onwFan wrote:

Experimental wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

VS is the largest single competitor to BA long-haul, is it not? Do you think passengers will be happy paying BA prices in an environment with less competition?

There are very few routes (SEA, LAS, some Caribbean) where VS is BA's only competition.

Exactly. Actually, only MIA and LAS come to my mind. In the absence of VS, DL will definitely fly SEA. And even LAS and MIA have competition from LGW through Norwegian. If I am not mistaken, there is not a single route out of LHR flown by VS that is not flown by BA.

And even if those destinations (SEA, LAS, MIA) don't see nonstop competition, they all have competition via various connecting points/hubs.

KingB123 wrote:

Caluma350 wrote:

Virgin is a great airlines. I see a lot of ignorance in this feed.

ALL airlines in the UK are currently in discussion with the UK government for support / possibility of bail outs. That includes EasyJet and BA.

ALL these airlines have taken cost cutting measures to ensure their survival.

It really saddens me to see people attack an airlines like Virgin which hasn't always had government support through out the years and have had to stay in business with their competitiveness and offering customers choice and better value for money than their competitors.

I believe Virgin will come out the other side of all this and remain Britains second flag carrier.

Just out of curiosity, did it not make you sad that employees of flybe, thomas cook etc etc lost their jobs?

How is that relevant to the current situation?

delimit wrote:

KingB123 wrote:

Caluma350 wrote:

Virgin is a great airlines. I see a lot of ignorance in this feed.

ALL airlines in the UK are currently in discussion with the UK government for support / possibility of bail outs. That includes EasyJet and BA.

ALL these airlines have taken cost cutting measures to ensure their survival.

It really saddens me to see people attack an airlines like Virgin which hasn't always had government support through out the years and have had to stay in business with their competitiveness and offering customers choice and better value for money than their competitors.

I believe Virgin will come out the other side of all this and remain Britains second flag carrier.

Just out of curiosity, did it not make you sad that employees of flybe, thomas cook etc etc lost their jobs?

How is that relevant to the current situation?

Because those airline employees lost their jobs too thats why its relevant

It would be extremely short-sighted if VS is deliberately left unsupported. Virgin Atlantic is not in a unique position - as lots of other companies find themselves in the same boat, a solution regarding delayed lease, rent and other payments has to be applied to everyone. If the UK Government does not support VS, in the end it is going to hurt its own economy as other governments will bail their carriers. The loss would be for the UK and its flying public, not for Sir Richard Branson - he may take a hit but he will be ok.

delimit wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

delimit wrote:

IAG and Virgin are both private companies. Why is one's request for money more valid than the others? SRB may be loathsome, but do you really want the government picking favorites?

I would expect you would see governments looking to preserve the jobs and the service.

I assume when you say private you mean not owned by government then yes. The thing is the government isn’t hot on bailing virgin out because a few reasons. First of all they have to take a look at the business finances to see if an investment is worth it. Secondly, their 50% owned by delta and then you have bransons tax issues which ministers aren’t to hot on so you can call this optics and then there’s the fact that the government has put a lot in place for people who lose their jobs in this period so their employees will be somewhat taken care of. And finally there’s the the idea that operationally they won’t be missed because there’s nowhere that virgin goes that BA does not.

I think my point is that bailing out airlines isn't about saving corporations; it's about saving the things those corporations provide: jobs, travel capacity, competition within the industry, etc. IAG is 25% owned by QR as well, no?

Of course they offer all those other benefits but for the UK government because of how already uncomfortable they are with bailing virgin Atlantic out they seem to have an excuse for all those points. And yes IAG is 25% owned by Qatar but at least with British Airways the economic and operational impact will be too heavy to not bail out if need be and also BA have been the main airline running repatriation flights for the UK and the foreign sec has made sure we know that’s its BA running those flights again which goes to show their role as Britain’s flag carrier

BBC:
"Nearly a fifth of all small and medium-sized businesses in the UK are unlikely to get the cash they need to survive the next four weeks, in spite of unprecedented government support. That's according to research from a network of accountants which suggests between 800,000 and a million firms nationwide may soon have to close."
Then read the comments online about the prospect of Virgin Atlantic getting a bail out (It's trending on Twitter with overwhelming negative views being expressed).

I would say that UK public opinion is clear ... no special treatment for VS. Furloughed staff can get 80% of their salary paid by the government through the company (except for the higher paid ones, like pilots), so if the company wants to help them, it can.

