PPRuNe Forums - Yet another "loan"..

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)

- - Yet another "loan".. (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/576424-yet-another-loan.html)

Hedging fuel can work against you too.

If they did it right as suggested all the more reason that they should be making bigger $$$$$. The mail room guy is not up to the finer points of actually running an airline. It's easy to be everyone's friend but it's a tough industry that requires tough love to make it work

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBM-Legend (Post 9318874)

They gambled the wrong way and are paying more for fuel than QF. This is costing big bucks now

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGsim (Post 9318528)

NZ is their ICAO designator is it not?

NZ is their IATA code. Their ICAO code is ANZ.

Cathay Pacific are also getting burnt at moment as a result of their fuel hedging policy, so its not just Virgin!
I think one of Virgins core problems is running 2 very small fleets of different wide body Aircraft?

Quote:

Maybe Joyce and Strambi were right when they said that the Borg knows how to spend money but not so good on bringing it back in?

Pot, kettle, black!

A few years ago I would have agreed. The evidence over the last year and a bit is to the contrary.

Of course, I lament what may have been if the focus had been on mainline from 2008-2013 instead of seeing everything over that time frame through orange and silver coloured glasses.

As the Boys of Summer said Keg "Don't look back you can never look back!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lookleft (Post 9319631)

As the Boys of Summer said Keg "Don't look back you can never look back!"

Presumably left is OK though? :O

Quote:

As the Boys of Summer said Keg "Don't look back you can never look back!"

:ok: :cool: :D

Air NZ announced today it's bailing out of Virgin Australia ...

Last one leaving please turn off the lights..

I did say earlier in the thread, that Air NZ had learned their lesson.

This just proves it, they are more than happy to get out while they can and leave the others with deeper pockets to fight it out amongst themselves over the dead (or dying) carcass.

Would it be more of a concern if Air NZed increased their shareholding and continued to veto any meaningful route expansion at board level. Kiwis are a very proud and protective species. Virgin may have managed to unshackle from some unwanted influence.

TBM. What is your data source to suggest ANZ is getting out of Virgin? I cannot find any ASX reference to this

After 36 years or whatever it was, QANTAS probably had a fairly good idea who'd be the better CEO.
Looks like they might have been right!

Todays newspaper>>

read this AFR report

Quote:

Air New Zealand throws up potential takeover at Virgin | afr.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGsim (Post 9318528)

NZ is their ICAO designator is it not?! Given the chosen forum I personally assume anytime I see QF we're referring to an airline rather than the quarter finals of something or the Qatar foundation or the QF hotel in Dresden according to Google.....

No it is not, it is their IATA designator... all IATA codes are 2 letters or a combination of letter and number (e.g. 3K for Jetstar Asia).
Their ICAO designator is ANZ, all ICAO codes are 3 alpha... e.g. VOZ for VA, QFA for QF, AAL for American/AA.

Obviously another good Air NZ investment!

Quote:

Air NZ's Virgin adventure comes at a $NZ130m cost

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastwest Loco (Post 9318852)

Could this be a run by the Asian lion to get what they have wanted since before the AN collapse? Traffic rights on the Pacific ex Australia? It smells of the early stages of a long term engineering regime.

It was quite obvious (to me at least - and I could be totally wrong but don't think so) that SQ had with 2 board members shifted the fate of AN by placing NZ, with 2 members on their board in a position to take control of the cash stripped and foundering AN empire, knowing they were totally inadequate in being able to rescue the airline.

Then, the Lion would ride in on a white charger, rescue Ansett and be the good guy securing the future of the Airline but also giving them total access to the trans Pacific rights Ansett held. Great in theory but beautifully protected from any loss of face with NZ as the interface if something went wrong. It did - 9/11 - 48 hours before the axe fell and Ansett was grounded.

No white knight arrived, beautiful shielded by their blind using NZ with the board members delightfully invisible. No face lost there. Now - the next move.

The rights still being the holy grail for SQ, an immediate threat arrived with the attempt by Ansett crew and staff to restart the airline with a bid from the employee group. Bid came up from the employee group and various others.

Funny thing that - the Fox - Lew bid was tentatively accepted after drawn out negotiations and the funds from the pilots/staff group and others had expended their viable funds.

Strange that the bid was then withdrawn. One of the 2 involved was at a local club 12 months later and I asked the question on how big was the payout from SQ? I am 127 kilos and was shuffled out of the way by minders of a certain person who had assumed a non healthy purple colour.

So - bottom line. SQ still want Pacific rights ex Australia. Virgin are operating trans Pacific ex Australia. The Ansett collapse failed due to 9/11. Wounds licked, now let's wait.

Any SQ members on the Virgin Australia board?

Danger Will Robinson, Danger.

Best all

EWL

I don't see that SQ will EVER operate on the Pacific, even the US with all their free-trade rhetoric will scream bloody murder as it will hurt their airlines operating on the route, also, because there is no justification for it whatsoever, they are NOT an Australian or US carrier and thus not majority owned and controlled in Australia.
Obviously, if they take 100% of VA, that would likely mean 49% of VA/I and effectively get what they want anyway but there will never be SQ metal operating on that route, it's a bridge too far for US, Australia and NZ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asteroid 2578 (Post 9329550)

Singapore Airlines operates a daily A380 flight between Frankfurt and New York (JFK) being SQ 26/25. Emirates operates a daily A380 flight between Milan and New York (JFK) being EK 205/206. Doubtless, there are other examples of similar flights across the Atlantic. If non-European or non-US carriers can operate across the Atlantic in this way why are you so adamant that similar arrangements could not one day apply across the Pacific?

Because Europe has 743,000,000 people, the USA has 319,000,000 and can sustain it, we are a small market of 23-30,000,000 if you include NZ. I just don't think it will fly so to speak. If it's so important that they do, then why don't we just shut down NZ, QF, JQ, VA and VAI and just liquidate all their assets, turn over our sovereignty to Singapore and give up. I don't know when the penny will drop as we just drop barrier after barrier in the name of free trade and other countries put up every barrier they feel like - however, nothing would surprise me with the pathetic standard of personnel we have in Parliament but it would be totally abhorrent for it to happen, SQ is a government owned airline (let's not argue about that, Temasek and others are owned by the SG government) so that is not a level playing field. Yes, NZ is government owned but it's domiciled in this region.