Virgin Atlantic
It may be that, in determining priorities for state backed financial aid, easyJet are seen as being more "strategic" than Virgin because they are the dominant operator at Gatwick and are likely to be an important part of how the airport recovers.
Last edited by dastocks; 23rd Apr 2020 at 02:27. Reason: clarification of a possible factor in the easyJet vs Virgin issues discussed earlier in the thread
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: BMA
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Delta Chief today said they won’t invest more in the carrier due to the rules of the bailout they received and the 49% cap on ownership. He said administration was possible.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...snt-sf-twitter
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...snt-sf-twitter
That's a somewhat disingenious way of putting it
Delta's biggest concern is possibly having to file for Chapter 11 later this year. Spending money on anything but the most essential items is out of the question
Delta's biggest concern is possibly having to file for Chapter 11 later this year. Spending money on anything but the most essential items is out of the question
It may be that easyJet are seen as being more "strategic" than Virgin because they are the dominant operator at Gatwick and are likely to be an important part of how the airport recovers.
Despite the spin that Sky News is putting on it, he's not saying that administration is inevitable (though it may well be).
Will he provide all details of all fees, licensing etc to any and all of companies he or family is involved in from VS either in cash or kind.
It may be that, in determining priorities for state backed financial aid, easyJet are seen as being more "strategic" than Virgin because they are the dominant operator at Gatwick and are likely to be an important part of how the airport recovers.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A theme park in Scotland has been placed into administration and we reason was
due to poor trading figures, the company wasn’t eligible for government lockdown funding.
wonder if this is the reason why RB is calling on the government needing funding the same as Easyjet
due to poor trading figures, the company wasn’t eligible for government lockdown funding.
wonder if this is the reason why RB is calling on the government needing funding the same as Easyjet
Virgin has made a profit in only 4 out of the last 10 years. Easyjet has made a profit in all of them years. In fact, easyjet has made a profit in all of the years since it became a public company in 2002. The last 20 years have included 9/11, sars, bird flu, swine flu, volcanoes etc. and despite these issues easyjet has made a profit. What this year might look like is the unknown but next year, given a "normal" scenario, even a "new normal" easyJet is likely to be profitable.
In the last 4 years easyjet has made almost £2bn profit before tax, and around £2bn for the 4 years before that. Virgin on the other hand has made £69m profit in the last 4 years (the last 2 years have been loses) and lost £306m in the 4 years before that. The numbers and therefore the companies are not comparable.
I repeat - virgin's underlying business is not
profitable even during "normal" times. If you were a bank or the government, why would you offer a loan when the business is not profitable? One of the basic tests for a loan is the ability to repay.
Going back to your post, the theme park you mention has been in financial struggles for years according to the following link. This is more akin to the virgin scenario and explains why a loan has not been forthcoming.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...dministration/
Last edited by gojmc; 24th Apr 2020 at 14:53.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no idea whether this applies to the Virgin group but multinational companies, and their tax agents, are excellent in ensuring that profits are declared only in low or zero tax jurisdictions. For example the trading company in, say, the UK, may borrow its working capital at substantial interest from a holding company based in a tax haven, which may have access to capital at much lower rates.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we're making a clinical decision in respect of funding then the decision for Government should be relatively straightforward.
For monies provided in commercial terms, whether from the bank or the Government...
1) What can the funds be secured against in order to protect the lender?
2) What is the ability for the borrower to repay the funds.
When Flybe failed, it did so because it's shareholders (which included VS) were either unable or unwilling to inject more funds into the business. In turning to Westminster for help, the Government eventually chose not to lend with reports at the time suggesting that there was nothing to anchor the loans against. Flybe had already sold off/mortgaged its available assets just to get to as far as it did. Whilst it's clear that keeping VS in business ensures employment for a great many people, who will then continue to contribute income tax etc. this shouldn't be taken into consideration, just as it wasn't when Flybe failed.
Personally, if VS has sufficient assets, be they owned aircraft, engines, aircraft spares, property/real estate etc that they can use as collateral for a loan, then I see no reason for them not to have access to funds from Westminster. Personally, I would prefer it if the level of investment coming from Government were match funded by equity raised by the current shareholders as I think there is a need that both SRB and Delta to have skin in the game to avoid the taxpayer taking all the risk.
With DL have already stated that they are either unable, or unwilling to inject more funds into the business it's down to SRB. First and foremost he's a businessman and a shrewd one at that - ask any previous Flybe shareholder....but I'm not sure which side of the fence he'll fall.
It's pretty clear that VS is the baby of the Virgin Group, hell he sold Virgin Records to keep it afloat (and recently demonstrated his love of the business again by choosing not to cede control via the recent AF/KLM deal), however if he sees more long term value in putting the business into administration and then establishing a phoenix from the wreckage, I wouldn't put it past him to take this route.
Much as I'd like to buy the #virginfamily guff, I'm not wholly convinced. Business is business after all.
I doubt you'll find many Flybe employees enjoyed a warm and fuzzy feeling having supposedly been 'loved' by Virgin.
For monies provided in commercial terms, whether from the bank or the Government...
1) What can the funds be secured against in order to protect the lender?
2) What is the ability for the borrower to repay the funds.
When Flybe failed, it did so because it's shareholders (which included VS) were either unable or unwilling to inject more funds into the business. In turning to Westminster for help, the Government eventually chose not to lend with reports at the time suggesting that there was nothing to anchor the loans against. Flybe had already sold off/mortgaged its available assets just to get to as far as it did. Whilst it's clear that keeping VS in business ensures employment for a great many people, who will then continue to contribute income tax etc. this shouldn't be taken into consideration, just as it wasn't when Flybe failed.
Personally, if VS has sufficient assets, be they owned aircraft, engines, aircraft spares, property/real estate etc that they can use as collateral for a loan, then I see no reason for them not to have access to funds from Westminster. Personally, I would prefer it if the level of investment coming from Government were match funded by equity raised by the current shareholders as I think there is a need that both SRB and Delta to have skin in the game to avoid the taxpayer taking all the risk.
With DL have already stated that they are either unable, or unwilling to inject more funds into the business it's down to SRB. First and foremost he's a businessman and a shrewd one at that - ask any previous Flybe shareholder....but I'm not sure which side of the fence he'll fall.
It's pretty clear that VS is the baby of the Virgin Group, hell he sold Virgin Records to keep it afloat (and recently demonstrated his love of the business again by choosing not to cede control via the recent AF/KLM deal), however if he sees more long term value in putting the business into administration and then establishing a phoenix from the wreckage, I wouldn't put it past him to take this route.
Much as I'd like to buy the #virginfamily guff, I'm not wholly convinced. Business is business after all.
I doubt you'll find many Flybe employees enjoyed a warm and fuzzy feeling having supposedly been 'loved' by Virgin.
Last edited by JobsaGoodun; 24th Apr 2020 at 11:36.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Where the next project takes me
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9/11 = 2001
SARS = 2002
Bird Flu = 2005
Swine Flu = 2009
Volcano = exactly 10 years ago (not going to forget that one in a hurry)
Tempus fugit