According to: https://australinea.com/virgin-australi ... ing-crush/

Some key points:

Virgin's cash flow impacted by low margins, a large amount of debt, unsuccessful hedging strategy and its current fleet financing obligations;

Virgin Australia has almost AUD3 billion in debt maturing between FY2017 (aka now) and FY2020 and facing severe difficulty financing this debt as it matures, with the carrier looking toward HNA Group, and possibly also Nanshan Group, for assistance;

Virgin has one of the highest gross debt/EBITDAR ratios in the region, a high cost of capital and low cash flow relative to its competitors;

Planning to defer remaining 737-800s, remove all ATRs (not just some of them as previously announced), and transfer older 737-800s over to Tiger with no like-for-like replacement at mainline;

Pretty damning if correct, especially on hedging: "An increase in oil prices of as little as 20% during FY2018 would result in negative cash flow and the eradication of any possible profit during that period."

Has it been confirmed that it's their longhaul operations that are dragging down the financials, or is that more AvGeek supposition?

If so, I wonder what their worst-case remedy scenario could be:
sell off the 777s, let DL handle all of the N.Am longhaul and ET the Euro and West Asian?

Are you confusing Virgin Atlantic with Virgin Australia?

I think they are pretty much out of options…

*Air NZ must have known and have walked away - EY and SQ seem to be running out of patience
*VA announced they will serve PEK and HKG but nothing has happened - in fact QF have now beaten them to PEK
*Oil prices are starting to rise
*QF/AA will no doubt add more USA services in the next 2 yrs which will only add to the problems at VAs loss making longhaul ops

Very interesting times ahead!

StTim wrote:

Are you confusing Virgin Atlantic with Virgin Australia?

Obviously not, considering the EY mention.......

FWIW, keep in mind that DL has an immunized j/v with both VS and VA, and the latter two are partners themselves; but doubt VS could do much of anything to assist VA's predicament here.

Yes I realised later I had forgotten DL had partnerships with both.

This is pretty dire if true..

The ratio of leased to owned aircraft is very high. For an airline that is over 16 years old, they should have more owned aircraft as leasing is more expensive long term.

I wouldn't be suprised if things went south that HNA may try for a contoling stake.

bbbb wrote:

According to: https://australinea.com/virgin-australi ... ing-crush/

Some key points:

Virgin's cash flow impacted by low margins, a large amount of debt, unsuccessful hedging strategy and its current fleet financing obligations;

Virgin Australia has almost AUD3 billion in debt maturing between FY2017 (aka now) and FY2020 and facing severe difficulty financing this debt as it matures, with the carrier looking toward HNA Group, and possibly also Nanshan Group, for assistance;

Virgin has one of the highest gross debt/EBITDAR ratios in the region, a high cost of capital and low cash flow relative to its competitors;

Planning to defer remaining 737-800s, remove all ATRs (not just some of them as previously announced), and transfer older 737-800s over to Tiger with no like-for-like replacement at mainline;

Pretty damning if correct, especially on hedging: "An increase in oil prices of as little as 20% during FY2018 would result in negative cash flow and the eradication of any possible profit during that period."

Removing the ATR's would see a complete withdrawal from the regional market, outside of their partnership with Alliance operating some F70/100s (given E190's are meant to be going too). Would certainly be a drastic move. Whether it is his fault or not, it's time to cut JB loose and bring someone new in to try.

I think that the writing was on the wall when SQ didn't uptake NZ's stake as they tried to offload it. A controlling stake in VA would have been a real coup for them but clearly they can see what a financial black hole VA is.

bbbb wrote:

Pretty damning if correct, especially on hedging: "An increase in oil prices of as little as 20% during FY2018 would result in negative cash flow and the eradication of any possible profit during that period.

Yikes!

bbbb wrote:

Planning to defer remaining 737-800s, remove all ATRs (not just some of them as previously announced), and transfer older 737-800s over to Tiger with no like-for-like replacement at mainline;

Given the tight situation they've been in for quite some time, I don't get why they are still taking delivery of new 737-8s. Replacing old 737-8s with new 737-8s isn't a wise use of capital, when it is so scarce. If it was a next generation aircraft, like a 737MAX that they were taking delivery of, maybe that would be ok, but as it stands that seems unwise.

