The fact it is an option is more about Boeing trying to present an undesirable option then offering a $ upgrade to fit the door that should be standard (like on the 747)... if it wasn't a problem then the 747 wouldn't have had it as standard. A created opportunity to gouge just a bit more money per airframe.
Secondly, no, it's not the 'end of the world' but although no one at VA seems to realise, the airline industry is a tightly coupled, interconnected network (I say that because of their boneheaded attitude to standard industry processes such as FIMs, interline, etc. mostly based on misconceptions) that relies, particularly with perishable cargo (which is why after all, it is sent by air) being able to be carried then rapidly transferred to another flight where their is no direct service. Not having the door means that the most effective means of carriage, say for something up to 5,100kg or more (4626 for an 88 inch pallet), that the most efficient unitisation and handling is to pack it ONCE onto a pallet or an appropriate (96 or 88 inch) pallet based unit. This takes time, it needs to be weighed and recorded on a weight statement to go to Load Control. Not having the door means, for example, transferring from an A330 to a 777 or from another operator affiliated with VA who presents a pallet base unit, will need unloading/packing, repacking into several smaller ULDs, then weighing, paperwork and despatch back to the ramp (often the cargo facility is remote from the terminal). I suggest considering the cost of manpower, say 2 x 2hrs at each port where this has to occur and multiply it across 5 airframes and say 2 pallets per flight (it's probably more potentially), every day, is more than $.5M per annum based on a very, very conservative per hour charge for labor. This means the extra $1M on just ONE door would be repaid after 2 years. It is a fact that ANY airline that is looking to make a dollar is going to look at the ex VA aircraft and pass them up for one that has a larger door. It's not a huge, world-ending disaster by any means but it does show a basic lack of understanding in ordering the aircraft... and doing it to pay for a paint job (which is now removed) is just nuts.
So SQ didn't specify the larger door... so what, they are not the great oracles of the industry that everyone makes them out to be... looking at them without rose coloured glasses, they have plenty of foibles like any airline and they are known to be penny pinchers in many instances.

Is it fair to say that VA Australia is heading down the Ansett path as in could VA Australia cease to exist? I know its a weird question but we all know VA Australia isn't do8ng well and hasn't done well for a number of years.

No business can stay in business indefinitely if it doesn't make money and doesn't look like it ever will. Ansett was an incredibly valuable brand, but that ended up meaning nothing if it was no longer a viable business.

BP has announced it is withdrawing from the Velocity Loyalty Program and starting its own. They will have QF as a partner.

Counterpoint: all the hullabaloo about the cargo doors is a distraction at best, at worst disingenuous.

The 777 op was always designed for the long end of long haul. hence 9 abreast seating in Y etc. The large rear cargo door adds hundreds of kg to the empty weight. Burns more fuel on every hour of every flight. Yet with the large forward door you can still take a whole car...

https://www.virgin.com/travel/how-to...expensive-cars

That was on VPE, forward hold. Longest sector, MEL-LAX.

The standard cargo door is used by such airlines as Singapore, JAL, China Southern. They know a thing about cargo.

Now, about starting routes to hub airports with no on-carriage? That was stupid, but I'm sick of hearing about the cargo doors.

Wow, a stuff up by Virgin PR. Crowing about delivering a car from MEL to LAX (by B777) and congratulating the pilots (WTF) and they show a caption of a A330.

I agree with the sentiment however getting retrenched from a corporate job isn't like being retrenched as a pilot. If you are in a non aviation role, there are plenty of corporate jobs down the road in your field. A friend of mine resigned from his job simply because the head office moved a few kilometres and affected his commute!! So culling 700 odd jobs, of which many are probably redeployed anyway, can't be thought as the same as retrenching pilots. Basically if an Airline Captain gets retrenched it's going to be the end of their career in Australia as a Captain. They might be able to collect an FO job somewhere but unlikely they'd ever be a Airline Captain again. If you're an accountant, work in finance, HR etc, you can just move to another company probably on the same train line.

Painting the aircraft white was a mistake too. They clearly should have just stayed in the red...

Yes, when the Ansett. was revealed it was a revelation. Not the first of course but white wings too...:\ A lot of carriers went down a similar path and it is a very common look now. A 'statement' look coupled with a new premium brand would've gone a long way but...opportunity missed.

VA Australia? Virgin Australia Australia?

In addition, I don't think anyone is vilifying those being made redundant... no one on here knows who they are but the airline does appear to have a lot of 'timer servers' who add zero value to the company as regards providing a return on shareholder funds... this is after all why the company is in business. Lot's of people are made redundant or rather their positions are, every day. It is a very sad and stressful time but that doesn't mean people can't comment on what can assist this airline in getting to where it needs to be... the alternative is to continue to carry a section of personnel in the company that may result, if retained, in ALL of the personnel losing their jobs ultimately. Perhaps people who have no 'real' job may find more satisfaction in another job or industry. Having been in the workforce for nearly 40 years I believe in most circumstances people KNOW when their job isn't essential and often end up finding more fulfilling careers. Any opprobrium should be directed at the ineffective and incompetent managers that employed so many people in the first place and created the structure that led to bandaid appointments being made... they making those decisions of course, would be the ones being paid millions of dollars per year, along with generous bonuses for delivering absolutely CRAP performance and results... because, you know, we 'have to' pay millions to 'secure the best management talent'... seriously, the money would be better spent on pilots and/or better systems and processes. Let's not forget either that it's not like 750 people are going to be cleaning out their desks all at once, many of the positions will be the result of natural attrition.

I think the original Landor BA scheme was also a wonderful change, that grey was different and new... and was much emulated. Personally I think the QF livery that was the best was the 1984 design, not the b--tardized version tinkered with by Hulsbosch who appears to never correct the statement made by others that he 'designed the original livery in 1984'... no, he didn't, it was Lunn-Dyer and Associates in Sydney... specifically Tony Lunn and Ron Dyer. It was a brilliant scheme that similarly was innovative, look how many airlines have copied the continuation of the tail colour down under the fuselage. The triangle motif was brilliant also, the way it was applied elsewhere in both patterns on glass in lounges, stationery and vehicles. I'm not sure the new QF livery is as nice, it needed a refresh but while it's not my favorite, at least it wasn't a shameless copy of the original 1984 design. As for VA, yes, a disappointing copy of various other Virgin branding cues... Hulsbosch again, IMHO not a very good designer. Designed Woolworths as well who was then threatened by Apple for a logo that looked almost the same. At the very least, it would have been nice to see some purple (like the cabins) in the VA scheme but what we have is not Qantas lite, but rather, simply b o r i n g... an insipid tail and insipidly grey-coloured lettering on the side. Raised a few eyebrows at VS when it was unveiled. It's not the worst though, that would almost have to be Singapore Airlines, the one large airline screaming out for a new livery... currently essentially a tinkered version of their 1972 livery.

Will they pay up though?