Virgin must make changes to retain U.S. citizenship

[firstthird]

TZ,

thx for the link. Not to nitpick but that is the original release from the DOT. Nice source material but it isn't some other news organization doing a news report that is favorable. I read it like the Seattle paper read it. VA has some 'new' guys investing that should keep them out of trouble. No mention of the last 12 months between when the two hedge funds sold their 75% stake and the current ownership distribution.

It seems like everyone is talking about this vis a vis unionizing. But jetblue still isn't union. This is more about playing by the same rules as the rest of the industry, 75% US ownership. It sounds like the DOT has determined that VA is good for now, which is good. I hope they continue to maintain the appropriate ownership structure and if they don't, the proper authorities need to enforce the law. period.

 

[QCappy]

“Following discussions between DOT and the air carrier, Virgin America agreed to make a number of changes to ensure that the air carrier would remain under the ownership and actual control of U.S. citizens,” said DOT.

Why would they have to change anything if they were in full compliance?

 

[tzskipper]

“Following discussions between DOT and the air carrier, Virgin America agreed to make a number of changes to ensure that the air carrier would remain under the ownership and actual control of U.S. citizens,” said DOT.

Why would they have to change anything if they were in full compliance?

Not exactly "what is 'is'" ala Clinton, but what do you think "would remain" in the above paragraph means? Not change? I am not trying to be disrespectful, but what difference does it even make at this point?

In closing, I am glad to see that Alaska is doing extremely well, and I hope to see your pilot group get back what you deserve.

S

 

[QCappy]

Not exactly "what is 'is'" ala Clinton, but what do you think "would remain" in the above paragraph means? Not change? I am not trying to be disrespectful, but what difference does it even make at this point?

In closing, I am glad to see that Alaska is doing extremely well, and I hope to see your pilot group get back what you deserve.

S

I see what you are getting at, but what I don't get is this: Why is a change necessary if they are already in compliance? One does not lead to the other. If you are already in compliance then a change is not necessary. I hope that makes sense.

Cheers.

 

[Ralph Cramden]

“Following discussions between DOT and the air carrier, Virgin America agreed to make a number of changes to ensure that the air carrier would remain under the ownership and actual control of U.S. citizens,” said DOT.

Why would they have to change anything if they were in full compliance?

Let me try to take a stab at this.

"Number of changes to remain under the ownership" refers to changes to the proposed transaction. As we people not privy to the process of the last year only see the final product, one can only assume the first draft of the new ownership plan was not to the DOT's liking.

As no transaction has taken place yet, there has been compliance to the original fitness review. As the proposed transaction now passes the second review, continued compliance will be assured.

Don't you just love lawyer speak?

 

[regionaltard]

The right people are getting paid, and as long as that continues Virgin will continue to operate above the law. That's how it works.

 

[Busdriver320]

TZ,

thx for the link. Not to nitpick but that is the original release from the DOT. Nice source material but it isn't some other news organization doing a news report that is favorable. I read it like the Seattle paper read it. VA has some 'new' guys investing that should keep them out of trouble. No mention of the last 12 months between when the two hedge funds sold their 75% stake and the current ownership distribution.

It seems like everyone is talking about this vis a vis unionizing. But jetblue still isn't union. This is more about playing by the same rules as the rest of the industry, 75% US ownership. It sounds like the DOT has determined that VA is good for now, which is good. I hope they continue to maintain the appropriate ownership structure and if they don't, the proper authorities need to enforce the law. period.

Well, the TWO "hedge funds" never sold their stakes. In fact, ONE of them is still on board with the new review approved by DOT (shows how accurate the WSJ article was, huh?). Maybe here's how it worked:
Original ownership approved by DOT;
One of the funds wanted out (ostensibly);
Alaska and friends file for review based on WSJ article;
VA submits new plan with the one fund wanting out, and new investors;
DOT approves new plan;
New investors write the check;
Original fund (ONE of the them) cashes out.

Looks to me like the article quoted in the original post here parsed some words when they said VA must come up with new investors. VA ALREADY came up with the new investors, submitted that as a response to the inquiry, and that was just approved by the DOT.

Leave it to the uninformed media. I recently read an article about the crotch bomber where it said the flight's "manifesto" had been approved by US TSA/DHS and the flight was allowed to depart AMS. Manifesto...huh?? It wasn't an essay by Ted Kaczynski (sp?) was it?

 

[Tomct]

I see what you are getting at, but what I don't get is this: Why is a change necessary if they are already in compliance? One does not lead to the other. If you are already in compliance then a change is not necessary. I hope that makes sense.

Cheers.

MAYBE if Alaska MGMT would worry more about running THEIR airline and stop worrying about others....NONE OF THIS WOULD BE NECESSARY! :crying:

I think I smell FEAR in SEA from their MGMNT???

 

[Mamma]

MAYBE if Alaska MGMT would worry more about running THEIR airline and stop worrying about others....NONE OF THIS WOULD BE NECESSARY! :crying:

I think I smell FEAR in SEA from their MGMNT???

