Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
DobboDobbo
Posts: 1141
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:02 am

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic creditors aprove restructuring; (files for BK in US Court)

Wed Aug 26, 2020 8:25 pm

Opus99 wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Besides the face that WW made it clear that those flights were cash positive. I don’t wheat would constitute a cash positive flight if not high loads. Please enlighten us. I don’t what else would result in a cash positive flight. Like what is this argument. Unless you’re saying they’re selling every seat at a loss. Then what is the point of the flight? Like if you’re going to argue please bring sensible points. Don’t argue for the sake of argument. Please tell us what would allow a flight to be cash positive? That’s when the revenue outweighs the cost of the flight? What would be the main driver for that? High loads. Please. Bear in mind these loads are not just the route. They are attached to the actual flight, that’s where my data comes from. 107 to DXB Is at 60-70% load factor I’m not just generalising. Yesterday was at 63% on A35K and a lot of these 747 flights actually have not been down gauged they’ve just been down gauged heavily they’ve just moved to an A35K. The New York flights 113 that’s on 40% load factor was on a 777 beforehand and it’s on a 777 now so the change in load factors is not influenced by changing equipment actually.


TBH you need to explain what is meant by “cash positive” and by that I mean what cost centres and revenues does it recognise.

However, the central point (as tacitly acknowledged) is that a high load does not necessary mean the flight is profitable, or cash positive or whatever vague term anyone from IAG or BA wishes to use to portray stability to the outside world.

I don’t see how this is anything other than obvious.

Nobody is portraying anything that is not there. The cash operating cost of the flight is lower than the revenue from said flight. If you’re looking for what the cash operating cost is please google it. I don’t know why you’re just ignoring the facts if the CEO says the flights are cash positive. Who are you to say they are not? Are you the CFO? Please run with the facts. When you’re ready to argue with sensible points and not just bicker on for argument sake, then we can continue this discussion


Do you mean the CEO or the CFO?

Do you mean “cash positive” or “cash operating cost”?

It’s a bit odd that you should feel so strongly about something when you don’t seem to have much clarity about who or what it is you are trying to assert.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic creditors aprove restructuring; (files for BK in US Court)

Wed Aug 26, 2020 8:28 pm

DobboDobbo wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:

TBH you need to explain what is meant by “cash positive” and by that I mean what cost centres and revenues does it recognise.

However, the central point (as tacitly acknowledged) is that a high load does not necessary mean the flight is profitable, or cash positive or whatever vague term anyone from IAG or BA wishes to use to portray stability to the outside world.

I don’t see how this is anything other than obvious.

Nobody is portraying anything that is not there. The cash operating cost of the flight is lower than the revenue from said flight. If you’re looking for what the cash operating cost is please google it. I don’t know why you’re just ignoring the facts if the CEO says the flights are cash positive. Who are you to say they are not? Are you the CFO? Please run with the facts. When you’re ready to argue with sensible points and not just bicker on for argument sake, then we can continue this discussion


Do you mean the CEO or the CFO?

Do you mean “cash positive” or “cash operating cost”?

It’s a bit odd that you should feel so strongly about something when you don’t seem to have much clarity about who or what it is you are trying to assert.

I’m too tired for his.

If your cash operating cost is less than your revenue generated from said flight that is a cash positive flight. If you don’t know what cash operating cost is. Google it. That is what I’m saying. Basic.
 
DobboDobbo
Posts: 1141
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:02 am

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic creditors aprove restructuring; (files for BK in US Court)

Wed Aug 26, 2020 8:38 pm

Opus99 wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Nobody is portraying anything that is not there. The cash operating cost of the flight is lower than the revenue from said flight. If you’re looking for what the cash operating cost is please google it. I don’t know why you’re just ignoring the facts if the CEO says the flights are cash positive. Who are you to say they are not? Are you the CFO? Please run with the facts. When you’re ready to argue with sensible points and not just bicker on for argument sake, then we can continue this discussion


Do you mean the CEO or the CFO?

