The future of VARA?

[AussieAviator]

The new owners of Virgin Australia, Bain, have stated that they only want to operate B737's into the future and possibly B787's further down the track. VARA, which has F100 and A320 jets is mainly confined to WA at the moment and like other charter operators, has been pretty well flat out during the pandemic. Qantas has been stopped from taking over Alliance, so I'm thinking that they couldn't buy VARA either, so the big question is, what happens to VARA? Is it sold off, broken up, liquidated or taken over by Alliance, Cobham or another operator?

[slice]

Sold to Singaporean interests and rebranded as ‘SKYWEST’ 😁

[BNEA320]

Alliance would surely want to buy the Fokkers, but wouldn't be paying much. Would anyone else anywhere want old Fokkers ?

[Arnold E]

I hope there is still some employers around that want old Fokkers like me:E

[wheels_down]

The mining contracts are quite lucrative financially and will be for the foreseeable future.

Removing the entire cost layer of VARA and everything single thing associated with it, essentially shutting it down, and operating these routes with Mainline 737s, would still be quite a highly profitable operation.

A lot of doors will open with the new single fleet run venture. Costs will drop like a rock. VARA had so so many layers of cost.

Its fairly obvious the future of Virgin is just 70 737s. That’s it. Anything else that is not associated be with these 70 machines is dust.

[AussieAviator]

The mining contracts are quite lucrative financially and will be for the foreseeable future.

Removing the entire cost layer of VARA and everything single thing associated with it, essentially shutting it down, and operating these routes with Mainline 737s, would still be quite a highly profitable operation.

A lot of doors will open with the new single fleet run venture. Costs will drop like a rock.
True, but who owns VARA at the moment? Certainly not Bain according to the Administraters. When Ansett collapsed it dragged down all the highly profitable subsidies like Kendall and Hazo's.

[wheels_down]

Virgin have full ownership just like Tiger.

The contracts are tied to Virgin so it’s up to Virgin if they want to throw these away. It’s guaranteed income so would make no sense.

The extra cost of operating these routes with the 737 vs a old F100 is well offset by removing everything single thing that is tied to the Virgin Regional name. Down the last paperclip.

Get ready for a very lean 737 operation folks with sky high margins.

[wotwazthat]

Hahahahah, Wheely you’re funny 😂
You wouldn’t be a Perth based 737 FO by any chance?

[-41]

Expect A320’s to vanish like the 330’s. Fokkers are anyone’s guess as to when they will depart, flyout what free life is left in them then use them as Christmas trees to keep the skeleton fleet afloat. Or sell them if they aren’t already ;)

Please enlighten us with figures disclosing VARA profits, they are not available with VARA reporting combined into VA domestic in the last ASX reports.
To announce its profitable is pure speculation given no data is available in the public domain.

If we knew which entity the resources contracts are in, we could have a reasonable idea on VARA future. PS gave TT and VAINZ no warning before the cull.

[-41]

Given Alliance purchased 21 Fokkers for 15 million 5 years ago, VARA fleet’s value is a rounding error.

The administrators and Bain have it all wrong, cull the 737 and get VARA HQ / team Skywest to rescue the company:)

[Icarus2001]

So you think it a simple matter of replacing a 100 seat Fokker with a 180 seat Boeing? Can the 737 even get in to some of the mine runways?

[Arthur D]

True, but who owns VARA at the moment? Certainly not Bain according to the Administraters. When Ansett collapsed it dragged down all the highly profitable subsidies like Kendall and Hazo's.

Kendell was losing a shed load, thanks to regional jets and contract pilots ....... Hazo’s yes.

[-41]

So you think it a simple matter of replacing a 100 seat Fokker with a 180 seat Boeing? Can the 737 even get in to some of the mine runways?
Yes.
List the Runways a 737 can not operate from 700 or a 800 with 27K bump.

[wheels_down]

Hahahahah, Wheely you’re funny 😂
You wouldn’t be a Perth based 737 FO by any chance?
Nope just a realist.

There is a lot of talk around the traps about bits and pieces hanging on. A330s still doing this. A320s still doing this. Fokkers still doing that.

Its 70 NG’s and nothing more.

[Icarus2001]

Originally Posted by Icarus2001 View Post (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/634072-future-vara.html#post10838308)
So you think it a simple matter of replacing a 100 seat Fokker with a 180 seat Boeing? Can the 737 even get in to some of the mine runways?
FROM -41 Yes.
List the Runways a 737 can not operate from 700 or a 800 with 27K bump.

I asked the question because I wanted to know.

[aussieflyboy]

There was an article in the West Australian a few days ago stating Bain has taken on some of the F100 leases

[geeup]

How many Fokkers does VARA have?

[jrfsp]

14 F100s currently, but a few are scheduled to be leaving this year.

The seat count of the F100s is more suitable for WA ops with for both RPT flights and mine charters. Also would be saying goodbye to Christmas / Cocos Islands...thats one place A320s cannot be replaced with 738s.

Perhaps if they are planning on retaining the two -700s?, they could be PER based.

[Blueskymine]

I’d imagine QF are already walking around the Virgin Fokkers with masking tape and red paint ready to go plus positioning tugs ready to ‘nab them before Alliance does.

In other words Bain would be bloody silly to offload them when they cost nothing and are the hardest working part of the fleet at the moment.

It would be a strategic folly to allow QF or Alliance to get them.

[jetter55]

Yes.
List the Runways a 737 can not operate from 700 or a 800 with 27K bump.

I could be wrong but I think you may find it is more of an issue of pavement concession at some of the strips, particularly in 45 degree weather in summer.....especially with turning nodes...

[Icarus2001]

It would be a strategic folly to allow QF or Alliance to get them. It would depend on what your strategy is surely? If you want a single type Australia wide airline, like Virgin Blue used to be, then sell the profitable VARA business unit by all means.

[Blueskymine]

It would depend on what your strategy is surely? If you want a single type Australia wide airline, like Virgin Blue used to be, then sell the profitable VARA business unit by all means.

However while VARA holds the AOC, virgin holds the contracts. The wider RPT network connects those FIFO workers to that Fokker heading to the mine.

Alliance and Rex have been capital raising getting ready. It’ll be snakes and ladders over the next year or so.

[Icarus2001]

Not sure that I agree that denying QF a handful of tired old airframes will make any difference to their complete market dominance.

[-41]

Spot on. Given the paucity of this type, allowing QF or QQ to get their hands these airframes at fire sale prices would be lunacy. Unless the commercial terms were lucrative, denying the use of these assets may well be the smarter strategic choice.
The airframes are essentially worthless without RR engine support, VARA has struggled with sourcing serviceable Tays.
Was under the impression VARA Fokkers are owned not leased.

