Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

JT leaving Virgin this week

Old 1st Jul 2017, 06:27
  #41 (permalink)  

Evertonian
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Posts: 9,858
It's the Branson model. Build a company on hype, sell it at inflated prices. Let someone else wear the depreciation burden. Buy it back in the fire sale. Rinse & repeat.
Buster Hyman is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2017, 06:37
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by AerialPerspective View Post
Question - who won the war... who was the better leader when it counted the most. Lee's uniforms and deportment counted for zip when the rubber hit the road. Same with people like JB... like a mudguard, all shiny on top with not much more than rubbish underneath, certainly no substance it would seem.
Possibly not the best analogy as "who won the war" and "who was the better leader" are two entirely different questions. On almost every assessment Lee was a superior general and leader to Grant. When Grant assumed command of the United States Army in March 1864 he enjoyed a 3:1 superiority in troops over Lee which steadily increased to better than 4:1 as the war wore on. The Union's 3:1 advantage in finances and population together with its overwhelming industrial advantage were as much factors in their victory as anything Grant did on the battlefield.
MickG0105 is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2017, 10:33
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Doomagee
Age: 6
Posts: 647
Thats great...

Meanwhile over at QF it seems some of the newish joiners are getting 380/74/73 slots......

Hmmm.
Berealgetreal is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2017, 11:08
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: At the buffet
Age: 45
Posts: 58
I suppose it is fair to assume the senior managers at VA no longer hold shares in their opposition.......
Pastor of Muppets is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2017, 11:11
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Doomagee
Age: 6
Posts: 647
QAN makes the rest of my portfolio look like rubbish! My advisor got that one VERY wrong.
Berealgetreal is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2017, 12:06
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by Berealgetreal View Post

Meanwhile over at QF it seems some of the newish joiners are getting 380/74/73 slots......

I hope you applied then....
Open Descent is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2017, 12:11
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Doomagee
Age: 6
Posts: 647
No I haven't and theres nothing wrong with considering options with a family to feed buddy.
Berealgetreal is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2017, 14:57
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 599
a
Originally Posted by MickG0105 View Post
Possibly not the best analogy as "who won the war" and "who was the better leader" are two entirely different questions. On almost every assessment Lee was a superior general and leader to Grant. When Grant assumed command of the United States Army in March 1864 he enjoyed a 3:1 superiority in troops over Lee which steadily increased to better than 4:1 as the war wore on. The Union's 3:1 advantage in finances and population together with its overwhelming industrial advantage were as much factors in their victory as anything Grant did on the battlefield.
I can't argue with your statistics but I don't agree that Lee was a better general or leader... two words "Picket's Charge" - while you might say this was one event, it is endemic of the fact that due to a few close victories, the result of a lot of luck and in some cases, sheer incompetence of the opposition, than of clever strategy or the actions of some of his generals such as Jackson who were entirely batsh-t crazy and won through recklessness, by Gettysburg and particularly Picket's Charge, the 'god' reputation that Lee had garnered for himself had led to him, as they say in the classics, "believing his own BS". Longstreet was a better leader and he warned him not to do it. On top of that he was a traitor. He made war against his own country. The Union always had more industry and more manpower but it also had terrible leadership at the military level, brilliant leadership in Lincoln who eventually found the person with Lee's measure.

In any case, going back to the topic, my point was about the presentation. Good breeding and fine clothes made no difference and let's not forget, any affection for Lee on the part of his 'men' was partly due to most of them being simple backwoodsmen who were barely educated.

If you're looking for a singular brilliant act in the war it was undoubtedly J.L. Chaimberlain's swinging gate at Little Round-Top which saved the battle and quite possibly, the Union. Chaimberlain was well educated but he too had none of the 'panache' and 'elan' that typified Lee and some of his cohorts and he was singularly accepting of African Americans as human beings and not any less than white people - unusual for that day on either side.

The same rule applies today. Substance wins over image, eventually.

