Are virgin about to break a world record for longest flight time on a commercial airline?

[UP4014]

Why, exactly? VA did not do so, but why do you term their breaking a record and having the gall to mention it as stupid?

They didn't promote it, smart. There are so many reasons not to say "hey look at me" when your on the verge of insolvency and asking for a public bail tells us they are as one of the signs is inability to raise funds from shareholders.

If I was a director or senior manager, spending on a publicity stunt or promotion (and I'm not suggesting this) can land you with criminal charges, ie goal time. You are not allowed to incur a cost or debt. If it goes bad and the MD is standing in court being asked why, while his company was going under did they promote or run a publicity stunt what would or could he say. That sort of stuff puts you the criminal court.

ASIC has successfully prosecuted directors for allowing companies to incur debts when the company is insolvent, and has sought orders making directors personally liable for company debts. (from ASIC)

I stand by my comment it would be stupid to use the opportunity for promotional purposes while no doubt lawyers are circling.

 

[dajop]

Why, exactly? VA did not do so, but why do you term their breaking a record and having the gall to mention it as stupid?

Am I missing something? BAM1748 didn't suggest "breaking a record" as being stupid, rather but the act of Virgin looking for publicity around the apparently breaking the said record as stupid. A bit of a difference between the two.

 

[Danger]

I think there's a big difference between creating the hullabaloo that Qantas did and what Virgin could have done. A simple media release to Virgin's distribution list would have sufficed and would not have incurred more than a few dollars of labour time. That release could have simultaneously highlighted Virgin stepping-up to the government's request to bring Australians home and thrown in a line or two about the apparent recording-breaking flight. It would also have been an opportunity for Virgin to promote its value with an underlying message that it's not just the flag carrier that's getting Australians back to Australia; we're doing it too and we happen to have down it by setting a record. The repatriation side of the flight is the highlight in the media release while the record plays second fiddle. In all, it could have been done without the presumably hundreds of thousands Qantas spent.

 

[milehighclub]

That release could have simultaneously highlighted Virgin stepping-up to the government's request to bring Australians home

But they didn't bring anyone home, they took people home to France as it was chartered by the French Government not the Australian. The aircraft was flown home as a ferry service with only crew (as confirmed by someone on it).

I would imagine this is probably a reason they didn't say very much as it would be very easy for the media to grab hold of this and say 'Virgin Australia leaves hundreds stranded in France as it sends home an aircraft empty after French Government rescue flight!"

Cue photo of incorrect aircraft type.

 

[milehighclub]

And it has made the news after all

Virgin jet pulls off insane flying feat

Virgin Australia has pulled off one of the world’s longest flights, flying for almost 20 straight hours to Brisbane after its first-ever visit to Paris.

www.news.com.au

 

[Cryptarcadian]

Wow, talk about a rare event. News.com.au had some accurate text and photos in that article!

 

[p--and--t]

Wow, talk about a rare event. News.com.au had some accurate text and photos in that article!

See miracles can happen

 

[RooFlyer]

If I was a director or senior manager, spending on a publicity stunt or promotion (and I'm not suggesting this) can land you with criminal charges, ie goal time. You are not allowed to incur a cost or debt. If it goes bad and the MD is standing in court being asked why, while his company was going under did they promote or run a publicity stunt what would or could he say. That sort of stuff puts you the criminal court.

ASIC has successfully prosecuted directors for allowing companies to incur debts when the company is insolvent, and has sought orders making directors personally liable for company debts. (from ASIC)

You are implying that Virgin is insolvent the the moment, or on the brink of. I venture to say that it certainly is not - IIRC they have stated that they have cash for a month, not counting the extra funds for flights announced a few days ago. So most of the argument fails.

To send out a media release would incur virtually no extra expense - distribution of these things is off a standard electronic platform to the selected media channels. Invite a few jounos in to head office for a briefing, similarly no extra expense.

Wow, talk about a rare event. News.com.au had some accurate text and photos in that article!

Although some hyperbole continues.

