V Australia Launch and Movements

[Arthur T]

Originally Posted by Michael Morrison

I take back my words of JNB.
Seems SYD-JNB is the next route - Branson mentioned it in LA.

But why not replacing VS to run HKG?

VA's acquision on VS 200/201 HKG - SYD leg would bring lots more advantages!!!
VS can still remain the route by co-marketing the remaining leg with VA.

Reasons:
1. Fleet Advantage
- More Seats on VA B77A than VS A346
- Newer Cabin: More attractive and competitive to CX's New Cabins, especially VA's "Mood Lighting"
- VA to operate means Australian. More Australian crews, More Austrailan smiles, More Austarlian accents, More user-friendly to Australians - More attractive to Australians.
- Morderner Entertainment System: Widescreen Panasonic AVOD on VA fleets; VA means more Australian entertainment, More Australian CDs, More Australian movies, More attractive to Australians.
2. Network Advantage
- VA to HKG means easier to establish more services to HKG and connect VS service to London. Travelling time from MEL, BNE, OOL, DRW, ADL & PER would be reduced and competitors would be increased. VA would also be benefited by converting & employing DJ's B737ER on routes from those cities to Hong Kong and connect towards London.
- VA to HKG means competiton against JQ. VA can codeshare/acquire HK Express to other Asian destinations. Alternatively, VA can codeshare with other carriers to other Asian and European destinations, such as NH to HND, at the end, Australians would have a better service ex-Australia to Asia/Europe.
- VA to HKG means more user-friendly for Velocity commutors. The earning/redeeming rate would be more competitive to QF Frequent Flyer & CX Marco Polo Club.
- VA to HKG means more service, more often.
3. Cost Advantage:
- All VS ground cost on SYD would be subsequently replaced by VA, and VA enjoys cost advantage by combining the costs into other routes by VA.
- As I remember, HKG offers new carriers first year discount on landing/parking fees, the entire route would then receive 1 extra year reduction hence cost advantage on the entire service.

*Further Discussion Welcomed*

[Michael Morrison]

Hi Arthur,

I'm not sure more seats is a good thing. VS don't seem to fill the SYD-HKG leg so I'm not sure why they would need more capacity.

Re Mood lighting and the general cabin ambience -
from what I have seen of the 3D tour and picsthus far, VS's A346 interior will still be better than VA's. VS have a great scheme in PE and Business. The grey panelling (rather than white/cream) looks awesome! As do the loo's with the cool blue lights...


Perhaps if they had smaller aircraft it could work, but I just can;t see it working at the moment with a 777-300er. It just seems like alot of capacity to thow on a route. Even QF have cut back some HKG services and look at all the feed they have with CX in HKG.

I reckon VA with their initial fleet of 7 will try and go daily with each of their LAX services eventually and do the 5 per week JNB. That leaves them 2 aircraft by my shaky calculations to do another route. Where that might be is anyones guess???

[Justin L]

Originally Posted by Arthur T

But why not replacing VS to run HKG?

VA's acquision on VS 200/201 HKG - SYD leg would bring lots more advantages!!!
VS can still remain the route by co-marketing the remaining leg with VA.

Reasons:
1. Fleet Advantage
- More Seats on VA B77A than VS A346
- Newer Cabin: More attractive and competitive to CX's New Cabins, especially VA's "Mood Lighting"
- VA to operate means Australian. More Australian crews, More Austrailan smiles, More Austarlian accents, More user-friendly to Australians - More attractive to Australians.
- Morderner Entertainment System: Widescreen Panasonic AVOD on VA fleets; VA means more Australian entertainment, More Australian CDs, More Australian movies, More attractive to Australians.
2. Network Advantage
- VA to HKG means easier to establish more services to HKG and connect VS service to London. Travelling time from MEL, BNE, OOL, DRW, ADL & PER would be reduced and competitors would be increased. VA would also be benefited by converting & employing DJ's B737ER on routes from those cities to Hong Kong and connect towards London.
- VA to HKG means competiton against JQ. VA can codeshare/acquire HK Express to other Asian destinations. Alternatively, VA can codeshare with other carriers to other Asian and European destinations, such as NH to HND, at the end, Australians would have a better service ex-Australia to Asia/Europe.
- VA to HKG means more user-friendly for Velocity commutors. The earning/redeeming rate would be more competitive to QF Frequent Flyer & CX Marco Polo Club.
- VA to HKG means more service, more often.
3. Cost Advantage:
- All VS ground cost on SYD would be subsequently replaced by VA, and VA enjoys cost advantage by combining the costs into other routes by VA.
- As I remember, HKG offers new carriers first year discount on landing/parking fees, the entire route would then receive 1 extra year reduction hence cost advantage on the entire service.

