Vx To Miami???
 

i heard talk of virgin flying to miami. anyone know if that route will open???

My take
 

I would consider this question to be not if, but when. When VX does open MIA they should open with the following schedule:
MIA-SEA 1X
MIA-SAN 1X
MIA-IAD 3X
MIA-LAX 4X
MIA-SFO 3X
MIA-PDX 1X (if open PDX)

Stay out of JFK because of slot resrictions and B6 at FLL.
No LAS because market is too low yield
SEA because only 1X AS flight, not big competition
PDX because no competition, though AS would quickly come down on VX with a daily flight
SAN because no daily competition in the state, high O/D
IAD because only against AA/Ted, need shorth flights
LAX because only AA, 7X daily with some widebody's
SFO because of base at SFO and UA/AA, high O/D

This is just my say, MIA should be after my ideas in the "Virgin America to Expand?" thread, SEA-ANC/FAI/LAX/SFO/IAD/JFK/SAN would be great!

Where are all these airplanes going to come from??

Think SFO-MIA and LAX-MIA at first, with connections to other destinations, at best.

Speculation about MIA has been going for a while, due to rumors about hiring and sub-contracting agreements, but nothing has been announced by the carrier.

They've already hired some people for Miami. With delays in aircraft deliveries, the launch is being pushed back. At this point VX will likely not have the ability to launch MIA at the frequencies they feel are needed until June/July. Unfortunately, that's when domestic travel to/from MIA is slow, and VX does not want to enter during a slower time of year (new routes, after all, should always launch in season. Simple marketing), which means an October launch is more likely, and Boston might be pushed forward.

Miami will, most likely, see 3x JFK/2x SFO/1x LAX at launch. They are not going to ignore MIA-JFK just because JetBlue is up the road at FLL.

I think you meant MIA-SAN has no nonstop. I'm sure if VX will done extremely very well first inauguration new routes from MIA-SAN. It was almost more than O/D 300 dailies passengers. I'm sure AA will being pissed with VX after new routes from MIA-SAN. I don't see anything more logic answer for this time. I don't have anything more specific routes from MIA lately. I don't see VX is keeping ignorance for MIA-JFK. Because B6 has lot of leak competition from FLL-JFK/LGA/EWR. I won't keep my breath if B6 or VX come in at MIA anytime soon.

october would work great. i know its speculation but good to consider for now. thanks.

I'm no expert, but I think they should ignore (read: avoid) that for the very reason you mention.

My plan only needs 6 airplanes plus 1 extra, think SEA/PDX/SAN are redeye's with one redeye each on SFO/LAX. IAD will take one plane 0600-2400. 6 planes are not that many for a growing airline I hope!

Based on SEA which opened with SFO and LAX without IAD I conclude that VX is looking for mid-range route-pairs which include MIA-IAD and MIA-JFK but VX would not be stupid enough to do MIA-JFK!

Seeing as there are only 13 in the fleet right now, adding six more is quite a lot, for one new city. Again, you should expect service to/from SFO and maybe LAX. Over time, with a route network build out, that might change. But six new planes to service one city - it's just not going to happen.

I had no idea there are only 13 planes! I would think VX would have at least 20 by now! VX should go after O/D demand, not after hub and spoke SFO/LAX traffic. It is more effective to connect every city to each other as it is needed rather than blindly focusing on one or tow cities.

When will VX get more planes? They are expanding too slowly to build up critical mass in the market. Airbus currently builds about 30 A320 family members per month, why is VX not getting as many as they could? Why a slow, gradual growth when fast growth is needed to create market mass?

Don't forget you don't just need planes. You need IFE installed, you need to staff and train for each airport, every time you add a city, you could need more staff at existing connecting cities, you need more In Flight Team members, you need ground ops contracts, catering, you need more flight dispatchers, more guest care team members...

In short, a thoughtful growth plan focused on profitable routes with careful execution, is better than throwing a bunch of stuff into the market just to see what sticks.

...Frontier announced they were unloading 4 aircraft. I think they use Airbus?

They use A319s and A320s, as I recall. But VX should not be buying used aircraft. They would need to strip them and rebuild the entire interior and redo all of the wiring.

They do - but VX already has their own orders for new aircraft, built from the ground up to their specifications.

And here's my point - why is Frontier unloading aircraft? Did they expand too quickly? Why did jetBlue slow down their growth plan and defer delivery of airplanes?

Slow, thoughtful, carefully planned execution will be better for VX in the long run.

[QUOTE=SFO 1K;9148141
In short, a thoughtful growth plan focused on profitable routes with careful execution, is better than throwing a bunch of stuff into the market just to see what sticks.[/QUOTE]

(Sarcasm on) Yeah, the very profitable SFO-LAX/SAN/LAS routes, WN is no object! I guess F9's failure should not have served as a deterent for SFO-LAX! Yes, the very competitive TransCon sectors SFO/LAX-JFK/IAD, comepeting at UA hubs and PS service is a very good biz plan. (Sarcasm off)

VX will not be able to make money going against many incumbent airlines, especialy if one of them is WN. In reality, VX should focus on routes with competition from only one or two incumbent carriers and no LCC competition. Route like: SEA-SAN/SFO/IAD/MIA/LAX (three airlines but only AS is strong), SFO-BUR/MIA/SEA, LAX-MIA/IAD/SEA, SAN-MIA/SEA, MIA-IAD/SAN/SEA/IAD, IAD-MIA/SEA/LAX

VX should look at routes not flooded with capacity (SFO-JFK/SAN/LAS/LAX, LAX-JFK) and hub-hub routes (SFO-IAD, LAX-IAD is fine because LAX is more of a hub, not focus city for UA). VX should end LAS (low yield) and JFK (competition) and instead add BUR and other LA basin airports that have high yield to SFO(not LAX). VX should stay away from ORD (slots and competition) and other high competition airports and instead of attacking B6/AA/DL/UA on SFO-JFK but try SEA-MIA only attacking AS.

But what do I know? I'm not--though I would like to be--a route planner for VX, I play one on the internet :)

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. :confused:

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.

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.