LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22053 posts, RR: 51 Posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7194 times:
Funny stuff.
In response to IAG's Willie Walsh stating that a deal by Singapore Airlines to sell its shares in Virgin Atlantic could ultimately be the end of the Virgin airline brand, billionaire Richard Branson is willing to bet that his flagship airline has a future.
So Branson proposed a £1 million ($1.6 million) wager with the IAG chief that Virgin Atlantic would still be around 5-years from now.
As Branson put it “This is wishful thinking and totally misguided,” referring to the airline as “my baby.”
“Will BA never learn? Let’s see how much they believe this. Let them put their money where their mouth is.”
avek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4092 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6771 times:
Well, once the US finalizes Open Skies deals with several countries VS presently flies to where Open Skies does not exist today, Delta could conceivably acquire VS, making it an American carrier. This move would have the benefit of leveraging Delta's fleet mix and labor costs.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10685 posts, RR: 100 Reply 4, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6308 times:
The reality is that LHR isn't growing and when the economy really turns up (signs are showing improvement), LHR just won't matter that much and thus VS will have a lower share of global revenue. I've never understood the fascination with SRB. If the UK wanted competition, they would expand LHR.
Quoting qf002 (Reply 1): Come on, of course they'll still be around in five years.
I wonder if SRB would be willing to make a bet on whether the company will still be around in 20 years though.
My thoughts too. But will SRB be around in 20 years? And what is Virgin post SRB?
Quoting avek00 (Reply 3): Delta could conceivably acquire VS, making it an American carrier.
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6278 times:
I read this the other day on the BBC news website, where there is a slightly different different slant on it - one short sentence made me view Branson in a poor light for the rest of the article:
Quote:
Sir Richard said that instead of suing BA for Mr Walsh's comments, he would put up £1m, to be distributed to BA staff should Virgin Atlantic cease to exist, if BA agreed to pay Virgin Atlantic staff the same amount should the brand still exist in five years.
If you even momentarily considered suing a rival for some off the cuff comments made by its boss, when said comments are perfectly legitimate and part of basic free speech, then I would rather not give you time of day.
LGWGate49 From Sudan, joined Nov 2009, 117 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6159 times:
Well WW is betting SRB a "knee in the groin" in return!
He's pretty direct about his relationship with the Virgin boss:
"The IAG chief said he didn’t know Sir Richard very well but “on the limited occasions” he had met him he hasn’t seen anything that would “make me want to meet him again”."
AussieItaliano From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 441 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6138 times:
Quoting moo (Reply 5): If you even momentarily considered suing a rival for some off the cuff comments made by its boss, when said comments are perfectly legitimate and part of basic free speech, then I would rather not give you time of day.
Sure, but SRB actually won the lawsuit years ago and was awarded £1m, which means that whatever comments were made, they were not legitimate and part of basic free speech under British law, otherwise SRB would have lost.
Also, SRB didn't keep the money he won in that lawsuit, he distributed it to Virgin employees.
I don't think SRB is out to keep people from using their rights to free speech, but he is entitled to protect his business interests. And if British law gives him the right to sue a rival for comments made, then those comments made must have been damaging to SRB's interests in a way that goes beyond protected free speech.
I'm not saying that I think people should run to court whenever damaging comments are made, but when someone wins a lawsuit, I do have to think that there was some legitimate basis for the lawsuit.
anstar From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 4845 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6090 times:
This is just wishful thinking from Willie Walsh.
Perhaps he should focus on fixing his basket case IBERIA before throwing stones at others.
DL as a 49% stakeholder in VS will hurt BA much more than the 49% owner SQ currentyl does as with DL, VS would likely join skyteam and the JV across the atlantic and therefore hurting BA's profits.
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6032 times:
Quoting AussieItaliano (Reply 7): Sure, but SRB actually won the lawsuit years ago and was awarded £1m, which means that whatever comments were made, they were not legitimate and part of basic free speech under British law, otherwise SRB would have lost.