Who knows how lucrative the resources contracts actually are. Tendered by the same people that sent VAH broke with a often proclaimed 1 billion cash reserve, and paid Karl (an employee) $9million when they bought Velocity back.
The administrator couldn’t find that fabled $1 billion CASH and had to run to the federal government asking for a bailout.

[non_state_actor]

The mining contracts are quite lucrative financially and will be for the foreseeable future.

Removing the entire cost layer of VARA and everything single thing associated with it, essentially shutting it down, and operating these routes with Mainline 737s, would still be quite a highly profitable operation.

A lot of doors will open with the new single fleet run venture. Costs will drop like a rock. VARA had so so many layers of cost.

Its fairly obvious the future of Virgin is just 70 737s. That’s it. Anything else that is not associated be with these 70 machines is dust.

While there is big numbers involved in Mining Contracts I'm not sure how big the margins are. Given the amount of competition in the mining market I would suggest that there isn't much in those operations. Obviously the on carriage is probably where the value lies for the domestic airlines. In reality noone really knows what the true value of the F100 is except the accountants. Whilst the 737 carries many more passengers for the same if not less fuel burn, is more reliable, the finance cost of the machines is considerably higher. You can't just have 180 seat aircraft sitting around waiting, while if you own an airframe outright it really doesn't matter. I would suggest that if it was cheaper to get a 737/A320 and just fly it to a mine 2x everyday, then everyone would be doing that as they are a very common airframe to source worldwide and are much more efficient to operate. The fact that all operators run F100's would suggest that a all 737/320 fleet is probably not going to be competitive.

[-41]

Not sure that I agree that denying QF a handful of tired old airframes will make any difference to their complete market dominance.
Agreed, its a single type NB fleet. Reduce overheads = remove the vara silo. how many line spare airframes do you need to keep 14 fokkers airworthy. Probably 3-4.

[-41]

The fact that all operators run F100's would suggest that a all 737/320 fleet is probably not going to be competitive.
Bain has publicly expressed a desire to renegotiate lease terms on the 73N with power by the hour, which if realised will solve the low utilisation issue you've highlighted. Brave new world.

[kddk]

1-2 seems to work but is more in line with keeping the contract happy I.e. minimal disruption of late reliability has been high due to reduced rpt flights giving the spares that are needed Virgin will need to ensure that the mines are kept happy as it’s not a case of sorry your flights delayed there is only one customer on a resource sector flight, RPT is a different animal virgin/Qantas are good at doing that resource flying is something that needs a more focused way of operating

[galdian]

Just me or think making things too hard:

- all contracts utilise 737 and V2 benefit from cost synergy
- for the (minimal?) times a 737 can't do the job/something else is required subcontract with fairly strict compliance requirements to minimise customer being f**ked around.

All talk always said lots of slack in "the village", maybe a few people could sit down and crunch the concept.

Own the contract doesn't mean you have to own the machinery - just have to manage properly.

Apparently a VA strongpoint! :}

[kddk]

Just me or think making things too hard:

- all contracts utilise 737 and V2 benefit from cost synergy
- for the (minimal?) times a 737 can't do the job/something else is required subcontract with fairly strict compliance requirements to minimise customer being f**ked around.

All talk always said lots of slack in "the village", maybe a few people could sit down and crunch the concept.

Own the contract doesn't mean you have to own the machinery - just have to manage properly.

Apparently a VA strongpoint! :}

the resource mob won’t tolerate it for long they pay for virgin metal not someone else , is why it isn’t a VA or QF thing both mobs get specialized operators to deal with it during an AOG the client becomes the focus where as with in an RPT op it’s managed differently the punters in the terminal soon forget the delay or are happy to rebook same airline again based on price , the resource guys hit you hard for each delay get a couple in a week and your flying all month for free

[non_state_actor]

the resource mob won’t tolerate it for long they pay for virgin metal not someone else , is why it isn’t a VA or QF thing both mobs get specialized operators to deal with it during an AOG the client becomes the focus where as with in an RPT op it’s managed differently the punters in the terminal soon forget the delay or are happy to rebook same airline again based on price , the resource guys hit you hard for each delay get a couple in a week and your flying all month for free

Is this managed by having standby airframes sitting around ready to go?

[kddk]

Usually the later departures a/c will be back up for early flights with some days having a spare all day the old Fokker isn’t as unreliable as advertised it’s just a different op if you want to do rpt that’s your thing charter is another ball game few do both well .

[givemewings]

Not to mention certain resource charters have extra insurance requirements (mainly for the smaller operators) but I imagine there's some for VARA too... e.g. only certain listed pilots to operate into a field, minimum equipment requirement, max allowable extension of departure time, and so on.

Also, if you have to ask if a Fokker does better into most FIFO airports, you obviously weren't around during the mid 00s boom. Couldn't buy them for love nor money. XR were slaving to track them down.

Maybe it's changed now but I recall many a time leaving a 146 or a Dash 8 in our dust on a 40C day...

[-41]

Bain are not renegotiating the existing EA.

[airdualbleedfault]

List the Runways a 737 can not operate from 700 or a 800 with 27K bump
At 40C, Coondewanna, Barimunya, West Angelese, and any other runway around 2000m or under.
Just face it, your 60s technology dinosaur is a pile of crap :E

[-41]

At 40C, Coondewanna, Barimunya, West Angelese, and any other runway around 2000m or under.
Just face it, your 60s technology dinosaur is a pile of crap :E

Do you want a hug?

[KRUSTY 34]

VARA has an East Coast operation (ATR RPT).

How would those employees fare in a VARA reshuffle?

[kddk]

East coast op long gone , absorbed into VA years ago

[SHVC]

ATR is just a distant memory now. Could of been good but soon as VA got their hands on it they completely F$&ked it and most likely my career and a lot of others.

[-41]

Wasn’t the atr bought in house at the behest of a federal regulator after a series of incidents and a bent ATR that continued to fly RPT services.
Sure let’s erase the past and play the victim card. It’s all VA’s fault.

Bent ATR (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5776534/ao-2014-032_final.pdf)

[non_state_actor]

At 40C, Coondewanna, Barimunya, West Angelese, and any other runway around 2000m or under. Just face it, your 60s technology dinosaur is a pile of crap

A 27K -700 would be like launching the Space Shuttle out of those places. You would have to give a passenger briefing for the excessive body angle to stop everyone freaking out:}
It isn't a runway performance issue, the issue is the PCN and tyre pressures. Looking at the ERSA a 737 exceeds the published figures for those airports. Whether the aerodrome operator will allow you to land regularly over the PCN is the question. There are airports on the east coast with a much lower PCN than these mines that take A320 and 737 everyday so its up to the aerodrome operator. If possible ditching the F100 for the 737 would be a great move as you get alot more capacity and capability. However if it was that simple they would have already be doing it by now.

