Virgin Atlantic is pulling out of Austin. That didn’t last long…
In this post:
Virgin Atlantic cancels London to Austin route
It has just been announced that as of January 7, 2024, Virgin Atlantic will discontinue its route between London Heathrow (LHR) and Austin (AUS). Virgin Atlantic first launched this route in May 2022, but blames the cancelation on a persistent softening of corporate demand, specifically in the tech sector.
The airline will reach out to customers impacted by this change, to provide alternative options, including a full refund. Here’s how Juha Jarvinen, Virgin Atlantic’s Chief Commercial Officer, describes this route cut:
“We’ve adored flying our customers to Austin and experiencing this wonderful city of music and culture, but demand in the Tech sector is not set to improve in the near term, with corporate demand at 70% of 2019 levels. Therefore, sadly we made the tough decision to withdraw services. We’d like to thank everyone in Austin; our customers, teams, partners and the authorities for their support over the past 18 months.”
What’s Virgin Atlantic’s plan with the aircraft being freed up by this route being cut? Virgin Atlantic will increase service in three existing markets over time:
- Between January 10 and March 29, 2024, Virgin Atlantic will increase Barbados (BGI) service from 11x weekly to 14x weekly
- In the summer 2024 season, Virgin Atlantic will increase Miami (MIA) service from 11x weekly to 14x weekly
- In the winter 2024/2025 season, Virgin Atlantic will increase Dubai (DXB) service from 4x weekly to 7x weekly
Should we be surprised by Virgin Atlantic’s Austin failure?
Virgin Atlantic isn’t a huge airline, so the company is pretty conservative with its growth. It’s pretty rare to see the airline add a route, and then cancel it just 18 months later. It’s one thing if the airline had launched this route pre-pandemic and the situation materially changed. But this route was launched post-pandemic, and it sounds like Virgin Atlantic was banking on a corporate travel demand recovery, and that never happened.
With that in mind, a few thoughts:
- I think part of Virgin Atlantic’s issue in Austin is that the airline operates 3x weekly flights with Boeing 787s featuring an uncompetitive business class hard product, while British Airways serves the market daily with its flagship Airbus A350s, featuring Club Suites; Virgin Atlantic can’t compete on schedule or product
- British Airways has a lot more feed in London than Virgin Atlantic does, so British Airways’ service isn’t so heavily reliant on London and other long haul connections
- Virgin Atlantic’s service to Austin not working is just as much a failure for Delta as it is for Virgin Atlantic; Delta owns a large stake in Virgin Atlantic, and the two airlines have a transatlantic joint venture, so they coordinate their schedules and fares
- At this point the extent of SkyTeam’s transatlantic service out of Austin is KLM’s 3x weekly service to Amsterdam
- While Austin has been a fast growing city in recent years, that growth has slowed down; one interesting statistic is that the average home cost in Austin from July 2022 to July 2023 dropped more than in any other major US city, which isn’t exactly a good sign in terms of growth
Bottom line
Virgin Atlantic is discontinuing its London to Austin flight as of early 2024, citing a softening of corporate demand. I imagine that Virgin Atlantic’s lack of success in Austin is a combination of the city not growing as fast as it was in recent years, plus the airline not being able to compete with British Airways on frequency or product.
With this extra aircraft being freed up, Virgin Atlantic will be increasing service to Barbados, Miami, and Dubai.
What do you make of Virgin Atlantic ending Austin service?
That's a shame. The main reason I picked Austin to visit earlier this year was because I was using a Virgin upgrade voucher so made it part of an open jaw trip. Really enjoyed it as a city and the cabin crew said they loved flying there.
You got the liberal coast people oversell the city.
Virgin can't keep Austin weird.
As a local (and mostly UA flyer) Delta opened a realllllly nice lounge with deck and AA and United have older lounges with no deck and Delta added some flights so Idk about Delta not making this a “focus city”. But honestly, it’s not an airport that will ever be able to handle a ton of traffic so I’m not sure any airline will ever rule this roost. But we do have Samsung opening a...
As a local (and mostly UA flyer) Delta opened a realllllly nice lounge with deck and AA and United have older lounges with no deck and Delta added some flights so Idk about Delta not making this a “focus city”. But honestly, it’s not an airport that will ever be able to handle a ton of traffic so I’m not sure any airline will ever rule this roost. But we do have Samsung opening a major plant, Dell, new Tesla, formula one track and others so it may be growth is slowing but it’s not stopping. I’d also note that the incredible spike that happened in 2021 was not sustainable so it’s not surprising it’s slumping a little now with the interest rates so high.