Different lawsuit over different things - not the same as someone saying "I don't think *rival* will be around in five years".
Its this specific instance that I am referring to - suing should never have even been a consideration.
Incase anyone is wondering what this is all about, the Telegraph has a story on what Walsh actually said in context:
Quote:
“I can’t see Delta wanting to operate the Virgin brand because if they do what does that say about the Delta brand?" Mr Walsh said. “Delta believe they are the number one airline in the world, so what they would want to do is acquire the slots at Heathrow to enable them to have a strong presence at Heathrow.”
travelhound From Australia, joined exactly 5 years ago today! , 556 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5619 times:
Quoting qf002 (Reply 1): Come on, of course they'll still be around in five years.
I wonder if SRB would be willing to make a bet on whether the company will still be around in 20 years though
The bet would be a little more interesting if it was based upon VS being profitable in five years.
FlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1965 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5321 times:
Quoting AussieItaliano (Reply 7): Sure, but SRB actually won the lawsuit years ago and was awarded £1m, which means that whatever comments were made, they were not legitimate and part of basic free speech under British law, otherwise SRB would have lost.
Also, SRB didn't keep the money he won in that lawsuit, he distributed it to Virgin employees.
I don't think SRB is out to keep people from using their rights to free speech, but he is entitled to protect his business interests. And if British law gives him the right to sue a rival for comments made, then those comments made must have been damaging to SRB's interests in a way that goes beyond protected free speech.
I'm not saying that I think people should run to court whenever damaging comments are made, but when someone wins a lawsuit, I do have to think that there was some legitimate basis for the lawsuit.
The "dirty tricks" lawsuit was a whole campaign waged by certain people in BA, including off the record briefings against VS, trying to poach customers, etc. Very different from Willie Walsh making a comment about VS still being here in five years! This is Branson's style all over - makes generalised comments that can be interpreted in a particular way (and that grabs a headline), but that require a competitor to give a detailed response that most of the general public won't (and can't) be interested in reading. Concorde was a classic example - SRB said sell it to us for the £1 you bought it for, which ignored the fact the much more complicated fact of a government keen to place the last few aircraft and wrap the programme up.
"Dirty Tricks" wasn't a legitimate way for BA to take VS on, and after that BA was very scared of public taking VS on. Willie Walsh has been the first person at the head of BA (and now at IAG) to say it as he sees it and to play Branson at his own game. So he knows that BA can't bet £1 million, whereas Branson the "overseas billionaire banker" (like that line) can, so he bets something that will hurt him (Walsh) as much as Branson - a knee in the groin.
FlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1965 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5119 times:
Quoting bennett123 (Reply 13): IMO, WW should take the bet, but say "make it £2M".
Not taking the bet makes it look like he was just hot air. Doubling would put SRB on the back foot.
Assuming that VS still around in 5 years, and that IAG have to pay out, the publicity now would probably be worth the potential future outlay.
Walsh is CEO of a publically listed company not an independently wealthy millionaire. He can't just make a £1 million bet, yet alone raise it to £2 million!
neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 350 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5031 times:
Quoting qf002 (Reply 1): I wonder if SRB would be willing to make a bet on whether the company will still be around in 20 years though.
Quoting Tardis (Reply 2): My thoughts too. But will SRB be around in 20 years? And what is Virgin post SRB?
Its hard to say for sure any particular will airline will definately still be in business 2 decades hence.
Anything can suddenly happen. I remember that either Lee Kuan Yew or another minister said it before; to the effect that if having to choose between SIA & Changi Airport, they would opt for the latter's survival over the former.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22053 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2555 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Dec 2012, 32 posts, 
And what is Virgin post SRB?
From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, 
From Sudan, joined Nov 2009, 117 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 441 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 4845 posts, 
, 556 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2012, 350 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2007, 719 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1005 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
