Virgin headed for another disaster, says REX chairman

[wheels_down]

I agree largely with most of it. The earnings claims are beyond laughable.

They were fairly direct in that they were not cutting staff, so if they are not planning to cut the fleet, the risk is high. The revenue numbers they are giving to potential buyers would indicate a fleet fairly close to what it is today.

The ACCC can’t do squat about the guys over the fence filling its aircraft to ‘cost’. They are just trying to reduce the cash burn. They also can’t do anything in regards to the competitor returning its full pre virus network very fast, they are simply reinstating what they had. The ACCC won’t save Virgin in any circumstances.

They need to rip cost out otherwise they are about to have their balls ripped off when they kickstart. If they choose to think ops normal, then they deserve anything that comes their way.

Mr Lim says Virgin's administrator, Vaughan Strawbridge from Deloitte (https://www.afr.com/link/follow-20180101-p54lno), must rewrite the EBAs, restructure the aircraft leases, cancel an order for Boeing 737 MAX aircraft and convert all debt into equity while the company is insolvent.
https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.277%2C$multiply_0.582%2C$ratio_0.666667%2C$width_378 %2C$x_0%2C$y_0/t_crop_custom/e_sharpen:25%2Cq_85%2Cf_auto/399d95b1a55f4e732a334a13aeea478debdf05efREX executive chairman Lim Kim Hai has slammed Virgin's board as dysfunctional.

"Originally when it was first announced that Virgin was going into administration we were quite interested because we thought the period of administration would be a wonderful opportunity to really, in fact, make really deep-seated changes to Virgin," Mr Lim said in an interview with The Australian Financial Review.

"But when the administrator from Deloitte started making his public comments I very quickly realised that the administrator has no intention at all of really effecting any fundamental changes.

"It would appear from his timeline that he just wants a quick sale and he actually leaves the problems to the buyer to solve."RELATED QUOTESVirgin AustraliaRegional Express HoldingMr Strawbridge this week distributed an information memorandum and business plan and asked for indicative bids by May 15. The memorandum forecast about $1.2 billion in earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation in the year to June 2022.

The earnings forecast, which was revealed byStreet Talk on Monday night, (https://www.afr.com/street-talk/virgin-can-earn-1-2b-a-year-in-2022-management-s-pitch-to-buyers-20200504-p54phi) said Virgin expected to record about $5 billion revenue in 2022, back to 2015 levels and about 15 per cent less than last year.Virgin can earn $1.2b a year in 2022: management's pitch to buyers (https://www.afr.com/street-talk/virgin-can-earn-1-2b-a-year-in-2022-management-s-pitch-to-buyers-20200504-p54phi)Mr Lim said his own experience buying Hazelton Airlines and Kendell Airlines out of the Ansett receivership 18 years ago was a model for how Virgin should be restructured using the powers of an administrator.

"Virgin has a chance, but without fixing its chronic problems, whoever is the buyer, no matter how financially sound they are, they would just continue down the path of losing money every year," he said.

"Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that the way its headed, even if there is a buyer, we are just looking at another disaster down the road."EBAs prove costlyMr Lim said Virgin's EBAs had lumbered the airline with high fixed costs and they needed to be fixed while Mr Strawbridge had the powers of an administrator and before the release of a deed of company arrangement.
"It is well known that in the last 10 years Virgin's management has been extremely lax and extremely non-courageous in their negotiations over EBAs," Mr Lim said.

"It ended up with EBAs that are even more costly than what Jetstar has. This is another reason why Virgin is never going to make money. Part of the profitability depends on the cost of pilots and so on.

"And the EBAs are really too restrictive and punitive. So this is another opportunity to reset it and get it down to the right level."

Mr Lim said the politics of the Virgin administration meant Mr Strawbridge could not make changes to the EBAs.

"Given how the unions are getting in and how they are lobbying behind the scenes and given how there is KordaMentha (https://www.afr.com/link/follow-20180101-p54a6z), who is also putting up his hand to be administrator, I don't think the administrator would touch the EBAs at all," he said.
It ended up with EBAs that are even more costly than what Jetstar has. This is another reason why Virgin is never going to make money.

— Lim Kim Hai, REX chairman
"That would be the reason for the administrator to get sacked. It's not going to happen."

Mr Lim was critical of Virgin's board of directors, which he described as "dysfunctional".

"Obviously, the writing has been on the wall for Virgin for quite a while," he said.

"It's just unbelievable how in Australia one could tolerate a board that for 10 years constantly lose money.

"They have lost $2 billion in the last 10 years. I don't know how anybody would tolerate such a board.

"The second thing that's amazing is how five shareholders, four of them very big airlines, could actually get themselves in a position where they are just bystanders when they are holding 90 per cent of the company.

"They just got completely outfoxed by management. The management came to a board meeting and said: "Guess what, we have no money and you guys will have to cough up $200 million in two weeks or we are going into insolvency.

"There's such disdain of the board and that's because they have been outfoxed and the five airlines with their representatives are a minority in the board. The other independent board members, they are beholden to certain parties."Investors' nightmareMr Lim said the aviation sector was "one of the worst, if not the worst industrial sector", to invest in across the world.

Advertisement"Aviation has all its inherent problems, which are relatively high capital costs, very heavily regulated and very much national politics involved," he said.

"So, it already has a heavy set of problems that most other sectors may not have. It would have four or five different unions. And that's, again, something could be the downfall of a particular carrier.

"But what makes it even tougher is the fact that most of the people who end up being in aviation are people who are extremely passionate. You know, that's one thing that defines aviation, that people – both management and most of the staff – have kerosene in their blood.

"The problem with aviation is that there's too much passion, not enough common sense. And the second big problem is that there's too much ego.

"Too often you'll find people have a bit extra cash and they like the glamour of being involved in aviation. So they will start an airline.

"Then very soon they find it's not what they thought. So there's a lot of ego involved and that makes it different from most other big business, where you are really driven by discipline and driven about professionalism."

[Servo]

Yet another thread about Virgin's downfall and problems. It couldnt have been added to one of the other existing threads??

I honestly believe some of you have serious mental problems. Cannot help yourself and cannot hide the enthusiasm of watching Virgin fail, with 10,000+ people losing their livelihood, houses and possibly life. Enjoy yours why you can........

[Telfer86]

He is just reporting on a relevant media matter from a highly successful Singaporean business guy who has had success in
Australian Aviation

Perhaps this Singaporean guy is worth listening too ?

Can't see any glee in his post. There are a million plus Australians who have lost their jobs , why does the fact that someone is
employed by an airline make them more important or more "special" more worthy of a pat on the back.

Like he said the company lost money every year , so it was going to fail

There are many way worse off than Virgin employees & didn't have the benefit of salubrious contracts for years to secure their financial future

Do the Virgin 737 pilots think it was fair & reasonable that they got paid overtime after 60 hours per month ? Aside from QF are there any other airlines with anything like that in 2019 ?

[junior.VH-LFA]

It's becoming annoying how many posters here are being accused of having "enthusiasm" for watching an airline fall or people losing their jobs. This is a pilot forum, for pilots who are employed in Australia. The fate of VA is entirely relevant to all of us, those starting out in their flying journey who want to know what the industry is like, those who are working their way up in different jobs and those who are employed within it. It affects everyone and it's important. While I sympathise with everyone's potential personal situation, you aren't entitled to a protected internet shield to defend you from people trying to better understand what's happening and how our entire industry is going to be impacted.

Stop taking discussion about something that is entirely relevant as a personal attack on either individuals or an employee group; it isn't. If you can't bare to read relevant postings on an INDUSTRY sub forum, don't look.

[myturn]

Totally agree Telfer86, quite an informative and relevant perspective.

[Variable Incidence]

Yet another thread about Virgin's downfall and problems. It couldnt have been added to one of the other existing threads??

I honestly believe some of you have serious mental problems. Cannot help yourself and cannot hide the enthusiasm of watching Virgin fail, with 10,000+ people losing their livelihood, houses and possibly life. Enjoy yours why you can........


Sadly, he’s just telling it like it is, from a successful business perspective. Good airline it may be. Great staff and work ethic, perhaps. But from a business point of view a very lousy, badly run operation that has destroyed over $2B in capital and loses money every year.

Further, Union interference and bloody mindedness, if not careful, could be the death of Virgin.

[Colonel_Klink]

Totally agree Telfer86, quite an informative and relevant perspective.

Well not really....

Virgin pilots earn OT at 69 hours a roster. And at 69 hours a roster - that’s 790 hours a year. Yes sim, etc counts towards that. But try doing 70-80 hours a month for 12 months....

No one is calling out what’s actually in the article. Our Singaporean friend identifies 3 key issues that he says isn’t being dealt with (the debt, the leases, and employee wage costs). The administration process will deal with a fairly large chunk of the debt - so he is wrong on that front. The administrator is currently talking to lessors and renegotiating leases for a new owner will definitely form part of the DOCA - so he is wrong on that front too. And thirdly - the administrator has said he won’t be making anyone redundant (the administrator doesn’t need to - most people are stood down and then redundancy payments become an issue if he decides to sack a couple 1000 people). The business is being sold as a going concern - so that’s all the employees. If a new owner decided to shrink the business, they can do that. A new owner may also enter into negotiations with unions as well - there might be some pretty big trading going on to secure jobs. So he is arguably wrong on that front too.

And whilst he may be a successful businessman - he operates a lot of monopoly routes, and also quite a lot of government regulated (and subsidised) routes. And they have just got an absolute bucketload of cash to continue operating those routes (disproportionately large when compared to what QF and VA got relative to total revenues - I suppose having a former National Party politician on your Board doesn’t hurt). And he has never addressed the elephant in the room - fleet replacement.

I am not necessarily convinced people here are taking joy out of what’s happening to VA (although comments insinuating VA pilots are overpaid suggest some people are), but there are a lot of people rehashing the same nonsense over and over again. Every time a journalist puts out a piece of ‘expert aviation commentary‘, there are plenty of people on here who attack minute details. When an article is published highlighting the demise of Virgin, there are plenty of people on here who take every word as gospel without checking any of the facts, or applying some common sense.

[Telfer86]

Well I was told it was 60 hours - but that could be incorrect

69 certainly sounds like an unusual number

My understanding was that the latest 737 eba took absolutely forever to negotiate as the Virgin guys were
demanding QF SH rates & pretty much got them didn't they ? Something mad like 35 meetings the virgin pilots voting it down a few times & asking
for more & more

or 95% of them , Virgin management having to say time & time again " we don't pay qantas rates"

Maybe not such a great idea in hindsight

[BNEA320]

if the following doesn't happen .............. quote from above

must rewrite the EBAs, restructure the aircraft leases, cancel an order for Boeing 737 MAX aircraft and convert all debt into equity while the company is insolvent.

who would buy into Virgin ?

Staff will have to earn less & probably do more. Leased aircraft will have to be well below what Virgin had been paying for 738s (A330s & 1 x B777 - again much less, but surely a domestic only model with single fleet would be optimal to start with ? )

Think anyone who was employed at VA & thinks they are going to get paid the same by new virgin is dillusional. There will also be far fewer staff.

[Buster Hyman]

Yet another thread about Virgin's downfall and problems. It couldnt have been added to one of the other existing threads??

It was, linked in another VA thread.

[Icarus2001]

Maybe not such a great idea in hindsight Well it certainly was not crew wages that drove them into administration.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/797x421/boeing_iata_airline_cost_2015_graph_7fb4273fb5e9edc762dcfb61 3cc749e0c1851fc8.png

[non_state_actor]

Staff will have to earn less & probably do more. Leased aircraft will have to be well below what Virgin had been paying for 738s (A330s & 1 x B777 - again much less, but surely a domestic only model with single fleet would be optimal to start with ? ) Think anyone who was employed at VA & thinks they are going to get paid the same by new virgin is dillusional. There will also be far fewer staff.

