Virgin America may seek public offering next year, CEO says

[Flyer1015]

Chairman

Maybe this new UAL contract needs to keep those bottom feeding $32/hr rates so that we can better compete with nonunion, undercutting carriers like VA and others that will pop up in the future?

Let me ask you a question as a United furloughee who I assume is looking at the rates offered at airlines like SWA and Delta (and hopefully United)...... Knowing that VA is using undercutting, nonunion wages to help subsidize their low fares in an attempt to gain market share, do you hope that VA is successful in this undertaking? Do you hope that VA is successful in their new DCA route where it will compete directly against United? If you did come back to United or get hired at one of the better airlines out there, would you be OK with VA pilots coming in at payrates significantly lower than this round of pattern bargaining will likely yield for all of us? What if airlines like VA grew at your new airline's expense and that six figure narrowbody first officer job disappeared because your airline couldn't compete with an airline like VA and their discount airline wages?

I think we both know the answers to the above questions. Perhaps you shouldn't be attacking a guy who may be going out on strike (hopefully) in a few weeks in an attempt to raise those wages you are criticizing while your peers at VA sit on their collective butts and do nothing to further the profession?

The same could have been said about Southwest in the 90s. Did you share those same views? SWA even in the 90s had several hundred 737s competing with the majors/legacies all across the country for some of the cheapest fares ever. Look how times changed and where SWA is now. I do hope VA succeeds and offers higher wage/QOL increases as time goes on. There have been 3 raises to date, and as the carrier becomes successful/profitable, there is room for much improvements for pay, QOL, etc.

 

[ualdriver]

The same could have been said about Southwest in the 90s. Did you share those same views?

Yup. SWA screwed us legacy guys in the 90's as well by undercutting the prevailing narrowbody rates, work rules, retirement, etc., just like VA is doing now.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Yup. SWA screwed us legacy guys in the 90's as well by undercutting the prevailing narrowbody rates, work rules, retirement, etc., just like VA is doing now.

I guess I can deduce two things from your post.

It is all about you, and the rest of the industry is here to support your desired wage rates and lifestyle.

You are not big fan of capitalism.

I'm sorry but I think your anger is misplaced, Virgin nor Southwest caused the ills of the industry, Alfred Kahn and the ADA did.

 

[bri5150]

I guess I can deduce two things from your post.

It is all about you, and the rest of the industry is here to support your desired wage rates and lifestyle.

You are not big fan of capitalism.

I'm sorry but I think your anger is misplaced, Virgin nor Southwest caused the ills of the industry, Alfred Kahn and the ADA did.

I will also add that he must think it is not okay for more airlines to start up. Also, it is okay for a legacy to price a startup out of a market, but it is not okay for the startup to have a price lower than the established legacy price.

An earlier post incorrectly stated first year rate of $32. APC says $44, then $65, then $77 I believe. That would put me above my regional jet pic rate in 3 years (heck, 2 years after bk), and at an airline that controls its own flying. Unlike a regional that has been screwed time and time again by the legacies that are so highly toughted here. I would say more, bit I don't believe in burning bridges.

 

[Chairman]

I will also add that he must think it is not okay for more airlines to start up. Also, it is okay for a legacy to price a startup out of a market, but it is not okay for the startup to have a price lower than the established legacy price.

An earlier post incorrectly stated first year rate of $32. APC says $44, then $65, then $77 I believe. That would put me above my regional jet pic rate in 3 years (heck, 2 years after bk), and at an airline that controls its own flying. Unlike a regional that has been screwed time and time again by the legacies that are so highly toughted here. I would say more, bit I don't believe in burning bridges.

$32 is what UAL pays there first year guys...

 

[Flyer1015]

Yeah the reference was $32/hr United first year rate.

Maybe this new UAL contract needs to keep those bottom feeding $32/hr rates so that we can better compete with nonunion, undercutting carriers like VA and others that will pop up in the future?

He was referencing United itself.

 

[ualdriver]

I guess I can deduce two things from your post.

It is all about you, and the rest of the industry is here to support your desired wage rates and lifestyle.

You are not big fan of capitalism.

I'm sorry but I think your anger is misplaced, Virgin nor Southwest caused the ills of the industry, Alfred Kahn and the ADA did.

Actually, I am a big fan of capitalism. I have no problem with pitting my airline against any other. I think competition based on safety, service, schedule, price, whatever, is good. I think competition that uses discount airline pilot labor as a competitive advantage is bad for OUR profession. We saw what happened to OUR profession in the late 90's and early 2000's*****didn't we? We went from narrowbody guys at my airline, for example, flying narrowbodies for $200++ an hour with great work rules and a pension to JetBlue wages. 2172 furloughed pilots later, we were "competitive" again. Ask the furloughed pilots like Chairman about that.

Oh yeah, sorry. Legacy rates looking "remarkably" like discount airline pilot/low cost carrier rates was just a coincidence, right? Along with those wonderful work rules.

Regardless, I am done because I keep promising myself I am not going to get into the same argument over and over with guys trying to rationalize the effect of their low wages on everyone else.

So, in closing, you guys are doing great! Ignore those financial reports your own financial people put out because those losses really aren't happening. Flying for wages significantly less than the next round of pattern bargaining is yielding has NO affect on the rest of us, and historically has never had any affect on the industry. See, you guys taught me new stuff today.

 

[blackbox]

Virgina started flying in 2007. What were united's rates then? I assume they weren't much different than they are now. So my question is how come its not united's fault that virgin's pay is so low? When virgin came on the scene I am sure they derived their payrates from what's already out there. Airways and united sure didn't help VX pilots cause.

