Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




OAKLAND
08-04-2012, 08:05 PM
[QUOTE]Rewind to Aug 8, 2007: Virgin America's two maiden flights - one arriving from New York, the other from Los Angeles - land simultaneously on adjoining runways at San Francisco International Airport before a crowd of Bay Area dignitaries, a scrum of journalists and a squadron of teenage cheerleaders in scarlet uniforms.
"Virgin! Virgin!" they cheer as passengers file into the terminal. "Branson! Branson!" they shout as Virgin America's high-profile minority-owner - the shaggy-haired British billionaire Richard Branson - gives a two-handed wave. Branson grins broadly, surveying the crowd at SFO, which the startup, low-cost carrier has chosen as its hub airport.
Fast-forward to Aug. 8, 2012: Virgin America marks five years of flying.
Award-winning, money-losing Virgin America is a hit with travelers, especially the high-flying Silicon Valley executives and multitasking digital media addicts courted by the Burlingame carrier. With 2,600 employees, about half of them in the Bay Area, Virgin America operates 93 flights a day on 52 aircraft (average age: a young 3.3 years) to 15 cities around the country and three destinations in Mexico. Last year, the airline flew 5 million passengers; it expects to board 6.6 million this year.
Branson's London company Virgin Group Ltd. owns 49 percent of the stock and has a 25 percent voting stake, the maximum allowed for foreign nationals under U.S. law. American investors own 51 percent of Virgin America, which licenses the Virgin brand.
"I've always had the dream of helping create a really good, quality airline in the U.S.," Branson said in an e-mail. "America has the best of everything, but for whatever reasons the airline industry there has forgotten entirely about the guest. Virgin America launched with the guest in mind. No matter where I go in the world, people tell me they love Virgin America. That is pretty amazing to hear when you are in, say, Malaysia."
Wow factor
Indeed, the carrier has a wow factor. Boarding a Virgin America flight, bathed in 12 alternating shades of mood lighting and awash in globalized dance/trance music, is not unlike rolling into a late-night club, cocktail in hand. Unlike low-cost carriers that fly with single-class seats and service, Virgin America offers first class, premium economy and economy.
Virgin America's stylish aircraft interior design, avid embrace of in-flight technology and young, energetic staff account for much of its popularity. So do its fares.
Tom Parsons, chief executive officer of BestFares.com, said Virgin America often offers the most attractive fares in the country, especially on transcontinental flights. "They are probably the most consistent airline out there giving deals day-in, day-out."
For all the buzz, though, there is one thing Virgin America hasn't done: Make money.
Losses over 5 years
Buffeted by the recession, high fuel costs and the expense of expanding its route network, it has recorded but one profitable quarter since the airline went wheels-up. In the first quarter of this year the company reported a loss of $49 million on revenue of $267 million. Since 2007, Virgin America has recorded a net loss of $671.3 million and an operating loss of $447.3 million.
If Virgin America can bring its financials in line with its high marks for style and service, it will have a much smoother flight path.
"Virgin pays attention to design, product and service details," said Henry Harteveldt, a San Francisco analyst for Atmosphere Research Group. "Virgin is the most experiential of U.S. airlines."
Long before it sold its first ticket, Virgin America made an impact at SFO.
In May 2007, three months before Virgin America's first flights, JetBlue Airways flew to SFO for the first time. JetBlue's founder and then-CEO, David Neeleman, told The Chronicle that Virgin America's imminent arrival was one reason JetBlue entered a market it had previously ignored. "It's going to be a party," he said.


Read more: Virgin America a hit, but losing money - SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Virgin-America-a-hit-but-losing-money-3762763.php#ixzz22dZIAnJq)


Bucking Bar
08-04-2012, 08:22 PM
If airlines fell under the regulation of the FTC instead of the DOJ, I am pretty sure they would be a candidate for predatory pricing.

Virgin America was created, according to quotes from Branson himself, to kill off United, or alternatively Delta. Since it appears Branson now desires to partner with Delta both over both oceans and United is going no where ... what's the point of Virgin?

Wasn't there some news a while back that US investors were insulated from losses?

Timbo
08-04-2012, 08:37 PM
Is Delta's ex. President, Fred Reid, still running VA?

Fred was the one who put out the pamphlet on how Business Men prefer hourly service, from every where to anywhere and RJ's were going to take over the world. We called him 'RJ Fred'.

He and Leo the CEO bought hundreds of them for Com Air and ASA, to replace 50% of our domestic flying, while laying off 1,400 Delta pilots.

http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2004/03/08/daily57.html


Bucking Bar
08-04-2012, 08:50 PM
FlexJet now ...

Since becoming President of Flexjet in 2008, Reid has successfully transformed the company into the industry’s only private aviation solutions provider to offer comprehensive access to a full portfolio of products, ranging from whole aircraft management and fractional jet ownership to jet cards and charter brokerage services. Reid was also the driving force behind Flexjet’s alliance with Korean Air, marking the first arrangement of its kind between a North American fractional jet company and an international airline. In another industry first, Reid initiated the creation of Flexjet’s innovative Customer Account Management (CAM) program, consolidating all client-facing departments to provide owners with a single point person to streamline requests.

Prior to joining Flexjet, Reid’s executive management background includes experience at four of the world’s major airlines, most recently as the founding Chief Executive Officer of Virgin America. He joined Virgin in 2004 and shaped America’s “next generation airline” from the ground up. While serving as President of Delta Airlines, Reid led the creation of the airline’s low-fare “Song”- branded airline and headed Delta Connection, the world’s largest fleet of regional jets. He also built SkyTeam, regarded as the most integrated global airline alliance, and directed the successful acquisition of regional carriers ASA and Comair by Delta.

gloopy
08-04-2012, 09:41 PM
Wasn't there some news a while back that US investors were insulated from losses?

He gives them guaranteed double digit annual returns backed by his foreign money, then calls that "US money" since it technically came from US investors. When that isn't enough, he buys tons of tickets he never intends on using with his personal accounts to funnel them revene under the guise of "just another citizen of the world" purchasing goods and services.

They've lost what, half a billion in 5 years and are less than 10% the size of most legacies, are always down to their last 20 or so mil while losing way more than that, yet are still around. He's an egomaniac blowing through his beer money until he finally breaks through or gives up.

jayme
08-05-2012, 12:17 AM
He gives them guaranteed double digit annual returns backed by his foreign money, then calls that "US money" since it technically came from US investors. When that isn't enough, he buys tons of tickets he never intends on using with his personal accounts to funnel them revene under the guise of "just another citizen of the world" purchasing goods and services.

They've lost what, half a billion in 5 years and are less than 10% the size of most legacies, are always down to their last 20 or so mil while losing way more than that, yet are still around. He's an egomaniac blowing through his beer money until he finally breaks through or gives up.
gloopy,

Why would VA lose so much money if Branson were buying all the tickets?

That might be possible if the tickets were cheaper than other airlines (they aren't), or if he were buying, say, half the seats and the planes were flying empty (our average load factor is around 80%).

So really, you are full of BS.

Look, I work there, and myself and all the rest of us know that things don't look good. But let's try to stick to reality and leave fantasy to folks like Tolkein. OK?

Fred Flintstone
08-05-2012, 04:37 AM
Is Delta's ex. President, Fred Reid, still running VA?

Fred was the one who put out the pamphlet on how Business Men prefer hourly service, from every where to anywhere and RJ's were going to take over the world. We called him 'RJ Fred'.

He and Leo the CEO bought hundreds of them for Com Air and ASA, to replace 50% of our domestic flying, while laying off 1,400 Delta pilots.

Passed over for CEO, Delta president quits - Pacific Business News (http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2004/03/08/daily57.html)

Fred Greed was out by the end of 2007. Try to keep up Timbo.

Timbo
08-05-2012, 06:39 AM
Fred Greed was out by the end of 2007. Try to keep up Timbo.


Why would I 'try to keep up' with VA?

I can barely keep up with my OWN company! :D

Shall I now quiz you on all the VP's, and their dates of arrival/departure, for the past 5 years, at DL? :eek:

Fred was all about Fred, and outsourced as much flying as he could, just go back and reread that last paragraph. He bought hundreds of RJ's to fly the domestic stuff, and inked International Code Shares for the International stuff. Our pilot group went from 10,400 on 9/11/2001, down to about 7,300 just prior to our merger with NW.

" While serving as President of Delta Airlines, Reid led the creation of the airline’s low-fare “Song”- branded airline and headed Delta Connection, the world’s largest fleet of regional jets. He also built SkyTeam, regarded as the most integrated global airline alliance, and directed the successful acquisition of regional carriers ASA and Comair by Delta. "

Leo Mullin was another piece of work, he came to DL from McKinzie and Company, a consulting firm who's mantra is; "Outsoruce everything to the lowest bidder".

https://alumni.mckinsey.com/alumni/default/public/content/jsp/alumni_news/News614.jsp

forgot to bid
08-05-2012, 08:14 AM
I'm going to start my own airline.

gloopy
08-05-2012, 09:47 AM
gloopy,

Why would VA lose so much money if Branson were buying all the tickets?

That might be possible if the tickets were cheaper than other airlines (they aren't), or if he were buying, say, half the seats and the planes were flying empty (our average load factor is around 80%).

So really, you are full of BS.

Look, I work there, and myself and all the rest of us know that things don't look good. But let's try to stick to reality and leave fantasy to folks like Tolkein. OK?

Its a matter of degree. He isn't doing it on every seat every flight, or even half the seats on every flight. But he's doing it as a way to "legally" launder his dirty foreign money into his "American" company. 5 seats here, 10 seats there, and not on every flight but at the end of the year it really adds up. But the majority of his dirty foreign money is coming from hand picked "US investors" with "US money" locking in double digit bonded non defaultable returns backed by his 100% foreign money. And Gandalf didn't tell me that. A very high level VP (or higher) at a major US airline did. They are on to him but the DOJ is under massive pressure to look the other way as long as he has a thread of pseudo-legality to point to and as long as he keeps the amounts in question below a certain point of public outcry.