[-41]

My reference was to the 26k 800’s getting the bump to 27k. :)
Ive been re-educated and a 73N can no longer lift a load when it’s 40deg.

[non_state_actor]

My reference was to the 26k 800’s getting the bump to 27k.

Still the same issue with the PCN regardless. I imagine it would take a full load on a 45 degree day.

[-41]

Agreed. An exemption would be difficult to obtain with Pilbara high ambient temps, so let’s see what happens to those particular contracts. The same management that sent VAH broke tendered on them.

[Icarus2001]

If possible ditching the F100 for the 737 would be a great move as you get alot more capacity and capability. However if it was that simple they would have already be doing it by now. The mining clients want frequency over maximum capacity. A terminal that can deal with a shift change and aircraft load of 100 passengers would struggle with 180 passengers.

As mentioned above, margins are thin.

[Blueskymine]

The mining clients want frequency over maximum capacity. A terminal that can deal with a shift change and aircraft load of 100 passengers would struggle with 180 passengers.

As mentioned above, margins are thin.

They also want jets that are modern, safe and flown by experienced crew under a robust safety management system.

[Icarus2001]

They also want jets that are modern, ... Yet they use F100 and BAE 146 aircraft. :confused:

[-41]

Realistically it’s cost not fleet age as evident with the use of ageing fleets in Aus / Indo and North America.
The 737/200 Is the workhorse in Canada, the DC9 (MD82) does the job without issue for Freeport.

My argument is it’s pointless servicing contracts without a healthy bottom line when you are an airline. It appears Bain has little interest VARA since their EA is not being renegotiated, unlike every other VA EA.

[maesaithwameh]

Hearing rumours that Bain is looking for buyers for VARA. Can anyone confirm?

[Denied Justice]

Alliance - but they won't want all of it.

[neville_nobody]

They also want jets that are modern, safe and flown by experienced crew under a robust safety management system.

No they don't. They want the cheapest option.

[puff]

14 F100s currently, but a few are scheduled to be leaving this year.

The seat count of the F100s is more suitable for WA ops with for both RPT flights and mine charters. Also would be saying goodbye to Christmas / Cocos Islands...thats one place A320s cannot be replaced with 738s.

Perhaps if they are planning on retaining the two -700s?, they could be PER based.

Whats the reason why the 737 could not replace the A320 on CCK/XCH?

[SecretAngel]

How many sectors are the F100s doing a day? I had always understood that a lot of the FIFO flying was low sectors, with a lot of downtime for each frame - meaning that low capital cost of acquisition was a major factor.

Easier to be profitable when the depreciation/lease cost of the plane that spends most of its time on the ground is almost zero. Harder to be profitable, if the plane is burning money sitting on the tarmac.

If Bain really want to simplify to just 737s, I reckon there'd be a good chance they would sell VARA and contract the flying.

​​​​​
​​​

[The Baron]

The problem with Skywest (vara) is that they have clauses in the EBA of redundancy of up to 52 weeks and clapped out old aircraft. Clearly Bain would likw to dispose of them but, who would pay hard cold cash for those liabilities?

[geeup]

The problem with Skywest (vara) is that they have clauses in the EBA of redundancy of up to 52 weeks and clapped out old aircraft. Clearly Bain would likw to dispose of them but, who would pay hard cold cash for those liabilities?

Don't know the condition of the VARA Fokkers but not so sure I'd call them clapped out old machines. Everyone operating them seem to be making money where as the shine jet fraternity seem to be broke!

[Dale Hardale]

Baron,

That’s why Alliance would not look at VARA as a whole.

Don’t know how Bain will manage this through to a VARA exit?.

[-41]

This thread can now be closed, GT said on Saturday that vara is fine and will do well. Perhaps VA 737 Perth base will be closed with vara handling the WA routes in the 320’s.

[Buster Hyman]

Network expanding the fleet will make it interesting.

[ROH111]

They said QF would look different. Never waste a downturn.

[Section28- BE]

They said QF would look different. Never waste a downturn.

Yup.....!!!!

Hmmmm, Paper 'not' worth Much at all...???, aye!!!! (vis Contracts, better put that in.... ), in these times???

Then, 'hence'- Don't, 'Walk and Talk'- you say....???? Apparently, time shall 'tell'......

Trust, 'that' is not too 'obscure'...
rgds all/& be Well
S28- BE

[SpyderPig]

The biggest tell right now is how vital the rat seems to think the resource sector in WA is. Considering VARA haven't stood down any crew through mexico virus and Network canceled their stand downs just past half way through the process, the east coast offices might be just be seeing the value in their regional jet operations? We might find that these two “poor cousins from the west” have more value than the mainline slug gods have given them credit for, management seems to think so. There might be hope for the VARA mob yet. But history shows, VA doesn't make great decisions so maybe it’ll be all red and blue tails in the west yet, opportunity missed yet again no doubt

[Double_Clutch]

Considering VARA haven't stood down any crew through mexico virus
Spyderpig - I would be checking your source on that ... then again, makes for a great rumour.

[Section28- BE]

Sorry S28, I think your trust is mislaid

GoodO then, 'Mr Flappy'........;);)

rgds
S28- BE

[Buttscratcher]

Has Network taken some of the mine destinations in the north west from VARA?
If so, then what will 'Skywest' VARA have left to offer?

[kddk]

Some work has gone networks way as it has to vara all three recourse operations are quite busy , vara stand downs are not happening nor alliance , network did but didn’t go for long ,

[slice]

Looks like Bain might want to keep the VARA operation in some form. Must be reasonably profitable for this to be considered given they have previously indicated a "one fleet type" was the way forward.

[Colonel_Klink]

Looks like Bain might want to keep the VARA operation in some form. Must be reasonably profitable for this to be considered given they have previously indicated a "one fleet type" was the way forward.

Possibly not that profitable given the list of concessions that the VARA Pilot Group are looking at making in the interests of holding on to their positions....

[Section28- BE]

Hmmm, NIL editorial...., however:

Shall just, leave this here- Link/Thread: https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/632633-qantas-mainline-brings-717-s-house.html

Be 'Interesting' to watch, play-out......

Be Well/& rgds all
S28- BE

[-41]

What are the concessions ?

[airdualbleedfault]

Klink, VARA return on investment has eclipsed the rest of virgin (except maybe velocity) for years, the reason VARA pilots will take a haircut is simple, greed

[kair1234]

Looks like Bain might want to keep the VARA operation in some form. Must be reasonably profitable for this to be considered given they have previously indicated a "one fleet type" was the way forward.