This has been a fairly long drawn out affair.

I have been a follower of the rise of VB and subsequently VA over the years, so would like to make some key points about the events of the last ten years and how they relate to the situation we have now.

If we go back to the days (2006-2007) when Toll had a majority shareholding in the company the commentary of the time questioned the long term viability of the Virgin Blue business. Subsequently Toll exited Virgin Blue by simply transferring its VB shares to its own shareholders.

If we go back to 2008 (prior to the exit of Brett Godfrey), the Virgin Blue business was fairly tired and of urgent need of a refresh. I can remember the Brisbane Airport Virgin terminal having ripped, worn out seats. Not a good look.

It is quite probable that in negotiating for the position of CEO, John B would have put forward (/been a part of) a business turn around plan. As such, JB could have inherited an airline that needed some substantial work to make viable.

JB's turn around plan, even though relatively expensive was successful up till the 2013-14 period. The airline experienced substantial growth in market and in many ways able to out play QANTAS on most business fronts.

It could be argued the than Labour government with Anthony Albaneze responsible for aviation were willing to allow VA to contravene the ANA for the sake of allowing VA to become a larger competitor in the Australian market. This (again, arguably) allowed government policy to distort the market place.

The protracted industrial dispute QANTAS and subsequent grounding allowed QANTAS to develop a narrative for change. This almost immediately changed the competitive landscape ending VA's constant rise as the second force in the Australian market.

In the years post 2014, it became very clear VA was not a sustainable airline and was facing severe financial difficulties.

There have been significant changes in the VA shareholdings over the last couple of years.

In summary, this has been a fairly long drawn out affair.

As someone who worked with VA years ago in a past life - they et nothing done quickly. Painstakingly slow progress on anything still bogged down in a LCC prescriptive culture. No empowerment, lead from the top. Be interesting to see if they can shake this and change.

travelhound wrote:

JB's turn around plan, even though relatively expensive was successful up till the 2013-14 period. The airline experienced substantial growth in market and in many ways able to out play QANTAS on most business fronts.

Define successful.

It was never profitable and was heavily funded by the (then) three airline shareholders. I said "subsidised" at the time - LOL - but some took exception to that.

mariner

At the end if the day the proof will always be in the pudding so we are in agreement.

I have always argued Virgin, a company with 30% market share bet the whole company (and subsequently more) for another 5%.

I suspect the SRB ego and JB having something to prove should have been vetted by smarter minds!

travelhound wrote:

I have always argued Virgin, a company with 30% market share bet the whole company (and subsequently more) for another 5%.

I suspect the SRB ego and JB having something to prove should have been vetted by smarter minds!

"Bet the whole company ... for another 5% [market share]." Very interesting way to look at it.

I agree that ego played a very big role - as did Virgin Australia's seemingly self-defeating ownership structure where a series of "strategic" airline owners so eager and intent to access the Australian market have, likely, led the company to make decisions that were likely not the same as, say, those in the interest of purely financial shareholders. Ultimately - as you and others have said - it's hard to really see how Virgin Australia's evolution from a purely low-fare airline into a more hybrid and now in some ways network carrier has really been beneficial to the company's finances. If anything, it looks like quite the opposite.

Where Virgin Australia goes from here is another question. I agree with the article's implication that the A330s and the incremental revenue generated by them, particularly in premium cabins and particularly on the longer routes like SYD/MEL-PER, are are likely not worth the cost. The 777s still seem necessary if Virgin Australia wants to maintain a presence at LAX and within the Delta JV. I also think the article is right that the optimal business model and product offering for Virgin Australia is probably closer to JetBlue than QANTAS.

Time will tell.

commavia wrote:

travelhound wrote:

Where Virgin Australia goes from here is another question. .