Do you mean “cash positive” or “cash operating cost”?

It’s a bit odd that you should feel so strongly about something when you don’t seem to have much clarity about who or what it is you are trying to assert.

I’m too tired for his.

If your cash operating cost is less than your revenue generated from said flight that is a cash positive flight. If you don’t know what cash operating cost is. Google it. That is what I’m saying. Basic.


Hang on - if you’re so clear what this was, and you’re tired of explaining, why did you say “cash positive” and not “cash operating cost”?

And what do you think the CEO (or CFO) said?

You can’t legitimately criticise someone for asking questions when you put forward a vague and confused position.
 
Vicenza
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic creditors aprove restructuring; (files for BK in US Court)

Wed Aug 26, 2020 8:46 pm

Opus99 wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Oh yes of course. It’s moreso to explain that the flights that are being operated are cash positive.


High loads do not = “cash positive”.

Besides the face that WW made it clear that those flights were cash positive. I don’t wheat would constitute a cash positive flight if not high loads. Please enlighten us.


Out of curiosity, what has anything said by Willie Walsh have to do with anything of relevance in a thread on Virgin Atlantic? I find him irrelevant at the best of times, much less in here.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic creditors aprove restructuring; (files for BK in US Court)

Wed Aug 26, 2020 8:49 pm

Vicenza wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:

High loads do not = “cash positive”.

Besides the face that WW made it clear that those flights were cash positive. I don’t wheat would constitute a cash positive flight if not high loads. Please enlighten us.


Out of curiosity, what has anything said by Willie Walsh have to do with anything of relevance in a thread on Virgin Atlantic? I find him irrelevant at the best of times, much less in here.

With regards to BA’s flights....the discussion starts several posts back
 
airboss787
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:39 pm

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic creditors aprove restructuring; (files for BK in US Court)

Wed Aug 26, 2020 9:23 pm

Opus99 wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Besides the face that WW made it clear that those flights were cash positive. I don’t wheat would constitute a cash positive flight if not high loads. Please enlighten us. I don’t what else would result in a cash positive flight. Like what is this argument. Unless you’re saying they’re selling every seat at a loss. Then what is the point of the flight? Like if you’re going to argue please bring sensible points. Don’t argue for the sake of argument. Please tell us what would allow a flight to be cash positive? That’s when the revenue outweighs the cost of the flight? What would be the main driver for that? High loads. Please. Bear in mind these loads are not just the route. They are attached to the actual flight, that’s where my data comes from. 107 to DXB Is at 60-70% load factor I’m not just generalising. Yesterday was at 63% on A35K and a lot of these 747 flights actually have not been down gauged they’ve just been down gauged heavily they’ve just moved to an A35K. The New York flights 113 that’s on 40% load factor was on a 777 beforehand and it’s on a 777 now so the change in load factors is not influenced by changing equipment actually.


TBH you need to explain what is meant by “cash positive” and by that I mean what cost centres and revenues does it recognise.

However, the central point (as tacitly acknowledged) is that a high load does not necessary mean the flight is profitable, or cash positive or whatever vague term anyone from IAG or BA wishes to use to portray stability to the outside world.

I don’t see how this is anything other than obvious.

Nobody is portraying anything that is not there. The cash operating cost of the flight is lower than the revenue from said flight. If you’re looking for what the cash operating cost is please google it. I don’t know why you’re just ignoring the facts if the CEO says the flights are cash positive. Who are you to say they are not? Are you the CFO? Please run with the facts. When you’re ready to argue with sensible points and not just bicker on for argument sake, then we can continue this discussion


What you are saying is also just heresay until you provide a link with something that Willie Walsh actually did say. Just because you are using a vague quote, even if it is from the CEO, it does not immediately validate everything you are saying. Being profitable only means the overall flight makes more than the expense associated with it. It does not go into detail about the plethora of accounts that may or may not be positive. I will reserve my entire opinion when you provide a link with context. You throw around a lot of financial terms willy-nilly.
Star Alliance Gold
 
Opus99
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic creditors aprove restructuring; (files for BK in US Court)

Wed Aug 26, 2020 9:39 pm

airboss787 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:

TBH you need to explain what is meant by “cash positive” and by that I mean what cost centres and revenues does it recognise.

