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 is. Yes they fly from many different airports, but being based at or close to one of them mean they can keep a closer eye on operations, streamline it to profitability at that airport with sample rules an add on sales, and then transfer the concept to the other airports they fly to.

In the end it will come down to if a background in crew rent out managment was enough to lead an airline to profitability. Plenty of contacts nd ability o get togther initial financing, yes, but willing to get into the nitty gritty details when one have a fancy title ? Dig out all the necessary cost savings by twisting the accepted rule book ? Stand out in front as the outrageous and sometimes comical representative for the brand ?

Norse needs to come up with a plan changed enough to excite possible investors into believing there is a way to profit for the company, one last time. And that this time the future is not about selling to another airline.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 exit
Read more

When is a bolt not a bolt

When its a set screw A set screw is fully threaded while a bolt is only partially threaded. (And yes a set screw has a head. If no head its called a grub screw.) This means a bolt fits better and thighter in its holes than a set screw does. A set screw only have the sideways or bending strength of a bolt 1 size down.  A bolt can only be thigthened to a certain point because it runs out of threads. Who knows if Spirit used set screws securing the plugs on a couple of planes because they ran out of the correctly sized bolts and expected Boeing to redo them anyway. Impossible to see/inspect unless you draw/remove the item in question. Or the head is stamped with a part number and you can see the head. Should Boeing have overengineered it so that a bolt also was covered by a sleeve that double secured the bolt wasn't overtightened and drew the frames closer, weakening them in the progress. A sleeve would also protect the bolt from the roller pins it was supposed to keep in place consta
Read more

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 concent
Read more