Government Loan to Virgin Australia
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: BAO
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Dear-
HOW 'short' the memories................., 'Rupert'- 'they' (a funny looking Bloke, he 'was'- believe, his name 'was' John???, or some-such???) did, make a point of getting Rupert 'Out'..............., 'Keith Rupert' per chance????
Stuffs me!!!
Good Luck Paul & 'All'..........
Rgds all- Stay Safe
S28- BE
HOW 'short' the memories................., 'Rupert'- 'they' (a funny looking Bloke, he 'was'- believe, his name 'was' John???, or some-such???) did, make a point of getting Rupert 'Out'..............., 'Keith Rupert' per chance????
Stuffs me!!!
Good Luck Paul & 'All'..........
Rgds all- Stay Safe
S28- BE
Last edited by Section28- BE; 13th Apr 2020 at 12:06. Reason: 'ei' in Keith- my bad, type with thought. Ta/Rgds
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Maningrida
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serious question here as I don’t understand the business processes completely but very interested.
I thought SIA were already about 20% shareholder in VAH. Why would SIA then invest more money into VAH at the present time? (ie would that not expose themselves more to the massive asset/debt problem).
- Rather than try to trade out of the situation, would they not be best to wait until VAH in administration/collapse and then pick the assets up cheaply?
- In event of collapse, how would they be responsible to creditors as a present shareholder?
- Assuming they want to enter DOM market and reinvest after VAH administration/COVID, it would make things fairly interesting with foreign ownership laws. What type of business strategy would they use to get around this?
Hopefully none of this needed but very interested to understand the process if anyone able to explain.
Cheers
I thought SIA were already about 20% shareholder in VAH. Why would SIA then invest more money into VAH at the present time? (ie would that not expose themselves more to the massive asset/debt problem).
- Rather than try to trade out of the situation, would they not be best to wait until VAH in administration/collapse and then pick the assets up cheaply?
- In event of collapse, how would they be responsible to creditors as a present shareholder?
- Assuming they want to enter DOM market and reinvest after VAH administration/COVID, it would make things fairly interesting with foreign ownership laws. What type of business strategy would they use to get around this?
Hopefully none of this needed but very interested to understand the process if anyone able to explain.
Cheers
Oh my Lordy, won’t the little Irish toad be upset if that happens! Strong and Dixon were concerned about a potential entity like SQ filling the Ansett gap but the foreign ownership laws prevented that from happening at the time. Well that was part of the reason. The parasite Joyce will be puckering with fear and anger at the mere thought of some aid being given to keep VA afloat. However, seeing is believing.
Serious question here as I don’t understand the business processes completely but very interested.
I thought SIA were already about 20% shareholder in VAH. Why would SIA then invest more money into VAH at the present time? (ie would that not expose themselves more to the massive asset/debt problem).
- Rather than try to trade out of the situation, would they not be best to wait until VAH in administration/collapse and then pick the assets up cheaply?
- In event of collapse, how would they be responsible to creditors as a present shareholder?
- Assuming they want to enter DOM market and reinvest after VAH administration/COVID, it would make things fairly interesting with foreign ownership laws. What type of business strategy would they use to get around this?.
I thought SIA were already about 20% shareholder in VAH. Why would SIA then invest more money into VAH at the present time? (ie would that not expose themselves more to the massive asset/debt problem).
- Rather than try to trade out of the situation, would they not be best to wait until VAH in administration/collapse and then pick the assets up cheaply?
- In event of collapse, how would they be responsible to creditors as a present shareholder?
- Assuming they want to enter DOM market and reinvest after VAH administration/COVID, it would make things fairly interesting with foreign ownership laws. What type of business strategy would they use to get around this?.
The only reason they would move now would be control and certainty of outcome. You have no control over administration, bit like deciding between taking a plea bargain or going to court.
The risk for them will be as you pointed out is the large exposure they will hold.
All bets are off if it goes into administration and they will have no control of the outcome. In the meantime the Government may offer a loan to support the balance sheet, Singapore get to wipe out all the other airlines, get 100% feed from the Australian market through Singapore and quite possibly negotiate Pacific rights for Singapore Airlines whilst simultaneously castrating some of their biggest competitors in the region. They might be seeing it as a chance to expand Singapore Airlines through Australia. Virgin get a rebrand to something else, only do short haul, whilst Singapore get to do all the International in Widebody aircraft.
