Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Boeing74741R
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:44 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Wed Apr 08, 2020 8:59 am

tphuang wrote:
chepos wrote:
VS has plenty of feed on the US side, what do you think DL does. To say B6 would be a bigger competitor to BA than VS is extremely daft.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think he is saying B6 would have a better chance of lowering fares, since it has actually lowered prices with mint before.


You're forgetting one elephant in the room: APD. Once that's added on, it will be interesting to see how much cheaper they are in reality compared to the competition, especially for Mint which, to all intents and purposes, is a business class product and will probably be taxed accordingly. JetBlue also have very little brand awareness here in the UK so a marketing campaign would be needed.

If I was JetBlue, I would be taking a very close look at why Primera and WOW failed and why Norwegian have shrunk their TATL network before setting out their price points.

Boof02671 wrote:
JetBlue doesn’t have a plane capable yet. Nor do they have ETOPS and slots are use it or lose it.


I fully expect deliveries of the A321LR/XLR's to be deferred. In fact, they're already looking at deferring aircraft deliveries so this will almost certainly impact growth and existing fleet retirement plans...

https://onemileatatime.com/jetblue-flight-cuts/

I also note they're looking at further cuts. Time will tell whether they're temporary or permanent...

https://paxex.aero/2020/04/deeper-cuts- ... r-jetblue/

In short, I wouldn't be surprised if JetBlue put their TATL plans on ice for a few years to give them time to shore up their own position and see how the market recovers post-COVID-19. At least those A321's can be redeployed domestically if they're not used TATL even in LR/XLR form.

jomur wrote:
The amount of money needed to bailout Virgin and keep it going just to save 8500 jobs will be better spent on saving many many more usually profitable UK based tax paying companies who employ 100,000s more people., and that is Virgin's main problem...

Also with SRB moving his Galactic ownership to a offshore tax haven won't help him the UK Government and public either.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/ ... hares/amp/


We've already established way back in this thread that VS are a UK-based company paying their taxes in the UK. As a UK taxpayer, I'd rather see people in work than joining the dole queue, especially given there have been 2 other high-profile UK aviation failures in the last 6 months.

As for Virgin Galactic, those shares were moved from a US-based company to the British Virgin Islands. Galactic are also headquartered in the US. Why should the UK government have their thinking and decision-making influenced by what's happening with a foreign company?
 
GDB
Posts: 13780
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:31 am

Bhoy wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
This will be taken into account if there are good advisers in the government.

No fear of that with Cummings in charge of advice.


Not right now, his boss, the only one who trusts him, is in intensive care and Cummings himself is self isolating, you see him actually run (trying not to be seen) out of Downing Street when Boris got sick. Surprising Cummings ran rather than slithered.
 
Clackers
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:19 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:33 am

They need to start flying to DPS. Bring in the holidaymakers.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 580
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:53 am

Boeing74741R wrote:
The fact is you or I don't know how long IAG can be self-sufficient without needing to go to the government, simply because nobody can quantify how long this will go on for. Do we know how much cash per day BA and other IAG airlines are burning through at the moment?


We don't know how long this will last, no. However, given the slashing of costs and the fact BA has the ability to generate revenue from freighter and repatriarion flights things aren't desperate at BA. The liquidity position is strong and net debt to equity is low. I've heard figures spoken about internally, I won't repeat them here given I cannot provide or reveal any sources publicly and appreciate that you therefore don't need to believe or trust it, but I'm incredibly confident BA would be one of the last airlines standing if this carries on too long. Forward bookings for 2021 are apparently strong too.

Boeing74741R wrote:
As for people keeping bringing IAG into this, when you look at BA's past form in particular, it's safe to assume there will be no tears shed at Waterside if VS were to go under. I get it's natural for any business that hasn't got a monopoly to see their competitors fail and BA obviously stand to benefit from any VS failure, however I do expect fares to rise across the board which isn't necessarily good for the consumer.


You're right regarding BA and Virgin. BA does face stiffer competition than any other airline from their home city despite the slot restrictions at Heathrow. Fares should rise - many airlines' revenue simply isn't high enough in the good times to ride out the rough. I appreciate this is unprecedented but even easyJet consistently makes a loss in the winter period. Norwegian doesn't cover its costs with its lowish fares and consumers will end up stranded downroute continuously because of airline failures. Monarch, Flybe and Thomas Cook have all gone in the UK alone over the past few years and business has been pretty much booming during that period. So fares have been too low - £60 return from London to Marrakech just isn't realistic.

B74741R wrote:
Is there a link between low fares and failure rates?

As for London, whilst I agree there's still choice from London the same cannot be said for Manchester. With the exception of Florida and one of Atlanta or New York, I don't envisage anybody else stepping into the breach and I'd be somewhat surprised if BA in particular choose to resume long-haul flying from MAN as a result.


I can't see BA picking up the pieces in Manchester, no. But now in the past decade Thomas Cook, Virgin and bmi have tried and failed with longhaul from Manchester - it proves that BA has been right all along to sit it out as yields just aren't strong enough, and they won't be after this recession either. There'll always be connections to the west with United through Newark, Delta through Atlanta/JFK and to the east with Emirates. It arguably is all that Manchester can sustain right now at a profitable level.

The government can't prop up every business, especially ones that didn't even turn a profit in some of the most profitable times the industry has ever had.
 
Bhoy
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:50 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:32 am

GDB wrote:
Bhoy wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
This will be taken into account if there are good advisers in the government.

No fear of that with Cummings in charge of advice.


Not right now, his boss, the only one who trusts him, is in intensive care and Cummings himself is self isolating, you see him actually run (trying not to be seen) out of Downing Street when Boris got sick. Surprising Cummings ran rather than slithered.

Oh I know. The point being, there’s no evidence of good advisers to the Government, much less any advisers other than a bunch of weirdos and misfits [sic].
 
tphuang
Posts: 5315
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:34 am

Boeing74741R wrote:
You're forgetting one elephant in the room: APD. Once that's added on, it will be interesting to see how much cheaper they are in reality compared to the competition, especially for Mint which, to all intents and purposes, is a business class product and will probably be taxed accordingly. JetBlue also have very little brand awareness here in the UK so a marketing campaign would be needed.

If I was JetBlue, I would be taking a very close look at why Primera and WOW failed and why Norwegian have shrunk their TATL network before setting out their price points.

Not the same thing, JetBlue has very strong brand on NYC/BOS. $200 of APD is really nothing when J fares are routinely $8000 last minute, which are 3 times as much as JFK-LAX. JetBlue has very little brand awareness in the west coast also. The premium cabin is way overpriced to LHR, there is significant room for undercutting.

I fully expect deliveries of the A321LR/XLR's to be deferred. In fact, they're already looking at deferring aircraft deliveries so this will almost certainly impact growth and existing fleet retirement plans...

https://onemileatatime.com/jetblue-flight-cuts/

I also note they're looking at further cuts. Time will tell whether they're temporary or permanent...

https://paxex.aero/2020/04/deeper-cuts- ... r-jetblue/

In short, I wouldn't be surprised if JetBlue put their TATL plans on ice for a few years to give them time to shore up their own position and see how the market recovers post-COVID-19. At least those A321's can be redeployed domestically if they're not used TATL even in LR/XLR form.

A321LR basically is just A321NEO with extra fuel tank. There is no risk in accepting NEOs in the LR config. Some A321NEO orders will be deferred, but they will need to grow again by summer of next year.

They are not cutting anymore than any other carrriers at the moment. Why would you want to fly more than bare minimum requirement right now when your 2 largest cities are huge COVID hotspots? You are making absolutely zero sense. You are saying the cuts that carriers are making at the moment are permanent? Are you saying that New York and Boston market won't have aviation demand a year from now? That would be a surprise to the big 3 carriers.

Again, if both DY and VS go under, we will be down to BA/AA JV on BOS-LHR. We will be down to a dominant BA/AA JV on JFK-LHR plus a significantly weakened DL without their JV partner. That's much less competition than what B6 would have faced prior to COVID. That's a much easier competitive landscape to enter.

We've already established way back in this thread that VS are a UK-based company paying their taxes in the UK. As a UK taxpayer, I'd rather see people in work than joining the dole queue, especially given there have been 2 other high-profile UK aviation failures in the last 6 months.

As for Virgin Galactic, those shares were moved from a US-based company to the British Virgin Islands. Galactic are also headquartered in the US. Why should the UK government have their thinking and decision-making influenced by what's happening with a foreign company?


Again, when the demand/economy comes back, there will be other carriers and other industry with jobs available. Why does British gov't need to rescue VS. There are so many businesses that are going to run out of money. Why do we favor airlines ahead of other businesses? Do you know how unpopular the American CARES act are with the vast public? The British gov't policy of paying 80% of payroll for all businesses make a lot more sense. VS can make use of that. Why are they asking for special treatment?
 