However, the central point (as tacitly acknowledged) is that a high load does not necessary mean the flight is profitable, or cash positive or whatever vague term anyone from IAG or BA wishes to use to portray stability to the outside world.

I don’t see how this is anything other than obvious.

Nobody is portraying anything that is not there. The cash operating cost of the flight is lower than the revenue from said flight. If you’re looking for what the cash operating cost is please google it. I don’t know why you’re just ignoring the facts if the CEO says the flights are cash positive. Who are you to say they are not? Are you the CFO? Please run with the facts. When you’re ready to argue with sensible points and not just bicker on for argument sake, then we can continue this discussion


What you are saying is also just heresay until you provide a link with something that Willie Walsh actually did say. Just because you are using a vague quote, even if it is from the CEO, it does not immediately validate everything you are saying. Being profitable only means the overall flight makes more than the expense associated with it. It does not go into detail about the plethora of accounts that may or may not be positive. I will reserve my entire opinion when you provide a link with context. You throw around a lot of financial terms willy-nilly.

We are saying the same thing...cash operating cost of a flight is how much it costs to operate the flight. What plethora of accounts?

Anyway transcript on the call is below, knock yourself out:

https://www.iairgroup.com/~/media/Files ... esults.pdf

Page 26. Knock yourself out

Low load factor flights to North America all of which have are cash positive. Also on previous pages he noted that there are actually some flights that operate with passengers and cargo, that without cargo they won’t have been cash positive.

Having a cash positive flights does not mean you’re profitable. Did I ever say that?
 
Westerwaelder
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic seeks restructuring; files for BK in US Court

Thu Aug 27, 2020 7:57 am

2eng2efficient wrote:
If VS does fail, would it create a situation where BA and/or the BA-AA JV is an anticompetitive monopoly in the LHR market? Would HM Government face equally hard choices of bailing out VS or breaking up BA?

Plenty of countries have only one carrier of size (France, Germany for example) and plenty of big airports are dominated by a single carrier to a larger degree than LHR is by BA (Frankfurt, Paris CDG, Amsterdam...). There is still plenty of competition across the North Atlantic, with or without VS. Their importance is overhyped in my opinion.
 
Boeing74741R
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:44 am

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic seeks restructuring; files for BK in US Court

Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:21 am

Opus99 wrote:
VS’s were delayed by a few months obviously because they couldn’t pay for them at the time


That is quite an allegation. Do you have proof to back this claim up?

Vicenza wrote:
Out of curiosity, what has anything said by Willie Walsh have to do with anything of relevance in a thread on Virgin Atlantic? I find him irrelevant at the best of times, much less in here.


Not to mention he's just a few weeks away from retiring. If I was Mr Walsh, I would be more concerned about issues closer to home within IAG than the state of the competition, a few of which are the same for everyone.
 
TUGMASTER
Posts: 1218
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:56 pm

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic creditors aprove restructuring; (files for BK in US Court)

Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:40 am

Can DibbiDobbo and Opussy99 put their respective handbags down now please.
Thank you
 
tphuang
Posts: 5331
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic seeks restructuring; files for BK in US Court

Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:55 am

Boeing74741R wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
VS’s were delayed by a few months obviously because they couldn’t pay for them at the time


That is quite an allegation. Do you have proof to back this claim up?

Vicenza wrote:
Out of curiosity, what has anything said by Willie Walsh have to do with anything of relevance in a thread on Virgin Atlantic? I find him irrelevant at the best of times, much less in here.