That's just all bravado as of last year there were pilots bouncing off the total flight time limitations. Certain east coast bases would be pretty much 800 hours a year guaranteed. So you are not going to get much more productivity there. You might be able to get a pay cut, but how much difference will it really make?

Let's not forget too that Rex has collected a nice little handout from the Australian government and does contribute money to the Nationals, and that neither QF or VA has gotten much help from the government. Without the government help where would Rex be?

[machtuk]

He is just reporting on a relevant media matter from a highly successful Singaporean business guy who has had success in
Australian Aviation

Perhaps this Singaporean guy is worth listening too ?

Can't see any glee in his post. There are a million plus Australians who have lost their jobs , why does the fact that someone is
employed by an airline make them more important or more "special" more worthy of a pat on the back.

Like he said the company lost money every year , so it was going to fail

There are many way worse off than Virgin employees & didn't have the benefit of salubrious contracts for years to secure their financial future

Do the Virgin 737 pilots think it was fair & reasonable that they got paid overtime after 60 hours per month ? Aside from QF are there any other airlines with anything like that in 2019 ?


well said, some are just angry little control freaks!

[BNEA320]

Well it certainly was not crew wages that drove them into administration.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/797x421/boeing_iata_airline_cost_2015_graph_7fb4273fb5e9edc762dcfb61 3cc749e0c1851fc8.png
& how do you arrive at that idea ?

50% of the workforce at 75% of VA pay would make a huge difference(that's 37.5% of current staff costs), especially now fuel is so cheap, especially if any fuel hedging at low prices can be achieved.

With the new worldwide glut of aircraft, any sort of decent negotiator would be able to get a massive discount on aircraft leasing costs.

Airport handling would also be negotiated downwards.

[RedClaw]

FFS. He just wants lower wages so he can pay REX crew maccas wages. What a numty.

[Icarus2001]

50% of the workforce at 75% of VA pay would make a huge difference Crew costs, crew. Flight crew and cabin crew.
Do they make up 50% of the VA (previous) workforce?
Is a 50% pay cut realistic? Cabin crew would walk at that salary.

& how do you arrive at that idea ? I didn't.

As you can see above Boeing and IATA came up with these figures. So the pilot EBA was not the cause of this, neither was Covid 19, that merely brought forward the move to administration.

In my opinion it was lack of cost control. They turned over around $5.5 billion dollars a year and every time I flew on them the aircraft was full, or close to it and yet they could not make a profit. That says to me that costs were too high. 2-5% either way on a pilot EBA would not be the reason for the last ten years.

[George Glass]

No such thing as overtime on the QF SH award. There is a minimum guarantee then additional hours paid at a flat rate.

[normanton]

The only thing this man is interested in is bringing pilot wages crashing down. Never be fooled by the hidden agenda.

[chookcooker]

No such thing as overtime on the QF SH award. There is a minimum guarantee then additional hours paid at a flat rate.

essentially the same at VA
salary based on 69 hours/rp (NOT 60 as dopey said, was corrected on and STILL wouldn’t concede)
and then the hourly rate on top of that. It’s no like it’s Double time or anything

[exfocx]

& how do you arrive at that idea ?

50% of the workforce at 75% of VA pay would make a huge difference(that's 37.5% of current staff costs), especially now fuel is so cheap, especially if any fuel hedging at low prices can be achieved.

With the new worldwide glut of aircraft, any sort of decent negotiator would be able to get a massive discount on aircraft leasing costs.

Airport handling would also be negotiated downwards.

Okay, I'll bite! You're playing with percentages to make your idea look better than it is. First off, lets forget the headcount cut and look at your savings on the wages bill. It stands at 15% (according to the pie chart) and you get a 25% cut. 25% of your 15% is 3.75%, so your wages bill drops from 15% to 11.25% of Total Op Costs. WOW! Now lets cut staff numbers. You now have 50% less staff, are you seriously suggesting that VA was overstaffed by that much? No, I didn't think so, so your revenue has gone down substantially as well as your other costs, so therefore your claim to have reduced your wages component as a % of T.O.C only stands if their is no change to the rest of the pie chart. Are you seriously contending that VA will continue to do what it was doing prior with 50% less employees?

Now fuel, yeah really cheap, but there's a reason for that. "The earnings forecast, which was revealed byStreet Talk on Monday night, (https://www.afr.com/street-talk/virgin-can-earn-1-2b-a-year-in-2022-management-s-pitch-to-buyers-20200504-p54phi) said Virgin expected to record about $5 billion revenue in 2022, back to 2015 levels and about 15 per cent less than last year." Now if they're back to this revenue level I'd say fuel won't be sooo cheap, I know if fell out of bed earlier this year with the Saudi/ Russia dispute, but it literally fell down the elevator shaft when Cov19 appeared, so my guess is it would recover somewhat as well.

Fuel Hedging: must admit I know very little about it. The little I think I understand is that hedging isn't a game of locking in low costs otherwise CX wouldn't have hedged at massive prices some yrs ago, I understand it's to lock in your costs at a point you're happy with, if your competitors don't and prices fall they'll increase their profits or lower fares and take market share off you, if they increase well it's the opposite. I know now is not the time to compare short and long term bond rates, but usually the longer the period the higher the prices. I'd be surprised that you could hedge fuel at todays prices out a few yrs. I'd have though Shell, BP etc have a good idea where demand will go and price accordingly, and if that's low it'll be because demand is low therefore traffic will be low!

I also wouldn't expect lessors to just hand over their a/c for nothing either, not saying they're won't agree to a reduction, but I bet nothing like what you appear to have in mind. Perth Airport also isn't just going to cut their charges as well, I wonder what QF would say on that. Nah, nothing I guess as they're more than happy with Perth Airport right now; they're having a love-fest. Compare a/c leases with commercial property, it's valued by a large part on the rent and when an owner takes a rent cut they're telling the market that the property they own is now worth less. You'll see commercial property empty for months before they cut the rent.

In the meantime the new VA is competing against a QF that has just lost most of it's international market for a good 18 mths. They've had their foot on VA's throat for a long time and I doubt they're going to remove it anytime soon.

I wish the employees all the best, but I think the new VA will be pushing the proverbial up hill.

Btw, "Originally Posted by Icarus2001 View Post (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/632260-virgin-headed-another-disaster-says-rex-chairman.html#post10775016)
Well it certainly was not crew wages that drove them into administration". Icarus only claimed that crew wages didn't crash the company and nothing you've mentioned proves otherwise.

[normanton]

essentially the same at VA
salary based on 69 hours/rp (NOT 60 as dopey said, was corrected on and STILL wouldn’t concede)
and then the hourly rate on top of that. It’s no like it’s Double time or anything
And yet QF made billions and Virgin lost billions. Hows that work?

[chookcooker]

And yet QF made billions and Virgin lost billions. Hows that work?

and there in lies the truth that the root of the problem wasn’t pilot conditions or wages (despite Dopey’s musing)

[Icarus2001]

That graph is a 'generic', outdated to 2015.
It is meaningless currently. Airlines have a dynamic environment and it is certainly no reflection on VA expenditures.

It shows percentage of operating expenses in each cost centre. How can the year matter? Designed by Boeing & IATA who know a little about operating aircraft in an airline environment. Even if these figures are out by a few percent either way they are highly indicative of what EXFOCX said above...a 50% reduction in crew wages would not have saved VA from administration.

[TBM-Legend]

Well it certainly was not crew wages that drove them into administration.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/797x421/boeing_iata_airline_cost_2015_graph_7fb4273fb5e9edc762dcfb61 3cc749e0c1851fc8.png
Meaningless pie chart given it is a global average and does not reflect any one actual airline.

[Section28- BE]

What Mr 'exfocx & Icarus' said/are saying, the 'said' problem IS way bigger 'than' that- to deliver 'this end result' right here/right now..................., for Mine/& for what that is not worth.

THE CREWING/Staff cost did, Not Deliver 'this' Result- yup, 'there' may have been a journey of 'we' are worth 'this', but none of that was in anybodies Best Interests (at 'that' time, given this point in time, as it were) and 'was' ultimately delivered by THE Head-Shed..............

Not, the first time 'that'/this' gig has gone around- if you get 'what' I mean......

Rgds all
S28- BE

[ozbiggles]

I’m STRUggling to under/stand a lot of your....posts ‘theses’ days S/@B@%EB

[Lead Balloon]

DITTo....ozbiggles. i 'have' / 'had' no idea what s28--bE post mean- if you don't.....get what i mean. not may have been-yup THE Head-Case...

[SandyPalms]

Thanks biggles and lead. That made me laugh. I have never been able to understand him.

[Section28- BE]

Good :ok:
Rgds
S28

[Hoosten]

I’m STRUggling to under/stand a lot of your....posts ‘theses’ days S/@B@%EB

Was gunna say that but would be accused of slander and being vicious.

[Paragraph377]

Good :ok:
Rgds
S28
I quite like your posts and I understand around 8/10 of them so that’s pretty good. You have style and character and you’re not short on the brain cells either. Keep up the good work my cryptic friend!

[Fliegenmong]

But try doing 70-80 hours a month for 12 months....


Yes.....my Brother in law was doing that every week until stood down, what support do you expect from him or countless others like him??

Ever noticed this country is so wildly expensive to live in now companies depend upon workers working many many unpaid hours?...slaves really....any unpaid work is an admission of a business that is failing under fair terms...they fail because the money they rely upon comes from people not paid enough to be customers of their business and so by underpaying them, and over working them, there is no discretionary spend?

Greed...its called greed...

[Paragraph377]

Fuel costs are always the most expensive cost component of an airline, followed by labor.
Purchasing fuel at the right price can make or break an airline, particularly during a time of crisis. It really does not matter what the price of a barrel is today because the fuel you are burning was locked in at a set price perhaps last month, 3 months ago or 6 months ago. There are various hedging techniques and the whole process can be quite complex as many factors are considered as to what price you should pay. The outcome is a serious one. For example, an airline might lock in 80% of their fuel at a set purchase price for 3 months. The other 20% is set at today’s rate. So if fuel today is $60 per barrel but you hedged 80% of it at $22 per barrel 3 months ago, even though it has steadily climbed to $60 per barrel, you’ve still done well because only 20% of your fuel is at the higher price. But if it is the reverse situation, you have just blown many many millions of dollars by making a poor decision. Qantas has generally done well with its hedging over the years. It hasn’t always got it right, but more often than not it has had skilled analysts who have called the right shots. Not so with Virgin. On numerous occasions they have screwed up the hedge price and it has cost them tens of millions of dollars. The idiot Manny Gill buggered it up twice and it almost sent the then Virgin Blue to the wall. However, being one of ‘Brett’s Boys’ he lived to get paid for another day and was in fact promoted.

[spektrum]

Yet another thread about Virgin's downfall and problems. It couldnt have been added to one of the other existing threads??

I honestly believe some of you have serious mental problems. Cannot help yourself and cannot hide the enthusiasm of watching Virgin fail, with 10,000+ people losing their livelihood, houses and possibly life. Enjoy yours why you can........

Then turn off your computer. Don't read it. It's that simple. Clearly people feel like discussing it.

[airdualbleedfault]

Despite the plethora of flogs (Inc Mr Lim) here that should be running merchant banks instead of flying aeroplanes, nobody has explained in layman's terms how Kwantarse can pay virtually all of their staff significantly more than Virgin and still turn a large profit, if indeed as the experts say the EBAs need to be slashed at VA???????

[SHVC]

Despite the plethora of flogs (Inc Mr Lim) here that should be running merchant banks instead of flying aeroplanes, nobody has explained in layman's terms how Kwantarse can pay virtually all of their staff significantly more than Virgin and still turn a large profit, if indeed as the experts say the EBAs need to be slashed at VA???????

