Some people are just irrationally biased against mergers - on my last flight, the couple next to me could not stop blaming the merger for us leaving SFO 5 minutes late, even when we arrived at SEA on time. It was Friday at 7PM, heavy travel time for SFO-SEA.
I try to fly Alaska everywhere too - never had a bad experience, on-time every time.
The oldest part of their fleet are B734's of which they have 5 (plus I think some Combi's which only service Alaska) all of those are due to be gone by the end of 2017. The rest of their fleet is B737/B738/B739's - all but 30 are B738/B739's.
In fact among legacy carriers Alaska has the youngest fleet age of any of them. Alaska also has excellent on-time and baggage performance - among the best, if not the best in the industry.
Your first paragraph sums up my experience with Virgin. Hollow flimsy plastic walls, useless seatback displays, uncomfortable seats, tacky college dorm mood lights, horrid customer service, heck most flights don't even offer snacks... I try to avoid them whenever possible.
To be entirely fair, a lot of my grief is based on my experience transitioning my frequent flier miles from virgin to Alaska. They had some sort of fault and I lost 250k miles and Alaska wouldn't do anything to correct the error. They kept saying that the system said I had zero miles even though I was able to show on virgin's site that they showed I had 250k at the time it was extracted for the move. It really soured me on them.
That's a completely fair reason. That happened to me on a lesser scale with American and US Airways (I also lost all of my miles from America West from when I would fly back/forth to visit my father lol thanks airlines).
Totally sucks, especially 250k miles. I'd be weary after that as well.
Alaska has always been my preferred airline for travel to Seattle and hops up and down the west coast. They aren't as "quirky" as Virgin, but, compared to the other legacy carriers, they get most of the little things right and (IME) have excellent customer service, vegan banana meal anecdote notwithstanding.
Bank loan to outfit airplanes with seatback video -- easy "no" for the bank, it's dependent on the airline's ability to repay, with little recourse if the can't.
Boeing financing sale or lease of 12 new aircraft? Easy yes -- the aircraft is an asset generating revenue for them, and can be repossessed if Virgin doesn't make the payments.
Same reason that a person who can't get a $5,000 unsecured personal loan at a bank can often finance a $50,000 new car.
Surely then as a canny banker you offer to give them the money for the entertainments system secured against whatever assets they have, like the aircraft (if there are no liens or whatever on them). Indeed isn't that classic banking, if you know they're likely to default on the loan you offer it anyway but with security against anything they've got that you want transferring all the risk as a means for asset acquisition?
>a person who can't get a $5,000 unsecured personal loan at a bank //
Of course but they can have any loan they like secured against their house or [expensive] car up to half it's outstanding sale value ... though I think they are now being regulated on this sort of thing, which was the root of the whole sub-prime deal-e-o I think.
Somewhat related. On the Pitch podcast a guy pitching VR headsets on planes said those seat back entertainment systems are heavy and cost the airlines $1b a year in fuel costs.
https://gimletmedia.com/episode/skylights-s02-ep04/
VR on a plane sounds interesting. But those headsets are pretty bulky right now, I wouldn't want to be juggling one along with food and everything else.
I'm surprised these AV systems haven't been replaced by cheap Android tablets - they'd be a hell of a lot cheaper and you could replace them very easily.
Many of those in-flight entertainment systems are Android tablets mounted onto the seatback. Sometimes if you're lucky you can bail out to the Android home screen on them.
On a recent Delta flight the seat back screens were malfunctioning and had to be rebooted several times. The boot was a standard Linux text mode sequence. Debian, iirc. It would get stuck before the graphical interface loaded.
So would a seat back video investment been worth it, considering now they are obsoleted by smartphones?
The operating time of a plane is way longer than infotainment equipment.
That's why I won't buy cars with nav systems, etc. I'll still be driving that car in 10 year, while the infotainment will be obsolete and unsupported. All I car for in a car is a way to amplify what's coming out of my phone.
The newer planes all have charging ports with sufficient power for mobile devices. United's streaming option, especially with the Amazon partnership seems like the way forward.
> Do people have the time or remember to load movies ?
I'm not sure how prevalent it is, but I know some carriers like United[1] and Delta[2] (via Gogo) stream media to your personal device over the aircraft's WiFi.
> Make sure their device is charged?
Many flights now have USB ports and/or power outlets under the seats.
My experience is different - I've always had free access to movies via Wi-Fi and the selection has been better than the in flight system. As long as there is a USB port I'm in favour of it.
Nope, I've never had to pay on United or Delta. From the United page,
> This free service gives you access to a library of movies and TV shows that you can watch on your personal laptop, Apple iOS device or Android device.
I've flown united recently. I'd much rather have seatback.
The USB ports are nice; especially since I have a syncstop so don't have to trust them. The video, however, is only available through their United App (Not even the Gogo Video app, available on a few other carriers, but the United one is required to play videos on their flights). Okay, so I went to download it. You can't on the flight - They block internet unless you pay for it ($15 for my two-hour flight! Though I could have gotten a half hour for $10), but I had a layover, so I downloaded it in the terminal. I was taken aback - It wanted access to my contacts, my phone information, my text messages - Well, thankfully Google has profiles on tablets, so I loaded up my burner profile.
