• 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!

Brightline have terminated their relationship with Virgin Group

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
i wonder what's caused this?
I suspect many parts of the Virgin group might be in trouble financially due to coronavirus. Virgin Atlantic has filed for bankruptcy protection in the US. The cruise business has no doubt taken a huge hit over the summer. There were plans for trains to run directly into the cruise port at Miami to connect with Virgin ships. Perhaps that deal was falling apart. I think it was a bit daft anyway, as the port line branches off at ground level just before the line climbs up to the elevated city centre terminus, so any train going to the port couldn't also serve the shiny new Miami Central station with all its surrounding property development. A dedicated traditional streetcar style rail shuttle link from the port to the station using the link line and a new terminating track at street level under the station would be a better idea IMHO, or failing that, a bus.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Dickie Pickle's Midas touch seems to have worn off... and not before time.

I'm not anti-Virgin at all (I'd love to have VRG back on the WCML rather than lackadaisical Avanti) but Brightline is a strong, modern brand and I don't see why they'd want to pay Branson a considerable sum of money to use his instead.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
I'm not anti-Virgin at all (I'd love to have VRG back on the WCML rather than lackadaisical Avanti) but Brightline is a strong, modern brand and I don't see why they'd want to pay Branson a considerable sum of money to use his instead.
I'm very much anti-Virgin (as my admittedly juvenile nickname for Branson suggests) because I don't really put much stock in the "style over substance" approach. Virgin West Coast were actually a very good operator, but that was purely down to the franchise being generally well-run. With the same team in charge the service would have been just as good if had been branded as Stagecoach, but alas Branson gets the credit because "Virgin" is slapped on every available surface.

Avanti haven't exactly set the world on fire since they took over, but a bit of blandness is probably needed after all the Virgin frippery.
 

Memma

Member
Joined
22 Jul 2020
Messages
42
Location
Australia
Interesting to see the announcement that Brightline has cut all ties with Virgin Trains USA - I guess that means Miami Central gets renamed!

https://trainreview.com/news/brightline-severs-ties-with-virgin-drops-virgin-name

Less than two years after Brightline announced a “strategic partnership” with Virgin Group and rebranded its trains as Virgin Trains USA it has announced that it has severed all connection with Richard Branson's Virgin Group and will revert back to the Brightline name. The company had entered into a branding deal with Virgin in advance of a planned initial public offering. The initial public offering was unsuccessful and the company remains private. Virgin Group will retain no equity ownership or affiliation with Brightline. Whilst no reason was given for the divorce, Virgin Group's travel assets are currently distressed with both airlines in its portfolio - Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Australia - in administration and both UK train franchises nationalised or re-franchised by the UK government.

As part of the strategic partnership Brightline had branded its trains as Virgin Trains USA and had even renamed its Miami terminal Virgin Miami Central, with the large Virgin logo adorning the station becoming something of a Miami landmark. All Brightline trains were suspended amidst the COVID pandemic on 25-March 2020. As the virus continues to wreak havoc in Florida the company has yet to re-commence service.

Brightline, the only private intercity train in the United States, currently connects Miami and West Palm Beach via Fort Lauderdale, operating over the Florida East Coast Railway from Miami Central. The Florida East Coast Railway operates to the east of the tacks utilised by competing Amtrak and Tri-Rail services allowing Brightline to service convenient downtown stations Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach. Brightline commenced operation in January 2018 operating trains between West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale. The link was extended to Miami Central Station in May 2018 and is expected to be extended to Orlando in 2021.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SussexLad

Member
Joined
7 Jan 2020
Messages
193
Location
UK
I never really understood what virgin bought to the party other than a good marketing team and a strong brand.

I'd never heard of the idea to link in with cruises arriving at miami port. Cant help but think surely their isn't that much demand along the route from 1 ship. Why not just run a shuttle bus?
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,252
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
I'm not anti-Virgin at all (I'd love to have VRG back on the WCML rather than lackadaisical Avanti) but Brightline is a strong, modern brand and I don't see why they'd want to pay Branson a considerable sum of money to use his instead.

Having come back from Scotland last week with Avanti I rather agree with you. Lacklustre and First Group seem to go hand in hand of late - as a regular user of SWT / SWR. Apart from the delay repay returning fairly quickly, everything else was rather disappointing.

Linking back to the topic, I found it rather bizarre too. Unless someone at Brightline could see an advantage to sticking Virgin over everything - How well are Virgin known in the USA compared to the UK? I'm pleased it'll revert back to Brightline though, they already have a smart brand & livery - and what I feel they need to keep concentrating on is expanding their network than changing their brands.
 

Royston Vasey

Established Member
Joined
14 May 2008
Messages
2,167
Location
Cambridge
I'm very much anti-Virgin (as my admittedly juvenile nickname for Branson suggests) because I don't really put much stock in the "style over substance" approach. Virgin West Coast were actually a very good operator, but that was purely down to the franchise being generally well-run. With the same team in charge the service would have been just as good if had been branded as Stagecoach, but alas Branson gets the credit because "Virgin" is slapped on every available surface.

Avanti haven't exactly set the world on fire since they took over, but a bit of blandness is probably needed after all the Virgin frippery.
As you say, VWC were very good. Contrasted to latter day ICWC, it was a different world. Virgin Atlantic isn't the airline it used to be but is still very good; the safety record is impeccable, the hard product is good, the Clubhouses excellent; in my view only the staff attitude has started to let it down in recent years. Virgin America was consistently the best US airline domestically and I used them many times before they were acquired by Alaska Airlines, who kept the hard product.

There is something to be said for a fresh and customer-centric approach, even if the shine comes off as it ages. That is what Virgin has consistently done very well, and I don't consider it just style over substance, but it's marketing in the holistic sense - what does the market want and how do we do things differently. They have always done that. The Pendolinos and Voyagers were flawed, the overfriendly communications and signage not to everyone's taste, but disruptively innovative for their time, and that is what Virgin does best. They disrupt the markets they enter, which leads to more competition and higher standards... and in truly competitive markets - i.e. aviation, not franchised railways - lower fares.
 

jamesontheroad

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2009
Messages
2,032
I found it rather bizarre too. Unless someone at Brightline could see an advantage to sticking Virgin over everything - How well are Virgin known in the USA compared to the UK?

Richard B had long expressed a desire to have an airline with the Virgin name in the USA. In 2005-ish they started working on plans for Virgin USA, which became Virgin America.

The plan was to launch out of San Francisco and go head-to-head with the biggest established competitors on trains-continental routes and on west coast trunk routes (LAX, etc).

They found investors and filed the paperwork, but the US Department of Transport denied the application. Basically the USA is a closed market to foreign competition, and the US unions and airlines campaigned vigorously against Virgin Group having a controlling stake in the airline. So they restructured the company, removed Branson and some UK directors from the board, and created a US-held trust. The airline was technically American but Virgin (as usual) got a lot of money for branding and corporate services.

To answer your question - in its core markets, Virgin America was very popular. Because US airlines tend to own or lease the gates at airports, they were able to do a lot more to make the whole kerbside to gate experience special. Lounges were built, the cabin interiors were ahead of the competition, and if I’m not mistaken they also pioneered the use of at-seat ordering for food and beverages. They were also first to roll out inflight WiFi across their whole fleet (brand new Airbus, built in the USA of course).

The airline went public in 2014, and because share holders are generally after a quick buck, there was immediately a lot of interest in an acquisition or merger. Alaska Airlines (who are stronger outside their home state than the name suggests, especially down the west coast) and JetBlue fought it out, and Alaska won. The airlines, fleets, routes and staff merged and the name was dropped.

Aside from the record label and a few shops, that’s the biggest exposure the Virgin brand has in America. It was popular with a few niche markets, especially California’s tech and showbiz industries, who benefited a lot from the fresh competition it brought to California and trans-con flying. But in the rest of the USA, the brand was probably equally if not more associated with the initial disputes about a foreign owned company breaking in to the domestic market.
 

Royston Vasey

Established Member
Joined
14 May 2008
Messages
2,167
Location
Cambridge
Richard B had long expressed a desire to have an airline with the Virgin name in the USA. In 2005-ish they started working on plans for Virgin USA, which became Virgin America.

