Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Rumor-SKW Ron Reber???

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
[FONT=MS Sans Serif,verdana,arial,helv][SIZE=-1]Revised Virgin Plan Gets Tentative OK

Tuesday March 20, 7:35 pm ET
By Alan Zibel, AP Business Writer
Transportation Department Gives Tentative OK to Revised Virgin America Plan

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Transportation Department on Tuesday removed a barrier to Virgin America's plans to start a U.S. airline, voicing support for its plan to comply with laws limiting foreign control of a domestic carrier.
The agency gave a tentative OK to a revised plan filed in January by Burlingame, Calif.-based Virgin America, saying in a prepared statement that the plan "should meet U.S. ownership rules" that cap foreign control of a U.S. airline at 25 percent. The startup still faces opposition from several U.S. airlines.

One condition for the Transportation Department's support is that Virgin America replace CEO Fred Reid, the former Delta Air Lines Inc. president hired by British billionaire Richard Branson.

The agency said replacing Reid with a CEO "who has no prior affiliation" with Branson's Virgin Group Ltd. would "substantially" alleviate concerns about the airline's independence. Virgin Group has a minority stake in the company.

After removing Reid as CEO, which the agency acknowledged would pose challenges for the new airline, Virgin America would be allowed to retain him as a consultant for six months.

Reid declined to make clear whether he would step down, but said: "Launching the airline is too important to worry about the parochial views of one person, including the CEO."

Other conditions stipulated by the Transportation Department include: requiring U.S. directors on Virgin America's board to approve a trustee to represent Virgin Group's 25 percent stake in the airline, and reporting to federal regulators any loans Virgin Group plans to make to the U.S. airline.

In December, the Transportation Department tentatively denied Virgin America's application to fly, mainly because of its ties to Branson, who came up with the idea.

Virgin America in January proposed concessions to allay the agency's concerns. The reforms included selling more stock to U.S. investors, eliminating one of the three board seats awarded to Branson's Virgin Group and, if necessary, firing Reid.

The airline in late January added Samuel Skinner, the Transportation Department's secretary under President George H.W. Bush in the late 1980s and early 1990s as vice chairman.

Several of the major U.S. airlines, including AMR Corp.'s American Airlines, Delta Air Lines Inc. and Continental Airlines Inc., have spearheaded the drive to prevent Virgin America from flying. Opponents have 21 days to object to the agency's tentative conclusions.

Virgin America hopes to start service this summer with flights from San Francisco International Airport to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.[/SIZE][/FONT]
 
I would think UAL would kick them to the curb for that one. If memory serves SkyWest did not bid on F9 flying as to not upset UAL.

Actually they didn't do it out of some irrational fear of upsetting UAL, the code share agreement can be terminated immediately if they do.
 
Actually they didn't do it out of some irrational fear of upsetting UAL, the code share agreement can be terminated immediately if they do.

That's not true. Skywest Airlines can't compete with UAL in a hub, but there's no prohibition on Skywest Inc or their subsidiary, ASA. The F9 bid was going to be flown by ASA. And yes they told us that they didn't bid on it (even though they could have) to avoid upsetting United.
 
Oooo....Virgin SkyMidWest Atlantic Southeast America. Can't wait!
 
Last I checked, SFO is a United hub.....and Skywest would be the purchasing or merging corporation. How are they gonna get around that one? I'm calling BS on this one.
 
Last edited:
Last I checked, SFO is a United hub.....and Skywest would be the purchasing or merging corporation. How are they gonna get around that one? I'm calling BS on this one.

The agreement is with SkyWest Airlines. SkyWest Inc is another entity all together.This is one of the reasons why they bought ASA. If you want to call BS, gotta find a different reason.
 
Last I checked, SFO is a United hub.....and Skywest would be the purchasing or merging corporation. How are they gonna get around that one? I'm calling BS on this one.

Your a dumb arse. Can't believe they let you fly. Did you not understand that SkyWest Inc. can have ASA fly those routes. Besides only Ron would head over to Virgin America, maybe.
 
Your a dumb arse. Can't believe they let you fly. Did you not understand that SkyWest Inc. can have ASA fly those routes. Besides only Ron would head over to Virgin America, maybe.

Let me fly? I think you should really think about that. Now I know why we don't have a union here. How would ASA fly Airbuses for Virgin when they have Delta scope....We are talking about the Virgin cert with airbuses, not feed!!! Look in the mirror before you attempt an insult....LOL
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top