Well as much as anyone would hate to admit it, QANTAS are just better at the aviation business than Virgin ever will be. Hate it or love it it’s the truth. We need an AJ at at VA I don’t think Scurrah is the savior either he has already proved his incompetence.

[Paragraph377]

Well as much as anyone would hate to admit it, QANTAS are just better at the aviation business than Virgin ever will be. Hate it or love it it’s the truth. We need an AJ at at VA I don’t think Scurrah is the savior either he has already proved his incompetence.
Qantas has had 100 years to hone their craft. Virgin a lot less time in the saddle. Qantas were always innovators or made the first step, Virgin are followers and ride coattails. Qantas has/was always stacked with analysts - fuel, economy, markets, etc, some very smart, savvy and experienced folk. They had people who knew every inch of the region, knew every Mayor or Council CEO and would engage often. Virgin often has specialists, wannabe’s and kiddies in those roles, and not many of them either. They don’t know the regions, markets, or key people. They were too busy getting wet spots over Federal Government politicians and famous people sitting in 1a. Qantas set up a large freight network with associated infrastructure and contracts. VA bought 777’s with no ULD freight capability. Big big big mistake. Another one to add to the list. You can’t compare VA with QF. It’s like comparing a vagina to a dick.

And before some sook starts accusing me of wanting to see VA collapse, get your emotions in check because that’s not what I want. I’m just stating my opinion on a rumour network. My later years after retiring from flying saw me managing businesses interests that gave me a full comprehension and accurate understanding of how both our national airlines and Governments and how they work. Qantas isn’t perfect and in my opinion they’ve made mistakes over the years. Deferring fleet upgrades for so long that they now have the oldest fleet they’ve ever had, and buying the Dugong are mistakes. AJ will be long gone with his bag of money under his arm when the fleet issues bite hard and they have to spend a motza which will impact profits, but that is a story for the not-so-distant future.

[ozbiggles]

‘Full comprehension and accurate understanding of how both our national airlines and governments and how they work’.
You just outed yourself Mr Geoffrey Thomas.....or Neil Hanford, I can’t pick it.

[Paragraph377]

‘Full comprehension and accurate understanding of how both our national airlines and governments and how they work’.
You just outed yourself Mr Geoffrey Thomas.....or Neil Hanford, I can’t pick it.
Neither, you fool, that’s why you can’t pick it. There are some of us that finished flying and then owned businesses that related to the industry mate. Neither of the two fools you mentioned have worked the frontline.

[cunnamullafella]

Does anyone know how much of $300mil Regional Aviation Programs REX has been granted.

The Singaporean is firing a shot across his own employees bow using Virgin as an example.

[Mister Warning]

Surprisingly, airlines that did not upgrade their fleets are now in a far better position. Better to have a parked up dinosaur with no lease payments than a parked up 350/787 costing a motza.
Who knew incompetence would pay off. Oh, wait.....

[exfocx]

.................... The years do matter!!..............

Sorry, but you're a long way wrong. While the pie chart is a rough break down of operating costs across the worldwide industry it remains a good enough approximation. Sure, wage costs will / would be lower, same as fuel costs as will A/P costs etc. So across the board costs will fall, leaving the % pretty much as they are, as an approximation.

[BNEA320]

Crew costs, crew. Flight crew and cabin crew.
Do they make up 50% of the VA (previous) workforce?
Is a 50% pay cut realistic? Cabin crew would walk at that salary.

I didn't.

As you can see above Boeing and IATA came up with these figures. So the pilot EBA was not the cause of this, neither was Covid 19, that merely brought forward the move to administration.

In my opinion it was lack of cost control. They turned over around $5.5 billion dollars a year and every time I flew on them the aircraft was full, or close to it and yet they could not make a profit. That says to me that costs were too high. 2-5% either way on a pilot EBA would not be the reason for the last ten years.
you misquoted me. I gave an example of 50% of workforce at 75% of what they were getting at VA, not 50%.

As little as a 1% change here, a 1% change there, can make a huge difference, when margins are so small.

Read about Southwest, I think it was in the book NUTS

It said, working backwards, their average annual profit over many years, equated to 1 passenger per flight. In rough terms, that implied 1 less passenger per flight on average, no profit. 1 more passenger per flight, huge profit.

Obviously, if certain flights full, cannot get another passenger on board.

It just highlighted, how little things can make a huge difference.

[ozbiggles]

Oh Para
It seems you don’t have a comprehensive understanding of sarcasm....

[exfocx]

Qantas has had 100 years to hone their craft. Virgin a lot less time in the saddle. Qantas were always innovators or made the first step, Virgin are followers and ride coattails. Qantas has/was always stacked with analysts - fuel, economy, markets, etc, some very smart, savvy and experienced folk. They had people who knew every inch of the region, knew every Mayor or Council CEO and would engage often. Virgin often has specialists, wannabe’s and kiddies in those roles, and not many of them either. They don’t know the regions, markets, or key people. They were too busy getting wet spots over Federal Government politicians and famous people sitting in 1a. Qantas set up a large freight network with associated infrastructure and contracts. VA bought 777’s with no ULD freight capability. Big big big mistake. Another one to add to the list. You can’t compare VA with QF. It’s like comparing a vagina to a dick.

And before some sook starts accusing me of wanting to see VA collapse, get your emotions in check because that’s not what I want. I’m just stating my opinion on a rumour network. My later years after retiring from flying saw me managing businesses interests that gave me a full comprehension and accurate understanding of how both our national airlines and Governments and how they work. Qantas isn’t perfect and in my opinion they’ve made mistakes over the years. Deferring fleet upgrades for so long that they now have the oldest fleet they’ve ever had, and buying the Dugong are mistakes. AJ will be long gone with his bag of money under his arm when the fleet issues bite hard and they have to spend a motza which will impact profits, but that is a story for the not-so-distant future.

When you make statements that are patently wrong, it brings your other statements into question.

Qantas has had 100 years to hone their craft: Irrelevant, I don't think there is a company around that operates in the same manner as it did 100 yrs ago, especially with the style of management of the last 30 yrs and considering pre and post privatisation and considering the pre 90's QF was likely a national asset that operated with the national interests in mind. Since then, I'd go as far to say it changes with each change of management and what their focus is.

Qantas were always innovators or made the first step,: I don't agree with this either, a long way off the mark. Ansett was way in front of QF: introduced First Class, got rid of the middle seat in Biz Class, intro'd lounges at the airports and prior to its demise started self check-in.

Imo QF has been somewhat historically lucky. The following is my view of history: Ansett pre dispute was a cash cow that made lots of dough for the two owners (Newscorp and TNT; Murdoch & Ables). It was what funded Murdoch's international expansion, without which he would not be where he is today, it also funded Ables's aborted attempt to expand TNT into an international company with it's European foray that resulted in TNT turning Dutch. The dispute cost both Ansett and Australian Airlines (TAA) dearly, then followed dereg which killed the cash cow. Neither owner were interested in funding AN as it was loaded with debt and I doubt they could see the return justifying any reinvestment, so it wallowed from '88 up to its end in '01. Prior to QF being gifted TN for 400m with around 400m in debt owed to the fed gov being forgiven, AN & TN fought over the interstate market for a few % points either side of 50% as there were Ms of $ in it. When QF acquired TN we were told that it would take QF two yrs to bed TN in, then they would "kick our heads in" (that is what I recalled as the language used). In the lead up to QF's privatisation AN started losing fed gov contracts it'd managed to hold yr after yr. Approaching 911 AN was down to 45% of the interstate market and we were obviously in the sh!t, we were told if we didn't gain that back we were in real trouble. 911 happens and just like today with VA and CV19, it went south. Prior to AN's demise, AN held a stranglehold on the intrastate travel, how that was gifted to QF who also only faced a low cost operator in VB on the interstate market, it went on to take 60 to 65% of that and holds that to this day.

QF's position imo isn't because of great management, but imo luck. As Eddington said when he came, AN was a great company, but a poor business. The arguments that AN's pay scales far exceeded QF is nothing but bs. Michael West pointed out that when AN went into Admin there were related party transactions that we not investigated taking a substantial amount of cash out prior to admin. So QF now had a the interstate and intrastate markets sown up and the high yield biz market to itself.

I recall being told that economy was the scone and biz travel the cream and that you needed both to do well. VB was a low cost op and QF countered that with Jetstar, so along comes Borgetti to rectify that, but with a company not well financially which, again imo, was a mirror image of AN. Poorly managed with loads of debt and a behemoth overlooking it.

Nothing will change with the present situation, no one in their right sense would see the returns gained that would justify the investment needed to take QF on, it has a massive moat around its market. Risk/ reward!

Any revamp will be to tart it up and on sell it down the track and as with nearly every IPO future failing of the newly listed company.

[exfocx]

you misquoted me. I gave an example of 50% of workforce at 75% of what they were getting at VA, not 50%.

As little as a 1% change here, a 1% change there, can make a huge difference, when margins are so small.

Read about Southwest, I think it was in the book NUTS

It said, working backwards, their average annual profit over many years, equated to 1 passenger per flight. In rough terms, that implied 1 less passenger per flight on average, no profit. 1 more passenger per flight, huge profit.

Obviously, if certain flights full, cannot get another passenger on board.

It just highlighted, how little things can make a huge difference.

BNEA320,

You're comparing apples and oranges while also making comparisons that aren't correct. Yes small changes in % can make a big difference but only if everything else remains the same (in your pie chart). Consider the grocery industry, huge turnover and wafer thin margins, anything goes wrong and the shtf. The grocery industry back 20-30 yrs ago was a crap business till the ACCC allowed the consolidation to what we have now; Coles & Wollies, forget IGA, of little consequence. They control everything now all the way up the chain. The same can be said when it comes to fuel retailing (tho a little different), back in the 90s Caltex was a dog, again industry consolidation and margins are nice and fat.

Comparing SWA to the position of VA is utterly ridiculous. SWA has had long term stable and excellent management, while also always having been in a strong financial position (very few loses reported), whereas VA is debt loaded and while Admin will resolve some of that not enough to challenge QF in any real way. I doubt VA will do nothing but fluff around the margins, enough maybe to crimp QF returns, but not challenge it or provide any real competition.

VA will be faux turnaround and then offloaded to unsophisticated investors via an IPO with the investment house making money on the IPO, the sellers a nice tidy return with the new shareholders likely to be holding a dog of an investment.

[Paragraph377]

exfocx;

“The arguments that AN's pay scales far exceeded QF is nothing but bs”.

Maybe with the Pilots, but not in Cargo!!! Remember those boys wandering around in their white overalls back in the late 90’s, they were making $100k per year. Huge dollars for back then! Plus they still had 1 week per shift cycle where they started at midnight and finished at 0800 with 100% shift penalty. Most would ‘do the nick’ on at least one of those nights. They would sign on at midnight and then drive back home and sleep soundly for the night. Coordinated sickies in which mates would then cover on overtime, and so the list goes on! “It’s good to be the king”. Rampies on the domestic aircraft were earning around $75 to $80k in the late 90’s. And demarcation. If you were a pushback driver all you did was push back aircraft. Maybe 20 mins work 3 or 4 pushes in an 8 hour shift. The good old days. But not as good as flying widebody jets for ANZ between the 60’s and 90’s.

[Telfer86]

George you said this
"No such thing as overtime on the QF SH award. There is a minimum guarantee then additional hours paid at a flat rate"

I think that would be the very definition of OT wouldn't it , you get paid X for doing 53.5 hours a month , then the hourly rate for anything above

Did read the Virgin EBA , yes it is 69 hours, not 60 as someone told me

Still very much under the odds for this day & age , at work for 10.5 months , for a pretty cruisy 730 hours pa

Notice the base for LHS is $240K , and RHS $155K , gross from 30 to 60% over that , didn't have time to read the 120 page contract

Do you think the wages levels might have been part of the problem here as to why Virgin lost money year in / year out ?

