If VS survives this unfortunate period, the plan was to go Airbus only. Using A330 and A350 followed by the A330 NEO.

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.

Don’t forget the 787-9s they are brand new. I think the plan was A330,789 and A350 (LHR and Beach). The 747 and A340s days were already numbered.

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

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

May be seen by who, for what?

God, that Sky News article isn't helpful to the Virgin cause, at least publicly. So much for "I get by with a little help from my friends".

Bastian is simply stating the facts.

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.

Exactly...

Government ‘loan’ at better terms than VS could obtain commercially.

VS still makes a chunky loss as the Virgin brand fee still disappears off to the tax free BVIs.

I've added to the original post #342

I'd be amazed if the current Treasury provisions take into account such factors. It will be a straight forward analysis of whether you meet the financial criteria - not aviation related.

To be fair the Virgin brand fee is not being charged to Virgin Atlantic (i think for the last 2 years or so?) because of the financial struggle they are in...

Has it been waived completely or deferred to another day.

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

easyjet is not in the same position as virgin. easyJet's underlying business is profitable in "normal" times, virgin is not.

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/

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.

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.

gojmc wrote: The last 10 years have included 9/11
Really?

Hmmm, you undermine your main point because this statement doesn't withstand much scrutiny.
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