the end of virgin airlines?

The proposed tie-up between British Airways and American Airlines is moving closer to getting the green light from US authorities, and as such, Virgin Atlantic President Richard Branson is apparently worrying (saying - Branson doesn't seem like the type that worries a lot) that his airline might have to find a partner in response.

He's no doubt speaking in response to the continuing trend of consolidation in Europe. Air France and KLM have been merged for six years now, and the Lufthansa Empire has expanded its reach into Belgium (Brussels Airlines) and the UK (bmi) in addition to Austria (Austrian Airlines) and Switzerland (Swiss). Closer to Virgin Atlantic's home turf, British Airways and Iberia have already announced an intention to merge, and it's the prospect of a three-way combination between BA (Virgin's longtime archrival), Iberia and American that has been giving Branson the most grief.

He's been outspoken against the BA-AA deal for quite some time, but it seems now as though he's come to terms with its apparent inevitability - and what that means for his airline in terms of survival. Virgin Atlantic has remained fiercely independent for its entire existence (although Singapore Airlines owns 49% of the airline, the maximum amount allowed), and while it has codeshare agreements with a handful of airlines, it has never joined an alliance. But if it wants to compete with a larger British Airways, it might need to look at finding a partner. “If it becomes impossible for us to remain an independent airline and survive, we may come to a situation where we have to consolidate," Branson said.

Naturally, this begs the question - with which carrier would Virgin Atlantic consolidate with? bmi (also known as British Midland) would appear to be the logical choice, according to Branson: “I don’t think bmi has a future as a stand-alone airline if it stays in the same shape... something will happen – the two of us would be stronger together than separate.” On the surface, this seems like a good match. bmi is a member of Star, the alliance that Virgin Atlantic seems to be on good terms with (stakeholder Singapore Airlines is also a member), and is also a rival of the dreaded British Airways. Virgin Atlantic is also strictly a long-haul carrier (much like Singapore), meaning that it loses out on some passenger traffic that would be connecting through Heathrow or Gatwick on their way to other European destinations (although codeshares do help here). bmi, on the other hand, has a few longer-haul destinations but for the most part sticks close to home. So, Virgin's long-haul network should perfectly complement bmi's short-haul - right?

Complicating things is the fact that Lufthansa now owns bmi outright, and is in the process of restructuring it - and, in the process, cutting quite a few inter-European routes. Gone are Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam - service to some of these, as well as few other cities, has been supplanted by Lufthansa-owned or operated carriers. For example, the 'bmi' flights from Heathrow to Frankfurt and Milan are operated by Lufthansa. This is all well and good for bmi, perhaps, but it makes it less attractive as a merger partner, as it wouldn't have many European routes of its own to bring to the table. And bmi wouldn't have all that much to gain from a merger, either. Virgin Atlantic has a nice long-haul vacation getaway network set up at London Gatwick, but their other long-haul service at Heathrow, while substantial, pales in comparison to that of British Airways. Its relative isolation (i.e. no alliances) also makes it less attractive as a merger partner, since bmi could ostensibly benefit from being an alliance member (as it currently is, in Star).

So while bmi might seem the obvious choice, it's not necessarily an ideal fit. But if Virgin Atlantic faces a 'merge or die' scenario, then bmi might start looking a lot more attractive.

A tidbit to ponder: according to the Times article, Singapore apparently is seeking to sell its stake in Virgin Atlantic, which might expand merger possibilities. And another interesting point about Virgin Atlantic: Branson has stated that its new strategy will be to look towards leisure travel for growth, rather than business travel. Right now, he says, the airline's business is 70% at London's Heathrow airport and 30% at Gatwick, although "this will have to start balancing out."

And Branson is still sticking to his trademark optimism. He has still promised to battle it out in court against the BA-AA deal's regulatory approval if needed - however much of a 'done deal' it already is - and he has also noted that BA's ongoing labor strife (they're "shooting themselves in the foot," he says) has only helped to benefit his airline's revenue.

777 vs A380 on my trip

Probably the best thing about my trip to Dubai was building an itinerary that put me on the Boeing 777-300ER one way and the Airbus A380 the other. Not many travelers have a keen sense of their surroundings when they fly, so this presented a great opportunity to discuss the differences in the two aircraft as Emirates expands and offers both types on routes. I flew the 777 out of San Francisco for 15 hours to Dubai in Business and First Class, and then returned to New York JFK from Dubai on the A380 in Business Class. I found some fairly interesting differences in the two planes the way Emirates configures them.
Seating layout/arrangements
The 777 was in a typical 2-3-2 layout while the A380 had a very interested staggered layout of 1-2-1. Some rows had window seats with a small walkway to the aisle and others had an aisle with no seat in the window. The middle section either had two seats next to each other or two sitting on the aisle separated. The seats then rotate their position, giving each customer access to the aisle. This was a very nice feature as the A380 gives customers much more overall “area” for their individual seat, whereas the 777 you still had a neighbor – and the privacy screen really didn’t block much.