DobboDobbo
Posts: 1141
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:02 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Wed Apr 08, 2020 12:10 pm

The central fact is that there is no guarantee that this will be over, or anywhere close to BAU I’m the airline industry by Summer 2021 (we obviously hope that is not the case).

Unless your airline is state owned or you are able to call upon state aid, there is a real chance that it will either not survive or end up a materially different outfit to what it was before the crisis. That means job losses, salary cuts, squeezed margins, investor haircuts, failures up and down the supply chain. I think we can all agree we do not want this to happen.

In that regard, VS’s position is no different to AA, DL, UA, AF/KL, LH, BA and many others - all of whom are either in receipt of or planning to seek state aid.

If governments are prepared to let VS fail because of coronavirus, perhaps to preserve more “essential” industries, it is no great leap for them to allow the flag carriers to fail also. It is a slippery slope to go down and I am surprised at the level of antipathy towards VS from a board that I assume comprises of those who either work in or have an an interest in the aviation industry - I thought turkeys didn’t vote for Christmas but perhaps I'm wrong on that...
 
User avatar
oxonrow
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:04 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Wed Apr 08, 2020 12:19 pm

BA777FO wrote:
Boeing74741R wrote:
The fact is you or I don't know how long IAG can be self-sufficient without needing to go to the government, simply because nobody can quantify how long this will go on for. Do we know how much cash per day BA and other IAG airlines are burning through at the moment?


We don't know how long this will last, no. However, given the slashing of costs and the fact BA has the ability to generate revenue from freighter and repatriarion flights things aren't desperate at BA. The liquidity position is strong and net debt to equity is low. I've heard figures spoken about internally, I won't repeat them here given I cannot provide or reveal any sources publicly and appreciate that you therefore don't need to believe or trust it, but I'm incredibly confident BA would be one of the last airlines standing if this carries on too long. Forward bookings for 2021 are apparently strong too.

Boeing74741R wrote:
As for people keeping bringing IAG into this, when you look at BA's past form in particular, it's safe to assume there will be no tears shed at Waterside if VS were to go under. I get it's natural for any business that hasn't got a monopoly to see their competitors fail and BA obviously stand to benefit from any VS failure, however I do expect fares to rise across the board which isn't necessarily good for the consumer.


You're right regarding BA and Virgin. BA does face stiffer competition than any other airline from their home city despite the slot restrictions at Heathrow. Fares should rise - many airlines' revenue simply isn't high enough in the good times to ride out the rough. I appreciate this is unprecedented but even easyJet consistently makes a loss in the winter period. Norwegian doesn't cover its costs with its lowish fares and consumers will end up stranded downroute continuously because of airline failures. Monarch, Flybe and Thomas Cook have all gone in the UK alone over the past few years and business has been pretty much booming during that period. So fares have been too low - £60 return from London to Marrakech just isn't realistic.

B74741R wrote:
Is there a link between low fares and failure rates?

As for London, whilst I agree there's still choice from London the same cannot be said for Manchester. With the exception of Florida and one of Atlanta or New York, I don't envisage anybody else stepping into the breach and I'd be somewhat surprised if BA in particular choose to resume long-haul flying from MAN as a result.


I can't see BA picking up the pieces in Manchester, no. But now in the past decade Thomas Cook, Virgin and bmi have tried and failed with longhaul from Manchester - it proves that BA has been right all along to sit it out as yields just aren't strong enough, and they won't be after this recession either. There'll always be connections to the west with United through Newark, Delta through Atlanta/JFK and to the east with Emirates. It arguably is all that Manchester can sustain right now at a profitable level.

The government can't prop up every business, especially ones that didn't even turn a profit in some of the most profitable times the industry has ever had.



The issues you point to are structural, but subject to intervention/change. BA turns ridiculous profits because it is privileged, it has the scale to do what it does, and I would argue does not do very well serving the travelling public, except for the front cabin passenger, but even that is disputable at the fares it charges (manages to with its dominant position). I don't see how anyone with a sense of what firm economics are could expect VS to turn profit given what it is up against. Sure, let VS go under. Or find a way to keep it afloat but rather than give it handouts, restructure the market so that it can compete effectively -- brand royalties to SRB or not. The same goes for secondary cities in the UK. Their potential is drained by BA and LHR. Where market is structured differently, hubs exist within close proximity. Sure, UK is unusually centralised but looking to the future, it seems to me, the populist uptake and demands for greater redistribution considered, the north may well rebound.

Don't mean to be crass, but sometimes I think there is a shortage of out-of-the-box thinking in this country. The market may be the answer, if that's what you believe, but market is structured by regulation and policy. Rethinking where it is needed. Protecting the firm with the greatest scale is not always the only way forward, in fact sometimes suboptimal if you consider all the inputs. We are possibly down to a choice: scrap VS and let others fill its places -- like B6, but this will not necessarily benefit Britain (fewer jobs, less connectivity) as the other avenue, let the carrier compete on more a level(ed) playing field.
 
gunnerman
Posts: 1146
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 7:55 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Wed Apr 08, 2020 2:16 pm

To everyone thinking that BA will step in and benefit from a bankrupt VS, hold on. If this crisis continues for any length of time BA will also go under unless it gets financial help. Few people seem to have noticed that BA is operating a small fraction of its flights and only from LHR T5 with nothing from LHR T3, LGW or LCY. My reckoning is that there's only 20 routes from LHR as HND and SIN-SYD have just been axed and the key US routes will not recover any time soon.

BFS
LIS
EDI
CDG
LAX
GLA
MAN
BOS
ARN
ORD
ICN
CPN
NCE
BCN
JFK
SEA
IAD
IOM
HAJ
SVO
 
BA777FO
Posts: 580
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:14 pm

oxonrow wrote:
BA turns ridiculous profits because it is privileged, it has the scale to do what it does, and I would argue does not do very well serving the travelling public, except for the front cabin passenger, but even that is disputable at the fares it charges (manages to with its dominant position). I don't see how anyone with a sense of what firm economics are could expect VS to turn profit given what it is up against.


Hang on, so due to its dominant position BA charges excessively but a competitor charging what you deem to be more reasonable cannot? Like I said, BA faces more direct competition from its home city than any other airline. It may have just over half of all Heathrow slots but that's a less dominant position than AF and CDG, LH at FRA, KLM at AMS, DL at ATL, UA at EWR or SFO etc.

BA's fares are not astronomical. In fact, on most city pairs where they offer direct flights they're either the cheapest or incredibly competitive. Do you have substantial proof that BA's prices are excessive compared to competitors but ultimately fly BA because no other choice exists?
 
User avatar
oxonrow
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:04 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Wed Apr 08, 2020 5:36 pm

BA777FO wrote:
oxonrow wrote:
BA turns ridiculous profits because it is privileged, it has the scale to do what it does, and I would argue does not do very well serving the travelling public, except for the front cabin passenger, but even that is disputable at the fares it charges (manages to with its dominant position). I don't see how anyone with a sense of what firm economics are could expect VS to turn profit given what it is up against.


Hang on, so due to its dominant position BA charges excessively but a competitor charging what you deem to be more reasonable cannot? Like I said, BA faces more direct competition from its home city than any other airline. It may have just over half of all Heathrow slots but that's a less dominant position than AF and CDG, LH at FRA, KLM at AMS, DL at ATL, UA at EWR or SFO etc.

BA's fares are not astronomical. In fact, on most city pairs where they offer direct flights they're either the cheapest or incredibly competitive. Do you have substantial proof that BA's prices are excessive compared to competitors but ultimately fly BA because no other choice exists?



I don't mean it's Y fares -- that really varies a lot, some are super high and often higher than what I see people with similar itineraries paying from other airports in Europe, but never mind that, this is in part the market stratification I described before, a lot of competition is less direct, as it connects to the other four London airports (or is it five...?). Prices in J are much higher than anywhere else in Europe, also one of the reasons why I never fly premium (working for a human rights organisation, albeit an intergovernmental one with a cushy budget). The difference is often staggering. Of course there has always been effectively (non)fixing between BA and VS, that's not healthy either. Opening LHR to more competition is ultimately what we need. My fear is that without VS, BA will dominate too much, certainly TATL routes (my particular interest in JFK).

Not sure if percentage of slots controlled is really going to show much. Mind you, if you take all of IAG and all the JVs, BA's control of LHR is considerable. It's the price of market entry that matters, and that has a disproportionate positive net effect on BA.

