"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message

, at 14:36:43 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Recliner
remarked:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...cus-on-US.html

Interesting, I hadn't seen that.mi suppose it reflects Virgin's change if
ownership, with Singapore's 49% being sold to Delta, which is using Virgin
almost as an offshoot. I imagine it can feed a lot more of its frequent
fliers from the US on to Virgin's transatlantic routes than it could the
routes to Asia and Africa. But it's still sad to see Virgin pulling back
from its world network (having dropped it's hard fought-for Sydney route a
while ago).

Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was
Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an
iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less for
the same.

I don't care

But what I do care about is that it helps to prove my prove my point, that
if you have all of the infrastructure required to operate extra flights to
the US, in competition with 6 other airlines, or to obscure parts of the Far
East competing with no-one ...

the extra flights to the US win hands down.

(The fact that the parts of the Far East Virgin have pulled out from aren't
actually obscure, is even more compelling IMV)

I hear Recliner's point that there is obviously extra demand from airlines
to fly these flights from LHR and that if they were allowed to do so the
costs of the expansion would be paid for easily.

But what I don't buy, is all is nonsense that the extra runway will help the
general economy by providing frequent flights (and hence possibilities of
new trade) to (/from) dozens of new (new world) locations - cos it wont.

tim