VS11 wrote:

It would be extremely short-sighted if VS is deliberately left unsupported. Virgin Atlantic is not in a unique position - as lots of other companies find themselves in the same boat, a solution regarding delayed lease, rent and other payments has to be applied to everyone. If the UK Government does not support VS, in the end it is going to hurt its own economy as other governments will bail their carriers. The loss would be for the UK and its flying public, not for Sir Richard Branson - he may take a hit but he will be ok.

The only airline I’m sure the government will definitely bail out is BA and of course regional carriers like Loganair etc

I will preface by saying my thoughts at this time are with all VS staff. They do not deserve to suffer this uncertainty and I hope the airline pulls through as the country needs more than one airline in the long-haul business and an airline that's prepared to explore markets north of the Watford Gap.

chonetsao wrote:

Virgin parent company should be asked first. Since Richard Branson owns 51% of the company, he must use his own money to support his own company. Delta owns 49%, Delta should help as well.

SRB has already pledged a few hundred million into various Virgin companies, VS included.

chonetsao wrote:

VS is not critical to UK economy as its routes are covered by other airlines.

Not all. You will also find VS have more of a commitment towards long-haul routes originating outside of London than BA do. The current government makes a lot of noise about levelling up the economy, so if you ask me having a situation where there's only one scheduled airline in the UK and operate everything out of London goes against that. I'm not saying the government should subside routes outside of London, but global connectivity plays in the old 'north-south divide' argument.

chonetsao wrote:

It should be rescued by its shareholder, not the UK government.

Whilst I agree shareholders have some sort of obligation, they're not running the company and there is a limit as to how much they should reasonably be expected to put in, especially if one of them has problems of their own (i.e. Delta). I also think that despite not being left-leaning, it's in the government's interests to ensure businesses thrive and if there is a case for a state-led intervention to ensure a business survives for the good of the economy and protecting jobs, they should look at it and act accordingly - if a case can be made.

I'm also not sure governments want to be entering elections painted by opposition parties as responsible for putting thousands of people out of work. It's bad enough the UK has lost Monarch, FlyBMI, Thomas Cook Airlines and Flybe within the space of 2 1/2 years.

chonetsao wrote:

What VS did to Flybe should always be remembered.

By that logic, we should always remember what BA did to VS in the early-90's. Google the Dirty Tricks scandal to see what I mean. There's also a documentary about it from the time on YouTube somewhere. That was far worse than the failure of Connect Airways to ensure Flybe survived, especially given the dire straits Flybe were in for years.

KingB123 wrote:

If the ginger at necker island doesn’t want to pay up. Good riddance to Virgin. Our tax payers money needs to spent on our health service during this crisis and not a failing private airline that provides no benefit to the MAJORITY of British Nationals x

I don't think VS employees along with all those in the supply chain that rely on VS will agree with you.

raylee67 wrote:

It should be noted that the airlines (and ALL of us) are in current situation because the governments (almost all of them) acted too slow to mitigate the disaster. Asking for the governments to bail out for a short period of time, especially during the time that the governments are telling people not to fly, isn't that outrageous.

Indeed. Despite being on the grounds of public health, governments across the world (including our own) pulled the rug from underneath the airline's market by telling people not to travel and, in some cases, closing borders to travellers from certain countries. To me, that should be one reason alone for governments to lend some sort of support to airline's who are facing what is an unprecedented situation.

It's also different to circa-2008 when banks were being bailed out because the way some had behaved over the years were coming to a head and the implications of their collapse would have had on the economy. It left a sour taste in many people's mouths when some of them reportedly returned to "business as usual" within a short timescale and reports of bonuses being paid out did the rounds. As far as I can see, airlines haven't been behaving recklessly.

KingB123 wrote:

delimit wrote:

KingB123 wrote:

Just out of curiosity, did it not make you sad that employees of flybe, thomas cook etc etc lost their jobs?

How is that relevant to the current situation?

Because those airline employees lost their jobs too thats why its relevant

Did they lose their jobs because the air travel market collapsed under them?

Opus99 wrote:

delimit wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

I assume when you say private you mean not owned by government then yes. The thing is the government isn’t hot on bailing virgin out because a few reasons. First of all they have to take a look at the business finances to see if an investment is worth it. Secondly, their 50% owned by delta and then you have bransons tax issues which ministers aren’t to hot on so you can call this optics and then there’s the fact that the government has put a lot in place for people who lose their jobs in this period so their employees will be somewhat taken care of. And finally there’s the the idea that operationally they won’t be missed because there’s nowhere that virgin goes that BA does not.

