DobboDobbo wrote:

Hang on - I have enormous sympathy with your health situation, but let me play back what you just said...

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

It's not funny to laughs at others until your know the reason sir.

Earlier you posted the following in relation to VS and it’s staff, but the same could apply to the people in almost any other UK airline and their supply chains:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

Never made profit, now begging for money like destituted child on back street.

And still, brandson still not putting in his own money's. Vs is not worth saving. Better to flush money in toilet. As for jobs, many are losing jobs due to virus. Airline pepeole aren't special. It's economy. It happens.

Leaving aside the factual inaccuracies, you are talking in pretty blunt and unsympathetic terms about thousands of people’s livelihood (tens of thousands indirectly in the UK - and many more in Europe and beyond) their ability to put door on the table, pay the bills and keep a roof over their heads.

I’m sure they don’t find the situation remotely funny, and I suspect many have genuine fears about a destitute future.

You can’t have it both ways and then cry foul when it suits you. This is an awful time for many - the airline industry probably most of all. First and foremost, show some humanity. However, if you dish it out you should be prepared to take it back.

You lack of shame and humanity is obvious and you want to lecture others? It's revolting behavior. You want poor Deliveroo workers and care workers and everyone else in the country who pays their taxes to give free money to bailout a billionaire.

Well no, that's wrong and immoral and immoral for you to suggest. Branson doesn't get free money when he's a tax exile. The equity value of VS is zero by any reasonable definition without a bailout.

To a debt/equity swap to reduce the debt load by half and dilute existing shareholders down to 5%. Then Branson can put in another 100 million or the state can take an equity state. From John Kay to Martin Wolff to any well respected economist they've all been saying, you can solve over indebted companies through more debt. You need a bigger equity buffer whether from the state or private investors.

Dmoney wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

Hang on - I have enormous sympathy with your health situation, but let me play back what you just said...

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

It's not funny to laughs at others until your know the reason sir.

Earlier you posted the following in relation to VS and it’s staff, but the same could apply to the people in almost any other UK airline and their supply chains:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

Never made profit, now begging for money like destituted child on back street.

And still, brandson still not putting in his own money's. Vs is not worth saving. Better to flush money in toilet. As for jobs, many are losing jobs due to virus. Airline pepeole aren't special. It's economy. It happens.

Leaving aside the factual inaccuracies, you are talking in pretty blunt and unsympathetic terms about thousands of people’s livelihood (tens of thousands indirectly in the UK - and many more in Europe and beyond) their ability to put door on the table, pay the bills and keep a roof over their heads.

I’m sure they don’t find the situation remotely funny, and I suspect many have genuine fears about a destitute future.

You can’t have it both ways and then cry foul when it suits you. This is an awful time for many - the airline industry probably most of all. First and foremost, show some humanity. However, if you dish it out you should be prepared to take it back.

You lack of shame and humanity is obvious and you want to lecture others? It's revolting behavior. You want poor Deliveroo workers and care workers and everyone else in the country who pays their taxes to give free money to bailout a billionaire.

Well no, that's wrong and immoral and immoral for you to suggest. Branson doesn't get free money when he's a tax exile. The equity value of VS is zero by any reasonable definition without a bailout.

To a debt/equity swap to reduce the debt load by half and dilute existing shareholders down to 5%. Then Branson can put in another 100 million or the state can take an equity state. From John Kay to Martin Wolff to any well respected economist they've all been saying, you can solve over indebted companies through more debt. You need a bigger equity buffer whether from the state or private investors.

**rolls eyes at a hopeless case**

This is from a satirical UK site, but is pretty congruent with my feelings.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/you-can-stuff-your-stupid-airline-up-your-arse-taxpayers-tell-branson-20200423195747

BRITISH taxpayers have suggested the grinning billionaire who sued the NHS while hoovering up rail subsidies can stick his airline right up his arse.

Richard Branson, who wants £500 million of government money to bail out Virgin Atlantic, has been reminded that he has £4 billion of his own so can get to absolute f**k.

Hairdresser Donna Sheridan said: “Is he having a laugh?

“I’m earning bugger all right now and being told to dig into my savings. Meanwhile that [email protected]’s been living large on subsidies for decades, owns his own Caribbean island, tries to invent space holidays and gives nothing back.

“He sues if his trains don’t win contracts. He sues when he doesn’t get NHS contracts. Presumably if we give him £500 million he’ll sue because it wasn’t £800 million.

“Branson has only ever been a negative influence on the UK. Even the Virgin Megastore was a cavernous warehouse of tat, and he ruined that London episode of Friends.

“I work my arse off six days a week and stump up every penny of tax I owe. He can’t even put his hand in his pocket to pay his staff whilst flights are grounded, so he can stick every single one of his aeroplanes up his luxuriously pampered bum.”

I have flown VS TATL a few times and frankly it ain't all that. It wasn't cheap by any means, and the service was so-so. The only plus for me was it was on a 747. Otherwise, meh.

tphuang wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

airhansa wrote:

I guess there needs to be a thread on the future of Gatwick Airport. BA and DS are leaving, BY is collapsing, whereas DY future is uncertain. London will now have over three low cost airport hubs!



I'm not saying that the infection numbers and deaths are necessarily true, but the geographic spread within China was successfully contained, and tourism has basically rebound already.

Generally, the Wuhan outbreak was mostly limited to the central provinces of China (akin to Switzerland and the surrounding departments in Europe), which can be backed up with date from Macau, Hong Kong (which kept mostly open borders) and Taiwan where there weren't that many infections. The outbreak in South Korea was due to Christian missionaries that flew to Wuhan during the outbreak.

The vast majority of infections in East Asia (especially Hong Kong and Singapore) now can be traced back through Europe and the US, hence why the predominant mood in East Asia (as well as outside China) is that the pandemic has hit harder in the West than in the East, with the reason being a failure by westerners to respond to the pandemic properly.

Which ignores the rumoured real figures from china.
Hint- a million deaths may be low!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

What you are stating is simply untrue. My family know real life people from different part of China who have told us there was never a huge outbreak where they are and it's currently simply not an issue in most parts of China. And the reason is they locked down the entire country by late January to a degree that's simply not fathomable here.

The latest study from New York and Germany show that the real mortality rate from infection at around 0.5%. Slightly higher for hospital system overwhelmed and lower for ones not-overwhelmed. If they had over a million death, there would have to be 200 million infections or basically 1/6 of population. That simply is not possible. At this point, its doubtful that Wuhan ever got as infected as New York is right now.

I've just checked the info I heard, and yes, it turns out it may be incorrect.

But- not many in china believe official figures. It is still widely expected that real figures are much higher in china, and few believe there are no new cases in the country.

Also, we now have a fair idea that the virus was manifesting itself earlier than china admit.
Considering when Wuhan went into lock down, it's a fair bet that it did spread through china to a larger extent.

Also, considering all the massive restrictions still in place in some areas, I'd be very surprised if it is fully contained.

In reality, nobody on here knows, because figures will be manipulated and suppressed.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Bricktop wrote:

This is from a satirical UK site, but is pretty congruent with my feelings.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/you-can-stuff-your-stupid-airline-up-your-arse-taxpayers-tell-branson-20200423195747

BRITISH taxpayers have suggested the grinning billionaire who sued the NHS while hoovering up rail subsidies can stick his airline right up his arse.

