20 buyers now circling Virgin Australia
Mick, thank you for your reply.
I label this a threat because Deloitte allegedly used the word “May” in the video.
To me, that is a direct threat. I note the Commonwealth is silent on this ATM, however we already know Deloitte has been talking to Canberra. Such an issue would depend on how an asset sale was structured. I don’t think Bain and Deloitte would like to see their potential workforce evaporate just yet.
I label this a threat because Deloitte allegedly used the word “May” in the video.
To me, that is a direct threat. I note the Commonwealth is silent on this ATM, however we already know Deloitte has been talking to Canberra. Such an issue would depend on how an asset sale was structured. I don’t think Bain and Deloitte would like to see their potential workforce evaporate just yet.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bloke had virtually zero airline experience when he came into the job
Well, that is incorrect. Just over seven years combined Qantas and Ansett and a short tenure as part of Rex start-up. Anyway - having depth in the industry does not determine success. What determines success is having good (and smart) people around you and being able to make well-informed and smart decisions.
Having good and smart people around you and being able to make well-informed and smart decisions. How do you reckon he scores on that?
Exhibit A. He brought back Keith Neate as CFO. Within three months of Neate's return to the business they had racked up $995.7 million in debt (the $325 million Australian bonds issue on 26 November and the $670.7 million ($US 425 million) US bonds issue on 7 November). They used $711.1 million of that to fund the Velocity re-acquisition transaction; paying $700 million to buy back 35 per cent of the business that was sold in 2014 for $335 million. Leaving aside the fact that the re-acquisition itself would take at least six years to break even, that transaction and the associated debt raising comprehensively tanked the balance sheet - the business had negative net equity. It was the equivalent of selling not only your final, contingency and alternate reserves but a bit of your trip fuel to boot.
Exhibit B - the rightsizing fiasco. The business's most significant cost control measure that two months after its nominated completion date had failed to achieve 20 per cent of its targeted savings.
Exhibit C - being essentially clueless on the actual financial status of his business. Again, his appointee as CFO was apparently incapable of discerning that the business they were running was insolvent. It's bad enough that that happened at all but the fact that they traded insolvent for three weeks past a month end is pretty much inexcusable.
If you wanted to pick over the bones you could probably add Exhibit D - the Haneda strategy to the list. We'll never know whether swapping out Hong Kong for Haneda would have been a successful play for international or not but there was always a certain lack of logic to moving from one tightly contested route with two direct competitors to a similarly tightly contested route with three direct competitors.
I have no doubt that the current CEO is popular but that's most assuredly not the same as being competent.
Last edited by MickG0105; 29th Aug 2020 at 00:22. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it’s also crystal balling and a touch of hysteria.
question: if big bad Bains cunning plan is to move 737 pilots onto pt25 to then only pay 25% redundancy, why aren’t they doing that with the wide body crew???why are they allowing any early retirement or VR on the narrow body at current rates, when according to some, it will be 25% of that in a few months time.
Are the being generous? That doesn’t suit the narrative.
Answer is that it’s not that easy despite what some might think.
Last edited by chookcooker; 29th Aug 2020 at 01:46.
Whats the A in HAHA matey?
Ever heard of the FWC?
Are you just here to piss people off?? Ive noticed your attitude, and how you get all angry, post ****, then delete it. And thats just not with me!
Although, I have nothing against you.
Its a nice day outside. Go for a walk .
Ever heard of the FWC?
Are you just here to piss people off?? Ive noticed your attitude, and how you get all angry, post ****, then delete it. And thats just not with me!
Although, I have nothing against you.
Its a nice day outside. Go for a walk .
Quite ironically I deleted the post because I was heading out on a walk and thought i thought it needed additional context. Regardless, you quoted it so it’s easy for me to paste:
“Originally Posted by chookcooker
a) no you said “”Liquidated when legally, it probably should of been” It’s been sold as a going concern, which is pretty much proof that at no point up until now it should ever have simply been liquidated.
b) and c) redundancy payout isn’t based on ramp up MOU terms. It’s in the bit you quoted “ordinary hours worked” of which a Memorandum if Understanding clearly isn’t “ordinary”
any new EA has to be agreed to and will take time.
You quite clearly have been expecting the “**** to hit the fan” for a while now. And looks like you’re still hoping/waiting.
so I’ll stand by my original observation thanks.
Feel free to ignore me too like you did Mick when it became convenient.”
Not sure what in the above you somehow construe as me “getting all angry”
Perhaps you should take some of your own advice.
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe. Maybe not, it’s still an agreement.
it’s also crystal balling and a touch of hysteria.
question: if big bad Bains cunning plan is to move 737 pilots onto pt25 to then only pay 25% redundancy, why aren’t they doing that with the wide body crew???why are they allowing any early retirement or VR on the narrow body at current rates, when according to some, it will be 25% of that in a few months time.
Are the being generous? That doesn’t suit the narrative.