I think my point is that bailing out airlines isn't about saving corporations; it's about saving the things those corporations provide: jobs, travel capacity, competition within the industry, etc. IAG is 25% owned by QR as well, no?

Of course they offer all those other benefits but for the UK government because of how already uncomfortable they are with bailing virgin Atlantic out they seem to have an excuse for all those points. And yes IAG is 25% owned by Qatar but at least with British Airways the economic and operational impact will be too heavy to not bail out if need be and also BA have been the main airline running repatriation flights for the UK and the foreign sec has made sure we know that’s its BA running those flights again which goes to show their role as Britain’s flag carrier

So, essentially, we don't like Virgin so screw those guys?

Let Delta and Richard save it. No taxpayer money!

delimit wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

delimit wrote:

I think my point is that bailing out airlines isn't about saving corporations; it's about saving the things those corporations provide: jobs, travel capacity, competition within the industry, etc. IAG is 25% owned by QR as well, no?

Of course they offer all those other benefits but for the UK government because of how already uncomfortable they are with bailing virgin Atlantic out they seem to have an excuse for all those points. And yes IAG is 25% owned by Qatar but at least with British Airways the economic and operational impact will be too heavy to not bail out if need be and also BA have been the main airline running repatriation flights for the UK and the foreign sec has made sure we know that’s its BA running those flights again which goes to show their role as Britain’s flag carrier

So, essentially, we don't like Virgin so screw those guys?

FT explains it as the political ramifications of bailing virgin and easyJet out apparently doesn’t sit well with the government. Read this arcticle:
https://www.ft.com/content/eb82e1e1-b09 ... 79948b7585

Boeing74741R wrote:

I will preface by saying my thoughts at this time are with all VS staff. They do not deserve to suffer this uncertainty and I hope the airline pulls through as the country needs more than one airline in the long-haul business and an airline that's prepared to explore markets north of the Watford Gap.

chonetsao wrote:

Virgin parent company should be asked first. Since Richard Branson owns 51% of the company, he must use his own money to support his own company. Delta owns 49%, Delta should help as well.

SRB has already pledged a few hundred million into various Virgin companies, VS included.

chonetsao wrote:

VS is not critical to UK economy as its routes are covered by other airlines.

Not all. You will also find VS have more of a commitment towards long-haul routes originating outside of London than BA do. The current government makes a lot of noise about levelling up the economy, so if you ask me having a situation where there's only one scheduled airline in the UK and operate everything out of London goes against that. I'm not saying the government should subside routes outside of London, but global connectivity plays in the old 'north-south divide' argument.

chonetsao wrote:

It should be rescued by its shareholder, not the UK government.

Whilst I agree shareholders have some sort of obligation, they're not running the company and there is a limit as to how much they should reasonably be expected to put in, especially if one of them has problems of their own (i.e. Delta). I also think that despite not being left-leaning, it's in the government's interests to ensure businesses thrive and if there is a case for a state-led intervention to ensure a business survives for the good of the economy and protecting jobs, they should look at it and act accordingly - if a case can be made.

I'm also not sure governments want to be entering elections painted by opposition parties as responsible for putting thousands of people out of work. It's bad enough the UK has lost Monarch, FlyBMI, Thomas Cook Airlines and Flybe within the space of 2 1/2 years.

chonetsao wrote:

What VS did to Flybe should always be remembered.

By that logic, we should always remember what BA did to VS in the early-90's. Google the Dirty Tricks scandal to see what I mean. There's also a documentary about it from the time on YouTube somewhere. That was far worse than the failure of Connect Airways to ensure Flybe survived, especially given the dire straits Flybe were in for years.

KingB123 wrote:

If the ginger at necker island doesn’t want to pay up. Good riddance to Virgin. Our tax payers money needs to spent on our health service during this crisis and not a failing private airline that provides no benefit to the MAJORITY of British Nationals x

I don't think VS employees along with all those in the supply chain that rely on VS will agree with you.

raylee67 wrote:

It should be noted that the airlines (and ALL of us) are in current situation because the governments (almost all of them) acted too slow to mitigate the disaster. Asking for the governments to bail out for a short period of time, especially during the time that the governments are telling people not to fly, isn't that outrageous.

Indeed. Despite being on the grounds of public health, governments across the world (including our own) pulled the rug from underneath the airline's market by telling people not to travel and, in some cases, closing borders to travellers from certain countries. To me, that should be one reason alone for governments to lend some sort of support to airline's who are facing what is an unprecedented situation.

