We'd heard
rumblings that Virgin America was indeed lobbying for the US Department of Transportation's blessing to take off from American soil, and after getting a
hands-on experience that was second to none, we couldn't help but hope for things to work out. Sure enough, VA has now been given the almighty thumbs-up to operate in the United States. Interestingly, the final approval was only granted after "several additional conditions" were finally agreed to, one of which will leave the current CEO sans a job. Unfortunately for Mr. Fred Reid, "US law restricts foreign ownership in airlines to 25-percent of voting stock," and apparently, the DOT didn't take too kindly to Reid's "longstanding association with foreign investors," most notably Virgin Group's
Richard Branson. Nevertheless, the current head man will stay on board for another six months, and while a replacement has yet to be named, the airline hopes to get its birds in the air sometime this summer. Initially, flights will travel from its home base (SFO) to New York (JFK), and while there's no definite timetable as to when routes will be expanded to hit other US cities, feel free to click through for the full lineup of locales that VA hopes to be servicing sooner rather than later.
Read - Virgin America cleared for take-off
Read - Fred Reid forced to resign as VA takes flight
Virgin America's projected service city list: -
Within one year:
- Los Angeles
- Washington/Dulles
- San Diego
- Las Vegas
-
Within five years:
- Atlanta
- Austin
- Baltimore
- Boston
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Cincinnati
- Cleveland
- Dallas
- Denver
- Detroit
- Fort Lauderdale
- Fort Myers
- Hartford
- Houston
- Indianapolis
- Jacksonville
- Kansas City
- Miami
- Milwaukee
- Minneapolis
- Nashville
- Newark
- New Orleans
- Orlando
- Philadelphia
- Phoenix
- Pittsburgh
- Providence
- Portland, Ore.
- Raleigh-Durham
- Sacramento
- Salt Lake City
- San Antonio
- San Jose, Calif.
- Sarasota
- Seattle
- St. Louis
- Tampa
- West Palm Beach
posted May 20th 2007 2:15PM
What was that show called that Richard Branson and Virgin America was in?
, "US law restricts foreign ownership in airlines to 25-percent of voting stock," and apparently, the DOT didn't take too kindly to Reid's "longstanding association with foreign investors," most notably Virgin Group's Richard Branson.
--
Hmm.. Funny how the US loves to promote free trade and open investments in "communist" countries like China (which have similar ownership restrictions for foreigners) yet when the shoe's on the other foot...
Has this got ANYTHING to do with gadgets?
Have you ever seen the inside of a VA airplane? They're full of electronics.
Yes, very much so. Check out the "hands-on experience" link up in the summary for tons of pictures. These planes are full of awesome tech. Personally, I can't wait to fly on one.
Mike, ignoring internal security isn't a good idea. Should the US allow foreign companies to provide our critical infrastructure? Would the US be smart in allowing foreign countries to be able to make political decisions that would limit our communications, limit our food supply, our transportation system and more? Look what that got us with our energy supply.
Governments are in place to do one thing, and that is to provide for its citizens, not the citizens of the world. My vote in the next election will be based on what the candidate will do for the US, not the rest of the world.
Does this mean we want the rest of the world ignored? Of course not, but the US Government, along with all other governments, look after their own first. That is the way it is and the way it should be.
Read this.It is an excerpt from the Engadget FAQ under the question "Why was my comment removed?"
"If your comment is spam, off-topic, unduly belligerent, insulting, or berating, or otherwise not, er, nice (or if you completely missed the point of the post), do expect your comment to be removed"
Note the use of the word spam in that quotation.So from now on I'm going to report every single comment with a link to an off-topic site.I hope others will follow suit.You're free to leave comments,but not to advertise...unless you get your own optimus key...
Yes because, heaven forbid that one day that 25% may turn into 26% and the planes will just start falling from the sky.