A recent affidavit said VARA were insolvent and that the external administrators can no longer proceed by way of members' voluntary (solvent) winding up.

I'm no lawyer but sounds like they weren't making money despite what some have said over the years.

Interesting to see what happens from here...

[Double_Clutch]

A recent affidavit said VARA were insolvent and that the external administrators can no longer proceed by way of members' voluntary (solvent) winding up.
Would you care to share this affidavit you talk about?

[kddk]

A recent affidavit said VARA were insolvent and that the external administrators can no longer proceed by way of members' voluntary (solvent) winding up.

I'm no lawyer but sounds like they weren't making money despite what some have said over the years.

Interesting to see what happens from here...
they were and are making money albeit with a few ups and downs

[-41]

Would it be a 20% salary reduction? Pretty sure their 320 drivers get more than nw.

[airdualbleedfault]

A recent affidavit said VARA were insolvent and that the external administrators can no longer proceed by way of members' voluntary (solvent) winding up.
There's no way in hell that information would be public so like 95% of the rest of the BS that had surfaced about VA and VARA, I calling BS
​​
​​​

[MickG0105]

Would you care to share this affidavit you talk about?
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/78112/Affidavit-2772020.pdf
See para 20 which describes the relationship between the VARA and VAH Newco 2 (the latter owns the former) and para 36 regarding the insolvency of VAH Newco 2.

The issue, as detailed at para 20.(d), is that VAH Newco 2 is the guarantor for 900-odd million dollars' worth of unsecured notes (AUD400M + USD350M) .

[MickG0105]

There's no way in hell that information would be public so like 95% of the rest of the BS that had surfaced about VA and VARA, I calling BS
​​
​​​
See above note to Double_Clutch. It is public and it doesn't look like BS.

[MickG0105]

I think this is the link Mick is referring too:

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/78112/Affidavit-2772020.pdf

VAH Newco 2 in default:
$400 Mil, Unsecured Fixed Rate Notes
$490 Mil, Senior Notes

VAH Newco 2 is Sole Shareholder of Skywest, which in turn holds 100% Shares in VARA.
Yes, thanks for that - wrong affidavit in my original post. I'll correct that.

[Section28- BE]

Perhaps, it is better- to just drop the link....??, first.

Here: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/78158/Submission-2872020.pdf

#3/& 4 contained therein- should suffice, surely....????

Extract: This document was lodged electronically in the FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA (FCA) on 28/07/2020 9:34:01 PM AEST


rgds All
S28- BE

[MickG0105]

Perhaps, it is better- to just drop the link....??, first.

Here: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/78158/Submission-2872020.pdf

#3/& 4 contained therein- should suffice, surely....????

Extract:

rgds All
S28- BE
I'll very happily be corrected here but having had the time now to read the various submissions, applications and affidavits relating to VAH Newco 2 and, by connection, VARA, this whole thing appears to be the corporate equivalent of shutting down the wrong engine when confronted with an engine fire. In effect, VARA had been placed into liquidation by mistake.

The sequence of events seems to have been along the following lines. When the Board decided to place Virgin Australia Holdings Limited, the parent company, into administration and Deloitte stepped in, decisions needed to be made regarding each of the vast array of companies and trusts controlled by VAH. There were about 55-odd such companies and five trusts. On the basis that some of those entities were likely set up for special purposes that may now have lapsed you'd routinely expect that some of those companies were dormant - no assets or liabilities, essentially just a corporate shell. However, being registered companies each had to have one or more directors.

First thing that the administrator wants to do is clear the decks of extraneous work - they need to decide what's going to be administered by them, what doesn't need to go into administration and what can be wound up to get it off the books. So Strawbridge et al would have asked management, Scurrah and Co, to identify the operational businesses. We know from the initial affidavits that were filed that of the 55-odd companies, 39 were nominated for voluntary administration. On that list of 39 was VARA. We also know that Velocity (the five companies associated with it) was not placed into administration. That left about 15-odd entities, notionally just dormant shells, that were slated for liquidation. On that liquidation list was VAH Newco 2.

In keeping with the practice of both checking and confirming that you're shutting down the correct engine, there's an accounting equivalent for liquidation; you get confirmation via a declaration of solvency signed by the company's director(s). In the case of VAH Newco 2, that signed declaration of solvency came from Paul Scurrah and former CFO Geoff Smith (I can only assume that there was an incomplete handover to Keith Neate when he took the CFO position last year if Geoff Smith was still a director). Any old how, now armed with confirmation that they could liquidate VAH Newco 2, Deloitte set about doing so only to find that - hang on a minute - rather than being dormant with no assets or liabilities per the signed declaration of solvency, VAH Newco 2 in fact had both - it was the 100 percent shareholder of VARA and it was the guarantor for the best part of a AUD one billion in unsecured debt.

This latest round of submissions, applications and affidavits is seeking the reversal of the earlier decision to liquidate VAH Newco 2. The administrator now wants it and another entity, VB Investco, added to the list of companies under voluntary administration.

In the grand scheme of things I don't think that it changes anything much other than to underline the fact, to the extent that it needed to be underlined, that Virgin's management really didn't have a handle on their own corporate structure.

[ad-astra]

Mick, thank you for the concise explanation.
A breath of fresh air from the cryptic "look at me" posts of others.

[Batwhacker]

I'll very happily be corrected here but having had the time now to read the various submissions, applications and affidavits relating to VAH Newco 2 and, by connection, VARA, this whole thing appears to be the corporate equivalent of shutting down the wrong engine when confronted with an engine fire. In effect, VARA had been placed into liquidation by mistake.

The sequence of events seems to have been along the following lines. When the Board decided to place Virgin Australia Holdings Limited, the parent company, into administration and Deloitte stepped in, decisions needed to be made regarding each of the vast array of companies and trusts controlled by VAH. There were about 55-odd such companies and five trusts. On the basis that some of those entities were likely set up for special purposes that may now have lapsed you'd routinely expect that some of those companies were dormant - no assets or liabilities, essentially just a corporate shell. However, being registered companies each had to have one or more directors.

First thing that the administrator wants to do is clear the decks of extraneous work - they need to decide what's going to be administered by them, what doesn't need to go into administration and what can be wound up to get it off the books. So Strawbridge et al would have asked management, Scurrah and Co, to identify the operational businesses. We know from the initial affidavits that were filed that of the 55-odd companies, 39 were nominated for voluntary administration. On that list of 39 was VARA. We also know that Velocity (the five companies associated with it) was not placed into administration. That left about 15-odd entities, notionally just dormant shells, that were slated for liquidation. On that liquidation list was VAH Newco 2.