It's also different to circa-2008 when banks were being bailed out because the way some had behaved over the years were coming to a head and the implications of their collapse would have had on the economy. It left a sour taste in many people's mouths when some of them reportedly returned to "business as usual" within a short timescale and reports of bonuses being paid out did the rounds. As far as I can see, airlines haven't been behaving recklessly.

I don’t think employees of flybe agree with you either. If Virgin Atlantic cannot survive due to its owners not willing to cough up and ride the storm. Then let it sink. The tax payer should not fund this

It might have been a colossal mistake by Delta to have spent millions if not billions to buy interest in Virgin Atlantic, Aeromexico, etc. DL owns 49% of VA and AM, 20% of LAMTAM...their shares may be completely worthless if they collapse or are bailed out by their governments.

delimit wrote:

KingB123 wrote:

delimit wrote:

How is that relevant to the current situation?

Because those airline employees lost their jobs too thats why its relevant

Did they lose their jobs because the air travel market collapsed under them?

Hmm wonder how those employees felt when the previous recession hit too. I dont get why you’re defending a bailout of a billionaires airline with my tax money when you should feel pity for the employees, whose employer told them to take 8 WEEKS UNPAID LEAVE.

Why aren’t people questioning the ethical practice of airlines against their employees. Beyond a joke

VS11 wrote:

It would be extremely short-sighted if VS is deliberately left unsupported. Virgin Atlantic is not in a unique position - as lots of other companies find themselves in the same boat, a solution regarding delayed lease, rent and other payments has to be applied to everyone. If the UK Government does not support VS, in the end it is going to hurt its own economy as other governments will bail their carriers. The loss would be for the UK and its flying public, not for Sir Richard Branson - he may take a hit but he will be ok.

What loss? The destinations are covered by BA. Other airlines will jump in. Competitive laws will come into play. VS have a tiny network in london, basic network in Manchester. And one flight from BFS and GLA ableit that being seasonal.

Only loss is for the employees that Virgin Atlantic failed to protect and now will drop them in the hands of the state.

Has anyone already mentioned this article about Richard Branson investing over 200 million pounds in Virgin? https://www.ft.com/content/4010625e-6c5 ... bea055720b

[quote=]Tell me; when was the last time the EU closed its borders? Right. Never in it's history.[/quote]

A couple of years ago during the refugee crisis?

raylee67 wrote:

The governments did it with banks in 2008/09. Same can be done. The airlines issue preferred shares for government to buy. Preferred shares come with promise to pay good dividend (ahead of common shares receiving any dividend). The preferred shares can also come with options for the company to buy back at a fixed price after X years (or at any time). Strings should be attached too, such as no bonus for executives as long as the preferred shares are still outstanding.

That way, the company can get the cash flow now. The government doesn't lose out since it will be paid dividend when the economy bounces back and VS (or the airlines in general) turns a profit. And the executives have the incentive to buy back these preferred shares as soon as they can get the money from the market since they don't get bonus until they kick the government out. So the ownership (and risk) to governments are short term and minimal, which is the goal.

It should be noted that the airlines (and ALL of us) are in current situation because the governments (almost all of them) acted too slow to mitigate the disaster. Asking for the governments to bail out for a short period of time, especially during the time that the governments are telling people not to fly, isn't that outrageous.

Unfortunately, it's looking more and more like demand is going to be dramatically reduced for much more than a "short period of time". These rescue packages are likely going to be largely quixotic ventures where you either ultimately have to let the airline fail, or alternatively end up with another Al Italia on your hands.

PANAMsterdam wrote:

Has anyone already mentioned this article about Richard Branson investing over 200 million pounds in Virgin? https://www.ft.com/content/4010625e-6c5 ... bea055720b

The problem is that the cash infusion will be split amongst the entire Virgin group and not VS entirely. I'm not sure if VA is to be included in this as well.

Opus99 wrote:

delimit wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Of course they offer all those other benefits but for the UK government because of how already uncomfortable they are with bailing virgin Atlantic out they seem to have an excuse for all those points. And yes IAG is 25% owned by Qatar but at least with British Airways the economic and operational impact will be too heavy to not bail out if need be and also BA have been the main airline running repatriation flights for the UK and the foreign sec has made sure we know that’s its BA running those flights again which goes to show their role as Britain’s flag carrier

So, essentially, we don't like Virgin so screw those guys?

FT explains it as the political ramifications of bailing virgin and easyJet out apparently doesn’t sit well with the government. Read this arcticle:
https://www.ft.com/content/eb82e1e1-b09 ... 79948b7585

Sure. I just disagree I guess. Similarly with the US majors and their love of the stock buyback should still be given support, because they provide a vital service, and it's not the government's roll to be making decisions based on "the optics" of them.

fcogafa wrote:

[quote=]Tell me; when was the last time the EU closed its borders? Right. Never in it's history.

