View Poll Results: Should this thread be locked?
Lock this thread.
213
49.31%
Do not lock this thread.
219
50.69%
Voters: 432. This poll is closed
Virgin in trouble?
Thread Starter
Virgin in trouble?
Have heard a rumour that V Australia (could mean VB too...) have been refused petrol by Shell and BP in Australia unless they pay cash. Have heard that some Captains been bumped to F/O's (where do the F/O's go?). Have heard that QF have cancelled all short-term leave for 737 crews and that the 767 sim is smoking and the cobwebs are being blown out of the engines of the 76's that have latterly been parked against the fence...
Wind up alert
Here we go again. Wind up alert.
Funny thing is that Shell and BP refuse to supply me PETROL unless I pay cash for it as well - must be the GFC.....and the last time I looked I was able to pay my accounts well into the future.
By the way, when did VA start flying pistons?
Plainmaker
Funny thing is that Shell and BP refuse to supply me PETROL unless I pay cash for it as well - must be the GFC.....and the last time I looked I was able to pay my accounts well into the future.
By the way, when did VA start flying pistons?
Plainmaker
Total wind up alert!
B767 against the fence? Where? What has occurred is simply a reduction of flying 'equivalent' to parking a couple of jets against the fence...
As for the VB credit issues; I have heard that from more official sources, but that doesn't necessarily make it completely true.
B767 against the fence? Where? What has occurred is simply a reduction of flying 'equivalent' to parking a couple of jets against the fence...
As for the VB credit issues; I have heard that from more official sources, but that doesn't necessarily make it completely true.
honestly, as much as this is a rumour network, how about having a bit of a read through previous posts on here, and even reading over you're ridiculous post, before pressing the submit button? This has been covered (and proven fictitious) multiple times 
Moderator
It is a wind up which I know to be factually incorrect.
If we lock the thread we're accused of censorship. If the thread remains it degrades the Forum integrity.
Dammed if we do and dammed if we don't.
There is now a Poll attached to this thread.
You decide - locked or unlocked?
If we lock the thread we're accused of censorship. If the thread remains it degrades the Forum integrity.
Dammed if we do and dammed if we don't.
There is now a Poll attached to this thread.
You decide - locked or unlocked?
It may be, probably and hopefully is rubbish, in which case it will not attract many responses and dissapear off the PPRUNE radar. No need to lock it, don't respond and it will disapear.
Moderator
35 minutes - already 33 votes!!!
Must be a number of lurkers taking a sickie today?
Must be a number of lurkers taking a sickie today?
Moderator
.......and have another thread like THIS one? 
Good opportunity now to guage members wishes in respect to non aviation and wind up threads!
41 minutes, 72 votes!!!
Good opportunity now to guage members wishes in respect to non aviation and wind up threads!
41 minutes, 72 votes!!!
What really amazes me is guys like Skystar are so determined to have the thread locked, yet, they continually visit the same siite that offends them. 
mate just ignore it if you don't like it. It really is simple.
mate just ignore it if you don't like it. It really is simple.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tail Wheel.. no sickies, just all the pilots that aren't flying because the aircraft are up against the fence because Virgin can't get fuel and Qantas have cobwebs in their engines 
Moderator
Yes Comfy, there are rumours with some integrity and there are rumours with no integrity. In this thread I know how the airlines electronically remit payment for contract fuel purchases, which totally discredits the comment "...been refused petrol by Shell and BP in Australia unless they pay cash."
The mind boggles at the thought of airline pilots flying around with big wads of bills to pay for their fuel purchases at each port.......
It is often a very subjective decision for any Moderator to decide whether a thread stays or goes. It degrades our PPRuNe integrity to permit wind up and non aviation threads to remain, as evidenced by the number of complaint emails and PMs we receive suggesting certain threads are closed or removed.
The majority of our users come here for professional aviation debate and are simply not interested in wasting their time in cr@p threads!
The mind boggles at the thought of airline pilots flying around with big wads of bills to pay for their fuel purchases at each port.......
It is often a very subjective decision for any Moderator to decide whether a thread stays or goes. It degrades our PPRuNe integrity to permit wind up and non aviation threads to remain, as evidenced by the number of complaint emails and PMs we receive suggesting certain threads are closed or removed.
The majority of our users come here for professional aviation debate and are simply not interested in wasting their time in cr@p threads!
Thread Starter
Strewth...!
OK, I thought the first four words would suffice to indicate the comment was a 'toe in the water'. Anybody doesn't believe it, doesn't WANT to believe it, or knows the answer for sure, just tell us (me particularly, as I posted the rumour) and maybe provide your dissenting detail.
Turn off the sireen... S'not a wind-up. I'm not in the commercial airline industry. Heard in 'good faith' (umm... if that's the right term) and posted in same.
Shoot the rumour if you want to (or are able to, as I've suggested above), but the messenger..??
powersfasher and RENURPP, bit of common sense... thanks.