I could still watch my neighbor’s TV for most of my flight. I did select the bulkhead on the 777 and I had more wiggle room to get in and out, but the A380 still wins hands down. The 777′s “traditional” layout is much better if you are traveling with a group of friends or family, as the A380 seems to be designed more for the solo traveler. The other downside to BOTH aircraft is the aisle seats – there is still traffic up and down the aisle, so there’s a risk of getting interrupted while trying to sleep.
Service
One problem Emirates faces with the A380 is that there are a LOT of flight attendants . . . 26 to be exact. The Business Class galley is located in the back of the cabin, so you get a lot of foot traffic. While that can be nice (always someone going by that can you something) it did take time to do a full service for the 55 passengers (out of 76) in my cabin. I also can’t tell you the name of the flight attendant assigned to my section. The 777 provided excellent service as only 2 or 3 flight attendants worked my side of the airplane and I can remember their names. Overall, the 777 service seemed much more efficient.
Boarding/Deplaning
One would think boarding 500 people on an A380 would take awhile, but Emirates seemed to have this one down pat. Most of us in Business Class were in the lounge up until about 30 minutes before departure and found a short line for the premium cabins versus economy. In the A380, I didn’t see a single economy class customer. On the 777, while we had separate lines, we boarded through the same jet bridge. There was a lot of foot traffic through the 777 cabin while boarding, but the flight attendants kept the economy customers moving through, and were able to serve a pre-departure champagne service without any issues. Deplaning was equally fast, as Emirates holds back each respective cabin until those passengers are clear, and in New York we deplaned by the 2nd level. Its hard to pick the 777 or the A380 has both were very efficient.
Sleep
The A380 has a fully flat bed while it’s an angled lie flat bed on the 777. Both seats appear to be the same design and configuration except for the footrest on the A380. On the 777, your seat drops then extends out, and at 6’1″ I slept like a baby. I also really enjoyed the storage space/cut outs in the seat that also meant I had shoulder room. The A380 had a cubby hole for feet which probably helped keep rusty-sock smell from the cabin. But on the 777, it was hard to tell you weren’t lying completely flat. I’d also like to point out that I departed San Francisco at 5p and arrived in Dubai at 7p (next day) and did not feel jetlagged. I only preferred the A380 seat over the 777 because I didn’t have someone directly beside me.
Economy Class
Here’s where it can get painful.

The 777 was originally designed for 9 seats across the cabin, but Emirates has 10. So your butt and shoulders may be making contact with your seatmate for the next 13 hours. At least your knees and feet will be comfortable, as Emirates provides a few more inches of legroom. The A380 has standard seat width, but the legroom isn’t nearly as good as on the 777. In the row I tried out on the A380, the window felt a little more cramped. Both Economy cabins offer in seat video and universal and USB power ports, so even if you are stuck in the 777 in coach, you will still have plenty to keep you busy.
Here are some more pieces for comparison.

	A380	777
Tray table	Fixed position, comes from under work area, or you can use the side table by the in-seat bar. I didn’t like the tray table so I kept it retracted.	Slides up from side, can adjust position to you (can slide up to a foot from the base) which is nice if you are “larger” or want to recline while you eat. I was able to function a lot easier with the movable tray.
Windows	Not the easiest to look out, had lots of space due to angled upper deck, unlike the 747-400, larger window.	standard 777 windows – had 3 of them – and electronic window shades, very nice. Windows also had side faux wood trim around each.
Storage	2 side compartments that could fit a backpack, and storage area above your personal bar. I also found the cut-out in front of my seat as a great place to put my tablet and phone while charging (USB ports/power port are below TV). Ample overhead bin space. I found the side units hard to keep closed; provided a nice area to store my pillow/blanket if/when not using.	None for larger items, but had small compartments for items like phones, tablets/laptops, etc. Powerports convenient when charging items as they are in one of the storage areas. Storage areas double as “cut outs” for shoulders when sleeping. Ample overhead bin space. Flight attendants put pillows and sleeping pads behind your seat in the “pod.”
Inflight amenities	Large bar in back of plane, 2 3-seat sofas (with seat belts) and multiple areas to stand and socialize, including small tables put over doors now, giving it a “pub” feel; large screen TV, munchies placed out, but not a consistent “bartender,” it happens to be whoever is walking by. Doesn’t seem to be a set schedule. Made to order drinks. Also a mini-bar in your seat with a variety of choices	No social area, but flight attendants didn’t kick you out of the galley area/doors if you were standing up and stretching. The First class “bar” is more of a wall display containing liquor, no seats, and you are pretty much in the First class galley.
Lavatories	2 in the rear have windows. Size was about the same as the 777. Faux wood trim and flowers. Inside 2 lavs can have the wall removed for handicap passengers.	No windows, but felt larger than lavatories on US domestic fleet. Had fresh flowers, toothpaste/brush and shaving kits, along with aftershave and perfume/cologne
Inflight Entertainment Differences	Camera in tail in addition to nose/down	Could push a button on remote and it will put the show/tv/movie your seat mate is watching on your screen.
Power ports	Below TV, and I could put my toys on the cabinet on the bulkhead while they charge, so they were all out of my way.	On the side of the seat along with a storage area for phones/laptop/tablets/iPads. I also had to play a balancing act with my tablet between the two seat remotes while it was charging.