Bocaflyer
08-05-2012, 09:51 AM
Its a matter of degree. He isn't doing it on every seat every flight, or even half the seats on every flight. But he's doing it as a way to "legally" launder his dirty foreign money into his "American" company. 5 seats here, 10 seats there, and not on every flight but at the end of the year it really adds up. But the majority of his dirty foreign money is coming from hand picked "US investors" with "US money" locking in double digit bonded non defaultable returns backed by his 100% foreign money. And Gandalf didn't tell me that. A very high level VP (or higher) at a major US airline did. They are on to him but the DOJ is under massive pressure to look the other way as long as he has a thread of pseudo-legality to point to and as long as he keeps the amounts in question below a certain point of public outcry.

Wow. The DOJ is scared of a rich money launderer now? Aren't they all rich?? Jesus man, listen to yourself. Lose the hate and conspiracy theory, the British are NOT coming after all. We won the war. Reeelax! :)

gloopy
08-05-2012, 10:03 AM
Wow. The DOJ is scared of a rich money launderer now? Aren't they all rich?? Jesus man, listen to yourself. Lose the hate and conspiracy theory, the British are NOT coming after all. We won the war. Reeelax! :)

Not scared of him, but there is massive political pressure from many angles. Regulators and lawmakers will let things slide as long as someone is a glorious "LCC" because regardless of their stance on labor, they ALWAYS benefit more constituents by promoting cheap labor (number of pax) than protecting the few within labor (number of airline employees). There is also massive foreign pressure from our "ally" that we have a "special relationship" with to let VX stay around and grow to critical mass. In addition to that, even though VX is diverting capacity from higher paying jobs to lower (yes I know, you upgrade in 15 minutes which is a "raise") its still jobs in a tough economy in an extremely influential state and concentrated in an extremely influential district of a senior congress critter. There is a ton of political pressure to look the other way and let VX keep growing.

I'm sure you like your company and if it makes it you will be an uber genius for having gone there, seniority jumping the entire industry by 20 or 30 years compared to just about anywhere else. That's the lure of a start up, and why the kool aid flows so deeply within them.

Bocaflyer
08-05-2012, 10:14 AM
Not scared of him, but there is massive political pressure from many angles. Regulators and lawmakers will let things slide as long as someone is a glorious "LCC" because regardless of their stance on labor, they ALWAYS benefit more constituents by promoting cheap labor (number of pax) than protecting the few within labor (number of airline employees). There is also massive foreign pressure from our "ally" that we have a "special relationship" with to let VX stay around and grow to critical mass. In addition to that, even though VX is diverting capacity from higher paying jobs to lower (yes I know, you upgrade in 15 minutes which is a "raise") its still jobs in a tough economy in an extremely influential state and concentrated in an extremely influential district of a senior congress critter. There is a ton of political pressure to look the other way and let VX keep growing.

I'm sure you like your company and if it makes it you will be an uber genius for having gone there, seniority jumping the entire industry by 20 or 30 years compared to just about anywhere else. That's the lure of a start up, and why the kool aid flows so deeply within them.

Some updates for you. Upgrades take 3-4 years at present; if you want to sit reserve or not. Most pilots here came from 20-30 years of failed carriers just like myself. Plenty of time and experience in the wrong jobs. We didn't come here to drink kool aid, we came here to get off of unemployment and feed our families. And like the legacies and else where, we have a large share of Regional captains that came here, because god forbid they were tired of Mesa and the likes.

Save the insults in our general direction, just because I don't believe your boogie man stories. I know for a FACT that 99% of your post is incorrect. I have better sources than a friend of a friend of a VP said. Lol. Have a good day man, it's Sunday go spend time with the family! Every now and then my wife bans me (mercifully) from APC and FI, and I spend about 3 happy years in exile. I'm starting to remember why.

Golden Bear
08-05-2012, 10:39 AM
Lose the hate and conspiracy theory, the British are NOT coming after all. We won the war. Reeelax! :)

Isn't one of the VX planes named "Three If By Air"?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30580063@N02/3384518990/

Imagine if a JAL plane jokingly referred to Pearl Harbor on one of their planes.

Stay classy Branson.

Scoop
08-05-2012, 12:10 PM
Is Delta's ex. President, Fred Reid, still running VA?

Fred was the one who put out the pamphlet on how Business Men prefer hourly service, from every where to anywhere and RJ's were going to take over the world. We called him 'RJ Fred'.

He and Leo the CEO bought hundreds of them for Com Air and ASA, to replace 50% of our domestic flying, while laying off 1,400 Delta pilots.

Passed over for CEO, Delta president quits - Pacific Business News (http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2004/03/08/daily57.html)


C'mon Tim,

Fred has always been very impressed with Fred - just ask him. He is a total clown. Went to LAX after 9-11 to hear him address the base employees on DALs plight - he basically said all DAL employees are lucky we have Leo and him to run the company. He should have said "...run the company into the ground going bonkers on a 50 seat RJ binge."

Scoop

Timbo
08-05-2012, 12:28 PM
It would not surprise me at all if Fred were somehow involved with Delta Air Elite, through Flex Jet. I'm just glad we have yet another outsouced flying division, for our most special 'High Value Customers', so they don't have to fly on Mainline.

Go Fred Go!

Really, please, just go...

80ktsClamp
08-05-2012, 12:28 PM
C'mon Tim,

Fred has always been very impressed with Fred - just ask him. He is a total clown. Went to LAX after 9-11 to hear him address the base employees on DALs plight - he basically said all DAL employees are lucky we have Leo and him to run the company. He should have said "...run the company into the ground going bonkers on a 50 seat RJ binge."

Scoop

..and we got to pay for parking those with our new TA! What a great deal!

KillingMeSmalls
08-05-2012, 08:32 PM
Honestly, what do you think the odds of VX being around in 2022 are?

gloopy
08-05-2012, 09:48 PM
Some updates for you. Upgrades take 3-4 years at present; if you want to sit reserve or not. Most pilots here came from 20-30 years of failed carriers just like myself. Plenty of time and experience in the wrong jobs. We didn't come here to drink kool aid, we came here to get off of unemployment and feed our families. And like the legacies and else where, we have a large share of Regional captains that came here, because god forbid they were tired of Mesa and the likes.

Save the insults in our general direction, just because I don't believe your boogie man stories. I know for a FACT that 99% of your post is incorrect. I have better sources than a friend of a friend of a VP said. Lol. Have a good day man, it's Sunday go spend time with the family! Every now and then my wife bans me (mercifully) from APC and FI, and I spend about 3 happy years in exile. I'm starting to remember why.

Not friend of a friend, but directly from the (higher than a) VP in question. You can't possibly pretend you blew through half a billion dollars in a few years with just a few airplanes and have perpetually been down to your last 20 million or so every quarter while losing more than that almost every quarter anything other than "royal" intervention.

If you are as experienced (and old) as you say, then you are a relatively short timer and I do understand you running the numbers on things and realizing that VX is likely the final stop for you. For others they are playing the "I'll be in the top 500 of a mega major one day" but whatever. Its all part of the very same labor busting longevity shredding churn the industry is made of. The cycle will always continue. Start up a new airline, pay everyone first year everything on a drastically reduced pay and benefits package, get new airplanes leapfrogging in technology and ammenities, wash, rinse, file bankruptcy because now your costs are higher and here comes another start up and repeat. I get it, I just don't like it.

Don't h8 the playa though, its the game. Rich people will never, ever, get tired of playing with airplanes, and pilots will never not take the best deal they can get at any given time. Some cling to a fantasy that mass refusal to work by all pilots will make the labor corporate churn go away but that's the ultimate pipe dream. That will never happen nor should it even be a goal. Pure fantasy. But the many, many hundreds of aircraft on the order books for so called LCC's and present and future start ups while other airlines stagnate, shrink and fade away make this very much a zero sum game. If VX succeeds to the extent it strives to, the same amount of jobs will be lost at other carriers to provide lower paying and much more junior jobs there. That's just how it works.

I guess in that regard we're like these guys:
http://img5.uploadhouse.com/fileuploads/7928/7928663c4def0999e145671e71909cc4da5cb68.jpg
We're both trying to run the other out of a job, and to deny that is either a flat out lie or a hyper-idealized delusion. There is not room for all the present ULCC's, much less future ones, and the existing legacy airlines. Something has to give. "Just feeding my family" will be the ink the winners write the outcome of history in.

Dashdog
08-06-2012, 08:36 AM
Not friend of a friend, but directly from the (higher than a) VP in question. You can't possibly pretend you blew through half a billion dollars in a few years with just a few airplanes and have perpetually been down to your last 20 million or so every quarter while losing more than that almost every quarter anything other than "royal" intervention.

If you are as experienced (and old) as you say, then you are a relatively short timer and I do understand you running the numbers on things and realizing that VX is likely the final stop for you. For others they are playing the "I'll be in the top 500 of a mega major one day" but whatever. Its all part of the very same labor busting longevity shredding churn the industry is made of. The cycle will always continue. Start up a new airline, pay everyone first year everything on a drastically reduced pay and benefits package, get new airplanes leapfrogging in technology and ammenities, wash, rinse, file bankruptcy because now your costs are higher and here comes another start up and repeat. I get it, I just don't like it.

Don't h8 the playa though, its the game. Rich people will never, ever, get tired of playing with airplanes, and pilots will never not take the best deal they can get at any given time. Some cling to a fantasy that mass refusal to work by all pilots will make the labor corporate churn go away but that's the ultimate pipe dream. That will never happen nor should it even be a goal. Pure fantasy. But the many, many hundreds of aircraft on the order books for so called LCC's and present and future start ups while other airlines stagnate, shrink and fade away make this very much a zero sum game. If VX succeeds to the extent it strives to, the same amount of jobs will be lost at other carriers to provide lower paying and much more junior jobs there. That's just how it works.

I guess in that regard we're like these guys:
http://img5.uploadhouse.com/fileuploads/7928/7928663c4def0999e145671e71909cc4da5cb68.jpg
We're both trying to run the other out of a job, and to deny that is either a flat out lie or a hyper-idealized delusion. There is not room for all the present ULCC's, much less future ones, and the existing legacy airlines. Something has to give. "Just feeding my family" will be the ink the winners write the outcome of history in.

This is the best summary of our industry I've seen in awhile. When people ask me what I think of VX, JB, Spirit, ect., I never quite know how to answer, but from now on I'm just going to paste this on my phone, and show it to them. I don't hold any grudges against my fellow pilots for taking these jobs, but I do resent the system that creates them, and keeps our compensation and work rules so poor. I have a friend who is younger and works for JB. He makes more than I do (I work for a legacy carrier- it doesn't matter which). It's hard for him to understand that one of the reasons my pay is so low, is because of the success of his company- which got successful for the reasons stated above by gloopy. I don't hold it against him, and I don't want to see his pay go down, but some day (possibly soon), he will be in my shoes watching some other ULCC start-up undercutting his company and putting downward pressure on his pay. Hopefully he'll be able to understand better then and maybe work towards a real solution. Going by history (and all the ridiculous arguments on this forum), I don't think the chances are too good.

Merlyn
08-06-2012, 11:12 AM
This is the best summary of our industry I've seen in awhile. When people ask me what I think of VX, JB, Spirit, ect., I never quite know how to answer, but from now on I'm just going to paste this on my phone, and show it to them. I don't hold any grudges against my fellow pilots for taking these jobs, but I do resent the system that creates them, and keeps our compensation and work rules so poor. I have a friend who is younger and works for JB. He makes more than I do (I work for a legacy carrier- it doesn't matter which). It's hard for him to understand that one of the reasons my pay is so low, is because of the success of his company- which got successful for the reasons stated above by gloopy. I don't hold it against him, and I don't want to see his pay go down, but some day (possibly soon), he will be in my shoes watching some other ULCC start-up undercutting his company and putting downward pressure on his pay. Hopefully he'll be able to understand better then and maybe work towards a real solution. Going by history (and all the ridiculous arguments on this forum), I don't think the chances are too good.
Trying to understand how our industry got this way is kind of like the 4 blind men trying to describe an elephant each holding on to a different part. One has an ear, one a leg, the trunk, the tail.

I work for a self described ULCC. Prior to this my background was military so my perspective is neccessarily narrow. Even so, I don't see how my carrier is responsible for pilot woes at the legacies. Consider these points:

It was the legacy carriers with the blessing of their respective pilot unions that created B scales and fostered the growth of regional airlines. Neither of those two descisions had anything to do my carriers existance. They did have much to do with wrecking T&C of pilots

The fallout from 9/11 gave airline management a cover to gut labor contracts in a way they probably could not have done before.

It's not entirely a zero sum game. As with Ryan in europe, our market is customers who normally would not have flown at all, or rarely.

One of ALPAs mantras is that pilot costs have nothing to do with the success or failure of an airline. Complaining about pilot wages at a LCC is therefore a straw man argument.

Before you complain about low wages and poor work rules at an LCC, however, you might want to do a little homework. Ive been with my carrier 13 years and my T&C are quite attractive and probably better than yours.

I'm not looking for a fight. Lots of smart folks with more time and skin in this game than I have. From where I sit I just don't see LCCs being responsible for whats wrong with this industry. JMAO

tzskipper
08-06-2012, 11:23 AM
The downside to a Free Market Economy is "the churn..." Kind of like Kmart (or other similar retailers of the day) not figuring out how to deal with Walmart.

What is the solution? No more entrepreneurship?

S

Timbo
08-06-2012, 11:30 AM
Reregulation of the industry is the only way it will stop.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that though! Too many Congressmen and Senators want to fly with their girlfriends to their condos in Palm Beach, for $49.

gloopy
08-06-2012, 01:09 PM
The downside to a Free Market Economy is "the churn..." Kind of like Kmart (or other similar retailers of the day) not figuring out how to deal with Walmart.

What is the solution? No more entrepreneurship?

S

I'm not against entrepreneurship, nor do I favor reregultion (although we're pretty well "regulated" as it is).

The problem is how the crony (non) capitalist system is set up. The government is supposed to vett all start ups for viability, yet the government blindly rubber stamps all of them while over 95% of them fail. But they are rubber stamped so the politicos can provide low fares to the masses, labor and industry stability be dammed.

On the other side of the equation, when a carrier should by all rights go away, they are bailed out while at the same time taking massive cuts that end up dragging everyone else down. Look at USAir 10 years ago. Had they liquidated, the other airlines wouldn't have furloughed many if at all and wouldn't have had nearly the leverage against labor so the cuts taken would have drastically less. Add in no VX, no SkyBus, no IndyAir and no JetBlue, and the remaining airlines would have been hiring like crazy and been more than able to fend off AirTran and Southwest, the latter of which wasn't nearly as much of a problem but they all still grew as fast as possible replacing legacy jobs with their super junior jobs.

Fast forward to today and USAir captains make less than many FO's so they didn't benefit in the long run either, but management sure did. Now we are agressively subsidizing foreign airlines to the tune of 5 million per plane per year and celebrating their discriminatory employment practices that would get any US company SWAT raided by machine gunners and shut down over night.

We need to stop allowing start ups at anywhere near the threshold we do. That doesn't require new laws but upholding ones we already have. The DOT should never rubber stamp all these idiotic experiments. Standing by for People's Express and SkyBus II and others in the coming years as well as the endless expansion of existing ponzh scheme ULCCs that have to live in growth mode. Then there's the foreign EGO airlines that we subsidize while at the same time subsidizing their nations by borrowing from them to defend them which devalues our currency so we have to keep sending them even more of our wealth to do so.

We need to end those subsidies and allow failing companies to fail. The amount of churn caused by the free market would be significantly less than the churn created by redundant layers of failed policy and misguided politics.

Dashdog
08-06-2012, 01:10 PM
Trying to understand how our industry got this way is kind of like the 4 blind men trying to describe an elephant each holding on to a different part. One has an ear, one a leg, the trunk, the tail.

I work for a self described ULCC. Prior to this my background was military so my perspective is neccessarily narrow. Even so, I don't see how my carrier is responsible for pilot woes at the legacies. Consider these points:

It was the legacy carriers with the blessing of their respective pilot unions that created B scales and fostered the growth of regional airlines. Neither of those two descisions had anything to do my carriers existance. They did have much to do with wrecking T&C of pilots

The fallout from 9/11 gave airline management a cover to gut labor contracts in a way they probably could not have done before.

It's not entirely a zero sum game. As with Ryan in europe, our market is customers who normally would not have flown at all, or rarely.

One of ALPAs mantras is that pilot costs have nothing to do with the success or failure of an airline. Complaining about pilot wages at a LCC is therefore a straw man argument.

Before you complain about low wages and poor work rules at an LCC, however, you might want to do a little homework. Ive been with my carrier 13 years and my T&C are quite attractive and probably better than yours.

I'm not looking for a fight. Lots of smart folks with more time and skin in this game than I have. From where I sit I just don't see LCCs being responsible for whats wrong with this industry. JMAO

You make some good points. Notice I said that ULCC's are only one of the reasons for our problems. I guess you could look at them as more a result of our problems instead. There's plenty of other issues here, including government interference, the publics' insatiable demand for low fares at all costs, and stubborn, sometimes unreasonable union demands. I guess it's a chicken-or-egg argument, but certainly well financed and politically connected (probably interchangeable terms these days) start-ups like JB and VX benefit from young (seniority wise), lower paid labor to take customers from the legacies. At some point these companies will have the same issues that we do, and someone else will come along to take their place. It's a great cycle for consumers at least, but it wreaks havoc with our careers.

dundem
08-06-2012, 02:20 PM
Hey non-DL guys,

Save yourself some keystrokes. If you are not DL, you are inferior.

gloopy refers to AS as a regional that's taking DL flying (among other gems). AS, as we all know- correction- as most of us know, is a well-respected legacy.

There are many @ DL that still look down @ WN and Fedex because those guys were the DL rejects at some time in the past (their words, not mine). I have heard these sentiments while jumpseating on DL. That was before NK had their new contract- I can only imagine what they were saying about NK then.

I have had the pleasure of riding on Virgin America. IMO, hands down, the best, most consistent economy product in the US right now. Virgin guys/gals don't need to defend themselves and I really wish you would not try to. Why do you care what some keyboard commandos feel about you? You haven's scabbed and you're not an alter-ego company. Let them blow all the hot air that they want to. I wish you well and I hope that your company succeeds.

Spirit guys also should not try to explain themselves. Your business model has proven itself as demonstrated by your profitability and growth. NK was the best QOL I have ever had. The product is not something that I’d pay for, but there are millions of people that choose to. Again, you're not scabs, not an alter-ego and you don't OUTSOURCE A-N-Y of your flying. Let the DL experts rationalize why they do.

It seems some on here truly believe that if everyone else just packed up and left then their company would do well, they would get the contract that they had 10-12 years ago and that they’d rule the world. It could happen, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

I guess my request is, try your best to not engage them. They troll the boards and interject their unwanted opinions on almost every thread now and it has negatively affected the level of discourse on this site. I don’t have anyone on my ignore list, I just kinda read and mentally discard much of the drivel. Give it a try, it may help you as well.

tzskipper
08-06-2012, 02:43 PM
I'm not against entrepreneurship, nor do I favor reregultion (although we're pretty well "regulated" as it is).

The problem is how the crony (non) capitalist system is set up. The government is supposed to vett all start ups for viability, yet the government blindly rubber stamps all of them while over 95% of them fail. But they are rubber stamped so the politicos can provide low fares to the masses, labor and industry stability be dammed.