Richard Branson, who wants £500 million of government money to bail out Virgin Atlantic, has been reminded that he has £4 billion of his own so can get to absolute f**k.

Hairdresser Donna Sheridan said: “Is he having a laugh?

“I’m earning bugger all right now and being told to dig into my savings. Meanwhile that [email protected]’s been living large on subsidies for decades, owns his own Caribbean island, tries to invent space holidays and gives nothing back.

“He sues if his trains don’t win contracts. He sues when he doesn’t get NHS contracts. Presumably if we give him £500 million he’ll sue because it wasn’t £800 million.

“Branson has only ever been a negative influence on the UK. Even the Virgin Megastore was a cavernous warehouse of tat, and he ruined that London episode of Friends.

“I work my arse off six days a week and stump up every penny of tax I owe. He can’t even put his hand in his pocket to pay his staff whilst flights are grounded, so he can stick every single one of his aeroplanes up his luxuriously pampered bum.”

I have flown VS TATL a few times and frankly it ain't all that. It wasn't cheap by any means, and the service was so-so. The only plus for me was it was on a 747. Otherwise, meh.

There is a reason this should be ignored.
The stuff about the railways is pure bull.

You can't go basing things on what the public spout, unless it is factually true.

It's like me pushing the government to lock someone up for committing a crime, but the whole time I'm spouting rubbish.
Do you listen to what i say? No of course not.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Bricktop wrote:

This is from a satirical UK site, but is pretty congruent with my feelings.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/you-can-stuff-your-stupid-airline-up-your-arse-taxpayers-tell-branson-20200423195747

BRITISH taxpayers have suggested the grinning billionaire who sued the NHS while hoovering up rail subsidies can stick his airline right up his arse.

Richard Branson, who wants £500 million of government money to bail out Virgin Atlantic, has been reminded that he has £4 billion of his own so can get to absolute f**k.

Hairdresser Donna Sheridan said: “Is he having a laugh?

“I’m earning bugger all right now and being told to dig into my savings. Meanwhile that [email protected]’s been living large on subsidies for decades, owns his own Caribbean island, tries to invent space holidays and gives nothing back.

“He sues if his trains don’t win contracts. He sues when he doesn’t get NHS contracts. Presumably if we give him £500 million he’ll sue because it wasn’t £800 million.

“Branson has only ever been a negative influence on the UK. Even the Virgin Megastore was a cavernous warehouse of tat, and he ruined that London episode of Friends.

“I work my arse off six days a week and stump up every penny of tax I owe. He can’t even put his hand in his pocket to pay his staff whilst flights are grounded, so he can stick every single one of his aeroplanes up his luxuriously pampered bum.”

I have flown VS TATL a few times and frankly it ain't all that. It wasn't cheap by any means, and the service was so-so. The only plus for me was it was on a 747. Otherwise, meh.

Oh, and who cares if your flight was cheap. Flying isn't cheap. Learn to pay the going rate.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Junglejames wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

This is from a satirical UK site, but is pretty congruent with my feelings.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/you-can-stuff-your-stupid-airline-up-your-arse-taxpayers-tell-branson-20200423195747

BRITISH taxpayers have suggested the grinning billionaire who sued the NHS while hoovering up rail subsidies can stick his airline right up his arse.

Richard Branson, who wants £500 million of government money to bail out Virgin Atlantic, has been reminded that he has £4 billion of his own so can get to absolute f**k.

Hairdresser Donna Sheridan said: “Is he having a laugh?

“I’m earning bugger all right now and being told to dig into my savings. Meanwhile that [email protected]’s been living large on subsidies for decades, owns his own Caribbean island, tries to invent space holidays and gives nothing back.

“He sues if his trains don’t win contracts. He sues when he doesn’t get NHS contracts. Presumably if we give him £500 million he’ll sue because it wasn’t £800 million.

“Branson has only ever been a negative influence on the UK. Even the Virgin Megastore was a cavernous warehouse of tat, and he ruined that London episode of Friends.

“I work my arse off six days a week and stump up every penny of tax I owe. He can’t even put his hand in his pocket to pay his staff whilst flights are grounded, so he can stick every single one of his aeroplanes up his luxuriously pampered bum.”

I have flown VS TATL a few times and frankly it ain't all that. It wasn't cheap by any means, and the service was so-so. The only plus for me was it was on a 747. Otherwise, meh.

There is a reason this should be ignored.
The stuff about the railways is pure bull.

You can't go basing things on what the public spout, unless it is factually true.

It's like me pushing the government to lock someone up for committing a crime, but the whole time I'm spouting rubbish.
Do you listen to what i say? No of course not.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

You can't honestly believe that public opinion doesn't matter to this government? Of course it matters. Public opinion (and the tabloids) is what gets them reelected.

Dmoney wrote:

It's revolting behavior. You want poor Deliveroo workers and care workers and everyone else in the country who pays their taxes to give free money to bailout a billionaire.

Well no, that's wrong and immoral and immoral for you to suggest. Branson doesn't get free money when he's a tax exile. The equity value of VS is zero by any reasonable definition without a bailout.

Point of order: Deliveroo drivers are not earning enough to be net contributors to The Treasury - they take more in benefits and services than they pay. Before this shutdown around half of all UK adults were net recipients of the state through benefits and services. The UK has narrowed its tax base so much that it is practically duty-bound to help protect the employment of those that are net contributors or face fiscal ruin.

Second point - none of this would be "free" money - it would be a loan that has to be repaid and the government could/should structure it to ensure that it actually raises revenue at the end. Plus, £500m when the UK government is going to have a deficit upwards of £300bn this year is virtually statistically insignificant to ensure that Virgin employees - some of whom are among the highest paid PAYE employees in the country contributing towards housing benefit, child tax credit, child benefit, the NHS etc that the Deliveroo driver depends upon - stay employed and don't become an ongoing burden on the state.

As they have already said its about time to remove the Boeing 747 what else will follow..
Who will be left after the Covid-19 virus? https://bit.ly/2yCXvPA

Westerwaelder wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

This is from a satirical UK site, but is pretty congruent with my feelings.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/you-can-stuff-your-stupid-airline-up-your-arse-taxpayers-tell-branson-20200423195747



I have flown VS TATL a few times and frankly it ain't all that. It wasn't cheap by any means, and the service was so-so. The only plus for me was it was on a 747. Otherwise, meh.

There is a reason this should be ignored.
The stuff about the railways is pure bull.

You can't go basing things on what the public spout, unless it is factually true.

It's like me pushing the government to lock someone up for committing a crime, but the whole time I'm spouting rubbish.
Do you listen to what i say? No of course not.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

You can't honestly believe that public opinion doesn't matter to this government? Of course it matters. Public opinion (and the tabloids) is what gets them reelected.

No I'm not saying it doesn't matter to them.
I'm saying it shouldn't unless it is based on factually accurate info.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

BA777FO wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

It's revolting behavior. You want poor Deliveroo workers and care workers and everyone else in the country who pays their taxes to give free money to bailout a billionaire.

