Talk:Virgin America

Website Down

www.virginamerica.com has been down from 12:30PM Pacific Time and so far through 2:30PM Pacific Time on July 19, 2007, the first day of ticket sales. A note is available that the site will be up shortly and the phone number to contact for service. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dolphx (talk • contribs) 14:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC-7)

ICAO Code

VUS is not the official ICAO code. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.6.25.118 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC-7)

Well, all sources I can find on the internet listing the ICAO code for Virgin America list it as VUS, so as of now it stands because I cannot find any source to support your claim. If you do have some kind of source to support your assertion, then by all means replace it, but as the evidence right now points to VUS as being the ICAO code there's nothing to do. Thanks. NcSchu 19:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The latest edition (139) of the ICAO Document 8585 has VUS allocated to Vuela Bus of Mexico, but VUS is not listed in the FAA website. MilborneOne 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

DOT Approval

Tentative approval announce on 20th March. Full document here: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/461049.pdf

Obviously this article will need updating soon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pixuk (talk • contribs) 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Already done. NcSchu 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Destination

I think they might fly to MIA because to today when i went to MIA i saw a Virgin America plain. Not atlantoc-it was america. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arigont (talk • contribs) 17:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC-7)

They were probably just raising support, until they officially announce it as a definite destination it will be not be included. NcSchu 01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The jobs section of their website is currently listing a couple of top-level positions for San Diego. No announcement yet, but expect SAN to be the next destination. WildCowboy 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hubs/Focus Citys

Does anybody know if they'll have any focus city or secondary hubs? If so where and what airport. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.175.107 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC-7)

Yeah, I think LAX is a secondary hub; VA flies to JFK and soon Dulles in addition to SFO from there. 12:58, September 4 2007 (UTC)

It's impossible to identify any kind of hub other than SFO at this point in time. There are so few flights that every airport looks like a hub of some kind. Let's wait until VX gets rolling for several months until we make a decision about listing other hubs. NcSchu_(Talk) 02:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Official Callsign/ICAO Code

Redwood is the callsign, ICAO codes is VRD..see [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phoenix2 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC-7)

IFE

I re-instated the still-relevant bits of the IFE section. I moved some of it into the Main Cabin section, as it was relevant to those seats only ... richi 16:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the IFE aspects of Virgin America are some of its competitive advantages over other airlines, I think the LFE should get its own section within the article that highlights Red, the technology behind the scenes, and the user interface. Perhaps this section could go under the Cabin heading as it applies to both the main cabin and first class. Currently, Red is discussed in both the Main Cabin and First Class sections in a nonuniform way, which is extremely confusing and does an injustice to people reading the article. Quarkfactor 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look in the cabin section there is a link to another wikipedia page that has a thorough description of "Red". I decided that linking to existing information was better than copy-editing as the information on "Red" is more relevant on the wiklinked page. NcSchu_(Talk) 13:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section?

Wikipedia discourages trivia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtroll (talk • contribs) 05:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't keep reverting this edit. Here's why:

1. Terminal location should be in an appropriate article section, not in Trivia
2. The "popular belief" needs a cite -- and one that justifies the inclusion of what looks like an un-notable "fact"
3. Roses should be in an appropriate article section
4. Exit row seating is already covered in the article