On the other side of the equation, when a carrier should by all rights go away, they are bailed out while at the same time taking massive cuts that end up dragging everyone else down. Look at USAir 10 years ago. Had they liquidated, the other airlines wouldn't have furloughed many if at all and wouldn't have had nearly the leverage against labor so the cuts taken would have drastically less. Add in no VX, no SkyBus, no IndyAir and no JetBlue, and the remaining airlines would have been hiring like crazy and been more than able to fend off AirTran and Southwest, the latter of which wasn't nearly as much of a problem but they all still grew as fast as possible replacing legacy jobs with their super junior jobs.

Fast forward to today and USAir captains make less than many FO's so they didn't benefit in the long run either, but management sure did. Now we are agressively subsidizing foreign airlines to the tune of 5 million per plane per year and celebrating their discriminatory employment practices that would get any US company SWAT raided by machine gunners and shut down over night.

We need to stop allowing start ups at anywhere near the threshold we do. That doesn't require new laws but upholding ones we already have. The DOT should never rubber stamp all these idiotic experiments. Standing by for People's Express and SkyBus II and others in the coming years as well as the endless expansion of existing ponzh scheme ULCCs that have to live in growth mode. Then there's the foreign EGO airlines that we subsidize while at the same time subsidizing their nations by borrowing from them to defend them which devalues our currency so we have to keep sending them even more of our wealth to do so.

We need to end those subsidies and allow failing companies to fail. The amount of churn caused by the free market would be significantly less than the churn created by redundant layers of failed policy and misguided politics.

Some of what you say makes sense, but you seriously believe that VA was underfunded and had inept management at their inception? I have no clue what "vetting" would have said their plan won't work. One more thing, how do think it is a good thing that the government determine the probable survivability of a private company? You spending too much time in Russia or something?

s

Dashdog
08-06-2012, 04:53 PM
Hey non-DL guys,

Save yourself some keystrokes. If you are not DL, you are inferior.

gloopy refers to AS as a regional that's taking DL flying (among other gems). AS, as we all know- correction- as most of us know, is a well-respected legacy.

There are many @ DL that still look down @ WN and Fedex because those guys were the DL rejects at some time in the past (their words, not mine). I have heard these sentiments while jumpseating on DL. That was before NK had their new contract- I can only imagine what they were saying about NK then.


I have had the pleasure of riding on Virgin America. IMO, hands down, the best, most consistent economy product in the US right now. Virgin guys/gals don't need to defend themselves and I really wish you would not try to. Why do you care what some keyboard commandos feel about you? You haven's scabbed and you're not an alter-ego company. Let them blow all the hot air that they want to. I wish you well and I hope that your company succeeds.

Spirit guys also should not try to explain themselves. Your business model has proven itself as demonstrated by your profitability and growth. NK was the best QOL I have ever had. The product is not something that I’d pay for, but there are millions of people that choose to. Again, you're not scabs, not an alter-ego and you don't OUTSOURCE A-N-Y of your flying. Let the DL experts rationalize why they do.

It seems some on here truly believe that if everyone else just packed up and left then their company would do well, they would get the contract that they had 10-12 years ago and that they’d rule the world. It could happen, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

I guess my request is, try your best to not engage them. They troll the boards and interject their unwanted opinions on almost every thread now and it has negatively affected the level of discourse on this site. I don’t have anyone on my ignore list, I just kinda read and mentally discard much of the drivel. Give it a try, it may help you as well.

You sound like a mom telling her son how to deal with the bullies at the playground. I haven't seen anyone on this thread putting VX pilots down for anything. How about contributing something useful to the discussion.

lolwut
08-06-2012, 05:12 PM
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/24536352.jpgHey non-DL guys,

Save yourself some keystrokes. If you are not DL, you are inferior.

gloopy refers to AS as a regional that's taking DL flying (among other gems). AS, as we all know- correction- as most of us know, is a well-respected legacy.

There are many @ DL that still look down @ WN and Fedex because those guys were the DL rejects at some time in the past (their words, not mine). I have heard these sentiments while jumpseating on DL. That was before NK had their new contract- I can only imagine what they were saying about NK then.

I have had the pleasure of riding on Virgin America. IMO, hands down, the best, most consistent economy product in the US right now. Virgin guys/gals don't need to defend themselves and I really wish you would not try to. Why do you care what some keyboard commandos feel about you? You haven's scabbed and you're not an alter-ego company. Let them blow all the hot air that they want to. I wish you well and I hope that your company succeeds.

Spirit guys also should not try to explain themselves. Your business model has proven itself as demonstrated by your profitability and growth. NK was the best QOL I have ever had. The product is not something that I’d pay for, but there are millions of people that choose to. Again, you're not scabs, not an alter-ego and you don't OUTSOURCE A-N-Y of your flying. Let the DL experts rationalize why they do.

It seems some on here truly believe that if everyone else just packed up and left then their company would do well, they would get the contract that they had 10-12 years ago and that they’d rule the world. It could happen, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

I guess my request is, try your best to not engage them. They troll the boards and interject their unwanted opinions on almost every thread now and it has negatively affected the level of discourse on this site. I don’t have anyone on my ignore list, I just kinda read and mentally discard much of the drivel. Give it a try, it may help you as well.

Bucking Bar
08-06-2012, 05:38 PM
I'm sure Virgin US does have the best service. In fact, their results might be better if they just mailed every customer a crisp $100 bill and said "thanks for flying United." It isn't hard to be popular when your charging nothing for an expensive product.

Making a profit is an entirely different thing.

What Virgin was set up to do, failed. Virgin was unable to drive United out of operation. Eating United is a cost prohibitive big bite that Virgin can't chew.

At this point Virgin is illegally dumping capacity in the US market. In more normal days Virgin would be up to its ears in DOJ attorneys, but in these times government officials are only too happy to unload some Brits of their money to employ California residents, thankfully accepting the money as the teacup sized bailing operation which might prolong the buoyancy of the Titanic.

Eventually whoever is funding this folly will pull the plug.

Great airline, I guess. But it is economic nonsense. The surprise is that it has been around this long.

Hacker15e
08-06-2012, 06:37 PM
Reregulation of the industry is the only way it will stop.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that though! Too many Congressmen and Senators want to fly with their girlfriends to their condos in Palm Beach, for $49.

Regulation is a terrible answer. If it were the 1930s, the regulations enacted might be something professional pilots would be interested in.

Unfortunately, it's 2012, and Congress cares about something completely different now. Any new rules would exist to protect the rights of the passenger, and do absolutely nothing to return pilots to the pay or schedules of the pre-'78. If anything, it would handcuff pilots to pitiful wages, likely restrict labor actions to more severe rules than the RLA, and permanently put a wet blanket on "improving the profession" which would require further Congressional action to undo.

A terrible, terrible idea.

ShyGuy
08-09-2012, 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gloopy
Not friend of a friend, but directly from the (higher than a) VP in question. You can't possibly pretend you blew through half a billion dollars in a few years with just a few airplanes and have perpetually been down to your last 20 million or so every quarter while losing more than that almost every quarter anything other than "royal" intervention.

If you are as experienced (and old) as you say, then you are a relatively short timer and I do understand you running the numbers on things and realizing that VX is likely the final stop for you. For others they are playing the "I'll be in the top 500 of a mega major one day" but whatever. Its all part of the very same labor busting longevity shredding churn the industry is made of. The cycle will always continue. Start up a new airline, pay everyone first year everything on a drastically reduced pay and benefits package, get new airplanes leapfrogging in technology and ammenities, wash, rinse, file bankruptcy because now your costs are higher and here comes another start up and repeat. I get it, I just don't like it.

Don't h8 the playa though, its the game. Rich people will never, ever, get tired of playing with airplanes, and pilots will never not take the best deal they can get at any given time. Some cling to a fantasy that mass refusal to work by all pilots will make the labor corporate churn go away but that's the ultimate pipe dream. That will never happen nor should it even be a goal. Pure fantasy. But the many, many hundreds of aircraft on the order books for so called LCC's and present and future start ups while other airlines stagnate, shrink and fade away make this very much a zero sum game. If VX succeeds to the extent it strives to, the same amount of jobs will be lost at other carriers to provide lower paying and much more junior jobs there. That's just how it works.

I guess in that regard we're like these guys:

We're both trying to run the other out of a job, and to deny that is either a flat out lie or a hyper-idealized delusion. There is not room for all the present ULCC's, much less future ones, and the existing legacy airlines. Something has to give. "Just feeding my family" will be the ink the winners write the outcome of history in.

This is the best summary of our industry I've seen in awhile. When people ask me what I think of VX, JB, Spirit, ect., I never quite know how to answer, but from now on I'm just going to paste this on my phone, and show it to them. I don't hold any grudges against my fellow pilots for taking these jobs, but I do resent the system that creates them, and keeps our compensation and work rules so poor. I have a friend who is younger and works for JB. He makes more than I do (I work for a legacy carrier- it doesn't matter which). It's hard for him to understand that one of the reasons my pay is so low, is because of the success of his company- which got successful for the reasons stated above by gloopy. I don't hold it against him, and I don't want to see his pay go down, but some day (possibly soon), he will be in my shoes watching some other ULCC start-up undercutting his company and putting downward pressure on his pay. Hopefully he'll be able to understand better then and maybe work towards a real solution. Going by history (and all the ridiculous arguments on this forum), I don't think the chances are too good.


The ONLY solution to this is one national seniority list. Of course, the pilots we so highly speak of will never go for it. You want to end that cycle? Create one seniority list, where pilots take their experience with them to an airline. It'll be a tought pill to swallow for this generation of pilots, but believe me the next upcoming generation will have it far better if we were to do so. The same management you blame also realizes that pilots are inherently self-serving with too much tied to their seniority at an airline.

gloopy
08-09-2012, 04:38 PM
The ONLY solution to this is one national seniority list. Of course, the pilots we so highly speak of will never go for it. You want to end that cycle? Create one seniority list, where pilots take their experience with them to an airline. It'll be a tought pill to swallow for this generation of pilots, but believe me the next upcoming generation will have it far better if we were to do so. The same management you blame also realizes that pilots are inherently self-serving with too much tied to their seniority at an airline.