Well no, that's wrong and immoral and immoral for you to suggest. Branson doesn't get free money when he's a tax exile. The equity value of VS is zero by any reasonable definition without a bailout.

Point of order: Deliveroo drivers are not earning enough to be net contributors to The Treasury - they take more in benefits and services than they pay. Before this shutdown around half of all UK adults were net recipients of the state through benefits and services. The UK has narrowed its tax base so much that it is practically duty-bound to help protect the employment of those that are net contributors or face fiscal ruin.

Second point - none of this would be "free" money - it would be a loan that has to be repaid and the government could/should structure it to ensure that it actually raises revenue at the end. Plus, £500m when the UK government is going to have a deficit upwards of £300bn this year is virtually statistically insignificant to ensure that Virgin employees - some of whom are among the highest paid PAYE employees in the country contributing towards housing benefit, child tax credit, child benefit, the NHS etc that the Deliveroo driver depends upon - stay employed and don't become an ongoing burden on the state.

Whilst I can't comment on whether the first point is true, or how many tax payers/ net contributors there are in the country, it is at long last good to see a bit of sense instilled into the conversation regarding Virgin Atlantic.

Note to the others- The post never mentioned:
The bearded one
Tax Exile
Billionaire
Owns his own island


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Junglejames wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

It's revolting behavior. You want poor Deliveroo workers and care workers and everyone else in the country who pays their taxes to give free money to bailout a billionaire.

Well no, that's wrong and immoral and immoral for you to suggest. Branson doesn't get free money when he's a tax exile. The equity value of VS is zero by any reasonable definition without a bailout.

Point of order: Deliveroo drivers are not earning enough to be net contributors to The Treasury - they take more in benefits and services than they pay. Before this shutdown around half of all UK adults were net recipients of the state through benefits and services. The UK has narrowed its tax base so much that it is practically duty-bound to help protect the employment of those that are net contributors or face fiscal ruin.

Second point - none of this would be "free" money - it would be a loan that has to be repaid and the government could/should structure it to ensure that it actually raises revenue at the end. Plus, £500m when the UK government is going to have a deficit upwards of £300bn this year is virtually statistically insignificant to ensure that Virgin employees - some of whom are among the highest paid PAYE employees in the country contributing towards housing benefit, child tax credit, child benefit, the NHS etc that the Deliveroo driver depends upon - stay employed and don't become an ongoing burden on the state.

Whilst I can't comment on whether the first point is true, or how many tax payers/ net contributors there are in the country, it is at long last good to see a bit of sense instilled into the conversation regarding Virgin Atlantic.

Note to the others- The post never mentioned:
The bearded one
Tax Exile
Billionaire
Owns his own island


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[url][/url]

BA777FO wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

It's revolting behavior. You want poor Deliveroo workers and care workers and everyone else in the country who pays their taxes to give free money to bailout a billionaire.

Well no, that's wrong and immoral and immoral for you to suggest. Branson doesn't get free money when he's a tax exile. The equity value of VS is zero by any reasonable definition without a bailout.

Point of order: Deliveroo drivers are not earning enough to be net contributors to The Treasury - they take more in benefits and services than they pay. Before this shutdown around half of all UK adults were net recipients of the state through benefits and services. The UK has narrowed its tax base so much that it is practically duty-bound to help protect the employment of those that are net contributors or face fiscal ruin.

Second point - none of this would be "free" money - it would be a loan that has to be repaid and the government could/should structure it to ensure that it actually raises revenue at the end. Plus, £500m when the UK government is going to have a deficit upwards of £300bn this year is virtually statistically insignificant to ensure that Virgin employees - some of whom are among the highest paid PAYE employees in the country contributing towards housing benefit, child tax credit, child benefit, the NHS etc that the Deliveroo driver depends upon - stay employed and don't become an ongoing burden on the state.

Fact: around half of the UK population receive some kind of benefit.
False: half of the UK population are net recipients of benefits as you claim.

Included in the numbers of those receiving benefits are pensioners and child benefit recipients. Child benefits don't mean you are a net recipient. It's simply a tax credit.

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.ser ... ort/latest

This kind of populist mixing of facts and myths to argue your point is nothing but shameful.

And as for the £500 million being nothing in the greater scheme of things: as it stands it would save around 7,000 jobs at VS and VHolidays (there has to be cuts to the overall number as demand is not expected to bounce back to the same level for years to come) at £71k per job. If every restaurant, pub, services company, manufacturer argues the same way, that would be £71 billion per million jobs saved. Some of these jobs will be at the low end, some at the high end of income brackets. Do you get it now? There is nothing special about jobs at VS.

BA777FO wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

It's revolting behavior. You want poor Deliveroo workers and care workers and everyone else in the country who pays their taxes to give free money to bailout a billionaire.

Well no, that's wrong and immoral and immoral for you to suggest. Branson doesn't get free money when he's a tax exile. The equity value of VS is zero by any reasonable definition without a bailout.

Point of order: Deliveroo drivers are not earning enough to be net contributors to The Treasury - they take more in benefits and services than they pay. Before this shutdown around half of all UK adults were net recipients of the state through benefits and services. The UK has narrowed its tax base so much that it is practically duty-bound to help protect the employment of those that are net contributors or face fiscal ruin.

Second point - none of this would be "free" money - it would be a loan that has to be repaid and the government could/should structure it to ensure that it actually raises revenue at the end. Plus, £500m when the UK government is going to have a deficit upwards of £300bn this year is virtually statistically insignificant to ensure that Virgin employees - some of whom are among the highest paid PAYE employees in the country contributing towards housing benefit, child tax credit, child benefit, the NHS etc that the Deliveroo driver depends upon - stay employed and don't become an ongoing burden on the state.

Can I have 500m please? I'll bailout VS then and nobody loses their job!.

You don't seem to understand the point of equity or how the capital stack works. It's outrageous and immoral to give hundreds of millions in free money to Tax exile Branson while he gets to keep his equity stake.

Why not buy the company for a pound? Everyone gets to keep their job but the states gets a valuable asset (well theoretically, hard to see VS ever making money).

But it's not about keeping jobs. It's you WANT to give our money to rich people.

Junglejames wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

It's revolting behavior. You want poor Deliveroo workers and care workers and everyone else in the country who pays their taxes to give free money to bailout a billionaire.

Well no, that's wrong and immoral and immoral for you to suggest. Branson doesn't get free money when he's a tax exile. The equity value of VS is zero by any reasonable definition without a bailout.

Point of order: Deliveroo drivers are not earning enough to be net contributors to The Treasury - they take more in benefits and services than they pay. Before this shutdown around half of all UK adults were net recipients of the state through benefits and services. The UK has narrowed its tax base so much that it is practically duty-bound to help protect the employment of those that are net contributors or face fiscal ruin.

Second point - none of this would be "free" money - it would be a loan that has to be repaid and the government could/should structure it to ensure that it actually raises revenue at the end. Plus, £500m when the UK government is going to have a deficit upwards of £300bn this year is virtually statistically insignificant to ensure that Virgin employees - some of whom are among the highest paid PAYE employees in the country contributing towards housing benefit, child tax credit, child benefit, the NHS etc that the Deliveroo driver depends upon - stay employed and don't become an ongoing burden on the state.