 

[Mexpirate]

Another article here: Virgin Australia Flies Direct Flight From Paris To Brisbane - In 20 Hours! - Simple Flying

 

[UP4014]

You are implying that Virgin is insolvent the the moment, or on the brink of. I venture to say that it certainly is not - IIRC they have stated that they have cash for a month, not counting the extra funds for flights announced a few days ago. So most of the argument fails.

I’m not implying it, Virgin are saying it, no more shareholder funds have been forthcoming and talks with govt about a govt loan.

 

[AIRwin]

News.com.au had some accurate text and photos in that article!

The article references Singapore Airlines' 6700km non-stop service from Singapore to Newark that takes around 18 hours and 30 minutes... Should it be miles not km?

 

[RooFlyer]

RooFlyer said:
You are implying that Virgin is insolvent the the moment, or on the brink of.

I’m not implying it, Virgin are saying it, no more shareholder funds have been forthcoming and talks with govt about a govt loan.

That's not Virgin saying they are insolvent, or on the brink. No more shareholder funds forthcoming (capital injection) is entirely different from trading with limited, but sufficient, cash. I think Virgin have said they have cash for a month, and that was before the additional assistance announced a few days ago. They are entitled, under the law, to keep trading until the point where the directors think they cannot meet their debts. Given the scrutiny they are under at the moment, I think we can be confident that they have looked pretty closely at that!

I hear what you are saying - that they are skating on thin ice - but lets be clear about what 'insolvency' means. If they were insolvent, or close to it, they couldn't buy fuel for their flights today; suppliers would probably pull their supplies before that point anyway.

Sorry to go off-topic for this thread, but its a pretty important point.

 

[dajop]

The article references Singapore Airlines' 6700km non-stop service from Singapore to Newark that takes around 18 hours and 30 minutes... Should it be miles not km?

Don’t know where they got that figure from. It’s not miles nor nautical miles (it’s actually 9500 mi.)

 

[Danger]

But they didn't bring anyone home, they took people home to France as it was chartered by the French Government not the Australian. The aircraft was flown home as a ferry service with only crew (as confirmed by someone on it) ...

That's the part I missed.

 

[Andz]

Virgin jet pulls off insane flying feat

Virgin Australia has pulled off one of the world’s longest flights, flying for almost 20 straight hours to Brisbane after its first-ever visit to Paris.

www.news.com.au

 

[UP4014]

RooFlyer said:
You are implying that Virgin is insolvent the the moment, or on the brink of.



That's not Virgin saying they are insolvent, or on the brink. No more shareholder funds forthcoming (capital injection) is entirely different from trading with limited, but sufficient, cash. I think Virgin have said they have cash for a month, and that was before the additional assistance announced a few days ago. They are entitled, under the law, to keep trading until the point where the directors think they cannot meet their debts. Given the scrutiny they are under at the moment, I think we can be confident that they have looked pretty closely at that!

I hear what you are saying - that they are skating on thin ice - but lets be clear about what 'insolvency' means. If they were insolvent, or close to it, they couldn't buy fuel for their flights today; suppliers would probably pull their supplies before that point anyway.

Sorry to go off-topic for this thread, but its a pretty important point.

I'll let the news of the Deloitte administration of Virgin speak for itself, the Board and CEO are now non entities as decision makers.

 

[RooFlyer]

I'll let the news of the Deloitte administration of Virgin speak for itself, the Board and CEO are now non entities as decision makers.

I was waiting for that. What I said above is still perfectly correct - except that the stated month's worth of cash obviously wasn't enough, OR, more likely, the Directors formed the view that there was no point waiting for the cash to run out before hitting the brakes, so they went into voluntary administration, which allows other things to happen. The airline is still flying (with government subsidy). The failure of major shareholders to put in cash is still not the same as insolvency

By all means take your personal view on things, just be aware that 'administration' (voluntary or otherwise) and 'insolvency' have specific meanings and it appears that you are confusing or not understanding them, which isn't uncommon. Edit: See here:

Frequent Flyer's Guide to Virgin Australia in Voluntary Administration

Virgin Australia has officially entered voluntary administration, as it struggles with a crippling $5 billion debt and unprecedented weak demand for air travel.

www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au