Never going to happen, nor should it. There are other ways to take the sting out of starting over and enable pilots to vote no even if it means shutting the doors. Ending the "first year pay" B scale (and in most cases first through at least second to as high as fifth year B scales).

But, no matter what, you will never, ever, see an industry where you can camp out in the right seat of an RJ for 20 years with one company then slide on over to the left seat of a 777 for another airline. It simply will never work like that, nor should it. National hiring list for new hires, maybe. NSL? No way. Look at USAir. They should have been allowed to liquidate, which would have made the rest of the industry much stronger and avoided most or all other furloughs. But to "protect labor" they were bailed out again and again and today have captains makins less than common industry FO rates and a baseline that is weaker for us all.

A NSL will never happen but there are other ways to mitigate the churn. Labor can only do so much. The rest has to come from the regulators and even the companies. We need healthy airlines to crush the never ending barrage of start ups and foreigh dual subsidized EGO airlines.

Dashdog
08-09-2012, 06:19 PM
Never going to happen, nor should it. There are other ways to take the sting out of starting over and enable pilots to vote no even if it means shutting the doors. Ending the "first year pay" B scale (and in most cases first through at least second to as high as fifth year B scales).

But, no matter what, you will never, ever, see an industry where you can camp out in the right seat of an RJ for 20 years with one company then slide on over to the left seat of a 777 for another airline. It simply will never work like that, nor should it. National hiring list for new hires, maybe. NSL? No way. Look at USAir. They should have been allowed to liquidate, which would have made the rest of the industry much stronger and avoided most or all other furloughs. But to "protect labor" they were bailed out again and again and today have captains makins less than common industry FO rates and a baseline that is weaker for us all.

A NSL will never happen but there are other ways to mitigate the churn. Labor can only do so much. The rest has to come from the regulators and even the companies. We need healthy airlines to crush the never ending barrage of start ups and foreigh dual subsidized EGO airlines.

How has US Air been bailed out "again and again"? Are you talking about after 9/11? Didn't almost every airline get bailed out then? Should we have let them all liquidate?

Splash
08-09-2012, 07:20 PM
From where I sit I just don't see LCCs being responsible for whats wrong with this industry. JMAO

How have they helped?

threeighteen
08-11-2012, 10:00 AM
How have they helped?

http://boywritesmiami.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/speechless.gif

Merlyn
08-11-2012, 10:55 AM
Well, a snarky question deserves an appropriate response.

LCCs have helped pilots who didn't want to fly at a regional for substandard pay, benefits and quality of life (entities created by the majors and fostered by ALPAs refusal to insist that regional pilots be covered by mainline contracts) neither did they wish to languish at the bottom of a massive seniority list with the prospects of furlough, reserve duty, and unpopular base assignments for years.

LCCs have offered an opportunity for pilots to take a chance on a startup with the risk that entails exactly as Southwest, FedEx, and other pilots did a generation ago.

As another post stated, my airline hasn't outsourced flying, created an alter ego, or used multiple feeders to whipsaw pilot groups.

Lastly, two years ago the pilots at my LCC struck successfully on our behalf and yours to make this profession better. My ALPA pin has a battle star. Where's yours?

Finally, what have you, or your airline done to improve this profession?

Crickets.

ShyGuy
08-11-2012, 01:40 PM
Well, a snarky question deserves an appropriate response.

LCCs have helped pilots who didn't want to fly at a regional for substandard pay, benefits and quality of life (entities created by the majors and fostered by ALPAs refusal to insist that regional pilots be covered by mainline contracts) neither did they wish to languish at the bottom of a massive seniority list with the prospects of furlough, reserve duty, and unpopular base assignments for years.

LCCs have offered an opportunity for pilots to take a chance on a startup with the risk that entails exactly as Southwest, FedEx, and other pilots did a generation ago.

As another post stated, my airline hasn't outsourced flying, created an alter ego, or used multiple feeders to whipsaw pilot groups.

Lastly, two years ago the pilots at my LCC struck successfully on our behalf and yours to make this profession better. My ALPA pin has a battle star. Where's yours?

Finally, what have you, or your airline done to improve this profession?

Crickets.
They sold out your first year guys from mid $40s to $38.50/hr first year throughout the duration of your contract. Score! :rolleyes: And your CA salaries from years 1-7 are pathetic. And didn't you lose opentime pickup from 200% back down to 100%?

Not that we fare much better, hourly rates are comparable, but you have better work (soft money) rules.

johnso29
08-11-2012, 02:23 PM
Well, a snarky question deserves an appropriate response.

LCCs have helped pilots who didn't want to fly at a regional for substandard pay, benefits and quality of life (entities created by the majors and fostered by ALPAs refusal to insist that regional pilots be covered by mainline contracts) neither did they wish to languish at the bottom of a massive seniority list with the prospects of furlough, reserve duty, and unpopular base assignments for years.

LCCs have offered an opportunity for pilots to take a chance on a startup with the risk that entails exactly as Southwest, FedEx, and other pilots did a generation ago.

As another post stated, my airline hasn't outsourced flying, created an alter ego, or used multiple feeders to whipsaw pilot groups.

Lastly, two years ago the pilots at my LCC struck successfully on our behalf and yours to make this profession better. My ALPA pin has a battle star. Where's yours?

Finally, what have you, or your airline done to improve this profession?

Crickets.

Ummmmmm.......except the LCCs have substandard pay and benefits. JB finally got decent wages, but their benefits are still sorely lacking anything to be desired. Second, I seriously hope you don't work for Spirit. Because I constantly see outsourced flying using the call sign Spirit Wings. Xtra Airways comes to mind. Not to mention management's blatant disregard for your contract completely ignoring the minimum of 4 days off in between trips that has happened in the past.

WindCheckHater
08-15-2012, 07:25 PM
I'm not against entrepreneurship, nor do I favor reregultion (although we're pretty well "regulated" as it is).

The problem is how the crony (non) capitalist system is set up. The government is supposed to vett all start ups for viability, yet the government blindly rubber stamps all of them while over 95% of them fail. But they are rubber stamped so the politicos can provide low fares to the masses, labor and industry stability be dammed.

The DOT should never rubber stamp all these idiotic experiments.

We need to end those subsidies and allow failing companies to fail. The amount of churn caused by the free market would be significantly less than the churn created by redundant layers of failed policy and misguided politics.

Is this the same rubber stamp used by the government to approve all the airline mergers?

gloopy
08-16-2012, 07:18 AM
Is this the same rubber stamp used by the government to approve all the airline mergers?

What mergers do you think should have been blocked and why?

B757200ER
08-16-2012, 08:15 AM
LCCs have helped pilots who didn't want to fly at a regional for substandard pay, benefits and quality of life (entities created by the majors and fostered by ALPAs refusal to insist that regional pilots be covered by mainline contracts) neither did they wish to languish at the bottom of a massive seniority list with the prospects of furlough, reserve duty, and unpopular base assignments for years.

LCCs have offered an opportunity for pilots to take a chance on a startup with the risk that entails exactly as Southwest, FedEx, and other pilots did a generation ago.

As another post stated, my airline hasn't outsourced flying, created an alter ego, or used multiple feeders to whipsaw pilot groups.

Lastly, two years ago the pilots at my LCC struck successfully on our behalf and yours to make this profession better.

All good points; good post. I really think VX is a good airline with a good
product, but it is growing too fast---and too large. The other Virgin companies---VirginAtlantic, VirginAustrailia (prior to Blue merger), VirginExpress---all have between 40-50 aircraft. VX is going to have 75-100 aircraft in the coming years, and will continue to bleed cash, due to the enormous cost of that growth. If they stopped at 45-50 jets, I truly believe it will be successful and make a profit. They can't overtake UNICAL.

falcon2000aj
08-16-2012, 08:58 AM
Ummmmmm.......except the LCCs have substandard pay and benefits. JB finally got decent wages, but their benefits are still sorely lacking anything to be desired. Second, I seriously hope you don't work for Spirit. Because I constantly see outsourced flying using the call sign Spirit Wings. Xtra Airways comes to mind. Not to mention management's blatant disregard for your contract completely ignoring the minimum of 4 days off in between trips that has happened in the past.

Yes, I hope you don't work for Spirit either! It really sucks at Spirit..16-18 days off and 80-100 hours of credit sucks!

I have never seen the 4 days go away unless a pilot chose to build his line that way based on dropped trips.

Xtra operates under Spirit right now because Spirit is/was having issues with their seat replacement program. A product of growing to fast and not having a plan to maintain or replace a/c seats.

Get your facts straight before you bash another airline... Especially one where guys walked the line and did not cross!

Now let's get back on with the thread topic about Virgin!

atooraya
08-16-2012, 11:09 AM
United just launched SFO-RDU. I guess it is true. Even if a new market is thought of, United will launch a route there...

WindCheckHater
08-16-2012, 09:13 PM
What mergers do you think should have been blocked and why?

All of them. Let poorly managed airlines die. The way things stand now we are left with five very large airlines. American, United, Delta, Southwest, USair. It will be only a matter of time, one of these airlines will run into financial problems due to incompetent management/leadership. What then?

If any of these five mega airlines (soon to be four after the AA/USair merge) fail, the smaller JetBlue, Alaska, Allegant, and who ever else is out there, wouldn't be able to fill the void left behind. The government will be forced to bail them out. The old to big to fail concept.

So again, if you want to put away the rubber stamp, put them all away.

gloopy
08-16-2012, 10:20 PM
All of them. Let poorly managed airlines die. The way things stand now we are left with five very large airlines. American, United, Delta, Southwest, USair. It will be only a matter of time, one of these airlines will run into financial problems due to incompetent management/leadership. What then?