The only reason they would move now would be control and certainty of outcome. You have no control over administration, bit like deciding between taking a plea bargain or going to court.
The risk for them will be as you pointed out is the large exposure they will hold.
The only reason they would move now would be control and certainty of outcome. You have no control over administration, bit like deciding between taking a plea bargain or going to court.
The risk for them will be as you pointed out is the large exposure they will hold.
Even if Virgin was offered to SIA for $1 including the $5.5B+ debts, they won't be that stupid and they'll follow their predecessors that faced the same situation with Ansett and will also decline the $1 offer.
Remember that SIA was in the same situation with Ansett (through their 25% shareholding in Air New Zealand) when Air New Zealand got desperate after mismanaging Ansett in oblivion.
After Air NZ's then-owner Brieley couldn't get the NZ govenrment to budge on their foreign ownership limits (which was 35% at the time - was also rumoured Dixon from QF lobbied the NZ government not to lift foreign ownership limits to 49%), NZ offered Ansett to Singapore for $1. SQ declined the offer.
NZ also offered Ansett to Qantas for $1 after Singapore declined. QF also declined.
After that NZ sent AN into voluntary administration.
SIA isn't that stupid to take on $5.5B in debt. It'll also fizzle out be "fake news", just like the 5424324324324323+ "SQ to Take Over VA" articles before this one.
Even if Virgin was offered to SIA for $1 including the $5.5B+ debts, they won't be that stupid and they'll follow their predecessors that faced the same situation with Ansett and will also decline the $1 offer.
Remember that SIA was in the same situation with Ansett (through their 25% shareholding in Air New Zealand) when Air New Zealand got desperate after mismanaging Ansett in oblivion.
After Air NZ's then-owner Brieley couldn't get the NZ govenrment to budge on their foreign ownership limits (which was 35% at the time - was also rumoured Dixon from QF lobbied the NZ government not to lift foreign ownership limits to 49%), NZ offered Ansett to Singapore for $1. SQ declined the offer.
NZ also offered Ansett to Qantas for $1 after Singapore declined. QF also declined.
After that NZ sent AN into voluntary administration.
Even if Virgin was offered to SIA for $1 including the $5.5B+ debts, they won't be that stupid and they'll follow their predecessors that faced the same situation with Ansett and will also decline the $1 offer.
Remember that SIA was in the same situation with Ansett (through their 25% shareholding in Air New Zealand) when Air New Zealand got desperate after mismanaging Ansett in oblivion.
After Air NZ's then-owner Brieley couldn't get the NZ govenrment to budge on their foreign ownership limits (which was 35% at the time - was also rumoured Dixon from QF lobbied the NZ government not to lift foreign ownership limits to 49%), NZ offered Ansett to Singapore for $1. SQ declined the offer.
NZ also offered Ansett to Qantas for $1 after Singapore declined. QF also declined.
After that NZ sent AN into voluntary administration.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Dear-
HOW 'short' the memories................., 'Rupert'- 'they' (a funny looking Bloke, he 'was'- believe, his name 'was' John???, or some-such???) did, make a point of getting Rupert 'Out'..............., 'Keith Rupert' per chance????
Stuffs me!!!
Good Luck Paul & 'All'..........
Rgds all- Stay Safe
S28- BE
HOW 'short' the memories................., 'Rupert'- 'they' (a funny looking Bloke, he 'was'- believe, his name 'was' John???, or some-such???) did, make a point of getting Rupert 'Out'..............., 'Keith Rupert' per chance????
Stuffs me!!!
Good Luck Paul & 'All'..........
Rgds all- Stay Safe
S28- BE
Yes that is the risk they are taking. I guess they have to decide if an opportunity to capture the Australian market is worth it. I'd bet a small wager that Singapore would also push for access to the Pacific for them as well as they are in a very strong bargaining position and something they have coveted for a eternity.
Post COVID-19 may possibly see it go back to QF and UA again, with the former concentrating primarily on LAX and DFW with their JV partner AA codesharing, and UA retreating to SFO.
The Australian Government isn't likely to budge on 5th freedom rights. SQ's application was declined by both Australia and the USA's DoT.
I remember that even though the US DoT approved AC's 5th freedom application, the Australian authority decided to decline AC's application on the route in the late 90s when AC proposed YYZ-LAX-SYD as an alternative to SQ's SIN-SYD-LAX.
Evertonian
Currently Virgin is flying just Melbourne to Sydney one day a week.