But actually on the flight, the experience was horrible. The video constantly stopped to buffer. There were no media controls - You pressed play, and you could pause the video by tapping the screen, but you couldn't scrub back or forward or restart the video. The selection was okay - I watched some Lego Freemaker Adventures (I'm a sucker for the lego animations, and Star Wars, how could I resist?) but there were a variety of movies that I'd have watched instead. I gave up, though, after my second layover I went to boot up the episode I'd been halfway through on my previous flight, and it started over. I don't blame it for starting over... but the lack of media controls made that a non-starter.
Ultimately, streaming to personal devices (with rental tablets available) is going to be the clear winner; The expense of maintaining those headrest units has got to be significantly more than the little media server on in-flight wifi, and the complaints I have about privacy invasion are yet another sacrifice that airlines are all too willing to make on our behalf. But it's not there yet, and I sorta doubt it will be for a while yet.
It was really the timing and scale of the innovation that mattered. Seat-back video in economy? In 1991? [0] Hugely innovative.
$10 Million in 90's money is like $18 Mil now [1](according to this site i don't fully beleive). $2.5 Bil = $4.5 Bil. That's a lot of money to keep the kids happy.
"Perhaps you'd feel different if you were served a big sausage." - if this were Reddit.
Vaguely implying cock was rude, and it sucks that vegans tend to get offered slabs of Gouda in place of meals. A banana doesn't even come close to a lunch, that's like offering an omnivore a piece of beef jerky.
I often find the stoic approach ("don't have external expectations") as one, which makes me less stressed and able to make better decisions. On the other hand I try to aim high and achieve more. So it's basically this subtle tension between both, what works best for me. Choosing only one option probably would make me either lazy and stagnating, or stressed and miserable.
This somewhat paradoxical approach that you describe has become enormously important to me over the past few years.
It leaves me excited for the future as I explore the possibilities that life may provide, but very grounded and aware of the immense fragility.
As a spec on a tiny ball of dirt floating in space, I shouldn't be surprised when the wind knocks me over. But I should at least try to get back up, as it seems there are many interesting things and meaningful experiences out there awaiting me.
I hate seat-back video on planes. I really, really don't need some flickering screen a foot from my face for hours on end. My only interaction with them is whacking the off-button until it finally acquiesces.
From a strictly selfish point of view, the only positive feature I can think of is that they can hypnotize some (but not all) children who would otherwise be annoying.
Instructions unclear. How do I get Boeing to build a dozen 747s for me, right after a bank refuses to lend me a measly $10 million?
Sure, they can repossess the aircraft if I default, but that's going to cost them a lot more than $10M by the time the dust settles. On the surface, this is really a story of arbitrage, where Branson successfully leveraged Boeing's recklessness against a bank's cowardice.
Boeing has more incentive than the bank. Boeing's profit is likely much higher than the interest on the deal. That's probably just the cherry on top. The bank stands to lose the entire principal.
Yes it's a spin by Branson to suggest that the planes were the solution to seat back entertainment. They'd have done the planes anyway because it's grow or die.
The bigger risk today is Wow! and norweigan airlines with cheap flights.
But I've always found virgin to be a good experience for a fair price. On transatlantic flights, BA is more expensive for less and the American carriers are just awful. They get away with it because their hub-spoke routes have little competition.
They were already making money with the planes they had, realistically they can't suddenly make £10s of millions more just because they have replaced those with new planes. They can buy/set up new routes but that's going to be more cost.
They only way I see it working is something with investors, but how does that work with a public company, surely not a new share class?
Most likely option I see is that this is mainly spin from Branson??
Investors are much more likely to lend you lots of money when the debt is secured. Airplanes are pretty good securities against default; they don't depreciate quickly. If you default on your payments, the airplanes will be repossessed and the creditors will get most of their money back.
Seat-back monitors, on the other hand, are nearly worthless after installation. They're tied to the planes they're in; the technology obsoletes quickly; and they can't easily be resold. So the risk to the creditor in percentage terms is much greater.
So, indeed, in absolute terms, there's more at stake for the creditors (10M vs 2.5B), but if I were a creditor, I know what I'd feel safer betting on.
77 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 142 ms ] threadWhat don't you like about them?
I try to fly Alaska everywhere too - never had a bad experience, on-time every time.
Virgin was he king of American airline quality and raised the bar for the whole industry.
In fact among legacy carriers Alaska has the youngest fleet age of any of them. Alaska also has excellent on-time and baggage performance - among the best, if not the best in the industry.
Totally sucks, especially 250k miles. I'd be weary after that as well.
Boeing financing sale or lease of 12 new aircraft? Easy yes -- the aircraft is an asset generating revenue for them, and can be repossessed if Virgin doesn't make the payments.
Same reason that a person who can't get a $5,000 unsecured personal loan at a bank can often finance a $50,000 new car.