A couple of years ago during the refugee crisis?[/quote]
Borders were not closed. I could still book a flight to CDG.

Byrdluvs747 wrote:

PANAMsterdam wrote:

Has anyone already mentioned this article about Richard Branson investing over 200 million pounds in Virgin? https://www.ft.com/content/4010625e-6c5 ... bea055720b

The problem is that the money is for the entire Virgin group and not VS entirely. I'm not sure is VA is to be included in this as well.

I agree, but it’s not that Branson isn’t helping Virgin Atlantic. I got the impression that some people here thought that he was currently only busy with swimming in his money like Scrooch McDuck, but that isn’t the case.

Um...what are you on about?

The whole point of these bailouts is so that Virgin continues to employ people. How am I ignoring their welfare when I am advocating them keeping their jobs?

When you have a major stockholder that is personally wealthy... any government bailout money should be tied to some kind of match program from the wealthy owner. Perhaps £1 government money for every £2 (or 3, 4) of the wealthy owners money.

I'm open to the argument that the government should provide some help. But only if the wealthy owner provides clearly most of it first.

Have a great day,

Boeing74741R wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

He is 'painted' as withdrawing from bidding for a WCML franchise renewal because of the pensions issue. In the public eye, that's walking away. Some people probably don't appreciate having their pension scheme being used as a bargaining chip.

Factually wrong. The DfT were asking bidders to essentially agree to an unlimited figure worth of pension liabilities, the consortium that Virgin was involved in challenged that requirement as they weren't prepared to accept that (understandable given how pension liabilities have crippled even the biggest of organisations over the years and is why final salary pension schemes are rare nowadays), the DfT then excludes the consortium Virgin was involved in on the grounds of the bid being non-compliant.

That is completely different to walking away. Still, if that doesn't suit the narrative then carry on.

I'm not talking about the 'facts' I'm talking about how Branson is perceived by the great unwashed in the current climate. The tabloid press that fuel public opinion told them, 'the public' that Branson is the man who walked away, the man who tried to make money out of the NHS, the man sitting on millions with his cap in hand, not to be trusted, just wants your money when it suits him. In terms of the current discussion that's a relevance you're going to have to take into account during the great clamour for public bail outs. Like it or not, Branson is currently as popular as Fred Goodwin during the 2008 banking crisis.

2175301 wrote:

When you have a major stockholder that is personally wealthy... any government bailout money should be tied to some kind of match program from the wealthy owner. Perhaps £1 government money for every £2 (or 3, 4) of the wealthy owners money.

I'm open to the argument that the government should provide some help. But only if the wealthy owner provides clearly most of it first.

Have a great day,

Write that into law then. Be prepared for it to be a lengthy process. You can start with the Limited Liability Act of 1855.

delimit wrote:

Write that into law then. Be prepared for it to be a lengthy process. You can start with the Limited Liability Act of 1855.

I don't believe that act says anything about receiving a bailout from the government or the conditions that may be attached to the bailout. IMHO VS should look to its shareholders in the first place through a rights issue. If that's not feasible they should be looking at at loans. Any government bailout should be the last resort rather than the first, If the only option for VS is a bailout then the terms of any bailout are agreed between the government and VS and frankly VS would not have strong bargaining hand.

delimit wrote:

Um...what are you on about?

The whole point of these bailouts is so that Virgin continues to employ people. How am I ignoring their welfare when I am advocating them keeping their jobs?

Then why is this the responsibility of the UK GOV? Why isn't virgin keeping these people on by pumping more of its own money into keeping the airline alive? It is not the job of the UK GOV neither is it the Job of the TAX PAYER to pay for failing airlines. Period.

umichman wrote:

Unfortunately, it's looking more and more like demand is going to be dramatically reduced for much more than a "short period of time". These rescue packages are likely going to be largely quixotic ventures where you either ultimately have to let the airline fail, or alternatively end up with another Al Italia on your hands.

When I say "short period of time", I am again comparing to the bank deals from 2008/09. The government typically owned their preferred shares of the banks for a few years back then, and gradually exited their positions in around 2012 to 2015. So that's the horizon I am looking at, i.e. around 5 to 7 years.