... richi (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I should mention that the terminal location information, as it was displayed, has POV issues. It is a matter of opinion whether or not VX is "privileged" to use the International Terminal. I agree with Richi's point about the "popular belief" issue. In fact I find it hard to belief most people even take notice of IATA code changes/assignations so I'd be interested to see what kind of citation can be found to support that "fact". I find nothing wrong with mentioning the roses, especially because it has a citation, but yes, it should be in an appropriate section. I'm going to go ahead and add the roses and the information about the terminal at SFO in a less biased way in a relevant part of the article, hopefully no one will find problems with that. NcSchu_(Talk) 15:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is just part of a larger problem with this article-- the "approval process" is not an important aspect of the airline anymore, and yet it takes up the majority of the prime article real estate. The most important parts of the article should be the original aspects of the airline, like the IFE, the check-in process, etc... I think the article should be reorganized to highlight these aspects and not the plethora of useless approval information (or at least degrade the approval information to a less prominent position). That way, these trivia items, which currently have seemingly no rightful location, will fit into new sections corresponding with their subject matter. Quarkfactor 05:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, although the approval process is in the past, yes, it was a very important part of Virgin America's history and a bulk of the information should be left in. One issue I see is that the section labeled "Approval process" is really just the history, so I will go ahead and rename that. I've been working on a way to consolidate the history to remove a lot of the fluff that was added over time (as this article was routinely updated as the events occurred). I also disagree with focusing on the "original" aspects of the airline. First of all they're really not all that original, and secondly I feel that if we concentrate too much on that information the article will look more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. In depth information about the entertainment system, the check-in process, what you can expect on board, etc. can be easily found on Virgin America's website and if you look at other airline pages you will find that the situation is the same. NcSchu_(Talk) 13:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

My edits were more of a clean-up, I thought the cabins section didn't read as well as it might have and I thought eleVAte warranted more than a sidebar mention.Travellingcari (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

History + Support/Opposition Rewrite

I just did a massive edit of the first two sections of this article, in which I rewrote or reformatted a lot of the History section and combined the Support and opposition section into the History section. I did this for a couple of reasons. First of all, the information in the article was written mostly as it happened. This led to a lot of choppiness (ie. Date, blah blah.) in the History section that I thought took away from the article and made it more difficult to read. It also meant that as time went on, there was a lot of unnecessary detail to the various commentary (which is essentially what it turned into). I'm not trying to criticize anyone, by the way, because it's just natural. Secondly, User:Quarkfactor brings up a very good point two sections above, in which he talks about the need to have a large part of the article dedicated to the approval process. Although it's an important part of Virgin America's history, I agree. So, I removed the small section on the support/opposition and combined the important parts into a paragraph in the History section, and tried to remove, again, a lot of the fluff. Of course, it was hard to remove a lot of it, but I think I did a pretty good job in leaving the important parts in. So, there you have it. I hope this is better for everyone. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

great job, NcSchu. I added a little to history given the recent profit report. I'm wondering, however, what you would think about renaming the destinations section to operations and expanding it slightly. I have an idea kicking around but I was curious for your input. Travellingcari (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As the article is under the guidance of Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines it should stay "destinations". But what were you thinking of adding? Also, I did a little clean up to what you added (it would have been better if you added it before I rewrote the section as now it doesn't blend in very well, but oh well). NcSchu_(Talk) 22:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

20 20 hindsight, right? I unfortunately seem to have forgotten to e-mail my notes to myself so I'll have to get back to you about details but possibly its status as the only California based airline. Also wanted to address whether it was significant that the international terminal is used at SFO -- it's also used at JFK and, possibly anecdotal since I can't find references to it but have the personal experience of flying into Bradley at LAX on 12/28. Make sense? Travellingcari (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC) ETA: meant to ask, any particular reason you removed the citation? I have no issue with your changes, but I was curious as to why you took out the citation? Travellingcari (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove the citation, I moved it to the end of the mini-paragraph.. Also, it is noted that VX is one of the only airlines that uses the International Terminal at SFO. NcSchu_(Talk) 02:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

re: citation, sorry about that, apparently it didn't load properly for me when I said that. And perhaps I wasn't clear re: SFO/int'l terminal. I know it's mentioned, but I don't get why it's significant/special when it applies to JFK and possibly LAX as well. Travellingcari (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well at LAX Virgin America is not really in an international terminal situation, and at JFK there really isn't an "International Terminal". At SFO it's just kind of ironic that the terminal is actually called: "International Terminal", but yet is not really so. NcSchu_(Talk) 04:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Slogan