What I am arguing, and this is actually not controversial, competition is structured poorly at LHR. With a more of less finite number of real estate, BA prioritises premium, caring little about Y flyers. You are right, demise of VS will probably change little, but the ability to reap greater profit margins from premium will leave even less space for Y.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5315
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Wed Apr 08, 2020 6:31 pm

oxonrow wrote:
I don't mean it's Y fares -- that really varies a lot, some are super high and often higher than what I see people with similar itineraries paying from other airports in Europe, but never mind that, this is in part the market stratification I described before, a lot of competition is less direct, as it connects to the other four London airports (or is it five...?). Prices in J are much higher than anywhere else in Europe, also one of the reasons why I never fly premium (working for a human rights organisation, albeit an intergovernmental one with a cushy budget). The difference is often staggering. Of course there has always been effectively (non)fixing between BA and VS, that's not healthy either. Opening LHR to more competition is ultimately what we need. My fear is that without VS, BA will dominate too much, certainly TATL routes (my particular interest in JFK).

Without VS, DL is likely going to re-orient its slot LHR portfolio to mostly JFK flights, since it's very vested in the market. Frankly, we will not have any less competition. But we could have more competition if JetBlue gets some slots. You can really just think of this as DL losing a lot of slots to LHR. And to other part of the world, imagine all the Chinese carriers or middle eastern carriers who would be able to use more slots. That would provide more competition than what VS has provided to those markets.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 580
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Wed Apr 08, 2020 9:56 pm

oxonrow wrote:
I don't mean it's Y fares -- that really varies a lot, some are super high and often higher than what I see people with similar itineraries paying from other airports in Europe, but never mind that, this is in part the market stratification I described before, a lot of competition is less direct, as it connects to the other four London airports (or is it five...?). Prices in J are much higher than anywhere else in Europe, also one of the reasons why I never fly premium (working for a human rights organisation, albeit an intergovernmental one with a cushy budget). The difference is often staggering.


The airport user fees for Heathrow are among the highest in the world and more than twice the price of Gatwick. Additionally Air Passenger Duty is one of the highest aviation taxes in the world and more than twice the next highest in the EU (noting that many EU countries levy no version of APD at all). I'd expect on that basis alone that Heathrow is more expensive than somewhere like Dublin or Amsterdam.

That said, do you have any evidence that BA's J fares are significantly higher than the competition or is it just anecdotal? Having checked some random dates in October BA is cheaper than Delta/Virgin to MCO, LAX and SEA (by about £800!) and within £20 to JFK. BA is offering lower fares in J when I look.

Thinking of BA's network to the USA it has direct competition from a London airport to every destination except PHL, PHX, BNA, PIT, MSY, DFW, SJC, SAN and the twice weekly CHS. Of those only 3 or 4? have other direct flights to elsewhere in Europe - they're relatively thin markets that couldn't sustain many other competitors. Of the airports BA flies to in the USA only MIA and AUS would be added to the list if you excluded other London airports. Most of the rest has multiple daily competitor flights, as do all destinations in the Middle East, Far East and India (except Chennai, Hyderabad and Bangalore, but all 3 have stiff competition from the ME3).

oxonrow wrote:
Opening LHR to more competition is ultimately what we need. My fear is that without VS, BA will dominate too much, certainly TATL routes (my particular interest in JFK).


To JFK you have multiple daily flights on Virgin and Delta, United to EWR and Norwegian from Gatwick. There's more competition there than from most other European cities. Delta and Virgin could always upguage its equipment too. BA will dominate Heathrow no more than Lufthansa dominates Frankfurt or KLM dominates Amsterdam.

oxonrow wrote:
Not sure if percentage of slots controlled is really going to show much. Mind you, if you take all of IAG and all the JVs, BA's control of LHR is considerable. It's the price of market entry that matters, and that has a disproportionate positive net effect on BA.


IAG combined still have a smaller percentage of slots at Heathrow than KLM at AMS, Lufthansa at FRA and AF and CDG. Arguably only CDG has capacity for new entrants. What KLM and Lufthansa don't have to contend with is Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and City airport in their backyard as well.

oxonrow wrote:
With a more of less finite number of real estate, BA prioritises premium, caring little about Y flyers. You are right, demise of VS will probably change little, but the ability to reap greater profit margins from premium will leave even less space for Y.


Again I disagree - BA has made a big effort with upgrading its Y product recently. It offers a high proportion of premium seating because the market can sustain it arguably better than many others, but that doesn't infer that Y is ignored - there are more Y seats on the aircraft than any other after all!

Given the losses being racked up by the lockdowns I think some time to make some profits would be welcomed!
 
Boeing74741R
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:44 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 09, 2020 8:53 am

tphuang wrote:
Not the same thing, JetBlue has very strong brand on NYC/BOS. $200 of APD is really nothing when J fares are routinely $8000 last minute, which are 3 times as much as JFK-LAX. JetBlue has very little brand awareness in the west coast also. The premium cabin is way overpriced to LHR, there is significant room for undercutting.


A few points in response...

*With the brand awareness, then until they build up brand awareness on the UK side they would effectively be starting with brand awareness at one end. Yes, all new entrants face that same issue, but in the context of VS some on here are advocating replacing an airline with over 35 years brand awareness at both ends with somebody with brand awareness at one end only.
*If APD rates are nothing, why do airlines in the UK often gripe about it? It could make what's a cheap fare not so cheap compared to the competition.
*JetBlue's limited brand awareness in West Coast US (assuming that's true) isn't relevant here as London-West Coast US routes on JetBlue isn't in the equation at the moment
*I have no experience of flying business out of LHR, but given it's status as the "premier" London airport and the demand on routes such as London-NYC, I would hazard a guess that's reflective of demand, but you also need to consider the point made by somebody else about LHR's charges. For a LCC such as JetBlue, I would suggest they might be better off serving another London airport such as LGW if they want to disrupt the market as a low-cost alternative. It is one reason why most European LCC's don't touch LHR and focus on other London airports.

tphuang wrote:
You are saying the cuts that carriers are making at the moment are permanent?


Some are, yes - please take a look around. VS have already announced that EWR is being permanently cut, and going by the news coming out of BA and LH about permanently withdrawing aircraft (mainly those that were due to leave in the coming years in line with new aircraft deliveries) without immediately replacing them it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that cuts to the fleet means there will be cuts to flights, be it destinations, frequencies or both. BA and LH may restore flights to pre-COVID-19 levels when they eventually take delivery of their new aircraft, but who knows?

You also need to look at past form. Post-9/11 we saw airlines across the world making permanent cuts. Whilst some cuts may be dressed up as temporary, it wouldn't surprise me if some of these end up being permanent if the routes weren't that profitable or aren't seen as core.

tphuang wrote:
Why are they asking for special treatment?


I'm only going to respond to this question as we're going round in circles like the holding pattern to a certain London airport some ridiculously claim are more worthy for some airlines to serve than others...

My take on this is that as the UK government have told the British public to stay at home and advise against all but essential foreign travel, they have effectively pulled the rug from under the country's airlines as the market has disappeared. Obviously this isn't permanent, but nobody knows how long this will go on for. Therefore, as the party who effectively put the airlines into immediate economic distress, I believe the government have an obligation of sorts to provide support to the airlines to at least soften the blow and give them every chance of riding the crisis out until lockdown restrictions are eased. I'm not saying Rishi Sunak should be writing blank cheques, but each British airline (be it VS or BA or whoever) should be able to turn to the government for some sort of support given the extraordinary circumstances we're in and even more so if they can demonstrate they've passed Mr Sunak's test of exhausting other avenues first, with each case judged on its merits without being influenced by what competitors think.

All I will say is that it's a good job decisions aren't made based on a.net popular opinion!

DobboDobbo wrote:
It is a slippery slope to go down and I am surprised at the level of antipathy towards VS from a board that I assume comprises of those who either work in or have an an interest in the aviation industry - I thought turkeys didn’t vote for Christmas but perhaps I'm wrong on that...


Yes, it is approaching the same levels of hatred some on here have towards Norwegian. I'm not saying there should be unconditional love for VS or all airlines, but I will repeat that some of the comments on here can't be nice to read if you're one of those directly affected. I think we've run out of things to discuss here until there's more news on the subject as there's many broken records continuing to be played. :roll: :yawn:
 
BealineV953
Posts: 202
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:00 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 09, 2020 9:57 am

EWRFlyer wrote:
I get it some of you don't like VS or you clearly work for BA!

Don't forget the government bail outs for BA in the 80's, what BA did to Laker, BCal and Dan Air.
The dirty tricks campaign against Virgin.

Some of you have very short memories


Strictly speaking the Government did not 'bail out' BA in the 1980s. The UK taxpayer owned BA until early 1987. In preparation for privatisation a significant amount of BA debt was written off. I agree that this was a form of financial aid, but it was not a 'bail out'.
What are you suggesting BA 'did to' Laker?
What are you suggesting BA 'did to' BCal? Bear in mind that the UK DoT followed a 'sphere of influence' policy, with routes (eg Saudi, South America) being moved backwards and forwards between BA and BCal. As a result, on longhaul routes the two did not much compete, and in the end BCal was merged into BA.
What are you suggesting BA 'did to' Dan Air?
Ever since childhood, when I lived within sight of London Airport, I have seldom seen a plane go by and not wished I was on it.”
With apologies to Paul Theroux - ‘The Great Railway Bazaar’
 
tphuang
Posts: 5315
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 09, 2020 12:14 pm

Boeing74741R wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Not the same thing, JetBlue has very strong brand on NYC/BOS. $200 of APD is really nothing when J fares are routinely $8000 last minute, which are 3 times as much as JFK-LAX. JetBlue has very little brand awareness in the west coast also. The premium cabin is way overpriced to LHR, there is significant room for undercutting.


A few points in response...

*With the brand awareness, then until they build up brand awareness on the UK side they would effectively be starting with brand awareness at one end. Yes, all new entrants face that same issue, but in the context of VS some on here are advocating replacing an airline with over 35 years brand awareness at both ends with somebody with brand awareness at one end only.
*If APD rates are nothing, why do airlines in the UK often gripe about it? It could make what's a cheap fare not so cheap compared to the competition.
*JetBlue's limited brand awareness in West Coast US (assuming that's true) isn't relevant here as London-West Coast US routes on JetBlue isn't in the equation at the moment
*I have no experience of flying business out of LHR, but given it's status as the "premier" London airport and the demand on routes such as London-NYC, I would hazard a guess that's reflective of demand, but you also need to consider the point made by somebody else about LHR's charges. For a LCC such as JetBlue, I would suggest they might be better off serving another London airport such as LGW if they want to disrupt the market as a low-cost alternative. It is one reason why most European LCC's don't touch LHR and focus on other London airports.

my point is that JetBlue's performance on JFK/BOS transcon is good predictor of its performance on JFK/BOS TATL flights since in both cases, they have almost no point of sale on the other end. And frankly, it got where it did through a combination of product + cheapness in business class. JetBlue is trying very hard to get into LHR. And it if gets in, it will offer more competition than VS, because VS does not bring addition competition given its JV with Delta.

JetBlue maybe a LCC, but it behaves more like a full service carrier in BOS. Not comparable to DY. Could you imagine DY getting higher yield than BA on BOS-LON market? JetBlue on the other hand has yield than all the legacy carriers on BOS-LAX market. And has crashed the yield on that market.

tphuang wrote:
You are saying the cuts that carriers are making at the moment are permanent?


Some are, yes - please take a look around. VS have already announced that EWR is being permanently cut, and going by the news coming out of BA and LH about permanently withdrawing aircraft (mainly those that were due to leave in the coming years in line with new aircraft deliveries) without immediately replacing them it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that cuts to the fleet means there will be cuts to flights, be it destinations, frequencies or both. BA and LH may restore flights to pre-COVID-19 levels when they eventually take delivery of their new aircraft, but who knows?

You also need to look at past form. Post-9/11 we saw airlines across the world making permanent cuts. Whilst some cuts may be dressed up as temporary, it wouldn't surprise me if some of these end up being permanent if the routes weren't that profitable or aren't seen as core.

No you made it sound like their cuts of 85% capacity was permanent which is a ridiculous thing to say. Flying to London was a strategic decision they made due to their goal of dominating Boston market. Given the crisis, they are actually at a better position to enter TATL market than ever if VS and DY both go under since DL will likely be out of BOS-LON market after that. Their plans are likely to be delayed, but it would be a mistake to delay it by more than a year.

They will make cuts strategically and Boston is a market that will get minimal cuts.
tphuang wrote:
Why are they asking for special treatment?


I'm only going to respond to this question as we're going round in circles like the holding pattern to a certain London airport some ridiculously claim are more worthy for some airlines to serve than others...

My take on this is that as the UK government have told the British public to stay at home and advise against all but essential foreign travel, they have effectively pulled the rug from under the country's airlines as the market has disappeared. Obviously this isn't permanent, but nobody knows how long this will go on for. Therefore, as the party who effectively put the airlines into immediate economic distress, I believe the government have an obligation of sorts to provide support to the airlines to at least soften the blow and give them every chance of riding the crisis out until lockdown restrictions are eased. I'm not saying Rishi Sunak should be writing blank cheques, but each British airline (be it VS or BA or whoever) should be able to turn to the government for some sort of support given the extraordinary circumstances we're in and even more so if they can demonstrate they've passed Mr Sunak's test of exhausting other avenues first, with each case judged on its merits without being influenced by what competitors think.

All I will say is that it's a good job decisions aren't made based on a.net popular opinion!

on financial consideration, it's not the best idea to save VS either. At some point, U2 will be in trouble. At a further point down the line, BA and FR will be in trouble. Are you going to save every airline? I would say you save the ones that were profitable before this and can pay you back. VS was not profitable before this. Why would you keep propping it up when there are business that need the money down the line?
 
DobboDobbo
Posts: 1141
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:02 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 09, 2020 12:53 pm

tphuang wrote:
Why would you keep propping it up when there are business that need the money down the line?


The issue is one of picking favourites.

If the UK government support one private company when it needs support but has previously turned down another when it needed support and allowed it to fail, you wade into a legal minefield.

Of course they could legislate for this, but if we get to the stage where BA need a bail out I expect the outcome to be renationalisation.

Of course we hope it doesn’t come to that.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5315
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 09, 2020 12:58 pm

DobboDobbo wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Why would you keep propping it up when there are business that need the money down the line?


The issue is one of picking favourites.

If the UK government support one private company when it needs support but has previously turned down another when it needed support and allowed it to fail, you wade into a legal minefield.

Of course they could legislate for this, but if we get to the stage where BA need a bail out I expect the outcome to be renationalisation.

Of course we hope it doesn’t come to that.

It's not just BA, it's also U2 and FR down the line. If you have to save some businesses, it's better to save the ones that have a chance to pay you back at end of this. After all, VS does not even have any assets that can be used as collateral. I guess they could demand 50% ownership of VS, but do you really want to start nationalizing airlines?
 
DobboDobbo
Posts: 1141
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:02 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 09, 2020 1:02 pm

Boeing74741R wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:
It is a slippery slope to go down and I am surprised at the level of antipathy towards VS from a board that I assume comprises of those who either work in or have an an interest in the aviation industry - I thought turkeys didn’t vote for Christmas but perhaps I'm wrong on that...


Yes, it is approaching the same levels of hatred some on here have towards Norwegian. I'm not saying there should be unconditional love for VS or all airlines, but I will repeat that some of the comments on here can't be nice to read if you're one of those directly affected. I think we've run out of things to discuss here until there's more news on the subject as there's many broken records continuing to be played. :roll: :yawn:


Quite.

I think some people view this virus as presenting a commercial opportunity to kill off the competition - if so that view is hopelessly misguided.

For all the talk of the goldmine at LHR, we are presently in a position where one of its main based carriers is in the verge of failure if it doesn’t receive government support. It’s main non-based TATL and EU carriers are all seeking or are about to seek government bail outs. It’s main based carrier is already revisiting government support and is likely to need more in due course. If runway 3 was a dead before this crisis it has certainly been killed off now - the industry will be a different place when this is done and dusted.

To be clear, this is not me saying that all these businesses are not viable. This is an unprecedented situation where the entire airline industry is at risk, and I think the sooner this big picture is grasped the better I think.
 
JibberJim
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:33 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 09, 2020 3:25 pm

DobboDobbo wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Why would you keep propping it up when there are business that need the money down the line?


The issue is one of picking favourites.


They're not picking favourites though, they are simply requiring somewhat commercial terms - ie there needs to be some mechanism to pay the money back, Virgin is in such perilous financial position that there is no mechanism to pay it back. They have no assets to put up against loans, unlike EasyJet or IAG, so the only thing they have would be an equity stake, I've not heard any suggestion that the owners are interested in giving one up, and even if it was, such an investment would be quite a different risk profile to the asset backed loans. The company whilst private can't be valued at much more than 500million anyway, so the size of the equity stake would likely wipe out the existing owners.

Given that, if the prime aim was saving jobs, it would be more in the governments interest to let it go into administration, and purchase the rump from the administrators, wiping out both the equity risk and some of the loan risk, making the employees work for a new company that was less saddled by debt. Of course it's probably not wise to do that either as the jobs just aren't significant enough sadly at this time.

Any propping up of the existing equity holders makes no sense, giving Delta or Branson millions to save jobs is a nonsense.
 
DobboDobbo
Posts: 1141
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:02 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 09, 2020 5:01 pm

JibberJim wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Why would you keep propping it up when there are business that need the money down the line?