As a DFW based Texan and AA loyalist: I have to LAUGH OUT LOUD at this happening. A few notes:
~ As Ben mentioned, this is a FAIL and FACE PLANT for Delta. Period.
~ Austin was and is growing, and very fast, but that got people (investors) on both coasts a little too exuberant and the drove up the market unsustainably (much like what is happening to Boise).
~ It was...
As a DFW based Texan and AA loyalist: I have to LAUGH OUT LOUD at this happening. A few notes:
~ As Ben mentioned, this is a FAIL and FACE PLANT for Delta. Period.
~ Austin was and is growing, and very fast, but that got people (investors) on both coasts a little too exuberant and the drove up the market unsustainably (much like what is happening to Boise).
~ It was pretty stupid IMHO to put a bunch of long haul flights in the middle of two massive Long Haul markets (Houston & DFW). Could ATX support "some" of them: Yes. Routes with 3 airlines competing: NO. Send them to DFW or Houston with 1 connection and call it a day. That is unless the passengers want to pay 1.5x-2.5x what the cost would be from DFW or another nearby hub AND generally fly in a smaller and/or older plane.
~ No one wants to mention that the ATX city council has made some VERY bad and frankly illegal moves in their "stewardship" of the Airport. It doesn't enstill confidence in the airport as a "partner" to build out an expensive lounge or invest in expanding there if recently contracts were ignored, shredded, leases were canceled, and tenants were kicked out. Bad move.
~ San Antonio is also competing for some of this direct long haul traffic (recently adding numerous cities in Central America and Frankfurt Germany, London will be next up), and people forget that San Antonio is actually BIGGER than Austin is more than one. 33% larger population of City & 15% larger population of MSA, very undervalued and the growth is shifting to them now that ATX isn't as economically viable as it was even 2 years ago, SA has a Pro Sports team with the NBA Spurs, and SA has a MASSIVE Convention Center business with Meetings + Conferences + Conventions (one of the largest in the country (often #1 and always in the Top 3), A bigger tourism business with: The Riverwalk, the Alamo, Hill Country, theme parks like Sea World/Six Flags/Lego Land, and 5 massive & active Military Bases (1 Army, 3 Airforce, 1 Cyber Command)
~ Even BA is reducing it's ATX flights now that Virgin is leaving to 5X weekly. The market can't support this many seats, period.
~ So much for Austin being a Delta and SkyTeam "Focus City". ROFL!!!
Howdy,
I agree with almost everything you say, except the section about Saqn Antonio. First, the metro areas for both ATX and SAT and similar (2.421m v 2.601m respectively. The HUGE difference is media household income, with ATX almost 3 times higher than SAT - and given that my family is from South Texas, including SAT (though I went to uni at UT Austin), it's painfully obvious about the income disparity when you visit. Yes,...
Howdy,
I agree with almost everything you say, except the section about Saqn Antonio. First, the metro areas for both ATX and SAT and similar (2.421m v 2.601m respectively. The HUGE difference is media household income, with ATX almost 3 times higher than SAT - and given that my family is from South Texas, including SAT (though I went to uni at UT Austin), it's painfully obvious about the income disparity when you visit. Yes, nice tourism destination, but that's regional. Yes, good convention business, but that's regional and US domestic...no convention planner would ever plan a large national convention (let alone international) in SAT given it's poor airline access.
Anyways, like I said, agreed with almost everything else you commented on!
So many typos! Oops! Sorry:)
BA just released that it's reducing LHR-AUS to 5x/Weekly.
Shown through February, so may just be winter-seasonal. A35K continues to operate.
which also goes to show that they knew the market had too much capacity and they kept it in there only until VS blinked and left
Why would VS have been planning on relying on DL connectivity in AUS, when they can get that traffic via JFK/ATL/LAX? A focus city simply means more O/D services, not a hub.
It was also a bit doomed by 3x weekly services not appealing to the corporate segment, and as Laslo pointed out Finance is the primary LON industry, not tech - LON isn't not even ranked amongst the top 5 UK markets for IT....
Why would VS have been planning on relying on DL connectivity in AUS, when they can get that traffic via JFK/ATL/LAX? A focus city simply means more O/D services, not a hub.
It was also a bit doomed by 3x weekly services not appealing to the corporate segment, and as Laslo pointed out Finance is the primary LON industry, not tech - LON isn't not even ranked amongst the top 5 UK markets for IT.
It was likely filling with lower yield leisure, but could have had a chance to target VFR given the general demographics both of IT and the huge international student population at UT Austin - they have the subcontinent and African interline agreements for it, and can be higher yield than LHR traffic in varying seasons.