In keeping with the practice of both checking and confirming that you're shutting down the correct engine, there's an accounting equivalent for liquidation; you get confirmation via a declaration of solvency signed by the company's director(s). In the case of VAH Newco 2, that signed declaration of solvency came from Paul Scurrah and former CFO Geoff Smith (I can only assume that there was an incomplete handover to Keith Neate when he took the CFO position last year if Geoff Smith was still a director). Any old how, now armed with confirmation that they could liquidate VAH Newco 2, Deloitte set about doing so only to find that - hang on a minute - rather than being dormant with no assets or liabilities per the signed declaration of solvency, VAH Newco 2 in fact had both - it was the 100 percent shareholder of VARA and it was the guarantor for the best part of a AUD one billion in unsecured debt.

This latest round of submissions, applications and affidavits is seeking the reversal of the earlier decision to liquidate VAH Newco 2. The administrator now wants it and another entity, VB Investco, added to the list of companies under voluntary administration.

In the grand scheme of things I don't think that it changes anything much other than to underline the fact, to the extent that it needed to be underlined, that Virgin's management really didn't have a handle on their own corporate structure.



That’s a convenient theory but unfortunately it is in black and white that VAH Newco 2 (VARA) is in default of its obligations in notes to the values of AU$400,000,000 and US$350,000,000 hence the insolvency trigger.

[MickG0105]

That’s a convenient theory but unfortunately it is in black and white that VAH Newco 2 (VARA) is in default of its obligations in notes to the values of AU$400,000,000 and US$350,000,000 hence the insolvency trigger.
VAH Newco 2 is not VARA; they are two separate but related entities.

VAH Newco 2 is the sole shareholder of an entity called A.C.N. 098 904 262 Pty Ltd - it was one of the 38 business entities placed under voluntary administration when the overall parent company, Virgin Australia Holdings Limited, entered administration. A.C.N. 098 904 262 in turn holds 100 percent of shares issued by VARA. VARA was also one of the 38 business entities placed under voluntary administration when VAH entered administration.

All the recently filed submissions are looking to do is to move VAH Newco 2 onto the list of companies currently under administration. The applicant, Richard Hughes (Deloitte), is essentially saying look I was given the job of winding up some VAH companies that were thought to be dormant and solvent pursuant to section 491(1) of the Corporations Act 2001. In the course of my work I found that two of them - Newco 2 and Investco - weren't dormant or solvent so I cannot deal with them under section 491(1).

In his affidavit Hughes says that there are three options available for Newco 2 (and Investco) :

wind them up in involuntary insolvency;
appoint an administrator; or
convene a meeting of creditors and obtain permission to wind them up in voluntary insolvency.


He recommends 2. appointing an administrator and further recommends that the administrator be the same as those handling the rest of the Virgin administration.

The guarantor status of Newco 2 on some of the notes is interesting but I don't think it changes much in the grand scheme of things. It's not like it's new debt - it's part of the approximately $1,988,250,000 in unsecured debt owed to bondholders that was identified from the get-go.

As for VARA, I cannot see any material impact. They had already been placed under voluntary administration when VAH entered voluntary administration. We had previously assumed that all the unsecured debt associated with the bonds was held against VAH, the ultimate owner of VARA. We now know that some of that debt is guaranteed by a VAH subsidiary - Newco 2 - and that Newco 2 sits in the chain of ownership that extends from VAH down to VARA.

If you think that the recent Newco 2 revelation has some more material impact, I'm all ears.

[Section28- BE]

'Mick'-

When does the Deed of Cross-Guarantee (DOCG) that is being relied upon in this instance, I 'believe'- get extinguished for that purpose.....????

And would appreciate being educated myself- do not get me wrong on that, at all.

Voluntary Admin or Liquidation (in this case)....????

ASIC link: https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-reporting-and-audit/preparers-of-financial-reports/relief-from-corporate-finance-provisions/deeds-of-cross-guarantee/#solvency_statement

Extract #1:Common problems we have identifiedCommon problems with deeds that we have identified include:

Completion of Part 1 of the Schedule (https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-reporting-and-audit/preparers-of-financial-reports/relief-from-corporate-finance-provisions/deeds-of-cross-guarantee/#completion)
The deed contains typographical errors or incorrect Australian Company Numbers (ACNs) or Australian Registered Body Numbers (ARBNs) (https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-reporting-and-audit/preparers-of-financial-reports/relief-from-corporate-finance-provisions/deeds-of-cross-guarantee/#typo)
Deed incorrectly executed (https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-reporting-and-audit/preparers-of-financial-reports/relief-from-corporate-finance-provisions/deeds-of-cross-guarantee/#incorrect)
Alternative trustee has not been appointed and is required to be (https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-reporting-and-audit/preparers-of-financial-reports/relief-from-corporate-finance-provisions/deeds-of-cross-guarantee/#not_appointed)
Solvency statement does not identify deed (https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-reporting-and-audit/preparers-of-financial-reports/relief-from-corporate-finance-provisions/deeds-of-cross-guarantee/#solvency_statement)
Companies under external administration (https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-reporting-and-audit/preparers-of-financial-reports/relief-from-corporate-finance-provisions/deeds-of-cross-guarantee/#external)
Opt-in notice not lodged (https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-reporting-and-audit/preparers-of-financial-reports/relief-from-corporate-finance-provisions/deeds-of-cross-guarantee/#opt)

Extract #2:
Companies under external administrationCompanies that are under external administration and any entities owned by such companies are not eligible for relief.

What is the go- here, with this ??
With thanks & rgds
S28- BE

[MickG0105]

G'day Mick,

I haven't really looked that hard into all these documents, but insolvent trading might be an issue if not fixed?

G'day Blackout,

No, not really. Entering voluntary administration is usually undertaken on the assumption or knowledge that the business is or is about to become insolvent. And while just because a parent entity is insolvent doesn't necessarily mean that a subsidiary is insolvent, that's moot in this case because VARA was already under administration anyhow.

This particular matter is really just a clerical error. Newco 2 was assumed to have been dormant and solvent and able to be wound up as a simple desk top exercise. There's a reference in one of the filings to an understanding

that "the company be wound up voluntarily" and "that the remuneration of the Liquidator from the date of appointment to the date of completion is agreed at $4,500 exclusive of GST, being the amount calculated in the remuneration approval report dated 21 march 2019 and sent to the members"


At least part of the reason for the application is that Deloitte have realised that the fees allocated for the task are inadequate given that the matter couldn't be resolved as first contemplated.