You would not have Alitalia at hand since this is a one-off event. These airlines are generally well run. The virus will come to pass eventually. We will either develop a vaccine or cure, or the general population will eventually acquire herd immunity after 50-70% of people have been infected. Either way, it will end, and life moves on after this one-off event. This cannot be compared to Alitalia. This should be compare to WWII, where life would resume after a huge one-off disruption.

So don't get me wrong. The disruption will be significant. Again, I am looking at a WWII scale disruption in terms of both economic and even potentially human toll. Humans, at least those in East Asia, North America and Europe, have been living on good times for too long that we forgot about these disruptions. This is war-time. The governments need to do whatever it takes to minimize the overall damage. Nothing should be off the table. But everything needs to be considered with the big picture in mind, not towards one single company.

KingB123 wrote:

delimit wrote:

Um...what are you on about?

The whole point of these bailouts is so that Virgin continues to employ people. How am I ignoring their welfare when I am advocating them keeping their jobs?

Then why is this the responsibility of the UK GOV? Why isn't virgin keeping these people on by pumping more of its own money into keeping the airline alive? It is not the job of the UK GOV neither is it the Job of the TAX PAYER to pay for failing airlines. Period.

I thought we were worrying about the welfare of the workers? Guess not.

I can see being against state aid if you think Virgin will still fail, but if they aren't a risk (and they have been pretty consistently improving up until the market disappeared), why do you particularly care? Their existence definitely has benefited British consumers. Governments should be doing what they can to maintain the stability of their economies and the quality of life of their citizens; and preserving one of the things which keeps BA from exploiting it's dominant position (again) would seem to be one of them.

If you leave VS's fate to Branson and Delta, what are you going to do when they decide it makes sense for them to liquidate and sell off VS's assets? Do you trust you will benefit from those choices?

It's a weird one. VS is arguably the best UK airline from a product perspective. I'd hate to see them go. Once again the actual staff are what is important here. If it was solvent before CV19 then there's an argument to help.

But how does the uk gov explain and position itself having to back a corporate entity which sued the NHS, the larger group headed up by a billionaire non dom.
How do you explain we didnt have enough cash for PPE, ventilators or enough ICU beds in comparison to others nations but can suddenly drop a few billions to support an airline. How do you square that with rainbow drawings and 'thankyou NHS' pictures in windows across the country. There would be an uproar. You could arguable send every NHS worker on holiday with the money and it'd probably be a more popular use of cash.

We could relax ownership rules and let someone else buy it - granted not sure who would want/willing to currently.
If we do have to bail out the sector then we should take majority control ensuring that UK tax payer is first in line for any profit or assets. If the shareholders wont save it they should take the hit on their investments inc Mr B and DL - as was the risk. If the entire sector needs support then they should be given a share of help. Potentially merging two entities a la like Lloyds & Halifax (adding EZY and VS together for example to have a stronger second carrier for example, or if BA needs help too slots and assets should be moved to a competitor - to actually benefit the uk competition).

I think the British taxpayer wont look too friendly on being expected to bailout companies that quite often dont do the right thing, going after the NHS, not paying tax or EZY paying a dividend of millions but then attempting to stop feeding crew etc.

There's not a lot of sense in hanging thousands of people out to dry only to pay them benefits either.
But this should be about keeping workers employed for the sake of our economy further down the road - not lining shareholders pockets.

Opus99 wrote:

VS11 wrote:

It would be extremely short-sighted if VS is deliberately left unsupported. Virgin Atlantic is not in a unique position - as lots of other companies find themselves in the same boat, a solution regarding delayed lease, rent and other payments has to be applied to everyone. If the UK Government does not support VS, in the end it is going to hurt its own economy as other governments will bail their carriers. The loss would be for the UK and its flying public, not for Sir Richard Branson - he may take a hit but he will be ok.

The only airline I’m sure the government will definitely bail out is BA and of course regional carriers like Loganair etc

BA won’t be bailed out, they (IAG) are not even a British company and they have stated that they don’t want a bailout. They want their competitors to go to the wall first.

cedarjet wrote:

If half of climate science is real (and it is), we should not be subsiding heavily polluting industries

I agree. Let’s ban shipping and close data centres. Don’t get me started on air conditioning.

Look mate, if you think green taxes are aimed at saving the planet I have some magic beans I want to sell you! Green taxes are just additional taxes because the west continues to spend way more money than it can afford and borrows heavily. APD hasn’t saved a single polar bear and COVID 19 has concentrated minds on just how much of the green agenda is a left wing, anti free market, controlled economy cult. Environmentalism has been hijacked by radicals.
As for SRB, well he burned his bridges on Brexit. He can afford to save VS, but he won’t. That’s how you become a billionaire. He’s gone from radical entrepreneur to sucking at the teet of the taxpayer. Also Stelios is harming easyJet with his continued tone deaf interviews, affirming in the public eye that it’s owned by the coddled son of a family of Greek billionaires. It’s not, it’s been a PLC for years and is markedly different to VS and SRB.