Whilst I can't comment on whether the first point is true, or how many tax payers/ net contributors there are in the country, it is at long last good to see a bit of sense instilled into the conversation regarding Virgin Atlantic.

Note to the others- The post never mentioned:
The bearded one
Tax Exile
Billionaire
Owns his own island


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

There is no sense in that post. None. It's about giving money to rich people.

BA777FO wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

It's revolting behavior. You want poor Deliveroo workers and care workers and everyone else in the country who pays their taxes to give free money to bailout a billionaire.

Well no, that's wrong and immoral and immoral for you to suggest. Branson doesn't get free money when he's a tax exile. The equity value of VS is zero by any reasonable definition without a bailout.

Point of order: Deliveroo drivers are not earning enough to be net contributors to The Treasury - they take more in benefits and services than they pay. Before this shutdown around half of all UK adults were net recipients of the state through benefits and services. The UK has narrowed its tax base so much that it is practically duty-bound to help protect the employment of those that are net contributors or face fiscal ruin.

Second point - none of this would be "free" money - it would be a loan that has to be repaid and the government could/should structure it to ensure that it actually raises revenue at the end. Plus, £500m when the UK government is going to have a deficit upwards of £300bn this year is virtually statistically insignificant to ensure that Virgin employees - some of whom are among the highest paid PAYE employees in the country contributing towards housing benefit, child tax credit, child benefit, the NHS etc that the Deliveroo driver depends upon - stay employed and don't become an ongoing burden on the state.

Also point of order (lol), it was a choice to make the UK economy a low wage economy through terrible productivity and low investment. You could be like Germany or Denmark or France but instead your Portugal with shit weather. But while there is no money for productivity enhancing investment there is always money to bailout tax exiles.

You're the people who claim to believe in a market economy but then want a bailout for rich people. The state will take an equity stake, £1 for 40% of the company while the lenders can have the rest in a debt/equity swap.

Dmoney wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

It's revolting behavior. You want poor Deliveroo workers and care workers and everyone else in the country who pays their taxes to give free money to bailout a billionaire.

Well no, that's wrong and immoral and immoral for you to suggest. Branson doesn't get free money when he's a tax exile. The equity value of VS is zero by any reasonable definition without a bailout.

Point of order: Deliveroo drivers are not earning enough to be net contributors to The Treasury - they take more in benefits and services than they pay. Before this shutdown around half of all UK adults were net recipients of the state through benefits and services. The UK has narrowed its tax base so much that it is practically duty-bound to help protect the employment of those that are net contributors or face fiscal ruin.

Second point - none of this would be "free" money - it would be a loan that has to be repaid and the government could/should structure it to ensure that it actually raises revenue at the end. Plus, £500m when the UK government is going to have a deficit upwards of £300bn this year is virtually statistically insignificant to ensure that Virgin employees - some of whom are among the highest paid PAYE employees in the country contributing towards housing benefit, child tax credit, child benefit, the NHS etc that the Deliveroo driver depends upon - stay employed and don't become an ongoing burden on the state.

Can I have 500m please? I'll bailout VS then and nobody loses their job!.

You don't seem to understand the point of equity or how the capital stack works. It's outrageous and immoral to give hundreds of millions in free money to Tax exile Branson while he gets to keep his equity stake.

Why not buy the company for a pound? Everyone gets to keep their job but the states gets a valuable asset (well theoretically, hard to see VS ever making money).

But it's not about keeping jobs. It's you WANT to give our money to rich people.

Oh for heaven's sake. Every time you use the term tax exile, or even mention the guys name, you make yourself look silly, and don't help your argument.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Dmoney wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

It's revolting behavior. You want poor Deliveroo workers and care workers and everyone else in the country who pays their taxes to give free money to bailout a billionaire.

Well no, that's wrong and immoral and immoral for you to suggest. Branson doesn't get free money when he's a tax exile. The equity value of VS is zero by any reasonable definition without a bailout.

Point of order: Deliveroo drivers are not earning enough to be net contributors to The Treasury - they take more in benefits and services than they pay. Before this shutdown around half of all UK adults were net recipients of the state through benefits and services. The UK has narrowed its tax base so much that it is practically duty-bound to help protect the employment of those that are net contributors or face fiscal ruin.

Second point - none of this would be "free" money - it would be a loan that has to be repaid and the government could/should structure it to ensure that it actually raises revenue at the end. Plus, £500m when the UK government is going to have a deficit upwards of £300bn this year is virtually statistically insignificant to ensure that Virgin employees - some of whom are among the highest paid PAYE employees in the country contributing towards housing benefit, child tax credit, child benefit, the NHS etc that the Deliveroo driver depends upon - stay employed and don't become an ongoing burden on the state.

Also point of order (lol), it was a choice to make the UK economy a low wage economy through terrible productivity and low investment. You could be like Germany or Denmark or France but instead your Portugal with shit weather. But while there is no money for productivity enhancing investment there is always money to bailout tax exiles.

You're the people who claim to believe in a market economy but then want a bailout for rich people. The state will take an equity stake, £1 for 40% of the company while the lenders can have the rest in a debt/equity swap.

The Portugal with shit weather made me laugh. It's so true. Though the weather is quite good right now...
This almost religious belief in free markets as the ultimate nirvana results in social injustice of epic proportions. In the US, the UK, now Brazil...

You can't have it both ways. You either believe in free markets and then the weak fail or you gravitate towards a social (not socialist but that fine point will be lost on many who see red after the letters 'soci') economy and ensure people can make a living from 40 hours of work a week...

Junglejames wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

Point of order: Deliveroo drivers are not earning enough to be net contributors to The Treasury - they take more in benefits and services than they pay. Before this shutdown around half of all UK adults were net recipients of the state through benefits and services. The UK has narrowed its tax base so much that it is practically duty-bound to help protect the employment of those that are net contributors or face fiscal ruin.

Second point - none of this would be "free" money - it would be a loan that has to be repaid and the government could/should structure it to ensure that it actually raises revenue at the end. Plus, £500m when the UK government is going to have a deficit upwards of £300bn this year is virtually statistically insignificant to ensure that Virgin employees - some of whom are among the highest paid PAYE employees in the country contributing towards housing benefit, child tax credit, child benefit, the NHS etc that the Deliveroo driver depends upon - stay employed and don't become an ongoing burden on the state.

Can I have 500m please? I'll bailout VS then and nobody loses their job!.

You don't seem to understand the point of equity or how the capital stack works. It's outrageous and immoral to give hundreds of millions in free money to Tax exile Branson while he gets to keep his equity stake.

Why not buy the company for a pound? Everyone gets to keep their job but the states gets a valuable asset (well theoretically, hard to see VS ever making money).

But it's not about keeping jobs. It's you WANT to give our money to rich people.

Oh for heaven's sake. Every time you use the term tax exile, or even mention the guys name, you make yourself look silly, and don't help your argument.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Why? Because the truth about the whole Virgin Group tax affairs (and their internal transfers and payments) stings?

Dmoney wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

Point of order: Deliveroo drivers are not earning enough to be net contributors to The Treasury - they take more in benefits and services than they pay. Before this shutdown around half of all UK adults were net recipients of the state through benefits and services. The UK has narrowed its tax base so much that it is practically duty-bound to help protect the employment of those that are net contributors or face fiscal ruin.