Not to mention he's just a few weeks away from retiring. If I was Mr Walsh, I would be more concerned about issues closer to home within IAG than the state of the competition, a few of which are the same for everyone.


VS has delayed refunding customers for far longer than everyone else. This is not a secret.

Other than conserving cash, what other reasons do they have?
 
Boeing74741R
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:44 am

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic seeks restructuring; files for BK in US Court

Thu Aug 27, 2020 11:30 am

tphuang wrote:
VS has delayed refunding customers for far longer than everyone else. This is not a secret.


I know - I am one of them! Admittedly it's only within the last month or so when my trip in question was formally cancelled.

tphuang wrote:
Other than conserving cash, what other reasons do they have?


If you're referring to aircraft delivery, again without knowing the particulars and appreciating not everything is as clear cut as some are making out (for all we know VS could have been parking them short-term at TLS - I don't know what it's like at LHR, but MAN still resembles something of an aircraft car park at present and VS have been storing aircraft at other places earlier in the pandemic such as DSA and GLA, plus T2 is closing again soon), I will repeat my question that has gone unanswered: -

Why take delivery of something that you don’t have an immediate need for?

Revelation wrote:
I think the discussion of high load factors in this thread is misleading because they say nothing about reducing frequency and down gauging that allows for high load factors. One hint: BA used to fly 744s on NYC-LON, now all are heading to the scrapper's yard.


Indeed. Another thing with the BA 747's is that the config density on them was well short of its maximum capacity. Think it was the 'Super Hi J' fleet that had just 275 seats in total across 4 classes, 86 of which was J seats, and would have been easy enough to fill pre-COVID, but would have no doubt been very difficult to fill in the short-to-medium term as I see business travel being slow to recover if the reluctance of firms to return to offices are anything to go by. It's probably one reason why LCY-JFK was axed. There would have been questionable value in re-configuring these aircraft to a higher density arrangement given some were refurbished recently and the original plan for them all to exit the fleet within the next 5 years anyway.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10717
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic seeks restructuring; files for BK in US Court

Thu Aug 27, 2020 11:43 am

Boeing74741R wrote:

If you're referring to aircraft delivery, again without knowing the particulars and appreciating not everything is as clear cut as some are making out (for all we know VS could have been parking them short-term at TLS - I don't know what it's like at LHR, but MAN still resembles something of an aircraft car park at present and VS have been storing aircraft at other places earlier in the pandemic such as DSA and GLA, plus T2 is closing again soon), I will repeat my question that has gone unanswered: -

We know VS is not just parking them at TLS short term because we know from Airbus’s monthly reports that the
planes have not been delivered yet, unless they were delivered this month.
 
Bhoy
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:50 pm

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic creditors aprove restructuring; (files for BK in US Court)

Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:25 pm

VS announce flights to Pakistan starting in December. Islamabad will be served from both MAN and LHR, as well as Lahore from LHR as Virgin seeks to redeploy their Aircraft. These VFR routes will doubtless be busy as PIA is currently banned from europe since the A320 crash in Karachi at the start of the year.

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ne ... 91221.html
 
TC957
Posts: 3843
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic creditors aprove restructuring; (files for BK in US Court)

Wed Sep 02, 2020 11:02 am

Today's the day when the UK high court is due to dot the I's and cross the T's on VS's rescue package. Let's hope for positive news.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic creditors aprove restructuring; (files for BK in US Court)

Wed Sep 02, 2020 11:34 am

TC957 wrote:
Today's the day when the UK high court is due to dot the I's and cross the T's on VS's rescue package. Let's hope for positive news.

I’m pretty confident the news will be positive. Doesn’t seem there’s any reason got the courts not to give the go ahead
 
Opus99
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic creditors aprove restructuring; (files for BK in US Court)

Thu Sep 03, 2020 8:34 pm

https://twitter.com/markkleinmansky/sta ... 28610?s=21

VS to sack another 1000 people as demand return is lower than they expected...

They have almost halved in size in terms of employees.
 
