Well,
if I were a supplier forced to invest in a significantly expensive type of machinery for one customer exclusively, I would surely draw a long term contract with severe obligations in the case of contract rupture. If AP hasn't done this...eigen schuld dikke bult zeker?
Cargo B financial woes ?
Moderator: Latest news team
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
filou,
The move to LGG was justified by the manager firstly because of the 24/7 opening.
Also that their is no slots, very fast handling, cheap fuel, and cheapest handling charges ... don't know where you found the information saying the opposite, please give sources. Now saying that it would have saved cargo B, it's pure speculation of course. The company was already in bad shape when the decision was made.
I dont think it's necessary to start again the comparison between LGG and BRU, the conclusion is clear and many companies are showing the way
Incentives are part a a good management process. If toyota choose france and not germany to build a new factory, it's the same. If we still get a stupid european heardquarter in Strasbourg, it's the same. It's very common and even most of the time mandatory.
The move to LGG was justified by the manager firstly because of the 24/7 opening.
Also that their is no slots, very fast handling, cheap fuel, and cheapest handling charges ... don't know where you found the information saying the opposite, please give sources. Now saying that it would have saved cargo B, it's pure speculation of course. The company was already in bad shape when the decision was made.
I dont think it's necessary to start again the comparison between LGG and BRU, the conclusion is clear and many companies are showing the way
Incentives are part a a good management process. If toyota choose france and not germany to build a new factory, it's the same. If we still get a stupid european heardquarter in Strasbourg, it's the same. It's very common and even most of the time mandatory.
Last edited by Acid-drop on 03 Jul 2009, 11:42, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
Ofcourse we now that LGG is cheaper but the move from BRU to LGG costs 12 million, that is absolutly to much for a company in bad chape. That is the only reason why this move was a very bad idea of Cargo B.
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
remember it was the only way for Cargo B to continue their business and expand. BRU was not an option anymore. Now, saying tht the mgmt had a bad vision of the future, it's obvious ...
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
They had to wait with this move, 12 mill is really to to much.
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
The eAIP does not mention the landing charges for EBBR, but for EBLG it is 6,11€/ton - a volume based reduction...no info on handling charges though
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
For brussels it's complicatedteddybAIR wrote:The eAIP does not mention the landing charges for EBBR, but for EBLG it is 6,11€/ton - a volume based reduction...no info on handling charges though
http://www.brusselsairport.be/nl/imgs/1 ... ussel2.pdf
I believe there is not take off charge in LGG, only landing charges.
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
Thanks for sharing acid-drop...I had a quick glance at the document...not that complicted, it is just a lot! They even have a CUTE-charge 
For those who don't bother going to browse in the document. Apparently a CUTE charge is a Common Use of Terminal Equipment charge...a mouthful!
For those who don't bother going to browse in the document. Apparently a CUTE charge is a Common Use of Terminal Equipment charge...a mouthful!
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
Oh boy, what will be the next statement, that Cargo B was going to buy B777F??????? What the hell would a cargo company build or invest in facilities on an other airport while Brussels Airport is building Brucargo West exclusively for cargo. Brussels Airport invests in facilities and buildings. The companies only has to rent them. A BIG difference!!!!!!!Acid-drop wrote: About they money, the loan of 1.5 millions may be for the move, and the 12 millions looks more to me like a new investment plan in LGG ... building new office buildings, new warehouse, all that ... but since they didnt have the chance to move, this money was not used, so this has nothing to do with the bankrupsy
Announcing a move was the final drop for Cargo B. The accusation, noise restrictions, that the planes were not flying enough was just not true at all. With only two planes and routes to Afrika and South America they just were not able to fly more.
BTW is it normal that you have one plane as a back up????? I'm not surprised that the money is burned.
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
Atlantis : the move was profitable for many others companies. This has been proven good by others, so why no try ... in good economic conditions, it was the right decision to make. It just came too late.
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
Acid-drop wrote:Atlantis : the move was profitable for many others companies. This has been proven good by others, so why no try ... in good economic conditions, it was the right decision to make. It just came too late.
And which are those "many others" and "proven good by others"? As far as I know only ET is moved from BRU to LGG but then you can't compare. And still then you can fly years with red figures. Remember Sabena. How do you think that El Al cargo is flying?!
ET cargo was already an excisting cargo company with a good network and was flying with smaller aircraft!! They were flying to AMS with B757 and moved away to BRU. Also using their B757 and sometimes (jan - feb) a B747. They are now flying with a mixed long haul fleet of B757 and MD11. They had a solid base what we can't say of Cargo B who started right away with B747-200 and later B747-400.
Again: you don't move your ops to an other airport because its some euros cheaper and invest in that airport 12 million euro. What will be your return of investment?
There was something else what we still don't know and maybe never know.
Will they return in time? I doubt it. I don't think that we will see soon back a Belgian cargo company. And when there will be one they should start with smaller, multiple and modern aircraft AND flights to Africa.
-
NCB
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
I don't think that a simple move can cost 12 million.
You move your aircraft, you give up some contracts here and there and you make new ones.
12 million is more like a long-term number... you can build your own airport with that kind of money, so I don't think that Cargo B has spent much of that money yet.
I think that an insurance company must compensate, depending on the terms of the insurance contract, the loss of aircraft revenue for the period it was U/S until repairs are made (within reasonable time limits) or in case of scrap, until a suitable replacement aircraft is found/provided (within reasonable time limits).
24 million euro is not much capital for a B747 operation.
Every 20 hour operating day is at least a quarter million euro per aircraft gamble.
All good and well if you can fill the aircraft with very high yield cargo and fly it full from your first day of operation. Unfortunately it's not easy to find customers willing to pay at least 2.5€/kg and willing to send 100 tons of that on a daily basis for all operated routes. Of course there is very high-yielding light cargo but if that's part of your target market, you don't need B744's right from the start.
For the freighter fans, it is rumoured that TNT will be the first to get the converted A320F's in 2011 to replace their B737/Bae fleet.
You move your aircraft, you give up some contracts here and there and you make new ones.
12 million is more like a long-term number... you can build your own airport with that kind of money, so I don't think that Cargo B has spent much of that money yet.
I think that an insurance company must compensate, depending on the terms of the insurance contract, the loss of aircraft revenue for the period it was U/S until repairs are made (within reasonable time limits) or in case of scrap, until a suitable replacement aircraft is found/provided (within reasonable time limits).
24 million euro is not much capital for a B747 operation.
Every 20 hour operating day is at least a quarter million euro per aircraft gamble.
All good and well if you can fill the aircraft with very high yield cargo and fly it full from your first day of operation. Unfortunately it's not easy to find customers willing to pay at least 2.5€/kg and willing to send 100 tons of that on a daily basis for all operated routes. Of course there is very high-yielding light cargo but if that's part of your target market, you don't need B744's right from the start.
For the freighter fans, it is rumoured that TNT will be the first to get the converted A320F's in 2011 to replace their B737/Bae fleet.
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
I've seen many companies coming and going. The laws and regs are the same for all. A company can only be as good as their managers. Investors are only interested in numbers. If they're not right - they often even pay more to eject to prevent loosing it all. Some good points posted here earlier.
We will probably never get the true details for this bankruptcy but it's been cooking at cargoB for quite a while (almost since the beginning). There has been a cash problem for sometime. The route structure did not need brand new -400s. The old classic was flying the same routings on some sectors probably even cheaper after fuel prices droped again last winter.
And with all due respect, moving a company for 12.000.000,- sounds very corrupt to me.
There're a number of jobs for 744 crews but not based in Europe (Jade, Yangtze, Atlanta). For F/Os I would suggest Cargolux.
Good luck!
We will probably never get the true details for this bankruptcy but it's been cooking at cargoB for quite a while (almost since the beginning). There has been a cash problem for sometime. The route structure did not need brand new -400s. The old classic was flying the same routings on some sectors probably even cheaper after fuel prices droped again last winter.
And with all due respect, moving a company for 12.000.000,- sounds very corrupt to me.
There're a number of jobs for 744 crews but not based in Europe (Jade, Yangtze, Atlanta). For F/Os I would suggest Cargolux.
Good luck!
-
Established02
- Posts: 1625
- Joined: 16 Oct 2002, 00:00
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
Cargo B in vereffening
http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail. ... 090706_040
http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail. ... 090706_040
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
Indeed, they Board has choosen for liquidation, and not for bankruptcy (the liquidator they've appointed is a well respected lawyer, by the way).Established02 wrote:Cargo B in vereffening
http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail. ... 090706_040
Reason for the liquidation, according to De Standaard and De Tijd: "we expect much more payments then we have outstanding invoices to pay".
However, the own Cargo B invoices have been used to convince KBC Bank that the overdue on the bank account would only be temporary. Kuijpers now says that the incoming payments will be used to pay the dismissal fees for the staff. I doubt that KBC Bank and other debtors will agree with the liquidation.
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
Two other updates:
1) Cargo B was going to postpone the move from BRU to LGG with one month: July -> August
2) Most strange rumour: the Walloon government stepped down. They had at the last moment no intention to invest in Cargo B!! That was the moment were KBC decided to pull out of the company.
What is right and what is wrong, I don't know.
1) Cargo B was going to postpone the move from BRU to LGG with one month: July -> August
2) Most strange rumour: the Walloon government stepped down. They had at the last moment no intention to invest in Cargo B!! That was the moment were KBC decided to pull out of the company.
What is right and what is wrong, I don't know.
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
the strange rumour is to me that the walloon gov wanted to invest in the company.
The only official info so far was a 1.5M loan. That's not what we could call an investment.
Seems that all actors finally agreed (sadly) : Cargo B was not a viable company anymore
The only official info so far was a 1.5M loan. That's not what we could call an investment.
Seems that all actors finally agreed (sadly) : Cargo B was not a viable company anymore
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
Belgian aviation is really a small world.
Ilse Van de Mierop, the liquidator appointed by Cargo B, is lawyer/partner at DLA Piper, international lawyers. One of her colluegues at DLA Piper (also partner) is ... Christian Van Buggenhout.
http://www.dlapiper.com/nl/global/people/
Ilse Van de Mierop, the liquidator appointed by Cargo B, is lawyer/partner at DLA Piper, international lawyers. One of her colluegues at DLA Piper (also partner) is ... Christian Van Buggenhout.
http://www.dlapiper.com/nl/global/people/
Re: Cargo B financial woes ?
Acid-drop, I believe you should wake up slowly and open your eyes to the LGG reality...
Firts of all, landing and take off is not cheaper than BRU. Surely not on the official rates; The fact that LGG offers enourmous incentives is something else, but as such the L/TO's are higher than BRU.
Handling as such is absolutely not better neither. Talk to airlines who are being handled at LGG, and you will hear that the quality is poor, and much poorer than other places in Europe. Also here, the official rates are approx the same than elsewhere; But again, as the airport/govmt offers an incentive sometimes worth free inbound handling, it can make it intresting.
Last but not least, as far as I know, only one company did the move, being ET, and they admitted to do it puerly for the money they get from the airport/govermt.
Just FYI, can you protect an airports who's own turnover is 14 M Euro, who's support by the Wallon Govermt is 17 M Euro, to have a revenue of 31 M Euro, to support costs of 29 M Euro ??? and finally end with just over 2 m Euro' profit ? Receiving 17 M support to cover all the extra costs ?????
And you still honestly look in someones elses eyes and say to do agree with this kind of business ????? Is this doing business ????? Believe I have anyother idea than, as with every "newcomer" they would have, any Belgium citizen will see more of his taxes disappear to this kind of support...think about this please...
Firts of all, landing and take off is not cheaper than BRU. Surely not on the official rates; The fact that LGG offers enourmous incentives is something else, but as such the L/TO's are higher than BRU.
Handling as such is absolutely not better neither. Talk to airlines who are being handled at LGG, and you will hear that the quality is poor, and much poorer than other places in Europe. Also here, the official rates are approx the same than elsewhere; But again, as the airport/govmt offers an incentive sometimes worth free inbound handling, it can make it intresting.
Last but not least, as far as I know, only one company did the move, being ET, and they admitted to do it puerly for the money they get from the airport/govermt.
Just FYI, can you protect an airports who's own turnover is 14 M Euro, who's support by the Wallon Govermt is 17 M Euro, to have a revenue of 31 M Euro, to support costs of 29 M Euro ??? and finally end with just over 2 m Euro' profit ? Receiving 17 M support to cover all the extra costs ?????
And you still honestly look in someones elses eyes and say to do agree with this kind of business ????? Is this doing business ????? Believe I have anyother idea than, as with every "newcomer" they would have, any Belgium citizen will see more of his taxes disappear to this kind of support...think about this please...