Latest news on IFBT's

[mitchja]

Just throwing a few thoughts around here...

My only suggestion for cost saving could be for VS to only offer one checked bag for free per person for trans-Atlantic flights in Y (and possibly W too). Start charging for the second bag [:?]

OK, I say this because this wouldn't effect me as I never check more than one bag in anyway [:w]

Charge for alcohol in Y too maybe [:?] That would probably also solve a couple of other issues too on certain routes. Keep it free in W and J though. Keep soft drinks free though in all cabins.

Sorry but there's no way I'd pay for the food VS serve on-board flights in any cabin.

Regards

Perhaps split Y into two sections.
The cheapest, with one bag 15kg max, pay for drinks other than water, typical VS food.
Then Y+ :same seat type but more flexible luggage, free drinks, proper food but an extra £50 (that's a 66% increase in profit margin!)

How would we feel about a PE+ option with gourmet food & wine?

Originally posted by mitchja
Just throwing a few thoughts around here...

My only suggestion for cost saving could be for VS to only offer one checked bag for free per person for trans-Atlantic flights in Y (and possibly W too). Start charging for the second bag [:?]

OK, I say this because this wouldn't effect me as I never check more than one bag in anyway [:w]

Charge for alcohol in Y too maybe [:?] That would probably also solve a couple of other issues too on certain routes. Keep it free in W and J though. Keep soft drinks free though in all cabins.

Sorry but there's no way I'd pay for the food VS serve on-board flights in any cabin.

Regards

I am with you on this one James.[y]

[i]Maybe they could also look at increasing the amount of miles required for reward flights.[:0]

I do hope whatever they do though that no staff are made redundant and that the food and amenity packs don't get any worse that what they currently are.

Jerseyboy

Originally posted by mitchja
My only suggestion for cost saving could be for VS to only offer one checked bag for free per person for trans-Atlantic flights in Y (and possibly W too). Start charging for the second bag [:?]

Charge for alcohol in Y too maybe [:?] That would probably also solve a couple of other issues too on certain routes. Keep it free in W and J though. Keep soft drinks free though in all cabins.

OK, so the sale fare I quoted is a bit extreme, but no way charge in W, consider this:

(1) economy sale fare £268 actual flight fare £72, taxes and charges £196
(2) short notice PE fare sometimes £1,800 - £2,000 which is upto £1,804 of flight fare and £196 in taxes

Well I never do the former and frequently do the latter for business. I damn well think I should get a better service than in economy and at these fares they're close to advance Z's in UC so I for one think it should be closer to that. But as said before, PE per square foot makes the highest margin, why not screw us some more [:X].

The problem with keeping IFBTs it seems to me, starts with the prices at the back of the cabin ...

Originally posted by RichardMannion

Originally posted by andrew.m.wright
2. Does a reduction in service mean a reductionin ticket prices ? I think not!

No, but then I do think some of the lower end fares need to rise. Sale fare to NYC for £268 - the actual fare element is about £75. Compare that to a few years back where you could get a flight to NYC for £199, but ~£150 of that was fare element.

As more of these lower cost carriers go under, then I'd expect fares to climb a little. Open skies is most certainly not going to push fares down. There is trying to compete, and then there is putting yourself out of business. No wonder BA don't pay commission to TA's on mos tof hteir tickets, maybe that is next down the line.

What is interesting is to see such a lack of pushing customers to book online - the CoS is much less and helps the bottom line. EasyJet do 99% of their bookings online, and their results show the effect. BA charge if you book via telephone. Surely not long before VS have to do the same, though it would be great if they waived it for UC/PE travellers as the margin is better there.

Spot on Richard.

I also don't believe that the constant sales of last year made the company that much money!

I took advantage of 4 sale fares to NYC last year. Bearing in mind I travelled in every quarter of the year on a different day on Boeing 747 400's that never had more than 113 passengers on them! 26 in Y was the record coming back one night! I also came back from Boston on a 747 last year with 45 passengers as the total load!

It's fair to say that times are tough.

[mitchja]

Lets not forget the other side of the VS business - cargo.