Answer is that it’s not that easy despite what some might think.
it’s also crystal balling and a touch of hysteria.
question: if big bad Bains cunning plan is to move 737 pilots onto pt25 to then only pay 25% redundancy, why aren’t they doing that with the wide body crew???why are they allowing any early retirement or VR on the narrow body at current rates, when according to some, it will be 25% of that in a few months time.
Are the being generous? That doesn’t suit the narrative.
Answer is that it’s not that easy despite what some might think.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mick, I am not sure why you provided a narrative with your perspective on Paul/VA's performance? You may need to reread my response. I said that what determines success is having good (and smart) people around you and making well-informed, smart decisions.
I can't see where I implied this was the case for VA? My first part responded to your incorrect assertion that Paul did not have 'airline experience'. I then proceeded to provide my synopsis of how success comes about. Not a defence for VA's leadership team and/or business strategy?
Whilst I am here - I might also counter the 'lack of airline experience' narrative, generally. John had over 30 years of 'airline experience'. How did that go at VA...
I can't see where I implied this was the case for VA? My first part responded to your incorrect assertion that Paul did not have 'airline experience'. I then proceeded to provide my synopsis of how success comes about. Not a defence for VA's leadership team and/or business strategy?
Whilst I am here - I might also counter the 'lack of airline experience' narrative, generally. John had over 30 years of 'airline experience'. How did that go at VA...
And let's be clear, in support of my perspective I provided objective and verifiable examples. You may not agree with the perspective but the facts of the matter are easy to check.
In any event, you seem to be dwelling on just the first part of the sentence. I also said that he had failed to get anything meaningfully positive accomplished once he was in the job. Have I missed something?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was simply running your metrics for what determines success over the current case.
And let's be clear, in support of my perspective I provided objective and verifiable examples. You may not agree with the perspective but the facts of the matter are easy to check.
And let's be clear, in support of my perspective I provided objective and verifiable examples. You may not agree with the perspective but the facts of the matter are easy to check.
Maybe you need to re-read my original post.
As you can plainly see I did not say that Paul Scurrah 'did not have 'airline experience''. I'll happily concede the point that semantically 'virtually zero airline experience' and seven years experience, mostly at or below manager-level nearly 20 years ago may not be the same thing.
In any event, you seem to be dwelling on just the first part of the sentence. I also said that he had failed to get anything meaningfully positive accomplished once he was in the job. Have I missed something?
In any event, you seem to be dwelling on just the first part of the sentence. I also said that he had failed to get anything meaningfully positive accomplished once he was in the job. Have I missed something?
I've explained above. Not dwelling - just calling out where an argument lacks accuracy and balance of facts. He also (eventually) operated at 'GM' level - relatively senior in those days/structures. Notwithstanding his extensive senior commercial experience within the travel industry and subsequent running of transport, and port and supply chain business'.
With regards to his performance that you allude to in your second part; that isn't being debated, or at least not by me in any of my posts.
Fair point. I should have said 'virtually zero airline experience in the current century'.
Okey doke, so let's apply those metrics of success.
Having good and smart people around you and being able to make well-informed and smart decisions. How do you reckon he scores on that?
Exhibit A. He brought back Keith Neate as CFO. Within three months of Neate's return to the business they had racked up $995.7 million in debt (the $325 million Australian bonds issue on 26 November and the $670.7 million ($US 425 million) US bonds issue on 7 November). They used $711.1 million of that to fund the Velocity re-acquisition transaction; paying $700 million to buy back 35 per cent of the business that was sold in 2014 for $335 million. Leaving aside the fact that the re-acquisition itself would take at least six years to break even, that transaction and the associated debt raising comprehensively tanked the balance sheet - the business had negative net equity. It was the equivalent of selling not only your final, contingency and alternate reserves but a bit of your trip fuel to boot.
Exhibit B - the rightsizing fiasco. The business's most significant cost control measure that two months after its nominated completion date had failed to achieve 20 per cent of its targeted savings.
Exhibit C - being essentially clueless on the actual financial status of his business. Again, his appointee as CFO was apparently incapable of discerning that the business they were running was insolvent. It's bad enough that that happened at all but the fact that they traded insolvent for three weeks past a month end is pretty much inexcusable.
If you wanted to pick over the bones you could probably add Exhibit D - the Haneda strategy to the list. We'll never know whether swapping out Hong Kong for Haneda would have been a successful play for international or not but there was always a certain lack of logic to moving from one tightly contested route with two direct competitors to a similarly tightly contested route with three direct competitors.
I have no doubt that the current CEO is popular but that's most assuredly not the same as being competent.
Okey doke, so let's apply those metrics of success.
Having good and smart people around you and being able to make well-informed and smart decisions. How do you reckon he scores on that?
Exhibit A. He brought back Keith Neate as CFO. Within three months of Neate's return to the business they had racked up $995.7 million in debt (the $325 million Australian bonds issue on 26 November and the $670.7 million ($US 425 million) US bonds issue on 7 November). They used $711.1 million of that to fund the Velocity re-acquisition transaction; paying $700 million to buy back 35 per cent of the business that was sold in 2014 for $335 million. Leaving aside the fact that the re-acquisition itself would take at least six years to break even, that transaction and the associated debt raising comprehensively tanked the balance sheet - the business had negative net equity. It was the equivalent of selling not only your final, contingency and alternate reserves but a bit of your trip fuel to boot.