The plan was to launch out of San Francisco and go head-to-head with the biggest established competitors on trains-continental routes and on west coast trunk routes (LAX, etc).

They found investors and filed the paperwork, but the US Department of Transport denied the application. Basically the USA is a closed market to foreign competition, and the US unions and airlines campaigned vigorously against Virgin Group having a controlling stake in the airline. So they restructured the company, removed Branson and some UK directors from the board, and created a US-held trust. The airline was technically American but Virgin (as usual) got a lot of money for branding and corporate services.

To answer your question - in its core markets, Virgin America was very popular. Because US airlines tend to own or lease the gates at airports, they were able to do a lot more to make the whole kerbside to gate experience special. Lounges were built, the cabin interiors were ahead of the competition, and if I’m not mistaken they also pioneered the use of at-seat ordering for food and beverages. They were also first to roll out inflight WiFi across their whole fleet (brand new Airbus, built in the USA of course).

The airline went public in 2014, and because share holders are generally after a quick buck, there was immediately a lot of interest in an acquisition or merger. Alaska Airlines (who are stronger outside their home state than the name suggests, especially down the west coast) and JetBlue fought it out, and Alaska won. The airlines, fleets, routes and staff merged and the name was dropped.

Aside from the record label and a few shops, that’s the biggest exposure the Virgin brand has in America. It was popular with a few niche markets, especially California’s tech and showbiz industries, who benefited a lot from the fresh competition it brought to California and trans-con flying. But in the rest of the USA, the brand was probably equally if not more associated with the initial disputes about a foreign owned company breaking in to the domestic market.
Very good summary. Their focus on major medium haul routes and transcontinental dispensed with the feeder services and puddle jumpers that the major airlines needed. I think this forum would usually call it a "raid" on the most profitable routes :) with few connections in their business model other than perhaps LAX/SFO-LAS. Even then connection was usually a case of walking off the plane and taking a seat at the next gate.

Their network was limited to only around 12-15 major airports/conurbations, including EWR, JFK, SFO, BOS, DAL (not DFW), LAS, IAD, HNL, AUS, SEA, PDX and a few others. None of the baggage (pun intended) of needing to serve Buttsville Alabama and the like.

I cannot emphasise enough how much of a breath of fresh air the service quality was. I was a regular transcon traveller as they were becoming established and they were so far ahead. It was voted best business airline about ten years running. Since then, the majors have really upped their game in terms of product, fare and service innovation, and new fleets, and indeed breadth of alliance/frequent flyer programmes. Having options to collect Virgin Atlantic Flying Club miles was an important reason to use them for me, although eventually I focused on BA Executive Club collecting with AA, since most of my transatlantic flying was with BA. Things have now come full circle as Alaska are joining Oneworld!

On the transcons (6 hours west, 5 hours east) their business model put them in competition with AA at the time using 20+ year old 767-200s, United/Continental flying 757s and 737s which were just starting to get seatback satellite TV, and Delta mainly with 757-200s. And some of the competing shorter routes were being plied by MD80s and 737 classics which were a step back in time.

Since then, the majors have caught up somewhat (like AA's A321Ts) but VX was years ahead of its time.
 
Last edited:

James James

Member
Joined
29 Jan 2018
Messages
426
On the transcons (6 hours west, 5 hours east) their business model put them in competition with AA at the time using 20+ year old 767-200s, United/Continental flying 757s and 737s which were just starting to get seatback satellite TV, and Delta mainly with 757-200s. And some of the competing shorter routes were being plied by MD80s and 737 classics which were a step back in time.
I'm not convinced that Virgin were really threatening the big 3 on transcon: the big money is made up front. Virgin was flying planes with a few recliners in the front, compared to the big 3 running lie-flat business-heavy configurations (and AA even introduced an extra first class with even more space), with denser schedules - at least on the all-important SFO/LAX to NYC.

Certainly, on shorter hops along the coast, or in economy - Virgin had a better product - but transcon business they were irrelevant.
 

