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

Virgin 3.0

Old 31st Dec 2020, 11:24
  #1181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Qld
Posts: 116
On a related note. Turns out Bain partly owns one of the aircraft leasing companies: Griffin Global Asset Management.

VA's one-time sister company VS had recently sold and leased back two 789s to Griffin (Partly owned by Bain Capital).

On another note: I wonder if Bain's UK division may make a bid for VS at some point considering VS' own financial woes.

Source (Sky UK):
https://news.sky.com/story/virgin-at...y-bid-12155513
DanV2 is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2020, 11:55
  #1182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 289
Okey doke, so let's have at this.
Originally Posted by Australopithecus View Post
So if revenue was growing does that mean they were also gaining market share?
If they were gaining market share, it wasn't enough for them to talk about so I'd say no. And remember market share isn't the be all and end all. If you're losing money with 35 percent market share there's every chance that you're just going to lose even more money by gaining more if you haven't got your yield management sorted.
Originally Posted by Australopithecus View Post
Or just raising fares faster than industry average?
They wouldn't have been raising fares by much, if at all, and that may have been part of the problem. You can make a good argument that for VA's cost base, their fares were around 5-10 percent below cost.
Originally Posted by Australopithecus View Post
If passenger numbers were growing but the yield still not offsetting costs what the hell were they doing about their fixed cost structure?
For them to be in the hole that they were, their whole cost base - fixed and variable - had to be a problem. We know that some of their fixed costs were too high - running two head offices will do that to you. For them to be losing more money on higher revenues points to an issue with their variable costs as well. We know that they underperformed on fuel hedging so there was that. And you have to hazard a guess that there was poor to no discipline around other costs such as headcount.

I don't subscribe to the multi-type fleet being a super big issue. People seem to forget that AN, that only had five types across mainline and international, made money in '98 and good money in '99 and 2000. This century, NZ had a comparable size fleet to what VA was and managed to make money with a 5/6 type fleet. Obviously what is required with a multi-type fleet though is decent management, draw your own conclusion on that front. I think that it is fair to say that VA couldn't run a cost control/reduction program to save themselves. Between 2017 - 2019 they ran the initially much talked about Better Business Program. It was meant to improve free cash flow (essentially the difference between cash revenue and cash expenses) and address capital management (essentially assets versus debt). They appear to have tried to largely tackle the revenue v. expense part of it by chasing revenue. Long story short, after talking up the improvements that they were meant to be achieving on an annual basis, after three years they were back to where they started; net change in cash and cash equivalents for 2019 was pretty much unchanged from 2017. One thing that the Better Business Program did achieve though was a steady improvement in their capital position - that was subsequently trashed in quick order by Scurrah and Neate.
Originally Posted by Australopithecus View Post
If you can invent a greenfields airline from scratch in about a year why do CEOs not do more to remove the barnacles more often? I guess there’s no bonuses in that.
A very good question. Good CEOs are constantly driving both continuous improvement at the incremental day-to-day operational level as well as typically also driving some new big thing at the strategic level as well. But that's all bloody hard work, requires a better than half decent C-suite, requires a supportive business culture and is often unpopular.

And a very good point you raise on bonuses. If you want to understand why a CEO does any particular thing, go to the Remuneration section of the annual report and look at the Executive Scorecard - it governs bonus payments. At VA in 2016 Underlying Group Profit Before Tax represented fully 50 percent of the CEO's scorecard and 30 percent of the senior executives' scorecards. In 2017 Underlying Group Profit Before Tax was reduced to just, wait for it ... 15 percent of the CEO's and senior exec's scorecard. One way to think about that is that it incentivised the CEO and executive team to spend less than 10 minutes of their every working hour worrying about the business actually making money. At QF Group Profitability makes up 50 percent of the Executive Scorecard.

And the other thing to note is that actually delivering an Underlying Group Profit Before Tax, that is making money, was not a Go/No-Go gate for bonus payments at VA. Noting the caveat that my experience shouldn't just be generalised up as 'all encompassing', I have never worked for a business that paid bonuses unless there was a profit that year. And typically not just any profit but one that was at least 70-80 percent of the target. And that appears to be the case at QF - no profit, no bonus.
MickG0105 is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2020, 20:20
  #1183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,487
Very good points Mick. I’d add that the change in emphasis on the bonus targets is a recognition by the Board that profit is unlikely in the short term and the CEO is expected to focus on cleaning up the mess. This is how you get those warped business stories about how “CEO Joe Blow got Xmillion bonus when acme company actually lost money”. Sometimes you need to promise a bonus even when there is no profit in order to retain a good CEO to clean up messes.

