Stormy clouds?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Posts
306
This is doing the rounds on the internet. I have no idea of it's credibility but anyone who has followed the Virgin story the past 24 months would not find it hard to believe...

Anyone with thoughts or further information?

Virgin Australia is facing a “severe cash flow crisis” with “very limited options” for recovery, according to an internal report seen by Australinea, due to low margins, a large amount of debt, unsuccessful hedging strategy and its current fleet financing obligations.
Virgin has limited options for raising equity and a poor outlook for its domestic business. The carrier has just under $3 billion (AUD) in debt maturing between FY2017 and FY2020 and almost no unencumbered assets to leverage with 109 aircraft of its 117 leased. The report shows Virgin Australia facing severe difficulty financing this debt as it matures, with the carrier looking toward HNA Group, and possibly also Nanshan Group, for assistance in its financing requirements. If either are unwilling to come to the table, the report suggests Virgin has “very limited options” moving forward.
While it remains unlikely Virgin is at any risk of insolvency – its shareholders have too much at stake – it reflects an undesirable outcome for the carrier, and a poor vindication of Mr Borghetti’s strategy.
In August 2016, Virgin Australia reported it had hedged 90% of its expected fuel consumption for the remainder of FY2017 – but did not disclose at what level. Earlier in 2016, the carrier noted it had hedged at an effective rate of $77 (AUD) per barrel during FY2016 with a participation rate of 14%.
The flow-on benefit of lower oil prices has gone almost unnoticed in Virgin’s accounts; at least two financial years have passed with statements that benefits from more favourable exposure to falling oil prices would commence “next financial year.”

Full link:
https://australinea.com/virgin-australia-faces-financing-crush/
 
Every flight I ever take with Virgin is close to capacity. Unless there are other flights others are taking where loads are down I don't understand how they could be doing so poorly?
 
Hundreds and hundreds of millions spent on developing and fitting a business class, new uniforms, new lounges, new branding, pointless international network. All to write cheques that couldn't be cashed. Not to mention operating a massive and confusing array of fleet types. I think the last sentence in the article sums it up well...

"With the end of the line approaching, Virgin’s transformation will be remembered as an overflow of cost toward a product the market couldn’t support and didn’t value."
 
Lots of speculation in that article. Can't draw much in the way of conclusions from it.
 
Isn't this the same website that speculated Virgin was going to start charging for spirits? I wonder where they're getting their info...?
 
Considering this is coming from Australinea which had the dubious honour recently of not so precisely soothsaying the changes to the lounge access rules as well as spirits in the lounge, let's just reach over to the salt bowl right now and take a huge pinch (and a big gulp of water... we don't need high blood pressure...)

Let's also clear now I'm no VA fanboi, but that said one thing I maintain is that VA is not going anywhere out, any time soon.

They may be poorly performing now, but even if you absolutely hated VA and wished them nought but bad, for better or worse they won't go away soon or do an Ansett.

One thing to keep in mind is that Qantas at one time was looking very vulnerable and the same conditions. Low staff morale (supposedly, although some said that morale was actually pretty stable). A CEO under fire, both internally (from staff and customers) and externally (from industry commentators). Poor fuel hedging strategy. Mounting debt (a hapless-looking international division to boot). Negative market outlook. Profit in the toilet. Rumours that QF should be saved by the government (a stupid idea categorically). And everyone on AFF predicted it might be the end of QF, or at least they were ready to jump ship because it would be the best thing to do.

Look where QF are now - not certainly out of the woods, but the catastrophising has significantly eased off!

VA may well be going through the same. They can't go back to the Virgin Blue days; not that they are this far in now. When JB rolled off the first parts of Game Change, everyone looked to him like a prophet or God, a saviour in a static domestic market. Now all of the sudden he is a pariah? Seems rather odd about face.

Even if VA get into a huge amount of trouble, all of their international investors have too much put in to pull out now without trying to save it. Aren't EY and the EY CEO basically bed buddies with VA and Borghetti? (Yes, I am aware that EY insisted on a large surcharge for VFF EY redemptions...) Richard Branson has his own face to save, so I'm sure irrespective of the distance he has an interest to see it succeed. Finally, there is an overarching perception that no one wants to go back to the monopoly where Qantas is the only player in the market. So on that premise, even though VA is a private company, I think there will always be an emergency provision that will keep VA on its feet to continue (Qantas, being predisposed in its history, would not benefit from such an intervention).

Also, how would everyone be if the price of fuel was far more expensive than what it is now? What if the mining industry was back up again?

It's interesting how the article opines that a better business proposition could have been created without needing the A330s, new Business Class (whether this means the first iterations of VA Business or the recent The Business), new lounges... I think quite a few people would find those claims dubious.

How can a carrier with an arguably better Business Class seat than its direct competition on its key competitive markets (i.e. Los Angeles and coast to coast) be doing so badly?

Is JB shaping an airline and a frequent flyer programme that represents an ideal that isn't fiscally practical? And yet, it's benefits that we all want from FF programmes?

