Government Loan to Virgin Australia
Charles Darwin did a lot of useful work collating and assembling all of this into a coherent structure that he then published in a book, but he didn't invent the idea or even formulate it.
NALOPKT(&EFGAS),
PDR
-41, all that debt, it's so very true.
But any entity who invests money in airlines is intrinsically taking a financial risk, it's been proven too many times.
But like every gamble, it's a matter of balancing your bet against how much you can make in return (I'm not a gambler btw, I work work too hard to just throw money away)
The return would be a chance to play for some of the best domestic money spinning routes in the entire world.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericros.../#1b3feefe1d48
But any entity who invests money in airlines is intrinsically taking a financial risk, it's been proven too many times.
But like every gamble, it's a matter of balancing your bet against how much you can make in return (I'm not a gambler btw, I work work too hard to just throw money away)
The return would be a chance to play for some of the best domestic money spinning routes in the entire world.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericros.../#1b3feefe1d48
Last edited by RampDog; 2nd Apr 2020 at 11:01. Reason: replied to -41
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: home with mum and the kids
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ramp - why would anyone invest in a business that’s barely made a cent for the last 10 years, is saddled with debt and is dominated by its main competitor?
Now imagine its market has collapsed and is unlikely to return to previous levels for some time?
Branson took millions as did others when this business was floated. Why should taxpayers now bail it out?
Now imagine its market has collapsed and is unlikely to return to previous levels for some time?
Branson took millions as did others when this business was floated. Why should taxpayers now bail it out?
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Earth
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not true. The basic theory of survival of the fittest and evolutionary development was around much earlier. For instance Lamark published a proposed theory on "Transmutation of Species" in 1809, but it is understood that he was codifying and recording ideas that had been being widely discussed in the scientific community for some time, building on the work of people like Joseph Kölreuter and Erasmus Darwin (Charles' granfather). Robert Grant and Robert Knox started joining up the theories into a structure relating to a "single ancestor species" theory, and in 1844 Robert Chambers published work linking all of this to the fossil record.
Charles Darwin did a lot of useful work collating and assembling all of this into a coherent structure that he then published in a book, but he didn't invent the idea or even formulate it.
NALOPKT(&EFGAS),
PDR
Charles Darwin did a lot of useful work collating and assembling all of this into a coherent structure that he then published in a book, but he didn't invent the idea or even formulate it.
NALOPKT(&EFGAS),
PDR
PDR1 you utter flog.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air NZ?
Ansett, failure, who owned Ansett?
Virgin, probable failure, who was a shareholder?
Two dismal failures after two attempts.
Maybe Kiwis are slow learners but I don’t think even a Kiwi would try that for the third time.
Ansett, failure, who owned Ansett?
Virgin, probable failure, who was a shareholder?
Two dismal failures after two attempts.
Maybe Kiwis are slow learners but I don’t think even a Kiwi would try that for the third time.
Ramp - why would anyone invest in a business that’s barely made a cent for the last 10 years, is saddled with debt and is dominated by its main competitor?
Now imagine its market has collapsed and is unlikely to return to previous levels for some time?
Branson took millions as did others when this business was floated. Why should taxpayers now bail it out?
Now imagine its market has collapsed and is unlikely to return to previous levels for some time?
Branson took millions as did others when this business was floated. Why should taxpayers now bail it out?
No person or business with any sense would throw 100s millions in, so why should the Australian Government?
The only possible way they could justify it, is that they are rescuing Aussie jobs, and from past experience that was never their credo. (Remember HIH and Ansett, Ford, Holden etc etc, goodbye jobs!)
It would be the height of financial incompetence to use today's and future taxpayer dollars to prop up this business.
No one wants airline employees above or below the wing, to lose their current jobs. Been there, and you wouldn't wish it on anyone.
The challenge for the Government will be rescuing the economy, as there will be not one industry spared by the COVID19 crisis.
Government has done its bit and now VA management, if they really believe they have a viable business, has to come up with a different strategy......
Is it not true that your current situation is, to a large extent, the result of your past actions, choices and experiences?
The positive side should be that your future is determined by how you act in the present moment.
Last edited by RampDog; 2nd Apr 2020 at 22:53.
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ive always felt it a little strange that I, as an Aussie, flying a VH registered plane can fly NZ domestic services, but thems the rules. Absolutely no reason the Kiwis can’t do the same here.
That in turn led to Air NZ buying Ansett to attempt to achieve a similar result.
Which in its turn led to tragic catastrophe
I don’t think even a Kiwi would try that for the third time.
If it were not for the fact Air NZ has just been bailed out again I wouldn't have put it past them.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Most locked down city in the world
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...down-exec-says
Speaking of ANZ this is ridiculous.
Speaking of ANZ this is ridiculous.
The deputy PM, Michael McCormack is reported to have said this morning that there would be no exceptional assistance for one company. “Whatever we do for Virgin we are going to have to do for other companies as well. We can’t just pick and select individuals and winners out of this.” He said Virgin should consider raising capital from its existing shareholders, including Singapore Airlines and Etihad Airways.
The difference with this though is that they wouldn’t be investing in another airline to gain a foothold in the Aussie domestic market. They can use their AOC, aircraft and crew. Just set bases in MEL, SYD & BNE and it’s good to go.
ive always felt it a little strange that I, as an Aussie, flying a VH registered plane can fly NZ domestic services, but thems the rules. Absolutely no reason the Kiwis can’t do the same here.
ive always felt it a little strange that I, as an Aussie, flying a VH registered plane can fly NZ domestic services, but thems the rules. Absolutely no reason the Kiwis can’t do the same here.