I understand what ualddriver is trying to say with pattern bargaining but I don't think its the case here. Ual's payrates are crappy due to poor management and their inability to make money, not virgin america. Look at delta's payscale. They are far superior than United's and if I recall they have been out of bk well after United. And to specifically counter your argument with delta's higher payrates they are still kicking united's butt in the financials. Your anger is misplaced.

 

[Flyer1015]

Virgina started flying in 2007. What were united's rates then? I assume they weren't much different than they are now. So my question is how come its not united's fault that virgin's pay is so low? When virgin came on the scene I am sure they derived their payrates from what's already out there. Airways and united sure didn't help VX pilots cause.

I understand what ualddriver is trying to say with pattern bargaining but I don't think its the case here. Ual's payrates are crappy due to poor management and their inability to make money, not virgin america. Look at delta's payscale. They are far superior than United's and if I recall they have been out of bk well after United. And to specifically counter your argument with delta's higher payrates they are still kicking united's butt in the financials. Your anger is misplaced.

+1

When VA started in 2007, both UA and USAir already had the bankruptcy era A320 rates. We'll see where pattern bargaining takes them.

ualdriver,

Where's your speech against the other United competitor? You know, the one in Denver that's been around since 1994 flying the A320 family aircraft at pay/QOL similar to Virgin's? Or have you turned a blind eye to them?

 

[Flyer1015]

United's dominance at Newark Liberty International Airport brings conveniences and higher fares

http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2012/05/uniteds_dominance_at_newark_li.html

The effect of United’s new dominance at Newark Liberty International Airport stunned Norman Levy when he started shopping for a late-summer flight to San Francisco.
Levy, a retired investment banker from Tenafly who had been a longtime Continental flier, priced a United flight for two adults at $1,584. If he was willing to leave from New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport, where United faces more competition, the fare dropped to $986, a difference of nearly $600.
“I’m a fairly careful consumer,” Levy said. “I was shocked at the difference in the fares.”
Levy ended up paying even less — $609 for two round-trip tickets on Virgin America from JFK. If he decides to take a limousine to New York, he said he will still pay much less than the cost of the United flight from Newark.

 

[Tomct]

And he most likely had some good looking flight attendants and an entertainment system/internet etc vs looking at the back of his seat for 5 plus hours. OH THE HUMANITY!!!

 

[NoPFactor]

I'd be willing to bet United made a profit on their flight and VX flew theirs at a loss.

 

[XJAVRO]

I'd be willing to bet United made a profit on their flight and VX flew theirs at a loss.

I'd be willing to bet against you, and I'd also be willing to bet VX gained another repeat customer.

 

[airksk]

I'm willing to bet the United flight went full. Oh, good chance it was on a new 737 with DirecTV as well.

It's a stupid article anyway, there's nothing new about "United" being dominant at Newark. It just happens that a couple of years ago it was Continental, not United. Now they're the same to the passengers.

Yes, it costs more to fly coast to coast now. The price of fuel has gone up, and the price of the pilots flying the route will also go up. At least they will for the merged United pilots.

 

[Flyer1015]

I'm willing to bet the United flight went full. Oh, good chance it was on a new 737 with DirecTV as well.

It's a stupid article anyway, there's nothing new about "United" being dominant at Newark. It just happens that a couple of years ago it was Continental, not United. Now they're the same to the passengers.

Yes, it costs more to fly coast to coast now. The price of fuel has gone up, and the price of the pilots flying the route will also go up. At least they will for the merged United pilots.

But lets not ignore the fact that United has a monopoly on the nonstop EWR-SFO route. No one else does it non-stop. That's the point of those fares. Had their been competition, (eg, SWA, JetBlue, or VA) operating that same route, you can bet the fares would be lower and competing with one another.

 

[LearLove]

And he most likely had some good looking flight attendants and an entertainment system/internet etc vs looking at the back of his seat for 5 plus hours. OH THE HUMANITY!!!

O no, god forbid someone had to sit for a few hours without some kind of electronic stimulation. As for your FA's - check back in a few years and we'll see how good looking and "chipper" they are after some time in this industry.

 

[NoPFactor]

O no, god forbid someone had to sit for a few hours without some kind of electronic stimulation. As for your FA's - check back in a few years and we'll see how good looking and "chipper" they are after some time in this industry.

Only one problem with that. I dont think they will be around in a few years.

 

[blackbox]

O no, god forbid someone had to sit for a few hours without some kind of electronic stimulation. As for your FA's - check back in a few years and we'll see how good looking and "chipper" they are after some time in this industry.

Actually, having internet or satellite TV makes a world of difference when it comes to Transcon flights. I commute a long way, and I gladly pay the 40 bucks to have wifi for the month. 5-6 hours of starring at the back of the seat in front of you isnt fun. There is a reason why Jetblue, VX, and Delta Song have (had, in the case of song) added TVs to their fleet.

I enjoy seeing the airlines trying to outdo each other to try and win customers. Thats how its done in the hotel biz, where I spent a number of years. The shift of trying to win customers by providing better service and amenities is great to see. Instead of airlines taking away blankets and pillows and trying to see how much they can save.

 

[GuinessGuy]

Wow......there is a lot of company pride over there at Redwood......what the hell are they putting in the water over there......
If every worker in all facets of industry was as enthusiastic about their company as you guys are, U.S. industry in general would steamroll the world in a month......
I enjoy your enthusiasm, and wish you all the luck......
And for LearLove.....The Stew stock has been dropping considerably, but a least young....I see quite a few bum'in rides.....at least they are females.....

 

[Pogue Mahone]

O no, god forbid someone had to sit for a few hours without some kind of electronic stimulation.

So you would advocate for providing a product without the amenities your consumers want because you disagree with their preference for being distracted from the boredom of a transcon flight with electronic entertainment...hmmm.

Do you find you struggle with the basics of a service oriented business model often, or is it just in this case?