Anyway, as you can see, I have as much credibility as Australinea. :) Maybe less....

Interesting how all of the "shark circling" articles about VA are starting to come to the surface now.........
 
Last edited:
Considering this is coming from Australinea which had the dubious honour recently of not so precisely soothsaying the changes to the lounge access rules as well as spirits in the lounge, let's just reach over to the salt bowl right now and take a huge pinch (and a big gulp of water... we don't need high blood pressure...)

Well VA lounge access did change and just because there was no announcement of spirits in lounges, doesn't mean that it isn't/wasn't being considered or might happen.

Let's also clear now I'm no VA fanboi, but that said one thing I maintain is that VA is not going anywhere out, any time soon.

The article doesn't say it'll be going anywhere.

VA may well be going through the same. They can't go back to the Virgin Blue days; not that they are this far in now. When JB rolled off the first parts of Game Change, everyone looked to him like a prophet or God, a saviour in a static domestic market. Now all of the sudden he is a pariah? Seems rather odd about face.

Even if VA get into a huge amount of trouble, all of their international investors have too much put in to pull out now without trying to save it. Aren't EY and the EY CEO basically bed buddies with VA and Borghetti? (Yes, I am aware that EY insisted on a large surcharge for VFF EY redemptions...) Richard Branson has his own face to save, so I'm sure irrespective of the distance he has an interest to see it succeed.

EY didn't commit to the latest capital raising until the last day, NZ jumped for a fair loss and SQ were circling, but JB jumped to HNA for some extra cash. The bulk of the article is about whether or not many of the changes were the right thing to do - lots of the changes cost the company a lot of money and it doesn't seem to be getting that money back. As someone that self funds their travel, I know most of the time I'd rather pay the small premium that QF is charging to fly them as VA don't quite hit the mark for me to be able to justify the small difference. Add JQ in the mix, and if I want to go cheap, I book with them...
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

anat0l, whilst they may have gotten the spirits wrong (or did they), they were correct about the lounge access changing -which we can agree is a joke now.

And even though a flight is close to capacity didn't mean it's making money. If the yield management is wrong it could well be losing
 
Let's also clear now I'm no VA fanboi, but that said one thing I maintain is that VA is not going anywhere out, any time soon.

They may be poorly performing now, but even if you absolutely hated VA and wished them nought but bad, for better or worse they won't go away soon or do an Ansett.

While i'm a rusted on QF person I certainly don't wish to see them fail either. VA disappearing is only going to mean my QF fares go up and the product will get worse. I'm not sure your analysis is correct though.

One thing to keep in mind is that Qantas at one time was looking very vulnerable and the same conditions. Low staff morale (supposedly, although some said that morale was actually pretty stable). A CEO under fire, both internally (from staff and customers) and externally (from industry commentators). Poor fuel hedging strategy. Mounting debt (a hapless-looking international division to boot). Negative market outlook. Profit in the toilet. Rumours that QF should be saved by the government (a stupid idea categorically). And everyone on AFF predicted it might be the end of QF, or at least they were ready to jump ship because it would be the best thing to do.

Except in a number of important ways this is nothing like QF. Even with all the dooms saying at the time I never for a second seriously believed they were in real trouble. The QF group had and has a massive array of assets that could be sold if things were really hitting the fan. VA doesn't. QF has significant credit facilities open to it and as this article says VA has all but run out of options in that area. There is no doubt QF had big issues but I think a lot of the most pessimistic posturing was from the company itself trying to ensure it rammed through its changes to staffing etc with as little union resistance as possible.

VA may well be going through the same. They can't go back to the Virgin Blue days; not that they are this far in now. When JB rolled off the first parts of Game Change, everyone looked to him like a prophet or God, a saviour in a static domestic market. Now all of the sudden he is a pariah? Seems rather odd about face.

Again I'm not claiming to be any great genius but from the get go I had serious concerns with Virgin investing so much in going up market. I was pretty sure the market would have trouble maintaining two players at that level - especially given the rusted on nature of so many of QF's top clients and the size of the QF group. I agree VA are now stuck, they can't go back and they have a massive bills to pay to deliver the product they now promise, while still not meeting QF in the soft product in many respects.

Even if VA get into a huge amount of trouble, all of their international investors have too much put in to pull out now without trying to save it. Aren't EY and the EY CEO basically bed buddies with VA and Borghetti? (Yes, I am aware that EY insisted on a large surcharge for VFF EY redemptions...) Richard Branson has his own face to save, so I'm sure irrespective of the distance he has an interest to see it succeed. Finally, there is an overarching perception that no one wants to go back to the monopoly where Qantas is the only player in the market. So on that premise, even though VA is a private company, I think there will always be an emergency provision that will keep VA on its feet to continue (Qantas, being predisposed in its history, would not benefit from such an intervention).

