Big difference between Easyjet and virgin
1 makes a big profit 1 doesn’t |
Originally Posted by HH6702
(Post 10757048)
Big difference between Easyjet and virgin
1 makes a big profit 1 doesn’t Also ones pan European. Ones U.K. Why doesn’t easyJet also go to the European Union for money? As a tax payer, I’d rather pay a UK carrier, of an owner that’s not only donated $250million, and Necker Island, then another airline that’s got an arrogant pig of a major shareholder, who’s donated sweet FA, not paid his dividend back, and publicly throws a tantrum. I know who’s side I’m on and it isn’t the arrogant. |
One sued the NHS One didn't
|
Originally Posted by MaxPowerSet
(Post 10757076)
One sued the NHS One didn't
Find it laughable that some people, not saying you did by the way, but some people voted for a Conservative Government back in December to continue the privatisation of our NHS and yet happily see Virgin go under even though it employs near on 9,000 staff and probably brings a heft tax income to HMRC. Vote Conservative let them privatise the NHS. As i said up there - why should one get preferential treatment (easy) when the majority shareholder has donated sweet FA and taken a lovely dividend yet we seem heel bent on letting Virgin go, despite $250mil donation, re-morgate of slots etc. What have easy done to deserve £600million loan? |
As i said up there - why should one get preferential treatment (easy) when the majority shareholder has donated sweet FA and taken a lovely dividend yet we seem heel bent on letting Virgin go, despite $250mil donation, re-morgate of slots etc. What have easy done to deserve £600million loan? All this nonsense about Neckar island, dividends, scoundrels etc is just fluff - shiny beads and mirriors to distract the press. Fit the criteria and you'll be fine - looks like Virgin either don't meet the criteria or don't understand the process, so have decided to go public and make it a political decision. |
They would have a better case for rescue if they were normally profitable which they are not. They have been making loses for years which is why the shareholders are reluctant to put more money into the airline.
|
This is basically you phoning up for a loan/credit card/overdraft, being told computer says "No", and you going "but my mate got one, I want to speak to your supervisor" on a bigger stage...
|
Originally Posted by LTNman
(Post 10757650)
They would have a better case for rescue if they were normally profitable which they are not. They have been making loses for years which is why the shareholders are reluctant to put more money into the airline.
|
Originally Posted by LTNman
(Post 10757650)
They would have a better case for rescue if they were normally profitable which they are not. They have been making loses for years which is why the shareholders are reluctant to put more money into the airline.
|
VS problem is that they as an airline aren't important to London compared to Easyjet and BA and their major shareholder isn't liked hence why the government won't exactly bend over backwards to help them. |
Originally Posted by SWBKCB
(Post 10757657)
This is basically you phoning up for a loan/credit card/overdraft, being told computer says "No", and you going "but my mate got one, I want to speak to your supervisor" on a bigger stage...
perfectly explained brilliantly!!!!!!! |
Originally Posted by SWBKCB
(Post 10757675)
This obtaining government funding, not a soap opera
|
Originally Posted by PDXCWL45
(Post 10757669)
The people I feel sorry for are the staff who must be seriously wondering if they will have a job to go back to while watching social media relish the thought of Virgin Atlantic going bust just to stick the middle finger up to Branson.
|
Originally Posted by LTNman
(Post 10756913)
They have been losing money for years so the first question is did Manchester make a profit for Virgin?
As for MAN, they've been there since the mid-90's, have grown there presence over the last 5 years in particular and a Clubhouse is on the way this year. Given routes were axed under Craig Kreeger but MAN remain unscathed except for Little Red and saw more routes added, I would suggest MAN was profitable and it would be interesting to see whether the impending withdrawal of the 747's and the introduction of A330neo's and A350's on MAN routes would have a positive impact on the profitability of the MAN operation. I know loadings doesn't necessarily reflect profitability, but every time in the last 6 years I've flown on a VS long-haul flight to/from MAN it's been very well loaded - the lowest loadings was around 85%, the highest was only a single figure of seats being free on the whole aircraft. If VS survives, I'm curious to see what shape or form the MAN operation will look like. |
If VS survive what’s the chances they pull out of Heathrow completely and move all ops to Manchester??
sell or lease all the slots they hold at Heathrow out to other airlines |
Originally Posted by HH6702
(Post 10757792)
If VS survive what’s the chances they pull out of Heathrow completely and move all ops to Manchester??
sell or least all the slots they hold at Heathrow out to other airlines |
It's SRB who is now playing politics - Treasury will have devised a set of economic criteria which will be applied to the company to determine whether they are eligible. Nothing to do with personalities etc
Easyjet have met the criteria and Wizz are now saying they have also Flight - Wizz Air qualifies for UK coronavirus fund support |
Originally Posted by LBAflyer22
(Post 10757059)
One was about to turn a profit. For the first time in a while, thanks to DL strategy. And further profits next year.
Also ones pan European. Ones U.K. Why doesn’t easyJet also go to the European Union for money? As a tax payer, I’d rather pay a UK carrier, of an owner that’s not only donated $250million, and Necker Island, then another airline that’s got an arrogant pig of a major shareholder, who’s donated sweet FA, not paid his dividend back, and publicly throws a tantrum. I know who’s side I’m on and it isn’t the arrogant. If they’re rarely posting profits, they cannot gain any capital off their shareholders, then how can you expect them to be bailed out to the tune of £500/£600M? Nobody knows how long this will continue for too and this could easily be the first time they go to the “well” for taxpayers cash. As someone has put it earlier in the thread, would you expect a bank to continue to bankroll you just because someone else has been funded? The answer is a clear no. EasyJet and Virgin are poles apart in regards to profitability and ability to repay this huge sum of money. EasyJet must have a substantially better credit rating than Virgin one could imagine. However, people need to stop falling for the Branson should fund it as it is complete BS. He is a billionaire by assets and surely has no where near that amount of readily available capital. Could DL seek funding from the American government though? They’re the majority shareholder. |
Originally Posted by JonnyH
(Post 10758078)
If they’re rarely posting profits, they cannot gain any capital off their shareholders, then how can you expect them to be bailed out to the tune of £500/£600M? Nobody knows how long this will continue for too and this could easily be the first time they go to the “well” for taxpayers. |
These are not normal trading conditions so why should it just be determined on whether they were profitable or not before. There needs to be some sort of objective criteria for the use of Government money - you don't just get what you ask for. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:16. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.