A point that is worth reiterating though is that VARA was always part of the administration. The VARA Group, A.C.N. 098 904 262 and VARA itself, were the Nineteenth and Twentieth Plaintiffs on the original filing for voluntary administration. That business was always up for grabs as part of the sale process undertaken by the administrator.


"On 22 January 2020, the Companies obtained Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) approval for an internal reorganisation allowing for the transfer of shares in other entities in the Virgin Group that are held by the Companies (other than those in liquidation (and as identified above)), to VAAH. These actions were scheduled to occur this year but were put on hold due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic."

VAH
^
Newco 2 (100%)
^
VARA
I haven't gotten my head fully around that but it appears that Virgin were in the process of trying to simplify some of their corporate structures. It sounds like they were going from a structure that looked like VAH > Newco 2 > A.C.N. 098 904 262 > VARA to something more like VAH > VAAH > VARA.

They couldn't have been too advanced with that work otherwise you would have expected that they would have picked up the fact that Newco 2 wasn't dormant.

​​​​​​​

[MickG0105]

"They couldn't have been too advanced with that work otherwise you would have expected that they would have picked up the fact that Newco 2 wasn't dormant."

10. On 24 April 2019, Geoffrey Smith and Paul Scurrah, the directors of each of the Companies, signed declarations of solvency for the Companies (Declarations of Solvency). The Declarations of Solvency record that the Companies had no assets or liabilities as at 24 April 2019. Exhibited at Tabs 2 and 3 of Exhibit RJH-1 is a copy of the Declarations of Solvency for each of the Companies lodged with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) on 24 April 2019.
​​​​​​

Yes, that's a point I think that I touched on earlier. The fact that Geoff Smith was still a director is odd in of itself; you would have thought that any and all such directorships would have transferred to Keith Neate when he came on board.

Separately, it is now clear that Scurrah and Smith in effect provided a false declaration. And Deloitte proceeded down the voluntary liquidation path for Newco 2 on the basis of that (false) declaration of solvency.

[MickG0105]

'Mick'-

When does the Deed of Cross-Guarantee (DOCG) that is being relied upon in this instance, I 'believe'- get extinguished for that purpose.....????

And would appreciate being educated myself- do not get me wrong on that, at all.

Voluntary Admin or Liquidation (in this case)....????

ASIC link: https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-reporting-and-audit/preparers-of-financial-reports/relief-from-corporate-finance-provisions/deeds-of-cross-guarantee/#solvency_statement

Extract #1:

Extract #2:


What is the go- here, with this ??
With thanks & rgds
S28- BE
Okey doke, S28, so my understanding of Deeds of Cross Guarantee is that they are largely used to simplify the reporting requirements for complex businesses. It is important to note that the 'guarantee' we're talking about here is not a financial guarantee - there's no implied cross guaranteeing of debts and liabilities - it's simply a cross-guarantee of some of the obligations under the Corporations Act 2001.

For example, DOCG allow Virgin (or any 'parent' company for that matter) to compile and lodge just one aggregated set of financial reports rather than having to present P&Ls and balance sheets for each of the individual subsidiary entities. DOCG don't absolve businesses from keeping the requisite accounting records at the subsidiary entity level they just don't have to report at that level.

That relief from reporting however does not persist under administration. The administrator needs to unpick the quilt into its individual threads and present P&Ls and balance sheets for each and every subsidiary entity. If the business's accounting systems have been set up properly that individual entity reporting requirement shouldn't be too onerous but the less of it that you have to do the better. It's one of the reasons why one of the first things that the administrator looks to accomplish is clearing the decks of any extraneous work by winding up however many dormant entities they can. Which is what led us to this Newco 2 matter.

Now, to a more mundane matter, how do you change font size?

[Servo]

Yes, that's a point I think that I touched on earlier. The fact that Geoff Smith was still a director is odd in of itself; you would have thought that any and all such directorships would have transferred to Keith Neate when he came on board.

Separately, it is now clear that Scurrah and Smith in effect provided a false declaration. And Deloitte proceeded down the voluntary liquidation path for Newco 2 on the basis of that (false) declaration of solvency.
What is likely to happen to them if that is the case? I expect nothing.

[WipperSnapper]

Yes, that's a point I think that I touched on earlier. The fact that Geoff Smith was still a director is odd in of itself; you would have thought that any and all such directorships would have transferred to Keith Neate when he came on board.

Separately, it is now clear that Scurrah and Smith in effect provided a false declaration. And Deloitte proceeded down the voluntary liquidation path for Newco 2 on the basis of that (false) declaration of solvency.

Keith Neate only re-joined VA in September 2019. Geoff Smith was still CFO in April 2019.

The dates of this whole mess seem very odd. It started back in March 2019, then nothing seems to have happened between April 2019 and Jan 2020, then it seemed to have been forgotten about until now? Its been a few days since i read the affidavit but all the debt in Newco 2 was prior to 2019, none was new debt from 2019 borrowings?

[Section28- BE]

Giday Mick-

Ta- so that deed is not being relied on to sustain 'Solvency', at this time/junction, thank-you.

Mate, I think both Mr 'Blackout' and yourself picked up the font escalation when you 'quoted' the original post- start afresh and all should be back to normal...????/ or copy and paste some preceding text down below the quoted piece and start again (to bring the formatting down)...

There will be folk here with more knowledge than I - have never hit it but, there is a 'Remove Format' ( Tx) button 2nd from the right on the tool bar above- good luck.

Thanks again
rgds
S28- BE

[MickG0105]

Keith Neate only re-joined VA in September 2019. Geoff Smith was still CFO in April 2019.

The dates of this whole mess seem very odd. It started back in March 2019, then nothing seems to have happened between April 2019 and Jan 2020, then it seemed to have been forgotten about until now? Its been a few days since i read the affidavit but all the debt in Newco 2 was prior to 2019, none was new debt from 2019 borrowings?
Thanks for that, I had somewhat blithely missed the 2019. I was reading it as 2020 given that 24 April was proximal to the business entering administration this year. That's possibly even more confusing then - that they'd be relying on 12 month old declarations.

[MickG0105]

​​​​​​"It is important to note that the 'guarantee' we're talking about here is not a financial guarantee - there's no implied cross guaranteeing of debts and liabilities"



VAH Newco 2 is a guarantor of the following notes (Notes) issued by VAH: Hughes Affidavit at [20(d)]:

(i) VAH Unlisted 2018 Notes: AUD$150,000,000 (face value) of 8.25% unsecured Fixed Rate Notes issued by VAH on 30 May 2018 and due for repayment on 30 May 2023;

(ii) VAH Unlisted 2019 Notes: AUD$250,000,000 (face value) of 8.075% unsecured Fixed Rate Notes issued by VAH on 5 March 2019 and due for repayment on 5 March 2024; and

(iii) USD 2016 Senior Notes: USD$350,000,000 (face value) of 7.875% Senior Notes issued by VAH and due for repayment on 15 October 2021.

