VIRGIN ATLANTIC, FACES IMMINENT COLLAPSE: Virgin Voyages?

[gkbiiii]

VIRGIN ATLANTIC COULD FACE IMMINENT COLLAPSE WITHOUT GOVERNMENT LOAN

By TED PERTON APRIL 21, 2020

https://samchui.com/2020/04/21/virgin-atlantic-could-face-imminent-collapse-without-government-loan/#.Xp5v_shKhPY

 

So without a UK government bailout, Virgin Atlantic is on the verge of collapse.  My question is how does this bode for Virgin Voyages?

 

 

[ano]

Lets just say, if you haven't booked any future VV cruises, I wouldn't start now.

[gkbiiii]

Richard Branson Doesn't Have a Drop to Drink

Chris Bryant

Bloomberg

April 21, 2020, 3:30 AM EDT

 

 

On Monday he penned an extraordinary public letter appealing to the British government to provide an emergency loan to prevent the collapse of transatlantic carrier Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd., which he owns jointly along with Delta Air Lines Inc. of the U.S.

 

Travel restrictions to curb the new coronavirus have walloped Branson’s travel and leisure holdings. He’s already spent $250 million to support his various Virgin Group portfolio companies, but most of his $5.9 billion net worth isn’t “sitting as cash in a bank account ready to withdraw,” Branson said. That has forced him to consider the drastic step of mortgaging his beloved Caribbean island home, which doubles as an ultra-expensive retreat.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/richard-branson-doesnt-drop-drink-073028028.html

 

Well Richard is completely screwed, as his Virgin Australia airline, is now collapsed into bankruptcy, with no Australian bailout.  There is considerable doubt if his British airline Virgin Atlantic, will get a UK bailout either.  Based on the asset chart above, where does increased funding, to keep virgin Voyages afloat come from?  In the coming months, Richard Branson may be dead in the water.

 

[gkbiiii]

Here is some more interesting aspects of how Virgin Voyages & Virgin Galactic (Richard's Space-Force Airline) are effecting his finances. Branson is trying to mortgage, his Caribbean island Necker, which is mentioned below.

 

Lately Branson has reinvested profits and dividends from his various ventures into the cruise ships venture, a chain of American hotels and, above all, his space-travel company Virgin Galactic Holdings Inc. But with millions of people fretting about how to make their next mortgage or car payment, even the jobs created by these new Virgin ventures are no guarantee of winning taxpayer support. His Virgin Galactic stake is worth almost $2 billion by my calculation.(1) Monetizing it might not be easy(2) but as collateral it’s worth much more than Necker.

 

In making his case for a bailout, Branson cited the detrimental impact on competition if his airlines were allowed to fail. He’d be the first to admit, though, that failure is part of being an entrepreneur. If he can’t persuade commercial backers to provide loans, then governments too must drive a hard bargain in exchange for assistance.

 

Unlike Coleridge’s sailor, the similarly gray-bearded Branson might have some drinkable financial water. For now, it happens to be tied up in spaceships.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/richard-branson-doesnt-drop-drink-073028028.html

Edited April 21, 2020 by gkbiiii

[AdoraBelle]

You seem to have, erm, an agenda here.

[ownedbypets]

Bain Capital owns the majority of Virgin Voyages.

[aimee0715]

2 hours ago, AdoraBelle said:

You seem to have, erm, an agenda here.

People love to hate Virgin Voyages. I don't get it.  I'm booked on Richard's Birthday Bash and the August 7 Inaugural.  I'm pessimistic that they will be able to sail in July or August but I hope the line will succeed.  I hope that all the cruise lines will pull out of this. I see so much doom and gloom on these message boards.  It doesn't cost anything to be optimistic.  

[gkbiiii]

Notice that NCL is close to bankruptcy; before it got it's expensive, emergency cash infusion.

[Georgia_Peaches]

On 4/21/2020 at 1:04 PM, aimee0715 said:

People love to hate Virgin Voyages. I don't get it.  I'm booked on Richard's Birthday Bash and the August 7 Inaugural.  I'm pessimistic that they will be able to sail in July or August but I hope the line will succeed.  I hope that all the cruise lines will pull out of this. I see so much doom and gloom on these message boards.  It doesn't cost anything to be optimistic.  

I'm rooting for all of them to suceed as well.  VV doesn't fit our cruising style but the people on this board seem to be so much nicer so maybe we should reconsider.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Georgia_Peaches

[Nymich]

If anyone survives it is Virgin because they only have two ships.  Add to that the fact that they are both brand new.  I see the other lines dumping their older ships if this drags on much longer.  