Second point - none of this would be "free" money - it would be a loan that has to be repaid and the government could/should structure it to ensure that it actually raises revenue at the end. Plus, £500m when the UK government is going to have a deficit upwards of £300bn this year is virtually statistically insignificant to ensure that Virgin employees - some of whom are among the highest paid PAYE employees in the country contributing towards housing benefit, child tax credit, child benefit, the NHS etc that the Deliveroo driver depends upon - stay employed and don't become an ongoing burden on the state.

Whilst I can't comment on whether the first point is true, or how many tax payers/ net contributors there are in the country, it is at long last good to see a bit of sense instilled into the conversation regarding Virgin Atlantic.

Note to the others- The post never mentioned:
The bearded one
Tax Exile
Billionaire
Owns his own island


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

There is no sense in that post. None. It's about giving money to rich people.

Bull, bull and more bull.
1- It is a loan, not a gift to Richard Branson.
2- If as seen, the royalty payments (The money that seemingly goes very quickly through to Richard Branson) are based on revenue, then a loan is not going to make much difference to his finances.

The airline will likely stay alive anyway. Just without the loan, it will involve a lot more cuts and difficult decisions.
Therefore the loan is protecting the staff.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Westerwaelder wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

Dmoney wrote:

Can I have 500m please? I'll bailout VS then and nobody loses their job!.

You don't seem to understand the point of equity or how the capital stack works. It's outrageous and immoral to give hundreds of millions in free money to Tax exile Branson while he gets to keep his equity stake.

Why not buy the company for a pound? Everyone gets to keep their job but the states gets a valuable asset (well theoretically, hard to see VS ever making money).

But it's not about keeping jobs. It's you WANT to give our money to rich people.

Oh for heaven's sake. Every time you use the term tax exile, or even mention the guys name, you make yourself look silly, and don't help your argument.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Why? Because the truth about the whole Virgin Group tax affairs (and their internal transfers and payments) stings?

No, not at all.
It just adds nothing to the conversation, and makes you look silly and jealous.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Junglejames wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

Oh for heaven's sake. Every time you use the term tax exile, or even mention the guys name, you make yourself look silly, and don't help your argument.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Why? Because the truth about the whole Virgin Group tax affairs (and their internal transfers and payments) stings?

No, not at all.
It just adds nothing to the conversation, and makes you look silly and jealous.
99
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

The fact is: ultimately, 51% of the company you argue should get an unsecured loan (in other words high risk, a risk carried by all UK tax payers as that is where the government gets their money from) is owned by someone who does not pay tax in the UK. Not because he has no income but because he lives in a tax exile. If all of us moved to the BVI (not because of tax of course, but because we fell in live with the islands), there would be no £500 million to give as a loan.

It's not jealousy or silliness. If it was about the employees, why not give up the 51% stake? Put it in a charitable trust/foundation and provide the Virgin name for free in perpetuity.

Sometimes a.netters are an impossible lot. If an airline's shareholders are a national government, it is a no no. Similarly, if an airline's shareholder is a billionaire, its also a no no. I guess that is why we have these forums! Good for letting out gas!

Westerwaelder wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

Why? Because the truth about the whole Virgin Group tax affairs (and their internal transfers and payments) stings?

No, not at all.
It just adds nothing to the conversation, and makes you look silly and jealous.
99
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

The fact is: ultimately, 51% of the company you argue should get an unsecured loan (in other words high risk, a risk carried by all UK tax payers as that is where the government gets their money from) is owned by someone who does not pay tax in the UK. Not because he has no income but because he lives in a tax exile. If all of us moved to the BVI (not because of tax of course, but because we fell in live with the islands), there would be no £500 million to give as a loan.

It's not jealousy or silliness. If it was about the employees, why not give up the 51% stake? Put it in a charitable trust/foundation and provide the Virgin name for free in perpetuity.

Give up the 51% to whom? The government?
No thanks. Have you seen what happens when the UK government tries to run things?
Have you seen what happens with a lot of government owned airlines?

I notice nobody mentions the 49% Delta own, and the money they take out of the airline. Nooooo, it's only ever Bransons fault.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

So this British firm is owned by a US Company and a guy resident in the BVI.

Not happy to give them an unsecured loan.

Junglejames wrote:

I notice nobody mentions the 49% Delta own, and the money they take out of the airline. Nooooo, it's only ever Bransons fault.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I questioned Delta's part in this in terms of responsibility to it's share holding and was met with a round of comments suggesting Delta would be too busy saving itself to worry about Virgin. I'd still like to know what the official Delta opinion is on the current VS debacle ?

JannEejit wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

I notice nobody mentions the 49% Delta own, and the money they take out of the airline. Nooooo, it's only ever Bransons fault.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I questioned Delta's part in this in terms of responsibility to it's share holding and was met with a round of comments suggesting Delta would be too busy saving itself to worry about Virgin. I'd still like to know what the official Delta opinion is on the current VS debacle ?

Delta have said they can't invest any more money due to the foreign ownership restrictions limiting them to a 49% shareholding. I believe the CARES Act which is providing funding to US airlines also prevents that at the moment.

To be fair VS just has nothing to really bring to the table at all.

1. Not a Network or unique destinations that are in anyway necessary for UK-Taxpayers.
2. No Assets or products that are important for the UK economy
3. No chance on repaying the loan and probably not even the money to pay the instalments, I mean, they hardly turn a profit and now with another 500m£ loan and a depressed market, how will it ever be paid back?

GB could also just hand every employee 35'000£ in 2020 and 2021 and will get more return from that, than supporting VS.

Would nationalizing really give anything to the UK? Taking on a lot of debt to safe a few jobs in an industry that is competitive and already has enough players offering the same? That would even mean more money down the toilet.

At the end of the day, VS just was only barely alive because the economy was booming. Anything, the smallest head wind was going to break the back of VS. It is time to pull the plug. Chances are the 7'000 jobs are not saved with the 500m£ their loss is just pushed to 2021, if even. And then VS needs money again.

Junglejames wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

Which ignores the rumoured real figures from china.
Hint- a million deaths may be low!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

What you are stating is simply untrue. My family know real life people from different part of China who have told us there was never a huge outbreak where they are and it's currently simply not an issue in most parts of China. And the reason is they locked down the entire country by late January to a degree that's simply not fathomable here.

The latest study from New York and Germany show that the real mortality rate from infection at around 0.5%. Slightly higher for hospital system overwhelmed and lower for ones not-overwhelmed. If they had over a million death, there would have to be 200 million infections or basically 1/6 of population. That simply is not possible. At this point, its doubtful that Wuhan ever got as infected as New York is right now.

I've just checked the info I heard, and yes, it turns out it may be incorrect.

But- not many in china believe official figures. It is still widely expected that real figures are much higher in china, and few believe there are no new cases in the country.

Also, we now have a fair idea that the virus was manifesting itself earlier than china admit.
Considering when Wuhan went into lock down, it's a fair bet that it did spread through china to a larger extent.

Also, considering all the massive restrictions still in place in some areas, I'd be very surprised if it is fully contained.

