Where did you hear that?

"Is this thread about redundacies or the merits of 4 engines over 2 for long haul? Start a new thread if you want to discuss such things, in Tech Log. Peasants."

It's as much about VS BS as redundancies or numbers of engines. Troll.



If this is true, it's dreadful. So soon after the announcement of the 330 order. Which of course are going to replace the 744s or 787 orders - or both!

An airline that has announced profits, puts off 15 to 20 % of it's crews.

Something wrong somewhere.

63 more to go. I'm assuming these new aircraft on order fly themselves then ?

Everything is in order.
 

There has certainly NOT been mention of 63 more to go, however there is most definitely anxiety amongst the troops on various private forums.

The original number of redundees was 50, which was mitigated one way or another to, I believe, 26.

The number 63 seems rather high therefore.

But make no mistake, Virgin won't be bothered about placing an order for 2011 and laying off pilots till then.

If BA is so far in the dwang, then VS could well be too. We just may never know, as VS are able to hide problems more efficiently due to being privately owned.

Glad I got out. And that is the truth.

Transcript - Singapore Airlines Financial Results Briefing
Full-Year Ended 31 March 2009

Mr Kong: Final question from me. Could you provide some colour on, in the fourth quarter the associate losses of $106 million?

Mr Chan: Yes, in the fourth quarter the share of losses of the associated companies is about a hundred over million dollars. That’s largely coming out of our investment in Virgin Atlantic. As you know Virgin Atlantic is a company that is incorporated in the UK. So as a result the financial statements are actually prepared under UK GAAP because they are a private company. So they actually do not apply international FRSs. So we had to make some adjustments in relation to their hedges and because they do use proxy hedges there are some adjustments for ineffectiveness of hedge. So that’s one of the main reasons for the weaker performance. But if you look at the full year you would notice that the share of associates is actually quite flat. So it’s really share of profits in the early part of the year returning back in the fourth quarter. For the full year it’s about flat.

Mr Chew: I should emphasise that point that if you, what Hon Chew said about Virgin Atlantic, in the first half the share of profits from associates, a big part of it was attributable to Virgin Atlantic as well. So it was, to blame Virgin Atlantic for the second half’s dip in associated companies’ profits would not give you the complete picture.In fact, if we take the two halves then Virgin Atlantic contributed $0.4 million.

Absolute rubbish.
Care to elaborate on your source - doubt it!

A bit like 'Nobby Nobov' I know nothing about VS. The '63' figure he has quoted would seem to be close to the number of training positions that VS has under review. None of which, will be made redundant!
So go on Nobby......the source is?

TBE.

Guys, please do not shoot the messenger.

This figure came from an extremely reliable internal VS source. This is round 2.

I am afraid that despite the Branson PR machine going into overdrive recently, the company (like all airlines) is in serious difficulties. His recent attacks on BA are an obvious effort to try and drive BA under as he realises that time is quickly running out. (This from a VS pilot).

I am afraid that a niche carrier like VS (he has 38 aircraft - tiny !) needs to find a major player to consolidate with, they are just not big enough to survive on their own in the current climate.

Good luck to all.

So the firm order of 10 shiney new Airbus in 2 years is all a PR stunt is it Nobby?

:rolleyes:

How are those shiny new A380s he ordered coming along? What, delayed again I hear you say? Branson has form for splashing big orders then letting them quietly slip.

The fact is all airlines are seeing reduced loads and reduced profit on the seats that are sold (Yield). Therefore it makes sense to reduce or stop flying those routes that are not contributing to the bottom line. That will mean you have an excess of crew/staff/equipment that needs to be made redundant. If laying off a large number of crew etc, is what they are doing, then it sound like prudent management to protect what is still a successful business. Yes there may be smoke and mirrors in the Virgin accounts, but if you look at the amount of cash they have in the bank, check the load factors they are maintaining and then consider the steps they are taking to protect themselves, you will see that they can weather this storm and emerge fitting fit on the other side. Who else will still be afloat when the storm has passed. Take a look at who's loads are falling and who's are holding up. (The punters are already running to the safe bet!) It paints a picture!

"but if you look at the amount of cash they have in the bank"

How much then?

"check the load factors they are maintaining"

It's not about load, it's about yield. And who is the safe bet the punters are running too, because every BA flight I've been flying has been full?

Carnage
 

Flexibility and adaptability are the main qualities needed in these times.

Look at another very well-known carrier. They are reconfiguring some airframes to reduce the number of business class seats in order to increase overall yield by attracting highr numbers.

But you need to have the flexibility and foresight (plus a little luck).

One of the problems that VS has is that its too big to be small and too small to be big...
Difficult times ahead I think.

Good luck to all.

63 might not be so bad - I wonder how long before someone cut & pastes today's story ...

I'll do it.
 

OK then, I'll do it.
BBC NEWS | Business | Jobs risk as Virgin cuts flights

Carnagematey, this is for you. why dont you spend most of your time dishing out the meals and off this forum No wonder BA are in the dumps. Ha Ha Ha :mad::mad::mad::mad: