Virgin Australia : 315 Million Loss - How long can they survive?
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Hyperspace
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe not when you consider there are a large number of VAA B777 FO's being remunerated to Captain salaries.
http://vipa.asn.au/wp-content/upload...-Agreement.pdf
EXISTING FIRST OFFICERS
Clause 54.1 Virgin Australia expects that all 38 existing First Officers will obtain a command position within the Virgin Australia Group by 30 June 2016. If this does not occur, Virgin Australia will pay each of the remaining 38 First Officers at that time the applicable Captain’s rates (starting at the entry level rate). For any relevant First Officers, these payments will be made from the first full pay period after 30 June 2016 until such time as they obtain a command.
http://vipa.asn.au/wp-content/upload...-Agreement.pdf
EXISTING FIRST OFFICERS
Clause 54.1 Virgin Australia expects that all 38 existing First Officers will obtain a command position within the Virgin Australia Group by 30 June 2016. If this does not occur, Virgin Australia will pay each of the remaining 38 First Officers at that time the applicable Captain’s rates (starting at the entry level rate). For any relevant First Officers, these payments will be made from the first full pay period after 30 June 2016 until such time as they obtain a command.
Not even Ansett was this irresponsible, and they had flight engineers on 767’s......
I think the cargo door thing is being a little over blown.
yes, in an ideal world they should all have the bigger door, but it isn’t the end of the world and it does not really, in a practical sense, limit the freight it can carry. It just makes handling more of a pain.
the smaller cargo door is the standard fitting on the 777 and the bigger cargo door is the option. If it was such a huge deal there would be no choice. The decision to go with the standard door was a swift decision that had longer term implications, and was about a million bucks an airframe if I remember correctly.
yes, in an ideal world they should all have the bigger door, but it isn’t the end of the world and it does not really, in a practical sense, limit the freight it can carry. It just makes handling more of a pain.
the smaller cargo door is the standard fitting on the 777 and the bigger cargo door is the option. If it was such a huge deal there would be no choice. The decision to go with the standard door was a swift decision that had longer term implications, and was about a million bucks an airframe if I remember correctly.
Secondly, no, it's not the 'end of the world' but although no one at VA seems to realise, the airline industry is a tightly coupled, interconnected network (I say that because of their boneheaded attitude to standard industry processes such as FIMs, interline, etc. mostly based on misconceptions) that relies, particularly with perishable cargo (which is why after all, it is sent by air) being able to be carried then rapidly transferred to another flight where their is no direct service. Not having the door means that the most effective means of carriage, say for something up to 5,100kg or more (4626 for an 88 inch pallet), that the most efficient unitisation and handling is to pack it ONCE onto a pallet or an appropriate (96 or 88 inch) pallet based unit. This takes time, it needs to be weighed and recorded on a weight statement to go to Load Control. Not having the door means, for example, transferring from an A330 to a 777 or from another operator affiliated with VA who presents a pallet base unit, will need unloading/packing, repacking into several smaller ULDs, then weighing, paperwork and despatch back to the ramp (often the cargo facility is remote from the terminal). I suggest considering the cost of manpower, say 2 x 2hrs at each port where this has to occur and multiply it across 5 airframes and say 2 pallets per flight (it's probably more potentially), every day, is more than $.5M per annum based on a very, very conservative per hour charge for labor. This means the extra $1M on just ONE door would be repaid after 2 years. It is a fact that ANY airline that is looking to make a dollar is going to look at the ex VA aircraft and pass them up for one that has a larger door. It's not a huge, world-ending disaster by any means but it does show a basic lack of understanding in ordering the aircraft... and doing it to pay for a paint job (which is now removed) is just nuts.
So SQ didn't specify the larger door... so what, they are not the great oracles of the industry that everyone makes them out to be... looking at them without rose coloured glasses, they have plenty of foibles like any airline and they are known to be penny pinchers in many instances.
Is it fair to say that VA Australia is heading down the Ansett path as in could VA Australia cease to exist? I know its a weird question but we all know VA Australia isn't do8ng well and hasn't done well for a number of years.
Counterpoint: all the hullabaloo about the cargo doors is a distraction at best, at worst disingenuous.
The 777 op was always designed for the long end of long haul. hence 9 abreast seating in Y etc. The large rear cargo door adds hundreds of kg to the empty weight. Burns more fuel on every hour of every flight. Yet with the large forward door you can still take a whole car...
https://www.virgin.com/travel/how-to...expensive-cars
That was on VPE, forward hold. Longest sector, MEL-LAX.
The standard cargo door is used by such airlines as Singapore, JAL, China Southern. They know a thing about cargo.
Now, about starting routes to hub airports with no on-carriage? That was stupid, but I'm sick of hearing about the cargo doors.
The 777 op was always designed for the long end of long haul. hence 9 abreast seating in Y etc. The large rear cargo door adds hundreds of kg to the empty weight. Burns more fuel on every hour of every flight. Yet with the large forward door you can still take a whole car...
https://www.virgin.com/travel/how-to...expensive-cars
That was on VPE, forward hold. Longest sector, MEL-LAX.
The standard cargo door is used by such airlines as Singapore, JAL, China Southern. They know a thing about cargo.
Now, about starting routes to hub airports with no on-carriage? That was stupid, but I'm sick of hearing about the cargo doors.
Wow, a stuff up by Virgin PR. Crowing about delivering a car from MEL to LAX (by B777) and congratulating the pilots (WTF) and they show a caption of a A330.
It’s a bit disappointing, albeit not unexpected in this forum, to read the vilification of these 750 roles to be reduced. Especially those firing off the rhetoric are probably pilots and as such hold prominent leadership positions in VA. Leadership by example, I’m sure I read that somewhere.
To assume that all 750 of these jobs and the people who fill them do nothing more than suckle at teat of the company, not produce or do anything meaningful and should be dispatched to the unemployment line posthaste is just plain vexatious. Yes there would be some positions that are a nice to have when things are going well, which they aren’t and these are obviously not sustainable. And yes every workgroup, pilots included, have individuals who are as useless as tits on the proverbial. But it is false equivalency to say this is representative of the whole.
To assume that all 750 of these jobs and the people who fill them do nothing more than suckle at teat of the company, not produce or do anything meaningful and should be dispatched to the unemployment line posthaste is just plain vexatious. Yes there would be some positions that are a nice to have when things are going well, which they aren’t and these are obviously not sustainable. And yes every workgroup, pilots included, have individuals who are as useless as tits on the proverbial. But it is false equivalency to say this is representative of the whole.
Buster the problem with red is that it fades over time.
Evertonian
A lot of carriers went down a similar path and it is a very common look now. A 'statement' look coupled with a new premium brand would've gone a long way but...opportunity missed.
I agree with the sentiment however getting retrenched from a corporate job isn't like being retrenched as a pilot. If you are in a non aviation role, there are plenty of corporate jobs down the road in your field. A friend of mine resigned from his job simply because the head office moved a few kilometres and affected his commute!! So culling 700 odd jobs, of which many are probably redeployed anyway, can't be thought as the same as retrenching pilots. Basically if an Airline Captain gets retrenched it's going to be the end of their career in Australia as a Captain. They might be able to collect an FO job somewhere but unlikely they'd ever be a Airline Captain again. If you're an accountant, work in finance, HR etc, you can just move to another company probably on the same train line.
Yes, when the Ansett. was revealed it was a revelation. Not the first of course but white wings too... A lot of carriers went down a similar path and it is a very common look now. A 'statement' look coupled with a new premium brand would've gone a long way but...opportunity missed.
A lot of carriers went down a similar path and it is a very common look now. A 'statement' look coupled with a new premium brand would've gone a long way but...opportunity missed.Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
