https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-...-loss/11455840

Join the dots.

That’s because he was blinded by the Village idiots and all of their ‘specialists’. Virgin was never a match for Qantas at the top end and at the bottom end they were too fat in comparison with Onestar. Hopefullly if there is a next time around they will work out who they want to actually be and make sure they aren’t swelling with unnecessary positions and bottom feeders.

Specifically what dots need to be joined there?

Based on Virgin's own ASX filing, only 140 people has been exited as at 31 December and, again using their numbers, the average redundancy cost is $38K pp. You can't pin an $88.6 million loss on $5.32 million in redundancy costs.

Which immediately raises the question, who's the bigger idiot?!

Bingo.

I agree.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm-

Riiiighteo Then- per-chance, would you seek any 'relief at Law', prior executing that 'bold/cavalier' endeavor- or just wait and then, watch 'it' unfold on the 18:00 news/followed by the Banner Headlines of the print media, 'some' 12hrs there-after.............????

Just 'askin'...
Rgds
S28- BE

TBM; Actually I have considerable experience with such signed agreements. Ask your QC niece about clauses stating that you agree not to approach a court if there is a dispute about the agreement. The reaction from a judge to that is usually unprintable because nobody can tell someone they cannot approach a court. Furthermore if it is a civil agreement it is not allowed to conflict with the law of the land.

I have signed multiple agreements stating things like “in the event of a dispute you must pay all our costs and we can behead your firstborn child yadda, yadda” but I’m sorry to say that only gullible idiots like you, think they are enforceable. I mentioned Clayton Utz because they used to be known for writing blood curdling agreements that were utterly unenforceable. Similarly there are employment agreements with clauses calling for you to lobotomize yourself on leaving or restraint of trade clauses. Some agreements are so one sided that they would be thrown out of court - one I was asked to inflict on staff was rejected by lawyers who said :” If you want to strengthen this, you must water it down”.

I have had advice from partners in Mallesons, Small claims commissioners and the public servants who even drafted some of the laws concerned. I’ ve been through this crap with BT Australia, Macquarie and various financiers. Professionals don’t play these stupid games.

’But wait; I’ve saved the best till last, TBM. Usually the last or second last clause of all agreements contains the words to the effect that: “ if any clause is found to be unenforceable in a court of law then that does not invalidate the remainder of the agreement”. In other words, acknowledging exactly what I just told you.

You stick to flying aircraft. You would do that better than this simple bug smasher smasher. I try not to comment on things I know SFA about, like IFR, jets, turbines and the like. You should too.

Section28-BE, i was just posing a question. I have no knowledge of such an endeavor. It’s a civil matter, not a criminal matter unless the airport gets a judgement against Virgin. Therefore if Virgin can remove the aircraft without breaking any laws, it can do so.

To put that another way, has anyone ever tried to have the police lock up Clive Palmer? We are talking civil law here.

‘’To put that yet another way, remember the private parking wheel clamping scam? Perth Airport is doing the same.

I hope that the administrators can sort Perth and Adelaide before we get a tidal wave of creditors. If everyone stands back and takes a deep breath, Virgin may yet survive.

Mach e avelli:

You can try, but not if the boys know where you live. Unscrupulous Lawyers do try this on from time to time. Every tradie has a story about doing a job, then being told there is something wrong and the customer isn’t paying. It costs thousands to try to get a judgement. A lot of trades won’t work for lawyers for this reason.

It would be interesting if the Virgin aircraft is leased but being operated by Virgin. The actual owner of the aircraft has no liability or business relationship with Perth Airport. They may want their aircraft back. That leads to a nice expensive three way court fight.

^^^ I hope you are right but with so many creditors and only 1 needed to demand liquidation I think it is like pushing water uphill, not impossible but a hell of an effort required. Sadly I have experienced through friends a few airline failures in the UK and in every instance aircraft were impounded by airports looking for payment before they would release them. I am guessing it won’t be long before refuelling companies, hotels etc will look for upfront payment each and every time. A mate of mine at Norwegian couldn’t check in to a hotel in late Feb as the hotel required upfront payment due to the publicised issues with the airlines financing.

I’ll shut up now because the Administrators and their lawyers would be way ahead of me.

Latest update on the Virgin Australian mess is the total number of creditors is expected to be in excess of 12,000. This includes staff who are owed in excess of $450M. Secured lenders and secured leaseholders are owed $2.28 billion and bondholders are owed $1.98 billion. Other financing groups providing credit for Virgin to lease aircraft are owed $1.88 billion. Trade creditors who supplied goods or services to Virgin, are owed about $166.7 million. Landlords are owed about $71.21 million. I assume the administrators will be responsible for aircraft parking charges incurred since the airline directors sought the protection of administration.

The aircraft leases are a minefield with the administrator working through the leases to determine their status and saying it is a very significant task.

Some of the airlines creditors - including banks, aircraft lessors, customers with flight credits from cancelled bookings or frequent flyer points and entitlements owed to staff will experience a severe financial haircut and may only receive cents in the dollar on what they are owed.

My personal opinion is the assets remaining after the buyer finishes cherry picking will be sold by the administrator to pay off the creditors who will receive as little as cents in the dollar on the amount owed.

That news is days old.

As indicated elsewhere, the issue will be if the actions of Perth and Adelaide airports triggers a rush by the creditors and refusal of supply. If that happens, the company will be wound up and there will be nothing to restructure, so any new entrant will be a clean slate.

This might in fact be the best option.

Strobes on. Effectively Virgin are out of business, there can be no rush by creditors. The business is under administration. It is illegal for anyone to refuse supply to the administrator except for certain assets.

I seem to recall Karl Schruster, head of Velocity departed the group along with an exit payout, as part of his contract, of approx AUD$8million.

That is not correct as a supplier eg. fuel company can ask for payment upfront and accounts can be suspended due non-payment.

I'm with Sunfish on this "holding a/c thingy". Not only may the agreement be worthless if the a/c are leased the actual owner cannot be held liable for the a/p loss.

I think AsA had some success on liens back in the Compass 1 & 2 days, but I pretty certain back them the gov had written that into legislation. If my memory is correct there was an uproar when they held the a/c and demanded payment from the lessors. Cannot recall how this panned out.

Virgin America hasn’t existed since 2018 when it merged with Alaska.

** Just realized you reposted something from 2016, so disregard.

B772 - absolutely suppliers can demand cash payment. Creditors can also, by majority vote, force the company into receivership if they judge that provides the best return.

That’s probably unlikely at this early stage with Virgin as the administrators need a month to understand all the leasing and collateral implications.