The issue is one of picking favourites.


Any propping up of the existing equity holders makes no sense, giving Delta or Branson millions to save jobs is a nonsense.


The same can be said for any entity that seeks state aid - it does so because it cannot obtain what it needs through commercial sources.

AA, UA, DL are in the process of seeking state aid, and their european compatriots are doing the same. I don’t think propping them up is a nonsense, same as VS (or when the time comes, BA).

Each will have to take difficult decisions and will likely emerge very different to what they were when they went in - but they should survive and that gives them (and the economy) the chance to rise again - that is what governments are likely prioritising.
 
JAMBOJET
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:23 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 09, 2020 5:07 pm

DobboDobbo wrote:
JibberJim wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:

The issue is one of picking favourites.


Any propping up of the existing equity holders makes no sense, giving Delta or Branson millions to save jobs is a nonsense.


The same can be said for any entity that seeks state aid - it does so because it cannot obtain what it needs through commercial sources.

AA, UA, DL are in the process of seeking state aid, and their european compatriots are doing the same. I don’t think propping them up is a nonsense, same as VS (or when the time comes, BA).

Each will have to take difficult decisions and will likely emerge very different to what they were when they went in - but they should survive and that gives them (and the economy) the chance to rise again - that is what governments are likely prioritising.


There are plenty of posts and articles out there about the relative strength of Delta's balance sheet vs its primary US competitors in the current environment. How many posts have we all seen from Delta employees on this website about it?

Why shouldn't Delta be required to provide some sort of collateral and/or stretch their balance sheet even a little to help VS get a commercial loan since they stand to benefit so much from any VS bailout? They clearly have the ability to stretch to protect their investment and not be any worse off than their US peers.
To be clear: I don't mean providing cash. But... providing collateral. "Co-signing" a VS loan... really anything. There are plenty of things Delta could do to help before a bailout.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8246
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 09, 2020 5:43 pm

JAMBOJET wrote:
Why shouldn't Delta be required to provide some sort of collateral and/or stretch their balance sheet even a little to help VS...


I think you'll get your answer in the legal structure of the ownership of formal entities operating as Virgin Atlantic - Delta isn't obligated to provide capital or loan guarantees. It isn't a question of unlimited personal liability of Names of Lloyd's of London circa early 1990s where a capital call was made on owners.
 
JAMBOJET
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:23 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 09, 2020 5:49 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
JAMBOJET wrote:
Why shouldn't Delta be required to provide some sort of collateral and/or stretch their balance sheet even a little to help VS...


I think you'll get your answer in the legal structure of the ownership of formal entities operating as Virgin Atlantic - Delta isn't obligated to provide capital or loan guarantees. It isn't a question of unlimited personal liability of Names of Lloyd's of London circa early 1990s where a capital call was made on owners.


I didn't mean legal obligation. I meant they have the ability to help before a bailout to save their own investment rather than having the UK taxpayer do it.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 2127
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Thu Apr 09, 2020 7:14 pm

JAMBOJET wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
JAMBOJET wrote:
Why shouldn't Delta be required to provide some sort of collateral and/or stretch their balance sheet even a little to help VS...


I think you'll get your answer in the legal structure of the ownership of formal entities operating as Virgin Atlantic - Delta isn't obligated to provide capital or loan guarantees. It isn't a question of unlimited personal liability of Names of Lloyd's of London circa early 1990s where a capital call was made on owners.


I didn't mean legal obligation. I meant they have the ability to help before a bailout to save their own investment rather than having the UK taxpayer do it.

One, they don’t have the money
Two, foreign ownership laws
Three, the CARES bailout DL is getting prohibits it.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 2127
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:54 pm

Delta isn’t helping anyone their credit was cut to junk status today.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/delta-cu ... 43730.html
 
User avatar
vhtje
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:40 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Fri Apr 10, 2020 4:19 pm

Boof02671 wrote:
JAMBOJET wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

I think you'll get your answer in the legal structure of the ownership of formal entities operating as Virgin Atlantic - Delta isn't obligated to provide capital or loan guarantees. It isn't a question of unlimited personal liability of Names of Lloyd's of London circa early 1990s where a capital call was made on owners.


I didn't mean legal obligation. I meant they have the ability to help before a bailout to save their own investment rather than having the UK taxpayer do it.

One, they don’t have the money
Two, foreign ownership laws
Three, the CARES bailout DL is getting prohibits it.


If DL cannot, then the other 51% owner of the business must step up, and raise capital to save the airline. There is a lot of cash available at the moment, so SRB should get talking, and fast.

It is not the government's responsibility to save businesses where there are commercial avenues available to the owners. I am essentially repeating the same comments I made up thread: just because the current owners can't be bothered, that does not put the onus on the UK Government to step in. The only thing that has changed is that in the past seven days, DL's position has deteriorated. But as far as a I know, the Virgin Group is still solvent and can raise a lot of cash.

At any rate, even if both owners were bust, I doubt Treasury would look upon VS favourably. If provided with a Government loan/handout/aid, it is unlikely to be a profitable business anytime soon - and by soon, I mean years. You only need to look at VS' recent history to see that. Therefore, the Government would not likely get any return for its aid. Treasury would likely conclude there are other businesses that employ more people and contribute more significantly to the economy, that would be better able to recover from CORVID-19 and repay Government loans, and which therefore should be saved before VS. In that light, I see VS being long, long way down the line.
I only turn left when boarding aircraft. Well, mostly. All right, sometimes. OH OKAY - rarely.
 
JAMBOJET
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:23 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Fri Apr 10, 2020 4:26 pm

Boof02671 wrote:
Delta isn’t helping anyone their credit was cut to junk status today.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/delta-cu ... 43730.html

In fairness to Delta and their ability to raise cash for whoever it may be, that’s an interesting fact, but not particularly relevant.
Airlines without investment grade ratings have been able to get loans at investment grade rates for a long time using their available high-value collateral like slots and aircraft. Credit ratings only matter most when you’re looking at unsecured loans. And delta, as recently as March 10th, had $20B in unencumbered assets. Obviously the market value of those assets is probably a bit lower now than March 10th and some of those are no longer unencumbered but still...

And this is part of the reason VS is struggling, as others have pointed out before, VS has already collateralized much, if not all, of their available assets, like Heathrow slots (happy to be corrected on this aspect. I’m 100% relying on previous posters knowledge for that bit).
 
User avatar
Springbok743
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:27 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Fri Apr 10, 2020 6:02 pm

BealineV953 wrote:
EWRFlyer wrote:
I get it some of you don't like VS or you clearly work for BA!

Don't forget the government bail outs for BA in the 80's, what BA did to Laker, BCal and Dan Air.
The dirty tricks campaign against Virgin.

Some of you have very short memories


Strictly speaking the Government did not 'bail out' BA in the 1980s. The UK taxpayer owned BA until early 1987. In preparation for privatisation a significant amount of BA debt was written off. I agree that this was a form of financial aid, but it was not a 'bail out'.
What are you suggesting BA 'did to' Laker?
What are you suggesting BA 'did to' BCal? Bear in mind that the UK DoT followed a 'sphere of influence' policy, with routes (eg Saudi, South America) being moved backwards and forwards between BA and BCal. As a result, on longhaul routes the two did not much compete, and in the end BCal was merged into BA.
What are you suggesting BA 'did to' Dan Air?


It's pretty well documented the predatory pricing and other generally dodgy tactics that continued with VS (culminating in BA being forced to settle out of court) that BA "did" against Laker.
I don't think it's much of a stretch to say some of BAs practises of the day were really rather uncompetitive. The fact BA was owned by the government and therefore had an unreasonably high amount of influence that seemed to remain post-privatisation did not help matters for any of the other carriers. BA was in no small part responsible for the lack of routes and the very VERY slow process to grant them to BCal.
The fact the people organizing the flotation of BA on the London Stock Exchange were the exact same people who were organsing transferring routes to BCal sums it up really. General conflict of interest in favour of BA that continued well after privatisation ( in part due to BA themselves, rather than the perceived flag carrier status, such as annual donations to the conservative party), and failing to live up to the second force concept, which many belive was due to BAs meddling and lobbying from within the government.
 
User avatar
oxonrow
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:04 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sat Apr 11, 2020 10:06 am

Springbok743 wrote:
BealineV953 wrote:
EWRFlyer wrote:
I get it some of you don't like VS or you clearly work for BA!

Don't forget the government bail outs for BA in the 80's, what BA did to Laker, BCal and Dan Air.
The dirty tricks campaign against Virgin.

