Airlines in a Crisis

Or rather can he survive without giving up his 11 million bonus. Or should the question be, will he, since it could take him 2 years to make it back. Question is how much does he want to be CEO or is it just the money that drives him. There is surely another company he could rescue from the brink through financial wizardry. Schram, the former CEO of Norwegian lasted 18 months. More because ofthe support of a weak board with litle shareholder backing but at the same time without any shareholder unity or even a strong such. And a chairman without much airline background that maybe of that reason picked a CEO without any at all. As soon as kind of new strong shareholders came in and the chairman that picked him for the CEO role was out, so was he. But is Karlsen what Norwegian needs now. When he came in as CFO he either had any airline background but was a part of the Fredriksen sphere. Fredriksen is again a large shareholder in Norwegian but the time for finanzial wizardry might be vanin

There is the overambitious expansion and desire to play in the big league with big orders for brand new planes, of several different types no less. But others have gone big and succeeded, but maybe not so much in the airline industry that is plagued with protection from your creditors and financial rescues. The transition from the enthusiastic well liked entrepenour to the next CEO is important for most companies. It usually happens because the founder have got out of his depth, or simple become to old. In Norwegian Kjos flew a bit too close to the sun . There is also that the airline was built on a belief of continually better market conditions and no savings for a rainy day. So did they choose an individual with a lot of airline experience and a lot of usefull contacts that could come in with own ideas and change things around from day 1. Not at all. They chose somebody that first spent 3 months learning before he took the reins. And then speculated for another 3 months on how he cou

 There are always some Norwegians willing to buy small amounts of shares just because its an airline and its name is Norwegian. But not that manry and they are not that flush with cash that it will make a difference.  The current majority shareholders, the lease owners, are unvoluntering shareowners and its doubtfull if thwy will go for the same stunt again. And they have expressed that they don't want to own airlines. If they let the floodgates open there could be many other airline in financial need that would pay for their leased aircraft in shares instead of readies. A trade sale or trade investor is always a possibility. If the share price should fall to let#'s say 10 ore or 1 penny the whole share capital could be bought for 300 million nkr or 30 million euro. An investment instead of lets say 50 million nd nulling of the old shares would get you a solid foothold in the Scandinavian market including Scandinavia to the sun/med. Other airlines have done similar investments

Norwegian came out with its may figures today. The only numbers was total flown in May and how many seat kilometers had been offered. That is like comparing grapes and melons. Airlines have somthing to learn from Trump. Instead of focusing on the total number of unemployed in todays press conference he was all about how many had gone back to work. That is a positive number and was taken positively by the stock market. Airlines should do something similar and get used to that this year is different. I'm sure in Europe May's numbers would have compared favourably with April and that is what should have been emphasised. How many more passengers in May than April. How was the load factor on the planes that did fly. How was the payment willingness among they who do fly. How many planes in use compared to total fleet and add to that the percentage number of earlier total staff brought back and what the production was in the same period last year to see the theoretical potential.

Hibernation is not the right path for any airline. Neither planes nor crew nor admin or financials benefits from it. They should: Start to rotate planes so all of them get an airing on a regular basis. Utilize freight opportunities so also 787's can get flight time. Start to rotate pilots so they are all ajour with license requirements and up to date on their flying skills. Negotiate with government for flexible utilization of percentage return to work schemes for all employees. Flexibly add additional later departures for those departures that fill up quickly. It is not like they don't have neither slots, planes or crew available an mass. Look for near future opportunities in other scandinavian countries where governments may not keep their travel advice for foreign travel as restrictive aw Norway. Prepare their spanish bases for Scandinavia to the sun as soon as that and other med countries opens up for summer seasonal travel. This would also placate possible lawsuits l

Over time Norwegian should be split in 2 units under an umbrella managments to purify the single aircraft type principe of a true Low Cost airline. There can be no profitable Low Fares without Low Costs. The short haul (NSH) 737 part should concentratte on servinf te scandi/nordic market where it can capitalize on its namerecognition and customer belongingness. with additional routes from there to sun destinations and other Norwegian long haul hubs. The long haul (NSL) 787 part should be based elshewhere like Dublin or London Gatwick. Together with overall management of both companies. From here it would become the only really independent Low Fares intercontinental airline. All others are just offspring of full service airlines where the core of the company are not really in it 100%. Both parts should initially during the pandemic offer a Sanitized class and a Couldn't Care Less class (see other post) to appeal to the broadest market and get more flying. As time goes on they