VAH Newco 2 is currently in default of the obligations in the Note Deed Poll dated 17 May 2018 (which governs the VAH Unlisted 2018 Notes and the VAH Unlisted 2019 Notes) and the Indenture dated 17 October 2016 (which governs the USD 2016 Senior Notes) because of the appointment of administrators to the Virgin Companies: Hughes Affidavit at [20(d)].




I was answering S28's query regarding Deeds of Cross-Guarantee - a DOCG is not a financial guarantee.

The fact that Newco 2 is the guarantor for three tranches of unsecured notes issued by VAH is not in dispute.

[MickG0105]

If you want to get into the nuances of Deeds of Cross Guarantee - https://www.keypointlaw.com.au/keynotes/guarantee/

[Section28- BE]

Giday Mr Blackout & MickG-

For, the sake of 'Clarity' (and 'probably' should have referenced the source material earlier and how the question/view formed for myself- my BAD, but do not have- the time...!!!!).

THE "POINT" being- the Submission/s of 1x 'Richard Hughes' in his Capacity as 'Liquidator'- of each of VAH Newco No.2 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) and VB Investco Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

Link to said 'Submission' to the Court here: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/78158/Submission-2872020.pdf

Extract (Bolding):

#14. While it was initially thought that the Companies were dormant entities with no liabilities, Mr Hughes now understands that:

(a) VB Investco and VAH Newco 2 is each a party to a deed of cross-guarantee dated 18 June 2007 (DOCG), including with certain other companies in the Virgin Group, which provides that upon the winding up of an entity to the DOCG (either in insolvency or as a creditor voluntary winding up), each other entity to the DOCG is liable for its debts: Hughes Affidavit at [19(c)]and [20(c)]; Exhibit RJH-1 at Tabs 14 and 15; and

(b) VAH Newco 2 is a guarantor of the following notes (Notes) issued by VAH: Hughes Affidavit at [20(d)]......

And on it goes....

Does, 'that' make sense- "each other entity to the DOCG is liable for its debts".......????, and 'that' therefore- for me, triggered 'the Solvency' question.

Then- 'when' does that Deed of Cross-Guarantee expire... vis, the 'process' and resultant Test of Solvency..???

Many thanks- and All the Best
rgds
S28- BE

[MickG0105]

Giday Mr Blackout & MickG-

For, the sake of 'Clarity' (and 'probably' should have referenced the source material earlier and how the question/view formed for myself- my BAD, but do not have- the time...!!!!).

THE "POINT" being- the Submission/s of 1x 'Richard Hughes' in his Capacity as 'Liquidator'-

Link to said 'Submission' to the Court here: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/78158/Submission-2872020.pdf

Extract (Bolding):



And on it goes....

Does, 'that' make sense- "each other entity to the DOCG is liable for its debts".......????, and 'that' therefore- for me, triggered 'the Solvency' question.

Then- 'when' does that Deed of Cross-Guarantee expire... vis, the 'process' and resultant Test of Solvency..???

Many thanks- and All the Best
rgds
S28- BE
The DOCG issue is essentially moot - we've known about the value of the issued notes since the get-go. The only thing that some of the notes being guaranteed by Newco 2 does is change Newco 2's status from solvent to insolvent. That in turn means that Newco 2 could not be voluntarily liquidated as a solvent business as had been originally contemplated.

Based on the information that Hughes uncovered Newco 2 and Investco need to be treated as insolvent. Hughes's recommendation was that they both be placed under administration the same as the other 39 Virgin entities. That's what his application sought and it's what Middleton J ordered in response to that application (see an earlier post by Blackout with the link to the order).

This little diversion is now essentially done - there are now 41 entities under administration, and the caravan rolls on.

[Con Catenator]

So.......................For those of us who don't understand the semantics of cross guarantees etc etc etc - Is VARA profitable or not ?? :confused:

[MickG0105]

So.......................For those of us who don't understand the semantics of cross guarantees etc etc etc - Is VARA profitable or not ?? :confused:
No idea - there's just not enough publicly available data to say one way or the other. Any assessment would be a guess. The fact that the FIFO stuff continued to run while everything else was on the ground can be viewed instructively but only in the context that that's just a part of VARA.

[MickG0105]

"6. Pursuant to section 482(1) of the Corporations Act, until further order, the winding up of each of the Companies be stayed."

I'm not sure what this means in reality ...
Based on early advice to the administrator (that we now know to have been incorrect) Newco 2 was slated for voluntary liquidation and the relevant notices were issued around that (https://publishednotices.asic.gov.au/browsesearch-notices/notice-details/VAH-Newco-No2-Pty-Ltd-160881354/b8a59937-908e-4366-85e8-bae91de6c93b).

That winding up now needs to be formally halted (stayed), hence the 482(1) order. The business's status needs to be formally amended from 'In liquidation' to 'Administrators Appointed'.

[zanthrus]

The whole sorry mess is just a shonky shell game with a net value of -$6.8 billion. Wind it all up and get the employees some entitlement. Virgin is a dead duck limping. Don’t let these crooked administrators take any more fees for doing essentially nothing.

[chookcooker]

The whole sorry mess is just a shonky shell game with a net value of -$6.8 billion. Wind it all up and get the employees some entitlement. Virgin is a dead duck limping. Don’t let these crooked administrators take any more fees for doing essentially nothing.

good one ********

[whisperjet146]

Does anyone here know how many A320s VARA has in its fleet?
I count the following and they’re all active flying over the next few days.
VNB
VNF
VNJ
VNP
YUD

[MickG0105]

Does anyone here know how many A320s VARA has in its fleet?
I count the following and they’re all active flying over the next few days.
VNB
VNF
VNJ
VNP
YUD
FNP is also one of theirs. It's been parked up since May. Interestingly or otherwise, the only A320 that VARA isn't flying is the one that they own outright; the other five are leased.
​​​​​​

[PoppaJo]

FNP is currently up for sale and withdrawn from service.

