exunited wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

The Virgin brand, as far as airlines go, does not carry the same special cachet that it did in the 1990's and the early to mid-2000's. There is really nothing unique about any of the Virgin branded carriers (Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Australia, and Virgin America, now fading into Alaska). The marketing, mood lighting, on board bars and the purple and red color scheme are pleasing to the eye, but none of the airlines are winning awards or really differentiating themselves relative to the competition. The entire Virgin brand concept now seems a little dated and done. Virgin America succeeded by offering a really different product than most major US airlines, and appealed to a specific type of consumer, but having flown it a few times over the years, there was nothing overwhelming about it.

The single reason VX did not end up in the landfill was that fuel prices dropped dramatically. It was proven over and over that nobody would pay a premium they were counting on for their mood lighting and hipster vibe. Only continuous massive cash infusions kept it going until they caught a break when jet A fell to levels where they could make a buck. VX was anything but a "success".

At least the flying public like them. They rank amongst the highest in the nation. They don't break guitars and drag people out!

exunited wrote:

allegiantflyer wrote:

I never understood by A.net has always been so aggressively opposed to the creation of new Airlines in the U.S. market, especially as competition,after a series of mergers and acquisitions, is at an all time low(along with customer satisfaction) 8 years ago it made sense with a struggling industry, but not so much any more.

According to JD Power, your assertion is 100% wrong.

According to the J.D. Power 2017 North America Airline Satisfaction Study,SM released today, overall customer satisfaction with airlines has reached its highest level ever, continuing a trend that now stretches five consecutive years.

Well if JD Power says so, then it must be...

Boeing778X wrote:

exunited wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

The Virgin brand, as far as airlines go, does not carry the same special cachet that it did in the 1990's and the early to mid-2000's. There is really nothing unique about any of the Virgin branded carriers (Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Australia, and Virgin America, now fading into Alaska). The marketing, mood lighting, on board bars and the purple and red color scheme are pleasing to the eye, but none of the airlines are winning awards or really differentiating themselves relative to the competition. The entire Virgin brand concept now seems a little dated and done. Virgin America succeeded by offering a really different product than most major US airlines, and appealed to a specific type of consumer, but having flown it a few times over the years, there was nothing overwhelming about it.

The single reason VX did not end up in the landfill was that fuel prices dropped dramatically. It was proven over and over that nobody would pay a premium they were counting on for their mood lighting and hipster vibe. Only continuous massive cash infusions kept it going until they caught a break when jet A fell to levels where they could make a buck. VX was anything but a "success".

At least the flying public like them.

Not enough to keep VX independent, though - and that's what matters. What good does being liked do in business when you're dead?

allegiantflyer wrote:

I never understood by A.net has always been so aggressively opposed to the creation of new Airlines in the U.S. market, especially as competition,after a series of mergers and acquisitions, is at an all time low(along with customer satisfaction) 8 years ago it made sense with a struggling industry, but not so much any more.

I think the competition is as strong as ever. Now the big three (along with WN, B6, and AS) compete is every part of the country, opposed to a few certain regions.

EA CO AS wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

exunited wrote:

The single reason VX did not end up in the landfill was that fuel prices dropped dramatically. It was proven over and over that nobody would pay a premium they were counting on for their mood lighting and hipster vibe. Only continuous massive cash infusions kept it going until they caught a break when jet A fell to levels where they could make a buck. VX was anything but a "success".

At least the flying public like them.

Not enough to keep VX independent, though - and that's what matters. What good does being liked do in business when you're dead?

Yep, just look at United. Something that should've been shut down and put out to pasture with the likes of Pan Am, Eastern, People Express a long time ago but their stock is actually up after all these incidents.

United is doing better than ever, planes are full, stock is up, profits are huge, yep the A-Net geniuses once again are on the wrong side of reality. You can't wish someone out of business

exunited wrote:

United is doing better than ever, planes are full, stock is up, profits are huge, yep the A-Net geniuses once again are on the wrong side of reality. You can't wish someone out of business

This is correct. The success of public corporations in this country is measured by shareholder returns - nothing more, and United has done a tremendous job returning value to shareholders over the past several years. So long as it doesn't result in large volumes of their passengers voting with their wallets (and the average air traveler rarely does), the perception of an airline is entirely irrelevant.

exunited wrote:

United is doing better than ever, planes are full, stock is up, profits are huge, yep the A-Net geniuses once again are on the wrong side of reality. You can't wish someone out of business

I cannot disagree, but I will point out that stock and profits, as reported, are trailing incices; the economic results - if any - of UA's recent PR disasters won't be reflected until later in the year. And it is difficult to judge whether profits would be higher - "what might have been" - if those incidents had not occurred.

jfklganyc wrote:

His virgin brand is worthless in america...on an airline or anything else.

Have at it sir...PIT and STL have plenty of gates.

Yes, STL has a ton of gates, but WN would slaughter them. I hope to see the rest of the old D filled with added WN gates over the next 10 years.

allegiantflyer wrote:

I never understood by A.net has always been so aggressively opposed to the creation of new Airlines in the U.S. market, especially as competition,after a series of mergers and acquisitions, is at an all time low(along with customer satisfaction) 8 years ago it made sense with a struggling industry, but not so much any more.

I'm not opposed to it. I'm glad to see Jet Blue has established a solid footing in the US. They're pretty boring, but I'm ok with that.

Virgin simply never impressed me with what they were offering. Granted I only ever tried one flight on them, but for the price, I didn't see much reason to use them in the future. I also always felt like they had a compulsive need to tell me about how great of an experience I was allegedly having. I never expected much from the finances, either, but that was a debate I generally stayed out of.

It would be great to see another airline successfully establish itself, but with 6 mainstream domestic players in the US market, plus Spirit, Frontier, and Allegiant in the ULCC category, and not really counting Hawaiian to their entirely Hawaii-centric focus, competition is actually rather stiff.

When there's routes without competition, it's not due to a lack of available competitors, but due to a choice on their part not to compete on that route, presumably due to expected inability to make a meaningful profit. That's not a problem that goes away by having more players with smaller route structures.