[exfocx]

exfocx;

“The arguments that AN's pay scales far exceeded QF is nothing but bs”.

Maybe with the Pilots, but not in Cargo!!! Remember those boys wandering around in their white overalls back in the late 90’s, they were making $100k per year. Huge dollars for back then! Plus they still had 1 week per shift cycle where they started at midnight and finished at 0800 with 100% shift penalty. Most would ‘do the nick’ on at least one of those nights. They would sign on at midnight and then drive back home and sleep soundly for the night. Coordinated sickies in which mates would then cover on overtime, and so the list goes on! “It’s good to be the king”. Rampies on the domestic aircraft were earning around $75 to $80k in the late 90’s. And demarcation. If you were a pushback driver all you did was push back aircraft. Maybe 20 mins work 3 or 4 pushes in an 8 hour shift. The good old days. But not as good as flying widebody jets for ANZ between the 60’s and 90’s.

Totally irrelevant, what does the above have to do with the question of pay disparity or what other employees did? So what % of revenue did cargo make up back then and what impact would that have had on each company? Hardly enough to even call it "on the margins" and I'd also say AN carried the bulk on late night ops cargo.

Like for like between AN & QF, same same! Whatever industrial rorts available to one were available to the other, it was the same industrial system. If wages were responsible for sinking one, why not the other? It's a bs story.

[Paragraph377]

Totally irrelevant, what does the above have to do with the question of pay disparity or what other employees did? So what % of revenue did cargo make up back then and what impact would that have had on each company? Hardly enough to even call it "on the margins" and I'd also say AN carried the bulk on late night ops cargo.

Like for like between AN & QF, same same! Whatever industrial rorts available to one were available to the other, it was the same industrial system. If wages were responsible for sinking one, why not the other? It's a bs story.
Hey, you were the one that started comparing QF with AN, who departed this world 20 years ago. Most of your post was totally irrelevant but I didn’t you shoot you down over it. Each to their own thoughts and ideologies.
Peace out man.

[George Glass]

George you said this
"No such thing as overtime on the QF SH award. There is a minimum guarantee then additional hours paid at a flat rate"

I think that would be the very definition of OT wouldn't it , you get paid X for doing 53.5 hours a month , then the hourly rate for anything above

Did read the Virgin EBA , yes it is 69 hours, not 60 as someone told me

Still very much under the odds for this day & age , at work for 10.5 months , for a pretty cruisy 730 hours pa

Notice the base for LHS is $240K , and RHS $155K , gross from 30 to 60% over that , didn't have time to read the 120 page contract

Do you think the wages levels might have been part of the problem here as to why Virgin lost money year in / year out ?


Overtime is usually an increased hourly rate above the standard hourly rate. Ever since 1989 Airlines have resisted any move to overtime , unlike the Longhaul Award which predates the debacle.The SH award gives an illusion of a “salary” but in reality is just the minimum the company is prepared to “guarantee “.They would make it 20 hours a month if they could. Personally I think Fleet pay is the way to go but there are too many vested interests on both sides for it to happen. Probably just academic now anyway.

[C441]

FYI: The most recent Pilot Award published by Fair Work:
Pilot Award (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=2ahUKEwjl27m7-6PpAhXfzjgGHXZMCXEQFjAKegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairwork.gov.au%2FArticleDocuments%2F8 72%2Fair-pilots-award-ma000046-pay-guide.pdf.aspx&usg=AOvVaw3t4MeLpTrLWEwyVySKQ9St)

Would a new operator be looking at this as a starting point? One would hope not…...

[Section28- BE]

Hmmmmm-

'Frothy' in here, again...................., aye!!!!

ex the AFR article, 'That' started 'this' Shiite-Fight................, there- 'was' a response/follow-up article of late yesterday, link here:https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/deloitte-holds-firm-on-virgin-amid-rex-attack-20200507-p54qn4

Given, everybody here- 'has' done 10 seconds on 'Chain-Saw'- 'we' 'yarded' the Sucker for your mutual edification-

Extract here: ' Deloitte holds firm on Virgin amid Rex attack

Lucas Baird (https://www.afr.com/by/lucas-baird-h18hts) Reporter

May 7, 2020 – 5.33pm

Deloitte has claimed it is running an "efficient and thorough" administration process of Virgin Australia in response to a scathing broadside by Regional Express executive chairman Lim Kim Hai.

With the rubber soon to hit the runway on a deal, some of Virgin and Deloitte's anger with Mr Lim likely stems from the possibility he could scare off some potential buyers. Chris Hopkins



A spokesman for the firm said, in response to claims Virgin's new owners would run into same financial strife that felled the carrier last month, it was ensuring a strong future for the carrier and what was best for the aviation industry.

"We are running an efficient and thorough process, which is ultimately designed to refinance and restructure the business to preserve as much value as possible," a Deloitte spokesman said. "All aspects of the cost base of the business will be taken into consideration and we are working consultatively with management and other stakeholders, including unions, throughout this process."

"Our intention is to get the business out of administration as quickly as possible, with new owners, and our timeline reflects that. This is what is best for the business, its people and the aviation industry as a whole."

Virgin declined to comment on Mr Lim's remarks, but The Australian Financial Review understands the airline is unhappy by the REX chairman's misrepresentation of the administration process and the sale tactics.

The attack comes at a sensitive time for the nation's second carrier, with Deloitte lead administrator Vaughan Strawbridge expecting up to 20 potential bidders to deliver indicative non-binding offers by the end of next week. (https://www.afr.com/link/follow-20180101-p54oj4)

Mr Lim argued in an interview with the Financial Review's Chanticleer column that the strategy of pursuing a quick sale would leave significant problems in Virgin's business unsolved for new owners.

He also criticised the company's industrial agreements and a perceived inability or reluctance to renegotiate them in administration.

Virgin and Deloitte believe a quick sale will minimise the damage of the administration to the brand, employees and customers.

Renegotiate contracts

The airline is also confident Mr Strawbridge will be able to renegotiate onerous supplier contracts that are partly responsible for Virgin's distressed position.

On the industrial agreements, the Financial Review understands Virgin hopes these conversations remain ongoing in the background of the administration, so new pay deals are ready soon after it sells.

Much of the company's ire stems from a belief Rex was treated more favourably by the Morrison government as both airlines found themselves on the brink during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Virgin went to the federal government eight times for support, initially asking for a $1.4 billion loan that decreased to $200 million after eight proposals over several weeks. (https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/how-virgin-fell-to-earth-20200421-p54lui) All these overtures were rejected.

Meanwhile, Rex warned in late March it would not last another six months under crisis conditions. As other regional carriers warned of similarly precarious positions, Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack delivered $198 million to these players to cover regulatory and safety standing costs. (https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/100m-bailout-for-struggling-regional-airlines-20200329-p54ezq)

This package included another $100 million fund to "provide direct financial support to smaller regional airlines during this unprecedented downturn in aviation activity should it be needed".

The federal government has maintained through the pandemic any support for businesses must be industry-wide and not tailored to a specific company.

To this end, Mr McCormack said the government had committed more than $1 billion to the aviation sector. This figure takes into account $715 million worth of activity-based fee relief (https://www.afr.com/link/follow-20180101-p54b31) and other subsidies aimed at keeping specific international and domestic air services running. (https://www.afr.com/link/follow-20180101-p54kkp)

But Virgin has questioned the practical benefit of this support. The fee relief was extended at a time when it had grounded most of its fleet and the air service subsidies only allowed it to break even on these flights.

Deloitte's Mr Strawbridge, who took control of Virgin on April 22, hopes to wrap up a sale by the end of June.

A flyer was distributed to interested parties last Tuesday. Although Street Talk reported an information memorandum to be issued to bidders in the coming days said Virgin Australia's earnings in the 2022 financial year could reach $1.2 billion. (https://www.afr.com/link/follow-20180101-p54phi)

Industry insiders are sceptical of these estimates (https://www.afr.com/link/follow-20180101-p54pv0). John Thomas, an aviation consultant who was previously in charge of Virgin Australia's domestic and international network and a contender for the top job, said reaching that target would be "extraordinarily tough".

"It will be extraordinarily tough to get to these numbers by the financial year 2022, given the likely shape of the recovery curve that most airlines around the world are planning," he said.
"Further, because of the likely ongoing concerns from some traveller segments such as corporations for business travellers, most airlines don't believe that historical price stimulation will necessarily work here to help accelerate the recovery." '

Have a good weekend all
Rgds
S28- BE

[lucille]

FYI: The most recent Pilot Award published by Fair Work:
Pilot Award (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=2ahUKEwjl27m7-6PpAhXfzjgGHXZMCXEQFjAKegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairwork.gov.au%2FArticleDocuments%2F8 72%2Fair-pilots-award-ma000046-pay-guide.pdf.aspx&usg=AOvVaw3t4MeLpTrLWEwyVySKQ9St)

Would a new operator be looking at this as a starting point? One would hope not…...

So, looking at those tables to get an an approximation of an annual salary, would it be reasonable to say add 10 bucks to the hourly rates published to cover allowances and then multiply by 1000?

If the above approximation is remotely in the ball park, all I can say is... yikes!

Or are the award rates set so low as to encourage EBAs?

In any case, this document should be essential reading for anyone contemplating a flying career.

[Arctaurus]

"It will be extraordinarily tough to get to these numbers by the financial year 2022, given the likely shape of the recovery curve that most airlines around the world are planning," he said.
"Further, because of the likely ongoing concerns from some traveller segments such as corporations for business travellers, most airlines don't believe that historical price stimulation will necessarily work here to help accelerate the recovery."

At last, some analysis by someone who does have a clue as to where this is all headed.

Clearly not towards earnings of $1.2 billion in FY 2022.

[neville_nobody]

If the above approximation is remotely in the ball park, all I can say is... yikes!

Or are the award rates set so low as to encourage EBAs?

In any case, this document should be essential reading for anyone contemplating a flying career.

The rates aren't that low when you add up all the allowances and extras. It would be close to if not more than what Jetstar get paid. Also the Award is based on duty hours not flight hours. Good luck finding an airline to agree to that with the length of duties and extensions available these days.

[ampclamp]

It's about wages and conditions and using Virgin as a platform to run it up the flag pole to see who salutes.

Be wary.

[MickG0105]

At last, some analysis by someone who does have a clue as to where this is all headed.

Clearly not towards earnings of $1.2 billion in FY 2022.
I would love to see the assumptions that Deloitte based that projection on but clearing $1.2 billion EBITDA off of $5 billion revenue is extraordinarily difficult to envisage.

Let's start with the likelihood of being able to achieve $5 billion in revenue in FY22. Deloitte say that that is based on FY19 revenue less 15 percent. So their $5 billion appears to be based on Virgin's FY19 revenue of $5.827 billion less 15 percent. The problem with that is 22 percent of the $5.827 billion was derived from international and anyone who thinks that international will have rebounded to 85 percent of FY19 levels by 2022 would be in a distinctly bullish minority. And nearly 10 percent of the FY19 revenue came from Tiger and I don't think that Tiger is coming back.

But leaving that aside, there's the EBITDA margin! 24 percent! The last time that Virgin had a margin like that was back in the halcyon days of 2007. Then along came international and by 2010 their EBITDA margin was down to around 16 percent. Two years later, the last time they made a profit, it was about 9 percent. Last year it was 4 percent. For comparison, Qantas's EBITDA margin for the past four years has bounced around the high teens percent mark. Not 24 percent, not even in their record year of 2016.