Cargo makes the airlines more money per cubic meter than pax do and cargo doesn't need feeding or watering either [:w]

Regards

I like the idea of charging to check in a second bag for free.

However I prefer for drinks to be free on all flights, we run round like headless chickens on full flights with full crew complement let alone being crew down and having to charge for drinks!

Originally posted by RichardMannion

What is interesting is to see such a lack of pushing customers to book online - the CoS is much less and helps the bottom line. EasyJet do 99% of their bookings online, and their results show the effect. BA charge if you book via telephone. Surely not long before VS have to do the same, though it would be great if they waived it for UC/PE travellers as the margin is better there.

I agree with pushing the customer to book online. Give us the option of booking upgrade rewards online also. This would free up the phone reps, or allow that sector to be phased down.

Not sure I like the idea of paying to book over the phone, but perhaps a waive of credit card fees for booking online would be encouragment enough. Or even bring back the good ol' £5 discount we once had.

I realise PE is a money spinner for Virgin but as it doesnt require additional bookings like the UC CDC, I think in time a majority of Virgins Y and W bookings could come from online.

Also as a T-totaller non Y traveller, I agree with charging for alcohol in Y [:w]

[Decker]

Any vegans think we should charge extra for milk products or meat? [:w][}:)]

Originally posted by mitchja
Lets not forget the other side of the VS business - cargo.

Cargo makes the airlines more money per cubic meter than pax do and cargo doesn't need feeding or watering either [:w]

Exactly and one clear problem is the lack of a cargo network for VS, which really is not that substantial.

With the exception of the Caribbean islands all VS routes are flown by multiple airlines which could be able to offer better cargo connections. Of course I could well be wrong and someone like Denzil probably has a bit more of a clue but a common sense approach tells me that both BA and BD (through its *a partners) have a much better cargo network.

OK. This thread is getting wide of the mark but:

I am astounded by some of the light loads reported on trans Atlantic routes. It's never been like that on any of my recent Indian sectors. On Japan Y can be very empty but PE and UC are usually OK.

How does VS yield management work? I bought a DEL-LHR sector at a very good (Z class) price in the sale; once the sale was over the price more than doubled (no Z class). But there was only around 60% occupancy in UC on the flight. Would it have been better to keep more seats at the the Z class fare perhps a little above the Z class fare.

Surely everyone should book online; haven't booked any other way for years! My organisation sets a cash limit and I can then do as I wish. Can't there be more sophisticated s/w that handles Flying Club deals, corporate accounts etc, thus reducing call centre situations.

Dare I suggest Indian call centres as an alterantive? that'll get them going!

So do some of these and keeep IFBT please.

My last few UC trips have been a disappointment. Poor customer service (phone), choice of food being unavailable (I understand that the 'Freedom Menu' concept hasn't been truly 'Freedom' for many years, but at least let me eat what is listed on the menu!), etc.

I usually fly alone, but I am taking my whole family back to the UK this summer and thought long and hard about who to fly with as I wanted my family to have a real treat. I finally decided to stick with Virgin because, wait for it, I thought it would be great for my wife to be pampered on the plane by an IFBT.

I love the Heathrow & JFK Clubhouses, but I started flying UC because it's horrible being stuck in a plane for 9 hours, not because of the clubhouses. Having the IFBT available, having good food available, having enough blankets available, all these things go towards making the hours a lot more pleasurable than they otherwise would be. I fully appreciate that Virgin needs to be profitable, but they need to seriously consider their strategy as a whole. Remove the IFBT, and the UC experience consists of little more than a bar and a slightly larger seat.

Good luck to all IFBTs. I hope it works out well for you.

Originally posted by mitchja
..Start charging for the second bag [:?]

OK, I say this because this wouldn't effect me as I never check more than one bag in anyway [:w]

Originally posted by nevadakaz

Also as a T-totaller non Y traveller, I agree with charging for alcohol in Y [:w]

It never ceases to amaze me how people are willing to give up the services they never use [:?].
It is worth pointing out that both these options would probably increase admin costs, service times (at Check-in and in the cabin) and a feeling of disatisfaction. My Y ticket for NY last week was just under 1K and if I had had to pay for a single beer I would not have been thrilled.