Sunfish is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2020, 20:52
  #1184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 943
Thanks for the thoughtful reply Mick. I think we disagree on the wisdom of a fleet with too many types. Ansett did indeed make money just before they didn’t anymore. There is a compelling eggs:basket* argument about single types, but employing more than two for a similar job is an ongoing significant cost.

*Southwest, for example, often mentions their large single fleet as a significant advantage. If the Max grounding had occurred sometime later Southwest would have lost most of their lift for two years.

VA used E170s and 190s with a small fleet of both. Really costly, then they repeated the mistake with the regional aircraft. Sometimes I get the impression that airlines are using pretty basic ROI metrics to justify lots of cost for very little theoretical gain. Qantas is doing the same thing, but in their case they’ve decided that fuel is going to be cheap forever, and capital costs are king. Hence cornering the world market for obsolete pieces of shit. They at least have big fleets of each to offset coats.

Reading your explanation of the bonus metrics reminds me of another hotbed of unintended consequences : the KPI programme.



I often suspect this is what happens where I work.

Last edited by Australopithecus; 31st Dec 2020 at 21:11.
Australopithecus is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2021, 01:34
  #1185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 289
Exclamation

Originally Posted by Australopithecus View Post
I think we disagree on the wisdom of a fleet with too many types. Ansett did indeed make money just before they didn’t anymore. There is a compelling eggs:basket* argument about single types, but employing more than two for a similar job is an ongoing significant cost.
You're more than welcome.

And I don't think we do necessarily disagree on the multi-type fleet issue. You've summarised the crux of it nicely in "employing more than two for a similar job is an ongoing significant cost." The key to getting your fleet right is horses for courses.

Beyond that airlines face the issue of trying to maintain some leverage with Boeing and Airbus on fleet decisions. As you've pointed out, Southwest's all-in with Boeing means that they have decided that they're essentially going to be beholden to Boeing. The only real leverage that SWA have with Boeing is volume, and in that regard a 700+ fleet will doubtless get you a good deal (I recall reading somewhere that they actually have 737 aircraft in the fleet, that's surely a 'get-a-room' level of commitment to a type).

In that regard, I think that you can get away with two types on the same task if you've got some sort of 'natural' or logical division, such as QF with 737s and JQ with A320s

The E-jets would make for an interesting study. Being neither fish nor fowl, as in not Airbus or Boeing, they really didn't set up much in the way of competitive tension on fleet decisions. VA couldn't seem to get them to work but Scott McMillan (who I would rate over most in the industry) clearly sees them as a goer.

And yes, Dilbert, you've got to love him. This is an oldie ...



MickG0105 is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2021, 01:54
  #1186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 943
That made me guffaw, which is always welcome when I should instead be bending to my chores.

E jets. They are my favourite for the generous seat pitch and smaller crowd of unwashed fellow travellers. They seem to be the real workhorse on the American secondary city pair routes, but I am not so sure about the major routes in Australia. You might be able to make a theoretical argument about utility in the slack part of the day, but the actual realities of partial utilisation with full overheads would kill that fast.

Alliance on the other hand seems like a perfect fit for the E-190s, especially when shopping for them in the time of plague. I am told that they raised the capital and paid cash. They also apparently paid less for each than we pay for a 737 engine. It would appear that an (apparently) simple approach can be its own reward.
Australopithecus is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2021, 02:10
  #1187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 673
About $6m each if you so the sums with a few spare engines and a sim now thrown in.

Alliance know how to sniff out a deal and never pay a cent more than they have to for anything.
Going Nowhere is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2021, 03:46
  #1188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 289
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
Very good points Mick. I’d add that the change in emphasis on the bonus targets is a recognition by the Board that profit is unlikely in the short term and the CEO is expected to focus on cleaning up the mess. This is how you get those warped business stories about how “CEO Joe Blow got Xmillion bonus when acme company actually lost money”. Sometimes you need to promise a bonus even when there is no profit in order to retain a good CEO to clean up messes.
Sunfish, yes I understand that scorecards might get tweaked to reflect short-term goals but that should always be a short-term measure.

VA has only placed making money, that is returning a profit, at 50 percent of the CEO's executive scorecard once in the past decade by my reckoning. Over the same period QA had not placed Group Profitability below 50 percent, even during major business transformations.

That, at least in part, goes to the oft talked about Virgin culture in my opinion; they were running the joint using the handbook for a preschool sports day.
MickG0105 is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2021, 05:05
  #1189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 68
Posts: 130
A lot of talk about KPI and performances bonuses but some CEO’s also get ‘sign on’ bonuses or ‘payments’, and they also get ‘retention’ bonuses. And as in the early days of VB Godfrey and Sherrard had a share of ownership in the uniform company, an aircraft leasing company that owned a couple of the 737’s and they possibly had part ownership in the GSE company that supplied the PowerPush Units (PPU’s). Lots of areas to skim a few extra dollars for the bank account.