If you leave aside margin and just look at the requisite operational cost base required - $3.8 billion - that looks like a couple of bridges too far. Last year Virgin's operating costs came to around $5.1 billion exclusive of aircraft leasing costs. That means you've got to find $1.3 billion in savings - 25 percent - from the rest. That's a job for the big wire brush and it would not be pretty.

So, that Deloitte marketing spiel is somewhat delusional. Needless to say the bidders will have seen through it at a glance.

[wheels_down]

That margin will require a large axe drop on the cost base. PS has pulled back what 20% of the workforce since he started? HQ will likely move to Sydney so expect another 10-20% who won’t commit.

That number will still require some large gains on the domestic front. They have peaked at 600m EBITA Dom before. I imagine the number includes Velocity. Tiger and International will never ever contribute anything of relevance so not worth a mention.

What Fuel price is that figure based on?

[Foxxster]

If you want to see how much they spent on fuel, airport charges, employee expenses, all you have to do is look at their latest annual report. Might save the bickering going on here.

also, in terms of what will be left of Virgin, it appears they have used around $2.3 billion of planes as collateral for interest bearing liabilities. So if those interest bearing liabilities are now basically worthless, that would mean the holders are entitled to take ownership of those planes.

[MickG0105]

PS has pulled back what 20% of the workforce since he started?
No, not even close. His lack of traction on that front has been just one of his signature failures.

In August last year he announced 750 jobs were going to be cut as part of a rightsizing. On the basis that he'd been there for five months at that stage most people thought that he'd have the 750 names in his back pocket or at the very least be well advanced in planning. In a 7 November 2019 piece in the SMH it was reported that most of the 750 headcount reduction would be completed by Christmas.

Depending on who you listen to, as of 1 January this year either just 140 of the mooted 750 had gone or none had gone but there were plans to cut 400 jobs by the end of March with another 350 to go by the end of June. So, much talking, little planning, less cutting.

If you turn to the FY20-H1 interim report delivered in late February, subsequent to announcing the 750 'rightsizing' employee costs went up by $42 million (6.3 percent). After you allow for redundancy payments for the 140 that were meant to have been exited, the Schuster bonus and EBA escalators, there's still $10 million in additional employee costs that is unaccounted for. That seems to suggest that they added headcount. There was no hiring freeze in place prior to the COVID-19 crisis biting.

Subsequent to the coronavirus crisis emerging they've apparently made 1,000 people redundant, likely some of the 750 plus the Tiger and NZ-based staff. That seems to gel with the headcount numbers that Deloitte is bandying around (9,020 employees). So, all up pre- and post-crisis they've managed to reduce headcount by about 10 percent with the vast majority of that reduction occurring post-crisis.


HQ will likely move to Sydney so expect another 10-20% who won’t commit.

I wouldn't be too sure about head office moving but, in any event, just how many people do you think are employed in the Village? My understanding is that there's only about 1,000 people there.


What Fuel price is that figure based on?
Yeah, good question. Just back of the napkin it has to be something like $US50 a barrel.

[Section28- BE]

For 'what', It is Not worth- it has been 'reported' (allegedly/apparently) -

1/ 'Said', "Note Holders"- not 'that' freekin Happy/Impressed, with NIL Inclusion on the 'Committee of Inspection'.....

2/ 'Apparently'- a veritable onslaught of 'New' (revised)- Confidentiality Agreements, being 'Sprayed' around at this time.............., go figure?????

Shall, keep it Blunt/Descriptive, for this...., per chance 'is' the model being flogged, the one Paul...........
Rgds all
S28- BE

[MickG0105]

For 'what', It is Not worth- it has been 'reported' (allegedly/apparently) -

1/ 'Said', "Note Holders"- not 'that' freekin Happy/Impressed, with NIL Inclusion on the 'Committee of Inspection'.....

2/ 'Apparently'- a veritable onslaught of 'New' (revised)- Confidentiality Agreements, being 'Sprayed' around at this time.............., go figure?????

Shall, keep it Blunt/Descriptive, for this...., per chance 'is' the model being flogged, the one Paul...........
Rgds all
S28- BE
On Point 1/, and rightly so. Unsecured bondholders are owed $2,000 million (roughly one third of total debts) and have zero representation on the Committee of Inspection; employees are owed $450 million and have 11 representatives on the CoI (roughly one third of the committee of 35).

Dot - unions raise no objection to the appointment of Strawbridge et al (Deloitte) as Administrator.

Dot - Strawbridge announces no plans for redundancies or changes to employment during administration.

Dot - Employee representatives (10 unions plus Virgin's Chief Legal and Risk Officer) make up one third of CoI

I'm sure there's some joining to be done there somewhere.

[Section28- BE]

Got-Ya 'Blackout'............., well done.

You, would Know- Sister.
Rgds
S28

[MickG0105]

Gas turbine blades of conventional rotorcraft turboshaft engines are optimized to operate at nearly a fixed speed and a fixed incidence angle. If the operating condition of the engine changes, then the flow through the turbine may need to be guided to a more optimum direction.

One way to do this is with variable turbine nozzle geometry. But this standard method has some disadvantages including increased weight and complexity, as well as a limited operating range since the nozzle vanes can only be turned to a certain point before severe flow incidence angles disrupt the rotating blades downstream.
That appears to draw directly enough from Murugan, Muthuvel; Ghoshal, Anindya; Bravo, Luis; Xu, Fei; Hsu, Ming-Chen; and Bazilevs, Yuri, "Articulating Axial-Flow Turbomachinery Rotor Blade For Enabling Variable Speed Gas Turbine Engine" (2018). Mechanical Engineering Conference Presentations, Papers, and Proceedings. 195. to require a citation, no?

[Section28- BE]

Orrrrh- 'Cut & Paste'........., could not be so.

Rgds
S28

[positivegee]

You can’t compare VA with QF. It’s like comparing a vagina to a dick..

I love this thread, this made me LMAO, thanks P377

[MickG0105]

Still -'Serves' its 'Purpose' as a- 'Metaphor' -moving 'FORWARD'.
Yes, I had a fair idea of what you were getting at, I was just looking out for poor old Murugan et al.

[BNEA320]

Despite the plethora of flogs (Inc Mr Lim) here that should be running merchant banks instead of flying aeroplanes, nobody has explained in layman's terms how Kwantarse can pay virtually all of their staff significantly more than Virgin and still turn a large profit, if indeed as the experts say the EBAs need to be slashed at VA???????so my 2 cents .....

QF & VA had way too many staff getting paid too much, BUT QF had larger share of corporate market, who pay top dollar.

You only had to look around at airports, with many well paid staff, standing around doing stuff all between flights.

New QF will have less staff probably being paid less or paid same but with more required (not saying necessarily pilots will work more hours).

New VA, if it gets up (can the administrators stuff it up ? Looks possible) will have a huge haircut in terms of staff & pay & conditions, otherwise a totally new airline will pick up either B737 or A320 aircraft leases for a song & pay nothing like QF/VA have in the past.

A new airline will only have to fly trunk routes more frequently than JQ & have cheaper fares than QF. Govts might have to subsidise non-trunk routes or JQ will fly them at higher fares, which will hurt tourism industry recovery in the regions.

Plenty of experienced ex VA & other airline staff, who would work for a lot less than they were getting, as have mortgages etc.

A new airline might start slowly, hiring only as needed, but in this new world, they could probably start with 6-8 aircraft or less, doing triangle only to offer a schedule better than JQ. Remember JQ will never fly frequently on the golden triangle or will be competing with QF.

What did Virgin Blue start with ? 2 x ex AN B734s wasn't it ? BNE/SYD only ?

Seem to be plenty of venture capitalists around with plenty of cash to fund it. Wouldn't be surprised if some of pay of any new airline was either shares or % of profit.

[Con Catenator]

Remember JQ will never fly frequently on the golden triangle

I wouldn't be so sure of that in the future if a new airline such as your describing gets up. Qantas will compete head to head using JQ to match any new airfares.

[machtuk]

I remember an Airline that started in this country a few years ago, had only a hand full of planes of one type, the drivers started out on less $$$ than their competitors and they ran a very lean operation, even used spent paper in the printers! They did just the popular main routes tourist destinations mostly. They expanded to 14 airframes still all the one type, finally after a sucsesion of the usual CEO's CP's who thought they knew better the said Airline just started to operate on the black then along came a mother Airline who bought in to the said Airline a bit at a time and wanted to change the fleet type, synergy I think they call it, the new corporate 'in' word. From that day onwards the said Airline went backwards losing money like a kid at a lolly shop due missmanagment and a whole host of internal issues. Enter CV19, the lolly shop kid ran out of money, the mother Airline went bust".........said Airline was Tigers!

[rmm]

You only had to look around at airports, with many well paid staff, standing around doing stuff all between flights.
So what would you have them do? Stand them down for 20 minutes then recall them?

[chookcooker]

So, that Deloitte marketing spiel is somewhat delusional.

you’ve seen it have you?

[chookcooker]

So what would you have them do? Stand them down for 20 minutes then recall them?
it’s ok. Certainly at va that time at the airport was unpaid. They were essentially stood down. Perhaps they should be extra extra unpaid

[normanton]

you’ve seen it have you?
Yes mate.

Its on the website. I almost fell off my chair reading it.

[MickG0105]

Has there ever been an airline in Australia as badly mismanaged in such a short time?

Bali...
Fleet Transition....
Catering...
A330 leases ...
Hong Kong ...
Velocity buy-back ...
2019 notes issue ...

[chookcooker]

Yes mate.

Its on the website. I almost fell off my chair reading it.

sorry, which website?

[George Glass]

so my 2 cents .....

QF & VA had way too many staff getting paid too much, BUT QF had larger share of corporate market, who pay top dollar.

You only had to look around at airports, with many well paid staff, standing around doing stuff all between flights.

New QF will have less staff probably being paid less or paid same but with more required (not saying necessarily pilots will work more hours).

New VA, if it gets up (can the administrators stuff it up ? Looks possible) will have a huge haircut in terms of staff & pay & conditions, otherwise a totally new airline will pick up either B737 or A320 aircraft leases for a song & pay nothing like QF/VA have in the past.

A new airline will only have to fly trunk routes more frequently than JQ & have cheaper fares than QF. Govts might have to subsidise non-trunk routes or JQ will fly them at higher fares, which will hurt tourism industry recovery in the regions.

Plenty of experienced ex VA & other airline staff, who would work for a lot less than they were getting, as have mortgages etc.

A new airline might start slowly, hiring only as needed, but in this new world, they could probably start with 6-8 aircraft or less, doing triangle only to offer a schedule better than JQ. Remember JQ will never fly frequently on the golden triangle or will be competing with QF.

What did Virgin Blue start with ? 2 x ex AN B734s wasn't it ? BNE/SYD only ?

Seem to be plenty of venture capitalists around with plenty of cash to fund it. Wouldn't be surprised if some of pay of any new airline was either shares or % of profit.

Its a bit of a myth that QF staff are overpaid. Twenty years ago , yes but not now .Pilots are still pretty well compensated but every other department has taken a haircut over the last few years. Remember the shut down? That pretty much broke the TWU and others at QF. Large parts of the workforce , flight attendants , baggage handlers, front counter staff etc. have been casualized. It will take a ruthless competitor to take them on.

[MickG0105]

you’ve seen it have you?
I haven't seen the information memorandum; Deloitte and PS are somewhat antsey about confidentiality; seems they aren't keen for stuff like the value of the Travel Bank liability and the underpinning headcount projections to see light of day just yet. I've only seen what has been spruiked to the papers. You can find it under headlines like Virgin can earn $1.2b a year in 2022: management's pitch to buyers

[lc_461]

so my 2 cents .....

QF & VA had way too many staff getting paid too much, BUT QF had larger share of corporate market, who pay top dollar.