Qantas, which normally flies the route 48 times a week,
Qantas, which normally flies the route 48 times a week,
The Australian Government want Virgin to continue but don't want to save it themselves so how about they let SIA take it over, ie full ownership and control rather than a minority shareholding ? In return for assuming the liabilities and keeping all the staff on, they get full access to the domestic market which is what they always wanted. Lose everything except the B737s which effectively become SIA domestic short range. Long range, such as PER - BNE is done by extending the current flights from Singapore. SIA fly to most major Australian airports multiple times a day anyway so all the infrastructure is already in place , eg maintenance coverage, check in desks, lounges. Even without Virgin, SIA could run a significant domestic network on its own eg. SIN - PER - BNE - SIN and SIN - BNE - PER - SIN gives a return flight between Perth and Brisbane and still keeps Singapore as a non stop routing. Multiply that with other city pairs and you have a basic network going very quickly. If the approval was given, all they need to do is load the flights into the reservations system and alter the advertising a bit. They will certainly have plenty of spare capacity post COVID - 19.
This time QF would have a competitor that wouldn't be undermined by JQ as it would be pulling in higher end less price sensitive pax. SIA would be very attractive to the corporate market as it begins its slow climb back, with a proper business class product and Star Alliance membership. The SIA brand is very well established already and with the strong links between Australia and Singapore there are no security concerns which might occur with an Air China take over. Qantas could be defending a 50% line in the sand rather than a 65% one in terms of market share.
The deal could be sold on the basis of keeping Australians employed in these troubled times and maintaining competition thereby keeping fares down, it would also stop Qantas from becoming too powerful. With the current exchange rate AU$5.1 billion is loose change to Singapore Incorporated and will certainly pay back in the long term.
In normal times QF could simply get the choir singing "I still call Australia home." as an accompaniment to a nationalistic advertising campaign about protecting Australian companies. These aren't normal times, now SIA would be saving Australian jobs directly and indirectly with a takeover.
This time QF would have a competitor that wouldn't be undermined by JQ as it would be pulling in higher end less price sensitive pax. SIA would be very attractive to the corporate market as it begins its slow climb back, with a proper business class product and Star Alliance membership. The SIA brand is very well established already and with the strong links between Australia and Singapore there are no security concerns which might occur with an Air China take over. Qantas could be defending a 50% line in the sand rather than a 65% one in terms of market share.
The deal could be sold on the basis of keeping Australians employed in these troubled times and maintaining competition thereby keeping fares down, it would also stop Qantas from becoming too powerful. With the current exchange rate AU$5.1 billion is loose change to Singapore Incorporated and will certainly pay back in the long term.
In normal times QF could simply get the choir singing "I still call Australia home." as an accompaniment to a nationalistic advertising campaign about protecting Australian companies. These aren't normal times, now SIA would be saving Australian jobs directly and indirectly with a takeover.
Last edited by krismiler; 13th Apr 2020 at 16:06.
The Australian Government want Virgin to continue but don't want to save it themselves so how about they let SIA take it over, ie full ownership and control rather than a minority shareholding ? In return for assuming the liabilities and keeping all the staff on, they get full access to the domestic market which is what they always wanted. Lose everything except the B737s which effectively become SIA domestic short range. Long range, such as PER - BNE is done by extending the current flights from Singapore. SIA fly to most major Australian airports multiple times a day anyway so all the infrastructure is already in place , eg maintenance coverage, check in desks, lounges. Even without Virgin, SIA could run a significant domestic network on its own eg. SIN - PER - BNE - SIN and SIN - BNE - PER - SIN gives a return flight between Perth and Brisbane and still keeps Singapore as a non stop routing. Multiply that with other city pairs and you have a basic network going very quickly. If the approval was given, all they need to do is load the flights into the reservations system and alter the advertising a bit. They will certainly have plenty of spare capacity post COVID - 19.
This time QF would have a competitor that wouldn't be undermined by JQ as it would be pulling in higher end less price sensitive pax. SIA would be very attractive to the corporate market as it begins its slow climb back, with a proper business class product and Star Alliance membership. The SIA brand is very well established already and with the strong links between Australia and Singapore there are no security concerns which might occur with an Air China take over. Qantas could be defending a 50% line in the sand rather than a 65% one in terms of market share.
The deal could be sold on the basis of keeping Australians employed in these troubled times and maintaining competition thereby keeping fares down, it would also stop Qantas from becoming too powerful. With the current exchange rate AU$5.1 billion is loose change to Singapore Incorporated and will certainly pay back in the long term.
