Confirmed: Virgin US to be based in San Francisco

[Airbus_A320]

Thats too bad, im sick of LCC's taking the big airlines wind out of their sails. They started commercial aviation. The LCCs should have their own market while the big real airlines have theirs, its sad.

The LLC's offer more competiton which is a good thing... and also more planes to photograph :P

[FlyCharlestonSC]

I object to this.

There are no virgins in San Francisco.

LMAO

That's funny because its true!

[DAL767-400ER]

Confirmed: Virgin US to be based in San Francisco

Hopefully, since there is no terminal space, they'll end up in the A-terminal like AirTran did. That way, I can get probably one of the first pics up because i can get great A-term pics from mi house in the hills.

Actually, plans are for them to use the currently closed old international terminal, which would recieve a major refurbishment. The old A terminal is to be torn down, to make way for 6 more gates at international Terminal A.

-Colin

[uy707]

Given the location of SFO from the rest of the US, I wonder if this is a wise choice. I would have picked up OAK instead.
Alain

[billiam]

Given the location of SFO from the rest of the US, I wonder if this is a wise choice. I would have picked up OAK instead.
Alain

Well, OAK has both Southwest and JetBlue, so maybe a little too much LCC action there already? San Jose, SJC, might be better than SFO, weather and turn-around time wise, but Southwest is there too.

[airplanegeek]

Given the location of SFO from the rest of the US, I wonder if this is a wise choice. I would have picked up OAK instead.
Alain

Well, OAK has both Southwest and JetBlue, so maybe a little too much LCC action there already? San Jose, SJC, might be better than SFO, weather and turn-around time wise, but Southwest is there too.

SFO could be the beginning of the end for Virgin. not too sure what the route structure will be, but i agree, OAK/SJC/SMF would have all made better choices. i wouldn't suggest the bay area period, but if you're going to do it, at least do it right.

[aquiros]

BTW, it's gonna be called Virgin America

[craigallynrosephoto]

Given the location of SFO from the rest of the US, I wonder if this is a wise choice. I would have picked up OAK instead.
Alain

Oakland is a perfect dump and there is no room at SJC at this time. If there were any alternative to SFO it would have to be SJC. An even more important factor is that SJC and OAK are in no position to offer the incentives that SFO has passed on to Virgin America and neither airport has excess capacity to handle a new carrier. Better yet is the new CEO's logic:

------------

Financial Times (06.06.2004) - Fred Reid, who left as president of Delta to become chief executive of the new airline, said: "Culturally, New York and San Francisco reflect the Virgin brand's fun, dynamic style, making them ideal places for us to recruit creative, skilled employees."

Although some analysts have expressed concern about San Francisco, citing its reputation for bad weather at SFO airport, which has caused frequent delays, Mr Reid said his decision to pick the city for the operational centre did not mean it would be its key hub. "The headquarters decision is not a hub decision. San Francisco will be a very, very important market, and so will Los Angeles and New York and Boston. Choosing our operational base does not mean 75 per cent of our flights will be out of San Francisco."

Virgin said San Francisco had offered $15m in incentives, including training grants, while New York is offering $11m in aid. The bulk of the new jobs will be in California, where Virgin will create 1,500 new jobs. Mr Reid, in an interview with the Financial Times, said that picking two states had enabled it to "maximise generous incentives".

[SuperDash]

Well, isn’t this interesting? Or is it really…. stupid. Usually I would not bet against Mr. Branson. However, I think this one will be like flying one of his hot air balloons thru a SuperCell thunderstorm. OK, let’s take a look at this. First off, the corporate headquarters and the flight operations administration will be in two different cities. Now I know a couple of airlines that have their corporate and flight ops administration in separate cities. Having them a 5 hour flight and 3 time zones apart seems, well, dumb. Second, they have already started bragging that this will be the only carrier based in New York. Well, true, since JetBlue was smart enough to base outside of Manhattan. You know there have to be some deals on real estate in Manhattan. Do I sense an appearance by Donald Trump? So, they will base their employee’s in 2 of the most expensive cities in America. Good Call. They would naturally have to have flights between SF and NYC. Great, that will be frequency number 34. Yep, there’s a market that needs more flights. Oh yeah, it’s priced by JetBlue. We know that SFO has given up something to land this. The question is; how long can SFO really hold their costs down before they implode? Even with the cost concessions, Oakland and San Jose will be cheaper to operate at. But, you say, SFO is a high fare airport. Well, not really. Alaska, Air Tran, ATA, Frontier, operate at SFO so the fares are not sky high. SFO is part of the Bay Area and the Bay is served by a couple of other airports. Granted no one of any importance serves Oakland or San Jose. Especially someone with low fares and low costs. Oops, I forgot about Southwest. OK not really, but obviously Virgin USA did. I’m thinking Hindenburg landing at Lakehurst, NJ. Richard, don’t look now, chap, but I think a big can of whoop a## is about to be opened on you.

[chrisburns]

BTW, it's gonna be called Virgin America

According to the press release they have not decided on a name.

[aquiros]

BTW, it's gonna be called Virgin America

According to the press release they have not decided on a name.

I know it's kind of risky to jump and say that anout the future name...but a Virgin employee told me (and he is not a ramp agent ). I trust the guy...so let's see if he's right! Who knows maybe he is...and JP is going to be the first to know

[aquiros]

Press Release Source: Virgin America

'Virgin America' Announces Name, Executive Team, Airbus Order
Tuesday June 15, 2:00 pm ET
A320-Family Aircraft Will Form Backbone of Newly Named Airline's Fleet

NEW YORK, June 15 /PRNewswire/ -- Fred Reid, head of the new Virgin- branded U.S. domestic airline, today announced the carrier's official name, Virgin America, and said the airline has entered into agreements to acquire and lease up to 105 Airbus A320-Family aircraft.

I knew I could trust my sources.

[jonathan]

Here is Virgin America's Website:

https://www.virginamerica.com

[FlyCharlestonSC]

Dern!

I don't have the flash thingy and I tried to download it, but can't restart my computer now!

[Stephen Toernblom]

Is there really room for another LLC?