If any of these five mega airlines (soon to be four after the AA/USair merge) fail, the smaller JetBlue, Alaska, Allegant, and who ever else is out there, wouldn't be able to fill the void left behind. The government will be forced to bail them out. The old to big to fail concept.

So again, if you want to put away the rubber stamp, put them all away.

I see the present state of merger mania as a large correction from the previously bailed out airlines and their insane RJ real estate bubble buying binge. Pre merger there were way too many massive network carriers with tons of capacity (especially in the way over hyped
businessman wants frequency" RJ feeders) who'se only purpose in existing was to raid the hubs of competitors and cherry pick revenue of key point to point routes. It worked great when one airline had high cost RJ's and few if any other did. But when they all ended up with a massive RJ infestation all they did was bleed one another dry with high CASM insanity.

Had USAir been allowed to liquidate when they should have been, and the precident set that any other would be allowed to follow suit, the industry would have corrected itself without nearly as big a hit to labor and the surviving airlines would have been in a far superior position to fend off the cancerous supernova growth of JetBlue and AirTran. Now here we are, all draged down to the lowest common denominator (I think it was an AA exec that said the industry is only as smart as it's dumbest competitor), the pensions are gone anyway, most Captains make previous FO pay adjusted for inflation and USAir Captains make current FO pay anyway.

But at least the industry is rationalizing its previous level of drasticly excessive competition (which we both agree, one way or another, HAD to be reduced) and the MBA idiocy of "moving the world 50 seats at a time" has been tossed onto the large trash heap of failed airline manager history.

Mergers aren't the problem, but they are (one of many) answers to fixing the broken US airline model. They have to happen to get to where we need to be, yet of course that's not all that needs to happen. I agree that failing carriers need to go away, be they legacy airlines or beloved start ups and so called LCC's crushed by healthy legacys. Either way, we are well beyond a zero sum game with the fantasy order books of the ponzi scheme LCC's and start ups as well as the fairy tale fantasy Howard Hughes wanna be foreigh EGO airlines rushing in head first to out do eachother to be the hero of Farnborough to see who can order a million more A380's and 787's than the other one. Something has to give, and it will.

Airlines that think they will grow and conquer the world will stop growing and be a shall of their former selves. Some will go away entirely. As it should be. I hope you are right though, and as long as the playing field is level on the policy front, let there be no quarter for airlines that can't make it, and let there be no more bailouts. Not for entitled legacy airlines and not for populist so called "low cost" carriers either.

And either way, there needs to be, and there will be, more mergers.

WindCheckHater
08-16-2012, 10:34 PM
You have some good points Gloopy. I don't know what the answer or fix is but I know this is NOT the industry or career it was when I started.

KillingMeSmalls
08-17-2012, 12:49 AM
Had USAir been allowed to liquidate when they should have been, and the precident set that any other would be allowed to follow suit, the industry would have corrected itself without nearly as big a hit to labor and the surviving airlines would have been in a far superior position to fend off the cancerous supernova growth of JetBlue and AirTran. Now here we are, all draged down to the lowest common denominator (I think it was an AA exec that said the industry is only as smart as it's dumbest competitor), the pensions are gone anyway, most Captains make previous FO pay adjusted for inflation and USAir Captains make current FO pay anyway.


Why do people always say "lowest common denominator" on these threads? In my experience it's a phrase rednecks use to look smarter. I make grammar/spelling mistakes all the time, but things like this just make me cringe.

The lowest common denominator when you're adding 1/4 and 1/3 is 12. What the hell does that have to do with our industry?

Maybe people use it just because it has the word "lowest" in it and it sounds fancy.

Hacker15e
08-17-2012, 03:38 AM
Why do people always say "lowest common denominator" on these threads? In my experience it's a phrase rednecks use to look smarter. I make grammar/spelling mistakes all the time, but things like this just make me cringe.

The lowest common denominator when you're adding 1/4 and 1/3 is 12. What the hell does that have to do with our industry?

Maybe people use it just because it has the word "lowest" in it and it sounds fancy.

It's a figure of speech that says, "the smallest, most basic thing in common between these two (or multiple) things is...."

And that is like the smallest, most basic fractional unit between two fractions -- the LCD.

How is that so difficult to grasp?

Geardownflaps30
08-17-2012, 05:57 AM
It's a figure of speech that says, "the smallest, most basic thing in common between these two (or multiple) things is...."

And that is like the smallest, most basic fractional unit between two fractions -- the LCD.

How is that so difficult to grasp?


Apparently, very difficult.

KillingMeSmalls
08-17-2012, 06:28 AM
It's a figure of speech that says, "the smallest, most basic thing in common between these two (or multiple) things is...."

And that is like the smallest, most basic fractional unit between two fractions -- the LCD.

How is that so difficult to grasp?

I'm perfectly aware it's a figure of speech. I'm so glad I was able to get one or two redwood rednecks mad about this.

The denominator is just the bottom part of a fraction. It's not a "fractional unit" as you say. I even gave an example above where the LCD was 12. 12 is a bigger number than 1/3 pr 1/4. Twelve. 12 is the LCD. Maybe if I use the words Y'all and such you'd understand me better.

brianb
08-17-2012, 08:49 AM
I'm perfectly aware it's a figure of speech. I'm so glad I was able to get one or two redwood rednecks mad about this.

The denominator is just the bottom part of a fraction. It's not a "fractional unit" as you say. I even gave an example above where the LCD was 12. 12 is a bigger number than 1/3 pr 1/4. Twelve. 12 is the LCD. Maybe if I use the words Y'all and such you'd understand me better.
..............."redwood rednecks"? Is that the collective intelligence you have to offer to this thread? Come on. You can be smarter then that if you really give it a try. Drop something on us that will "enlighten".

qball
08-17-2012, 09:57 AM
I see the present state of merger mania as a large correction from the previously bailed out airlines and their insane RJ real estate bubble buying binge. Pre merger there were way too many massive network carriers with tons of capacity (especially in the way over hyped
businessman wants frequency" RJ feeders) who'se only purpose in existing was to raid the hubs of competitors and cherry pick revenue of key point to point routes. It worked great when one airline had high cost RJ's and few if any other did. But when they all ended up with a massive RJ infestation all they did was bleed one another dry with high CASM insanity.

Had USAir been allowed to liquidate when they should have been, and the precident set that any other would be allowed to follow suit, the industry would have corrected itself without nearly as big a hit to labor and the surviving airlines would have been in a far superior position to fend off the cancerous supernova growth of JetBlue and AirTran. Now here we are, all draged down to the lowest common denominator (I think it was an AA exec that said the industry is only as smart as it's dumbest competitor), the pensions are gone anyway, most Captains make previous FO pay adjusted for inflation and USAir Captains make current FO pay anyway.

But at least the industry is rationalizing its previous level of drasticly excessive competition (which we both agree, one way or another, HAD to be reduced) and the MBA idiocy of "moving the world 50 seats at a time" has been tossed onto the large trash heap of failed airline manager history.

Mergers aren't the problem, but they are (one of many) answers to fixing the broken US airline model. They have to happen to get to where we need to be, yet of course that's not all that needs to happen. I agree that failing carriers need to go away, be they legacy airlines or beloved start ups and so called LCC's crushed by healthy legacys. Either way, we are well beyond a zero sum game with the fantasy order books of the ponzi scheme LCC's and start ups as well as the fairy tale fantasy Howard Hughes wanna be foreigh EGO airlines rushing in head first to out do eachother to be the hero of Farnborough to see who can order a million more A380's and 787's than the other one. Something has to give, and it will.

Airlines that think they will grow and conquer the world will stop growing and be a shall of their former selves. Some will go away entirely. As it should be. I hope you are right though, and as long as the playing field is level on the policy front, let there be no quarter for airlines that can't make it, and let there be no more bailouts. Not for entitled legacy airlines and not for populist so called "low cost" carriers either.

And either way, there needs to be, and there will be, more mergers.

Unfortunately, in this most "regulated" of "deregulated" industries...where our government looks on airlines as more of a public utility than a business trying to make a profit...IMHO the status quo will continue. The playing field will never be level and natural selection will not be allowed to occur even though it would result in a healthier industry in the long run.

Geardownflaps30
08-17-2012, 11:37 AM
I'm perfectly aware it's a figure of speech. I'm so glad I was able to get one or two redwood rednecks mad about this.

The denominator is just the bottom part of a fraction. It's not a "fractional unit" as you say. I even gave an example above where the LCD was 12. 12 is a bigger number than 1/3 pr 1/4. Twelve. 12 is the LCD. Maybe if I use the words Y'all and such you'd understand me better.

OMG!! You do understand that 4/12ths is the same as 1/3, even though the "12" is "larger"!!!

Holy Archimedes!!

:eek:

gloopy
08-17-2012, 12:25 PM
Unfortunately, in this most "regulated" of "deregulated" industries...where our government looks on airlines as more of a public utility than a business trying to make a profit...IMHO the status quo will continue. The playing field will never be level and natural selection will not be allowed to occur even though it would result in a healthier industry in the long run.

You're (your?) probably right (rite?).

Irregardless,<<<<---- yeah, that just happend of their failed track records, the keynesian morons will continue to try and custom craft a grand society with peace in our time no matter the cost.

MayDaze
08-17-2012, 01:39 PM
OMG!! You do understand that 4/12ths is the same as 1/3, even though the "12" is "larger"!!!

Holy Archimedes!!

:eek:

I think he meant the denominator is larger. You guys are talking about the lowest common denominator, right?

teedog
09-25-2012, 07:01 AM
WOW hey look everyone Virgin lost money in the second quarter $ 4 mill!!!!

Oh sorry thats all they ever do sorry thought this was something new my bad.:D:D:D

how long b4 they shut the doors?

johnso29
09-25-2012, 07:28 AM
Nevermind.......

galaxy flyer
09-25-2012, 08:34 AM
At the intersection of pop culture and economics, if something is a "hit" it makes money; if it doesn't make money, it's not a "hit". JB was making money and growing after 5 years, say "good night, VA".