In reality, nobody on here knows, because figures will be manipulated and suppressed.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

The reason I brought this topic up was to explain that tourism from East Asia will likely rebound quicker than tourism from the West, but that tourists from East Asia may be unlikely to visit the West anytime soon due to fears about how the West has contained the coronavirus. Not only has the coronavirus been mostly contained in East Asian countries, but the history of SARS would give confidence for Asians to reemerge from their homes quicker. The may have been more infections in China than they let on, but it's unlikely to have spread outside Central China or we'd have seen more evidence outside China (very few countries closed borders except to those holding Hubei residency cards). The economic impact of the coronavirus has also been more severe in the West than in the East.

And you overlook that the majority of infections in East Asia can be traced through Europe and the US, so didn't come directly from China/Wuhan. This is because so many tourists and residents (mainly students) fled the West and returned to their Asian homelands carrying the virus.

The reason I brought this topic up was to explain that tourism from East Asia will likely rebound quicker than tourism from the West, but that tourists from East Asia may be unlikely to visit the West anytime soon due to fears about how the West has contained the coronavirus. Not only has the coronavirus been mostly contained in East Asian countries, but the history of SARS would give confidence for Asians to reemerge from their homes quicker. The may have been more infections in China than they let on, but it's unlikely to have spread outside Central China or we'd have seen more evidence outside China (very few countries closed borders except to those holding Hubei residency cards). The economic impact of the coronavirus has also been more severe in the West than in the East.

And you overlook that the majority of infections in East Asia can be traced through Europe and the US, so didn't come directly from China/Wuhan. This is because so many tourists and residents (mainly students) fled the West and returned to their Asian homelands carrying the virus.

Oh my! While I agree tourism in the east will rebound quicker, that's because it peaked much earlier there so is ahead on the time line, The rest of your post is nothing but speculation without any factual basis and quite frankly on the verge of Chinese propaganda, due to the fact your trying to make out this virus spread is because of the west. The data shows this started in China, the data suggests it spread quickly due to CNY celebrations and while I could be accused of hypocrisy here as this next bit is speculation, the world knows China lied about the severity so didn't give the west the 'heads up' it needed to begin dealing with this. (but if you are willing to pass up speculation as fact, hey, might as well join in hadn't I?)

But as said earlier, this is a thread to dicuss virgin atlantic so please get back on topic.

bennett123 wrote:

So this British firm is owned by a US Company and a guy resident in the BVI.

Not happy to give them an unsecured loan.

Or....
This British firm is 51% owned by a British company that are based in the UK, and 49% owned by a US company.

The British company is owned by a family whom also own an island in the BVI, and a couple of members of said family live on that island.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

JannEejit wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

I notice nobody mentions the 49% Delta own, and the money they take out of the airline. Nooooo, it's only ever Bransons fault.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I questioned Delta's part in this in terms of responsibility to it's share holding and was met with a round of comments suggesting Delta would be too busy saving itself to worry about Virgin. I'd still like to know what the official Delta opinion is on the current VS debacle ?

Haha.
So it's ok for Delta to ignore Virgin as they are apparently busy elsewhere, but it's not ok to suggest Branson may also have other companies to worry about.
I think the response you were met with says it all on here.

People have decided that because Virgin have a famous owner who has more money than them and lives out his retirement outside the UK, they are fair game.
But because Delta I assume have loads of individual shareholders, and no famous owner, they are the good guys.
Although to be fair, this forum does seem to have a bit of a love in with Delta.
Delta are the best.
Virgin are awful.
IAG are awful.

That's what I get from this forum.


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

The British Isles already has several major airlines:
- Easy Jet
- Ryanair
- Jet2
- British Airways
- Air Lingus
- TUI Airways
- Loganair

Not to mention that there are plenty of superior airlines from overseas that British people can fly on (KLM, Lufthansa etc...)

Why does Virgin Atlantic need to be saved? If push comes to shove, just force through a competition ruling and expand Air Lingus into British domestic flights - and transatlantic routes can include a pre-check service in Ireland.

If anything, there needs to be less airlines in the UK, such as getting rid of Jet2 and merging it with TUI Airways.

Compare the situation in the UK with the rest of Europe. The UK market is over saturated with airline companies.

airhansa wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

tphuang wrote:

What you are stating is simply untrue. My family know real life people from different part of China who have told us there was never a huge outbreak where they are and it's currently simply not an issue in most parts of China. And the reason is they locked down the entire country by late January to a degree that's simply not fathomable here.

The latest study from New York and Germany show that the real mortality rate from infection at around 0.5%. Slightly higher for hospital system overwhelmed and lower for ones not-overwhelmed. If they had over a million death, there would have to be 200 million infections or basically 1/6 of population. That simply is not possible. At this point, its doubtful that Wuhan ever got as infected as New York is right now.

I've just checked the info I heard, and yes, it turns out it may be incorrect.

But- not many in china believe official figures. It is still widely expected that real figures are much higher in china, and few believe there are no new cases in the country.

Also, we now have a fair idea that the virus was manifesting itself earlier than china admit.
Considering when Wuhan went into lock down, it's a fair bet that it did spread through china to a larger extent.

Also, considering all the massive restrictions still in place in some areas, I'd be very surprised if it is fully contained.

In reality, nobody on here knows, because figures will be manipulated and suppressed.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

The reason I brought this topic up was to explain that tourism from East Asia will likely rebound quicker than tourism from the West, but that tourists from East Asia may be unlikely to visit the West anytime soon due to fears about how the West has contained the coronavirus. Not only has the coronavirus been mostly contained in East Asian countries, but the history of SARS would give confidence for Asians to reemerge from their homes quicker. The may have been more infections in China than they let on, but it's unlikely to have spread outside Central China or we'd have seen more evidence outside China (very few countries closed borders except to those holding Hubei residency cards). The economic impact of the coronavirus has also been more severe in the West than in the East.

And you overlook that the majority of infections in East Asia can be traced through Europe and the US, so didn't come directly from China/Wuhan. This is because so many tourists and residents (mainly students) fled the West and returned to their Asian homelands carrying the virus.

I haven't ignored that a lot of infections around the whole world will be indirect links to Wuhan.

In fact, the latest wave to scare the chinese government (albeit they kept very quiet) was from Russia. There were rumours of a second lock down because the virus was making its way into northern china from Russia.

I don't deny visiting the West will not be at the top of many people's lists right now.
But you initially put this down to the health services. Which from what I have seen in china, is completely laughable.

As for the virus being contained. I'm not believing it I'm afraid.
Whilst china were going round saying they had no more cases, there was a hospital in Ningbo with about 7 cases.
Plus, for a country that has it so contained, why are the authorities still petrified of it? They are more concerned about testing you for the virus than they are helping sick or injured people.

"You are sick and in pain? Don't care. Not treating you until tomorrow once we have tested you for the virus and got the results back. Oh, and you are quarantined until the result comes back as well".



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

airhansa wrote:

The British Isles already has several major airlines:
- Easy Jet
- Ryanair
- Jet2
- British Airways
- Air Lingus
- TUI Airways
- Loganair

Not to mention that there are plenty of superior airlines from overseas that British people can fly on (KLM, Lufthansa etc...)

Why does Virgin Atlantic need to be saved? If push comes to shove, just force through a competition ruling and expand Air Lingus into British domestic flights - and transatlantic routes can include a pre-check service in Ireland.