Last edited by AerialPerspective; 1st Jul 2017 at 15:17. Reason: add
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2017, 15:01
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by Buster Hyman View Post
It's the Branson model. Build a company on hype, sell it at inflated prices. Let someone else wear the depreciation burden. Buy it back in the fire sale. Rinse & repeat.
Excluding Branson's numerous failures of course which never got to the inflated price point and which despite the hype left investors but not him, reeling and out of pocket. Rather more numerous than his successes.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2017, 22:26
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: melbourne
Posts: 242
Well he is a Venture Capitalist with a Brand. No matter how it goes he gets the licencing fees for the Virgin Brand and it seems there are plenty of people trying to do a business with him to get access to it. As AP said quite a few don't make it but I think on the balance just VB gave him over a Billion $ so even a once and a while pay off must well exceed everything else. Galactic though must be costing him a fortune.
coaldemon is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2017, 01:13
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 2
AerialPerspective: The Lee-Grant Comparison

I understand the point that you were trying to make but I thought that it was poorly illustrated by the Lee-Grant comparison. I do not think that Gettysburg can be seen to define Lee's generalship any more than Kursk or El Alamein define the reputations of von Manstein and Rommel respectively. As to whether Lee was a traitor, well, the decision as to who is traitorous to whom (or what) in a civil war is generally determined by who won; was Cromwell a traitor?

My point was that most military historians rank Lee as a superior general, and most assuredly a superior leader, to Grant. You certainly can't say that Lee was any less a substantial military figure than Grant and he was most assuredly no less substantial for his professional deportment.

As to the argument of substance over image, you get no argument from me on that front. Having worked with both AJ and JB at different times in my career I frankly don't view one as any more or less "flashy" than the other. However, I think that to understand the differing fortunes of QF and VA you need to also look above and below the CEOs; at their boards and their C-level teams.

Knowing a few of the players at both QF and VA, my observation would be that VA, despite an influx of some quality QF people when JB joined as CEO in 2010, now lacks quality and depth at the general manager/manager level whereas QF fares much better in that regard. When AJ outlines a new strategy he knows that there's a good to very good chance that his team will achieve around 80% or better of what he wants them to achieve; when JB outlines a new strategy it's probably only a 50-50 bet.

Now, it may be coincidental, maybe not, that Leigh Clifford is Chairman at QF. Prior to that Leigh's entire 37 year career was spent in one business; Rio Tinto (formerly CRA). I cannot comment from personal experience on too many businesses but, having spent a fair chunk of my civilian career at Rio, I can say that it is one of the very few businesses I have seen that has, by design and considered effort, outstanding talent at the general manager/manager level. I have no doubt that Leigh brought that approach/thinking with him to QF. Again, it may be coincidental, maybe not, that Leigh became Chairman of Qantas in 2007 and Alan Joyce became CEO in 2008; that's a decade of stability.

Last edited by MickG0105; 2nd Jul 2017 at 01:21. Reason: Correction.
MickG0105 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2017, 09:00
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by MickG0105 View Post
I understand the point that you were trying to make but I thought that it was poorly illustrated by the Lee-Grant comparison. I do not think that Gettysburg can be seen to define Lee's generalship any more than Kursk or El Alamein define the reputations of von Manstein and Rommel respectively. As to whether Lee was a traitor, well, the decision as to who is traitorous to whom (or what) in a civil war is generally determined by who won; was Cromwell a traitor?

My point was that most military historians rank Lee as a superior general, and most assuredly a superior leader, to Grant. You certainly can't say that Lee was any less a substantial military figure than Grant and he was most assuredly no less substantial for his professional deportment.

As to the argument of substance over image, you get no argument from me on that front. Having worked with both AJ and JB at different times in my career I frankly don't view one as any more or less "flashy" than the other. However, I think that to understand the differing fortunes of QF and VA you need to also look above and below the CEOs; at their boards and their C-level teams.

Knowing a few of the players at both QF and VA, my observation would be that VA, despite an influx of some quality QF people when JB joined as CEO in 2010, now lacks quality and depth at the general manager/manager level whereas QF fares much better in that regard. When AJ outlines a new strategy he knows that there's a good to very good chance that his team will achieve around 80% or better of what he wants them to achieve; when JB outlines a new strategy it's probably only a 50-50 bet.