*Further Discussion Welcomed*

I can see what you mean, but conversely couldn't VA just code share on the VS flights to HKG and pretty much have the same result as you suggest in many of the areas from a network perspective? Then VA's own planes can be put on new routes that have limited competition like JNB etc to increase their overall Virgin group network presence.

[D Chan]

Originally Posted by Arthur T

But why not replacing VS to run HKG?

VA's acquision on VS 200/201 HKG - SYD leg would bring lots more advantages!!!
VS can still remain the route by co-marketing the remaining leg with VA.

Reasons:
1. Fleet Advantage
- More Seats on VA B77A than VS A346
- Newer Cabin: More attractive and competitive to CX's New Cabins, especially VA's "Mood Lighting"
- VA to operate means Australian. More Australian crews, More Austrailan smiles, More Austarlian accents, More user-friendly to Australians - More attractive to Australians.
- Morderner Entertainment System: Widescreen Panasonic AVOD on VA fleets; VA means more Australian entertainment, More Australian CDs, More Australian movies, More attractive to Australians.
2. Network Advantage
- VA to HKG means easier to establish more services to HKG and connect VS service to London. Travelling time from MEL, BNE, OOL, DRW, ADL & PER would be reduced and competitors would be increased. VA would also be benefited by converting & employing DJ's B737ER on routes from those cities to Hong Kong and connect towards London.
- VA to HKG means competiton against JQ. VA can codeshare/acquire HK Express to other Asian destinations. Alternatively, VA can codeshare with other carriers to other Asian and European destinations, such as NH to HND, at the end, Australians would have a better service ex-Australia to Asia/Europe.
- VA to HKG means more user-friendly for Velocity commutors. The earning/redeeming rate would be more competitive to QF Frequent Flyer & CX Marco Polo Club.
- VA to HKG means more service, more often.
3. Cost Advantage:
- All VS ground cost on SYD would be subsequently replaced by VA, and VA enjoys cost advantage by combining the costs into other routes by VA.
- As I remember, HKG offers new carriers first year discount on landing/parking fees, the entire route would then receive 1 extra year reduction hence cost advantage on the entire service.

*Further Discussion Welcomed*

this is not as simple as just swapping aircraft - they need to get governement approval as the 2nd Australian airline to fly to hong kong. suppose this is not too hard though, then there are airworthiness issues, and also there are crewing, rostering, patterns that they will need to build into their system. But flying to Hong Kong still makes more sense than flying to JNB - how much business traffic is there from Australia to South Africa?

re: your point on competing with Cathay - Cathay still has the upper hand in frequency, network and destination (intra-asia). With VA, how many flights a day can they offer? It will take them years to get enough pax to fly double daily on a 773ER. With network, airlines like SQ, CX will always have the advantage over Qantas, VS, BA etc. There simply is no added advantage for VA if they fly to HKG. What difference does it make if say, VA flies on the route instead of VS?

VA can codeshare/acquire HK Express to other Asian destinations

there's no certainty they will cooperate, furthermore HK Express does not have a lot of destinations.

Morderner Entertainment System: Widescreen Panasonic AVOD on VA fleets; VA means more Australian entertainment, More Australian CDs, More Australian movies, More attractive to Australians.

not all the pax flying on routes like these are Australian - only appeals to half if not 1/3 of all the pax that would fly on the route.