If anything, there needs to be less airlines in the UK, such as getting rid of Jet2 and merging it with TUI Airways.

Compare the situation in the UK with the rest of Europe. The UK market is over saturated with airline companies.

Firstly Aer Lingus is not British, enjoy the flame storm you'll get from lots of Irish posters that follows on from that comment.

Secondly you look at it far far too simplistically. Of all those British airlines you mention, only 1 does scheduled long haul, and another does charter long haul. That means choice is lost and competition lost too.
Yes, there are Euro Airlines, but, by saying people could just use them instead takes money away from the British Airlines that could have used it and thus more money leaving the UK tax system, and if the Euro Airlines are required to mop up the excess, you are effectively proving an airline like Virgin needs to exist to meet the demand that's clearly there.

airhansa wrote:

The British Isles already has several major airlines:
- Easy Jet
- Ryanair
- Jet2
- British Airways
- Air Lingus
- TUI Airways
- Loganair

Not to mention that there are plenty of superior airlines from overseas that British people can fly on (KLM, Lufthansa etc...)

Why does Virgin Atlantic need to be saved? If push comes to shove, just force through a competition ruling and expand Air Lingus into British domestic flights - and transatlantic routes can include a pre-check service in Ireland.

If anything, there needs to be less airlines in the UK, such as getting rid of Jet2 and merging it with TUI Airways.

Compare the situation in the UK with the rest of Europe. The UK market is over saturated with airline companies.

Lets look at that list,
Aer Lingus, Not UK, (Irish but owned by IAG, a Spanish Company),
RyanAir Not UK, (Irish),
TUI, debatable as owned by TUI AG based in Germany,
BA, debatable as owned By IAG (Spanish)
Loganair, a regional airline serving Scotland.
So not as many as you think.

There is no chance of Jet2 merging with TUI, its more likely that Jet2 would take over TUI.

Junglejames wrote:

I haven't ignored that a lot of infections around the whole world will be indirect links to Wuhan.

In fact, the latest wave to scare the chinese government (albeit they kept very quiet) was from Russia. There were rumours of a second lock down because the virus was making its way into northern china from Russia.

I don't deny visiting the West will not be at the top of many people's lists right now.
But you initially put this down to the health services. Which from what I have seen in china, is completely laughable.

As for the virus being contained. I'm not believing it I'm afraid.
Whilst china were going round saying they had no more cases, there was a hospital in Ningbo with about 7 cases.
Plus, for a country that has it so contained, why are the authorities still petrified of it? They are more concerned about testing you for the virus than they are helping sick or injured people.

"You are sick and in pain? Don't care. Not treating you until tomorrow once we have tested you for the virus and got the results back. Oh, and you are quarantined until the result comes back as well".

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Yes, the northern most province is in a lock down right now due to Russia having a huge problem. The rest of the country really isn't. People are still afraid of it because they don't trust the gov't, but they are a lot more relaxed because they don't see any cases around them. I can't say it's not a problem in every part of the country, but definitely the parts of the country where we know people. There is a lot of garbage on Chinese social media. I wouldn't believe everything that shows up there.

It's actually the correct protocol to have people stay at home and beat the virus with their immune system. You should only get admitted in hospital if the fever/other symptoms are not going away. That's how people get treated here in NY/NJ also. Actually, a lot of people didn't even get tested when they show up in hospital with COVID symtoms because we didn't have enough capacity for a long time. They were just told to quarantine themselves.

airhansa wrote:

The British Isles already has several major airlines:
- Easy Jet
- Ryanair
- Jet2
- British Airways
- Air Lingus
- TUI Airways
- Loganair

Not to mention that there are plenty of superior airlines from overseas that British people can fly on (KLM, Lufthansa etc...)

Why does Virgin Atlantic need to be saved? If push comes to shove, just force through a competition ruling and expand Air Lingus into British domestic flights - and transatlantic routes can include a pre-check service in Ireland.

If anything, there needs to be less airlines in the UK, such as getting rid of Jet2 and merging it with TUI Airways.

Compare the situation in the UK with the rest of Europe. The UK market is over saturated with airline companies.

Can we get rid of easy and ryanair instead?!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

McG1967 wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

I notice nobody mentions the 49% Delta own, and the money they take out of the airline. Nooooo, it's only ever Bransons fault.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I questioned Delta's part in this in terms of responsibility to it's share holding and was met with a round of comments suggesting Delta would be too busy saving itself to worry about Virgin. I'd still like to know what the official Delta opinion is on the current VS debacle ?

Delta have said they can't invest any more money due to the foreign ownership restrictions limiting them to a 49% shareholding. I believe the CARES Act which is providing funding to US airlines also prevents that at the moment.

They did indeed say that they couldn’t invest more in VS but subsequently they raised $5 billion in debt, which was $2b more than they were looking to raise so Delta has the cash now to spend outside the CARES Act.

flee wrote:

Sometimes a.netters are an impossible lot. If an airline's shareholders are a national government, it is a no no. Similarly, if an airline's shareholder is a billionaire, its also a no no. I guess that is why we have these forums! Good for letting out gas!

It's OK for airlines to be owned by billionaires. But if things go wrong, it's their problem to sort out. What is an impossible attitude is to privatise profits but socialise losses.

Junglejames wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

No, not at all.
It just adds nothing to the conversation, and makes you look silly and jealous.
99
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

The fact is: ultimately, 51% of the company you argue should get an unsecured loan (in other words high risk, a risk carried by all UK tax payers as that is where the government gets their money from) is owned by someone who does not pay tax in the UK. Not because he has no income but because he lives in a tax exile. If all of us moved to the BVI (not because of tax of course, but because we fell in live with the islands), there would be no £500 million to give as a loan.

It's not jealousy or silliness. If it was about the employees, why not give up the 51% stake? Put it in a charitable trust/foundation and provide the Virgin name for free in perpetuity.

Give up the 51% to whom? The government?
No thanks. Have you seen what happens when the UK government tries to run things?
Have you seen what happens with a lot of government owned airlines?

I notice nobody mentions the 49% Delta own, and the money they take out of the airline. Nooooo, it's only ever Bransons fault.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

If you read past line one you will notice I suggest a charitable trust fund or foundation as the new owner of the 51%.

You notice correctly. Delta hasn't begged for money. They are seeing things as they are. They don't want to put their hands in their own pockets and so far accept that no one comes running to do it for them. Stop casting Richard Branson into some sort of victim role. He'll be fine whatever happens.

McG1967 wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

I notice nobody mentions the 49% Delta own, and the money they take out of the airline. Nooooo, it's only ever Bransons fault.5

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I questioned Delta's part in this in terms of responsibility to it's share holding and was met with a round of comments suggesting Delta would be too busy saving itself to worry about Virgin. I'd still like to know what the official Delta opinion is on the current VS debacle ?

Delta have said they can't invest any more money due to the foreign ownership restrictions limiting them to a 49% shareholding. I believe the CARES Act which is providing funding to US airlines also prevents that at the moment.

Before signing up to the CARES Act they could have offered an unsecured loan. That would have not increased their 49%. Feels like a lame excuse for not wanting to sink more money into this adventure.

tphuang wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

I haven't ignored that a lot of infections around the whole world will be indirect links to Wuhan.

