to leave my Miami house at 3am PT, and "wake up" before that). So, you need to be comparing with existing connections.

Second, I'm not sure how much of a factor this really is. Northwest seems to get by with what I consider crappy hubs. I know plenty of people who connect through DTW to go from NYC to MIA. And that's with a product which can't hold a candle to B6, let alone VX.

note the word domestic. SFO is good for connections from BLI-SAN or EUG-PSP but not good for SEA-JFK. SFO is also good for non-West Coast-Hawaii flights and flights from everywhere South and East of SFO to Asia. SFO is bad for connections that VX is aiming at, not bad for connections UA is aiming at.

I checked SEA-MIA with SEA-MSP-MIA, SEA-DFW-MIA, and SEA-ATL-MIA. ATL was off by 1.9%, DFW 2.1%, MSP by 6.4%. I would assume SAN-DFW-MIA would be very close to actual distance. NW's MSP and DTW hubs are actually well placed for West-East connections when going or coming from the Northern end of the country. SEA-MSP/DTW-MIA is logical, LAX-MSP/DTW-LGA is logical, the only illogical ones are routes like LAX-MSP/DTW-MIA or NYC-DTW-MIA (for miles I assume)

There's also price and product. I will definitely go through SFO on my MIA-SEA flights (many per year) to take advantage of the VX product.

SFO doesn't have slots. Nobody has slots at SFO.

Nonetheless, the points being made that people won't connect in SFO because it adds 21% or whatever to their flight mileage are idiotic.

99.9% of travelers don't think like that. Flying a route like MIA-SFO-SEA or MIA-SFO-LAS is perfectly logical, and people do it all the time.