Royston Vasey

Established Member
Joined
14 May 2008
Messages
2,167
Location
Cambridge
I'm not convinced that Virgin were really threatening the big 3 on transcon: the big money is made up front. Virgin was flying planes with a few recliners in the front, compared to the big 3 running lie-flat business-heavy configurations (and AA even introduced an extra first class with even more space), with denser schedules - at least on the all-important SFO/LAX to NYC.

Certainly, on shorter hops along the coast, or in economy - Virgin had a better product - but transcon business they were irrelevant.
I said business model, not Business class. I didn't mean to imply they took a great deal of Business class trade, the product differentiation was far bigger down the back. Most business travel is in economy anyway.

No they weren't close in terms of passenger numbers, certainly not, but they'd done enough to make a living as a new entrant and innovate sufficiently that the competition reacted to them.

The big 3 certainly weren't running lie-flat at the time, AA 767s had the cream plastic 2-2-2 recliners and First was little better. Off the premium transcontinentals there were narrowbodies with "a few recliners in front" exactly as you describe. UA added Polaris to some 757s and introduced Polaris 787s filling gaps in their schedules recently (they're currently all 737 but that's because of the current climate) but I don't remember three class on EWR-West Coast in recent memory. I may be wrong, and three class/business class isn't the point here.

AA only went lie flat and 3 class when they bought the 321Ts. Long after VX, which was always focused mainly on being the best economy class product.
 

James James

Member
Joined
29 Jan 2018
Messages
426
I said business model, not Business class. I didn't mean to imply they took a great deal of Business class trade, the product differentiation was far bigger down the back. Most business travel is in economy anyway.

No they weren't close in terms of passenger numbers, certainly not, but they'd done enough to make a living as a new entrant and innovate sufficiently that the competition reacted to them.

The big 3 certainly weren't running lie-flat at the time, AA 767s had the cream plastic 2-2-2 recliners and First was little better. Off the premium transcontinentals there were narrowbodies with "a few recliners in front" exactly as you describe. UA added Polaris to some 757s and introduced Polaris 787s filling gaps in their schedules recently (they're currently all 737 but that's because of the current climate) but I don't remember three class on EWR-West Coast in recent memory. I may be wrong, and three class/business class isn't the point here.

AA only went lie flat and 3 class when they bought the 321Ts. Long after VX, which was always focused mainly on being the best economy class product.
You missed my point: business (or first) class IS the business model for transcon. That's where the money is made - economy is just the fillter. Even if a lot of business travellers are forced to sit in economy - there are more than enough of them up front to let the airlines milk them for profit. Virgin's meager transcon schedule and plane sizes tells you everything you need to know about how relevant they were in transcon (the big 3 were flying bigger planes, more often, with more up-front seats).

I can't dispute that Virgin have a better economy in general (although it's all varying shades of cramped) - but they simply did not matter in the long-distance premium market, and did not impact the competition. United were flying their premium-specific 757s (not "a few recliners in front") before Virgin joined that market - and those planes were even 100% Economy Plus down the back (so even the cheaper seats were special) - I'm less familiar with the other big 2, but they certainly were competing amongst each other, not against Virgin.
 

Royston Vasey

Established Member
Joined
14 May 2008
Messages
2,167
Location
Cambridge
You missed my point: business (or first) class IS the business model for transcon. That's where the money is made - economy is just the fillter. Even if a lot of business travellers are forced to sit in economy - there are more than enough of them up front to let the airlines milk them for profit. Virgin's meager transcon schedule and plane sizes tells you everything you need to know about how relevant they were in transcon (the big 3 were flying bigger planes, more often, with more up-front seats).

I can't dispute that Virgin have a better economy in general (although it's all varying shades of cramped) - but they simply did not matter in the long-distance premium market, and did not impact the competition. United were flying their premium-specific 757s (not "a few recliners in front") before Virgin joined that market - and those planes were even 100% Economy Plus down the back (so even the cheaper seats were special) - I'm less familiar with the other big 2, but they certainly were competing amongst each other, not against Virgin.
I do understand that premium cabins pay the bills for transcon and international, and that they were always a small player. They weren't just flying the classic four transcon routes though. The general point is about a consistency and innovation of service and hard product that was disruptive. Disruptive innovation rarely comes from big players, but they soon catch up. Leading like that is the Virgin ethos. Their offering was totally different to anything out there. Even down to white leather F seats and purple glass partitions, fluff as they may be :)
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I never really understood what virgin bought to the party other than a good marketing team and a strong brand