The Winner
Interestingly enough, I really enjoyed the 777 flight over the A380 flight. The A380 bar really stands out, but the service was much more consistent on the 777. The foot traffic on the A380 can (and does) stand out, so if you want to avoid it, then try to sit in the forward section of business class. Anyone who pays for Business Class (or upgrades) will not be disappointed. This airline does an amazing job and if I had the budget, I’d gladly fork out $12,000 for this type of service.

When American announced it would roll out a slew of new features on its new 777-300ER aircraft in December, I was left with more questions than answers. Now, just a bit more info has been released, and we have some answers but not all. Oh, and we have pictures.

A picture of the new First Class cabin shows that it’s not much different than what’s out there today. It’s just cleaned up, new fabric, etc. That’s ok, because much of a change wasn’t necessary. In Business Class, however, it’s a different story.

As you can see, American is using the same reverse-herringbone style of seat that US Airways has on its airplanes. (Calm down, conspiracy theorists. This has nothing to do with a potential merger between the two.) We can now be sure that the “fully lie flat” seats are going to be flat beds. Whew.
There are also a few things we can glean from the new coach seats.

The above picture shows coach seating, and American confirms that there will be a premium economy section with the exact same seats but more legroom. It’s like American is bringing back “More Room Throughout Coach,” but not actually throughout coach.
In this picture, there are at least 4 seats uninterrupted by an aisle. That can mean one of two things. It could mean that American is sticking with the 2-5-2 configuration that it has on its 777-200s, but that would be surprising. Most airlines have moved away from 2-5-2 to 3-3-3 instead because it requires fewer video power units and it allows for standardized seat sets. (United has switched to 3-3-3 as it renovates its 777 fleet.)
But this can’t be 3-3-3 because there are four together. That would most likely mean that American is moving to the increasingly popular 3-4-3 layout. I say “increasingly popular,” but I mean that only on the airline side. Passengers hate it because, naturally, it means narrower seats. That hasn’t stopped several airlines from going this route, so it wouldn’t surprise me to see American do the same.
We could try to do some math to figure out the number of seats across if American would release its planned configuration on the airplane, but it won’t. My requests were met with the response that no further information is being given at this time. What’s with all the secrecy? I don’t understand why they want to keep pushing out dribs and drabs of info.
Anything else we know? Yep. American had been saying that London would be the first to get the new 777-300ER, but now that’s not happening. The first market will now be Dallas/Ft Worth to Sao Paulo. This market is apparently doing so well for American that it’s throwing a ton of capacity into it. In June, the market goes from a daily flight to 12 weekly. And then in December, the 777-300ER will go on to the route, bringing even more capacity to the market.
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that Latin America gets it first. After all, that’s really where American excels. It’s almost non-existent in Asia, it’s pretty weak in Europe, but it is the king of Latin. Stick to your strengths, right?

It's been posted elsewhere already, but in case you haven't heard, Continental CEO Jeff Smisek got in a little hot water after referring to US Airways, in decidedly un-diplomatic language, as an 'ugly girl.' “I recognized that United was the best partner for Continental, and I didn’t want to marry the ugly girl; I wanted to marry the pretty one,” he said.

A bad choice of words, no doubt. Smisek evidently apologized to US Airways CEO Doug Parker, who called the words "chauvinistic and offensive." "Jeff sent me an apology, stating that he “got carried away in the moment,” “really felt badly” and “had no good excuse.” I believe Jeff was sincere in his apology, have accepted it on behalf of all of us and am ready to move past it," Parker wrote in a letter to US Airways employees (you can read the whole thing at the end of the post).

