Virgin Australia Financially Secure? [Now in Voluntary Administration]

[jakeseven7]

But upon reflection it's probably an almost impossible sell. News media won't be supportive, and I doubt Alan Jones would be which will make it really difficult. Many people, uninformed because they have no interest, will just see "foreign owners" and particularly "Chinese, Singaporean and Arab" and be disgusted at any thought of assistance to VA. That is how the narrative is being played out already.

Yup the optics are terrible plus add 'the owners have wasted hundred of millions of dollars, can't run an airline etc' is become a stinking pile of stuff that people won't want to go near. I feel desperately sorry for the VA staff at the moment because the media is not on their side and this would be awful to continue to read/see the media.

I would bet most that are against VA getting help were only too happy to see that “Aussie Icon” Holden get propped up by the government for the last few decades despite being 100% foreign owned.

Who knows, probably? maybe? Perhaps the fact it was originally Australian bonded people to them more? Virgin has always been an imported brand and the Virgin brand has never quite found a comfortable home in AU, mobile failed and relaunched, banking failed and relaunched, gyms are still niche etc. Just hasn't quite worked.... VA was the best example of 'making it work' but I bet if they changed their name tomorrow no one would care.

 

[Jack_OC]

Actually, the government and us taxpayers get the upside if the plan works - a continued operating duopoly aviation environment, without disruption and without a monopoly and its resultant inefficiencies and cost increases to the rest of the economy.

Well yes, maybe we could all enjoy the upside, if we assume that somehow a company-specific bailout could save VA without distorting the market and having a negative effect on QF. I'd be more confident of us all enjoying the upside if there was an industry-wide bailout, TBH.

Anyway, I just thought it was worth correcting the suggestion that the foreign owners would lose their equity if the govt gave the loan requested by Scurrah. People should not forget that Scurrah and the VAH Board are legally obliged to act in the best interests of their shareholders.

He’s stated a couple of times over the last day or so he supports Virgin receiving government assistance. We really are living in bizarro world!

Jones has been attacking Joyce for any reason he can find for years, so there is nothing surprising about him taking another opportunity to do so. Like many right wing conservatives, he has a huge problem with Joyce's support for same sex marriage etc. It flared up again last year due to Jones' belief that QF lobbied Rugby Australia to sack Israel Folau. It's bizarre if anyone expected Jones to take Joyce's side on this - or indeed on anything!

 

[Fortheloveofflying]

I think they own the Virgin Village as well?

Nope. They don't own the Virgin Village. It's leased.

 

[Fortheloveofflying]

they have struggled at times to attract the right people in to roles at Virgin and the Sydney office has kept growing over time as a result.

That's not entirely true. The VFF office has been growing, but the VA office has been steady. They've been running out of space at the Virgin Village for a while now. They used to operate out of 4 buildings, now condensed into 3.

 

[bcworld]

Can we get some mods in here! First Katie Hopkins and now Alan Jones...there must be some rules about this sort of content!

 

[hydrabyss]

Can we get some mods in here! First Katie Hopkins and now Alan Jones...there must be some rules about this sort of content!

I honestly don't follow media or politics but with all the strange things happening lately I have on more than one occasion found myself watching The Bolt Report.

Then last night I watched Alan Jones talk about the need for the Government to help Virgin. Hopefully they will find a cure for this virus going around so I can get back to normal television before the damage is well and truly done.

 

[kpc]

Airline’s future in doubt as Government announces no bailout plan

The future of Virgin Australia remains in limbo, after the Federal Government held firm against Virgin Australia’s pleas for a $1.4 billion bailout despite the airline being on the brink of collapse.

www.news.com.au

I do hope that the Govt will do something for Va as they basically nailed the final nail into Virgin's coffin....if not, when Qf come begging in 6 months' time, they should do nothing as well!

 

[antycbr]

Maybe they should work from home!

Including the pilots!

 

[Ansett]

Now that really would be a true Virtual Airline

Sorry couldn't resist

 

[Mogul]

Maybe they should work from home!

So long as it is only office staff.

 

[oz_mark]

I do hope that the Govt will do something for Va as they basically nailed the final nail into Virgin's coffin....if not, when Qf come begging in 6 months' time, they should do nothing as well!