Exhibit B - the rightsizing fiasco. The business's most significant cost control measure that two months after its nominated completion date had failed to achieve 20 per cent of its targeted savings.
Exhibit C - being essentially clueless on the actual financial status of his business. Again, his appointee as CFO was apparently incapable of discerning that the business they were running was insolvent. It's bad enough that that happened at all but the fact that they traded insolvent for three weeks past a month end is pretty much inexcusable.
If you wanted to pick over the bones you could probably add Exhibit D - the Haneda strategy to the list. We'll never know whether swapping out Hong Kong for Haneda would have been a successful play for international or not but there was always a certain lack of logic to moving from one tightly contested route with two direct competitors to a similarly tightly contested route with three direct competitors.
I have no doubt that the current CEO is popular but that's most assuredly not the same as being competent.
I agree with you. JB proved that popularity and blowing smoke does not equate with business acumen. PS was very slow out of the box on reform which indicates to me that the task was either not fully understood or too big for him to grasp. Don't mention the Board who obviously didn't have clue what was happening..
Why not? Is it subject to a licencing agreement or some such?
No, I have not tried to navigate around my original comment at all. What I did was point out to you what I actually said. I did not say that he did not have airline experience.
More to the point, is there some part of 'I'll happily concede the point that semantically 'virtually zero airline experience' and seven years experience, mostly at or below manager-level nearly 20 years ago may not be the same thing.' that you are unclear on?
So it is probably worth disclosing here that I was a GM at Ansett when Paul Scurrah joined the business as a manager and when he was later promoted to GM. I've got a pretty fair handle on the relative seniority of the GM role and an equally good appreciation of The Last Days of the Roman Empire deck chair filling that was in train on the Sales side of the house back then.
Super! Then I trust you won't demur further if some of the rest of us want to discuss that?
More to the point, is there some part of 'I'll happily concede the point that semantically 'virtually zero airline experience' and seven years experience, mostly at or below manager-level nearly 20 years ago may not be the same thing.' that you are unclear on?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: BAO
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recent Times/ and PPRuNe Culture.......
So- with all these 'aliases' (single use/burn identities and protagonists) et-al..........., smashing Input/and Personalities!!!!
Have Not- 'Mick' and Co been trading/dealing with 'Self-Evidentiary' Fact (as published, in the Public Domain....), derived from 'their' Own Research/Endeavors .............????, not alot of others 'here', have the inclination!!!!
Cute- 'it' maybe- Momentarily to Snipe, but- 'this' is REAL and not a 'Biatch-Slapping" competition......
Anyhoo- the Best/& be Well
rgds All
S28- BE
Have Not- 'Mick' and Co been trading/dealing with 'Self-Evidentiary' Fact (as published, in the Public Domain....), derived from 'their' Own Research/Endeavors .............????, not alot of others 'here', have the inclination!!!!
Cute- 'it' maybe- Momentarily to Snipe, but- 'this' is REAL and not a 'Biatch-Slapping" competition......
Anyhoo- the Best/& be Well
rgds All
S28- BE
Last edited by Section28- BE; 29th Aug 2020 at 10:16. Reason: 1, 2, 3.........
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of getting back on thread,
It was noted in the administrators report that a principal cause for Virgin’s poor financial state was an attempt to move from a LCC to a full service carrier, and to take on Qantas in that market. That change to the business plan failed.
Yet, it appears that the administrators preferred buyer, Bain, have stated that they will continue with the same business model (minus the widebodies).
What am I missing?
It was noted in the administrators report that a principal cause for Virgin’s poor financial state was an attempt to move from a LCC to a full service carrier, and to take on Qantas in that market. That change to the business plan failed.
Yet, it appears that the administrators preferred buyer, Bain, have stated that they will continue with the same business model (minus the widebodies).
What am I missing?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation will probably be back to near normal within 12 months (domestic). Maybe 18 months if it goes really bad.
So my question stands... What are Bain going to do to change what JB failed to do?
Change the EBA’s? That remains to be seen (or voted upon).
Qantas have already reacted by outsourcing all their below wing work. They are already positioning themselves to compete with a potential lower-cost-base full-service competitor.
Maybe Bain are “that good”.
... or maybe Bain will actually persuade their employees to sign such poor EBA’s that Qantas can’t possibly compete with.
So my question stands... What are Bain going to do to change what JB failed to do?
Change the EBA’s? That remains to be seen (or voted upon).
Qantas have already reacted by outsourcing all their below wing work. They are already positioning themselves to compete with a potential lower-cost-base full-service competitor.
Maybe Bain are “that good”.
... or maybe Bain will actually persuade their employees to sign such poor EBA’s that Qantas can’t possibly compete with.