Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

VA pilots worried about employment 2021

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

VA pilots worried about employment 2021

Old 4th Feb 2020, 11:03
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 751
Originally Posted by B043 View Post
With a name like ‘MAYDAYVA’, I would think this is a wind up! 🤔

I hope he is enjoying his glass of red!
And his/her one and only post!
The Bullwinkle is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2020, 02:05
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
MAYDAYVA might be Alan Joyce’s new PPRuNe alias
speedbird983 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2020, 02:47
  #23 (permalink)  

Evertonian
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Posts: 11,426
I thought you had to have a few posts up before you could start a wind up...sorry, new thread?
Buster Hyman is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2020, 03:48
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Cool

JHC T-Vasis, do me a favour and use a bigger font!! Or maybe I now need those glasses..........I thought I read Anal.........
porch monkey is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2020, 03:51
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Arctic Circle
Age: 74
Posts: 41
The thread starter, otherwise known as BNEA320, has a long history of indulging its peculiar and pathetic little fetish of attempting to instil fear, uncertainty and doubt in Australian airline employees. Best ignored.
Fool Sufferer is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2020, 21:20
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: In the toilets in the crew room
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by davidclarke View Post
I think the most worry is coming from Tiger pilots at the moment.

Downsizing.....
Losing routes......
Chief pilot leaving......

Still being told more 737s will be coming in 2021 when we all know that there is no chance of VA getting their 737-10s by then, so no chance of Tiger getting those hand me downs.
Spot on, and when asking the powers that be about this, they are adamant that the MAX's will come 2021! They have NO plan B at all. Cost cutting without a plan and relying on a grounded a/c is a little worrying !

None of the ivory tower peeps ever come onto the front line for a day or two to do the obvious/undercover boss thing to see whats happening... No skin in the game so policies are reflective of accounting manipulations only, not long term ramifications Re:TT fleet change (10's of Millions wasted with no real impact on TT, especially given that the plan is 3 CEO's old and a questionable decision at best!)
burned_out is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2020, 23:41
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Wangaratta
Posts: 86
330s will be quiet now that HK is gone I’d imagine.
WillieTheWimp is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 00:27
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 181
Nobody has mentioned the airline's governing body, the board, look them and their CVs up.
Nil experience in running an airline stands out for all, except three from Etihad, HNA and SIA (I don't count Angus Houston, he ran an Air Force, major difference no customer relations needed, no requirement to make money!)
How do such people get to sit on the board of an airline? Beats me.....
Mr Approach is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 02:56
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 74
Posts: 1,370
I am not surprised Mark Chellew has resigned as a Virgin Australia director. Mark was a member of the audit and risk management committee. Enough said !.
B772 is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 04:05
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Two sides to every story. Just happens that Chellew was chairman of the remuneration committee/board/whatever. It seems that the recent bonus and subsequent departure of a certain individual hasn't gone down to well with the new fuhrer.
porch monkey is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 10:33
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,206
They're cashflow positive. They can service their debts. Cashflow is more important than profit. They're both important - but cashflow rules. They have free cash.
Ponzi schemes are ‘cashflow positive’; until they’re not.

Give me profit margin over cashflow any day.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 01:45
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 74
Posts: 1,370
Looking at the VA Balance Sheet total current liabilities are about 50% greater than the total current assets. With net gearing in excess of 200% and zero % return on capital VA are well behind QF who enjoy net gearing of 87% and 13% return on capital. Net tangible asset backing per share for VA is nil. A black swan event could make VA vulnerable to collapse or take over by SQ.
B772 is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 10:06
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 496
Give me profit margin over cashflow any day.
Net profit has its merits - it is a powerful measure for thinking about how shareholders have been doing - but it has its problems. First, it treats cash and noncash expenses symmetrically. Second, net profit also subtracts interest payments, which make it hard to compare companies that finance themselves in different ways even though their operations could be quite similar. Finally, and most importantly - many managerial decisions are involved in calculating profit. Accounting asks managers to make decisions in order to smooth returns, as accountants consider that to be more consistent with reality. This allows managers to manipulate profits to their advantage. In contrast, cash is cash, and arguably, is not susceptible to similar managerial discretion.

Amazon is a good example. In 2014 their net profit was negative $241m. EBIT was $178m. $419m was tax, interest and currency adjustments. EBITDA was $4.9b. $4.7b was depreciation and amortization. Amazon generated a lot of cash but had losses according to profitability measures.

Cash is a better measure of economic returns relative to profits. The emphasis on cash can explain why companies that generate profits but no cash, might be unsustainable and why companies that generate no profits but lots of cash might be valuable. Second - cash that is earned today is more valuable than cash earned tomorrow because of the opportunity cost of capital. Ignoring the opportunity cost can lead to value destruction or value transfers. All value comes from future cash flows and making positive net present value decisions is the hallmark of a good steward of capital and manager.

T-Vasis is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 10:30
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Extreme
Posts: 310
Gee T-Vasis that made so much sense.
Thanks.

Shot Nancy is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 10:43
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Wangaratta
Posts: 86
Whatever helps you sleep at night
WillieTheWimp is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 10:58
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 45
Posts: 497
Why would companies even create a profit now a days? With a profit you have to pay taxes. Companies are making all sorts of "legal" loop-holes to avoid paying a dime, shitting on the rest of us tax payers. It should be possible to beat the crap out of them with a baseball bat.
jmmoric is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 20:49
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: melbourne
Posts: 289
Cashflow is King and PBT is the only measure that is viewed favourably by Financiers. Cash Flow positive may have gone out the door with Hong Kong, Corona (the pandemic that wasn't) and Bushfires. Time will tell
coaldemon is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2020, 06:22
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Qld
Posts: 134
Originally Posted by B772 View Post
Looking at the VA Balance Sheet total current liabilities are about 50% greater than the total current assets. With net gearing in excess of 200% and zero % return on capital VA are well behind QF who enjoy net gearing of 87% and 13% return on capital. Net tangible asset backing per share for VA is nil. A black swan event could make VA vulnerable to collapse or take over by SQ.
Not even SQ wants to touch VA those days. They've been on record previously that they were not happy with their VA stake for some time after having to report VA's losses in the SIA group's own financial reports.

I would not be surprised if SQ are looking at selling out themselves. There's a better chance of outsiders such as DL, NH or TK taking a stake over the "so-called saviour" SQ, which are just as responsible as EY and HNA for VA's financial messes over the years.
DanV2 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2020, 01:40
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Ahh, another prune investment adviser. Dunno why I pay mine, I can just come here and get all the investment info I need.
porch monkey is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2020, 04:25
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,030
SQ not happy with their stake? That’s laughable considering them and EY played a huge part with tweaking and funding all the capex blowouts.

You really have no idea how much those two had input. They had a lot of say behind closed doors. The guys in Kiwi land had no chance as they didn’t agree with rolling funding.

EY and SQ are largely responsible for the financial mess they are in today. So SQ can suck it up.
wheels_down is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.