You only had to look around at airports, with many well paid staff, standing around doing stuff all between flights.

New QF will have less staff probably being paid less or paid same but with more required (not saying necessarily pilots will work more hours).

.

I would argue this isn't true for QF at least. On the ground at least many years of VR and retirements has left the workforce on lean 20hr per week part time contracts, where the pay is barely industry competitive. Many of the full time staff on old contracts have long sailed into the sunset. All new hires on the ramp for at least 5 years are hired by a separate wholly owned entity (QGS) with comparably poor salaries. The manpower allocations above and below the wing are the bare minimum. For example, FAs assist with boarding. Travel overseas and you might see 5 or 6 staff at the gate (or double that in cheap labour markets, I've counted 9 before in HKG!), whereas at least in Australia you would be lucky to see half that.

[Lookleft]

What did Virgin Blue start with ? 2 x ex AN B734s wasn't it ? BNE/SYD only ?

Ansett didn't fly the 400s and they weren't offloading any surplus 737's at that time. After the collapse CZQ appeared in VB colours very soon after as it was a leased aircraft.

[Going Nowhere]

The 734's came from Virgin in Europe, didn't they?

[MickG0105]

After the collapse CZQ appeared in VB colours very soon after as it was a leased aircraft.
And Qantas grabbed CZR, CZS and CZU.

[MickG0105]

The 734's came from Virgin in Europe, didn't they?
Four of them did; VGA, VGC, VGD and VGE came from Virgin Express. VGB and VOZ came from Air One.

[Paragraph377]

Ansett didn't fly the 400s and they weren't offloading any surplus 737's at that time. After the collapse CZQ appeared in VB colours very soon after as it was a leased aircraft.
The funniest thing from memory was how VB were told they were getting one of Ansett’s best 737’s! CZQ was considered to be a cursed aircraft, well either that or a complete bucket of sh#t, and was always sitting on the ground broken. I still recall some drinking sessions with mates who said she had some quirks about her too. I believe the then C&T Capt from Ansett who is now the C&T Capt at Jetstar was part of the ferry crew to bring ‘Susie Q’ back to Australia to take up a spot with VB.

[Section28- BE]

Yup- Four of them did; VGA, VGC, VGD and VGE came from Virgin Express. VGB and VOZ came from Air One.

You, 'Did' seriously drill that one- 'MickG'................, yup, 'Virgin Express' ex Brussels- 'one', maybe 'given' to understand........, 'that/there' were/may have been 'issues' with 'That' Show..........., as well????

But, anyhoo- better go before 'one' gets 'Lit-Up', again.....

Bloody good, 'Get' that!!!!!

CZQ- wow, that does 'seriously' go back!!!!!

Rgds
S28- BE
:ok::cool:

[MickG0105]

Yup-

You, 'Did' seriously drill that one- 'MickG'................, yup, 'Virgin Express' ex Brussels- 'one', maybe 'given' to understand........, 'that/there' were/may have been 'issues' with 'That' Show..........., as well????

But, anyhoo- better go before 'one' gets 'Lit-Up', again.....

Bloody good, 'Get' that!!!!!

CZQ- wow, that does 'seriously' go back!!!!!

Rgds
S28- BE
:ok::cool:
The bit of that that cracked me up was below the line,

Last edited by Section28- BE; 10th May 2020 at 20:17. Reason: Manners...............

The mind boggles at what you added or deleted under the heading 'Manners'.

[Lookleft]

CZQ was originally fitted with an internal set of stairs which had been removed. Unfortunately it just became a big water storage tank which did the avionics no good at all. From a fast receding memory I think VB had an incident where the avionics fritzed out because of water in the space the stairs occupied. something to do with shonky work when the internal stairs were removed.

[Dora-9]

CZQ was originally fitted with an internal set of stairs which had been removed.

Are you sure about that?

I recall when the B733 replaced the B732, one of the differences was that they didn't have stairs fitted (thank God for that; the B732 internal stairs were horrible) and that they left the factory in the stairless configuration.

[Lookleft]

It was still an option,.CZQ was not built for Ansett. I used to have a cockpit photo of a -300 with traditional instruments fitted instead of the glass panel so anything was possible from Boeing.

[foam]

Internal stairs always have been and are still a factory option on all models / series of 737, up to and including the current ones. Most don't go for them due to weight and cost, but it is an option.

Scomo's 737-BBJ has them... Nauru are still operating a 733 with them, and there are plenty of other examples.

[deja vu]

well said, some are just angry little control freaks!

Have you ever heard the expression it is better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to go into print and prove it.?

Your buddy Telfer goes on to admit he doesn't know the facts but was TOLD some things that turn out to be BS. He thinks 69 hours is a STRANGE number so must be doubtful. It would seem that neither of you understand what an EBA is, that it is an AGREEMENT between 2 parties, no "angry little control freaks" involved.

[Buster Hyman]

.CZQ was not built for Ansett.
Sort of...it was an AWAS aircraft.

[B772]

So true Buster. CZQ spent the first 10 years of its life with British Midland.

[Telfer86]

Still think it is a strange number

Union boys must have wanted under 70

Would have thought at least 75 per month pre OT was the mins these days - well it was with JQ back in 2005 and it hasn't gone south since

QF of course the benchmark of SH low OT thresholds - with the great deal of 53.5 origins in 1989 - do you think it will last ?

All entitle to free opinion but you would think 69 times 10.5 is a pretty light on for a year

QF guy who stated OT normally paid at higher rate times 1.5 ; 2 ; 2.5 etc , well we all wish for the 1980's but OT at same rate has been common place in Australia for decades

Maybe more so outside the Union heartlands of Melb

[Pearly White]

Well it certainly was not crew wages that drove them into administration.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/797x421/boeing_iata_airline_cost_2015_graph_7fb4273fb5e9edc762dcfb61 3cc749e0c1851fc8.png
You don't think Boeing might have put their own spin on the cost analysis, you know, to make it look like a good idea to buy new aircraft that are maybe 5% more fuel-efficient than the old aircraft? Not saying they're wrong, but a lot of those figures are hugely variable, non-standardised costs.

Wages for example. Same in USA, Russia, South America, China? Fuel - same price in Dubai as Kalgoorlie? Leasing rates - same in 1989 as in 2019?

[Colonel_Klink]

Still think it is a strange number

Union boys must have wanted under 70

Would have thought at least 75 per month pre OT was the mins these days - well it was with JQ back in 2005 and it hasn't gone south since

QF of course the benchmark of SH low OT thresholds - with the great deal of 53.5 origins in 1989 - do you think it will last ?

All entitle to free opinion but you would think 69 times 10.5 is a pretty light on for a year

QF guy who stated OT normally paid at higher rate times 1.5 ; 2 ; 2.5 etc , well we all wish for the 1980's but OT at same rate has been common place in Australia for decades

Maybe more so outside the Union heartlands of Melb

We are all entitled to opinions if they are checked against the facts first - It’s 69 x 11.5 because VA work on 4 week rosters, not on calendar months. In a year there are 13RPs, and 6 weeks annual leave leaves 11.5 RPs, which equates to a yearly total of 793.5 hours - so no, I don’t think that is light on for the year. Especially when you throw in another 50 odd hours of paxing that doesn’t count towards those hours either.

And for what it’s worth - the EA prior to this one was 71 hours...some more odd numbers for you to pontificate about.

[George Glass]

Still think it is a strange number

Union boys must have wanted under 70

Would have thought at least 75 per month pre OT was the mins these days - well it was with JQ back in 2005 and it hasn't gone south since

QF of course the benchmark of SH low OT thresholds - with the great deal of 53.5 origins in 1989 - do you think it will last ?

All entitle to free opinion but you would think 69 times 10.5 is a pretty light on for a year

QF guy who stated OT normally paid at higher rate times 1.5 ; 2 ; 2.5 etc , well we all wish for the 1980's but OT at same rate has been common place in Australia for decades

Maybe more so outside the Union heartlands of Melb


Don’t see the point in calling it OT if there is no increased rate or guaranteed minimum extra hours at that rate. Historically OT was introduced to prevent employers arbitrarily assigning extra work. The argument for such a low minimum guarantee in the SH Award has always been that the hourly rate is comparatively high. You can have a higher minimum guarantee and OT penalty rate but only if the hourly rate is lower. You cant have both. That’s why comparing JQ VA and QF Shorthaul is futile. Oranges and apples.
Personally I’ve always liked the idea of fleet pay , but thats never going to happen.

[chookcooker]

All entitle to free opinion but you would think 69 times 10.5 is a pretty light on for a year


If 69 is a “strange number” wtf would you call 10.5??
:ugh:

[ozbiggles]

Fleet pay could be a step closer by the time the borders open up

[Buster Hyman]

If 69 is a “strange number” wtf would you call 10.5??
:ugh:
Almost a Bakers dozen?:confused::p

[Telfer86]

George George you have to leave this 1980s mindset behind or perhaps you just like Billy Shorten

Employees have been working extra time than their scheduled shift etc , allocated period of work for the same "flat rate" rate of pay for decades

Just because it's not double time doesn't mean its not overtime , otherwise George you would have the poor working man doing 12 hours & telling him
that he ain't working OT. Does that sound fair George ?

Does anyone know any NB pilots with a better deal than QF SH ? Fritz from LH or Pierre from AF , might come close ?

[Chad Gates]

Telfer, what is the point you are trying to make?

[George Glass]

George George you have to leave this 1980s mindset behind or perhaps you just like Billy Shorten

Employees have been working extra time than their scheduled shift etc , allocated period of work for the same "flat rate" rate of pay for decades

Just because it's not double time doesn't mean its not overtime , otherwise George you would have the poor working man doing 12 hours & telling him
that he ain't working OT. Does that sound fair George ?

Does anyone know any NB pilots with a better deal than QF SH ? Fritz from LH or Pierre from AF , might come close ?


With the greatest of respect you have missed the point entirely.
It is not my fondness or otherwise for overtime rates that is the issue. Its the structure of the award itself.
Pilots were enticed back to work back in `89 by are bare-bones award with few benefits except a very high hourly rate.
Ever since then it has been an uphill battle to vary the award and the high hourly rate and low minimum guarantee are the weapons used by management ever since.
Any variation to the award has to be at the expense of one or both.
Management loves the simplicity of it and even more the fact that there is zero pressure on the producers of rosters to maximise their efficiency.
All the benefits go one way.
There is pretty well zero affection for the SH award precisely because of what it does for the life style/money balance.
Nothing to do with my affection for penalty rates.
Got it now?

[Arnold E]

Telfer, it may be for pilots that they have been working OT at a flat rate for decades, but let me assure you that every other industry that I know of nobody would work OT for a flat rate even if that was the award............which it isnt

[Arnold E]

Never worked for a government entity, and never worked OT without the appropriate rate.

[George Glass]

Spoken like you are a worker in Vic Rail heavy duty workshop in the mid 90s & Billy Shorten & Penny Wong has just walked out the door after a rousing lunch time sing along
(what's that labor babble they go on with ? , the commo crap )

Oh boy such sheltered & narrow experience , Arnold at least several hundred 1000 Australians work extra time for no double time , as no doubt some of
the Airline people are finding out right now , bet ya the places where they got preferential treatment don't pay 2times

I'm bored with this debate , let's talk about something interesting

How many QF pilots will be made redundant & which part of company will they come from ?

Well, its really not boring Telfer. Its why the American working class has tanked over the last 20 years and why workers in aviation in Australia have come to think its the new normal. I grew up in GA. I know what its like to be screwed. Question is : why would you aspire to it ? Do you enjoy bending over ? Do you think the management who are screwing you are your friends ? You are the one who needs to get real.

[George Glass]

Heh heh , the grammar Nazi.
Thats always convincing.
How about arguing the point?