And most CEO’s almost certainly engage Consultants, auditors and business advisors whose companies belong to mates or family associates. And other CEO’s will receive property and/or an expensive vehicle as part of their remuneration package. I always laugh when I see a CEO say they are ‘working for nothing this year’ or ‘forgoing their corporate bonus’. It means SFA, don’t worry, they are still getting their pockets filled. It’s written in the fine print.

Last edited by Paragraph377; 6th Jan 2021 at 01:28.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2021, 19:21
  #1190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Somewhere or other
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by MickG0105 View Post
Sunfish, yes I understand that scorecards might get tweaked to reflect short-term goals but that should always be a short-term measure.

VA has only placed making money, that is returning a profit, at 50 percent of the CEO's executive scorecard once in the past decade by my reckoning. Over the same period QA had not placed Group Profitability below 50 percent, even during major business transformations.

That, at least in part, goes to the oft talked about Virgin culture in my opinion; they were running the joint using the handbook for a preschool sports day.
I might be able to shed some insight into that.

For what it's worth, I once met a "very well known individual" in a certain commanding airline office at Macquarie Place. They explained to me that Virgin Australia didn't aim to make profit. Apparently, they generated shareholder value by capturing domestic market share and gaining loyalty. From this loyalty (FF and corporate deals), Virgin steered high paying corporate passengers and wealthy types onto their shareholder's long haul flights when they travelled overseas. It was explained that this increased both volume and yield for their shareholders international networks, giving greater profit than any meagre dividend an airline could ever pay.

I thought at the time that sounds too clever by half. Yes it probably works OK for shareholder's P&L in the short term, but that VA would collapse like a pyramid scheme if the likes of SQ and EY stopped regularly injecting cash.
an.other is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2021, 00:52
  #1191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 289
Originally Posted by an.other View Post
I might be able to shed some insight into that.

For what it's worth, I once met a "very well known individual" in a certain commanding airline office at Macquarie Place. They explained to me that Virgin Australia didn't aim to make profit. Apparently, they generated shareholder value by capturing domestic market share and gaining loyalty. From this loyalty (FF and corporate deals), Virgin steered high paying corporate passengers and wealthy types onto their shareholder's long haul flights when they travelled overseas. It was explained that this increased both volume and yield for their shareholders international networks, giving greater profit than any meagre dividend an airline could ever pay.

I thought at the time that sounds too clever by half. Yes it probably works OK for shareholder's P&L in the short term, but that VA would collapse like a pyramid scheme if the likes of SQ and EY stopped regularly injecting cash.
Yes, I've heard similar international sales office rationalisations of the money pit approach to VA's management over the years. Reality tends to mug that explanation before it reaches its front gate.

For starters, you don't have to have part ownership of an airline to do a code-share deal.

Beyond that, if you look at the numbers, owning shares in a loss making airline in order to pick up passengers doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless the losses are small and the pax flows are big. It makes even less sense if you are also wearing the separate cost of maintaining your own Australian based sales teams which was the case with SQ and EY. And in terms of overall impact, SQ's involvement with VA seemed to have had no discernible impact on their market share for Australian international. SQ were squeezed by EK and/or JQ over the years out of the No 2 spot. Now, you might argue that that decline might have been faster if not for the VA tie up but that'd be a stretch I think. SQ could have had a VA codeshare deal without burdening themselves with 20 percent of a billion in losses for just FY18 and FY19.

EY might have got a slight leg-up but if you compare how they were travelling against say Qatar, QR actually grew their Australian business faster with no pesky loss making ownership tie-up. Hainan are a similar story. If you accept that all HU's Australian business was coming to them via VA then it cost them roughly $130/pax in 2019 just by way of their share of that year's loss.
MickG0105 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2021, 10:20
  #1192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Qld
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by MickG0105 View Post
Yes, I've heard similar international sales office rationalisations of the money pit approach to VA's management over the years. Reality tends to mug that explanation before it reaches its front gate.

For starters, you don't have to have part ownership of an airline to do a code-share deal.