For once, Borghetti may have got it right - China:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 54d7e49ead

HNA’s $8.5bn Hilton play gives lift to Virgin strategy

The latest deal to take a stake in Hilton will help HNA and the hotel chain tap China’s fast-growing outbound tourism market and provide a new and lucrative avenue for Virgin chief John Borghetti, who has described China as “the future of Virgin”.

As the owner of China’s fourth-biggest carrier in Hainan Airlines, HNA’s strategic involvement in Virgin is of utmost importance to the airline’s future in pivoting to China and its burgeoning market of cashed-up middle-class tourists. Virgin and HNA continue to work through the details of that alliance, with Mr Borghetti in regular contact with his Chinese partners. The agreement with HNA covers code sharing, loyalty programs, lounge access and promotion of tourism and business travel.

Virgin may also lease aircraft from HNA to fly to China.

“What a lot of people haven’t clicked on to is that this isn’t just about the airline-to-airline side — this is about all the other businesses that HNA own, from catering to ground handling, you name it,” Mr Borghetti told The Australian earlier this year.

mariner

The airline with the 777 is going broke and the one with the A380 is growing.

I do recall that there was a long period of time where QANTAS gambled it's own future on losing money for several years and fighting a discount war with Virgin to hold on to market share. It was a bloody war of attrition and it looks like QANTAS won. Virgin only grew 5% in that time and it looks like it was a knockout blow.

...And so much for those who continue to bash AJ @ QF hinting that JB should have gotten that gig...

The fare war failed Virgin, their fuel hedging exercise seems to have failed them, leasing a majority of their aircraft seems to have failed them. Of course, there are those on some FB groups who are continuing to bag AJ with his cost cutting, revaluing of the QF fleet, selling assets and offshoring maintenance.

But it is not looking good for Virgin right now.

Australia needs a strong 2nd airline domestically. Does Australia need 2 local international carriers? Does Virgin have to have a small fleet to do a few Middle East or West Coast US slots? Why not simply take advantage of their partners to handle o/s traffic...?

It seems like only yesterday that people on sites such as Ausbt were predicting the fall of QF and rise of VA.

LAX772LR wrote:

sell off the 777s, let DL handle all of the N.Am longhaul

DL would have to increase capacity to compensate. VA would have to wait until DL took delivery of the A359 to abandon the TPAC market.

[quote="RickNRoll"]The airline with the 777 is going broke and the one with the A380 is growing.

What has that got to do with it ?

VA's woes started when they decided they wanted to be all things to everybody. They didn't need to get the Embraers, or the ATR's, or the 330's for transcons, should've just stuck to the 737's. "If" they had to do long haul international, the 77W's were probably the right choice, though maybe a bit big at the time. Relying on China and HNA to bail them out long term, just seems like another wishful thinking move on their part. The big 3 Chinese airlines will match, better, everything they do and besides what pax they can code share/interline with each, what real benefit is VA going to see in Australia, besides some relative minor cost savings ? Even then, when it comes to China, QF has them more than matched with their partnerships with CZ and MU.

Luxon was right to try push Borghetti out. His strategy has failed. NZ, having been burnt by ownership in Australian carriers before, were right to abandon their stake in VA. You just need to look at the latest changes to the VA lounge access policy for international flights to see what a bunch of rank amateurs are running the show. EY and SQ won't abandon VA because they've put in too much and need to save face. VA needs Airline Partners Australia MkII

There are a couple of reasons why I doubt things are quite as bad as the article suggests. One is that no one I know has ever heard of australinea before (and I work in aviation policy / regulation). The other is that the article isn't well written or edited, is internally inconsistent and at times misguided (e.g. I'm not sure where the author gets the idea that NZ sold out to raise finance for its own spending program) - none of which speaks well to credibility. It strikes me that the Australian Financial Review hasn't written in quite the same terms as this autralinea article, which makes me wonder if there's an ulterior motive at play.

I see the problem as being whether VA sees itself as full-service, as pseudo-LCC, or as all things to all people. My sense is they see themselves as the latter, and that's their downfall. I don't know how they can play in that space, while being (a lot of the time) more expensive than QF, and while offering absolutely zero by way of product or service differentiation. Those 77Ws are big, expensive aircraft to own and operate and they're not being used well, in my opinion (I actually agree, VA should see them to DL who could use them quite well by interchanging them with their 77L fleet). VA are basically a confused, renamed QF, and I think it's starting to bite.