OK, I thought the first four words would suffice to indicate the comment was a 'toe in the water'. Anybody doesn't believe it, doesn't WANT to believe it, or knows the answer for sure, just tell us (me particularly, as I posted the rumour) and maybe provide your dissenting detail.
Turn off the sireen... S'not a wind-up. I'm not in the commercial airline industry. Heard in 'good faith' (umm... if that's the right term) and posted in same.
Shoot the rumour if you want to (or are able to, as I've suggested above), but the messenger..??
powersfasher and RENURPP, bit of common sense... thanks.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: QLD
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D & W
So you started this rumor based on putting your toe in the water just to see what was out there.
Come on mate what are you playing at?
You have made a serious allegation, (company not able to have credit with fuel providers) you should have to prove some of what you are saying or go away.
So I say again, your data on V Australia is wrong.
Prove me wrong.
So you started this rumor based on putting your toe in the water just to see what was out there.
Come on mate what are you playing at?
You have made a serious allegation, (company not able to have credit with fuel providers) you should have to prove some of what you are saying or go away.
So I say again, your data on V Australia is wrong.
Prove me wrong.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Age: 48
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
okay people, accounting 101 (I know this is a mainly pilot forum so here goes) before we go running off saying a company is insolvent:
there are 3 things auditors/accountants always look at whilst reviewing financial statements (esp of listed entities) which I'll list below:
1. Net profit (profit & loss statement)
- self explanatory, however not always a good indicator esp if the company uses construction accounting
2. Net assets / working capital (balance sheet)
ie. whether you have more assets than liabilities. obviously more liabilities than assets isn't a good thing (you owe more than you own = ABC learning centres). Positive = good, Negative = bad.
3. Operating cashflow (cashflow statement)
- your sales revenue, less cost of sales less salaries less taxes and interest. ie. do you generate a cash profit from your sales less your expenses. remember, cash is king. If this is negative, it means you can't earn enough from your sales to pay your expenses or salaries or (worse) taxes!! this is where you borrow (financing) or sell your assets.
okay I've probably lost most of you (everyone's prolly thinking 'crap, this is why I hated accounting in school') but, of the above, its not uncommon for a company to have one of the above negative (its a timing thing). When you have two of the above negative, you're getting into serious trouble
...if you have all negative.......
Virgin Blue (VBA on the ASX) 31/1/208 half year accounts:
1. Net Profit = $101m loss for the 6 mths
not good but considering the economy...can get by (timing)
2. Net assets = $605m
down from $925m at 30/6/08. still a positive. Working capital though (ie current assets - current liabilities ie. can you pay your creditors with your cash on hand and from collecting your debts??) is negative ie. negative $637m ($718m - $1355m) but theres only $646m of direct debts there so it should be alright
3. operating c/flow = positive $123m
ie. they made cash sales of $1.5b and had exps of $1.38bn...so they should still be able to pay for their debts when they fall due.
so kids, based on a quick summary of their position at 31/12/08 - it ain't that bad. obviously, that data is 4 mths old now (and a lot can happen).
thus ends todays lesson. wheres the beer?
there are 3 things auditors/accountants always look at whilst reviewing financial statements (esp of listed entities) which I'll list below:
1. Net profit (profit & loss statement)
- self explanatory, however not always a good indicator esp if the company uses construction accounting
2. Net assets / working capital (balance sheet)
ie. whether you have more assets than liabilities. obviously more liabilities than assets isn't a good thing (you owe more than you own = ABC learning centres
). Positive = good, Negative = bad.3. Operating cashflow (cashflow statement)
- your sales revenue, less cost of sales less salaries less taxes and interest. ie. do you generate a cash profit from your sales less your expenses. remember, cash is king. If this is negative, it means you can't earn enough from your sales to pay your expenses or salaries or (worse) taxes!! this is where you borrow (financing) or sell your assets.
okay I've probably lost most of you (everyone's prolly thinking 'crap, this is why I hated accounting in school') but, of the above, its not uncommon for a company to have one of the above negative (its a timing thing). When you have two of the above negative, you're getting into serious trouble
...if you have all negative.......Virgin Blue (VBA on the ASX) 31/1/208 half year accounts:
1. Net Profit = $101m loss for the 6 mths
not good but considering the economy...can get by (timing)
2. Net assets = $605m
down from $925m at 30/6/08. still a positive. Working capital though (ie current assets - current liabilities ie. can you pay your creditors with your cash on hand and from collecting your debts??) is negative ie. negative $637m ($718m - $1355m) but theres only $646m of direct debts there so it should be alright
3. operating c/flow = positive $123m
ie. they made cash sales of $1.5b and had exps of $1.38bn...so they should still be able to pay for their debts when they fall due.
so kids, based on a quick summary of their position at 31/12/08 - it ain't that bad. obviously, that data is 4 mths old now (and a lot can happen).
thus ends todays lesson. wheres the beer?