Accounting Framework of Virgin &Qantas Airways-Samples for Students

Question: Discuss about the Accounting Framework of Virgin Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways. Answer: Introduction JetStar is recognised as a brand under Qantas Airways and is recognised as one of the most low-cost Airline operator in Australia. JetStar as an individual is responsible to carry 8.5% passengers in Australia. It has been further seen that the main operations of the airline company is based on the extensive home and international network operating from Melbourne. The main fleet of the operator is further identified with Airbus A320 and Boeing 787 Dreamliner (Qantas.com. 2017). Virgin Australia Airlines is considered as the next largest to Qantas Airways. The airline operator is further seen to be considered in Bowen Hills in Brisbane. The company has been seen to be established in 1999 and considered to operate on a single route. Since this, the airline carrier is able to expand itself in 29 cities operating in areas mainly in Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney (Virginatlantic.com. 2017). The main purpose of the study has been seen in terms of depicting the appropriate accounting framework and check whether the associated standard has been able to comply with the standard requirement. The main assumptions of the study have been further able to introduce the prudence concept to make access for the possible disparity in the reporting standards. The main considerations of the report have been considered based on the report pertaining to annual general meeting, tangible and intangible asset. The latter part of the report has been further able to focus on the different types of the reasons for the investors to decide on the investment decisions in the respective companies. Conceptual framework of Accounting for both the companies The main form of the conceptual framework of the accounting standard is considered based on the AASB and Corporations Act 2001. Based on the financial statement assessment has been considered in the financial statements of both Virgin Australia Airlines and Jetstar Airways as per the historical cost considerations. There has been exception indentified particularly in the areas where assets and liabilities need to be assessed as per the areas and the fair value of the specific accounting policies (Jiang and Penman 2013). The conceptual framework has been further seen to be considered based on the revenue recognition with AASB 118 Revenue, AASB 111 Construction Contracts and Interpretation 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes. However, the new standard which is based on AASB 15 Revenue from contracts with the customers is considered to replace the existing standards along with the new date of implementation stated in the annual reporting period on or after 1st January 2018. It has been further seen that the company has been able to consider the determination of the fact with the replacement of the existing standard AASB 117 for leases and revise the framework based on AASB 16. AASB 136: Impairment of Assets has been taken into account for the impairment of assets recognition and the financial guarantees which has been further seen to be considered as per AASB 137 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets. Prudence theory applied in both the companies The general application of the prudence has been able to state that none of the companies has been able to overestimate the revenue amount. Jetstar and Virgin Australia Airlines have been further seen to associate the conceptualisation of prudence in their respective financial reports. This has been particularly evident with the conservative aspect of asset recording and non underestimation of the liabilities. The financial statements of the company have been further seen to be considered as per the consideration with probable transactions. The vital aspect of the prudence theory has been seen to take place as per the probable transactions. Based on the important conceptualisation of prudence the it has been discerned that both the companies are yet to adopt AASB 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers (AASB 15) and AASB 16 Leases (AASB 16), in addition to this, the company has been further seen to be sure about the replacement of the existing standards. To test the viability of the method, both the respective companies have been able to decide on the effective implementation date of the standards considered on or after 1 January 2018. Moreover, The Company has been further seen to decide on the test of new method as per the recognition of the leases and adopt the implementation of the new standard on or after 1 January 2019. The different types of the standard of the various types of considerations has been influenced and depicted as per the regular review of the assets and the rationale for the decreasing values of the same. In general the most important concept of prudence has been applied by not writing off the values associated to the fixed assets (Jiang and Penman 2013). Criteria followed for financial data Total Assets- The aggregate assets for Qantas Airways is observed to be $ 17708 m in 2016, whereas the main consideration for the total assets of Virgin Australia Airlines has been identified to be $ 6886.9 m in 2016. In addition to this, Virgin Australia is not identified to consist of any contingent liabilities as that 30 June 2016. Based on the data evaluations of Qantas Airways Ltd, the different type of the benefits for the Airlines Company is measured as per fair value of plan assets less the present value. The important considerations for the preparation of the financial statements of Virgin Australia has been further seen to be considered based on the application of the allocation of the assets which has been considered as per fair value treatment (Leong and Kavanagh 2013). Tangible Assets and Intangible Assets- It has been seen that in general Qantas Airways has been able to determine that the various types of the intangible and the tangible assets has been considered based on the evaluation of the non-current tangible assets , which has been seen to be considered as per the revenue generated in recoverable amount of the assets. The intangible assets have been further seen to be considered based on the different types of the evaluation of the data as per impairment losses less cost. The several types of the other methods which has been seen to be applicable for the various types of the consideration for the useful and