GF

georgetg
09-25-2012, 09:08 AM
I'm sure Virgin US does have the best service. In fact, their results might be better if they just mailed every customer a crisp $100 bill and said "thanks for flying United." It isn't hard to be popular when your charging nothing for an expensive product.

Making a profit is an entirely different thing.

What Virgin was set up to do, failed. Virgin was unable to drive United out of operation. Eating United is a cost prohibitive big bite that Virgin can't chew...Great airline, I guess. But it is economic nonsense. The surprise is that it has been around this long.


+1 Bar, but it's AA, not United that's the target.

Remember Branson and BA are pretty much sworn enemies, the immunized transatlantic BA AA alliance is his Perl Harbor...

Virgin Australia puts pressure on Qantas
Virgin America puts pressure on AA

Here's some not so subtle writing on a Vigin Atlantic jet tying it all together (Virgin Australia was formerly known as Virgin Blue)

http://www1.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Richard+Branson+No+Way+BA+AA+Photocall+cF_YxJ1hNcj l.jpg

Cheers
George

globalexpress
09-25-2012, 08:43 PM
WOW hey look everyone Virgin lost money in the second quarter $ 4 mill!!!!

Oh sorry thats all they ever do sorry thought this was something new my bad.:D:D:D

how long b4 they shut the doors?

They lost a lot more than that. Look at their net loss- money ain't free.

They have also burned through 80M of the 160M in unrestricted cash they ended 2011 with.

squaretail
09-25-2012, 09:02 PM
They lost a lot more than that. Look at their net loss- money ain't free.

They have also burned through 80M of the 160M in unrestricted cash they ended 2011 with.

And that means what?

globalexpress
09-25-2012, 09:36 PM
And that means what?

It means that they have burned through half of their available cash in 6 months.

It means that if you read Virgin's press release, they talk about a small "operational loss." Regrettably for Virgin, they carry a lot of debt. That debt costs money. Hence the comment.

If you want to see how an airline is really doing, you have to look at the net loss/profit, not the operational loss/profit. Virgin has a significant net loss for the quarter they just reported.

Go to the press release section of the Virgin website. It's right there.

squaretail
09-25-2012, 09:42 PM
It means that they have burned through half of their available cash in 6 months.

It means that if you read Virgin's press release, they talk about a small "operational loss." Regrettably for Virgin, they carry a lot of debt. That debt costs money. Hence the comment.

If you want to see how an airline is really doing, you have to look at the net loss/profit, not the operational loss/profit. Virgin has a significant net loss for the quarter they just reported.

Go to the press release section of the Virgin website. It's right there.

I read the full report.

I happn to enjoy reading financial analyis by pilots. Now... what did you miss?

globalexpress
09-25-2012, 09:51 PM
I read the full report.

I happn to enjoy reading financial analyis by pilots. Now... what did you miss?

It really wasn't a financial analysis. I just looked at the press releases that Virgin put out and used subtraction. Then I looked at the net loss posted and compared it to their revenue and noted a significant loss.

What did I miss?

Sailor
09-25-2012, 10:02 PM
It really wasn't a financial analysis. I just looked at the press releases that Virgin put out and used subtraction. Then I looked at the net loss posted and compared it to their revenue and noted a significant loss.

What did I miss?

No matter how you look at it, how you spin it, VX looses money.

The plan now is to slow growth an focus on making a profit. No more deliveries for 12 mo. It's not gonna be easy, but there is always a virgin to be sacrificed...

ShyGuy
09-26-2012, 12:00 AM
No matter how you look at it, how you spin it, VX looses money.

The plan now is to slow growth an focus on making a profit. No more deliveries for 12 mo. It's not gonna be easy, but there is always a virgin to be sacrificed...
One delivery scheduled for March 2013. The next one after that is in September which starts deliveries of that new order from 2011.

"Always a virgin to be sacrificed"........ lotta talk coming from a guy at Spirit.

ShyGuy
09-26-2012, 12:03 AM
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
I'm sure Virgin US does have the best service. In fact, their results might be better if they just mailed every customer a crisp $100 bill and said "thanks for flying United." It isn't hard to be popular when your charging nothing for an expensive product.

Making a profit is an entirely different thing.

What Virgin was set up to do, failed. Virgin was unable to drive United out of operation. Eating United is a cost prohibitive big bite that Virgin can't chew...Great airline, I guess. But it is economic nonsense. The surprise is that it has been around this long.


+1 Bar, but it's AA, not United that's the target.

Remember Branson and BA are pretty much sworn enemies, the immunized transatlantic BA AA alliance is his Perl Harbor...

Virgin Australia puts pressure on Qantas
Virgin America puts pressure on AA

Here's some not so subtle writing on a Vigin Atlantic jet tying it all together (Virgin Australia was formerly known as Virgin Blue)



Are you serious? VA run United or American out of business? You think that's what VA was set up for? With 52 airplanes, A320s at that? With sole domestic services and three Mexican cities, just 19 destinations. And you took all that to mean that VA's "goal that they set out was to put United out of business."

Wow, I'll take a hit of whatever you're smoking............

Sailor
09-26-2012, 05:38 AM
One delivery scheduled for March 2013. The next one after that is in September which starts deliveries of that new order from 2011.

"Always a virgin to be sacrificed"........ lotta talk coming from a guy at Spirit.

You are right!!. A lot of talk. See ya on the next qtrly report!!

Bucking Bar
09-26-2012, 07:50 AM
Are you serious? VA run United or American out of business? You think that's what VA was set up for? With 52 airplanes, A320s at that? With sole domestic services and three Mexican cities, just 19 destinations. And you took all that to mean that VA's "goal that they set out was to put United out of business."

Wow, I'll take a hit of whatever you're smoking............Branson's stated goal was to run United and / or Delta out of the Pacific where they compete with Virgin Blue. He made other statements directowards running United (pre merger) out of business.

Delta1067
09-26-2012, 08:03 AM
You are right!!. A lot of talk. See ya on the next qtrly report!!

I wouldn't waste your time with shyguy. He was one of the biggest tools to ever wear a 9E uniform.

Sailor
09-26-2012, 08:32 AM
I wouldn't waste your time with shyguy. He was one of the biggest tools to over wear a 9E uniform.


Thanks DL1067, ...-and there is always one of those-..

squaretail
09-26-2012, 08:39 AM
It really wasn't a financial analysis. I just looked at the press releases that Virgin put out and used subtraction. Then I looked at the net loss posted and compared it to their revenue and noted a significant loss.

What did I miss?

My apologies -- your response wasn't bad, and I posted quickly and sarcastically -- I should have taken more time and re-read your response. Here is what I was getting at, you are reading an unaudited report from a company that is not required to report and that is nearly 90 days old. That cash situation that existed then is irrelevant now. The net loss is cryptic and not explained by the numbers, nor narrative.

CanoePilot
09-26-2012, 12:57 PM
Virgin America widens 2Q net loss to $31.8 million | ATWOnline (http://atwonline.com/airline-finance-data/news/virgin-america-narrows-2q-net-loss-318-million-0925)

Virgin America (VX) reported a second-quarter net loss of $31.8 million, widened from a $21.7 million loss in the year-ago period.

jacjetlag
09-26-2012, 01:02 PM
No offense to people working there....

VA is the People Express of today.

ShyGuy
09-26-2012, 01:25 PM
Branson's stated goal was to run United and / or Delta out of the Pacific where they compete with Virgin Blue. He made other statements directowards running United (pre merger) out of business.
Branson has never stated he wants to run United or any other legacy out of business. United, even pre-merger, was and is a very strong legacy carrier, with a huge international network, diverse fleet. VA cannot run ANYONE out of business, simply based on the size and destinations alone. All VA is set up for is to provide an alternate to the bland flying options available in the US, offering a higher class product. You cannot put a legacy airline out of business like United by starting a domestic A320-only airline that does mostly transcons. From day 1, United has been giving VX the headaches, not the other way around.

ShyGuy
09-26-2012, 01:38 PM
I wouldn't waste your time with shyguy. He was one of the biggest tools to ever wear a 9E uniform.
Comical. Coming from a guy who's never flown with me.

Nice knowing you, Mr. Sept-2010-DOH-at-Delta-thank-god-a-mesaba-flowthrough-because-otherwise-a-tool-like-you-would-never-have-gotten-hired-off-the-street.

I heard your reputation at Mesaba wasn't exactly stellar.

Good day.





Thanks DL1067, ...-and there is always one of those-..
You're gonna take his word, someone who has never flown at 9E or VX? He's an arrogant tool who has a serious complex now that he's at mainline Delta, as of 9/2010.

globalexpress
09-27-2012, 11:44 AM
My apologies -- your response wasn't bad, and I posted quickly and sarcastically -- I should have taken more time and re-read your response. Here is what I was getting at, you are reading an unaudited report from a company that is not required to report and that is nearly 90 days old. That cash situation that existed then is irrelevant now. The net loss is cryptic and not explained by the numbers, nor narrative.

Well, actually, they are required to report certain information to the DOT, including some financial information. A few years ago, they tried (unsuccessfully) to get around that requirement, citing that they were a private company. So now we all have press releases to read with some information instead of an actual 10Q.

If you're arguing that Virgin is putting out press releases that are deliberately incorrect or are misleading because they are "unaudited" (whatever that means) and they are "not required to report" (they are) then I hope no one from the DOT is reading your posts and that's speculation on your part.

It's true that Virgin tends to put out their quarterly information much later than the other airlines and the data is old. However, the June 30th "snapshot" provided by their press release is pretty straightforward. In 6 months, they have burned through about half of their unrestricted cash as reported on their 2011 annual report and their latest quarterly filing. They also have a significant net loss for both the quarter and the first 6 months of their calendar year.

