• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Coronavirus: Future of airlines and airports

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
It's a dreadful situation to be in for employees, and it's potentially understandable that they'd hope against hope that what he might be saying would be true.

However, Virgin Atlantic will push for a government bailout shortly, and almost certainly won't get it. Delta's wishes can't be ignored, and without Delta there is almost no hope of Virgin Atlantic ever having a sustainable future. Whatever Sir Richard says, the way that the industry is going is consolidation. Virgin Atlantic has never been profitable in any meaningful way; historically they've ridden things out by filling 'planes up with Virgin Holidays customers and managed the accounting internally.

Anything to keep the brand aloft.

Singapore Airlines tried for years to sell their 49% until Delta finally stepped up. Singapore realised quite soon that the brand is not what Sir Richard believes that it is.

When Alaska Airlines bought Virgin America, they understood enough about their own operations that they could proceed to erase the Virgin brand from the acquired business without undue concern.

When the Virgin brand was removed from the East Coast railway franchise, passengers didn't flee as the glamour of the brand was removed from their train ride.

Virgin is everything to Sir Richard, but it really isn't much in terms of any industry and certainly any nation.

He had the opportunity to create something really credible and powerful as a second force in UK aviation had he combined with Sir Michael Bishop at British Midland, but he didn't - and then maintained his default position of carping. The industry always felt that the egos were too large, and also that some of Sir Richard's underlying personality traits were incompatible with Sir Michael's position.

Ultimately, Sir Richard is a great self-publicist and plays the role of hard done-by underdog in a sweater with unwavering dedication, but I personally don't even believe that he's very good at branding, a stake through the heart to him as that suggestion would be.

Brands aren't universally-versatile; they usually have very defined applications and the power of them is maintaining focus on the product or service. Sir Richard focuses on the brand and himself, and has been personally very successful - but I'd posit that few Virgin branded businesses will outlive him. Possibly the UK media businesses being the only ones that might cling on to the name.

A lot is speculation, of course, but the vital signs for Virgin Atlantic are not considered by many (if any) that I talk to in the industry to be good.

Yeah, a lot of public perception has turned against Branson too, after he tried to sue the NHS. Now asking for a bailout from the government for his airline. Branson needs to snap out of his idea that the UK government works like the US with their endless airline bailouts, etc...

Ultimately, a lot of people (myself included), couldn't care less about Virgin and BA. Virgin serves some routes from Manchester to the East Coast US, but so do loads of other airlines. In regards to BA, anyone who's airport isn't LHR probably doesn't see or use them all that much. Flights from the other capitals of the country and its other major cities seem somewhat limited.

I mostly fly with Ryanair and a mixture of everything for transatlantic.

Flybe had the best case out of any airline, due to its large domestic operations and the argument it did actually provide some very useful services for the UK, even ones that are perhaps not considerably profitable. If the government let them go under, Virgin and BA have no chance.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
How is flying people between the UK and USA on a non budget airline not profitable?

It's possibly reasonably profitable, but the market is very crowded. Plus, airlines like BA keep customers by having frequent flights, codeshares and rewards schemes for those flying frequently.

Ultimately, you still have to fill the economy section. I think if an airline went for a half first/business 737MAX/A321 NEO fleet, with a small economy section, you could possibly have an pretty profitable business model. Although to encourage those premium passengers onto long haul narrowbody you might need more than three bogs.

Something like a 757 would be perfect...
 

FQTV

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2012
Messages
1,067
How is flying people between the UK and USA on a non budget airline not profitable?

When your costs are higher than your revenues.

Yeah, a lot of public perception has turned against Branson too, after he tried to sue the NHS. Now asking for a bailout from the government for his airline. Branson needs to snap out of his idea that the UK government works like the US with their endless airline bailouts, etc...

Ultimately, a lot of people (myself included), couldn't care less about Virgin and BA. Virgin serves some routes from Manchester to the East Coast US, but so do loads of other airlines. In regards to BA, anyone who's airport isn't LHR probably doesn't see or use them all that much. Flights from the other capitals of the country and its other major cities seem somewhat limited.

I mostly fly with Ryanair and a mixture of everything for transatlantic.

Flybe had the best case out of any airline, due to its large domestic operations and the argument it did actually provide some very useful services for the UK, even ones that are perhaps not considerably profitable. If the government let them go under, Virgin and BA have no chance.

Public perception about Sir Richard is largely irrelevant. Infrequent, low yield passenger traffic is likewise.

The model that’s currently proving sustainable is based on high-yield, complex combinations of connecting and origin and destination flights.

Up to 80% of network airline shorthaul traffic is longhaul connections. BA is not going to alter its long term domestic and international short haul scheduling as long as that’s the case.

I move clients across the Atlantic, on occasion, at around £11,000 one way. These are the revenue drivers. Virgin Atlantic doesn’t get those passengers. Those passengers simply don’t like being told that they’re awesome and that a flight is a party. They associate instead with BA, SWISS and Lufthansa.

