V Australia cans Melbourne - LAX

[Andrew M]

Originally Posted by Ash W

Greg not sure what you mean? Even if Qantas and United are "ripping" us off it doesn't mean that V-Aus coming into the market would be succesful.

I am sure Greg means that entering an expensive route would mean greater chance of success as you are the new entrant with a lower price.

Better than entering an already cheap route with lots of competition, sadly V Aust had other factors which have screwed them over.

[Ash W]

See I would have thought the inverse would be true. Entering a route with stong incumbants, regardless of price will always be a struggle. The fact the market is willing to pays "so much" is an indication it isn't an overly price sensitive route. Which gets back to the point I was making that it is the market that drives the price of the ticket not 'greedy' airlines per se.

For mine I reckon V-Aus would have been better off going for new markets rather than trying to muscle in on the LA route. I am sure there are many places in the US they could have tried.

[Andrew McLaughlin]

Originally Posted by Ash W

For mine I reckon V-Aus would have been better off going for new markets rather than trying to muscle in on the LA route. I am sure there are many places in the US they could have tried.

Do you want Brett Godfrey's and Richard Branson's email addresses?

[Ash W]

No really. This is a discussion board where I thought we could air our own personal views on matters. I am sure Godfrey and co are not stuipid and made their decision on solid ground, it has just proved to have not worked in the current enviroment.

My comments were more directed at those who just assumed automaticly that an airline entering a market offering lower prices would romp it in.

[Andrew M]

Ash W - So where in the USA should V have flown to instead.

QF and UA only see LAX and SFO as being worthwhile and they have experience in the area where V has none!

Generally an airline will "romp it in" with lower prices on a high-priced route, but everything combined has burnt V in the behind. On the other hand I see your point about a price sensitive route, but if you want to the to the USA in the past people had to pay $2000+ now they can pay $1000

[Ash W]

What I was getting at is it was suicide to take on, as a first route LAX, owing to the established presence there already. Virgin Blue in particular has a history of making a go at routes that are not well served and I would have thought that would have been their first attempt at the US market rather than LAX.

[Jarden S]

I had hoped they try somewhere new in the US like Dallas thats a major city 4 million+. For a start 3 SYD-DFW 773 flights a week would be good. Also why don't they try new markets like Brazil 3 a week to RIO from SYD. The plane has the range to do it non stop. Thats my 2 cents worth..

[Andrew M]

Ash W

So again where should have they have flown to instead of LAX ?

If QF/UA/DL don't see a need to fly anywhere else except LAX/SFO then I doubt V Australia could make a case of it.

[Andrew McLaughlin]

Originally Posted by Jarden S

I had hoped they try somewhere new in the US like Dallas thats a major city 4 million+. For a start 3 SYD-DFW 773 flights a week would be good. Also why don't they try new markets like Brazil 3 a week to RIO from SYD. The plane has the range to do it non stop.

I doubt a 77W could do SYD-DFW let alone DFW-SYD with a full load for a start. And being a twin there's no way it could do SYD-RIO non-stop without infringing on its ETOPS limits.

What I was getting at is it was suicide to take on, as a first route LAX, owing to the established presence there already.

WTF???

Guys, at the end of the day load factors on the Pacific until the 4th quarter of last year were frequently above 90% across QF, UA and NZ - THAT'S what kept the fares high - supply and demand, so there was and will be again room on the route for a daily V Australia flight, not to mention Delta as well which starts up in a few weeks. On face value, it made perfect sense.

There's no doubt the airline has been hurt by an almost 'perfect storm' combination of factors, most of which have been beyond its control, but that doesn't make the original business plan a bad one. There was room for a carrier at the bottom and middle end of the market which would have also generated new business, and there likely will be again.

And NONE of us here are qualified to judge or even comment on whether VA should have started up somewhere or sometime else, nor should we be commenting on hearsay which may or may not have any basis of fact. If you are qualified to do so, go and write for a magazine, or work for CAPA or for Richard Aboulafia or something....geesh!

[Andrew M]

Agree with what you are saying about supply/demand on the Aussie-LAX route, hence my postings above.

Not sure if you are serious about not being allowed to comment, this is a discussion forum afterall...