Where Will Virgin America Hub?

[Ch. 12]

Isn't it about time that we started focusing on the West again? First it was HP, WN, and Alaska in the west during the 80's/early 90's and then it was WN, FL, and everybody else in the east during the 90's and to present. It's only natural to head west once again!

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

An article was out two days ago about California's newest Governor having meetings with Virgin to base the operation at LAX, or somewhere in California with tax breaks. Maybe it is not all about the Northeast corridor after all.

Yes, and with Singapore Airlines owning 51% of Virgin this could make sense to have a West Coast Hub.

Plus the Virgin culture goes well with the West Coast types. Big media splash.

 

[Walmart Greeter]

One thing is sure: it won't be Pittsburgh. Nothing against the city, but the market isn't big enough and what's more important Branson is not going to base it in a city that doesnt have a hip local following.

So I say LA or New York. There might be something to the Miami thing? Wouldn't you do it where the Virgin brand is already strong? So I say LAX.

Plus, Arnold wants them - I liked most of his movies and he's a nice enough buy, but honestly he can't fix the mess that state is in - so why not snag an airline like Virgin? If you can't balance the budget at least get Branson to throw a party and start an airline.

 

[audio-nut]

Instead of concentrating flights in a Hub, why not have a network of 20 to 25 flights a day out of several major or medium-size cities with very little low-fare competition. Examples would be MSP, DTW, CLE, PIT, CVG, SFO, DFW. Virgin would have the resources to sustain a price war with the majors out of these cities.

So instead of taking on one major airline at their hub take them all on?

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

The problem with LAX is that CA is not willing to pay the bill to upgrade it in order to handle A380's. Branson gave CA an ultimatum to either get going on the upgrades or to forgett having LAX as a hub for Virgins LCC.

MIA does not make any sence for Virgin since it will be to costly for a Hub system (much longer flights Dom & Intl.) JFK and EWR to expensive and complicated. ORD or IAD are a logical choice.

The critical point for any airport is going to be the ability to handle the A380. The problem is not the size of the aircraft, that can be all arranged, it is the weight (+ 1,000,000 lb). To retrofit the tarmac for this weight category is the expensive part of the deal.

 

[Legacy]

BOS

 

[ual777fan]

I was going to add to the LAX comment. Where does he think he is going to get the gates and terminal space at LAX. It is one of the busiest and most conjested airports in the nation. Everyone wants more space at LAX to expand existing operations. Why would Virgin USA be ahead of United or American or Southwest, or Delta?

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

I was going to add to the LAX comment. Where does he think he is going to get the gates and terminal space at LAX. It is one of the busiest and most conjested airports in the nation. Everyone wants more space at LAX to expand existing operations. Why would Virgin USA be ahead of United or American or Southwest, or Delta?

To add some more competetion and choices for the passengers.

 

[JFK777]

No A380's at LAX is like cars with no gasoline. LAX is the main pacific airport in this fine country, many Asian airlines using this monster will use it to LAX. IF LAX won't take the airplane then I would say it is a trade policy issue to screw the French. SIA, QF, Cathay, Malaysia, Korean, Virgin, Air France, and Lufthansa; a who's who of worldwide airlines have ordered this flying elephant expecting to use it to airports heavily traveled by Asian passengers.

While few flights from Europe will use an A380, flight to LAX and JFK a prime candidates since many airlines fly multiple daily flights to JFKand LAX from Europe. I find LAX's anti A380 attitude surprising since this airplane is the future of Pacific travel and LAX is so involved in this HUGE and GROWING market.

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

No A380's at LAX is like cars with no gasoline. LAX is the main pacific airport in this fine country, many Asian airlines using this monster will use it to LAX. IF LAX won't take the airplane then I would say it is a trade policy issue to screw the French. SIA, QF, Cathay, Malaysia, Korean, Virgin, Air France, and Lufthansa; a who's who of worldwide airlines have ordered this flying elephant expecting to use it to airports heavily traveled by Asian passengers.

While few flights from Europe will use an A380, flight to LAX and JFK a prime candidates since many airlines fly multiple daily flights to JFKand LAX from Europe. I find LAX's anti A380 attitude surprising since this airplane is the future of Pacific travel and LAX is so involved in this HUGE and GROWING market.

LAX is sitting between a rock and a hard place. THe airport is surrounded and can't grow. In order to upgrade they have to shut down each Runway, Taxiway and parking area and reinforce the tarmac. Try to run LAX on only three runways and also take some taxiways etc away. Since the state is not in the position to finance it and no one will loan money to California LAX is playing a game of cat and mouse with the full knowllage that they are the losers. This is the moment SFO was waiting for. They wnat to take over LAX's position and they are on the way to kick some LAX butt. IF LAX wants to stay in the game and be a major airport they have to wake up and get into gear. I know of an airport that is more than willing to take over some of LAX capacity: LAS !

 

[k2air]

IAH is out as a Virgin hub if flyi (Independence Air takes off).
What happened to selecting underutilized airports near big cities? Gary/Chicago? Toledo/Detroit? Orlando Sanford? Mid-America? Allentown? What's wrong with lower landing fees contributing to lower operating costs? If anyone can pull it off, Branson can with some good ole American investors backing him up. The US Airline Industry needs to reinvent itself.

 

[Ch. 12]

What happened to selecting underutilized airports near big cities? Gary/Chicago? Toledo/Detroit? Orlando Sanford? Mid-America? Allentown? What's wrong with lower landing fees contributing to lower operating costs?

The backlash against these reliever airports is that carriers quickly realized that passengers are willing to commute to get a cheaper flight, but not willing to commute as far as these "relivers". WN can pull it off because they use OAK, PVD, MHT, SNA, FLL, MDW...etc...all airports with significant populations themselves, or in the case of MHT, where many New Englanders would have to go to BOS to catch a decent flight, closer to the regional population.

GYY did not garner much of its own traffic and Chicago residents aren't willing to risk their life to go there and save a few bucks. Mid-America is a joke...why would you drive WAY out into the country to catch a flight when several carriers including low cost carriers are already serving STL? TOL...well, with DET/DTW, who needs to drive to TOL for a flight? SFB...too far from everyone's destination. MCO is much better situated and has the same fares. There are just too many options around Allentown. A good reliever airport needs to have its own population, relieve ONE highly congested/overpriced airport, and be in close proximity. Good options for relievers are few and far between these days.

 

[SPG Trvlr]

I have read either SFO or BOS. I have read that SFO is offering lots of incentives like low fees and that is what won Air New Zealand over. SFO also will have VS and SQ.

 

[MrMarky]

For some time now the finalists have been SFO, IAD and BOS. This has been widely reported in the press for months. Puzzling that nobody here seems to be aware of this.

 

[Ch. 12]

For some time now the finalists have been SFO, IAD and BOS. This has been widely reported in the press for months. Puzzling that nobody here seems to be aware of this.

I think that's b/c this is more of a "where do YOU THINK they should hub" rather than "where does the PRESS SPECULATE they will hub".