Finally, not much more is going to happen at Austin without clever gate utilization until they eventually build the new midfield terminal - but I think that's still caught up in a legal mess with the current "South Terminal" owner (it's ULCC focused).
Several comments require addressing in a single place:
1. Delta owns a stake in VS but does not have a controlling interest. VS is free to make its own decisions, even with the joint venture. While JVs have approval processes, no single airline in any of them have 100% control over the decisions of other partners.
2. DL did not ever say that it would provide domestic feed to VS' flight so the...
Several comments require addressing in a single place:
1. Delta owns a stake in VS but does not have a controlling interest. VS is free to make its own decisions, even with the joint venture. While JVs have approval processes, no single airline in any of them have 100% control over the decisions of other partners.
2. DL did not ever say that it would provide domestic feed to VS' flight so the flight was going to be a point to point route plus whatever VS could connect beyond LHR.
3. BA simply has a larger hub at LHR so can be more aggressive at pricing the local market; BA had a better product overall and more capacity. BA is thrilled VS is out. BA has also jumped in several markets which DL started as its own non-hub to Euro hub in order to compete w/ the Skyteam alliance. DL has generally not tried to get into a pi798ng match with BA because those lose money. DL did upgrade CVG-CDG to an Airbus 333 to say it is going to fight for that market. There are alot of cities like AUS,CVG, IND, PIT, and RDU that want longhaul international air service and each of the JVs/alliances is going to win some and others will win other routes.
4. Although DL called AUS a focus city and still does (so far as I know), neither they or anyone else has defined what a focus city means. AA and WN were larger than DL for years before DL's designation of AUS as a focus city, one of the few focus cities where DL wasn't the #1 or #2 city. at best focus city to DL means above average growth in capacity and that has been true for AUS. DL has displaced UA as the 3rd largest carrier at AUS last time I checked. But in the time that AUS has been a focus city, DL overtook AA as the largest airline at LAX and overtook B6 for the same title at BOS. Those are both far larger fish. AUS and every other focus city fits within DL's other network priorities.
Hahahaha, so much backpedaling.
nobody is backpedaling.
All kinds of people created their own expectations for DL in AUS and for this route which are not supported by statements that DL has made.
My comments are simply a reminder that your bias infiltrates these discussions and DL is succeeding in AUS on their terms, not yours.
VS, while close to DL, is not DL and has its own autonomy.
It's 100% backpedaling.
DL trumpeted for yearrrrs that it intended to "grow their presence" in AUS, and mentioned new fleet types (i.e. A220s) would enable them to do so; indicating that they didn't just mean strengthen their corporate contract, but actually by adding metal.
But while DL was busy talking, AA and WN (who were already larger) added dozens more flights, to p2p destinations, and essentially locked DL out of any realistic growth.
no, you and others created all kinds of expectations for Delta that nothing to do with what Delta said it would do.
Delta HAS GROWN AUS. They managed to overtake UA and are the same #3 as they always were.
You can be smart at times but you are flat-out wrong that Delta every said it intended to overtake AA or WN.
And you also cannot accept that Delta became the largest airline at both...
no, you and others created all kinds of expectations for Delta that nothing to do with what Delta said it would do.
Delta HAS GROWN AUS. They managed to overtake UA and are the same #3 as they always were.
You can be smart at times but you are flat-out wrong that Delta every said it intended to overtake AA or WN.
And you also cannot accept that Delta became the largest airline at both LAX and BOS and further grew its share in NYC while AA and WN fought over AUS.
And you do realize that AA is pulling all kinds of routes from AUS, even if over the winter?
All AA did was lose money trying to block DL. While AA thought it was defending Texas from any DL growth, DL not only grew - by adding more capacity on routes it already served and also overtook AA in multiple other much larger cities.
As usual, Delta gets the last laugh and American gets laughed at.
And the people that think that AA won are the genuine fools.
"no, you and others created all kinds of expectations for Delta that nothing to do with what Delta said it would do."
I don't "expect" anything from a corporation, I just pay attention to what they claim.
Also, I've made a total of ZERO statements about DL's size @LAX/BOS, and would *love* to see the likes of you link to any thread here or elsewhere showing me talking about any such thing.
Until then, try not to lie so blatantly like that-- it's a bad look.
That, and while "VS is free to make its own decisions" what it's NOT able to do is add capacity to (most of the Americas) without commensurate measures with DL, within the scope of their j/v. DALPA would've shit on themselves, otherwise.
Same for AF/KL.
Delta's pilot balance requirements are not specific to any specific carrier.
It is a global approach to all JVs.
In practice, DL makes sure it manages growth and widebody flying requirements at the JV and individual carrier level - but Virgin is part of the AF/DL/KL/VS JV.