Completely agree.

 

[Mattg]

Airline’s future in doubt as Government announces no bailout plan

The future of Virgin Australia remains in limbo, after the Federal Government held firm against Virgin Australia’s pleas for a $1.4 billion bailout despite the airline being on the brink of collapse.

www.news.com.au

I do hope that the Govt will do something for Va as they basically nailed the final nail into Virgin's coffin....if not, when Qf come begging in 6 months' time, they should do nothing as well!

I watched the press conference that this article is referencing, and the Prime Minister didn't really say explicitly that VA won't get assistance. Just that any support given would be industry-wide (i.e. they won't just help VA and not other airlines as well). He also said that the government sees the value of having two major airlines in Australia.

If the government is going to help VA, I really think they ought to announce something soon. If they don't get help soon, I can't see any alternative for VA other than voluntary administration.

In my personal opinion, it is quite unfair for the government to tell VA to deal with it on their own when it's the government's own travel restrictions - working as designed - that forced them into this situation.

 

[hydrabyss]

I watched the press conference that this article is referencing, and the Prime Minister didn't really say explicitly that VA won't get assistance. Just that any support given would be industry-wide (i.e. they won't just help VA and not other airlines as well). He also said that the government sees the value of having two major airlines in Australia.

If the government is going to help VA, I really think they ought to announce something soon. If they don't get help soon, I can't see any alternative for VA other than voluntary administration.

In my personal opinion, it is quite unfair for the government to tell VA to deal with it on their own when it's the government's own travel restrictions - working as designed - that forced them into this situation.

I would have thought helping both out would put them both in a better position down the road. Virgin can concentrate on domestic and Qantas could be looking at getting a leg up on the overseas competition.

 

[Scr77]

I’m no lawyer. I think ScoMo is doing a reasonable job, but could Virgin (or other businesses) sue the government for damages? After all, this has been caused by the government moving the goal posts (Even if for valid reasons)

@Dr Ralph

 

[TheInsider]

I’m no lawyer. I think ScoMo is doing a reasonable job, but could Virgin (or other businesses) sue the government for damages? After all, this has been caused by the government moving the goal posts (Even if for valid reasons)

@Dr Ralph

All well and good to sue the government, but you have to remember, what are they going to sue with? They don't have much money on hand!

 

[drron]

I’m no lawyer. I think ScoMo is doing a reasonable job, but could Virgin (or other businesses) sue the government for damages? After all, this has been caused by the government moving the goal posts (Even if for valid reasons)

@Dr Ralph

Probably would just be a waste of money.International Law allows countries to override personal freedoms in a pandemic.

 

[muppet]

Probably would just be a waste of money.International Law allows countries to override personal freedoms in a pandemic.

International Law isn't really a thing and it definitely doesn't influence your access or otherwise to personal freedoms, just ask anyone in North Korea...

 

[antycbr]

All well and good to sue the government, but you have to remember, what are they going to sue with? They don't have much money on hand!

Someone will take them on, just to prove a point about the interstate travel restrictions being unconstitutional.
If assistance is provided to QF only after a VA collapse the unsecured creditors may get involved too. Everyone with a travel bank or points is an unsecured creditor.

 

[Meggsy]

And in a little good news VA are set to resume a bunch of domestic flights from tomorrow.

 

[drron]

International Law isn't really a thing and it definitely doesn't influence your access or otherwise to personal freedoms, just ask anyone in North Korea...

"International law on human rights has long recognized that governments may infringe on civil and political rights for public health purposes. [17] The use of isolation and quarantine by governments to stop the spread of SARS is not, therefore, illegal per se under international human rights law. Governments must, however, fulfill certain conditions before interference with a civil or political right on public health grounds survives scrutiny under international law. Public health measures that infringe on civil and political rights must (1) be prescribed by law; (2) be applied in a non-discriminatory manner; (3) relate to a compelling public interest in the form of a significant infectious disease risk to the public's health; and (4) be necessary to achieve the protection of the public, meaning that the measure must be (a) based on scientific and public health information and principles; (b) proportional in its impact on individual rights to the infectious disease threat posed; and (c) the least restrictive measure possible to achieve protection against the infectious disease risk. [18] "

SARS and International Law | ASIL

www.asil.org