[Michael Morrison]

Originally Posted by D Chan

not all the pax flying on routes like these are Australian - only appeals to half if not 1/3 of all the pax that would fly on the route.

Plus I'm sure VS actually have some SYD based crew that just do SYD-HKG-SYG on VS200/201

[Arthur T]

I can see what you mean, but conversely couldn't VA just code share on the VS flights to HKG and pretty much have the same result as you suggest in many of the areas from a network perspective? Then VA's own planes can be put on new routes that have limited competition like JNB etc to increase their overall Virgin group network presence.

But how about the current partonage on the SYD - JNB by QF? Furthermore, SA currently just codesharing the service. I believe if there is such high partonage/potential, there would already other airlines (eg. SQ/EK/LA etc) start to promote on this route or SA to operate its own service.

I would still support for a VA service to HKG. If swapping carrier is not the best solution, then I believe VA can operate a daily from MEL & OOL to HKG after, or perferably before JNB. This can enable more service on the entire MEL & OOL - LHR, and it will help with the partonage on VS200/201 as well. Furthermore, I believe there isn't too much competition bewteen OOL - Europe/Asia market yet, and lots of HKG tour groups will first stop OOL actually, hence it would save traveller's time.

Finally, VA can consider to run a daily B737-800 service out of CNS to HKG or SIN etc, as QF/JQ isn't doing those services and is mainly dominated by foreign carriers.

[Michael Morrison]

Originally Posted by Arthur T

I would still support for a VA service to HKG. If swapping carrier is not the best solution, then I believe VA can operate a daily from MEL & OOL to HKG after, or perferably before JNB. This can enable more service on the entire MEL & OOL - LHR, and it will help with the partonage on VS200/201 as well. .

They won't start OOL. Firstly, Air Asiz X pretty much have the market covered for OOL-Asia.

Secondly I dont thinkt he HGK-LHR flights really need much more feed - those flights are always chockers which has helped with the SYD-HKG legs lower loads. Perhaps tyhe new flight has eased this somewhat.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-36418,00.html

[NickN]

V Australia doing a 3 x weekly service to Rome would be nice.

A disproportionate amount of european travellers from Australia always seem to venture to Italy during their visit. Plus I could see plenty of bums on seats for 1st and Buiness class, plenty of Oz/Italian business ties.

Would break the current mould thats for sure.

[Ellis Taylor]

Originally Posted by Arthur T

But how about the current partonage on the SYD - JNB by QF? Furthermore, SA currently just codesharing the service. I believe if there is such high partonage/potential, there would already other airlines (eg. SQ/EK/LA etc) start to promote on this route or SA to operate its own service.

I would still support for a VA service to HKG. If swapping carrier is not the best solution, then I believe VA can operate a daily from MEL & OOL to HKG after, or perferably before JNB. This can enable more service on the entire MEL & OOL - LHR, and it will help with the partonage on VS200/201 as well. Furthermore, I believe there isn't too much competition bewteen OOL - Europe/Asia market yet, and lots of HKG tour groups will first stop OOL actually, hence it would save traveller's time.

Finally, VA can consider to run a daily B737-800 service out of CNS to HKG or SIN etc, as QF/JQ isn't doing those services and is mainly dominated by foreign carriers.

Just to pick up on the SAA point, both SAA and Qantas find the current arrangement whereby QF operate the SYD-JNB and SAA the PER-JNB is much more lucrative than if both carriers operated both routes. It's one of the reasons why they have kept that arrangement going, despite the fact that it basically offers no competition between Australia and South Africa. I'm not sure if they do it from SYD, but from PER at least SQ and MH promote connecting services through to JNB via their hubs.

[Adam T]

The flights to South Africa make sense to me, there are a lot of ex-pat South Africans currently living in Australia, a lot of which are in Sydney and Perth. I remember reading an article a year or so back that said the growth in South Africans emigrating to Aus was at around 35% p.a. and figures where at around 4,500 p.a.

I can also see this as an advantage to Virgin Atlantic as they fly to South Africa from London and Manchester and can provide an alternate route to Australia for brits wanting to see both Africa and Australia.