As I have been saying from the start of this crisis, cash is going to be trivial to survival.
Airlines have a lot of illiquid assets in their balance sheets: ie aircraft and airport infrastructure. When things turn sour at the global level like now, aircraft are difficult to sell for a decent price.
VS however has assets that may still have very decent value: their LHR and LGW slots.
So they should look into selling those or get loans where the slots act as collateral.

SRB did a master move on AF-KLM by redacting the deal to sell them shares in VS. That move has backfired big time now. He should have taken the money while VS was worth something. This goes to show that even the big boys are powerless against the unknown.

I suspect Virgin may get some form of support, but the Treasury will call the shots. "Optics" mean that Richard Branson will have to be seen to pay for this.

As a number of UK airlines are seeking state support, do not rule out some "blue sky thinking" from the Treasury.

Irishbean wrote:

I think the best solution here for any governments would be to look at a shareholding, they can then sell on at a later date. dilute or remove SRB shareholding/ or Delta. Cash injection is bad use tax payer money and a loan has to be repaid

I agree. If the UK bails them out then both SRB and Delta should be removed from VS. It was especially foolish for DL to go around investing in other airlines instead of their own but that's another subject.

raylee67 wrote:

This should be compare to WWII, where life would resume after a huge one-off disruption.

So don't get me wrong. The disruption will be significant. Again, I am looking at a WWII scale disruption in terms of both economic and even potentially human toll. Humans, at least those in East Asia, North America and Europe, have been living on good times for too long that we forgot about these disruptions. This is war-time. The governments need to do whatever it takes to minimize the overall damage. Nothing should be off the table. But everything needs to be considered with the big picture in mind, not towards one single company.

Too much hyperbole. This doesn't begin to compare to WWII. However, I'll play along.

The one word you missed was "sacrifice", which is something the British govt had to do a lot of in that time, and will have to do now. There is no way for the govt to keep every company up and running. Depending on their circumstances, some industries/companies will fail. Others will be deemed necessary to the national interest an receive particular attention. At 10 Downing St, I'm sure they're asking whether the money used to save VS could be used to save a more important company.

VS may have to be sacrificed for other priorities since they provide nothing that BA doesn't. Any talk of consumer choice, is a luxury for more prosperous times.

delimit wrote:

If you leave VS's fate to Branson and Delta, what are you going to do when they decide it makes sense for them to liquidate and sell off VS's assets? Do you trust you will benefit from those choices?

If Branson and Delta see fit to liquidate VS, what gives the UK govt the aviation clairvoyance to suddenly know otherwise?

Aesma wrote:

jayunited wrote:

Armodeen wrote:

This opinion is popular but a little grating. While SRB had a before crash net worth of £4bn, it is certainly significantly less now. It’s also mostly tied up in assets, it’s not like he has a literal pile of money on which he sleeps on Necker island as you imply. SRB doesn’t have anything like the sort of money required to save VS, billionaire or not. DL will have enough problems preventing its own collapse and I’m sure cannot bail out other airlines. This is an unprecedented situation.

Also, VS employs 8500 people. Most of those will tell you what a great company they are to work for. How about showing a little empathy and thinking about them?

VS is in an interesting position and I personally don't want to see any airline go under but if SimProgrammer's entire comment is true it is going to be difficult to persuade the government to intervene.

I think you mean the UK public.

The current UK government is in love with these kind of people, same with Dyson.

I don't actually believe they are - this government so far have shown signs of being a more centre-right (most prominent in the pre-pandemic budget) than previous Conservative leaders. I believe they are much more keen to sit on the side of public opinion and less keen on a totally business centred approach. Yes they will always advocate for lower taxes than the left-wing opposition but the days of worshipping tax dodgers and ruthless business brains may well be over. Dyson have had a series of unpopular decisions but they're a great British business working on ventilators at present, public opinion currently lies in their favour imo. Branson on the other hand...

JannEejit wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

and walking away from a new Virgin Trains operator contract because of his unwillingness to underpin the staff pensions scheme associated with the West Coast line franchise renewal.

