Ladybird to go

Heard yesterday that Virgin Atlantic are planning to sell 'Ladybird' (G-VAST) one of their LGW based 747's, just wondered if anyone has anymore information on this as I heard it because I know somebody who works at Virgin but they didn't have much information on it.
What impact will this have on the LGW fleet? because they have a tight enough schedule at the moment at LGW. And has anyone got any more information on this?

Thanks,

Not heard a thing about VS selling G-VAST I'm afraid.

[Neil]

Aren't the a/c leased anyway and not actually owned by VS? I am also sure I read not too long ago that Virgin had just extended the lease on them.

It would seem a strange decision at the moment, with 5 x daily MCO's to operate throughout the summer and the Caribbean routes, it doesn't seem to make any sense really.

[RichardMannion]

Man I loved those books as a child....

[Scrooge]

quote:Originally posted by Neil
Aren't the a/c leased anyway and not actually owned by VS?


I thought so, anyone have anymore info ?

quote:Originally posted by RichardMannion
Man I loved those books as a child....


I would comment, but will wait for Paul to pull the trigger.

The CAA list G-VAST as owned, so could just be a sell & lease back deal. Wouldn't have thought it was a good time to sell a B744, there are a few pax versions plus a few BCF's in the desert!!!

[Nottingham Nick]

Fred

You say 'you heard'. Was your source a credible one?

It is always better if gossip is sourced. That way, those in the know can make a better comment about its reliability.

Nick

It was mentioned in a meeting the other day.

They might be selling it purely to get it off the books and lease it back. Lease rates being very favourable at the moment, this is possibly just a financial decision that will have no impact on operations.

As long as they fix the knackered seats if they do lease it back!

[buns]

quote:Originally posted by RichardMannion
Man I loved those books as a child....


Why the past tense[}:)]

Come to think of it, putting things simply with excellent artwork is not such a bad thing.

Buns

[Nottingham Nick]

quote:Originally posted by Fred
It was mentioned in a meeting the other day.


Thanks, that makes it clear, then. [?][:D]

Nick

I think G-VAST might be owned? If its a -41R then VS own it. If its a -4Q8 then its leased. Cant remember which one it is though.

I really doubt this a/c will go in the near furture, as we know the LGW a/c are constantly in use?

What do used 747s go for nowadays? $10-15m? More? If VS were in a real cash crunch I could see fire sales of owned aircraft and leaseback ... possibly ... but it does sound odd and if true then VS is in a real pickle. I err therefore on rumour without substantiation.

[Scrooge]

I would think that for a 2001 744 the price would be higher, no real idea how much higher, but that does sound low.

If you sit back and think about it for a minute, as I alluded to in another thread, I can see the 346's being moved over to LGW in the next 5 years, so a sale with a short term lease back does kind of make sense.
That would put all the LGW 744's on roughly the same lease terms and allow a quick transition over to the 346's as the 789's start arriving.

If they have found a company willing to give a good price then this is a pretty sound move on VS's part ([:0]) it allows them to generate some significant income while setting themselves up for the new fleet off aircraft coming their way.

Selling a large asset such as aircraft isn't generally for realisation of cash - depreciation is pretty steep at certain points of its life so it is not going to be 'worth' much.

Its possibly a combination of Operational, balance sheet, P&L and tax issues that could be cause for a sale - converting asset interest expense to lease interest expense might be more favourable for tax/accounting, they may want to match VS operational requirements to the rest of the fleet, or the company simply wants to remove some debt from its books for BS/hedging reasons.

Although 'owned' is a bit like 'owning' a house, still has a mortgage/loan against it.

Perhaps just a bit of 'crewroom gossip' or the aircraft going into short term storage (as happened with the B742's in the past)!!

quote:Originally posted by hairy114
I think G-VAST might be owned? If its a -41R then VS own it. If its a -4Q8 then its leased. Cant remember which one it is though.


Remember that the Boeing 'customer number' indicates the organisation which placed the initial order for the aircraft, and not the organisation which initially owned the aircraft.

For example, G-VWOW and G-VROC were both ordered by, and new to, VS and so were -41Rs, but were leased from day one.

The -4Q8s will have been ordered by ILFC, even though the four -4Q8s that VS fly (FAB, HOT, BIG and TOP) were with VS from new.

Mike

quote:Originally posted by Denzil
Although 'owned' is a bit like 'owning' a house, still has a mortgage/loan against it.


Exactly. Whilst we can simplify this for these boards, without actually seeing the documentation for the finance etc it is very hard to understand exactly what VS is doing.

Or now that the A330 has been announced perhaps a trade in to Airbus!!! Not heard of Airbus doing this, but Boeing did in the past (SQ A343's).

[Scrooge]

When you try and trade in a leased aircraft for a new aircraft it has been known for the lessor to become a little annoyed !

Except VS own this one!

[Scrooge]

quote:Originally posted by Denzil
Except VS own this one!


Darn it, I had it in my head they they sold it and leased it back !

Oh well sell away then [:p]

btw, if you ever get bored and wish to read an amazing little tale of someone who did manage to sell a leased plane, well link

quote:Originally posted by Scrooge
quote:Originally posted by Denzil
Except VS own this one!


Darn it, I had it in my head they they sold it and leased it back !

Oh well sell away then [:p]

btw, if you ever get bored and wish to read an amazing little tale of someone who did manage to sell a leased plane, well link


Wow, what a checkered history! Couldn't believe the japanese Hostage contract that he tried to wriggle out because he said the mission was illegal, duh, it was illegal why enter the contract!

But he makes Conrad Black and Robert Maxwell look like saints.