For a TOC, that is very, very important. It’s what makes the difference on marginal revenue, and that’s what makes the profit.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
That Virgin over-branded the West Coast has been claimed on here before, but I don't see any evidence for it being the case. Their livery only had the brand name on the driving cars. The interior was in brand-agnostic brown, red and blue. Other than a discreet 'stencilled' logo on the vestibule doors standard class coaches didn't have the Virgin name anywhere, in first class the antimacassars were branded. Compare it with say First's habit of branding everything that possibly can be, right down to logos in seat moquettes and embossed in the plastic of seat backs.

Agreed - there's probably more "First" branding on a single coach than "Virgin" branding on an entire eleven coach 390 - Virgin understand that "less is more" when it comes to such things - they are good at making a train "feel" Virgin without plastering the word on every available surface - and (whilst it apparently annoys a lot of rail enthusiasts) a lot of ordinary members of the public will pay a premium for the Virgin brand
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
Agreed - there's probably more "First" branding on a single coach than "Virgin" branding on an entire eleven coach 390 - Virgin understand that "less is more" when it comes to such things - they are good at making a train "feel" Virgin without plastering the word on every available surface - and (whilst it apparently annoys a lot of rail enthusiasts) a lot of ordinary members of the public will pay a premium for the Virgin brand
First were worse for the "Stick an 'f' on everything, paint everything purple" but Virgin never seemed to stop blowing their own trumpet: "Arrive Awesome" wasn't easy to do when you'd spent two hours in a vestibule with your face in your jumper because of the toilet stench. At least when other long distance TOCs screwed up, they'd face it and seem like they knew they'd screwed up. Virgin were all plastic smiles regardless of delay.

If I was going from Preston to London I wouldn't pay a premium for the Virgin brand out of choice- it was the only option without spending all day hopping across the North and Midlands on split tickets.
 
Last edited:

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Virgin Australia is on life support too, and is effectively now owned by US equity capital firm Bain Investments after a spell in administration.
Like Virgin America, Virgin Group (Branson) has only a small share of the capital for the branding rights.
It looks like the brand will stay, but it will be a much smaller and more local airline.
Overall, Branson has lost out heavily in recent years from being a major influence on global travel markets, to being a small niche player.
Looks like he has cut back elsewhere to fund the rebuilding of Virgin Atlantic, but it's still in a very fragile state with the continuing Covid-19 impact.
But losing ICWC wasn't entirely his fault, and for one I thought their 22 years on the route did great things for the wider railway.
With hindsight, letting Stagecoach control the recent EC/WC bids was a bad decision.
 

Mwanesh

Member
Joined
14 May 2016
Messages
787
Virgin Australia is on life support too, and is effectively now owned by US equity capital firm Bain Investments after a spell in administration.
Like Virgin America, Virgin Group (Branson) has only a small share of the capital for the branding rights.
It looks like the brand will stay, but it will be a much smaller and more local airline.
Overall, Branson has lost out heavily in recent years from being a major influence on global travel markets, to being a small niche player.
Looks like he has cut back elsewhere to fund the rebuilding of Virgin Atlantic, but it's still in a very fragile state with the continuing Covid-19 impact.
But losing ICWC wasn't entirely his fault, and for one I thought their 22 years on the route did great things for the wider railway.
With hindsight, letting Stagecoach control the recent EC/WC bids was a bad decision.
Stagecoach know their business. It was the right time to leave the railways. Virgin were just there for the marketing aspect of the business. If the sums dont add up. Stagecoach dont wait. They once sold the London bus business for £260 million and bought it back a few years later for a fifth of their selling price.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
Stagecoach know their business. It was the right time to leave the railways. Virgin were just there for the marketing aspect of the business. If the sums dont add up. Stagecoach dont wait. They once sold the London bus business for £260 million and bought it back a few years later for a fifth of their selling price.

But with a significant change in the proportion of owned to leased buses. Headline figures can hide things!
 