BealineV953
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:00 am

Re: Updated: Virgin Atlantic seeks restructuring; files for BK in US Court

Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:41 am

Newtonslaw wrote:
BealineV953 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
They’ll force BA to lease some of their slots out like they already do


If Virgin fails, HMG DoT will not 'force' BA to release slots.
When an airline seeks approval for something, for example a joint venture, the regulators may make their approval conditional on, for example, releasing slots. The airline then decides if the conditions are acceptable. BA will not be seeking approval for anything.
There is no UK precedent for arbitrarily taking slots from an airline. Slots at Heathrow are valuable assets; they have sold for, IIRC, up to £20m or more. Taking slots would be to remove valuable assets from BA. It isn't going to happen.


Not really. In May the CMA [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5eb3f862d3bf7f5d404392ea/Notice_of_intention_to_accept_binding_commitments.pdf] forced BA/AA to give up slots to BOS,MIA,PHL,DFW. That at the CMA's own initiative after an 18 month investigation into the BA/AA JV. They also stated given the uncertainty that they reserved the right to come back and look at things again in the future. So slots can and will be taken away by regulatory authorities if the market situation and competitive landscape changes:

The CMA recognises that, as a result of the current challenges related to COVID-19, there is some uncertainty about competition on routes covered by the AJBA and a risk that the Proposed Commitments may not address the CMA’s competition concerns in the future. The CMA notes, however, that acceptance of the Proposed Commitments would not prevent the CMA from taking any action in relation to competition concerns which are not addressed by the Proposed Commitments


Hello. Many thanks for your post; it is very helpful and interesting.
I was aware of the Competition and Markets Authority review, but hadn’t seen the outcome.

You are of course absolutely correct; regulators may require airlines to give up slots to enable competition. For example, BA and AA were required to give up slots as a condition of their Joint Venture being approved, and BA was required to give up slots as a condition of the acquisition of bmi being approved.

In saying ‘no UK precedent for arbitrarily taking slots’ I meant that regulators will not respond to Virgin failing by simply taking slots from BA. However, you are right to point out that there may be further competition reviews.

Having said that, if Virgin fails, Regulators will face a difficult situation. The CMA may note that “…acceptance of the Proposed Commitments would not prevent the CMA from taking any action in relation to competition concerns”, but the CMA, if they take further slots from BA and/or AA, will have to think carefully about which airline the slots are likely to go to.
When the BA / AA JV was first approved, Regulators may have expected that Delta and Virgin would express an interest in any slots made available, and might have thought that United would be interested.
With a presence in the UK market, Virgin could be expected to make good use of additional slots at LHR for additional frequency on LHR-BOS and LHR-MIA.
However, even with Virgin support at the UK end, Delta withdrew from LHR-MIA, and did not, it seems, make a success of LHR-PHL. Neither tried LHR-DFW.
If Virgin fails, would it be reasonable for the CMA to require BA and/or AA to release slots hoping that Delta would simply ‘try harder’, or that United would be tempted to enter new non-hub markets?

The LHR-PHL case is interesting. Delta took the slot, flew the required route just long enough to claim the slot permanently, and then promptly switched it to another route (LHR-JFK?).
A cynic might say that Delta compared any loss they made on LHR-PHL to the cost of buying an LHR slot, and calculated that it was worth sustaining the loss or opportunity cost until the slot was theirs to do what they wanted with.
So, while the CMA facilitated competition on LHR-PHL, in the long run the action did not promote competition for the benefit of the consumer.
The recent CMA review effectively invites Virgin, Delta, United or any other airline to have another go on BOS, MIA, PHL, DFW. However, as we’ve seen, facilitating competition is one thing; enabling sustained competition is another.
And, in any case, pricing on UK-DFW is held in check by pricing on UK-HOU and via intermediate points (eg UK-ATL-DFW), and pricing on LHR-PHL is held in check by pricing on UK-NYC and via intermediate points (eg BOS).
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’

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