DL has not even objected - and perhaps encouraged VS - to fly routes beyond LHR that are not part of the JV.
I...
Delta's pilot balance requirements are not specific to any specific carrier.
It is a global approach to all JVs.
In practice, DL makes sure it manages growth and widebody flying requirements at the JV and individual carrier level - but Virgin is part of the AF/DL/KL/VS JV.
DL has not even objected - and perhaps encouraged VS - to fly routes beyond LHR that are not part of the JV.
I see you and MAX are knocking each other silly down below so I'll let you defend yourself down there.
Your stupidity took the day
Pretty normal, if we’re being honest…
Thanks, tim
Ah, back from the butthurt so soon?
yes, Max lost a supposedly "fact based discussion" on Gary's site so he comes over and returns, like you, to pathetic name calling.
BOTH OF YOU need to get your facts straight and then you won't get called out.
Deal w/ the facts, infants.
"Deal w/ the facts, infants."
Well there you have it. Delta's uber fan boy Tim has "put you in your place". It's all done and dusted. :)
Really Tim, why do you persist in being such a complete and utter shill for Delta? Do they pay you to respond like you do? Is it even possible for you to admit that just maybe they make mistakes too?
But Delta leaving RDU and “was a strategic move” lolololololololol. Just like AUS right Timmy?
People also don’t just fly to London. I travel from Austin to Central Europe a few times a year and BA is just the best option. Daily direct flights to London so I can go when I need to and don’t have to plan around an airline’s 3 flights a week (same issue with LH and KLM). I can connect in London to my European Destination (Virgin would have me connect via KLM and Amsterdam—why...
People also don’t just fly to London. I travel from Austin to Central Europe a few times a year and BA is just the best option. Daily direct flights to London so I can go when I need to and don’t have to plan around an airline’s 3 flights a week (same issue with LH and KLM). I can connect in London to my European Destination (Virgin would have me connect via KLM and Amsterdam—why would I want to connections in Europe?). And now that I have the BA Chase Card my flights are always 10% cheaper on BA, which in Premium Economy and Business makes a huge difference. One of the best hard products on the market. And my flights with BA get me Oneworld sapphire so I get benefits in AA the biggest legacy carrier in AUS. No reason to fly anything else to Europe, even if LH would otherwise be the better option for Central Europe.
Sad but inevitable. But blaming it on Austin Tech Bubble (nice cliche) is pretty rich. It's not a great pairing based on 'tech' industry.
The truth is that LONDON is not a tech market. London is a finance market, and it sucks for startups and it sucks for fundraising.
And Austin is a tech market, and still growing, but it's not a FINANCE market.
So there's that mis-match.
WRT to loyalty, Texans are more...
Sad but inevitable. But blaming it on Austin Tech Bubble (nice cliche) is pretty rich. It's not a great pairing based on 'tech' industry.
The truth is that LONDON is not a tech market. London is a finance market, and it sucks for startups and it sucks for fundraising.
And Austin is a tech market, and still growing, but it's not a FINANCE market.
So there's that mis-match.
WRT to loyalty, Texans are more OneWorld people (AA) than Skymiles (Delta/Virgin) people. AUS and DFW are better for AA.
I've flown the AUS-LHR route on Virgin as long as it has been available, ditched BA because UR points redemptions on Virgin AUS-LHR were simply too good. The dated 787 upper class was fine, but weak compared to 350-1000s on other routes.
One flight per day on modernized BA metal likely satisfies the demand. Let's see if BA hikes their price now that they have a monopoly. I live in AUS so will now burn all my Virgin points ASAP.
I'll have to decide if I fly Delta one-stop via ATL/JFK to LHR or BA non-stop. It will not be loyalty based, purely price/schedule.
It will be interesting to see what routes will be tinkered with or new ones opened up. VS are also expected to take delivery of 2 more A351’s in December and January, I imagine they will be parked up until the Spring when 2 more A330neos are scheduled to be delivered.
I work in the tech sector and I can tell you tech is going more and more virtual. The bean counters have realized how much cheaper a Zoom call is, particularly compared to a business class seat to Europe, and don't give a hoot about the "experience." And the C suiters also think "Zoom" is great.
TBH, it's shocking that it's taken this long.
One of the biggest reasons Concorde's return-to-service failed, is when signed PDFs became accepted as legal tender (right around 2001); because companies could then send/receive those for a virtually-free same-day transatlantic contract signing, rather than having to zip an executive or VP for a supersonic roundtrip at $12,000.
Pandemic, and the advent of Zoom/Teams finally did what Skype started, and honestly, I'm shocked that TATL business traffic...