Some of you have very short memories


Strictly speaking the Government did not 'bail out' BA in the 1980s. The UK taxpayer owned BA until early 1987. In preparation for privatisation a significant amount of BA debt was written off. I agree that this was a form of financial aid, but it was not a 'bail out'.
What are you suggesting BA 'did to' Laker?
What are you suggesting BA 'did to' BCal? Bear in mind that the UK DoT followed a 'sphere of influence' policy, with routes (eg Saudi, South America) being moved backwards and forwards between BA and BCal. As a result, on longhaul routes the two did not much compete, and in the end BCal was merged into BA.
What are you suggesting BA 'did to' Dan Air?


It's pretty well documented the predatory pricing and other generally dodgy tactics that continued with VS (culminating in BA being forced to settle out of court) that BA "did" against Laker.
I don't think it's much of a stretch to say some of BAs practises of the day were really rather uncompetitive. The fact BA was owned by the government and therefore had an unreasonably high amount of influence that seemed to remain post-privatisation did not help matters for any of the other carriers. BA was in no small part responsible for the lack of routes and the very VERY slow process to grant them to BCal.
The fact the people organizing the flotation of BA on the London Stock Exchange were the exact same people who were organsing transferring routes to BCal sums it up really. General conflict of interest in favour of BA that continued well after privatisation ( in part due to BA themselves, rather than the perceived flag carrier status, such as annual donations to the conservative party), and failing to live up to the second force concept, which many belive was due to BAs meddling and lobbying from within the government.


Interesting points you make. That seems to continue today, one could argue that some of the environmental concerns, even Boris' given his constituency, coming from people who don't seem to give a toss otherwise, has a dog whistle quality to it. What is really intriguing is the general narrative of open market and competition, which has some merit, the extent to which BA and the UK have allowed the ME3 to take progressively larger shares of the market, while at the same time adhering to less visible forms of protectionism to shield BA -- which in my view has had a very negative effect on the quality of service in the last few years, both short and long haul. VS disappearing would not help.
 
User avatar
JannEejit
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sat Apr 11, 2020 10:42 am

Without knowing the legalities or the business protocols surrounding the issue, could the UK government purchase the Delta shareholding outright ? Could US regulators demand Delta divest themselves of foreign airline interests to provide a form of leeway ?
 
JibberJim
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:33 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sat Apr 11, 2020 12:00 pm

JannEejit wrote:
Without knowing the legalities or the business protocols surrounding the issue, could the UK government purchase the Delta shareholding outright ? Could US regulators demand Delta divest themselves of foreign airline interests to provide a form of leeway ?


Governments could pretty much do either of those things, nationalisation of companies is somewhat difficult, but not impossible under the various supra-national agreements - however there is zero chance that the UK government would buy Delta's stake, it just has no sense whatsoever.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1229
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sat Apr 11, 2020 12:25 pm

Will DL still have a share in VS after the proposed “bailout”?
 
Boeing74741R
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:44 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sat Apr 11, 2020 2:17 pm

tphuang wrote:
on financial consideration, it's not the best idea to save VS either. At some point, U2 will be in trouble. At a further point down the line, BA and FR will be in trouble. Are you going to save every airline? I would say you save the ones that were profitable before this and can pay you back. VS was not profitable before this. Why would you keep propping it up when there are business that need the money down the line?


If Ryanair get into trouble, then that’s for the Irish government to offer state support if needed. The most I would expect the British government to do is to lean on the Irish government to help out.

As for VS profitability...

2014 - £14.4m profit
2015 - £22.5m profit
2016 - £23m profit
2017 - £49m loss
2018 - £26.1m loss
2019 - Figure not yet known

All are pre-tax figures.

We await the 2019 figures and I’m keen to see how well they performed during Q4 in particular given Thomas Cook’s collapse, but it’s not correct to say VS were consistently loss making when profits were being made for at least 3 years before the last 2 years already reported. VS had also previously indicated that they were targeting a return to profitability by 2021, but obviously this was before COVID-19 kicked off and VS won’t be alone in losing money this year. Past form is one thing, but what’s more important is if there’s a plan to turn the tide back towards profitability and if it’s both viable and demonstrating results.

As for whether every airline should be saved. No is my honest answer, but in this context the more appropriate question is whether every airline should be offered some sort of support from the government in the current climate? The answer to that is yes, especially given the government’s role by putting all airlines into immediate short-term hardship even on the grounds of public health, and to do so on a case-by-case basis.

Springbok743 wrote:
It's pretty well documented the predatory pricing and other generally dodgy tactics that continued with VS (culminating in BA being forced to settle out of court) that BA "did" against Laker.


Yep. Sir Freddie Laker took BA and several other airlines to court in the aftermath of Laker collapsing and won. BA paid out quite a lot of money to Laker, so when you look back at history it’s astonishing that BA did what they did to VS just a few years later with the Dirty Tricks scandal. Heads at the top would roll nowadays if an airline was found guilty of doing some of the things BA did years ago and Laker’s “sue the bastards” quote is pretty famous and apt given that was his advice to SRB.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sat Apr 11, 2020 2:29 pm

Boeing74741R wrote:
tphuang wrote:
on financial consideration, it's not the best idea to save VS either. At some point, U2 will be in trouble. At a further point down the line, BA and FR will be in trouble. Are you going to save every airline? I would say you save the ones that were profitable before this and can pay you back. VS was not profitable before this. Why would you keep propping it up when there are business that need the money down the line?


If Ryanair get into trouble, then that’s for the Irish government to offer state support if needed. The most I would expect the British government to do is to lean on the Irish government to help out.

As for VS profitability...

2014 - £14.4m profit
2015 - £22.5m profit
2016 - £23m profit
2017 - £49m loss
2018 - £26.1m loss
2019 - Figure not yet known

All are pre-tax figures.

We await the 2019 figures and I’m keen to see how well they performed during Q4 in particular given Thomas Cook’s collapse, but it’s not correct to say VS were consistently loss making when profits were being made for at least 3 years before the last 2 years already reported. VS had also previously indicated that they were targeting a return to profitability by 2021, but obviously this was before COVID-19 kicked off and VS won’t be alone in losing money this year. Past form is one thing, but what’s more important is if there’s a plan to turn the tide back towards profitability and if it’s both viable and demonstrating results.

As for whether every airline should be saved. No is my honest answer, but in this context the more appropriate question is whether every airline should be offered some sort of support from the government in the current climate? The answer to that is yes, especially given the government’s role by putting all airlines into immediate short-term hardship even on the grounds of public health, and to do so on a case-by-case basis.

Springbok743 wrote:
It's pretty well documented the predatory pricing and other generally dodgy tactics that continued with VS (culminating in BA being forced to settle out of court) that BA "did" against Laker.


Yep. Sir Freddie Laker took BA and several other airlines to court in the aftermath of Laker collapsing and won. BA paid out quite a lot of money to Laker, so when you look back at history it’s astonishing that BA did what they did to VS just a few years later with the Dirty Tricks scandal. Heads at the top would roll nowadays if an airline was found guilty of doing some of the things BA did years ago and Laker’s “sue the bastards” quote is pretty famous and apt given that was his advice to SRB.

You’ve made some really good points. I think covid-19 has really messed everything up for them(obviously). Because say they even get the government bailout, they had a plan to return to profitability in 2021 and they were actually on their way but thing about virgins model is it’s dependent on point to point long haul Leisure travel and who knows when that will recover especially heading to the US. So viability is going to be very hard in those conditions. How long will the bailout last before they run into trouble again? Assuming the government gives them all they’re asking for
 
User avatar
oxonrow
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:04 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sat Apr 11, 2020 3:29 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Boeing74741R wrote:
tphuang wrote:
on financial consideration, it's not the best idea to save VS either. At some point, U2 will be in trouble. At a further point down the line, BA and FR will be in trouble. Are you going to save every airline? I would say you save the ones that were profitable before this and can pay you back. VS was not profitable before this. Why would you keep propping it up when there are business that need the money down the line?


If Ryanair get into trouble, then that’s for the Irish government to offer state support if needed. The most I would expect the British government to do is to lean on the Irish government to help out.

As for VS profitability...

2014 - £14.4m profit
2015 - £22.5m profit
2016 - £23m profit
2017 - £49m loss
2018 - £26.1m loss
2019 - Figure not yet known

All are pre-tax figures.

We await the 2019 figures and I’m keen to see how well they performed during Q4 in particular given Thomas Cook’s collapse, but it’s not correct to say VS were consistently loss making when profits were being made for at least 3 years before the last 2 years already reported. VS had also previously indicated that they were targeting a return to profitability by 2021, but obviously this was before COVID-19 kicked off and VS won’t be alone in losing money this year. Past form is one thing, but what’s more important is if there’s a plan to turn the tide back towards profitability and if it’s both viable and demonstrating results.