Now, it may be coincidental, maybe not, that Leigh Clifford is Chairman at QF. Prior to that Leigh's entire 37 year career was spent in one business; Rio Tinto (formerly CRA). I cannot comment from personal experience on too many businesses but, having spent a fair chunk of my civilian career at Rio, I can say that it is one of the very few businesses I have seen that has, by design and considered effort, outstanding talent at the general manager/manager level. I have no doubt that Leigh brought that approach/thinking with him to QF. Again, it may be coincidental, maybe not, that Leigh became Chairman of Qantas in 2007 and Alan Joyce became CEO in 2008; that's a decade of stability.
We could go on for hours about Lee/Grant... or I could, that whole period fascinates me having been interested in it for many years and visited many of the actual locations where it was fought. I don't entirely agree with you but you do mount a good argument. I'm just not a big fan of Lee as a person.

I always think of the late Shelby Foote's comment of Grant having "four o'clock in the morning courage" or more specifically the ability to be awoken, told of the situation and be able to determine a strategy and response that was generally effective instantly.

Hehe... was Cromwell a Traitor... another favorite of mine. No, the King was!!! LOL

Similarly, moving on to the other part of your response, no argument here either. I think it would be fair to say that the influx of quality QF people to VA that ended up leaving was because JB is not an effective leader of any sort and didn't know what to do with them. Having some knowledge of both sides of the fence myself going back quite a few years up until recently, their are far too many quality people who have left VA for it to be an accident. From my limited exposure I am persuaded that Joyce is actually someone that I can have a conversation with on a normal level, whereas I feel there is a pretense to the other guy that frankly gives the impression he is 'better' than others or at least, on a higher plane - so to speak - I would say that is evidenced by his attitude to staff traveling in higher classes while making an exception for himself. I can't accord good leadership to a person who does that and seriously, by implication, puts forward the scenario that it's important for him to travel there by dint of status or whatever but not justifiable for a Captain or FO who are paxing for instance and will have 200-300 punters behind them flying back in the opposite direction. I find that illogical and an insult to ones intelligence and a good indicator of how his primitive thought process works. I could detail other examples where any operational person would shake their head at decisions that were made.

I'm also aware of how he conducts himself generally compared to his QF counterpart. It appears as though a number of his responses to, particularly operational situations, lack any substance or realworld experience - likely due to his background in sales - i.e. well developed sense of heightening the desire for a particular thing or product but zero ability to recognise an operational problem or the correct solution both at the micro and macro level.

I would suggest that Joyce's relative success is a combination of his background in several components of the airline business and a more analytical mind combined with the presence of Clifford which I think you correctly state as a factor. In addition I'd just say that having had exposure to both organisations, I think there was a far stronger operational culture and corporate memory at QF in that area and generally a better base of GM level experience developed over a longer period.

Joyce's strategy seems to have been to leave that largely alone whereas JB seems to have taken over an organisation without that depth and lacked any ability to build it. His efforts to date seem to have consisted of little more than hype and clutching at straws. Almost any other CEO I have had contact with over the years I believe could have made a better fist of it than he has. I don't think the Board he has is any large factor or at least not more so than his apparent incompetence if the, particularly, latest string of c-ckups is anything to go by.

Fascinating discussion though and you are obviously well versed in each of the topics we've discussed and able to articulate them well of which I can only say thank you!!!

Last edited by AerialPerspective; 2nd Jul 2017 at 09:11. Reason: corrected
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2017, 09:38
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by coaldemon View Post
Well he is a Venture Capitalist with a Brand. No matter how it goes he gets the licencing fees for the Virgin Brand and it seems there are plenty of people trying to do a business with him to get access to it. As AP said quite a few don't make it but I think on the balance just VB gave him over a Billion $ so even a once and a while pay off must well exceed everything else. Galactic though must be costing him a fortune.
That is true and it has nothing to do with jealousy or anything but I quite frankly find the way he operates to be sickening. The way he breezes in and out of Australia now leaving a trail of glib sound-bites behind adds nothing.

This is a guy who said "The biggest mistake Qantas ever made was to let JB go" - really, no comment from him since then and certainly not now, comparing the relative profitability, share price, etc. I'd say it hasn't been raised again because he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Yes, he did extremely well out of the original Virgin Blue and that would wipe out a lot of other failed ventures (although I don't imagine he gave any of it to the investors that lost money in his failed ventures) but his cynical visits always accompanied by a photo shoot and publicity shot of staff (always what the general public would consider attractive too, never otherwise) while talking up JB when in reality, he really doesn't care one bit nor does he probably have any real knowledge of how the company operates day to day and this must be an insult to loyal staff who turn up every day and take the brunt of face to face reaction to bad decisions,

I thought his recent comments surrounding the take-over of VX by Alaskan were particularly sickening. He started the airline, he floated the airline which exposed it to potential take-over, he took his cut when it did and when he had secured from Alaskan the 40 or so years of license payments for the brand whether they use it or not, then he had a go at them publicly.

It's all about the publicity shot and frankly some of the absolute excrement that came out of his mouth about the Australian market before he started here was laughable... "before we came and saved Australians from decades of high fares under Qantas and Ansett..." Firstly, Qantas only entered the domestic market in 1992/3 and there had been a number of smaller airlines and the majors offering low fares before he came along... all complete BS but he gets away with it, then flits off to his Island again.

I may be wrong about Galactic but isn't there still some controversy surrounding the cause of the accident a year or two ago, wasn't there an inquiry??? Not suggesting any wrong-doing but seem to remember some accusations flying around at the time.

Last edited by AerialPerspective; 2nd Jul 2017 at 09:46. Reason: add
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2017, 12:17
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 69
Posts: 844
Q : Why did II Dolce go to Ashley and Martin?


A : Someone told him he had a receeding (h)airline !
blow.n.gasket is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2017, 05:52
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 716
Interesting that there has been no press on this except for the AFR piece, which is behind a paywall. Why haven't questions been asked & how did Virgin manage to keep it out of the press? Even the Australian aviation commentators seem to be leaving it alone.
Oakape is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2017, 06:10
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 606
Why haven't questions been asked & how did Virgin manage to keep it out of the press?
There is a quote that explains it very simply:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
Upton Sinclair
A large company with a substantial Ad spend wields a lot of power [read "profitability"]. Media companies are in the business of making a profit, that is the sole purpose of their existence. Another quote may illustrate the point:

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

George Orwell
The media only publish something which their financial masters approval.
CurtainTwitcher is online now  
Old 5th Jul 2017, 07:39
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 999
Nah, the reality of it is no one gives a shit anymore. Including the employees.
porch monkey is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2017, 14:19
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,170
VIrgin must really be in trouble. Branson has lashed out with some easily debunked fibs regarding the events of 2014.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busine...b9b0e6c87afe1d

BILLIONAIRE Sir Richard Branson has accused Qantas of flooding Australia’s air corridors with planes in an attempt to put Virgin Australia airline out of business.

The boss of Virgin Group, which owns 10 per cent of Virgin Australia, also attacked Qantas for seeking financial help from the Federal Government in 2014 when it was struggling to make money.

Sir Richard was in Melbourne yesterday morning before he boarded the inaugural Virgin flight to Hong Kong, marking the beginning of the airline’s expansion into China.

The event involved Sir Richard carrying the head of a 32m-long Chinese dragon called Yar Loong through Tullamarine airport. But it was his comments on Qantas that stole the show.

“We’ve had Qantas throw everything they can at us and it has cost them more than it cost us,” Sir Richard said, referring to the capacity war in 2014. “They had to go cap in hand to the government ... the government quite rightly told them that it’s up to them to compete on a fair, level- playing field.”

He said Qantas then started to behave more “sensibly” and tweaked their domestic flight services. “The end result is they proved they did not need those billions they were asking government for,” Sir Richard said.
Absolutely no mention of the 400 million cash injection by Etihad and friends.
Capt Kremin is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2017, 18:27
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,710
Branson is extremely adept at turning LIES & BULLSHIT into headlines and the gullible media just lap it up - of course, Joyce absolutely deserves to be blasted because of his own BULLSHIT.
Going Boeing is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2017, 23:34
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 573
Pretty sure JB started the capacity war in an act of spite.
The Bullwinkle is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.