TBH, it's shocking that it's taken this long.
One of the biggest reasons Concorde's return-to-service failed, is when signed PDFs became accepted as legal tender (right around 2001); because companies could then send/receive those for a virtually-free same-day transatlantic contract signing, rather than having to zip an executive or VP for a supersonic roundtrip at $12,000.
Pandemic, and the advent of Zoom/Teams finally did what Skype started, and honestly, I'm shocked that TATL business traffic has returned even to the point that it has.
While it’s an amusing take that PDFs sunk the Concorde, the more rationale explanation can be shown by who bought the Concorde: state carriers in the UK and France where the Concorde was built and designed (aside from the wet leases here and there). No one else bought it because the economics didn’t make sense to anyone unless it was a national pride project and you wanted handouts from your government.
Relating the fall...
While it’s an amusing take that PDFs sunk the Concorde, the more rationale explanation can be shown by who bought the Concorde: state carriers in the UK and France where the Concorde was built and designed (aside from the wet leases here and there). No one else bought it because the economics didn’t make sense to anyone unless it was a national pride project and you wanted handouts from your government.
Relating the fall of the Concorde due to PDFs to Virgin cancelling an O&D route that BA makes work very well… sorry. Just isn’t logical.
Well, let's see:
We can take the word of an internet rando who doesn't know that no Concorde was ever wet-leased (and if you think "Singapore!" is a response to that, then you've just proven my point)....
....or, we can take the word of Howard Lutnick, the then-President (now CEO) of the single largest Concorde corporate customer (Cantor Fitzgerald), when he explained this very thing.
Gee, who to believe?
Orders speak for themselves and I was referencing Braniff, smartass.
Perhaps wet lease is the wrong term for how Braniff operated them but the point is pretty sound.
And… we can take the data of who bought the Concorde… only carriers where it was built (everyone else cancelled their orders, and it was a lot of cancelled orders) or some random guy that never operated the Concorde or knew the economics of it…...
Orders speak for themselves and I was referencing Braniff, smartass.
Perhaps wet lease is the wrong term for how Braniff operated them but the point is pretty sound.
And… we can take the data of who bought the Concorde… only carriers where it was built (everyone else cancelled their orders, and it was a lot of cancelled orders) or some random guy that never operated the Concorde or knew the economics of it… just bought tickets on it.
Gee…. Who to believe.
But your pdf point is still amusing. Glad you believe yourself.
I was referencing Braniff, smartass.
Which then only showcases that you have no idea what a wet-lease is. Damn, you're bad at this, lol.
But I'm a nice guy, so I'll help educate you-- since you clearly need it:
Wet-lease is when the PROVIDING carrier furnishes aircraft and crew for the operating carrier.
The entire point of the Braniff operation, was to train its *own* flight crew on Concorde, since it wasn't able to...
I was referencing Braniff, smartass.
Which then only showcases that you have no idea what a wet-lease is. Damn, you're bad at this, lol.
But I'm a nice guy, so I'll help educate you-- since you clearly need it:
Wet-lease is when the PROVIDING carrier furnishes aircraft and crew for the operating carrier.
The entire point of the Braniff operation, was to train its *own* flight crew on Concorde, since it wasn't able to establish a simulator in the timeframe it wished.
And… we can take the data of who bought the Concorde… only carriers where it was built (everyone else cancelled their orders, and it was a lot of cancelled orders) or some random guy that never operated the Concorde or knew the economics of it… just bought tickets on it.
But since I clearly mentioned "return-to-flight" (referencing the 2001-2003 time frame post crash), none of that has any bearing on anything said.
Do you pay attention at all, before prattling on a keyboard?
Hey Concorde Boy, this is a really patronising response. Even if your explanation of a wet lease etc is sound, you don't come across as a nice guy at all.
@James,
Here ya go:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sarcasm
Aren’t you feeling cocky today for no reason. Wet lease is as close a correct term for what was happening with Braniff as you’ll find. The planes were never painted in Braniff colors, they stayed in AF and BA colors but had Braniff crews to DC then the plane was changed back to a BA or AF plane
You really don’t have to be so condescending when you’re the one trying to say the...
Aren’t you feeling cocky today for no reason. Wet lease is as close a correct term for what was happening with Braniff as you’ll find. The planes were never painted in Braniff colors, they stayed in AF and BA colors but had Braniff crews to DC then the plane was changed back to a BA or AF plane
You really don’t have to be so condescending when you’re the one trying to say the pdf killed the Concorde based on a corporate customer who knew nothing about aircraft economics or, apparently, how to use a fax machine, much less email.