Is linking to one's blog really actually spam? Surely the word "spam" implies a commercial motive. I was always of the opinion that it is allowable to place a link to one's blog at the end of a considered, on-topic comment in a thread. Am I wrong? And why the vigilante enthusiasm? Does it really bother you that much?
According to wikipedia "Spam is the posting of advertisements, abusive, or unneeded messages on Internet forums".
The majority of the time,they just restate the opinion of the post and leave a link then.I would consider their blogs off topic too.
And yes,it does really bother me that they are using engadget to get more traffic.There are other ways.
"We heard a rumor..."
Like the rumor that the iPhone was being delayed. HA HA HA HA HA.
Maybe you should stop beginning your articles with that phrase.
No.They received a tip from a trusted source.
lolz.. yeah.. CEO is out of the office @@"
No plans to go to Hawaii in the next 5 years? i was hoping to start taking them to hawaii instead of united.
So is this one of those paid-product-placement stories? They hit up diggnation to have them host a show from their planes. Seems like they did the same for Engadget.
going a little overboard with the word "sans" this weekend. cool it fellas!
They certainly have a good PR team, but that onboard computer system was pretty fucking A.
Sure, they've got gadgets galore. But other than that what are they doing about the things that really piss air travelers off ... lost bags, delays, surly agents. They have not uttered a peep about how they intend the deal with those issues ... almost as if they intend to keep you so occupied with their gadgets that you won't care when they lose your bags ! Yeah, right.
I never check a bag while traveling with the exception of ski trips etc where its unavoidable.
In today's day and age, blogging is commercial. Ever notice how many posts are worded to attract certain kinds of people? Hits = money to advertisers.
As far as the Virgin deal. I have to agree with the post above. It's not in the best interest of America to allow control of anything in the transportation industry to a foreign country. Especially in the world today. When we (as in Earth) finally wake up, realize that we are all here to live peaceful lives and maybe (just maybe) find out what it's like beyond this planet... Only then will true capitalism/"free market" be tolerated. Even then, the major players should be watched very...very close. Allowing anyone with political or religious motives in power at this time is asking for trouble.
You say that we shouldn't allow American airlines to be owned by other countries, but that is wrong for two reasons. First, Virgin Air is not owned by any country, but rather by investors, some of whom are probably American. These investors want to make a profit by providing what they believe to be the best combination of value and service quality to consumers. They have no possible motive to somehow damage or hurt America in any way. There actions increase competition and improve service for all Americans.
But even if, say, the Russian government bought all of Virgin Air (which they wouldn't) and suddenly stopped all services how would that harm America? Your country is served by several other airlines. If Virgin suddenly halting services did create a gap in the market then other competitors would fill the void. This is he beauty of the free market, which you disparagingly place in inverted commas.Stop hiding behind national security as an excuse for subtle trade barriers. Where is the security risk?
If anyone ever doubted the real purpose of regulatory agencies, this should show once and for all that they exist to protect existing vendors from new competition. The DOT dragged their feet as much as they could to prevent VA from opening for business, and I wish VA could have just sued their asses and gotten them smacked hard for overstepping their authority.
-jcr
I'm pretty sure that unlike normal trade things all countries fiercely protect their airlines in a way that if it was any other service would have the world trade organization at their door. Therefore, Virgin could, in theory, sue the DOT but just remember that the DOT is also keeping EuropeanAir, AsianAir, and AfricanAir from flying the 9:20 from Indy to New York.
Hmm so keeping all Airlines working in America American owned means they are safe and secure? So who was it owned them on 9/11 ? British airports and airlines have a far better safety/security record.
Keeping it American has nothing to do with safety and security and a lot to do with money.
No, but it will keep one countries dictator and or "interests" from affecting the price of oil for instance. I said nothing of 911 or safety measures.
Yes sorry the security comment was more in reply to RandomThoughts comment of
"ignoring internal security isn't a good idea. Should the US allow foreign companies to provide our critical infrastructure?"
I still find it funny that I can fly to the US from the UK for less than it would cost me to fly internally across the US.