It is comforting that even if one carrier pulls out the route will not be left unserved. From the beginning I think MIA and LAX would have been better for VS, whilst SFO and BOS for Thomas Cook but, that's just my personal opinion.
In essence, I agree with what all are saying. I just think that we need Virgin as a full service carrier - with the 'glamour' - to really build our place as a strong airport. As much as Thomas Cook is aspiring to have a business class cabin, they are still operating air tanker aircraft with 3-3-3 configurations in economy and shared overhead in-flight entertainment screens, on certain routes. That is no way to enter a major market like SEA, possibly 'scaring off' possible returning passengers.
It is my view that we should have both Virgin and Thomas Cook to retain competition, whilst simultaneously appealing to slightly different markets. I just hope that if Virgin does retreat from BOS/SFO, they don't view that as a chance to retreat from Manchester completely.
The way I see it is Virgin have got a couple of options:
- Cut SFO/BOS. Keep everything else the same.
- Cut SFO/BOS. Make ATL and JFK daily year-round.
- Cut SFO/BOS. Exchange for two more US routes e.g. LAX/MIA or MIA/IAD
- Cut SFO/BOS. Change the strategy as TCX are encroaching on their more natural market and exchange for Caribbean routes e.g. HAV/MBJ.
- Persist with SFO/BOS, wait it out until there is more certainty. Keep everything the same until that time comes.
Looking forward for TCX, I would
love to see Los Angeles on an increased March-October season, or even year-round. Thomas Cook's seasonality at MAN is appalling.