Like i said, the Concorde’s own economics doomed it from the start as evidenced by who bought the plane. Trying to say the pdf ultimately killed the economics of the plane vs the 9/11 travel downturn… yeah… ok. Sure. The advent of the pdf impacted the Concorde more than 9/11…
Maybe just put your keyboard away when you’re saying absurd things
Wet lease is as close a correct term for what was happening with Braniff as you’ll find.
Actually, no. It's not. At all.
Simply repeating a falsehood isn't going to make it true.
It actually is. A Braniff domestic flight painted in AF or BA colors…. Aside from the obvious Crew piece, is close to any definition you’ll get for what Braniff was doing. Of course it isn’t a true wet lease. And I followed up by saying it wasn’t the perfect term for the weird thing Braniff was doing
The defining thing about wet leasing versus any other kind of leasing, is that you get a crew to operate the plane for you. That's the opposite of what Braniff was doing. They were getting the Concordes from Air France (and I think British Airways too) so that their own crews could gain experience flying and staffing them. So by definition, that can't be a wet lease.
Are you really even suggesting a corporate customer has any real idea into the true reason why the Concorde was never sold beyond AF and what became BA? He never even operated the jet, much less had any idea what kind of premium BA or AF’s customers cared to pay for shaving a couple hours off a trip.
Fax machines did exist back then. The idea that the pdf killed the Concorde is silly. Concorde’s own economics killed it from the start
Are you really even suggesting a corporate customer has any real idea into the true reason why blah blah blah blah
Are you dense, or just plain illiterate?
Again, this is only referring to the return-to-service period, where revenues (particularly for AF) never met the pre-crash levels, save for a brief time post retirement.
Nothing to do with the long-since sunk costs of building/acquisition.
Among the biggest contributors to that, is because corporate clients...
Are you really even suggesting a corporate customer has any real idea into the true reason why blah blah blah blah
Are you dense, or just plain illiterate?
Again, this is only referring to the return-to-service period, where revenues (particularly for AF) never met the pre-crash levels, save for a brief time post retirement.
Nothing to do with the long-since sunk costs of building/acquisition.
Among the biggest contributors to that, is because corporate clients weren't sending executives on last-minute trips at anywhere near the pre-2000 rate. The largest such client, confirmed this themselves, stating that advancements in technology provided them with other avenues for executive interaction.
You, in your ignorance, probably don't know that the single largest and most consistent source of revenue for both airlines' Concorde services were 24hr (and in BA's case, same-day) contract/courier services, that usually purchased 2 seats at max rate.
That then wasn't happening to anywhere near the extent that it was pre-crash.
AF had already warned that they weren't seeing the revenues they'd hoped for upon return, and after nearly putting F-BTSD into the drink at Halifax, they decided to scratch service.
Breaking the joint agreement allowed parts/MRO providers to renegotiate long-standing contracts with BA at market rate, which BA couldn't justify, so they had to scratch too.
Are you really even suggesting a corporate customer has any real idea into the true reason why the Concorde was never sold beyond AF and what became BA?
Noooo, I'm not.
That you're struggling this much with (what should be) a simple concept, is certainly amusing though.
*He* would know what his company is spending on airfares. He confirmed that they were spending far less than previously.
*The airlines* were saying that they weren't seeing...
Are you really even suggesting a corporate customer has any real idea into the true reason why the Concorde was never sold beyond AF and what became BA?
Noooo, I'm not.
That you're struggling this much with (what should be) a simple concept, is certainly amusing though.
*He* would know what his company is spending on airfares. He confirmed that they were spending far less than previously.
*The airlines* were saying that they weren't seeing the spend that they'd hoped for.
The "confirmation" being referenced, is to the airlines' claims they weren't getting the fares for supersonic service to sustain it, post-crash.
How. Is. This. Difficult?
You seem to enjoy the sound of your own stupidity suggesting the pdf was a bigger consideration than the actual economics of the Concorde or 9/11
But hey… sure. Some random guy that bought plane tickets in 2002 told you so it must be true lol
Enjoy your day, buddy. You seem to have more time for a Monty Python style argument room than I do
You seem to enjoy the sound of your own stupidity suggesting the pdf was a bigger consideration than the actual economics of the Concorde
...what I find so interesting is how you can't seem to grasp that, after (then) 24yrs of service: the airlines knew exactly what the "actual economics of the Concorde" were.
They set expectations for the return, to match the dynamics of those economics.
They didn't HIT those expectations.
A big...
You seem to enjoy the sound of your own stupidity suggesting the pdf was a bigger consideration than the actual economics of the Concorde
...what I find so interesting is how you can't seem to grasp that, after (then) 24yrs of service: the airlines knew exactly what the "actual economics of the Concorde" were.