[chookcooker]

Well the topic is Virgin & this is a pilot website

So I would think at an average of $300K for a NB Capt & around $190 K for an FO

I would have to say that I don't think they Virgin pilots were as put "being screwed'

We have to do something about this grammar of yours

60 hrs/rp
10.5 rp/yr
$300k/yr capt NB average
$190k/yr FO NB average

Any other incorrect figures you want to spit out there Dopey??

[non_state_actor]

Well the topic is Virgin & this is a pilot website

So I would think at an average of $300K for a NB Capt & around $190 K for an FO

I would have to say that I don't think they Virgin pilots were as put "being screwed'

We have to do something about this grammar of yours

300K/190K as an average?? Where do I sign for that deal??

[KRUSTY 34]

300K/190K as an average?? Where do I sign for that deal??

Nowhere anymore I’m afraid.

[Window heat]

so my 2 cents .....

QF & VA had way too many staff getting paid too much, BUT QF had larger share of corporate market, who pay top dollar.

You only had to look around at airports, with many well paid staff, standing around doing stuff all between flights.

New QF will have less staff probably being paid less or paid same but with more required (not saying necessarily pilots will work more hours).

New VA, if it gets up (can the administrators stuff it up ? Looks possible) will have a huge haircut in terms of staff & pay & conditions, otherwise a totally new airline will pick up either B737 or A320 aircraft leases for a song & pay nothing like QF/VA have in the past.

A new airline will only have to fly trunk routes more frequently than JQ & have cheaper fares than QF. Govts might have to subsidise non-trunk routes or JQ will fly them at higher fares, which will hurt tourism industry recovery in the regions.

Plenty of experienced ex VA & other airline staff, who would work for a lot less than they were getting, as have mortgages etc.

A new airline might start slowly, hiring only as needed, but in this new world, they could probably start with 6-8 aircraft or less, doing triangle only to offer a schedule better than JQ. Remember JQ will never fly frequently on the golden triangle or will be competing with QF.

What did Virgin Blue start with ? 2 x ex AN B734s wasn't it ? BNE/SYD only ?

Seem to be plenty of venture capitalists around with plenty of cash to fund it. Wouldn't be surprised if some of pay of any new airline was either shares or % of profit.

The ABC are reporting this morning that REX want to take over the VA domestic flying. All they want is $200m to kick it off. The analysis was that SQ are lurking in the background (Tamasek) and it’s been in the pipes for a while.

[krismiler]

Lower basic pay and higher hourly reduces an operators all important fixed costs. It also incentivises people to work on a day off, which reduces the number of employees required on the payroll as absences can be covered. Pilots can fly close to maximum hours if they want to by putting their hands up for extra work, better to have 100 pilots doing 900 hours a year than 110 doing 820 hours a year. It's similar to the tip system used in the USA where a waitress earns a very low basic wage but makes it up with an expected 15% premium on each customers bill.

In many instances flying pay can make up half of a pilots income which is fine when you're bouncing off the limits but not so good at the moment. However the current downturn is so severe and unprecedented that very few airlines will be able to sustain high fixed wages for much longer, and in the absence of a rapid recovery pay cuts may be needed in the short term to ensure that as many people are kept on a possible and the company survives.

[-41]

VA pilots could have worked for free over the last 10years and the group would still delivered a loss.

journalists should be asking the taboo questions- where was Chairman Elizabeth and her board whilst this folly unfolded under their leadership.

[Pundit]

Gents, forget previous contract pay and conditions.

This is a new world. The Rex announcement today is the demise of VA and if you want a job, be prepared to have salaries that match the regional rates.

The VA Board, bless them, will probably move on to running the banks or the aged health system.

[Con Catenator]

journalists should be asking the taboo questions- where was Chairman Elizabeth and her board whilst this folly unfolded under their leadership.

There were 2 parallel universes with this.

The first was the general commentary that Virgin had around $900 million in cash reserves.

The second is the reality that there was "only" $150 million available mid April which the board knew would only last weeks and not months.

So the journalists need to dig further to find out why there was such a difference in the "apparent" cash and why the reality was $ 150 million. Was the board complicit in hiding the true position to the ASX.

[chookcooker]

yes I know the data is likely way to low

as if you look at section 20 , page 16 you see the base for 2019 is $239k/155k respectively https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/agreements/fwa/ae428327.pdf

As we know a base salary is not a gross salary or an average salary , it is the absolute minimum

Factor in extras that are included in this padded & cushy 117 document and you are clearly well north of the numbers above

Seems like extra $$$$ a plenty , what do you get for "I am flying with a sore p**** today?"


no no no, dig up stupid

[-41]

Why would any aspiring pilot want to become a airline pilot with the culture of Media and commentators like teller86 cutting you down the moment you earn as much as an average diesel fitter, and much less than a train driver.

Due to the cyclic nature of aviation unless you snagged a dream run of cradle to grave with a legacy airline as a cadet. You endured large periods of no work or low pay along your career path to LHS of 73. It’s not for everyone that’s why we had such an acute pilot shortage.

[non_state_actor]

es I know the data is likely way to low

as if you look at section 20 , page 16 you see the base for 2019 is $239k/155k respectively https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/doc...a/ae428327.pdf (https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/agreements/fwa/ae428327.pdf)

As we know a base salary is not a gross salary or an average salary , it is the absolute minimum

Factor in extras that are included in this padded & cushy 117 document and you are clearly well north of the numbers above

Seems like extra $$$$ a plenty , what extra payments do you blokes get for "I am flying with a sore p**** today?"


Are you aware that your 300K number is almost mathematically impossible?? If you flew the legal limit every year you would never get anywhere near 300K. To get near it you would have to then work on days off which is a lottery. So to sprout 300 as an average it utterly ridiculous. Given the salary information is public how about doing some research before coming on here and preaching about salaries.

[non_state_actor]

Why would any aspiring pilot want to become a airline pilot with the culture of Media and commentators like teller86 cutting you down the moment you earn as much as an average diesel fitter, and much less than a train driver.

He probably needs to have a look at what train drivers and boat captains earn if he think pilots are paid to much!!

[MonsterC01]

no no no, dig up stupid

HAHAHA, LOVE IT!!!

As a 10 year FO with Virgin I can tell you that I’ve never made 190k. I’d need to work 70% of my days off to bank that kind of scratch.

[-41]

okay Telfer86 how much do you earn?

[chookcooker]

Selective quoting of data is easy

I agree.

however:

“60 hrs/rp
10.5 rp/yr
$300k/yr capt NB average
$190k/yr FO NB average”

would indicate you somehow struggle with it Dopey

[TT738]

Whoo Hoo Whoo Hoo

https://www.rtbuvicloco.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Metro-Rail-Operations-Agreement-2015-2019-certified.pdf

& from the Age stating Metro train drivers average $102K & Vline $120 K , hardly epic numbers

Selective quoting of data is easy & quoting what the driver of the longest iron ore train , at the most wealthy iron ore company , driving
the most technically complex train , whilst interesting doesn't reflect the average train driver

Seems like we have clarified the earnings of diesel fitters are

What did the ten year Virgin SO earn ? (I will just say higher or lower)QR suburban train drivers reported as earning $220k+ lots of overtime, as normal week is very short. Although there's a supposed shortage of train drivers, you have to know someone, promise to give your "1st child" to the union & do a long training course, which should take a few hours but takes 12 months or more on full pay, I mean, it's much more complicated that being a pilot, there's a brake & an accelerator (no indicators & that's it)

[-41]

Whoo Hoo Whoo Hoo

https://www.rtbuvicloco.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Metro-Rail-Operations-Agreement-2015-2019-certified.pdf

& from the Age stating Metro train drivers average $102K & Vline $120 K , hardly epic numbers

Selective quoting of data is easy & quoting what the driver of the longest iron ore train , at the most wealthy iron ore company , driving
the most technically complex train , whilst interesting doesn't reflect the average train driver

Seems like we have clarified the earnings of diesel fitters are

What did the ten year Virgin SO earn ? (I will just say higher or lower)


Absolutely BS the going rate for a Diesel fitter is $85 an hour. I have several in my family and can assure you they are beyond $200K hence my reference to a diesel fitter :)

Your yet to divulge how large you pay is - so we can decide if its too grandiose.




or are you another frustrated travel agent

[non_state_actor]

You guys see shadows everywhere , somebody has a different opinion to you & you think it is appropriate to threaten & belittle them

Except that your figures on salaries are impossible and you post a reference to the document they came from without even reading it!!! :ugh:Go away and figure out what the Hourly Rate is then see how short of your 300K figure you are.

[The Bullwinkle]

Oh goodness me a veiled threat by an anonymous internet poster

You guys see shadows everywhere , somebody has a different opinion to you

& you think it is appropriate to threaten & belittle them

What class what sophistication you display

I'm quite ambivalent towards airline pilots if you must know ; think of them like I might think about a radiographer or crane driver , garden variety librarian etc & that sums to
not a whole lot

Just present accurate data & stop telling these fantastic stories about the earnings of others
& then shrieking so defensively when accurate information re; Virgin earnings is revealed
I'm pretty sure a Radiographer, Crane Driver or Librarian doesn't carry the responsibility for hundreds of lives in their hands every day that they go to work!

[SandyPalms]

You’re not very clever Telfer. When would a librarian have sole control and responsibility of an asset worth potentially upwards of 500million Australian dollars hurtling through the atmosphere at 86% the speed of sound 10 kilometres above the earths surface with 500 lives onboard? A crane driver would have more responsibility than a librarian, but still. You may not like us and believe all we do is push the big red button, but get a grip. You’re showing how ignorant you are. I’d stop it if I had been so comprehensively rebuked as you, but I guess you think we are too thick to realise how stupid you are. We aren’t.

[non_state_actor]

it ain't rocket science to work out an average & that will be North of 239/155, I would be confident I am on the mark

Why are you confident? You have the document it spells out in black and white what the hourly rate is, and the legal maximum flight hours and you are still not even close.

[SandyPalms]

I don't need to Telfor. Just telling you how it actually is, as its obvious you don't really understand much. But as you seem to be a garden variety librarian, I'm glad you're able to blow yourself.

[A6Edriver]

Fuel costs are always the most expensive cost component of an airline, followed by labor.

Labor costs surpassed fuel as global airlines' biggest single expense in 2016, at 22 percent of costs against just under 21 percent for fuel. That is expected to jump this year to 30.9 percent versus 20.5 percent for fuel.Feb 14, 2018. Reuters

[C441]

Labor costs surpassed fuel as global airlines' biggest single expense in 2016, at 22 percent of costs against just under 21 percent for fuel. That is expected to jump this year to 30.9 percent versus 20.5 percent for fuel.Feb 14, 2018. Reuters
The Qantas Group, for example, has 30,000 staff of which about 3000 are pilots. Their cost relative to the cost of fuel and other expenses has remained relatively constant for many years. What has grown is the number of 'managers' and 'directors' on salaries equivalent to say, a First Officer and it's here that labor costs have grown significantly.

[Paragraph377]

Labor costs surpassed fuel as global airlines' biggest single expense in 2016, at 22 percent of costs against just under 21 percent for fuel. That is expected to jump this year to 30.9 percent versus 20.5 percent for fuel.Feb 14, 2018. Reuters
Good data. And oops, I fu#ked up by a percent or two. What was the result for 2017, 18,19? I imagine 2020, year if the COVID, will be interesting as well considering labor and fuel costs will be down somewhat.

[Half Baked]

You’re not very clever Telfer. When would a librarian have sole control and responsibility of an asset worth potentially upwards of 500million Australian dollars hurtling through the atmosphere at 86% the speed of sound 10 kilometres above the earths surface with 500 lives onboard? A crane driver would have more responsibility than a librarian, but still. You may not like us and believe all we do is push the big red button, but get a grip. You’re showing how ignorant you are. I’d stop it if I had been so comprehensively rebuked as you, but I guess you think we are too thick to realise how stupid you are. We aren’t.

