Improved BIAC results for 2003

Post by **airbuske** » 31 Mar 2004, 12:43

Brussels airport operator BIAC achieved top line growth and improved profitability in 2003, showing that the cost cutting and recovery measures taken by BIAC after the events of autumn 2001 have paid off. However the achieved profitability remains below the standards of the airport industry.

The number of passengers grew by 5.2 %, while freight volume increased by 13.1%. Overall consolidated turnover grew by 6 % to € 271.4 million.

Quality improvement has been one of the major goals of 2003. Efforts made in collaboration with all partners at the airport resulted in an overall improvement of quality, and this has been recognised in recent surveys of passengers and airlines. Improvements are such that Brussels Airport is now ranked amongst the most punctual major European airports.

BIAC's Board of Directors reviewed on Wednesday March 17 the final accounts of the company for 2003, summarised in the table hereinafter.

Consolidated results

2003 2002
millions EUR millions EUR
Turnover 271.4 256.1
EBITDA 106.9 98.2
Operating profit 42.1 30.1
Financial result (12.4) (15.1)
Extraordinary result (1.4) (12.0)
Result before tax 28.3 3.0
Net consolidated result 18.9 0.2

BIAC achieved strong growth in aeronautical activities up 11.5 % to € 169.8 million, reflecting the recovery of the industry.

Although there was a small decline in commercial revenues down 3.5 % to € 101.6 million, this reflects amongst other things the impact of cessation of the electricity supply activity as a result of the liberalisation of the Belgian electricity market (with a commensurate reduction on BIAC's cost base), and continued efforts of users and concessionaires of the airport to bring their own costs down in line with the current activity levels at Brussels airport.

BIAC held costs of various services and goods to a limited increase of 2.2 % from € 99.4 million in 2002 to € 101.6 million. This evolution reflects the continuous efforts in sustainable cost reduction, although the costs related to Pier A were for the first time taken into account for a full year.

Labour cost amounted to € 50.34 million, an increase of 7.5 %, due to the additional headcount hired to fulfil the security measures required by Belgian and International authorities at the end of 2002.

Capital expenditures amounting € 36 million have been essentially devoted to maintain the existing capacity, resulting in a reduction of the depreciation level in comparison with 2002.

Financial costs have been reduced by comparison with 2002. On 31st December 2003, the total consolidated debt, excluding the subordinated financing for the purchase of the airport land, amounted to € 309 million, compared with € 357 million the year before, and the financial result represented a net cost of
€ 12.4 million down from € 15.1 million in 2002.

In total, the result before taxes amounts to € 28.3 million versus € 3 million in 2002 and the result after taxes to € 18.9 million versus € 0.2 million.

source: BIAC www.biac.be

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 01 Apr 2004, 17:25

Nice to see biac recovering. It seems that they are really offering a good product. They now only have to wait for some long haul customers

Chris

blackhawk · Post by **blackhawk** » 01 Apr 2004, 22:12

LUCHTHAVEN WENEN WIL BIAC OVERNEMEN

De luchthaven van de Oostenrijkse stad
Wenen heeft interesse voor de overname
van Biac, de uitbater van de luchthaven
van Zaventem.

Wenen zou al gesprekken gehad hebben
met Biac, onder meer tijdens een bezoek
van de Oostenrijkse kanselier Schüssel
aan Brussel onderdag.

Biac is voor 63,6% in handen van de
Belgische staat. Die zou nog 30% willen
behouden. De operatie zou eind dit jaar
afgerond worden als er meer duidelijk-
heid is over de plannen van DHL.

Eerder hadden ook de Franse groep
Vinci, de luchthaven van Kopenhagen en
een Australische groep interesse.

vrtniews.net

Airport of Vienna wants to take over BIAC?
De airport of the Austrian city Vienna is interested in purchasing Biac, the operator of Zaventem. There were already conversations between Biac and the Austrian airport, especially during a visit of the Austrian chancellor Schüssel at Brussels this Thursday.
The Belgian state ownes 63.3 % of Biac and they will keep 30% want. The operation will be finishes at the end of this year when a decission had been taken concerning DHL .

Allnipponairways · Post by **Allnipponairways** » 02 Apr 2004, 00:47

Taking over biac , well i doubt they will do it , you saw what swissair did to sabena ... so now the austrians taking over another belgian compagny ... i doubt they will do it , think twice belgium ok ... he gouverment , think three times especially the incompetent people there

greets

Buzz · Post by **Buzz** » 02 Apr 2004, 01:06

Allnipponairways wrote: you saw what swissair did to sabena ... so now the austrians taking over another belgian compagny ...

Swissair = Switserland (not EU)
Vienna = Austria (EU)

So nothing to "think twice" about, why is kopenhagen better then Vienna? In the end it's just who payes the most for the stake in BIAC (not complete take-over)

So if a Swiss company takes over a Belgian one, the Belgian one will be out of bussines in a mather of seconds?
If I where to be attacked by a Turkish guy once, are all the Turks then bad people??? Be carefull with that attitude, that's racism...

Greetz

Flybe · Post by **Flybe** » 09 Apr 2004, 17:09

http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/news/?ID=3791 (only in dutch unfortunately)

Schiphol is very interested in taking a stake in BIAC. They do not want to see BRU falling in the hands of competitors of the SkyTeam alliance of AF and KLM.

If Schiphol manages to get a stake in BIAC, then it is finished for BRU, then it will never become more then a mediocre regional airport...

Let's hope that Schiphol won't be able to buy a stake in BIAC.

Kopenhague seems to be in a good position (although we'll have to see first what the effect will be of the split up of SAS on their finances, i guess). The french airport group also wants to buy a stake in BIAC, that would be equally bad as Schiphol, for obvious reasons. All those airports are located so close to BRU that their only intention can be to favour their big airports...

The australian airport group that reportedly also was intrested seems a much better choice for me.

Let's hope for the best.

Pieter

blackhawk · Post by **blackhawk** » 09 Apr 2004, 17:31

I like this one :"Ook kan Brussel bijdragen aan de groei die de luchthaven niet op Schiphol zelf kan realiseren door ruimtegebrek en milieugrenzen"

I don't know what to think about it.

Flybe · Post by **Flybe** » 09 Apr 2004, 17:41

Small translation of that sentence:

"Brussels can also contribute to the growth that the airport can't realise on Schiphol because of lack of space and environmental measures."

Indeed, laughable, if you think of the "environmental problems" (complaints of loudness of the airplanes) that BRU already faces. Those problems are comparable or even worse then the environmental problems Schiphol faces, i guess.

Lack of space? In the same article it is said that Schiphol won't have any problem to accomodate up to 85 million passengers in a few years... do you see a lack of space there then? I don't. I even think that they'll never reach that amount, but we'll see.

Greets,

Pieter

LJ · Post by LJ » 10 Apr 2004, 15:03

I'm somewhat suprised by Mr. Cerfontaine's quote that "Brussels must not fall into the hands of a Skyteam competitor". The reason why I'm suprised is that Cerfontaine usually says that it doesn't want to rely on the operations of just one alliance. The current actions by AMS management even suggest that they do their best to attract a lot of non-Skyteam traffic by opting for non-KLM growth (the recent problems between the airport about slots given to Singapore Airlines illustrated this).

However I think the real reason why Cerfontaine wants to buy BIAC isn't because of "growth", but a reason called "I don't want a competitor in my back yard". It's no secret that AMS has always been very interested in BRU because it's one of the few airports that may harm AMS position. Given the fact that KLM is being bought by AF and thus the airport faces uncertainty about what will happen, the last thing they want is an alliance who will (just like KLM, BA and Sabena intented with Sabena World Airlines) establish a hub at BRU and AMS not be able to make money out of it. Thus buying BIAC would be "an insurance policy" to make sure that should the hub disappear from AMS and should someone start a hub at BRU they make money either way. It almost happened in the past, and I think AMS thinks it may happen one day in the future.

Moreover, I personally think there are much more environmental contraints at AMS than in BRU. I follow the news on VRT and in my view the debate is only focussing on the nightflights wheras the debate in The Netherlands is focussing more on the existence of any flight (for example the ridicolous debate about how many open land should be there to avoid a plane crashing on houses and if the runway should be on spot Y becasue if a plane crashes it may hit one or two houses). Moreover, whereas the Green parties have virtually no influence in Belgium (at least that's the impression I get), in The Netherlands this is different and the "no aircraft noise in my back yard" principle is becoming very popular. Finally, some mayors openly discuss the need for an airport only because due to the airport they're not allowed to build houses on the approach to the airport.

Finally, buying BIAC would be a great way to blackmail the Dutch (local) government. They can always say that they increase their efforts to improvew BRU instead of AMS, something the Dutch governments don't want.

BTW is BRU slot restricted (I now night operations are but daylight operations aswell)?

Sabena_690 · Post by **Sabena_690** » 10 Apr 2004, 17:07

The reason why I'm suprised is that Cerfontaine usually says that it doesn't want to rely on the operations of just one alliance. The current actions by AMS management even suggest that they do their best to attract a lot of non-Skyteam traffic by opting for non-KLM growth (the recent problems between the airport about slots given to Singapore Airlines illustrated this).

AMS became aware of the fact that being too dependant of KLM is not too smart. They started realizing this when AF started its bid for KL. They certainly keep in mind that the chance is quite big that a certain amount of traffic will be transferred from AMS to CDG.

When they would make it difficult for other airlines to start flying to AMS, and with the expected cuts of Skyteam-flights at AMS in the future (although no details are known yet, I'm sure that KLM-AF will keep a big number of flights at AMS), the total number of yearly flights would probably decrease. And this is what they want to avoid.

Smart move: it's now that they must allow other airlines to establish a profitable operation at AMS, not within several years when the real consequences of the AF-KL merger will be clear.

I heard that KLM is reacting quite heavily towards the decision of AMS airport to attract more non-Skyteam traffic. But KLM is in the weakest position of course...

However I think the real reason why Cerfontaine wants to buy BIAC isn't because of "growth", but a reason called "I don't want a competitor in my back yard". It's no secret that AMS has always been very interested in BRU because it's one of the few airports that may harm AMS position.

Actually they HAVE already a competitor in their backyard: Star Alliance, with more than 20% of the total number of flights in BRU (27% if I'm not mistaken). When also OneWorld would establish a hub in BRU (and my feeling says this will happen someday), AMS would indeed get a big competitor.

This is my idea of BRU in the future:
- a big charteractivity (about the same number of flights as now, I don't think we can expect a big increase in the number of charterflights)
- a OneWorld hub, with an important regional operation of SN Brussels, together with American Airlines for US connections, and British Airways as a feeder to LHR
- a Star Alliance hub (like it is now already)

The position of the Wings-alliance (I mean KL-CO) is also quite weak in comparision with the others. If you take the AF/KL merger into consideration, and add the flights of the other SkyTeam members (OK/DL/AZ), it would surprise me if they would come close to the current Star Alliance operation, and OneWorld.

About the OneWorld interest in SN and BRU: as well BA as IB as AA showed already an interest in taking a participation in SN! Not in the short term of course (SN still have to prove themself)

Frederic

Post by **sn26567** » 11 Apr 2004, 10:11

Very nice analysis, LJ.

Let's hope are politicians will be smart enough not to sell BRU to any high bidder, but take into account the best interests of the airport in the long term.

It should certainly become a hub of either OneWorld or Star (or even better, both), but not fall into the hands of airport operators of neighbouring countries, be it AMS, Aeroports de Paris (like Liege), Fraport, or BAA.

Flybe · Post by **Flybe** » 15 Apr 2004, 18:48

http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/news/?id=3834

So the thread of AMS taking over BRU seems less big now, since AMS always said they needed to be a privately owned company before they could bid for BRU. This article (unfortunately only in dutch) says basically that AMs won't be privatised anywhere soon.

Greets,

Pieter