Get Ready for a Change

[Adrian B]

Originally Posted by Nick C

Just wild fantasies.

You are clearly clueless about SQ.

OK Nick

Your turn....... enlighten us all with your authenticated knowledge and wisdom pls, you have our attention

[Nick C]

Originally Posted by Adrian B

OK Nick

Your turn....... enlighten us all with your authenticated knowledge and wisdom pls, you have our attention

#1. SQ's never going to cede the Virgin name until it gets its transpac rights.

#2. SQ doesn't need DJ to feed.

#3. Not going to happen. Mgmt doesn't value FFP as much as other airlines. They believe in the brand/product loyalty mantra.

#4. 772s are going elsewhere.

[Russell D]

From what i've gathered, VB, PB, and VOz are to be put under the one brand. But what about Polynesian Blue??

I personally like VA's scheme AS OPPOSED to an all red 77W that is!

Couldn't agree with you more. As much as I like the all-red look on the 737s, the 777 looks much more stylish in the grey-white scheme.

[Morris Biondi]

Am i missing something here, what is wrong with the "V Australia" name, everybody knows V stands for Virgin, it's a great colour scheme and the brand is growing everyday with the aid of their wonderful service, also i agree with Nick Singapore and Emirates have wanted AUS-US rights for ever, so unless that carrot is dangled, which only the goverment can do, i can't see SQ giving permission for the use of the name, otherwise V Australia would not be called so, but something else.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Andrew M]

Hardly anyone knows the V Australia name nor that the V stands for Virgin.

The Virgin Blue name is VERY well known by most people, but it has the stigma of being associated with a low cost airline where you pay for everything.

Not the best name to be associated with a full service international airline.

DJ have a hard road ahead of them to sort out the mess they are operating in

[Nick Te Mata]

SQ and EK have historically chased transpac rights quite hard, but I'm not sure how relevant they are to those two airlines in 2010. The SYD-LAX market is now absolutely awash with capacity and average load factors have drastically plummeted from the 90%+ highs of a few years ago.

The duopoly between SYD and LAX was the reason for that interest, so with its evaporation, SQ's notoriously conservative business model probably doesn't warrant the pursuit of those rights. I doubt becoming a late entrant amongst the transpac bloodbath is really top of their priorities as it was pre-2008.

What this means for the Virgin naming legalities I'm not sure, but I just can't see those transpac rights being a huge bargaining chip anymore - at least not to the extent where something can't be negotiated between DJ and SQ.

[Damian N]

I have no "inside knowledge" but pure commercial acumen and watching the industry makes me think the following:

-SQ has often been rumoured to wanting out of it's Virgin Atlantic investment, so it's motivation to stop DJ using the Virgin name has probably waned a lot;

-SQ -even with little motivation to exclude DJ from using the Virgin name- would be open to allowing DJ to use it "if the price was right".

-SQ might view co-branded, co-shared, interlined etc etc services accross the Pacific as the most viable option in the forseeable future for them and use the Virgin name as a bargaining chip;

-SQ is likely to have more interest in partnering with a relaunched "new DJ" then the current version.............

With the above in mind I find it suprising how many conflicting and somewhat "definitive" statements have been made on this post......as unless you had high-level inside knowledge it should be hard to make any definitive statement.

[Arthur T]

I agree with Damien, plus a few comments below:

- SQ didn't want to co-operate with DJ is because DJ is adopting a LCC model which conflicts with TT. If DJ is going to leave the LCC market, the threat to TT is reduced and opportunities rise.

- SQ holds Virgin name and TT is also kind of a subsidary of SQ. SIA is a preimum quality airline and TT is a budget airline. If DJ is kinda going towards a quality airline, then SIA which focuses on quality may seek to co-operate with DJ and try to reposition TT to bring it out of trouble. I can seek DJ can become the next 'Silk Air' in Australia and TT can survive even better if such an agreement is reached

Furthermore, regarding the future of DJ, I think the new ticketing model for NZ (4 Tier Ticketing) could be suitable for DJ, which currently Virgin Blue is become even more expensive if you are including checked luggage, entertainment, food on board etc. I believe if DJ would adjust its pricing to those on NZ, i.e.

1. Seat (Seat + A cup of coffee + Limited Coverage of Entertainment eg. Music + TV + Map Only) Fare Basis: Option 2 -$10
2. Seat + Bag (Option 1 + 23kg Bag) Fare Basis: To be similar with a Qantas Economy Seat on the same route
3. Seat + Bag + Meal (Option 2 + A Full Meal + All Entertainment) Fare Basis: Option 2 + 25%
4. Business (QF Business Like + AVOD Entertainment + Lounge) Fare Basis: Similar with QF J Seat on the Same Route

Giving up the revenue from selling a cup of coffee/tea and a few dollars for using Music/TV on board could be hard, however if that happens and is according to the above fare basis, I think it will well enough to be a deadly threat to Qantas, and patronage can justify the lost of revenue from giving out free coffee/copyright from some older music/TV shows.

[Nick C]

Originally Posted by Nick Te Mata

SQ and EK have historically chased transpac rights quite hard, but I'm not sure how relevant they are to those two airlines in 2010.

SQ just wants the rights. Whether they use it is purely up to market forces. It's all about having the rights. It's similar to the transatlantic rights ex-UK it campaigned for and was awarded back in late 07; which have not been used to far due to "slot issues".

I will agree that all these ideas are nice in an ideal perfect market situation, co-branded, co-shared, yadayadayada. End of the day, you need to see the big picture. SQ's mgmt has a unique mentality - good and bad - it's hard to explain in words but having worked in a sister organisation it's very easy to know why things are like that.

Even within the whole organisation, if you observe long enough; you will notice the differences in work culture between big brother and little brother. You wouldn't want DJ to be the little brother.

[Michael Morrison]

From another forum - it is interesting reading regarding the Virgin naming rights here n the DJ prospectus....

Section 10.8

Seems it has NOTHING to do with SQ.

http://www.virginblue.com.au/cms/gro...t/u_000658.pdf

Virgin Blue is licensed to 2015 so it would seem DJ wither A) terminate the name agreement and pay the $26M odd in loyaties that would have been earnt in that time or B) negotiate a new deal to cover international ops.