[Mahogany]

Do you think Valiant Lady will sail?

[kwokpot]

1 hour ago, Mahogany said:

Do you think Valiant Lady will sail?

A real possibility that the ship could be delayed.

[Captain_Morgan]

21 hours ago, Nymich said:

If anyone survives it is Virgin because they only have two ships.  Add to that the fact that they are both brand new.  I see the other lines dumping their older ships if this drags on much longer.  

 

I think this is a bit of wishful thinking to associate the newness of a vessel with the viability of the company which uses it.  If you look at the brand new ships versus a ship that's say 20 years old, the biggest difference apart from the shiny interior/exterior is the fact the older ship is most likely owned outright by the company unlike the new one which is still being financed.

 

From a business perspective, if your main focus is being profitable it goes without saying that if your ship (in this example) is generating 100% profit versus 20% profit (estimate for example sake) it wouldn't make sense to get rid of the guaranteed profit stream in favor of a much reduced one simply because its 'new'.

 

Considering that VV is majority financed by a private equity firm (Bain Capital) its going to be in their best interest to maximize profit which would stand to reason that the longer this venture goes without generating ANY revenue, the better the chances they cut their losses and move on.  Despite what some might want to believe, even the brand recognition of Branson's name stands no chance against a virus that is completely unbiased in who/what it attacks as i'm sure the cruise industry as a whole will come out looking a lot different from when it went in...

[ownedbypets]

8 hours ago, Captain_Morgan said:

 

I think this is a bit of wishful thinking to associate the newness of a vessel with the viability of the company which uses it.  If you look at the brand new ships versus a ship that's say 20 years old, the biggest difference apart from the shiny interior/exterior is the fact the older ship is most likely owned outright by the company unlike the new one which is still being financed.

 

From a business perspective, if your main focus is being profitable it goes without saying that if your ship (in this example) is generating 100% profit versus 20% profit (estimate for example sake) it wouldn't make sense to get rid of the guaranteed profit stream in favor of a much reduced one simply because its 'new'.

 

Considering that VV is majority financed by a private equity firm (Bain Capital) its going to be in their best interest to maximize profit which would stand to reason that the longer this venture goes without generating ANY revenue, the better the chances they cut their losses and move on.  Despite what some might want to believe, even the brand recognition of Branson's name stands no chance against a virus that is completely unbiased in who/what it attacks as i'm sure the cruise industry as a whole will come out looking a lot different from when it went in...

 

Royal Caribbean has said that their newer ships will probably sail first and be more profitable than the older ones. The older ones  are smaller and more compact which doesn't allow for much social distancing. They are also changing the windjammer buffet. Virgin has most of these things already in place. A big plus for them.

[Captain_Morgan]

4 minutes ago, ownedbypets said:

 

Royal Caribbean has said that their newer ships will probably sail first and be more profitable than the older ones. The older ones  are smaller and more compact which doesn't allow for much social distancing. They are also changing the windjammer buffet. Virgin has most of these things already in place. A big plus for them.

 

I agree that larger ships offer better chance for social distancing as there's no way they can fill them and accomplish the same; however, at the same time they're likely still paying for said ships so it would be in their best interest to generate revenue to pay for them as from what I understand they're not doing so well financially.  

 

Comparing that example to a company with one ship in the water, with an unproven concept hardly seems logical

[ownedbypets]

2 minutes ago, Captain_Morgan said:

 

I agree that larger ships offer better chance for social distancing as there's no way they can fill them and accomplish the same; however, at the same time they're likely still paying for said ships so it would be in their best interest to generate revenue to pay for them as from what I understand they're not doing so well financially.  

 

Comparing that example to a company with one ship in the water, with an unproven concept hardly seems logical

 

The logistics of getting one ship up and running is easier than getting 5 or more.

[Nymich]

11 hours ago, Captain_Morgan said:

 

I think this is a bit of wishful thinking to associate the newness of a vessel with the viability of the company which uses it.  

 

Wishful thinking?  You are insinuating that I have wishful thinking about a cruise line?  You my friend have been inside too long.  

 

When this virus subsides into the future we will see whether the lines keep their old ships

versus the newer ones.  (no brainer so stupid to have to respond to a post like this.)

We have you marked down forever El Capitan …….keep all the old ships they are gold.  We will see how your prediction versus mine plays out and what the lines keep.  You like Old Ships I like New Ships...….game on.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Nymich

[Nymich]

3 hours ago, Captain_Morgan said:

 

I agree that larger ships offer better chance for social distancing as there's no way they can fill them and accomplish the same; however, at the same time they're likely still paying for said ships so it would be in their best interest to generate revenue to pay for them as from what I understand they're not doing so well financially.  