Parker also defends US Airways' performance in the letter, pointing out that his airline's profit margins, on-time performance, and stock performance were all better than Continental's recently. But why did United, which had recently considered a merger with US Airways, ultimately choose Continental instead? Why did US Airways get dumped? Two things to keep in mind, according to Parker:

1. United chose Continental because it has "dominant positions in major business markets like Newark and Houston that allow them to collect even higher revenues than we can with our network," which is presumably more leisure-based.
2. Even if US Airways did get dumped, it doesn't mean that it isn't a "valuable standalone company" with "strong" prospects.

In closing, Parker notes that he's "looking forward to aggressively competing against the new United Airlines – and winning." He has effectively shrugged off the 'ugly girl' remark, and done so in a professional and detailed manner. But could US Airways be considered the 'ugly girl'? Here's the text:

May 4, 2010

Fellow Employees:

A number of you have contacted me asking about Continental CEO Jeff Smisek’s “ugly girl” comment yesterday. In case you haven’t seen it, when announcing their plans to merge with United Airlines yesterday, Mr. Smisek said, “I didn’t want him (United CEO Glenn Tilton) to marry the ugly girl. I wanted him to marry the pretty one.” The ugly girl was a clear reference to US Airways. Like me, many of you found his comment both chauvinistic and offensive to the hard-working people of US Airways.

First, you should know that Jeff sent me an apology, stating that he “got carried away in the moment,” “really felt badly” and “had no good excuse.” I believe Jeff was sincere in his apology, have accepted it on behalf of all of us and am ready to move past it.

Having said that, the emails I’ve received from many of you suggest this comment hit a nerve so I wanted to give you my views. As one of you simply put it, “Why are we the ugly girl?” The answer, of course, is we are not and there’s no better evidence of that than our recent performance.

In fact, we are performing better than Continental on almost all of the important metrics of our business. Financially, we each reported first quarter financial results in the past two weeks, and while we both lost money, we both lost much less than last year. However, US Airways’ rate of improvement was much better than Continental’s driven by both higher revenue growth and better cost control. On an absolute basis, our profit margins are now higher than Continental’s.

Operationally, we’re performing much better than Continental in the primary customer service metric of on-time performance. US Airways jets arrived on-time more often than Continental’s during the first quarter 2010, and we also outperformed them in on-time during all of 2009 and 2008. We are also now neck and neck with Continental in areas like baggage and complaints.
This is all being noticed by the outside world, as US Airways stock price is up 42 percent so far this year, while Continental’s is up 15 percent, even after announcing their merger.

Bottom line, I think both of our airlines are doing a great job in a challenging business – but if I were them I wouldn’t be pointing fingers.

So why did United choose to merge with Continental rather than US if we’re performing better financially and operationally than they are today? I think the answer is straightforward and one we’ve discussed many times – while we have a strong route network centered around PHL, CLT, PHX, DCA and the Shuttle, Continental has dominant positions in major business markets like Newark and Houston that allow them to collect even higher revenues than we can with our network. United preferred that network to ours and while we may disagree with that decision, it was United’s to make and we need to respect it and move on.

None of this means we don’t have a valuable standalone company. To the contrary, we’re producing better standalone results than our peers like Continental. We announced last week that we expect to report a profit in the current quarter of this year, which is further evidence of our standalone value. As consolidation makes our industry less fragmented and more efficient, our standalone prospects will only become stronger.

As we move forward, let’s not worry about the words of our competitors – no matter how inappropriate they may be – but rather let’s continue to show the world what we can accomplish by working together and performing our jobs in a professional and focused manner.

Thanks so much for your commitment to US Airways. I’m proud to be a part of your team and am looking forward to aggressively competing against the new United Airlines – and winning — for many years to come.


Doug

There’s something not quite right about how the Osprey looks, but it’s still an impressive looking aircraft.
Some of the Marines that I know say that they call the Osprey a “widow maker.” Apparently, the prop wash from the aircraft is pretty bad. So bad, that it might knock you over if you’re too close to landing zone and not paying attention.
Via Flickr:
A U.S. Air Force CV-22 Osprey special operations aircraft with the 71st Special Operations Squadron (SOS) receives fuel from a MC-130J Combat Shadow II aerial refueling aircraft from the 522nd SOS Jan. 4, 2012, over New Mexico. The 71st SOS is located at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., and conducted air refueling training with members of the 522nd SOS at Cannon AFB, N.M. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st class Xavier Lockley)

Follow me and tell me what you guys want added on here thanks!!!!!

Another day has pasted and still no air time thanks minnesoooooota weather!!!!!!