It's true that VA's slogan is "Flying is Believing." Just look at the YouTube videos (Username: VirginAmerica) titled "Virgin Americans" and look at the end, which shows the logo and the slogan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limaindia (talk • contribs) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Without watching the videos, it sounds like they're probably marketing clips, in which case "Flying is Believing" is probably just a marketing phrase. Just because it appears under (?) the logo doesn't mean it's the slogan. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 21:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for it being included one way or another, but I think it is the slogan or tagline as it's referenced here: http://www.virgin.com/Companies/VirginAmerica/VirginAmerica.aspx and http://onboard.virginamerica.com/downloads/brandnew_WILDPOST_01.pdf I don't mean just the fact that it is referenced, but rather the manner in which it is. Just my .02 Travellingcari (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See this photo

eleVAte

NcSchu, I agree with your edit that the Founding Member info isn't appropriate for the introduction. I actually think any detail of eleVAte should be held off until such time as VX actually formalizes the details. Not appropriate for a cite, but there's been word from a VX insider on Flyertalk that this information is forthcoming so I'm crossing my fingers. Thoughts? Travellingcari (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, those were my thoughts exactly. The eleVAte program isn't officially launched yet, so I thought it would better to leave the mention in the main paragraph, but leave off any section until the program's actually officially launched and when we have specific details about it. I didn't want to delete the information, but it just didn't fit anywhere else and per my last sentence I didn't want to create a new section. I wouldn't be surprised if the launch is in this quarter, since founding members were only until December 2007 it seems likely. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I (at least I think it was me who added it, can't remember now) wanted at least one line of yes VX has a program and it is... but I don't think it's anything other than speculation at this point. Don't know if you read FT at all but here is one of the VX insider's first posts. Should be interesting to see what develops. I didn't even realize the 12/31 cutoff was there until I saw your edit. Travellingcari (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Yes, I'm admittedly a "Founding Member", joined the first day in fact, so that's how I knew at least. NcSchu_(Talk) 04:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Flights to/from Boston?

Does anyone know if Virgin will have flights to/from Boston?
Native94080 (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Native94080

• It was under consideration last year, but nothing as been confirmed either way. Travellingcari (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Virgin America logo.png

Image:Virgin America logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Corrected! No need to worry, move along, move along. NcSchu_(Talk) 04:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

LA Times Article

NcSchu, any reason for the revert? I think it fit well in the article and speaks to competitors' response ~ 6 months following the launch. It wasn't my addition, but I think it's a good one. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 22:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, I don't think it's particularly notable. I vote for just a little add-on of "Los Angeles" where it already talks about the SFO competition. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is about more than SFO. VX is having an impact that wasn't expected so soon. It's pushing JetBlue to do what none expected, and it's the start, it appears, of something bigger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Skybus Lease Confustion

Per the change and this reversion, I think the confusion lies in the fact that it currently says:

Virgin America will receive back two Airbus A319s that were leased to Skybus Airlines in late 2008.

The change was made to 2007 as I think the sentence says when they were released, not when the were returned, which was what the reversion corrected to. I think the change this morning was correct but not worth getting into an edit war over so taking it here TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be saying that aircraft that were leased in 2007 to Skybus will be returned in late 2008. I'll go ahead and make it clearer. NcSchu_(Talk) 15:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that makes more sense. I think sentence parsing was causing the issues -- as in they couldn't have been leased in late 2008. I think your change is clearer. PS: Do you have anything to add for C. David Cush by any chance? I've currently got more sources than text, eek! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Some info here. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Focus Cities/Secondary Hubs

As far as I can tell, there's no source that says VX has set any goals to have a secondary hub or focus city at any other airport. With only seven destinations and a little more routes, I find it very hard to believe that it's 'obvious' or 'clear' that there is a secondary hub anywhere. And anyway, that's not any reason to include something, as it's still original research to assume something because of something else. NcSchu_(Talk) 01:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

   It is not vandalism.  "Hub" is a defined term.  Looking at the route map, you can see the defined term in action.  All of their destinations greater than 200 nm are served from LAX.  The same goes for SFO.  You can't say that for any of their other cities, and they have made statements that they don't plan for it to be true for any other cities.  It's possible that JFK could become a smaller focus city, and that would be original research to say that point blank right now, so I won't.