Beyond that, if you look at the numbers, owning shares in a loss making airline in order to pick up passengers doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless the losses are small and the pax flows are big. It makes even less sense if you are also wearing the separate cost of maintaining your own Australian based sales teams which was the case with SQ and EY. And in terms of overall impact, SQ's involvement with VA seemed to have had no discernible impact on their market share for Australian international. SQ were squeezed by EK and/or JQ over the years out of the No 2 spot. Now, you might argue that that decline might have been faster if not for the VA tie up but that'd be a stretch I think. SQ could have had a VA codeshare deal without burdening themselves with 20 percent of a billion in losses for just FY18 and FY19.

EY might have got a slight leg-up but if you compare how they were travelling against say Qatar, QR actually grew their Australian business faster with no pesky loss making ownership tie-up. Hainan are a similar story. If you accept that all HU's Australian business was coming to them via VA then it cost them roughly $130/pax in 2019 just by way of their share of that year's loss.
I suspect that it may had been egos in the SQ boardroom at the time, although many knew that a simple codeshare deal with VA could've sufficed without the need to grab a stake in VA.

Some may had been there since the Tiger Airways Australia (which ultimately ended in the Grounding fiasco of 2011), although I can't recall if any were still around from the Air New Zealand (Ansett) fiasco a decade back.

Ultimately in the end, the "Australian market" wasn't as important as some of the "SQ fanboys" on the other forums (AusBT, etc) made it out to be, as SQ ultimately pulled the plug on VA long before administration, as evidenced by SQ slowly encumbering (a.k.a 'asset-stripping') the 'owned' VA 737s to the banks in exchange for capital (instead of putting in their own money) to a point where were no unencumbered 737s left.
DanV2 is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2021, 01:04
  #1193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,049
Well you now have the best of the best CFOs in the business. That is an extremely good get.

Hopefully he brings his colleagues from Woolworths along also.
wheels_down is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2021, 01:38
  #1194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 68
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by wheels_down View Post
Well you now have the best of the best CFOs in the business. That is an extremely good get.
Hopefully he brings his colleagues from Woolworths along also.
The list;
  • Lisa Burquest, Chief People, Safety and Sustainability Officer, The a2 Milk Company, to become Chief People Officer
  • Alistair Hartley, Director of Strategy, International Airlines Group, to become Chief Transformation Officer
  • David Marr, Chief Operating Officer, Woolworths Group, to become Chief Financial Officer
  • Nick Rohrlach, Co-CEO, Jetstar Japan, to become CEO Velocity
  • Susan Schneider, General Manager Legal and Compliance, Virgin Australia, promoted to become Chief Legal and Risk Officer
  • Moksha Watts, Vice President Corporate Affairs and Sustainability, The Arnott’s Group, to become Chief Corporate Affairs Officer.
I am correct that Aggs and Neate are gone? If so, surely Manny Gill has been given his marching orders also?
Mrs Jayne is making inroads.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2021, 02:08
  #1195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,049
Looks like she tried to poach her ex colleagues from Woolworths as they lost two key executives late last year. Group COO and Bigw CEO. The latter they managed to hang onto and promote higher.

Note she has worked with the lot of them. No new faces to her. Hopefully that speed the transformation up a bit and maintains some form of C Suite stability.

Seems Flight Ops is more desperate than anyone else for some new guidance. Pity nothing announced. I know the guys are itching for some new direction.
wheels_down is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2021, 02:24
  #1196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 68
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by wheels_down View Post
Seems Flight Ops is more desperate than anyone else for some new guidance. Pity nothing announced. I know the guys are itching for some new direction.
Hopefully my cousin didrechambers77 will be able to provide an update on Flight Ops in the near future.

Aggs had to go, nice fun guy, but not COO material. Neate Keith was one of Godfreys boys and also needed to go so that’s a win. Haven’t heard about Gill yet but hopefully he is gone. He is still connected to Godfrey and they recently patented some I.T software which I half expected to turn up at VA. Hopefully it won’t. Jayne isn’t silly, out with the Godfrey gang and in with new talent, many of them with a robust educational background and not just brought in because they have eager tongues.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2021, 02:52
  #1197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Denmark
Posts: 86
This must be a disappointment to read then Paragraph, Miss Jayne thinks otherwise..

Jayne Hrdlicka’s new crew at Virgin Australia set for takeoff

Virgin CEO Jayne Hrdlicka has unveiled her new executive team. Picture: Lyndon MechielsenVirgin Australia has shrugged off the limitations of COVID-19 and cash to assemble a high-calibre, new-look executive team to rebuild the airline, alongside chief executive Jayne Hrdlicka.

Only three executives from the previous administration have been retained, with six new appointments made from other airlines and retail companies.

Ms Hrdlicka said the wholesale changes to the team came from a recognition the airline needed a new executive structure to succeed

“It’s a really important thing for any CEO,” she told The Australian.

