Has SAS management done enough deals for the airline to ever again make any profit

SAS has again proven that they despite all their renegotiated deals with staff and suppliers can't make money with the current debth mountain. Which they probably ain't paying on anyway these days. Question is how then will that change when/if they come out of chapter 11.

Another negative month was announced by SAS. Quarter of a billion swedish krona they losst in September after -638 million in August. That is better on approx the same income but still a way to go. And another reduction in liquid cash. Wonder if the winning bidder let SAS management ringfence some of that for ch11 exit bonuses. 

From this month income will reduce even more into the winter season. Question is will the outgoings reduce accordingly. Doubtfull since almost all airlines loose money in the winter season, meaning their outgoings don't reduce as much as the downfall in their income. That SAS should do better is beyond even the fantasies of the largest optimists. 

What SAS need is some more concentration on operations and freight. Meaning generate more income. Top managements concentration on better deals, for the company, with employees and suppliers, plus financial acrobatics har run its course and given what it has given. Now its time to get serious about the nitty gritty of running an airline. 

It will be another 6 to 8 months before we see if SAS forward have an impact at all. Meaning SAS is due to exit chapter 11 without producing any profit first. And being supported by an airline that isn't either making profit. 

We still have to see if their new suitors actually come up with any money. So far they have just wanted money from SAS without actually commiting to giving any. No wonder the financier for SAS during the chapter 11 process that did not win the bid for taking SAS into the future, is nervous about getting anything of their loan back. So much so that they have attempted to block even a modest 3 mill outlay from SAS to the winning consortium.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is this the endgame for Norse, not necessarily

Norse have again announced that they need another capital injection. This time it might be different because last time they needed money the ceo and large owner Larsen said that it was the last time he injected more from own funds. Thi reminds me of the endgame ein Flyr where major investor Braathen said something similar in the autumn. When they agin needed money the following Januar nobody came forward and that was the end for an airline that could have been saved after the October refill with some major mangement changes that could have implemented even stricter cost savings, found income immediately and not paid out cash  immediately for possible charter incomes in the future. If Norse turns to more subleasing out of planes or charters they need to ensure that there will be upfront payments because it will mean upfront costs. Difficuolt concept for underfinanced charterers but rquired for an airline on the brink. Norse management also need to be based closer to where the action...
Read more

When will Boeing's new chief get around to solving problems instead of letting new ones happen

So far the new Boeing CEO is not standing out as a problem solver. His first couple of months has more been a deepening of the Boeing rut. Maybe his immediate and well announced (partial) relocation to Seattle was not such a smart move after all. It certainly have given the machinists the guts to demand back stuff they gave up 10 years ago because Boeing then threatened to move more production away from the area. He needs to be careful with letting his division leutenants run the show by playing hardball with the unions at a time when Boeing needs to ramp up production, not let it grind to a halt altogether. They may have more experience from within Boeing and been seen by the previous CEO as leading lights but it is time for a new regime. The previous one created and proeeded with more trouble than it was worth for both customers and the company itself. Boeing might be too critical to the for all practical purposes duopoly in passenger plane making in the western world, but that deepl...
Read more

Questionmarks over how Boeing saved costs when using plug instead of door

 What on the overwing exits stop them physically from being opened by a passenger with poor survival instincts during flight and did Boeing design engineers remove this safety mechanism from instructions for when installing a plug instead of a door. What other safety features did they omit on the grounds of cost saving in the design for using a door plug instead of a real emergency exit.  Normal cabin doors can't be opened during flight by design since they swing forward into the wind. There are few comments around on how this door (when installed) pivots. Is it up like the overwing exits or is it down since with such a small door there are probably no self inflating slide like the normal cabin doors. Or is it left or right. On the 737-200 the emergency exit overwing door came out loose and into the cabin. On the 737-NG-800 they swing up and out of the way. I doubt it just is pushed out and fall down because that could damage it during testing / maintenance. Would the overwing...
Read more