Really Sandy?

You really think about that every time you report for duty do you? Hurtling through the atmosphere at 86% of the speed of sound 10ks up...................asset worth whatever, 500 lives in your hands blah blah blah!

More akin to will I choose the chicken or beef today? And a cup of Twinings Earl Grey to go with it!

And btw, the only life you're thinking about is your own. The rest looks after itself!

i can't believe the amount of garbage that's wheeled out on this site. Good for some popcorn and a laugh though!

[George Glass]

Really Sandy?

You really think about that every time you report for duty do you? Hurtling through the atmosphere at 86% of the speed of sound 10ks up...................asset worth whatever, 500 lives in your hands blah blah blah!

More akin to will I choose the chicken or beef today? And a cup of Twinings Earl Grey to go with it!

And btw, the only life you're thinking about is your own. The rest looks after itself!

i can't believe the amount of garbage that's wheeled out on this site. Good for some popcorn and a laugh though!

Well at least your pseudonym is accurate.
Ever had command responsibility ?

[BNEA320]

latest news - qld govt to bid on VA

[Ragnor]

The QLD government could be setting a dangerous precedent here, I understand the importance in preserving jobs, but, buying an airline that wont make money for a few yrs to come. What happens if other private company's struggle.

[Lookleft]

Wasn't PS head of QLD rail? and people think the link with John Sharp and the Nationals is on the nose.

[Buster Hyman]

Don't have a lot of faith in a State Govt. that can't even remember to renew their Insurance policies...

[Half Baked]

[QUOTE=George Glass;10781062]Well at least your pseudonym is accurate.
Ever had command responsibility ?[/QP

Ahhhhh George!

If only you knew! But continue to believe in your over inflated sense of importance and marvellous abilities by all means.

My job is not The one in question here. It actually keeps people on the coal face employed.

[George Glass]

[QUOTE=George Glass;10781062]Well at least your pseudonym is accurate.
Ever had command responsibility ?[/QP

Ahhhhh George!

If only you knew! But continue to believe in your over inflated sense of importance and marvellous abilities by all means.

My job is not The one in question here. It actually keeps people on the coal face employed.


Well , I think that last post is a bit of a give away.
Youre not Tech. Crew are you?
Probably don’t even fly.
One of the unfortunate things I learned way back in `89 was that what ever people say to your face professing admiration for your profession evaporates in an instant when they turn their back and a sense of grievance, humiliation , perceived disadvantage and just plain jealously kick in.
No one on this thread who is a professional pilot should expect any sympathy from the general public.
Australians really don’t like anybody who step above the mediocre.
Sad, but thats the way it is.

[Section28- BE]

Wasn't PS head of QLD rail? and people think the link with John Sharp and the Nationals is on the nose.

Yes- Mr 'Lookin' toward the Port-Side......./ 'a' Section, there of....., 'one' maybe given to understand (apparently/or Not)- post AN, Prior the M/E....... OR Not...????/ 'whom' would know....- 'they' do 'seem' to move/shake and 'Operate'!!!!!

Rgds
Section28- BE

[The Bullwinkle]

Really Sandy?

You really think about that every time you report for duty do you? Hurtling through the atmosphere at 86% of the speed of sound 10ks up...................asset worth whatever, 500 lives in your hands blah blah blah!

More akin to will I choose the chicken or beef today? And a cup of Twinings Earl Grey to go with it!

And btw, the only life you're thinking about is your own. The rest looks after itself!

i can't believe the amount of garbage that's wheeled out on this site. Good for some popcorn and a laugh though!
Wow! Just Wow! Not even worth responding to crap like that.........

[Section28- BE]

Ex ABC News link here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-13/coronavirus-queensland-government-stake-virgin-airlines/12244152

This GIG- does, Seriously Rock-It all the way back, to 'Peter & Richard' (let alone Rob and Brett....) and the Bride photo.......!!!!

COOL- a 'repechage' round, this Deep and This Far down the road....... Wow- Cool.:8

Rgds all
S28- BE

[SandyPalms]

What happened to Telfer? He’s erased all his posts. Coward. Agreed Bullwinkle.

[-41]

section 28
im not fluent in Swahili, are you drinking Grange from the 90's ?

Go QIC hell yeah - maybe chairman Lim will have some subsidised routes vaporise if VAH is owned by QIC. would undermine his tilt at narrow bodies with $108million in his pocket courtesy of the naughty nationals.

[-41]

What happened to Telfer? He’s erased all his posts. Coward. Agreed Bullwinkle.

in the back of a Fokker on his way to a Newcrest mine in the Great Sandy desert?

[Section28- BE]

-41, No you are not and negative, but thanks for asking- appreciate it.

Go QIC hell yeah, watch.

Rgds
S28

[Con Catenator]

Mr Dick, head of the QLD treasury, is prepared to waste $ 200 million on an airline with no guarantee of a future. Governments are not here to invest in failed commercial enterprises. The $ 200 million needs to go towards services for all Queenslanders, and hopefully, the QIC will disregard this proposal as the brain fart of yet another Palaszczuk government idiot looking for a village.

[ozbiggles]

Cheer up Con, it will be more than 200million

[Con Catenator]

Can't be OZ, I believe in everything the government tells me :ugh:

[Section28- BE]

Ex 'the NEWDAILY' (Updated: 27m ago) link here: https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2020/05/13/who-will-buy-virgin-australia/

Extract/qoute here:"Three frontrunners have emerged in the race to buy Virgin Australia.

Before Friday’s deadline for non-binding initial offers, investment firms Brookfield, BGH Capital and Bain Capital have emerged as the favourite parties to lead consortiums that buy the beleaguered airline.

The Australian Financial Review said there was an outside chance that iron ore magnate Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest, or the state governments of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland could lead a potential fourth group of bidders.

And the Queensland government has since announced plans to bid for the airline (https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2020/05/13/queensland-government-virgin-australia/), with new state Treasurer Cameron Dick describing the government as “a serious contender” that had made good progress in discussions with the administrators.

Sources close to the bidding process told the (https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/three-bidders-emerge-as-virgin-race-nears-first-turn-20200511-p54rp9)AFR (https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/three-bidders-emerge-as-virgin-race-nears-first-turn-20200511-p54rp9) the fourth contender would join forces with one of the other consortiums if its bid fell through, with the “serious number crunching and bidding” expected to get under way next week," ......................................

Rgds
S28

[Matt48]

latest news - qld govt to bid on VA

They should just stick to their area of expertise, like stuffing up the rail network.

[Superman1]

And the Queensland government has since announced plans to bid for the airline (https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2020/05/13/queensland-government-virgin-australia/), with new state Treasurer Cameron Dick describing the government as “a serious contender” that had made good progress in discussions with the administrators.

oh the unions would be rubbing their hands together about this one, just imagine it being government owned and with the Labor party in power!! Industrial action for all and we could even implement traffic controllers (Lolly pop people) on each bay being paid 100k a year, add a few more WHS Officers aswell union mandated of course! Sounds like a recipe for future success!!!! Or for nothing to change...:ugh:

I honestly believe this would be the worst outcome if Virgin are to succeed long term..

Bain and Co and the private equity mobs might make some tough decisions and right sizing initially but I think with their intense focus on cost and turnarounds at least it will keep the airline going for a long time even if they do sell it off a few years later they will have built a sustainable foundation.

[Dale Hardale]

They should just stick to their area of expertise, like stuffing up the rail network.

Paul Scurrah might be in the job market soon

[The Bullwinkle]

Bain and Co and the private equity mobs might make some tough decisions and right sizing initially but I think with their intense focus on cost and turnarounds at least it will keep the airline going for a long time even if they do sell it off a few years later they will have built a sustainable foundation.
Yeah, right! With Jayne Hardlicker only working 9 till 3 so she can pick up the kids!!! :ugh:

[Denied Justice]

Costs and turnarounds won't involve Hrdlicka - her track record at Jetstar and A2 were not exactly stellar.

[Section28- BE]

Paul Scurrah might be in the job market soon

Hmmmmm

Yes, gotya thinking there Mr 'Hardale'.............

However, 'apparently' the 'said' individual to/of which you refer/speak- does have inter-modal experience, with Parallel Rails ..............., and is multi-task/discipline capable/valuable- Apparently....????

Anyhoo- let us see, what tomorrow may bring.... and how it all unfolds/the chips fall ????

Rgds
S28- BE

[SHVC]

I hope the managers and safety department don’t get ahold of today’s Australian newspaper, multiple photos of a First Officer conducting a walk around not complying with A1 manual and uniform policy.

[Paragraph377]

I hope the managers and safety department don’t get ahold of today’s Australian newspaper, multiple photos of a First Officer conducting a walk around not complying with A1 manual and uniform policy.
Aren’t the safety department too busy wandering around the Village halls chatting to one another, having 2 hour coffee breaks, then repeat and recycle the process. VA 2 should get rid of the old and bring in the new. A few Muppets in that department that have been there far too long.

[wopwop]

It is not the Pilot or Cabin Crew costs that are much difference between QF and VA it s the ground crew where there is a big difference. QF ground crew are mainly employed under the QGS rates which are lower than VA, There are 5 ports that are VA staffed and cost substantially more per person than he contracted ports. That is where any new owner will make labour cost changes plus there will be a lot less than before the virus. Most are saying half at best will return.

[SOPS]

So we are now suggesting that the ground crew should join the race to the bottom ? The whole industry is a mess .

It has to return to a position where going flying costs MORE than a Uber to the airport.

It has to return to a place where we don’t see ‘Aviation Guru’ GT saying .... this xxxxxx will result in lower airfares..

The race to the bottom HAS to stop ..

An Airline should be a a complete thing.. from check in to catering to engernering .. to pilots and cabin crew..


They should all be employed by the Airline the work for at proper wages.

Rant over

[coaldemon]

Everyone will be taking haircuts in the post COVID world not just the Pilots or the Ground Crew. 20% less activity will mean that most businesses will be loss makers unless they can cut their costs by at least 30%. You may not see it in the cost of your latte but that is the way it will go in most industries particularly Tourism and support industries. Rolls Royce is having nightmares as the smarter ones in their 1,000 customers want a 20% cut to the TCA costs of their engines on A330's and A350's (not to mention the untimely end to the A380 and their engines on it) causing them to be instantly in a loss making position. There will be a lot of jobs going in Airbus, Boeing, GE and Rolls over the next few months. Race to the Bottom. Nope it is going to be who survives through this one and the recessions that are occurring around the world. Proper wages are a matter of relevance in the market. There will be many unemployed experienced Airline Pilots in the Asia Pacific area for the next few years. The employed ones will be the lucky ones.

[neville_nobody]

An Airline should be a a complete thing.. from check in to catering to engernering .. to pilots and cabin crew..

In a perfect world I agree. It would make for a much better airline. However if that were to happen you would just be held hostage by all the service unions and there is nothing you can do about it. You can't fire them. You have to either endure strikes and shutdown your entire airline or negotiate higher wages. Problem with paying high wages for low skilled jobs is that all the licensed and skilled labour looks at what the non skilled labour gets and starts wondering why they are getting ripped off. Basically this is what happened to Australian manufacturing and is still happening in rural areas with manufacturing and processing. Plants are still being shutdown because the costs are to high.

[benjam]

So we are now suggesting that the ground crew should join the race to the bottom ? The whole industry is a mess .

It has to return to a position where going flying costs MORE than a Uber to the airport.

It has to return to a place where we don’t see ‘Aviation Guru’ GT saying .... this xxxxxx will result in lower airfares..

This is the only sensible post here.. except for mine of course ;)