PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   Government Loan to Virgin Australia (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/631164-government-loan-virgin-australia.html)

PDR1 2nd Apr 2020 10:47


Originally Posted by RampDog (Post 10736389)
"The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859,

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

RampDog 2nd Apr 2020 10:47

-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

longjohn 2nd Apr 2020 13:37

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?

AmIInsane 2nd Apr 2020 14:12


Originally Posted by PDR1 (Post 10736716)
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

The ‘ No idea of the context of the posts ’ award goes to PDR1.

PDR1 you utter flog.

Switchbait 2nd Apr 2020 15:07

Alliance or Air New Zealand for the win.....

IsDon01 2nd Apr 2020 16:01


Originally Posted by Switchbait (Post 10737006)
Alliance or Air New Zealand for the win.....

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.

Berealgetreal 2nd Apr 2020 22:32


Originally Posted by Switchbait (Post 10737006)
Alliance or Air New Zealand for the win.....

Agree Alliance, sharp company they could take over the reigns. I think it’s also possible to see an Asian carrier fill the shoes of Virgin. Air Asia etc. There are already calls to open it right up.

RampDog 2nd Apr 2020 22:39


Originally Posted by longjohn (Post 10736913)
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?

longjohn, excellent point and a very valid question relative to Virgin Australia's current predicament.
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.

Window heat 2nd Apr 2020 22:45

Just watched the video, Branson had no idea, he just seemed to have been lobbed in and given a microphone.

ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE 2nd Apr 2020 22:49


Originally Posted by IsDon01 (Post 10737055)
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.

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.

kiwi grey 2nd Apr 2020 23:25


Originally Posted by ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE (Post 10737466)
I've 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.

Last time that looked like a possibility, Keating (IIRC) changed the rules so that it couldn't happen.
That in turn led to Air NZ buying Ansett to attempt to achieve a similar result.
Which in its turn led to tragic catastrophe

Lapon 2nd Apr 2020 23:28


I don’t think even a Kiwi would try that for the third time.
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.

Turnleft080 2nd Apr 2020 23:35

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...down-exec-says
Speaking of ANZ this is ridiculous.

Denied Justice 2nd Apr 2020 23:43

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.

DanV2 2nd Apr 2020 23:50


Originally Posted by ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE (Post 10737466)
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.

NZ just got a loan from their government. Don't think NZ will be setting up in Australia anytime soon.

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.

Arctaurus 2nd Apr 2020 23:50

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.

megan 2nd Apr 2020 23:51

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.

Toruk Macto 3rd Apr 2020 00:01

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 .

DanV2 3rd Apr 2020 00:06


Originally Posted by Arctaurus (Post 10737516)
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.

Been there done that for SQ, re Tiger Airways. SQ failed dismally and ended up selling their 50% stake to VA for $1.

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.

Anti Skid On 3rd Apr 2020 05:11


Originally Posted by Lapon (Post 10737495)
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.

Bailed out? No, offered a NZ$900 million loan facility, bit like QF have been offered by Scomo. And when they can't repay the loan the company becomes a state owned enterprise.


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:39.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.