It’s also possible that a lot of folks don’t realise that those types of passengers exist. However, airlines can’t sell a £130 (one way equivalent) ticket on a ten hour flight unless someone else is paying almost a hundred times as much.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,644
Location
Mold, Clwyd
It's a double reverse for Branson, after the Flybe collapse which must have cost them serious cash, and now Covid-19.
HMG isn't going to gift them money, it will be a loan or equity purchase.
Otherwise the government will have to do the same for any UK airline, and BA seems to think it does not need help.
Whatever VS's problems, their major shareholder Delta's will be worse with a huge fleet on both US domestic and international routes.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,771
Location
Scotland
From the Delta point of view, what's the benefit of the additional costs of branding, separate sales teams, separate operations at Heathrow T3 etc., etc? It's fundamentally inefficient and against the (some would say) brutally efficient IAG and the others who'll prevail, it's hopeless.
Delta has already said that they intend to emerge from this as a smaller, leaner airline. So they leave much of the US - UK flying to Virgin Atlantic and most of the US - EU flying to AF-KLM.
 

FQTV

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2012
Messages
1,067
Delta has already said that they intend to emerge from this as a smaller, leaner airline. So they leave much of the US - UK flying to Virgin Atlantic and most of the US - EU flying to AF-KLM.

Delta is a USD44bn turnover company. Air France KLM is less than half the size combined. Virgin Atlantic has a tenth of the turnover of Air France KLM.

Delta can’t legislate for what the governments of France and the Netherlands will do to ‘support’ their ‘national’ carriers.

There’s also no evidence at all that Virgin generates incremental turnover and yield to exceed its higher operating costs. All Delta needs is the Heathrow slots, and Virgin Atlantic will be as much of a force in aviation as BhS is in high street retail.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,771
Location
Scotland
Delta is a USD44bn turnover company. Air France KLM is less than half the size combined. Virgin Atlantic has a tenth of the turnover of Air France KLM.
The relevance of which is? I've simply laid out one way that Delta could decide to leverage the joint venture with AF-KLM* and their stake in Virgin Atlantic to - as they have themselves said - emerge as a smaller airline.

*Edit: Is it still a JV (ala NW and KLM) or just an alliance and code share?
Double edit: Yes, it is a JV - https://www.businesstraveller.com/b...france-and-klm-launch-expanded-joint-venture/
 
Last edited:

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,071
Branson's call for money should be made to the government of the (British) Virgin Islands, surely? After all, with the punitive rates of tax levied there they must be awash with money :lol:
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
Virgin Atlantic will be as much of a force in aviation as BhS is in high street retail.

Ouch, that's a roast lol.

Public perception about Sir Richard is largely irrelevant. Infrequent, low yield passenger traffic is likewise.

The model that’s currently proving sustainable is based on high-yield, complex combinations of connecting and origin and destination flights.

Up to 80% of network airline shorthaul traffic is longhaul connections. BA is not going to alter its long term domestic and international short haul scheduling as long as that’s the case.

I move clients across the Atlantic, on occasion, at around £11,000 one way. These are the revenue drivers. Virgin Atlantic doesn’t get those passengers. Those passengers simply don’t like being told that they’re awesome and that a flight is a party. They associate instead with BA, SWISS and Lufthansa.

It’s also possible that a lot of folks don’t realise that those types of passengers exist. However, airlines can’t sell a £130 (one way equivalent) ticket on a ten hour flight unless someone else is paying almost a hundred times as much.

Whilst I might disagree with you on the finer details, I think we both agree Virgin Atlantic isn't particularly worth bailing out, nor will it get it.

Honestly, why should the government prop up airlines that are running routes served well by other airlines and that should be relatively profitable if run properly? Transatlantic is served really well by a lot of airlines, many of which make an absolute killing on service, largely from these very profitable business travellers.

Flybe had much more of a case than Virgin Atlantic, serving smaller airports, with flights on leaner, less profitable, but useful routes. They didn't get a bailout. Thomas Cook which likely had far more jobs on the line didn't.

Ultimately bailouts save the existing management and owners, but either way the staff and infrastructure will find its way into use in the long term, if demand is there. If not, no bailout is worth it anyway. If there's demand, another airline will take its place, staff may be displaced in the meantime, but money may be best used to assist those out of work than to line the pockets of CEO's who over-leveraged their businesses in order to increase the stock prices and their bonuses.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,843
I wonder if the events on the last few weeks will impact on the attractiveness of international connecting flights, as a lot of the people struggling to return home at the moment are finding that they can't get in their connecting airport, even though they are staying airside all the time

If more countries end up like the US, a horrible place to connect, will direct flights become extra attractive?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,771
Location
Scotland
If more countries end up like the US, a horrible place to connect, will direct flights become extra attractive?
The US model for connections doesn't make sense if the intention is to reduce the transmission of infectious disease. Keeping people airside reduces the likelihood of transmission, making everyone clear immigration and customs only makes it more likely that people will "pop into town" if they've got a few hours between flights.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
It's a double reverse for Branson, after the Flybe collapse which must have cost them serious cash

Flybe won't have cost him much, he only had 30% of Connect Airways and Stobart Group were the ones providing most of the guarantees. Maybe £30m tops.