I'm by no means the biggest Branson fan, but this disingenuous. They said it was not financially viable to bid for a franchise under the terms of underpinning the expensive BritishRail pensions, and they may well be right. Virgin Trains left at the end of the agreed contract term when the whole thing was up for tender again anyways and had just as much chance as being awarded to someone else. VTWC did a huge amount of good for the WCML, earned a lot of money doing so, but created some of the most drastic rail improvements (eventually) a single UK franchise has ever seen.

This constant Branson-bashing is boring. Attack him for the stuff with substance.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm attempting to explain his chances of winning the UK taxpayer over in terms of sympathy and perception.

He is 'painted' as withdrawing from bidding for a WCML franchise renewal because of the pensions issue. In the public eye, that's walking away. Some people probably don't appreciate having their pension scheme being used as a bargaining chip. The lack of empathy for Thomas Cook and Flybe employees may not help his cause either.

I agree with your general point - the chances of him winning the UK taxpayer over are at next to zilch.

The governments have closed the borders and routes etc.
They have made business impossible.
Compensation should happen.

Amsterdam wrote:

The governments have closed the borders and routes etc.
They have made business impossible.
Compensation should happen.

the UK government has closed no borders... other governments maybe, so maybe those governments should pay?

MIflyer12 wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

VS is not critical to UK economy as its routes are covered by other airlines. It should be rescued by its shareholder, not the UK government.

VS is the largest single competitor to BA long-haul, is it not? Do you think passengers will be happy paying BA prices in an environment with less competition?

Virgin has never competed with BA , it generally seeks to charge exactly or more for seats on exactly the same routes and it only goes for the rich routes ( it’s more of a parasite than a competitor ) and it pays its cabin crew some of the poorest wages in the industry - absolutely no political or economic reason to bailout Branson ...

KingB123 wrote:

delimit wrote:

Um...what are you on about?

The whole point of these bailouts is so that Virgin continues to employ people. How am I ignoring their welfare when I am advocating them keeping their jobs?

Then why is this the responsibility of the UK GOV? Why isn't virgin keeping these people on by pumping more of its own money into keeping the airline alive? It is not the job of the UK GOV neither is it the Job of the TAX PAYER to pay for failing airlines. Period.

Who is virgin? What is 'its own money'? Do you mean Branson personally? If the UK govt wants equity, diluting Branson's and Delta's stakes, fine. That is a mechanism in the U.S. carrier bailout package, relevant to both grants and secured loans.

Amsterdam wrote:

The governments have closed the borders and routes etc.
They have made business impossible.
Compensation should happen.

You're having a laugh. Are you serious? Shall we just keep the borders open so that more positive cases flood into the country and infect everyone. Please go read.

Not a chance should we compensate airlines. They know their risks in the business, and should have been somewhat prepared. It just shows poor planning on their part. It is a risk and the airline business knows it is a risk factor. There should always be a contingency plan.

MIflyer12 wrote:

KingB123 wrote:

delimit wrote:

Um...what are you on about?

The whole point of these bailouts is so that Virgin continues to employ people. How am I ignoring their welfare when I am advocating them keeping their jobs?

Then why is this the responsibility of the UK GOV? Why isn't virgin keeping these people on by pumping more of its own money into keeping the airline alive? It is not the job of the UK GOV neither is it the Job of the TAX PAYER to pay for failing airlines. Period.

Who is virgin? What is 'its own money'? Do you mean Branson personally? If the UK govt wants equity, diluting Branson's and Delta's stakes, fine. That is a mechanism in the U.S. carrier bailout package, relevant to both grants and secured loans.

Virgin Group, Own money = the billions sitting abroad.

Galwayman wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

VS is not critical to UK economy as its routes are covered by other airlines. It should be rescued by its shareholder, not the UK government.

VS is the largest single competitor to BA long-haul, is it not? Do you think passengers will be happy paying BA prices in an environment with less competition?

Virgin has never competed with BA , it generally seeks to charge exactly or more for seats on exactly the same routes and it only goes for the rich routes ( it’s more of a parasite than a competitor ) and it pays its cabin crew some of the poorest wages in the industry - absolutely no political or economic reason to bailout Branson ...

But yet we still have folk claiming that we should spend our taxes to bail out the airline. The worlds gone mad.

If Virgin hasnt been able to make profits and build up reserves over all these years , it’s time to let it go ...

Galwayman wrote:

If Virgin hasnt been able to make profits and build up reserves over all these years , it’s time to let it go ...

Wasn't Virgin in the red? (or still is?). I agree, the UK can survive without Virgin, survival of the fittest and no matter how many fan boys on here try to defend it. It's time to put it to rest.