Virgin to Australia.
Jul 15, 2003, 6:58 pm
#1
formerly gemini573
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: LAX, HKG, and BKK
Programs: CX Emerald, WOH Globalist, Marriott Platinum, AA Lifetime Platinum, Virtuoso, Prive, STEPS, STARS
Posts: 2,233
Virgin to Australia.
Jul 15, 2003, 11:34 pm
#2
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: BNE, Australia...not too far from the nearest Qantas Pub err Club
Posts: 3,636
More news here in www.theage.com.au - Virgin plans to fly here - it looks like the Kangaroo Route (SIN/BKK) rather than HKG, but you never know...
Maybe now Virgin Blue will introduce its long anticipated FF program...
Maybe now Virgin Blue will introduce its long anticipated FF program...
Jul 16, 2003, 2:49 am
#3
Join Date: May 2003
Programs: QF WP; VA Gold
Posts: 1,007
He is such a good publicity man it annoys me.
1. He won't get his hands on Concorde.
2. Even if he did they will not be flying for Virgin by Christmas.
3. I doubt SIA will allow their 49% owned subsidary to compete with them on the route from SIN to Australia. It would be funny if they did operate it through SIN, as it would create a true "Duopoly" BA/QF v Virgin/SIA according to Bransons definition on the LHR-SIN-Australia corridor.
4. On the LHR/Europe to Australia routes there is ceraintly not a duopoly operating. I think we are spoilt with choice and competition. From memory one could fly ANA, JAL, Eva, CX, Korean, Royal Brunei, Thai, SIA, Malaysian, QF, BA. Then you could also go via NA and go on NZ or Africa via SAA. There are many others that I don't see marketing from, plus the combo deals that usually involve QF to Asia and then a European carrier from asia such as Finn, Air France, Swiss. Considering many of these entities are still part or fully owned by governments hardly a duopoly.
I suppose that is what Richards definition of a duopoly is. Lets hope it was misreporting but I doubt it.
(Edited for Spelling.)
[This message has been edited by mikalee (edited 07-16-2003).]
1. He won't get his hands on Concorde.
2. Even if he did they will not be flying for Virgin by Christmas.
3. I doubt SIA will allow their 49% owned subsidary to compete with them on the route from SIN to Australia. It would be funny if they did operate it through SIN, as it would create a true "Duopoly" BA/QF v Virgin/SIA according to Bransons definition on the LHR-SIN-Australia corridor.
4. On the LHR/Europe to Australia routes there is ceraintly not a duopoly operating. I think we are spoilt with choice and competition. From memory one could fly ANA, JAL, Eva, CX, Korean, Royal Brunei, Thai, SIA, Malaysian, QF, BA. Then you could also go via NA and go on NZ or Africa via SAA. There are many others that I don't see marketing from, plus the combo deals that usually involve QF to Asia and then a European carrier from asia such as Finn, Air France, Swiss. Considering many of these entities are still part or fully owned by governments hardly a duopoly.
I suppose that is what Richards definition of a duopoly is. Lets hope it was misreporting but I doubt it.
(Edited for Spelling.)
[This message has been edited by mikalee (edited 07-16-2003).]
Jul 16, 2003, 2:57 am
#4
Join Date: May 2003
Programs: QF WP; VA Gold
Posts: 1,007
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by willyroo:
Maybe now Virgin Blue will introduce its long anticipated FF program...[/B]</font>
Maybe now Virgin Blue will introduce its long anticipated FF program...[/B]</font>
Jul 16, 2003, 9:43 am
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London and Zurich
Programs: AA, BA, Mucci: Sir Roger des Directions Routières, PCR
Posts: 13,609
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mikalee:
He is such a good publicity man it annoys me.
</font>
He is such a good publicity man it annoys me.
</font>
!Seriously, isn't that what it's all about - shaking up the complacency of those airlines who think they have a divine right to fly certain routes?
In my experience, Sir Richard's company has improved the overall flight experience on the routes he flies - there is no doubt that BA is offering a far higher service in J now, and WT+ was introduced as a direct response to VS's market-leading introduction of Premium Economy.
And even SAA now has semi-decent accommodation in J on one of its planes - can't imagine they would have done that if the old BA was their only competitor.
I'm relaxed about RB's introductions. It improves the overall choice and helps keep the others on their toes.
Jul 17, 2003, 1:44 am
#6
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold (and other non-status plastic)
Posts: 1,889
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Roger:
Seriously, isn't that what it's all about - shaking up the complacency of those airlines who think they have a divine right to fly certain routes?
In my experience, Sir Richard's company has improved the overall flight experience on the routes he flies - there is no doubt that BA is offering a far higher service in J now, and WT+ was introduced as a direct response to VS's market-leading introduction of Premium Economy.</font>
Seriously, isn't that what it's all about - shaking up the complacency of those airlines who think they have a divine right to fly certain routes?
In my experience, Sir Richard's company has improved the overall flight experience on the routes he flies - there is no doubt that BA is offering a far higher service in J now, and WT+ was introduced as a direct response to VS's market-leading introduction of Premium Economy.</font>
(1) BA trialed a (poorly-marketing) economy plus zone on DC10s from Gatwick in the late 1980s, long before Mid Class, as PE was then called.
(2) If BA was so bad at innovation, how come VS didn't stick with their slide-into-the-footwell J2000 Upper Class, ahem, "beds". It's only taken, what, 3 years for VS to finally copy BA's flat seats? (...and what happened to VS double beds?)
(3) VS has been threatening to fly to Australia roughly once a year since the early 1990s. I remember getting an Upper Class brochure 10-12 years ago with the Kangaroo route dotted in as a "forthcoming route". I'll believe it when I see it.
(4) If VS was sooo keen to get rid of cosy duopolies, then why are VS and BA the only designated transatlantic carriers from LHR? Branson is the first to jump up and down on the Today programme when even a hint of LHR deregulation is proposed by either government.
I don't have a problem with Virgin. It's a better-than-average airline, with quite a few clever innovations (I for one am very much looking forward to trying the new Upper Class suite), and some d*mn good marketing. But, like it's part owner SIA, it is not the Greatest Airline in the World, it really isn't that much better than BA (especially when something goes tech), and frankly all this New Labour-style spin and petty anti-BA sniping really just puts me off.
Jul 18, 2003, 1:36 am
#7
Join Date: May 2003
Programs: QF WP; VA Gold
Posts: 1,007
Interesting Reply by QF.
Virgin will be the 21st airline that markets the route between UK & Australia.
More interesting is the comments about QF's difficulty in ever getting rights to fly from Australia to UK via Hong Kong.
Virgin will be the 21st airline that markets the route between UK & Australia.
More interesting is the comments about QF's difficulty in ever getting rights to fly from Australia to UK via Hong Kong.
Nov 24, 2003, 1:57 pm
#8
formerly gemini573
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: LAX, HKG, and BKK
Programs: CX Emerald, WOH Globalist, Marriott Platinum, AA Lifetime Platinum, Virtuoso, Prive, STEPS, STARS
Posts: 2,233
Here we go again....Another round of talks between the UK and HKG. Will VS get the rights to do HKG-SYD this time around? A new twist added to this is a possible codeshare with Dragonair.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E23349,00.html
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/thesta...582&intcatid=1
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E23349,00.html
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/thesta...582&intcatid=1