They set expectations for the return, to match the dynamics of those economics.
They didn't HIT those expectations.
A big reason for that, is because corporate spend on supersonic travel was a fraction of what existed pre-crash.
A giant contributor to that, as verified by one in the best position to know (not "some random guy" as you so stupidly wrote), is because companies found cheaper ways to do same-day TATL business, than spending money on 2 Concorde seats roundtrip.
And while it's evident that you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.... but after a dozen posts: why you still struggle to comprehend this, is anyone's guess.
You’re so cute
No
PDFs did not kill the aviation industry post 9/11. 9/11 did. Fax machines were not a new thing in 2003 despite a guy that didn’t run the corporate travel department at a company that bought Concorde tickets lol
Do you hear yourself? Who knew even Tim Dunn would think you’re an idiot? That’s a new low.
Next.
Oh, so now you've expanded to "the aviation industry?" Interesting.
Also, tell me what jurisdictions accepted facsimilies as signed legal tender, even upon authentication, in 2003. I'll listen. This'll be fun.
All I can say is if PDFs grounded the Concorde, then before 2003 there must have been a lot of contracts signed in Barbados.
"Who knew even Tim Dunn would think you’re an idiot?"
Tim thinks that anybody who doesn't agree with him 100% is an idiot. Particularly when the topic of discussion is Delta.
The problem with Austin and DFW (Texas in general but to an extent other places in the south) is they are heavily speculative markets when it comes to construction. When the times are good it’s booming but as we can see in Austin now, home prices drop more in these markets which then go into the overall general economy. The Dallas office sector (and Atlanta) is bleeding money right now and losing lots of tenants....
The problem with Austin and DFW (Texas in general but to an extent other places in the south) is they are heavily speculative markets when it comes to construction. When the times are good it’s booming but as we can see in Austin now, home prices drop more in these markets which then go into the overall general economy. The Dallas office sector (and Atlanta) is bleeding money right now and losing lots of tenants. For all the bad press SFO is getting, and some rightfully so, their office vacancy rate is actually lower than Dallas and Atlanta. With the high costs of construction, labor, taxes, etc in more blue cities it is more difficult to get loans for these projects because banks want proof that the high upfront costs will translate into profit. More speculative markets may be cheaper upfront but run risks of over building more than the market can absorb - especially offices and warehouses. I don’t think a recession is in the future but Atlanta, Austin, and other like minded markets are definitely going to be cooling down because the glut of office inventory and conservative business practices are going to affect these markets more.
AUS is the Delta of cities - overrated and too crowded
Wow, and you came up with this all by yourself.
VS couldn't compete with BA, which established the LHR market and also Oneworld members from AUS who didn't have to connect to DFW or elsewhere. BA was sending the 747 to AUS pre-pandemic.
Driven by VFR in the back and middle of the plane to the Indian Subcontinent! Huge South Asian diaspora in Austin!
This is a testimony to two realities.
1. Virgin Atlantic is a point to point international airline OTHER THAN where it serves Delta hubs so that it gets feed on the US end OR serves markets big enough such as SFO and Florida that they do not need US feed.
2. AUS is a trendy market but like RDU is heavily tech driven and tech business travel has been much slower to return...
This is a testimony to two realities.
1. Virgin Atlantic is a point to point international airline OTHER THAN where it serves Delta hubs so that it gets feed on the US end OR serves markets big enough such as SFO and Florida that they do not need US feed.
2. AUS is a trendy market but like RDU is heavily tech driven and tech business travel has been much slower to return than for other sectors.
The use of the slot to increase leisure flying works for a couple months until the summer but Virgin Atlantic can certainly make more money flying either more flights to a US DL hub or to another longhaul destination where there is not only large UK demand but also feed from the combined DL/VS network at LHR
and Skyteam needs to increase AUS to daily service to Europe at least for 6 months per year. given the reduction in flying to TLV by DL that will last, DL and its Euro partners can shuffle some routes around to justify more US non-hub to Euro hub flying.
@Tim Dunn Hahahahaha. American has plenty of tech travel in Austin. I love that your arguments pivot so fast when DL’s strategy clearly fails.
Delta should just concentrate on sports charters-that's where they excell.
I don’t think RDU is that tech driven. Red hat sure. Some Google. But it’s also a bunch of universities/education and healthcare. Maybe even moreso than tech.
RDU is tech, higher ed and also lots of pharma/biotech. On the tech front, Apple and Google are both planning to build sizable campuses here. Good for RDU and my property value. Bad for road traffic!