In fact, the latest wave to scare the chinese government (albeit they kept very quiet) was from Russia. There were rumours of a second lock down because the virus was making its way into northern china from Russia.

I don't deny visiting the West will not be at the top of many people's lists right now.
But you initially put this down to the health services. Which from what I have seen in china, is completely laughable.

As for the virus being contained. I'm not believing it I'm afraid.
Whilst china were going round saying they had no more cases, there was a hospital in Ningbo with about 7 cases.
Plus, for a country that has it so contained, why are the authorities still petrified of it? They are more concerned about testing you for the virus than they are helping sick or injured people.

"You are sick and in pain? Don't care. Not treating you until tomorrow once we have tested you for the virus and got the results back. Oh, and you are quarantined until the result comes back as well".

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Yes, the northern most province is in a lock down right now due to Russia having a huge problem. The rest of the country really isn't. People are still afraid of it because they don't trust the gov't, but they are a lot more relaxed because they don't see any cases around them. I can't say it's not a problem in every part of the country, but definitely the parts of the country where we know people. There is a lot of garbage on Chinese social media. I wouldn't believe everything that shows up there.

It's actually the correct protocol to have people stay at home and beat the virus with their immune system. You should only get admitted in hospital if the fever/other symptoms are not going away. That's how people get treated here in NY/NJ also. Actually, a lot of people didn't even get tested when they show up in hospital with COVID symtoms because we didn't have enough capacity for a long time. They were just told to quarantine themselves.

1- I have no idea what chinese social media says. I wouldn't listen to it even if I did have access, as it is controlled.
2- I'm not on about people with virus symptoms just going to hospital for no reason. I'm on about people who desperately need a dentist/ hospital for completely unrelated reasons. The authorities just don't care. They care more about virus tests.
They are so petrified of the virus, I really don't believe it is contained. Just hidden, as per usual in china.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Junglejames wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

So this British firm is owned by a US Company and a guy resident in the BVI.

Not happy to give them an unsecured loan.

Or....
This British firm is 51% owned by a British company that are based in the UK, and 49% owned by a US company.

The British company is owned by a family whom also own an island in the BVI, and a couple of members of said family live on that island.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Did not someone earlier in this thread establish that ownership ultimately is linked back to the BVI?

Junglejames wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

Junglejames wrote:

I notice nobody mentions the 49% Delta own, and the money they take out of the airline. Nooooo, it's only ever Bransons fault.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I questioned Delta's part in this in terms of responsibility to it's share holding and was met with a round of comments suggesting Delta would be too busy saving itself to worry about Virgin. I'd still like to know what the official Delta opinion is on the current VS debacle ?

Haha.
So it's ok for Delta to ignore Virgin as they are apparently busy elsewhere, but it's not ok to suggest Branson may also have other companies to worry about.
I think the response you were met with says it all on here.

People have decided that because Virgin have a famous owner who has more money than them and lives out his retirement outside the UK, they are fair game.
But because Delta I assume have loads of individual shareholders, and no famous owner, they are the good guys.
Although to be fair, this forum does seem to have a bit of a love in with Delta.
Delta are the best.
Virgin are awful.
IAG are awful.

That's what I get from this forum.


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

That is utter tosh and you know it. Delta are not asking for anything in relation to VS. They have resigned themselves to accept whatever happens. This is not about victimising anyone (though Virgin like to show themselves in that role). This is about the reality of a company with deep pocketed owners wanting an unsecured loan from the taxpayer to save them. In an industry with overcapacity. In one of the deepest recessions we have ever seen. What is so difficult about this to accept? There is no need for a VS and therefore there is no need to risk £500 million.

Westerwaelder wrote:

Before signing up to the CARES Act they could have offered an unsecured loan. That would have not increased their 49%. Feels like a lame excuse for not wanting to sink more money into this adventure.

If DL did something shortly before signing up to the CARES act that was obviously designed to circumvent the purpose of the CARES act (i.e. offer a loan or some other support to VS) do you suppose the “America first” trump administration would have permitted DL to continue to participate in it?

Your point is embarrassingly unrealistic.

Westerwaelder wrote:

McG1967 wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

I questioned Delta's part in this in terms of responsibility to it's share holding and was met with a round of comments suggesting Delta would be too busy saving itself to worry about Virgin. I'd still like to know what the official Delta opinion is on the current VS debacle ?

Delta have said they can't invest any more money due to the foreign ownership restrictions limiting them to a 49% shareholding. I believe the CARES Act which is providing funding to US airlines also prevents that at the moment.

Before signing up to the CARES Act they could have offered an unsecured loan. That would have not increased their 49%. Feels like a lame excuse for not wanting to sink more money into this adventure.

If Delta had enough money to throw at partners during this crisis they wouldn’t have had to sign up for CARES Act money in the first place.

Westerwaelder wrote:

Delta hasn't begged for money. They are seeing things as they are. They don't want to put their hands in their own pockets and so far accept that no one comes running to do it for them.

Delta hasn’t begged for money because it has already received several billion USD in state aid. They are not permitted to put their hands in their pockets because of the said state aid. I don’t see that this point goes to anything whatsoever.

Westerwaelder wrote:

Stop casting Richard Branson into some sort of victim role. He'll be fine whatever happens.

No one is asking for a handout for Branson.

They are asking for government support to help his airline restructure and survive (not him personally - structuring this is the tricky bit), the airlines employees (not Branson), the airlines supply chain (not Branson) which has had to stop flying for reasons beyond anyone’s control.

You are correct - Branson will be fine whatever happens. His employees, their families, and those of VS’s supply chain may not be fine - and that is what this is about. The industry will have to retreat in the short term - there is no getting away from that - it is about damage limitation and I think the UK taxpayers on the whole would rather pay higher taxes over a 10-20 year period to mitigate the present economic disaster than see abject suffering over the next 2/3 years.

The same applies to BA, LH Group, AF/KL, DL, AA,UA (pretty much any airline you care to mention) who are all in receipt of government support.

Some good news coming from a FT article stating that the Virgin Group is now able to cash up to 50% of its Virgin Galactic stake, which is worth more than $900 million at current prices.

https://www.ft.com/content/d6ecbf8a-4b2 ... 0218fa9c41

DobboDobbo wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

Before signing up to the CARES Act they could have offered an unsecured loan. That would have not increased their 49%. Feels like a lame excuse for not wanting to sink more money into this adventure.

If DL did something shortly before signing up to the CARES act that was obviously designed to circumvent the purpose of the CARES act (i.e. offer a loan or some other support to VS) do you suppose the “America first” trump administration would have permitted DL to continue to participate in it?

Your point is embarrassingly unrealistic.

US taxpayers would rightly have freaked out in that scenario, on a bipartisan basis. There are many strings attached to CARES money, as there should be. No executive bonuses, no stock buybacks etc.

But back to VS: The minority shareholder may have to take a haircut on its investment. Tough. Poop happens. The majority shareholder needs to cough up some of his own money to keep it going, either getting debt or more equity from his investment, or make the hard decision to let it go bye-bye. There is no UK taxpayer interest in propping up VS. Sorry.