In normal times QF could simply get the choir singing "I still call Australia home." as an accompaniment to a nationalistic advertising campaign about protecting Australian companies. These aren't normal times, now SIA would be saving Australian jobs directly and indirectly with a takeover.
This time QF would have a competitor that wouldn't be undermined by JQ as it would be pulling in higher end less price sensitive pax. SIA would be very attractive to the corporate market as it begins its slow climb back, with a proper business class product and Star Alliance membership. The SIA brand is very well established already and with the strong links between Australia and Singapore there are no security concerns which might occur with an Air China take over. Qantas could be defending a 50% line in the sand rather than a 65% one in terms of market share.
The deal could be sold on the basis of keeping Australians employed in these troubled times and maintaining competition thereby keeping fares down, it would also stop Qantas from becoming too powerful. With the current exchange rate AU$5.1 billion is loose change to Singapore Incorporated and will certainly pay back in the long term.
In normal times QF could simply get the choir singing "I still call Australia home." as an accompaniment to a nationalistic advertising campaign about protecting Australian companies. These aren't normal times, now SIA would be saving Australian jobs directly and indirectly with a takeover.
SIA are also not that stupid to pick up a $5.5B debt ridden company for a $1. SIA faced the same situation with Ansett in 2001 when a desperate Air NZ offered AN for $1 (with debts and liabilities included).
Also as mentioned, SIA aren't "that competent" at operating in the Australian domestic market, as evidenced by their 3 prior failures in the Australian market, which includes the Tiger Airways debacle when running that operation out of the sheds in Melbourne. QF has nothing to worry about, even if SIA picks up the VA scraps at a liquidation sale.
SIA may be well known in the Australian market, but their record of running companies outside of their own brand has been dismal overall. Air NZ/Ansett, Virgin Atlantic, Tiger Airways Australia and Virgin Australia are 4 examples of SIA's failures.
SIA are not much better than EY when it comes to equity investments, dismal at best (including 1 bankruptcy - possibility 2 bankruptcies) when compared to EY's string of bankruptcies.
SQ aren't the "so-called Messiah" that many people claim to be. Considering the string of of incompetence decisions they've been involved in with their investments over the years.
It seems debt is being restructured. So who owns the debt, who are the major bondholders and are they going to be satisfied with the restructure?
if the airline was faced with a wipeout the debt holders are faced with getting cents per their dollar of debt. They will grasp on to any alternative to recoup and have a say in some of their debt ‘investment’. The term may be secured creditors but the sleepless nights say otherwise.
For the hardworking employee at least the Borg Balance Sheet Disaster looks to be heading in a direction with a future.
if the airline was faced with a wipeout the debt holders are faced with getting cents per their dollar of debt. They will grasp on to any alternative to recoup and have a say in some of their debt ‘investment’. The term may be secured creditors but the sleepless nights say otherwise.
For the hardworking employee at least the Borg Balance Sheet Disaster looks to be heading in a direction with a future.
Virgin Australia had just called a Trading Halt this morrning.
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/202004...k8qjtq4344.pdf
It's either related to:
Frydenberg's announcement yesturday, and/or
Virgin Australia appointing Houlihan Lokey as Debt Restructure Administrators yesturday.
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/202004...k8qjtq4344.pdf
It's either related to:
Frydenberg's announcement yesturday, and/or
Virgin Australia appointing Houlihan Lokey as Debt Restructure Administrators yesturday.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...c9bb512ff8a431
Virgin Australia went into a trading halt on Tuesday and whether it emerges is up in the air, with the best hope being some sort of federal government support.
Virgin chief executive Paul Scurrah spent the Easter weekend calling federal government ministers and opposition frontbenchers in a bid to secure support ahead of a cabinet meeting today that could decide the debt-heavy airline’s future.
A Virgin spokesman said the trading halt was requested as the company continued to consider ongoing issues with respect to financial assistance and restructuring alternatives.“This has arisen due to the unprecedented COVID-19 crisis which has particularly impacted the aviation sector,” the spokesman said. “We value the ongoing support of our customers.”
It comes as the Morrison government comes under increasing pressure to help the airline stay afloat and maintain a competitive airline market for when the COVID-19 crisis lifts.
Canberra has so far been reluctant to commit to anything, hoping Virgin can first do a deal with debt and equity holders who both face losing much of their investment.