So borrowing money and living outside of your means is now a success story?
>a person who can't get a $5,000 unsecured personal loan at a bank //
Of course but they can have any loan they like secured against their house or [expensive] car up to half it's outstanding sale value ... though I think they are now being regulated on this sort of thing, which was the root of the whole sub-prime deal-e-o I think.
Company: http://www.skylights.aero/
I'm surprised these AV systems haven't been replaced by cheap Android tablets - they'd be a hell of a lot cheaper and you could replace them very easily.
The operating time of a plane is way longer than infotainment equipment.
That's why I won't buy cars with nav systems, etc. I'll still be driving that car in 10 year, while the infotainment will be obsolete and unsupported. All I car for in a car is a way to amplify what's coming out of my phone.
Seatback systems may not be great but they might be good enough to last a while longer.
I'm not sure how prevalent it is, but I know some carriers like United[1] and Delta[2] (via Gogo) stream media to your personal device over the aircraft's WiFi.
> Make sure their device is charged?
Many flights now have USB ports and/or power outlets under the seats.
[1]: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/inflight/ent...
[2]: https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-us/on...
The wifi is decent - I was able to stream 480p video without interruptions, which is way better than I expected.
> This free service gives you access to a library of movies and TV shows that you can watch on your personal laptop, Apple iOS device or Android device.
The USB ports are nice; especially since I have a syncstop so don't have to trust them. The video, however, is only available through their United App (Not even the Gogo Video app, available on a few other carriers, but the United one is required to play videos on their flights). Okay, so I went to download it. You can't on the flight - They block internet unless you pay for it ($15 for my two-hour flight! Though I could have gotten a half hour for $10), but I had a layover, so I downloaded it in the terminal. I was taken aback - It wanted access to my contacts, my phone information, my text messages - Well, thankfully Google has profiles on tablets, so I loaded up my burner profile.
But actually on the flight, the experience was horrible. The video constantly stopped to buffer. There were no media controls - You pressed play, and you could pause the video by tapping the screen, but you couldn't scrub back or forward or restart the video. The selection was okay - I watched some Lego Freemaker Adventures (I'm a sucker for the lego animations, and Star Wars, how could I resist?) but there were a variety of movies that I'd have watched instead. I gave up, though, after my second layover I went to boot up the episode I'd been halfway through on my previous flight, and it started over. I don't blame it for starting over... but the lack of media controls made that a non-starter.
Ultimately, streaming to personal devices (with rental tablets available) is going to be the clear winner; The expense of maintaining those headrest units has got to be significantly more than the little media server on in-flight wifi, and the complaints I have about privacy invasion are yet another sacrifice that airlines are all too willing to make on our behalf. But it's not there yet, and I sorta doubt it will be for a while yet.
$10 Million in 90's money is like $18 Mil now [1](according to this site i don't fully beleive). $2.5 Bil = $4.5 Bil. That's a lot of money to keep the kids happy.
[0]https://www.virgin.com/travel/how-has-inflight-entertainment...
[1]http://www.in2013dollars.com/1991-dollars-in-2017?amount=100...
Kids eventually grow up and buy plane tickets of their own.
Vaguely implying cock was rude, and it sucks that vegans tend to get offered slabs of Gouda in place of meals. A banana doesn't even come close to a lunch, that's like offering an omnivore a piece of beef jerky.
This is absurd.
That part was not meant as a critique of the airline.
In particular, think of this in the context of the customer experience.
Source: vegan friends.
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/banana-g...
I've found much success in divorcing my goals from my expectations.
It leaves me excited for the future as I explore the possibilities that life may provide, but very grounded and aware of the immense fragility.
As a spec on a tiny ball of dirt floating in space, I shouldn't be surprised when the wind knocks me over. But I should at least try to get back up, as it seems there are many interesting things and meaningful experiences out there awaiting me.
I’d also check out A Guide to the Good Life by William Irvine, it’s an overview and a much less tedious read (wrote this century, haha).
From a strictly selfish point of view, the only positive feature I can think of is that they can hypnotize some (but not all) children who would otherwise be annoying.
Sure, they can repossess the aircraft if I default, but that's going to cost them a lot more than $10M by the time the dust settles. On the surface, this is really a story of arbitrage, where Branson successfully leveraged Boeing's recklessness against a bank's cowardice.
The bigger risk today is Wow! and norweigan airlines with cheap flights.
But I've always found virgin to be a good experience for a fair price. On transatlantic flights, BA is more expensive for less and the American carriers are just awful. They get away with it because their hub-spoke routes have little competition.
They only way I see it working is something with investors, but how does that work with a public company, surely not a new share class?
Most likely option I see is that this is mainly spin from Branson??
Seat-back monitors, on the other hand, are nearly worthless after installation. They're tied to the planes they're in; the technology obsoletes quickly; and they can't easily be resold. So the risk to the creditor in percentage terms is much greater.
So, indeed, in absolute terms, there's more at stake for the creditors (10M vs 2.5B), but if I were a creditor, I know what I'd feel safer betting on.