Please. Alaska has seen the likes of VA come and go for years. Bottom feeder outfits like VA who come in and try to get marketshare be selling below cost. Well, to keep marketshare Alaska has to match and everyone ends up losing. So, to answer your question, Alaska is managing their airline and getting rid of VA is a step in the right direction.

 

[relief tube]

Now if you can make them pay landing fees, a/c maintenance, and a/c leases we might have an opportunity to see some fare increases to the west coast.

Better yet how bout they just go away and it'll be better. We got too many airlines out there.

Have you seen their payscales? f-ing retardedly sad. That's the main issue.

 

[cmrflyer]

It is a sad pay scale, it pathetic. no body will argue with that.

The pay is low, but as a new start up it is to be expected. Did you look at jetblues pay when they started? Did you see the 190 pay when they got that? $89 hr for a 12 year captain?
Things have changed at JB, and they will change a Virgin.
There are many established, large airlines that pay like arse. Have you seen airtrans pay?
Whats your pay rate, industry leading?
Do some research next time.

 

[Q400 Gear Bitch]

So, to answer your question, Alaska is managing their airline and getting rid of VA is a step in the right direction.

Maybe the Air Group should worry more about furloughs at both Alaska and Horizon than what Virgin America is doing. Just my 2 cents.

 

[firstthird]

Maybe the Air Group should worry more about furloughs at both Alaska and Horizon than what Virgin America is doing. Just my 2 cents.

don't you get it that the two might be related? You have yet another start up depress yields on an entire coast, it is not wonder the airlines are having trouble.

 

[jonjuan]

don't you get it that the two might be related? You have yet another start up depress yields on an entire coast, it is not wonder the airlines are having trouble.

And yet Southwest had and still has the same depressive effect on more established legacy airlines. Most at WN are pretty happy with where they ended up, pay wise.

 

[BushwickBill]

Skinner is the father of open skies. He's got an agenda that is not in labor's best interest. Don't forget Don Carty and David Cush. They did a great job lining their pockets over at AMR. You've got some real pilot haters over there.

You hit the nail on the head. They are not just pilot haters. They are part of the upper class of society that will go to no end to become even richer. These are the people making the middle class a thing of the past. These people are using globalization to their advantage to strip the middle class of QOL and wealth to line their own pockets. That is why the only jobs you can find now are low wage service jobs. Most of the good jobs are moving overseas.

 

[firstthird]

And yet Southwest had and still has the same depressive effect on more established legacy airlines. Most at WN are pretty happy with where they ended up, pay wise.

There is a difference. SWA made and still makes, knock on wood, money. Independence Air, Skybus, Express Jet, and now Virgin America didn't/don't. Yet they each managed to depress yields in large swaths of markets for 2 years or so while they ran through investors' money. They didn't all have a choice (Indy and Expressjet sort of got left holding the bag and made an attempt to go solo, neither of which worked). Skybus tried to bring a Ryan Air model over, they failed. VA is riding on the Virgin brand. Maybe they will work out, maybe they won't; but one thing they have done is depress transcon and intra-CA/west cost yields since they've been operating.

SWA went to SFO, probably to keep VA in check. I suspect we're in MKE for a similar reason with RAH. We aren't in either place to destroy anyone, just to make sure that they earn their growth; competing for the market with another LCC rather than taking it from a legacy.

I get that there is a shoe on the the other foot thing now. Maybe it is inevitable. as long as we're all playing by the same rules, which is why I'm glad that VA had its finances looked at.

 

[Q400 Gear Bitch]

don't you get it that the two might be related? You have yet another start up depress yields on an entire coast, it is not wonder the airlines are having trouble.

No I don't think they are related. I'm sure Bill Ayer would like the employees to think that. Air Group is making money, it's stock is soaring...and they're putting peeps on the street. I know they have always been ultra conservative, but I think that's a little over the top.

 

[CaptSeth]

we aren't in either place to destroy anyone, just to make sure that they earn their growth

hahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahha

 

[jayme]

hahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahha

I second that. Southwest wanted what, now? To make sure they earned their growth? Like a parent wanting the child to know the value of a dollar, like? GMAFB.

SW depresses yields all the time. The only reason they make money and VA doesn't is because of the massive amount of money required to start and grow an airline while earning passenger loyalty during an economic tsunami. SW also started very slowly whereas VA is trying to jump into the marketplace quickly.

 

[firstthird]

SW depresses yields all the time. The only reason they make money and VA doesn't is because of the massive amount of money required to start and grow an airline while earning passenger loyalty during an economic tsunami. SW also started very slowly whereas VA is trying to jump into the marketplace quickly.

It isn't depressing yields if you make money and pay a good wage. We do and we do. Lots of airlines "try to jump into the marketplace quickly." they also burn through investors capital and lose money while depressing yields.

it isn't about being a parent. It is about preventing our competition from having a 'safe' place to expand. If RAH or Airtran want MKE, they'll get it while we are there. If VA wants to be the king of SFO, they'll do it while we're there. just one man's opinion and not a very smart man at that.