The $2 billion in unsecured debt is spread across five bond issues trading at between 35 and 50 cents in the dollar.
One bond is trading in Australia and is presently at 37 cents in the dollar.
The rest of the debt, around $3 billion, is secured against aircraft and is more complicated to organise, so the plan to is to deal with unsecured holders as one vote and the five equity holders - all foreign airlines and in an equally difficult financial position - as the other group.
The dream deal would be to get 20 per cent stake holder Singapore Airlines to invest but Mr Scurrah is not banking on that happening.
His best hope is some sort of government guarantee in a deal which will see the equity and unsecured debt all but wiped out.
The federal government will on Tuesday release details of a deal with Qantas and Virgin to underwrite a skeleton network across Australia, but this will not save Virgin.
The timing of any deal will determine whether Virgin emerges from a trading halt early next week.
Mr Scurrah has attempted to put together a package which may save the airline.
International routes are gone, Tiger’s future is in doubt and the airline will focus its efforts on the domestic market.
His predecessor John Borghetti built an airline aimed at taking market share from Qantas, more than making money.
Mr Scurrah is putting all his cards on the last option - making money in the most difficult environment for global aviation.
All options are on the table including voluntary administration, but that is hoped to be avoided and instead Mr Scurrah is trying to do a deal with the debt and equity holders.
He has investment bankers Houlihan Lokey and UBS helping him on the job.
Canberra has studiously avoided committing itself to any package for fear it will set in train a congo line of companies wanting a similar deal.
But it also has not ruled out backing Mr Scurrah and has made clear it wants two domestic carriers.
Virgin Australia said today it had been keeping the “air fair” in Australia for 20-years and the company wanted to continue to provide a valuable service to all Australians.
The airline employed 16,000 people “directly and indirectly” and its continued operation would enable the broader economy to restart quickly once the crisis had eased, he said.
Virgin chief executive Paul Scurrah spent the Easter weekend calling federal government ministers and opposition frontbenchers in a bid to secure support ahead of a cabinet meeting today that could decide the debt-heavy airline’s future.
A Virgin spokesman said the trading halt was requested as the company continued to consider ongoing issues with respect to financial assistance and restructuring alternatives.“This has arisen due to the unprecedented COVID-19 crisis which has particularly impacted the aviation sector,” the spokesman said. “We value the ongoing support of our customers.”
It comes as the Morrison government comes under increasing pressure to help the airline stay afloat and maintain a competitive airline market for when the COVID-19 crisis lifts.
Canberra has so far been reluctant to commit to anything, hoping Virgin can first do a deal with debt and equity holders who both face losing much of their investment.
The $2 billion in unsecured debt is spread across five bond issues trading at between 35 and 50 cents in the dollar.
One bond is trading in Australia and is presently at 37 cents in the dollar.
The rest of the debt, around $3 billion, is secured against aircraft and is more complicated to organise, so the plan to is to deal with unsecured holders as one vote and the five equity holders - all foreign airlines and in an equally difficult financial position - as the other group.
The dream deal would be to get 20 per cent stake holder Singapore Airlines to invest but Mr Scurrah is not banking on that happening.
His best hope is some sort of government guarantee in a deal which will see the equity and unsecured debt all but wiped out.
The federal government will on Tuesday release details of a deal with Qantas and Virgin to underwrite a skeleton network across Australia, but this will not save Virgin.
The timing of any deal will determine whether Virgin emerges from a trading halt early next week.
Mr Scurrah has attempted to put together a package which may save the airline.
International routes are gone, Tiger’s future is in doubt and the airline will focus its efforts on the domestic market.
His predecessor John Borghetti built an airline aimed at taking market share from Qantas, more than making money.
Mr Scurrah is putting all his cards on the last option - making money in the most difficult environment for global aviation.
All options are on the table including voluntary administration, but that is hoped to be avoided and instead Mr Scurrah is trying to do a deal with the debt and equity holders.
He has investment bankers Houlihan Lokey and UBS helping him on the job.
Canberra has studiously avoided committing itself to any package for fear it will set in train a congo line of companies wanting a similar deal.
But it also has not ruled out backing Mr Scurrah and has made clear it wants two domestic carriers.
Virgin Australia said today it had been keeping the “air fair” in Australia for 20-years and the company wanted to continue to provide a valuable service to all Australians.