Obviously the day after the press release is submitted things change, but if you're implying that a 100M net loss for the 1st 6 months of the year is going to be reversed in the last 6 months of this calendar year .......well .......sure- anything's possible.

Bluesky1
09-28-2012, 07:21 PM
No offense to people working there....

VA is the People Express of today.

People Express is now United Continental. PE Flight Ops Management is running the place (Fred Abbott). Do some research. No dog in the hunt, just felt compelled.

Flyby1206
09-29-2012, 04:55 AM
Branson has never stated he wants to run United or any other legacy out of business. United, even pre-merger, was and is a very strong legacy carrier, with a huge international network, diverse fleet. VA cannot run ANYONE out of business, simply based on the size and destinations alone. All VA is set up for is to provide an alternate to the bland flying options available in the US, offering a higher class product. You cannot put a legacy airline out of business like United by starting a domestic A320-only airline that does mostly transcons. From day 1, United has been giving VX the headaches, not the other way around.

Ok, VX isnt trying to run anyone out of business and they do have a nice onboard product. So why arent they making any money?

And dont try to argue that UAL is beating up VX so badly that they cant survive. Look at NK and their success, despite all the legacy competition.

CanoePilot
09-29-2012, 07:05 AM
Ok, VX isnt trying to run anyone out of business and they do have a nice onboard product. So why arent they making any money?

And dont try to argue that UAL is beating up VX so badly that they cant survive. Look at NK and their success, despite all the legacy competition.

The business model is flawed. The way they are running the airline is horrible. Everything is don east to west and all flight hub out of SFO or LAX.

There is so much wrong with the route structure.

Herkulesdrvr
09-29-2012, 09:13 AM
The business model is flawed. The way they are running the airline is horrible. Everything is don east to west and all flight hub out of SFO or LAX.

There is so much wrong with the route structure.

They seem to go into saturated markets like L.A. or New York where everyone and their brother already operate with little net profits. I wish them luck but it doesn't look good from a financial standpoint.

NERD
09-29-2012, 09:55 AM
And Continental's contract has been a bankruptcy worthy drag on others for the last 25+ years. Every contract cycle I have been through at NWA now Delta they point to cal pay and workrules(or lack there of)


People Express is now United Continental. PE Flight Ops Management is running the place (Fred Abbott). Do some research. No dog in the hunt, just felt compelled.

Bluesky1
09-29-2012, 05:50 PM
And Continental's contract has been a bankruptcy worthy drag on others for the last 25+ years. Every contract cycle I have been through at NWA now Delta they point to cal pay and workrules(or lack there of)

Totally agree.

ShyGuy
09-30-2012, 12:42 AM
Ok, VX isnt trying to run anyone out of business and they do have a nice onboard product. So why arent they making any money?

And dont try to argue that UAL is beating up VX so badly that they cant survive. Look at NK and their success, despite all the legacy competition.
NK is an entirely different business model with 178 seats in a A320 and 145 in an A319. Lot more seats than their competition on the same plane allows them to sell more seats at a very low ticket price, filling up almost every seat. Plus, I'm sure you're aware of their industry leading onboard and bag charges. 33% of NK revenue is from ancillary fees.

UA has beefed up the competition more this year than any years prior with VA. Also not helping is the fuel cost. Flying a significant amount of transcontinental flying means less room to recover from high gas prices that you could from shorter hops.

VA has continuously expanded year over year with lots of aircraft and markets. Now, for the first time, VA sill slow its growth. They get just 1 airplane in the next 12 months, and are focusing on getting the most out of our destinations and letting markets mature. The upcoming quarters should be better year over year.

Golden Bear
10-03-2012, 08:19 AM
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/virgin-america-slows-growth-in-an-effort-to-forge-elusive-profitability-84013

Sailor
10-03-2012, 09:37 AM
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/virgin-america-slows-growth-in-an-effort-to-forge-elusive-profitability-84013

And reality sinks in....

ShyGuy
10-03-2012, 12:45 PM
And reality sinks in....
The slow/stopped growth was planned ahead of time. The new aircraft order won't start until Fall 2013. One more aircraft comes in March 2013. What they initially planned to do was stop growth for one year so they could announce profits, and then go public IPO. So far they haven't announced a profitable quarter this year, so that IPO timeline will have to be re-set. I don't see why there's a rush to get a IPO launched. Spirit didn't do one until just a couple years ago, and that was after they had been well established for over two decades. Branson is a patient investor, and it seems the American investors are also committed long term, so I don't think the IPO needs to happen within the next year.

johnso29
10-03-2012, 01:25 PM
The slow/stopped growth was planned ahead of time. The new aircraft order won't start until Fall 2013. One more aircraft comes in March 2013. What they initially planned to do was stop growth for one year so they could announce profits, and then go public IPO. So far they haven't announced a profitable quarter this year, so that IPO timeline will have to be re-set. I don't see why there's a rush to get a IPO launched. Spirit didn't do one until just a couple years ago, and that was after they had been well established for over two decades. Branson is a patient investor, and it seems the American investors are also committed long term, so I don't think the IPO needs to happen within the next year.

Burning through cash while losses continue to widen may have something to do with it.

FlyFishPilot
10-03-2012, 01:32 PM
Burning through cash while losses continue to widen may have something to do with it.

Says the guy whose company lost a net of 8.4 Billion since 2008.

(Don't get me worng... I think Delta is a strong company, but this is aviation... and Delta did post a huge 2Q loss this year and is at a net loss so far -- yeah, bought a refinery, and while at best guess that's gonna pan out, it's a gamble, just like the rest of this biz).

80ktsClamp
10-03-2012, 01:41 PM
Says the guy whose company lost a net of 8.4 Billion since 2008.

(Don't get me worng... I think Delta is a strong company, but this is aviation... and Delta did post a huge 2Q loss this year and is at a net loss so far -- yeah, bought a refinery, and while at best guess that's gonna pan out, it's a gamble, just like the rest of this biz).

Last I checked the guidance is several billion in profit for the year with margins around 10%.

johnso29
10-03-2012, 01:41 PM
Says the guy whose company lost a net of 8.4 Billion since 2008.

(Don't get me worng... I think Delta is a strong company, but this is aviation... and Delta did post a huge 2Q loss this year and is at a net loss so far -- yeah, bought a refinery, and while at best guess that's gonna pan out, it's a gamble, just like the rest of this biz).

Delta has been around over 80 years. They're a little more established then VA. They've also been profitable in their history. VA can say they've had one profitable quarter. Anyone could shut their doors at anytime. I simply answered why VA would want an IPO so soon.

FlyFishPilot
10-03-2012, 01:50 PM
Last I checked the guidance is several billion in profit for the year with margins around 10%.

Probably accurate too, just rehashing your last two quarters and year to date... glass houses and all. Raise your hand if your company has been through bankruptcy...?

And Jonhso, I got what your point -- no offense was intended. Just making the point that the top dog in this industry has its ups and downs all the same.

johnso29
10-03-2012, 02:09 PM
And Jonhso, I got what your point -- no offense was intended. Just making the point that the top dog in this industry has its ups and downs all the same.

I agree. The mighty can and will always fall at some point. I wish no ill will on VA pilots or VA employees in general. I've never had the pleasure of riding on VA, but I know it's a great product. And while I wish the wages were higher for the pilots, VA certainly isn't the only company that has lower hourly rates. I consider myself extremely fortunate to be where I am, & I don't look down at others for that reason. Everyone is somewhere for some reason.

I don't know if VA will make it or not. Hopefully the halting of deliveries will help turn a profit.

ShyGuy
10-03-2012, 02:34 PM
Burning through cash while losses continue to widen may have something to do with it.
Private company, so they report what they want financially. "Other operating expenses" (other than the 8 already listed) and then "other expense, net" are areas where money is written off. For the 2nd quarter, those two total were $45.75 million. I'm sure a large part of that was paying the investors of the airline.

teedog
10-03-2012, 07:24 PM
My buddy that works at VA just told me they are looking for volunteer leaves for the pilots. This would just be the beginning to the end.

globalexpress
10-03-2012, 08:19 PM
My buddy that works at VA just told me they are looking for volunteer leaves for the pilots. This would just be the beginning to the end.

I don't think it's unheard of for an airline to ask pilots for voluntary leaves during the "low" season. They have done that at my airline, too, even when we're making lots of money. Not that I think Virgin isn't in big trouble and there may be an ulterior motive, but that in and of itself might not indicate imminent failure IMO.

It will be interesting to see what happens when some decent hiring takes place over the next several months. Will they even be able to keep their pilots? If AMR, UAL/CAL, DAL, US, etc., wanted to shut Virgin down with some targeted hiring, they could if they wanted to be difficult.

ShyGuy
10-03-2012, 08:26 PM
My buddy that works at VA just told me they are looking for volunteer leaves for the pilots. This would just be the beginning to the end.
No official news of the sort. Could be a buddy just blowing smoke. Or VAPA propoganda. How would your buddy know without it being posted anywhere, no email, no forms, nothing.

RJtrashPilot
10-03-2012, 08:47 PM
No official news of the sort. Could be a buddy just blowing smoke. Or VAPA propoganda. How would your buddy know without it being posted anywhere, no email, no forms, nothing.

I can verify that it's not blowing smoke or VAPA propoganda. I heard directly from the chief pilot's mouth last week that leaves for pilots will be offered in Q1 2013.

However, I do not believe it's the beginning of the end. I think it's a temporary overstaffing situation that every airline encounters at some point. Offering leaves due to overstaffing does not equate to the beginning of the end. I'm no kool-aid drinker by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think we will be ok company wise. I think they are doing things to strengthen the balance sheet and get this ship sailing in the right direction.

okbk
10-03-2012, 08:50 PM
If it's true then must be part of the Q1 reduction plan that was discussed at the all hands meeting.... so it would probably just be a leave for the time during Q1

cmrflyer
10-04-2012, 08:00 AM
They also offered us leaves back in 2009. Nothing new here people.