Airlines in a Crisis

The cleanup after Flyr has brought to the front a number of ways the airline wasted its investors money. A number of staff had fancifull titles whcih point to an overflow of staff that wasn't completely necessary for a small startup company. Lots of VP's under the Chief level. Maybe some of the urge to comit to more planes was due to an overhiring of well titled staff that needed someone to manage which could only be justified by becoming a larger airline.  Where the ex-Norwegian managmenet building the backoffice of the new airline Flyr based on what the much larger airline Norwegian had. An airline that also went under unable to manage its debt or comitments, before being resurrected. A plane needs sa certain amount of pilots and cabinstaff to fly a certain schedule. It is the backoffice saving are to be had. Just as many staff in the back as flying staff seems excessive. Specially when one knows large parts of its ground handling and maintenance were outsourced A lot of effo

The extra cash burn to prepare for the leases did indeed end Flyr. Instead of doing what they could to make money immediately they put theit hope in a deal that was to bring income in a summer they never reached. The 250 million nkr they got in in new finances last autumn should have been seen as a possible last gasp for the company. Specially since its founder and chairman Braathen said that that was the last 10 million he would bring to the table. That was a signal the company should have known would make future planned founding rounds difficult. Instead of seeing it as a last chance and doing something radically different they continued as before with an internal promotion to CEO that gave none whatsoever rise in share price. A bit of saving where negated by extra spending months before any potential wet lease income would appear in the accounts. A desperate ploy to sell futures to the market that did not appease shareolders for the shareprice to go above the crucial 1 norwegian øre

The board of SAS a traditional networks airline with a service, is about to pick a new CEO and thereby indirectly deciding on what kind of airline they want the company to be in the future.  Al Baker the boss of Qatar airways wich is a 35% investor in IAG the parentcompany of BA commented in an article in the Sunday Times yesterday that the management of BA under Cruz leadership lost sight of what made BA. It became a penny pinching airline that where selling food instead of serving food. Is that what SAS owners wants with their airline. A low fares competitor that instead of competing with route network, connections and non-quareling service sees price as their most important factor. In that case they will get plenty of competition in the Scandinavian market with Wizz, Norwegian, Ryanair and newcomers Flyr and long haul Norse all ready for a race to the bottom. However I doubt all Scandinavians look only to price when it comes to picking their mode of air travel. Plenty of people with

Now when the main subject of my last article has taken the consequences and partly thrown in the towel we can speculate on if Norwegian have a future as an independent airline. CityJet might have come out of its protction as a leaner and stronger ailine, maybe, but they where a very small airline, a shadow of their former self already, with a well connected Irish businessman founder/leader and some guaranteed income wetleas contracts in their pocket. They came out of the process as an airline that no longer sell seats or fly scheduled routes under their own name. Surprised O'Leary  haven't made an appearance regarding Norwegian going lets call a spade a spade, bust. Ireland has a very small and concentrated aviation environment and those leasing companies that have planes at Norwegian have a lot more at Ryanair. In addition to that most of them grew out of the Ryanair original owner Tony Ryan's own leasing company. And many in the circuit including overseers onece worked fo

Scandinavian Airline Systems divulged today that its its share owner value at the end of the quarter were -65 million Skr and the company is technically bust. That explains why it didn't take up the loan offer from the Norwegian government that demanded a ownership ratio of 8%.The swedish and danish loans can then neither been seen as normal business loans since they where given to a company with in reality no share holder funds whatsoever. 65 million Skr might not be such a large sum for an airline, but normally one would adjust sample the Goodwill account to see too that one at least was on the postive side with shareholder funds. Have the company maximized the crisis for the purpose of gaining political momentum for their bailouts, to such an extent they are in legally murky waters. Even though they are going for a crisis issue of new shares it doesn't change the fact that in the meantime the company is being run for the creditors money. Is this the new normal. As long