I really hope the HNA Group's investment and participation reaps some reward for VA. But to be honest I have doubts there too, not because HNA isn't capable of lifting VA but because I think it's come too late (with QF already close to MU, and now even closer, and QF really beat VA to any real benefit by announcing SYD-PEK). Fingers crossed, I guess.

VA has reported a first quarter statutory loss before tax of $34.6 million compared to a $1.7 million statutory profit before tax in the previous corresponding period

http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/1 ... s-revenue/

crazyplane1234 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

sell off the 777s, let DL handle all of the N.Am longhaul

DL would have to increase capacity to compensate. VA would have to wait until DL took delivery of the A359 to abandon the TPAC market.

....unless DL ends up being the one they sell them to.

Improbable, sure-- but could logistically work. Stranger things have happened.
DL already has the same general frame and engine in their fleet.

mariner wrote:

commavia wrote:

travelhound wrote:

Where Virgin Australia goes from here is another question. .

For once, Borghetti may have got it right - China:

I am not so sure about that. Just about 2 years ago, Borghetti was still talking down on China and said that their growth would come more likely from North America and that their China market was well covered by the SQ alliance. And now he has turned 180 degree. Why? Probably only HNA can invest in them and save his job. But then you look at what Hainan Airlines do in terms of long haul around the world. Low fares, low margins and relying on tour groups, often coming from secondary Chinese cities. How would this profile help VA?

The only motivation of HNA investing in VA that I can see is so they can use VA to launch service to so called first tier cities, namely PEK, PVG, CAN they themselves can't due to the 1 airline per route policy. I don't think they would do more than they needed to bail out VA.

Qantas16 wrote:

Whether it is his fault or not, it's time to cut JB loose and bring someone new in to try.

Somebody whose initials are AJ?

Seeing where both QF and VA are now (actually for a few years now) indicates to me that QF letting JB go and going with AJ instead was the right move.

Anybody want to speculate on how both QF and VA would look today if JB was QF CEO and AJ was VA CEO?

xiaotung wrote:

I am not so sure about that. Just about 2 years ago, Borghetti was still talking down on China and said that their growth would come more likely from North America and that their China market was well covered by the SQ alliance. And now he has turned 180 degree. Why? Probably only HNA can invest in them and save his job. But then you look at what Hainan Airlines do in terms of long haul around the world. Low fares, low margins and relying on tour groups, often coming from secondary Chinese cities. How would this profile help VA?

The only motivation of HNA investing in VA that I can see is so they can use VA to launch service to so called first tier cities, namely PEK, PVG, CAN they themselves can't due to the 1 airline per route policy. I don't think they would do more than they needed to bail out VA.

I didn't mean "China" as a market or dots on the route map - I meant "China" as in the Chinese sugar daddies who have come on board.

If it means that Borghetti has to abandon some of his up-market dreams, that process has already begun with the rise of Tiger for nearer international.

mariner

I don't trust the source in OP's post. I have a very strong suspicion that we are all being "had"

TN486 wrote:

I don't trust the source in OP's post. I have a very strong suspicion that we are all being "had"

Even if the original source is suspect, I think many of its observations and conclusions are pretty self-evident. Virgin Australia may not face quite the severe cash crunch, but it seems pretty hard to argue that Virgin Australia's financial condition is clearly not as strong as its main rival, and it's long-term strategic trajectory is clearly more murky and unclear than said rival. Virgin Australia has work to do.

TN486 wrote:

I don't trust the source in OP's post. I have a very strong suspicion that we are all being "had"

Do you believe in the integrity of audited financial reports for listed companies in Australia?

Its being reported that the article is a hoax.

AFR has an article titled "Virgin Australia boss John Borghetti's results-day hoax headache"

And now the said website has been taken offline.

The thread will be locked as the original story was a hoax, please feel free to open another thread to discuss VA's 1Q results announced today if you wish