The airline employed 16,000 people “directly and indirectly” and its continued operation would enable the broader economy to restart quickly once the crisis had eased, he said.
The Virgin directors are obviously worried about being called in for trading whilst insolvent, the airline is grounded at the moment anyway but forward ticket sales are available eg BNE - SYD in July is still being offered on the website. Once the travel agents stop selling their tickets and insurers refuse coverage for bookings it's generally game over.
Australia has never had two airlines which competed equally in domestic, regional and international. Ansett was great domestically but once you wanted to go overseas things fizzled out quickly, same with Virgin, neither of them came close to the reach or frequency of Qantas. Having two strong major airlines, each with a 50% share might be seen in government as a better option than a dominant Qantas with its competitor going bust every ten years or so. A balance would be achieved and hopefully both airlines would be profitable, paying taxes and supporting Australian jobs and businesses.
Cathay Pacific threatened to start an Australian operation if Jetstar Hong Kong got going, but that seems to have died off, and CX have more than enough problems at the moment anyway.
It all depends on what's on the table, how much of a financial commitment is needed from a potential rescuerer and what's on offer in return.
SIA also have a joint venture airline in India called Vistara, anyone going into the Indian aviation needs have an adventurous spirit.
Australia has never had two airlines which competed equally in domestic, regional and international. Ansett was great domestically but once you wanted to go overseas things fizzled out quickly, same with Virgin, neither of them came close to the reach or frequency of Qantas. Having two strong major airlines, each with a 50% share might be seen in government as a better option than a dominant Qantas with its competitor going bust every ten years or so. A balance would be achieved and hopefully both airlines would be profitable, paying taxes and supporting Australian jobs and businesses.
Cathay Pacific threatened to start an Australian operation if Jetstar Hong Kong got going, but that seems to have died off, and CX have more than enough problems at the moment anyway.
It all depends on what's on the table, how much of a financial commitment is needed from a potential rescuerer and what's on offer in return.
SIA also have a joint venture airline in India called Vistara, anyone going into the Indian aviation needs have an adventurous spirit.
The Virgin directors are obviously worried about being called in for trading whilst insolvent, the airline is grounded at the moment anyway but forward ticket sales are available eg BNE - SYD in July is still being offered on the website. Once the travel agents stop selling their tickets and insurers refuse coverage for bookings it's generally game over.
Australia has never had two airlines which competed equally in domestic, regional and international. Ansett was great domestically but once you wanted to go overseas things fizzled out quickly, same with Virgin, neither of them came close to the reach or frequency of Qantas. Having two strong major airlines, each with a 50% share might be seen in government as a better option than a dominant Qantas with its competitor going bust every ten years or so. A balance would be achieved and hopefully both airlines would be profitable, paying taxes and supporting Australian jobs and businesses.
Cathay Pacific threatened to start an Australian operation if Jetstar Hong Kong got going, but that seems to have died off, and CX have more than enough problems at the moment anyway.
It all depends on what's on the table, how much of a financial commitment is needed from a potential rescuerer and what's on offer in return.
SIA also have a joint venture airline in India called Vistara, anyone going into the Indian aviation needs have an adventurous spirit.
Australia has never had two airlines which competed equally in domestic, regional and international. Ansett was great domestically but once you wanted to go overseas things fizzled out quickly, same with Virgin, neither of them came close to the reach or frequency of Qantas. Having two strong major airlines, each with a 50% share might be seen in government as a better option than a dominant Qantas with its competitor going bust every ten years or so. A balance would be achieved and hopefully both airlines would be profitable, paying taxes and supporting Australian jobs and businesses.
Cathay Pacific threatened to start an Australian operation if Jetstar Hong Kong got going, but that seems to have died off, and CX have more than enough problems at the moment anyway.
It all depends on what's on the table, how much of a financial commitment is needed from a potential rescuerer and what's on offer in return.
SIA also have a joint venture airline in India called Vistara, anyone going into the Indian aviation needs have an adventurous spirit.
However the timing of SIA buying 787s for Vistara, followed by COVID-19 hitting suggests that they have a long task ahead on their hands as long-haul travel in general will take a long while to rebound, although Indian travel may (or may not) rebound quicker than Australia.
Like with VA, perhaps Vistara should stick to domestic and short haul international (and put long haul on the back burner) for the mean time when COVID-19 subsides. Yes it would mean SIA and TATA (the 51% shareholders) may have to write down the investments on their recent 787 acquisitions..