[Section28- BE]

FNP is currently up for sale and withdrawn from service.

ex SkyWest according to this (be, the start of the Type, way back then...??) : VH-FNP Airbus A320-231 (http://www.aussieairliners.org/a320/vh-fnp/vhfnp.html)

And, 3x AOC's (remain...) in the Group: https://www.casa.gov.au/search_aoc/Virgin%20Australia%20Regional%20Airlines

rgds
S28- BE

[MickG0105]

ex SkyWest according to this (be, the start of the Type, way back then...??) : VH-FNP Airbus A320-231 (http://www.aussieairliners.org/a320/vh-fnp/vhfnp.html)

And, 3x AOC's (remain...) in the Group: https://www.casa.gov.au/search_aoc/Virgin%20Australia%20Regional%20Airlines

rgds
S28- BE
The Tiger AOC is also still current - https://www.casa.gov.au/search_aoc/Tiger%20Airways

Interesting to note that the Tiger AOC was re-issued in June and is current till 2023. All the other Virgin AOCs (domestic, international and regional) were re-issued in May.

[whisperjet146]

FNP is currently up for sale and withdrawn from service.

Is it listed online anywhere?
She’s had quite an operational history.
Given what alliance just paid for their E190 deal it mustn’t be worth much.

That guy in NZ, Mike Pero is yet to announce which carrier he’s partnered with on Christchurch - Rarotonga to operate charter flights.
Could’ve been some good extra revenue work for Virgin group.
Especially given they have operational experience on that route with VAINZ only a couple of years ago.

[Section28- BE]

Judgment, ex the Proceedings of 30 July 2020- published today 04/08/2020.

Shall just drop this here, 'should' it be of interest: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/78309/2020-FCA-1121.pdf

rgds all
S28- BE

[Section28- BE]

ASX Link here: https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/202008...hmj7fsgdg4.pdf (https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20200805/pdf/44l6hmj7fsgdg4.pdf)

Extract:

The Group will move to an all-Boeing 737 mainline fleet for domestic and short haul operations which will see the removal of ATR, Boeing 777, Airbus A330 and Tigerair Airbus A320 aircraft. The Group’s regional and charter fleet will remain, while the company reviews options at Virgin Australia Regional Airlines (VARA), including different operating models to support continued regional and charter flying.

rgds
S28- BE

[MickG0105]

Judgment, ex the Proceedings of 30 July 2020- published today 04/08/2020.

Shall just drop this here, 'should' it be of interest: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/78309/2020-FCA-1121.pdf

rgds all
S28- BE
So this would be one of the more interesting pieces.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

13 On 7 June 2018, Mr Hughes was engaged by the Virgin Group to assist in deregistering or winding up dormant entities or entities with limited or no assets within the Virgin Group.

14 The Companies were identified as falling into that category and, on 26 April 2019, Mr Hughes was appointed as the liquidator of each of the Companies pursuant to s 491(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the ‘Corporations Act’) by special resolution passed by Virgin Australia Airlines Holdings Pty Ltd, the sole shareholder of each of the Companies. Declarations of solvency were signed by the directors.

15 The Liquidator prepared statutory lodgements and invited proofs of debt to be lodged, but thus far no proofs have been lodged and no claims have been notified.

16 While it was initially thought that the Companies were dormant entities with no liabilities, Mr Hughes says he now understands that:

(1) VB Investco and VAH Newco 2 is each a party to a deed of cross-guarantee dated 18 June 2007 (the ‘DOCG’), including with certain other companies in the Virgin Group, which provides that upon the winding up of an entity to the DOCG (either in insolvency or as a creditor voluntary winding up), each other entity to the DOCG is liable for its debts; and

(2) VAH Newco 2 is a guarantor of the following notes (the ‘Notes’) issued by VAH:

(a) the ‘VAH Unlisted 2018 Notes’: AUD$150,000,000 (face value) of 8.25% unsecured Fixed Rate Notes issued by VAH on 30 May 2018 and due for repayment on 30 May 2023;

(b) the ‘VAH Unlisted 2019 Notes’: AUD$250,000,000 (face value) of 8.075% unsecured Fixed Rate Notes issued by VAH on 5 March 2019 and due for repayment on 5 March 2024; and

(c) the ‘USD 2016 Senior Notes’: USD$350,000,000 (face value) of 7.875% Senior Notes issued by VAH and due for repayment on 15 October 2021.

Mr Hughes was appointed two years ago to tidy up dormant corporate entities and not only hadn't he managed to make much headway in that period, it took the business being placed into administration for him to realise that two of companies that he was meant to have been liquidating weren't dormant at all.

[Section28- BE]

Yes and Yes, Indeed.

rgds
S28- BE

[Servo]

So this would be one of the more interesting pieces.



Mr Hughes was appointed two years ago to tidy up dormant corporate entities and not only hadn't he managed to make much headway in that period, it took the business being placed into administration for him to realise that two of companies that he was meant to have been liquidating weren't dormant at all.

I wonder how much Mr Hughes was being paid for that little job. White collar crime, it should be called. That is dragging it out and making money when not doing the job your are paid for. Handsomely as well, I bet.

[ebt]

Is it listed online anywhere?
She’s had quite an operational history.
Given what alliance just paid for their E190 deal it mustn’t be worth much.

That guy in NZ, Mike Pero is yet to announce which carrier he’s partnered with on Christchurch - Rarotonga to operate charter flights.
Could’ve been some good extra revenue work for Virgin group.
Especially given they have operational experience on that route with VAINZ only a couple of years ago.

FNP is up on MyAirTrade for sale, has been for a while. Virgin bought it off Avation a couple of years ago when it came to end of lease, probably to avoid the (reportedly) tough end-of-lease conditions.

[wotwazthat]

VARA lives to fight another day and so it should.
Well done boys, you know who you are even if most don’t. They brought a knife to a gunfight and won.

[Servo]

VARA lives to fight another day and so it should.
Well done boys, you know who you are even if most don’t. They brought a knife to a gunfight and won.
Could you expand on that, without identifying anyone? Did they stick to their guns regarding pay and conditions? Cheers.

[non_state_actor]

Did they stick to their guns regarding pay and conditions?

They volunteered a pay cut.

[Servo]

They volunteered a pay cut.

Oh. Ok. Either that or made to like VA. I hope it wasnt too much or too painful for everyone. Hope it all works out. Take care.

Cheers

[Wombat]

They haven’t volunteered anything yet. They are still in negotiations just like mainline.

[Aussie Fo]

Virgin is as of yesterday no longer in administration..
Why anyone would advocate a change in conditions is beyond me.
Bain bought the business knowing the employee conditions. If they can’t make it work they shouldn’t have bought the business.

I guarantee otherwise they’ll be walking away in 3-4 years time slapping their back about how much money they made at everyone else’s expense. It’s why private equity never has a face to lay the blame on

[Buster Hyman]

Did they stick to their guns regarding pay and conditions?
I think he clearly stated that they brought knives....:p

[Servo]

I think he clearly stated that they brought knives....:p

Hahahahahahaha. I needed that. You owe me a new keyboard, just spat my scotch over it :}