This is where I agree in principal but at the same time it's hard to see where it comes from. NZ sold out, EY were resistant last time and their bottom less pit isn't as bottomless as everyone thinks - especially now they've lumped themselves with the massive problems Alitalia and Air Berlin also have. SIA are reportedly pissed about the HNA purchase and their results have been less than stellar the past few years as well. Branson isn't going to write cheques for literally billions and I suspect he wouldn't be so desperate to save face that he would intervene at all. So while I agree that the investors aren't going to want this to get close to happening, I'm not sure any of them have the cash needed to fix the problem. Let's assume they're not making money now or only just breaking even which appears to be the case. If that trend continues they aren't building now reserves to finance the $3b needed between now and 2020. With the instability in the world right now it's not hard to imagine a scenario where market conditions deteriorate further in the coming 24 months.

It's interesting how the article opines that a better business proposition could have been created without needing the A330s, new Business Class (whether this means the first iterations of VA Business or the recent The Business), new lounges... I think quite a few people would find those claims dubious.

Numbers don't lie though. Virgin Blue was consistently profitable. With the exception of the tiny profit made in the last operating figures published, VA is yet to make a dollar. I agree they were in a hard place if they had stayed as Virgin Blue too as Jetstar was cooking them slowly with their deeper pockets and lower cost base but I've seen no proof yet that "Game change" was the right answer.

How can a carrier with an arguably better Business Class seat than its direct competition on its key competitive markets (i.e. Los Angeles and coast to coast) be doing so badly?

Because they don't fly anywhere else and the alliance proposition is seriously inferior so customer loyalty is harder to gain. Practically, also they have huge payments on the costs of those aircraft and the costs of retrofitting the new product while QF are using almost totally depreciated 747s and 380s that when full compete on a cost per ASK basis.

As I say, I certainly don't wish to see them fail but my gut has told me for about 6 months now that there is a big disaster coming and everything I read here only confirms my thinking. Combine this with the rumours of crewing troubles on the 777 fleet, the massive conversion costs they face of moving all their tiger pilots onto Boeing licences, the weakening mining sector, withdrawal costs of the E190 fleet and the costs of retraining that entire pilot group, rumoured total withdrawal of the regional network and it's hard to see how the domestic arm (which has been the only department that has shown even a hope of making returns) has any chance of turning a profit for at least 3-4 years.
 
And all this just as I decide to take the plunge and convert my Fly Buys points to VA .......
 
Considering this is coming from Australinea which had the dubious honour recently of not so precisely soothsaying the changes to the lounge access rules as well as spirits in the lounge, let's just reach over to the salt bowl right now and take a huge pinch (and a big gulp of water... we don't need high blood pressure...)

It's hard to know if they were wrong, or that their report gave an accurate description of what the situation was at the time. We don't know what was going on behind the scenes with commercial negotiations to get to where we are now.

It is interesting that Australinea seems to have popped up out of nowhere, with access to internal status reports....
 
It's hard to know if they were wrong, or that their report gave an accurate description of what the situation was at the time. We don't know what was going on behind the scenes with commercial negotiations to get to where we are now.

It is interesting that Australinea seems to have popped up out of nowhere, with access to internal status reports....

Very curious indeed. Would love to know who is behind this.
 
... they were correct about the lounge access changing -which we can agree is a joke now. ...
VA's lounge access internationally has always been a mixed bag - the article did imply NO more NZ access, rather than simply reduced as it panned out.

In fact the lounge changes are relatively minor and I would not call the current situation a joke any more than that previously. To be honest, the newer arrangements I find better for me.

As for the CEO, I reckon he erred in applying some legacy (QF) philosophy to VA. e.g. They were taken for a huge ride with the IT implementation, paying well over the odds for what I believe is a worse system than they had; basically nonfunctional on implementation and little better now.
 
Virgin Blue was consistently profitable.

Were they? From memory, they were turning over significant losses. (mind you, my memory is not always accurate).

I personally think "game change" was a good plan, but was never finalised before they tried it on with unsubstantiated fare rises. Their SM was too early and they were far from complete (still far from complete), which gave would be punters the wrong impression. I'm guessing all these monumental errors were as a direct result from board pressure to deliver before time. In short, they ran the cupboard bare, which could be argued is a major failure in itself.

JB has to go, regardless of the fact he would likely have succeeded if the board didn't push him into poor decisions. Right now, VA are a living example of how not to run a service business, however I do genuinely hope the reports of a return to the black are true. In the meantime though, I think anyone who has many multiple of forward bookings or leaves large balances of points with VA are either foolish, rich or game.
 
So if I booked a few J reward flights (SYD-SIN-SYD) using VA points on SQ metal for mid-2017 - if VA go belly up between now and then, will I lose those tickets ?
The flights are all SQ flight numbers, I have a VA reference number, and an SQ reference number, but when I try to review the booking on the SIA website, I get the message stating "Your ticket was issued by our partner airline. TO manage your booking, get in touch with the relevant airline or return to the source of your booking"
The e-ticket numbers are all starting with 795, so I cannot manage booking on SIA since it only accepts ticket numbers starting with 618.
 
and i just got my 75 000 points from the NAB :eek: . fingers crossed that this all blows OVER and not UP !! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top