“You’re only as good as the team around you and having a strong team and the right structure and the energy to write the next chapter in a business like Virgin Australia is essential.”

The newcomers include Woolworths chief operating officer David Marr, who will become the carrier’s chief financial officer; A2 Milk Company chief people, safety and sustainability officer Lisa Burquest, who has been appointed chief people officer; and Jetstar Japan co-CEO Nick Rohrlach, who will fill the long-vacant position of Velocity CEO.

International Airlines Group director of strategy Alistair Hartley has taken the job of chief transformation officer, and Arnott’s vice-president of corporate affairs Moksha Watts has been named chief corporate affairs officer.

Former Qantas executive Paul Jones was previously announced as chief customer and digital officer, while existing chief operations officer Stuart Aggs stays on, and Susan Schneider has been promoted from general manager of legal and compliance to chief legal and risk officer.

Chief commercial officer John MacLeod plans to retire but will continue until a replacement is found, while Cameron Stone, Dayna Field and Keith Neate will exit the company.

Ms Hrdlicka said it had been easier than expected to lure the executives to Virgin Australia, following the airline’s sale to US private equity firm Bain Capital.

“They recognised that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. We’ve got an iconic brand, it’s had some trouble, it’s just come out of administration and it needs to be rebuilt, in an industry that is in fact needing to be rebuilt,” Ms Hrdlicka said.

“For executives who are hungry for challenge and wanting to make a difference, and wanting to be able to participate in a private equity structure where they can get the benefits of being owners, it actually was (easier than expected).”

None of the newcomers will receive no pay — unlike Ms Hrdlicka, who has agreed to forgo a salary until July — but it will be several months before they can all sit down together.

Mr Jones is unavailable until June due to the lengthy “constraint” period imposed by former employer Qantas.

And although Mr Hartley arrived in Brisbane from London on January 1, Ms Hrdlicka said he had been caught up in the Grand Chancellor Hotel debacle, and had only just been released after 16 days in quarantine with his wife and three children.

“Welcome back to Australia,” she joked. All of the executives will be Brisbane-based, with the exception of Mr Rohrlach, due to the fact the Velocity office remains in Sydney.

“It’s quite a nice combination. We’ve got deep aviation expertise, we’ve got some good regional expertise and good global expertise in the industry,” said Ms Hrdlicka.

“We’re really delighted to have one of Australia’s best CFOs (David Marr) joining us. He has a wealth of experience around the world, not just in Australia, and is used to thin margin businesses that have to be incredibly responsive to market dynamics.”

The announcement of the team came just days after Qantas boss Alan Joyce suggested there was not room for both Virgin Australia and Rexin the domestic market competing against Qantas and Jetstar.

Ms Hrdlicka said it was a “theoretical argument” by Mr Joyce, given there was no market at the moment, and her executive team underscored the fact that Virgin Australia was here for good.

“We’ve just hired a really top team of excellent executives from a variety of different pasts and experiences and they’re coming together for one reason and one reason only,” she said.

“That’s to take an iconic brand back to its glory and there’s not one person in that team who’d be satisfied by anything less than very significant success.”

There remained a need for state borders to reopen and confidence to return to the travel market for any airline to thrive in Australia, and on that topic Ms Hrdlicka was in agreement with Mr Joyce.

Following on from his appeal on Friday for states to reopen to Greater Sydney, Ms Hrdlicka said she was hopeful the rollout of vaccinations would deliver the confidence required.

“This is one great country, not a bunch of smaller countries, and I think Australians want to get back to some sense of normal and we definitely don’t want to be boxed off from each other,” Ms Hrdlicka said.

“It was fantastic when borders were open in the lead-up to Christmas. Everyone was so happy to be back connecting with other people again. Unfortunately it was short-lived.”
Ragnor is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2021, 03:20
  #1198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 787
I reckon GT was lined up for that role, however AJ dangled a bigger carrot.

Few others at the Roo certainly capable. Just a matter of watch this space I guess.
PoppaJo is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2021, 03:33
  #1199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 68
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by Ragnor View Post
This must be a disappointment to read then Paragraph, Miss Jayne thinks otherwise..
2 X COO’s? Not likely. A new CEO always keeps a couple
of the existing GM’s around for at least a short while as the new C-suite get a feel for the land. Be interesting to see what Aggs ‘new position’ will be in 6 months time. For the short term anyway he hangs on by a thread.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2021, 04:02
  #1200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 562
All well and good having a crack team, but with her at the helm it will be more of the same inept management style driven by slashing costs and little else. This great team will have to toe the line or be fired, it’s a breeding ground for self destructive corporate group think.
gordonfvckingramsay 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 © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.