Otherwise the government will have to do the same for any UK airline, and BA seems to think it does not need help.

IAG is pretty cash rich and Walsh will, I'm sure, take great pleasure in blocking any attempt to use Government cash to help Virgin. Both personally and also as a business- retrenchment and consolidation helps IAG. BA have a very lean economy product now because of Norwegian competition; when they go, BA will raise fares but still have the lean economy operation.

Those travelling regularly are protected from lean economy by BAEC, which encourages loyalty, so even better.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,771
Location
Scotland
IAG is pretty cash rich...
Though, that does raise the question of why? They seem to be one of the few airline groups that has a sizeable bank balance. Is it just luck that they didn't pursue stock buybacks a la American Airlines, or aggressively expand as per Deutsche Lufthansa AG? Or do we think they were preparing for an expected financial downturn?
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,486
Location
North West England
How is flying people between the UK and USA on a non budget airline not profitable?

Because not that many people pay the advertised rates for business and first class travel. It's classic "mug" pricing - a small minority will pay the stupidly high advertised prices. Regular travellers will know how to get the discounts and also benefit from frequent flyer programs, etc. The rich, famous and influential (such as travel bloggers etc) will sometimes/often get free travel justified by publicity etc.

When I was FD of a company who sent staff/managers all over the World, we used a tiny, private, local travel agents - the prices they could negotiate were a lot less than advertised rates - we'd be paying just a quarter of advertised rates to send our MD first class over the pond - the travel agents would not only know what buttons to press to get discounted fares, they also rebating some of their (hefty) commission as we were such a good customer for them (and maybe a welcome change from their usual small town market of OAPs and 18-30s going to Benidorm!).
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,771
Location
Scotland
Because not that many people pay the advertised rates for business and first class travel. It's classic "mug" pricing - a small minority will pay the stupidly high advertised prices. Regular travellers will know how to get the discounts and also benefit from frequent flyer programs, etc.
That doesn't make it not a profitable venture though. It objectively costs the same to fly 100kg of human meat across the Atlantic, regardless of if it's in the front or the back of the plane. Unless the airline is incredibly stupid, they will set the Y fare to a level that pays the bills, and even if the F/J passengers only pay twice as much they'll be in pure profit. Okay, they'll be a bit more expensive due to the higher service level, but not that much really as most of the cost is fixed (cabin, seats) rather than marginal (food/drink).

Not to mention that belly cargo pays the same regardless of the airline.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Or do we think they were preparing for an expected financial downturn?

I'm genuinely not sure, but I think it's a combination of an older fleet (that isn't leased) and not doing stock buy-backs. I do also wonder if they were hoping, before now, to mop up heavily leveraged airlines and/or using cash to secure cheap new planes.
 

MDB1images

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2018
Messages
654
I think Manchester Airport reverts to 1 Terminal open and only open 06:00-16:00 this week.
Think there's only about 8 flights in/out passenger wise a day.
 

RichJF

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2012
Messages
1,100
Location
Sussex
Gatwick has today gone over to single terminal operation & only 8 hours of manned/supported runway ops. Seems incredible really!
1/3 gates are shut & all ops being consolidated into the South Terminal.

2pm - 10pm hours I believe.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,843
Is the Welsh Government sponsored flight to Cardiff still operating?
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Here in Jersey Channel Islands there is one daily plane to Southampton and that is it (shipping has been goods only for weeks). I suspect the only reason that plane is retained is because radiotherapy and other advanced procedures are carried out on islanders at the hospital there.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,499
If you mean the RAF, they'll often exceed that count. I was thinking of commercial flights.
Sure, but the RAF Flying means that commercial don’t have to cover the full cost of keeping an airport open. A lot of people have to come to work even for those two flights at Liverpool.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,843
It seems entirely justifiable to keep going a minimal service to the Channel Islands, IoM, Scottish Islands etc, are these being subsidised by the authorities as I can't imagine the load factor is going to be very good?
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,044
Location
North Wales
Sure, but the RAF Flying means that commercial don’t have to cover the full cost of keeping an airport open. A lot of people have to come to work even for those two flights at Liverpool.
Exactly. The contrast of a large airport operating as many commercial flights as Valley usually does is just the contrast I was trying to make.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,957
Location
Hope Valley
Is the Welsh Government sponsored flight to Cardiff still operating?
I saw a news report that it had been suspended for three months but can't find it just now. It was part of a wider rail, bus, etc. announcement from the Welsh Government.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,499
Have any airports other than London City (and half of Gatwick)actually shut down?

Also, have the RAF ever flown into London City? I am thinking the A400M in medivac set up - it’s very close to Excel Nightingale if London desperately had to share the patient load with elsewhere.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top