the residual life of the assets has been further seen to be considered as per the date of reporting. The main form of the asset considered as per the indefinite lives and has been further seen not to be taken onto consideration for the impairment of the assets on an annual basis (Qantas.com.au. 2017). Depreciation- The various types of the consideration for the depreciation have been seen to be based on the various types of evaluation which has been related to the straight line basis for PPE except for freehold land. In addition to this, the rate of depreciation which is owned by the assets has been further seen to be considered based on the various types of the evaluation as per the calculation of the valuation cost and residual value of the estimated useful value of the life of the assets. The acquisition date and internally constructed assets has been mainly considered for the estimation of the depreciation on the assets. The assets which have been considered for the various types of the evaluation based on the financial leases are depreciated for the appropriate sum which has been able to consider the ownership to do so (Birton et al. 2015). In a similar way the amortisation and the depreciation of the assets for Virgin Airlines have been considered as per the date on which they have been held for sale. The various types of the theories associated to the depreciation of the property has been further seen to be considered based on the various types of the consideration of what has been mainly based on the depreciation of the property plant and equipment is further seemed to be stated as per cost less accumulated depreciation and impairment losses. Similar to the considerations made for Qantas Airways, Virgin Airlines has been able to recognise the depreciation amount as per straight line basis and estimate the usefulness of the with the residual value and useful life (Zhang and Andrew 2014). Rationale for the shareholders investing in the companies Some of the main highlights based on the directors statement have been able to consider the rationale for the shareholder to invest in both the companies. As per the report published in Virgin Airlines, the revenue of the company has been based on the various types of the evaluation of the increase in form of $4,749.2 million to $5,021.0 million. The main consideration based on the comparative report has been further seen to be considered as per the increase in the net operating expenditure from $4,802.7 million to $5,278.7 million. This has been particularly considered to be negative for the company. The aforementioned aspects of the report have been seen to be helpful for the investment decisions in Virgin Airlines (Manes Rossi, Aversano and Christiaens 2014). The statement of CEO has been able to consider the various types of the implication which has been considered as per the annual report of 2016. The group is seen to be having a significant amount of contribution for the financial performance which has been seen to be evident based on the increasing operating margin and further recognised as per the EBIT for Jetstar Group, Qantas Loyalty, Qantas International and Qantas Domestic. In general, it has been seen that the more than two third of the earnings of the group has been considered based on the portfolio strategy, loyalty business and international operations. The investors need to look forward to increase the PBT from $ 975 m in 2015 to $ 1532 in 2016. Based on the financial consideration of both the companies, it can be assumed that the operating expenditure has been observed with a better choice than the latter considerations (Bauer, OBrien and Saeed 2014). Conclusion The various types of the discussions of the report have been taken into account based on the present accounting framework of both Qantas Airways and Virgin Airlines. The study has further shown whether the financial report has been able to comply with the requirement in the associated standard. The main assumptions of the conceptual framework of the study have been further seen to be considered based on the different types of the consideration as per the conceptual framework of AASB and Corporations Act 2001. For both Qantas Airways and Virgin Airlines the financial statement has been based on the standards which have been prescribed by Corporations Act 2001 and AASB. The prudence theory has been further adopted in both the companies with the non compliance of AASB 16 Leases (AASB 16). The main rationale for the investors to invest is due to the increasing nature of revenue and operating margin. References Bauer, A. M., OBrien, P. C. and Saeed, U. (2014) Reliability Makes Accounting Relevant: A Comment on the IASB Conceptual Framework Project, Accounting in Europe, 11(2), pp. 211217. doi: 10.1080/17449480.2014.967789. Birton, M. N. A., Triyuwono, I., Mulawarman, A. D. and Rahman, A. F. (2015) Theory of Shariahization on Conceptual Accounting Framework: A Substantive Theory, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 211, pp. 723730. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.093. Jiang, G. and Penman, S. (2013) A fundamentalist perspective on accounting and implications for accounting research, China Journal of Accounting Research, 6(4), pp. 233245. doi: 10.1016/j.cjar.2013.08.002. Leong, R. and Kavanagh, M. (2013) A work-integrated learning (WIL) framework to develop graduate skills and attributes in an Australian universitys accounting program, Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 14(1), pp. 114. Manes Rossi, F., Aversano, N. and Christiaens, J. (2014) IPSASBs Conceptual Framework: Coherence with Accounting Systems in European Public Administrations, International Journal of Public Administration, 37(8), pp. 456465. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2014.903269. Qantas.com.au. (2017). [online] Available at: https://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/corporateGovernance/2016AnnualReport.pdf [Accessed 11 Aug. 2017]. Qantas.com. (2017).Our Company | Qantas. [online] Available at: https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/company/global/en [Accessed 11 Aug. 2017]. Virginaustralia.com. (2017). [online] Available at: https://www.virginaustralia.com/cs/groups/internetcontent/@wc/documents/webcontent/~edisp/2016-asx-financial-report.pdf [Accessed 11 Aug. 2017]. Zhang, Y. and Andrew, J. (2014) Financialisation and the Conceptual Framework, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(1), pp. 1726. doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2012.11.012.