 

Comparing that example to a company with one ship in the water, with an unproven concept hardly seems logical

So what VV really needed was OLD Larger ships...…...unreal.

 

Let's add unproven concept to the equation.  Starting to think you are a VV(Branson) hater.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Nymich

[Captain_Morgan]

I am insinuating nothing, short of what you said in your original post, which for the record and a reminder was the following, 

"If anyone survives it is Virgin because they only have two ships.  Add to that the fact that they are both brand new."

If making a statement like that is not wishful thinking, i'm not sure what else to call it as it seems a pretty absolute thing to say about the viability of an unproven product with a single ship in the water doing nothing.

[Nymich]

1 minute ago, Captain_Morgan said:

I am insinuating nothing, short of what you said in your original post, which for the record and a reminder was the following, 

"If anyone survives it is Virgin because they only have two ships.  Add to that the fact that they are both brand new."

If making a statement like that is not wishful thinking, i'm not sure what else to call it as it seems a pretty absolute thing to say about the viability of an unproven product with a single ship in the water doing nothing.

You have the Large Old Ships all cruise lines should follow your expert advice.

[Captain_Morgan]

3 minutes ago, Nymich said:

So what VV really needed was OLD Larger ships...…...unreal.

 

Where did you get that from my statement?  If you actually read what was written you might be able to discern that the point I made was about RCCL being in a less than desirable financial situation and as such it would be in their best interest to use their larger, newer ships which they could theoretically sail at a reduced capacity in order to generate income to help pay them off...

Again, comparing an unknown quantity (VV) to an established and proven brand is illogical but I'm sure that probably means something entirely different to you based on your remarks.

[Nymich]

2 minutes ago, Captain_Morgan said:

 

Where did you get that from my statement?  If you actually read what was written you might be able to discern that the point I made was about RCCL being in a less than desirable financial situation and as such it would be in their best interest to use their larger, newer ships which they could theoretically sail at a reduced capacity in order to generate income to help pay them off...

Again, comparing an unknown quantity (VV) to an established and proven brand is illogical but I'm sure that probably means something entirely different to you based on your remarks.

You said OLD was good you also said large was good.  You said New was bad earlier in your post.

My guess is you are just another VV (Branson) hater.  We have seen your type.

[Captain_Morgan]

1 hour ago, Nymich said:

You said OLD was good you also said large was good.  You said New was bad earlier in your post.

My guess is you are just another VV (Branson) hater.  We have seen your type.

 

Again, parsing words to make an agreeable argument in your own mind....

 

What I said, was the older ships are more than likely paid off which means they are generally going to produce a higher percentage of profit versus a brand new ship which has to be paid off.  I also said that it wouldn't make sense to get rid of a proven revenue stream in response to your baseless claim that old ships will be done away with.  What part of those points entered your brain and came out as the gobbledygook you've written?   

 

As for being a VV/Branson hater, how can I possibly claim that status when I've never met the man, nor have I (or anyone else on this site) sailed on one of their ships?

 

I will leave you to your 'alternate facts' and wish you the best of luck with your re-creating of narratives in order to suit your view...

[garymfreedman]

:)..... For the old line cruise ships, most have put their ships up as collateral for all their loans, so they would be paid off.. Everyone has an opinion on everything and everyone is correct...

[mnocket]

13 hours ago, Captain_Morgan said:

 

I think this is a bit of wishful thinking to associate the newness of a vessel with the viability of the company which uses it.  If you look at the brand new ships versus a ship that's say 20 years old, the biggest difference apart from the shiny interior/exterior is the fact the older ship is most likely owned outright by the company unlike the new one which is still being financed.

 

From a business perspective, if your main focus is being profitable it goes without saying that if your ship (in this example) is generating 100% profit versus 20% profit (estimate for example sake) it wouldn't make sense to get rid of the guaranteed profit stream in favor of a much reduced one simply because its 'new'.

 

Considering that VV is majority financed by a private equity firm (Bain Capital) its going to be in their best interest to maximize profit which would stand to reason that the longer this venture goes without generating ANY revenue, the better the chances they cut their losses and move on.  Despite what some might want to believe, even the brand recognition of Branson's name stands no chance against a virus that is completely unbiased in who/what it attacks as i'm sure the cruise industry as a whole will come out looking a lot different from when it went in...

 

It seems there are some real benefits to the newer ships.  On RCL's earnings conference call, they said that the break even load factor for their newer ships 30% versus 50% for the older ships.  This was based on EIBTDA so ignores your depreciation issue, but still clearly indicates the improve operating efficiency of newer ships.