As for whether every airline should be saved. No is my honest answer, but in this context the more appropriate question is whether every airline should be offered some sort of support from the government in the current climate? The answer to that is yes, especially given the government’s role by putting all airlines into immediate short-term hardship even on the grounds of public health, and to do so on a case-by-case basis.

Springbok743 wrote:
It's pretty well documented the predatory pricing and other generally dodgy tactics that continued with VS (culminating in BA being forced to settle out of court) that BA "did" against Laker.


Yep. Sir Freddie Laker took BA and several other airlines to court in the aftermath of Laker collapsing and won. BA paid out quite a lot of money to Laker, so when you look back at history it’s astonishing that BA did what they did to VS just a few years later with the Dirty Tricks scandal. Heads at the top would roll nowadays if an airline was found guilty of doing some of the things BA did years ago and Laker’s “sue the bastards” quote is pretty famous and apt given that was his advice to SRB.

You’ve made some really good points. I think covid-19 has really messed everything up for them(obviously). Because say they even get the government bailout, they had a plan to return to profitability in 2021 and they were actually on their way but thing about virgins model is it’s dependent on point to point long haul Leisure travel and who knows when that will recover especially heading to the US. So viability is going to be very hard in those conditions. How long will the bailout last before they run into trouble again? Assuming the government gives them all they’re asking for




This house believes that rather than give VS a handout, the government should rather create more equal conditions for competition whereby grandfathered benefits of yesteryear are lesser determinants of venture success (such as reshuffling the ownership of slots etc OR committing to the third runway). Discuss.[/quote]
 
BealineV953
Posts: 202
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:00 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sat Apr 11, 2020 4:05 pm

Springbok743 wrote:
BealineV953 wrote:
EWRFlyer wrote:
I get it some of you don't like VS or you clearly work for BA!

Don't forget the government bail outs for BA in the 80's, what BA did to Laker, BCal and Dan Air.
The dirty tricks campaign against Virgin.

Some of you have very short memories


Strictly speaking the Government did not 'bail out' BA in the 1980s. The UK taxpayer owned BA until early 1987. In preparation for privatisation a significant amount of BA debt was written off. I agree that this was a form of financial aid, but it was not a 'bail out'.
What are you suggesting BA 'did to' Laker?
What are you suggesting BA 'did to' BCal? Bear in mind that the UK DoT followed a 'sphere of influence' policy, with routes (eg Saudi, South America) being moved backwards and forwards between BA and BCal. As a result, on longhaul routes the two did not much compete, and in the end BCal was merged into BA.
What are you suggesting BA 'did to' Dan Air?


It's pretty well documented the predatory pricing and other generally dodgy tactics that BA "did" against Laker.
.


For a factual, impartial account of the reasons Laker Airways failed I strongly recommend ‘The Rise And fall Of Freddie Laker’ by Howard Banks, published in 1982. Banks was Industrial Editor at the Economist when this excellent book was written.
Chapter 13, ‘Anatomy of the collapse’ lists the key reasons for the failure, including:
In 1979 at the start of the peak travel season, the DC-10 was grounded for six weeks following the crash at Chicago.
Laker had three large loans:
* $58 with Mutsui covering 3 DC-10s.
* $228m with Exim covering DC-10s.
* $131 with a Midland Bank led consortium covering 3 A300s, at a UK Government subsidized interest rate.
All three loans were taken in US Dollars.
In 1981 the world went into recession.
The loans, at the time they were taken out, were at an average exchange rate of $2.2445 to £1.
During 1981 the Pound weakened to $1.80 to £1. This exchange rate shift meant that for the 1982 financial year Laker would need to find £37.6m extra (extra, not total) to cover its loan repayments. £37.6m in 1982 would be worth £114.8m today.
Incredibly, despite being exposed to loans of over $400m, Laker had not hedged for the pound weakening against the dollar.
In March 1981, in an attempt to generate additional revenue to cover the loans, Laker put up its fares by up to 33%. Competitors matched. Laker’s passenger volume fell. Laker rolled back the increases. Competitors rolled back their increases.
In November 1981 Pan Am, under new boss Ed Acker, began selling NYC-LON at $261, below the lowest Laker fare at $299. Laker objected to the Pan Am fare, but the UK CAA approved it, and TWA and BA matched.

Disclosures of IATA pricing meetings show that to compete with Laker, BA proposed a 21 day Apex fare, which was approved and became an industry standard. Pan Am and TWA argued for lower, more creative fares.

In early 1982 as it became clear that Laker was in serious trouble, there were many discussions about putting money into Laker, but Laker didn’t have assets to secure further loans against.

Nowhere in the book does it say ‘BA did it’.

For the detail, and a good read, get the book.
Ever since childhood, when I lived within sight of London Airport, I have seldom seen a plane go by and not wished I was on it.”
With apologies to Paul Theroux - ‘The Great Railway Bazaar’
 
jetwet1
Posts: 3242
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:06 pm

Just to add some pain, BA has gotten very aggressive with price in J and F from the west coast, in the fall and winter.

$2500 In J and $4500 In F are not uncommon and of course VS have had to match. This will cause more issues for VS later in the year.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1523
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sat Apr 11, 2020 8:03 pm

BealineV953 wrote:
Springbok743 wrote:
BealineV953 wrote:

Strictly speaking the Government did not 'bail out' BA in the 1980s. The UK taxpayer owned BA until early 1987. In preparation for privatisation a significant amount of BA debt was written off. I agree that this was a form of financial aid, but it was not a 'bail out'.
What are you suggesting BA 'did to' Laker?
What are you suggesting BA 'did to' BCal? Bear in mind that the UK DoT followed a 'sphere of influence' policy, with routes (eg Saudi, South America) being moved backwards and forwards between BA and BCal. As a result, on longhaul routes the two did not much compete, and in the end BCal was merged into BA.
What are you suggesting BA 'did to' Dan Air?


It's pretty well documented the predatory pricing and other generally dodgy tactics that BA "did" against Laker.
.


For a factual, impartial account of the reasons Laker Airways failed I strongly recommend ‘The Rise And fall Of Freddie Laker’ by Howard Banks, published in 1982. Banks was Industrial Editor at the Economist when this excellent book was written.
Chapter 13, ‘Anatomy of the collapse’ lists the key reasons for the failure, including:
In 1979 at the start of the peak travel season, the DC-10 was grounded for six weeks following the crash at Chicago.
Laker had three large loans:
* $58 with Mutsui covering 3 DC-10s.
* $228m with Exim covering DC-10s.
* $131 with a Midland Bank led consortium covering 3 A300s, at a UK Government subsidized interest rate.
All three loans were taken in US Dollars.
In 1981 the world went into recession.
The loans, at the time they were taken out, were at an average exchange rate of $2.2445 to £1.
During 1981 the Pound weakened to $1.80 to £1. This exchange rate shift meant that for the 1982 financial year Laker would need to find £37.6m extra (extra, not total) to cover its loan repayments. £37.6m in 1982 would be worth £114.8m today.
Incredibly, despite being exposed to loans of over $400m, Laker had not hedged for the pound weakening against the dollar.
In March 1981, in an attempt to generate additional revenue to cover the loans, Laker put up its fares by up to 33%. Competitors matched. Laker’s passenger volume fell. Laker rolled back the increases. Competitors rolled back their increases.
In November 1981 Pan Am, under new boss Ed Acker, began selling NYC-LON at $261, below the lowest Laker fare at $299. Laker objected to the Pan Am fare, but the UK CAA approved it, and TWA and BA matched.

Disclosures of IATA pricing meetings show that to compete with Laker, BA proposed a 21 day Apex fare, which was approved and became an industry standard. Pan Am and TWA argued for lower, more creative fares.

In early 1982 as it became clear that Laker was in serious trouble, there were many discussions about putting money into Laker, but Laker didn’t have assets to secure further loans against.

Nowhere in the book does it say ‘BA did it’.

For the detail, and a good read, get the book.

Post publication of the book, a syndicate of liquidators, and separately Sir Freddie, both took legal action jointly and severely against a group of airlines. Pretty sure the defendants settled. Would SRB have an opinion on a similar group? And EK too, especially during start-up and Atlantic expansion?

If you want enduring competitive change, sometimes the best option is to support underdog mavericks. Supporting legacies makes them even stronger (= less competition).

However, wearing my CORSIA hat, legacies = less competition = higher prices = good for the planet.
 
VS11
Posts: 1661
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sat Apr 11, 2020 8:04 pm

The narrow discussion of VS vs. BA misses the point. The article listed in the OP is about Airbus, RR and Heathrow throwing their support for Virgin. Why? Because of the importance of the entire sector for the UK economy. Don’t throw the baby with the water.
 