It's a trendy place, and Virgin thinks of itself as a trendy airline, so it seemed a natural fit. But it really was a long shot, and no signficantly enhanced business class product could have saved it. At the end of the day, this market was primarily relying on the Austin-London market to survive. Virgin does interline with a number of carriers at LHR and does get feed there from several carriers including BA, but...
It's a trendy place, and Virgin thinks of itself as a trendy airline, so it seemed a natural fit. But it really was a long shot, and no signficantly enhanced business class product could have saved it. At the end of the day, this market was primarily relying on the Austin-London market to survive. Virgin does interline with a number of carriers at LHR and does get feed there from several carriers including BA, but at the end of the day this market was going to live or die by the strength of the local market from LHR to AUS. And that simply wasnt big enough, regardless of any help Delta may or may night have been able to offer or the type of business class seat it offered on is airplanes. Fundamentally not a large enough market, and not enough online feed at its hub in London to cover for a smallish local market.
Virgin gets feed at LHR from BA?
You could probably count weekly numbers on the fingers of one hand!
There's another factor that Ben didn't mention, and that's Delta's oft-stated intention to grow Austin as a "focus city".... which despite years of rhetoric, has never occurred.
Virgin probably launched thinking that they'd get at least some decent stateside feed, and that also didn't materialize. Combine that with softening tech demand, and voila.
If they actually thought they'd get feed on the Stateside, then they really were not paying attention. Virgin has full antitrust immunity with Delta to discuss things with them such as their scheduling. Virgin could have had those conversations with Delta and realized that Delta wasnt going to put feed flights into Austin to feed this flight. Realistically, I dont think they were ever expecting massive feed from Delta. I think they were deluded by...
If they actually thought they'd get feed on the Stateside, then they really were not paying attention. Virgin has full antitrust immunity with Delta to discuss things with them such as their scheduling. Virgin could have had those conversations with Delta and realized that Delta wasnt going to put feed flights into Austin to feed this flight. Realistically, I dont think they were ever expecting massive feed from Delta. I think they were deluded by the hype surrounding Austin (a massively overhyped city, imo) and were seduced into going there, only to see that the market just wasnt big enough for 2 carriers.
VS serves ATL, JFK, DTW, LAX, SEA, all much larger DL hubs, AUS would bring literally nothing to the table on connecting flow compared to, say, ATL.
This was an O/D play; maybe the idea was to combine with some DL service to make AUS a more attractive market for DL loyalists, but from everything I have seen LHR-AUS was nonrev paradise. No shock that it wouldn’t work.
VS does not serve DTW anymore. They did for a short time, but it didn't last long. DL operates 1 flight to LHR daily and a 2nd flight to LHR that operates from 3x week during the slow months to daily in high season.
AUS would bring literally nothing to the table on connecting flow compared to, say, ATL.
Which is why no one was making the case that AUS would replace, replicate, or even substitute for one of DL's established hubs.
The point is that feed, in even extremely limited/targeted quantities, can completely change the financial dynamics of a route. And yes DL/VS share ATI, but even DL itself seemed caught unaware by how strongly AA+WN responded to...
AUS would bring literally nothing to the table on connecting flow compared to, say, ATL.
Which is why no one was making the case that AUS would replace, replicate, or even substitute for one of DL's established hubs.
The point is that feed, in even extremely limited/targeted quantities, can completely change the financial dynamics of a route. And yes DL/VS share ATI, but even DL itself seemed caught unaware by how strongly AA+WN responded to its talk of building up AUS.
(Sigh)
Go look at AUS’s top 10 markets. Many of them are already served nonstop by VS. The ones that aren’t would basically be suicide for DL (DEN, DFW, IAH) since for all of them they get to confront a major (AA or US) AND WN (in DAL/HOU) having massive frequency advantages before they decide to do a bunch of capacity dumps to make DL rethink things.
LHR-AUS (and AUS overall) was an O/D play....
(Sigh)
Go look at AUS’s top 10 markets. Many of them are already served nonstop by VS. The ones that aren’t would basically be suicide for DL (DEN, DFW, IAH) since for all of them they get to confront a major (AA or US) AND WN (in DAL/HOU) having massive frequency advantages before they decide to do a bunch of capacity dumps to make DL rethink things.
LHR-AUS (and AUS overall) was an O/D play. Very clearly. Not a “let’s build a hub and start getting connecting feed” play.
Very clearly. Not a “let’s build a hub and start getting connecting feed” play.
I love how you're trying to "convince" me, as if *I* were the one running around talking about building up Austin...
...no, that would've been Delta.
And they talked, while other airlines (AA+WN) scheduled planes.
That's the whole point of what's being said.