Last edited:

Memma

Member
Joined
22 Jul 2020
Messages
42
Location
Australia
Virgin Australia is on life support too, and is effectively now owned by US equity capital firm Bain Investments after a spell in administration.
Like Virgin America, Virgin Group (Branson) has only a small share of the capital for the branding rights.
It looks like the brand will stay, but it will be a much smaller and more local airline.
Looks like Virgin Australia will be a much reduced 737 offering that will be "mid market" whatever that means.

I'm not that surprised at the Brightline / Virgin split - the IPO didn't get off the ground (possibly one of the reason for bringing the Virgin brand into the fold) and Brightline is in a high capital expenditure growth phase building new Palm Beach to Orlando, Victorville to Vegas and hopefully other lines.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
The Virgin Vs Chad Brightline

I honestly think Brightline had a strong namd and brand presence, which they had worked hard on achieving. Not only did Branson not stump up the cash for his part in the company, but I think the name was beginning to become somewhat of a drag, what with the other areas of Virgin facing bankruptcy issues etc.

I hope Brightline weathers the pandemic okay, they have a good product and with the new extension in the works, they should have an incentive to keep going. If they ever need funding, hopefully Florida state will come to their senses and give them a bit of a boost.
 

Backroom_boy

Member
Joined
28 Dec 2019
Messages
281
Location
London
The Virgin Vs Chad Brightline

I honestly think Brightline had a strong namd and brand presence, which they had worked hard on achieving. Not only did Branson not stump up the cash for his part in the company, but I think the name was beginning to become somewhat of a drag, what with the other areas of Virgin facing bankruptcy issues etc.
AFAIK, Virgin were never going to put any cash into Brightline; it was a typical Virgin deal where they got a % of equity for allowing use of the Virgin brand. I've read a few US rail columnists not grasp that point, so wouldn't be surprised if the Brightline board similarly were slow to realise they were getting nothing but a slightly worn brand for their troubles....
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
AFAIK, Virgin were never going to put any cash into Brightline; it was a typical Virgin deal where they got a % of equity for allowing use of the Virgin brand. I've read a few US rail columnists not grasp that point, so wouldn't be surprised if the Brightline board similarly were slow to realise they were getting nothing but a slightly worn brand for their troubles....
Yeah, Brightline has a great brand name anyway! I actually rolled my eyes when they changed to Virgin, but thought it was fine if Virgin was stumping up some cash to help with expansions, etc.

Happy to see them regain Brightline and hopefully become a well known Floridian brand.
 

hacman

Member
Joined
22 Jul 2011
Messages
332
I'm not anti-Virgin at all (I'd love to have VRG back on the WCML rather than lackadaisical Avanti) but Brightline is a strong, modern brand and I don't see why they'd want to pay Branson a considerable sum of money to use his instead.

I never really understood what virgin bought to the party other than a good marketing team and a strong brand.

I'd never heard of the idea to link in with cruises arriving at miami port. Cant help but think surely their isn't that much demand along the route from 1 ship. Why not just run a shuttle bus?

I believe at the time the deal was done some financial benefit was on offer, be it a direct investment or simply using the Virgin brand as clout to secure from elsewhere, which from what I hear has not been forthcoming - we can probably guess why.

Given that south and central Florida are very tourism-heavy economies, there was always an advantage to be gained in terms of Brightline integrating with the airports at Orlando and to a lesser extent Miami, and the cruise terminals. The proposed new project in Las Vegas would have also likely benefitted from cross-brand relationships too.

That said, I totally agree the Brightline has their own brand, and it is a VERY strong one. Add this to the fact they're doing something pretty innovative (for the US, at least), and that the new extension towards Tampa is going to open up a whole bunch of opportunities as soon as it reaches Disney Springs, and I think they'll be ok in the long-run.

The legal issues with Virgin will be a mere hiccup - Brightline may seem like a small and cute operation, but the parent company and investors behind it have some serious clout.
 

Backroom_boy

Member
Joined
28 Dec 2019
Messages
281
Location
London
The legal issues with Virgin will be a mere hiccup - Brightline may seem like a small and cute operation, but the parent company and investors behind it have some serious clout.
I would *NEVER* bet against Virgin in a legal fight; they always seem to come out on top
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top