On another note, the same anti argument can be applied to the Singaporeans.
SIA had two previous goes at the Australian market through equity (Air NZ/Ansett Group and Tiger Airways Australia) and both equity investments ended in dismal failure. SIA also had full ownership control of the later (although separate management teams) before they "sold TT to VA" to save face on their own incompetence.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transfer 100% ownership to SQ for $1 which includes them taking the debt. VAH is folded and re launched as Tiger (already a familiar entity here).
Etihad and China don't have any capacity for funding, so they write the loss off.
Branson won't fund it in this environment, so he'll have to take a haircut as well.
Get rid of all the regionals and stick to core mainline operations with one aircraft type.
Etihad and China don't have any capacity for funding, so they write the loss off.
Branson won't fund it in this environment, so he'll have to take a haircut as well.
Get rid of all the regionals and stick to core mainline operations with one aircraft type.
Yesterdays "Australian" - behind a paywall
Expectations are mounting that Virgin Australia will receive government assistance to stave off collapse, with suggestions key decision—makers have long memories about the windfall reaped by Qantas after Ansett Australia collapsed in 2001.
Virgin Australia has gone cap- in-hand to the federal government asking for a $1.-4bn loan, which if not repaid would see the government take an ownership stake within two or three years.
Singapore Airlines, HNA, Etihad and China’s Nanshan all own about 20 per cent of the airline, and Virgin Group about 10 per cent, while the rest is publicly listed.
The understanding is that Singapore Airlines would have been willing to bail out the Australian carrier. However, some believe the government would be hesitant about the foreign airline gaining a foothold in the Australian market. Singapore Airlines is essentially owned by the Singaporean government.
Preventing Singapore Airlines from owning Virgin Australia would in fact offer protection for the government-backed Qantas.
Singapore Airlines was also understood to have been keen to buy Ansett when that airline collapsed.
The dilemma for the federal government is that if it does not offer help to Virgin Australia, it faces a situation where Qantas would have a market monopoly, to the potential detriment of Australian travellers.
This is if it also disallows full foreign ownership.
Qantas made attempts to seek assistance from the federal government in the aftermath of the global financial crisis around 2014, but the treasurer at the time, Joe Hockey, declined the request.
Virgin Australia has gone cap- in-hand to the federal government asking for a $1.-4bn loan, which if not repaid would see the government take an ownership stake within two or three years.
Singapore Airlines, HNA, Etihad and China’s Nanshan all own about 20 per cent of the airline, and Virgin Group about 10 per cent, while the rest is publicly listed.
The understanding is that Singapore Airlines would have been willing to bail out the Australian carrier. However, some believe the government would be hesitant about the foreign airline gaining a foothold in the Australian market. Singapore Airlines is essentially owned by the Singaporean government.
Preventing Singapore Airlines from owning Virgin Australia would in fact offer protection for the government-backed Qantas.
Singapore Airlines was also understood to have been keen to buy Ansett when that airline collapsed.
The dilemma for the federal government is that if it does not offer help to Virgin Australia, it faces a situation where Qantas would have a market monopoly, to the potential detriment of Australian travellers.
This is if it also disallows full foreign ownership.
Qantas made attempts to seek assistance from the federal government in the aftermath of the global financial crisis around 2014, but the treasurer at the time, Joe Hockey, declined the request.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Etihad and China don't have any capacity for funding, so they write the loss off.
Abu Dhabi is the richest , they could buy EK before breakfast . Australian tax payers asked to bail out a company that when profitable will pay dividends to the Chinese government ( HNA) , Abu Dhabi and Singapore government. If the Australian government put 1.4B in then they better get a seat at the table and take some profit along side of these other governments .
Abu Dhabi is the richest , they could buy EK before breakfast . Australian tax payers asked to bail out a company that when profitable will pay dividends to the Chinese government ( HNA) , Abu Dhabi and Singapore government. If the Australian government put 1.4B in then they better get a seat at the table and take some profit along side of these other governments .
Transfer 100% ownership to SQ for $1 which includes them taking the debt. VAH is folded and re launched as Tiger (already a familiar entity here).
Etihad and China don't have any capacity for funding, so they write the loss off.
Branson won't fund it in this environment, so he'll have to take a haircut as well.
Get rid of all the regionals and stick to core mainline operations with one aircraft type.
Etihad and China don't have any capacity for funding, so they write the loss off.
Branson won't fund it in this environment, so he'll have to take a haircut as well.
Get rid of all the regionals and stick to core mainline operations with one aircraft type.
SQ were also offered AN for $1 before AN filed administration and they declined. Likely will be same scenario if SQ were offered VA for $1 (5B debt and all).
Edit: Also, if SQ couldn't make their three attempts at the Australian market work (Strike 1: Air New Zealand/Ansett, Strike 2: Tiger Airways and Strike 3: Virgin Australia), especially when SQ had full management control of Tiger Australia, what makes people think SQ could make a 4th attempt work?
SQ are not much better than EY when it comes to investments. Mediocre at best, when compared to EY which are largely failures.
Last edited by DanV2; 3rd Apr 2020 at 02:36.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adding to both Virgin and Ansett the attempts at getting hold hold of Australian Airlines before the Keating goverment blocked them, you have three attempts in the last 30 years.
If it were not for the fact Air NZ has just been bailed out again I wouldn't have put it past them.
If it were not for the fact Air NZ has just been bailed out again I wouldn't have put it past them.