FM

[HighFlyer]

While I am a drinker, I wouldnt be in favour for charging for drinks in Y as to me that is what sets apart a scheduled airline from the charters, plus it would create more work for the crew (thus reducing their time in other areas I'd imagine).

Thanks,
Sarah

Business as usual last night. IFBT present, and very friendly too but yet again no treatment. I have only once ever had a treatment on board, so I would be one of those who don't value the service as I never benefit from it.

[preiffer]

IFBT onboard my flight yesterday, GREAT service, and everyone onboard got a treatment. [y]

To clairfy, if you dont have a CH treatment, and ask for one on board, and to be woken for it, if they don't get round to you should you get a priority card?

What Virgin don't seem to realise, is that as an UC passenger the one person I know by name is the IFBT. They welcome me to the flight, they give their name, they answer non 'IFBT' questions etc. When I'm flying and the crew are not that good I always catch the IFBT on their way passed - they can always be relied on to provide the UC service.

I've been in UC and not known whether the FSM is male or female - I've always known the name of the IFBT even though I rarely request a treatment - afterall, they say hello and try and make the experience special.

Mrs D

Nice one Mrs.Decker, thankyou!

Jimbob you are correct, if you opt to be woken for a treatment and do not recieve you should be given a prority card. It is only the 'sleep' pax who do not recieve one and this SHOULD be explained in the IFBT introduction.

Originally posted by the-ifbt
Nice one Mrs.Decker, thankyou!

Jimbob you are correct, if you opt to be woken for a treatment and do not recieve you should be given a prority card. It is only the 'sleep' pax who do not recieve one and this SHOULD be explained in the IFBT introduction.

Interesting, that has never been explained to me. Useful to know.

Originally posted by baldbrit
Remove the IFBT, and the UC experience consists of little more than a bar and a slightly larger seat.

I'm replying to my own post as my initial comments were more negative than I intended. I want to make it clear that there are great benefits to flying UC, the Revivals lounge being something that tops the on-ground experience for me. It's the in-flight experience that could do with a make-over, and I'm not convinced that removing IFBTs is the answer.

SRB's letter hinted that one reason for the service review is that only a fraction of the PAX actually get a treatment onboard. Fix the problem, not remove the service! I see PAX in the Cowshed who then tell the IFBT that they didn't get a service in the Clubhouse. It shouldn't be too difficult to create a list of Cowshed PAX which the IFBT can then review before boarding to make sure no-one receives a double treatment. Pre-book the service perhaps, with 'walk-ins' accepted if there is availability. Review the type of treatments available onboard so that maybe more PAX get a service. There are many ways to keep the service running.

I stand by my comments that the in-flight portion of the UC experience needs a serious review. I do, however, want to thank the crew who are always top class. [oo] Review services offered, not the cabin crew!

Originally posted by declansmith
charging to check in a second bag for free.

I'm confused..[:?]

All mention of the IFBT inc photo's have now been removed from the virgin atlantic website.

[Darren Wheeler]

Originally posted by baldbrit

I see PAX in the Cowshed who then tell the IFBT that they didn't get a service in the Clubhouse. It shouldn't be too difficult to create a list of Cowshed PAX which the IFBT can then review before boarding to make sure no-one receives a double treatment.

The IFBT should contact the CH to get a list of who has had a treatment. They then use that to decide who gets on on-board.

Originally posted by vscss
All mention of the IFBT inc photo's have now been removed from the virgin atlantic website.

Seat plans still show the beauty area.

Originally posted by Darren Wheeler
Seat plans still show the beauty area.

Would you like to see mine?

Ahem...cough...cough....

Back OT -- when my mate, The Ginger Breadstick, flew UC for the first time last year, he received a CH treatment and an onboard treatment, but that was because he had a priority card. I suppose that overrode the 'treated in CH, not treated onboard' rule. I'm glad he got that treatment, looking back on it all, as there likely won't be the service going forward...

GJ