@davewil1964 wrote:
As I said, the employees on TV didn't seem to have high morale, so your supposition is, at best, optimistic.
A CEO earning multi-millions of dollars per annum is much more likely to have enough reserves to maintain their lifestyle than a worker on award wages. Who won't be being paid if Virgin go belly up. And a leaner Virgin means that many of them will be unemployed.
My point is backed up, at least in part, by facts.
Yours is backed up by a CEO's spin.
You mistake being upset with degree of morale , which is simplistic
My supposition was based upon the public image of the company employees - and as I mentioned if the proceedings have as an objective " Austalianisation" rather than insolvency then they have continued reason to have a bright future
Whether wealthy or struggle E-lister people tend to live within their means without much in reserve relatively speaking - the wealthy have ongoing overheads that the poorer can not afford - so was clearly trite your sweeping assumption of somehow shady of intent extravagant cash reserves ( not anyones business anyhow)
Staff will get what they are entitled to but as is an essential service i can confidently say that many jobs with be preserved if they keep their cool ( maybe a different airline company but someone has to do the work)
' leaner" another presumption of yours - who can say not , that if in the end the new organisation expands operations then likely more efficient ( as I suspect is top heavy) but in the end the same number or even more employed. ? Why limit the possibilities with a negative assumption ?
You said nothing that was backed by facts - only your interpretation of viewing fleeting TV reports
The CEO has good cause to be optimistic - unlike you I have lived through a similar multi-national company implosion , with similar operating dynamics and Govt / company influences , so I have a little experience to read between the lines and so easily entertain some of the possibilities