Cedar
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:07 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sat Apr 11, 2020 9:16 pm

Boeing74741R wrote:
tphuang wrote:
on financial consideration, it's not the best idea to save VS either. At some point, U2 will be in trouble. At a further point down the line, BA and FR will be in trouble. Are you going to save every airline? I would say you save the ones that were profitable before this and can pay you back. VS was not profitable before this. Why would you keep propping it up when there are business that need the money down the line?


If Ryanair get into trouble, then that’s for the Irish government to offer state support if needed. The most I would expect the British government to do is to lean on the Irish government to help out.

As for VS profitability...

2014 - £14.4m profit
2015 - £22.5m profit
2016 - £23m profit
2017 - £49m loss
2018 - £26.1m loss
2019 - Figure not yet known

All are pre-tax figures.

We await the 2019 figures and I’m keen to see how well they performed during Q4 in particular given Thomas Cook’s collapse, but it’s not correct to say VS were consistently loss making when profits were being made for at least 3 years before the last 2 years already reported. VS had also previously indicated that they were targeting a return to profitability by 2021, but obviously this was before COVID-19 kicked off and VS won’t be alone in losing money this year. Past form is one thing, but what’s more important is if there’s a plan to turn the tide back towards profitability and if it’s both viable and demonstrating results.

As for whether every airline should be saved. No is my honest answer, but in this context the more appropriate question is whether every airline should be offered some sort of support from the government in the current climate? The answer to that is yes, especially given the government’s role by putting all airlines into immediate short-term hardship even on the grounds of public health, and to do so on a case-by-case basis.

Springbok743 wrote:
It's pretty well documented the predatory pricing and other generally dodgy tactics that continued with VS (culminating in BA being forced to settle out of court) that BA "did" against Laker.


Yep. Sir Freddie Laker took BA and several other airlines to court in the aftermath of Laker collapsing and won. BA paid out quite a lot of money to Laker, so when you look back at history it’s astonishing that BA did what they did to VS just a few years later with the Dirty Tricks scandal. Heads at the top would roll nowadays if an airline was found guilty of doing some of the things BA did years ago and Laker’s “sue the bastards” quote is pretty famous and apt given that was his advice to SRB.


Please go back to 2010 - I think what people refer to when they say constant loss making is a pattern over years that date more than 5 years back.
The dilemna I think is when every airline was making money hand over fist - VS never were.
I have my opinions on why that is - but I'll leave that out of here.

I think everyone needs to understand what the UK gov't is seeing - injecting money into VS would mean 49% of that money being for or helping DL, which is a US based company (I'm not saying the money gets transferred to DL - just that it supports DL operation as half of VS belongs to DL). Before VS announces any profit, a portion of money goes to DL. What's left is the published profit. UK gov't has already offered the 80% salary assistance for employees. So any further money injected into VS would go into the operation itself, thus really propping up both VS & DL operation.

In the US - the grants given to airlines is NOT for the operation, it is to retain employees - the loans that are being offered are for the operation. All of which need to be paid back.

Before anyone says IAG is not not UK owned, the mechanics of the deal & how IAG operate with respect to BA is completely different.

Whether or not VS deserve the bailout - that's up to the UK citizes & the UK gov't.
The Australian gov't has a similar dilemna with Virgin Australia.

Cedar
 
Boeing74741R
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:44 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sun Apr 12, 2020 2:02 pm

Now MAN has written to Rishi Sunak adding to the pressure from LHR, Airbus and Rolls-Royce to offer support to VS...

https://www.cityam.com/manchester-airpo ... e-support/

For some of those who are still calling for VS to be cut adrift, particularly those who aren’t based in the UK, I would say MAN’s lobbying is noteworthy because MAN has seen three airlines with major presences go bust in the last 2 1/2 years (Flybe, Monarch and Thomas Cook) and VS would be the fourth casualty if it came to that. Additionally, it’s also recognition of their presence at MAN and it’s also putting the ball in the governments court over their seriousness with the Northern Powerhouse initiative and recent talk about “levelling up” the UK economy, as VS going under meaning less long-haul routes from MAN would go against that, especially given there’s no guarantees other airlines would step into the breach.

Cedar wrote:
Please go back to 2010 - I think what people refer to when they say constant loss making is a pattern over years that date more than 5 years back.
The dilemna I think is when every airline was making money hand over fist - VS never were.
I have my opinions on why that is - but I'll leave that out of here.


With respect, I think what losses VS were making 10 years ago aren’t really relevant. They have taken steps to return to profitability which, as we saw during the middle of this decade, was delivering results. The fleet composition is different now to what it was 10 years ago and within the next 2-3 years they will be operating 3 current generation planes (787, A330neo, A350) with the gas guzzling A340’s and 747’s all gone/on the way out along with the ex-Air Berlin A330-200’s and (admittedly relatively modern by age) -300’s, plus the minority owner back then was SQ and not DL so VS strategy was different. The CEO was different then too. If VS are able to take advantage of oil prices currently being the lowest in over 15 years that will help too.

If you ask me, the losses in 2017 and 2018 were probably driven mainly (but not wholly) by the weak GBP/USD rate after a certain referendum in 2016 and with costs being in USD and their largest market being serving passengers heading to/from the USA, they would have been more exposed to this weakness compared to others with a more global network.

Like I said yesterday, what matters is what their plans are, the viability of said plans and if they’re demonstrating results.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sun Apr 12, 2020 2:04 pm

I find it amusing how VS is asking companies to plead on their behalf. Are they not confident in government response?
 
VS11
Posts: 1661
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sun Apr 12, 2020 2:18 pm

Opus99 wrote:
I find it amusing how VS is asking companies to plead on their behalf. Are they not confident in government response?


I find it amusing how you fail to recognize that VS gives business to all those mentioned companies. Helping VS means helping them. It is a domino effect
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sun Apr 12, 2020 2:25 pm

smartplane wrote:
However, wearing my CORSIA hat, legacies = less competition = higher prices = good for the planet.

Also: less competition = higher profits = good for shareholders
And: higher prices = higher wages = good for employees
Further: higher prices = less passengers = less flights = less need for new runways, less noise, good for residents

What's not to love?
 
tphuang
Posts: 5315
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sun Apr 12, 2020 2:30 pm

VS11 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
I find it amusing how VS is asking companies to plead on their behalf. Are they not confident in government response?


I find it amusing how you fail to recognize that VS gives business to all those mentioned companies. Helping VS means helping them. It is a domino effect

If they go under, those same companies will get business from other airlines. You seriously think other airlines won't fly to lhr and pay the fees?
 
Opus99
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sun Apr 12, 2020 2:35 pm

VS11 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
I find it amusing how VS is asking companies to plead on their behalf. Are they not confident in government response?


I find it amusing how you fail to recognize that VS gives business to all those mentioned companies. Helping VS means helping them. It is a domino effect

Well there’s nothing to amuse you because it’s quite obvious that’s what it means, did I tell you I didn’t recognise that? They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t benefit them, if VS didn’t directly deposit money into their pockets they wouldn’t give a damn. What is interesting is this seems to be all they have in their armoury because there is nothing else that makes them a worthy investment for anybody not even for the government and they know that, what’s they are going around asking companies to plead on their behalf. If they knew someone else was there to pick up their small orders and slots they wouldn’t any letter to anybody. Please. Like I’ve said before, if not for 8000 jobs there is no reason they should bail virgin out.
 
jomur
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:36 pm

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sun Apr 12, 2020 2:46 pm

If all those business don't want VS to bust then why don't they put up the money then?...

Oh they won't as they know they would not get their money back and that is why the UK Government shouldn't bail them out either..
 
jetwet1
Posts: 3242
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sun Apr 12, 2020 2:50 pm

tphuang wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
I find it amusing how VS is asking companies to plead on their behalf. Are they not confident in government response?


I find it amusing how you fail to recognize that VS gives business to all those mentioned companies. Helping VS means helping them. It is a domino effect

If they go under, those same companies will get business from other airlines. You seriously think other airlines won't fly to lhr and pay the fees?


In the case of MAN certainly, BA has shown they have no love for the airport, where as VS is expanding there.
 
AEROFAN
Posts: 1868
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:47 am

Re: Virgin Atlantic needs government support?

Sun Apr 12, 2020 2:51 pm

EWRFlyer wrote:
nonrev wrote:
I think this deserves its own discussion away from the general thread.

Large VS suppliers such as Airbus & Tolls Royce have written to the UK government.

Will the UK Govt support VS? Or will this lead to issues with the rest of the industry? Is the solution consolidation into ‘UK Airlines’ with the government as the major shareholder?

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... t-11966892



Its time to close the thread lots of people with no real facts or understanding of what is going on in the real world

Those who actually work for an airline will understand this


Time? Only just now time? Request should have been made 6 pages ago. I used to work in the finance department of VS and I am blown away at some of the nonsense I read here.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” ~Harlan Ellison~

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos