Brussels Airlines in 2020

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

Post Reply
Flanker2
Posts: 1729
Joined: 05 Dec 2012, 23:15

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by Flanker2 »

oldblueeyes wrote: 16 May 2020, 21:16
Flanker2 wrote: 16 May 2020, 19:05 :ugeek:
Passenger wrote: 16 May 2020, 16:15
They don't need growth (in turnover). They need more profit - as Christina Foerster explained before 'corona' started.
It's all about the profits right?

Can you explain then why LH are going around asking for money like beggars after years of profits in their other units?
What did they do with their profits?

If it's all about the earnings, why should the taxpayer give up a part of their earnings to Lufthansa?

So Lufthansa only needs to worry about profits and the taxpayers need to worry about protecting the jobs of the people working for Lufthansa?
Shouldn't companies look out for their own people?

Lufthansa should stop growing if they can't take care of the people they already have.
If you would make an effort to read the annual report and assuming that ou have the econoomical education to understand it, the answers are public.

Lufthansa had a problem in the early 2010s with a lot of enheritaed fleet of the former companies they bought and bad decisions from pervious managements. Thus a big chuck of money is going into fleet investments.

If you compare the figures of the last years , than you had something like 2,8 bln EUR EBIt as a maximum and above 3 bn annual investments into new fleet. You might blame it, but this is the way the industry is growing and creating jobs - by the way trough flying old A320 until they were 30 years old and so on on the positive side and of course retiring early A346 which were an unfortunate purchase on the downside.

As comparison .. the max dividend paid by the company was 400 Mio last year, employee bonuses in the group were 500 mio.. from big CEO bpnus to the small annual gratification of the front line manager in a remote station.

And now let's come to the numbers - if all of you would have the patience and intelligence to read and understand more than a hedline, than you would see that the discussion is about CREDIT and AID.

So CREDIT has to be paid back and has a higher interest rate - for example in Switzlernad the state takes 2% above the interest rate the banks are charging as price for guarantee in difficult times. So it is rather the case that the Swiss tax payer is earning money on this.

Aid is another topic - and it is linked tio preserving the jobs until the business is rescheduled. And here there is a shareholder effort as well - for example in Germany the state pays 60 to 67% of the salary during shut down times and the company burns shareholder money on improving these figures up to 90%.

So the question on saving jobs is - shoud they dissapear becaue everbody has to be clear that next year in a positive scenario only 50% of the fleet would utilized and employees might have to be unemployed - or will there be a joint effort of all involved parties - state give some money ( they would have the uneploment cost as a burden anyhow), the company supplements it and the employees contributa trough a payy cut and temporary part time to save as many jobs as possible?

If all these people would loose their jobs for the next 2 years - what would be than the cost for the Belgian social systems?

Remember the golden rule of business - the difference between 1 euro spent and 1 euro earned is always 2 euros!

What would be the monthly cost of opportunity for each employee?

Let'S assume they would be unemployed - can we calculate a "cost" of 2.500 euro per month for the Belgian state? Unemployment allowance, additional social system costs that have to be paid by the social systems, additional revenues of the state like VAT, fuel accizes etc for lost additional spending power etc.

On the contrary, if these people stay employed, even if they earn less due to part time, temporary income reductions etc, they are still net payrs in the social systems , pay direct taxes , pay indirect taxes on what they earn above an unemployment allowance etc. So you would have on average maybe 1.500-2.000 euro earnings for the state each month coming from retirement, health , jobless insurances paid both by employee and employer, some little additional indirect taxes as they would have more money in the pocket tha unemployed...

So if you calculate, the cost of opportunity for the Belsian state for each employee of maybe around 4.000 euro /month .. or 50.000 eur / year.

Now let's see the big picture.

If 3.000 employees would be the new taregt size of the company.. and they would need for the next year maybe 1.000, next year 2.000 and coming towards 2023 into the target employment rate... than finding a solution for 2.000 people for the mext 12 months and for 1.000 the year after might have acost of opportunity of 150 mio EUR for the Belgian taxpayer only on direct jobs, multiplicators for airport jobs etc not considered.

Now, would you give as a state a credit of 300 mio if the alternative is to damage your baalnce sheet by 150 mio?

The Swiss seemed to be keep to guarantee for approx 2 years profts of a health compan and let Lufthansa negotiate the remaing abount of aof 15% of the total credit.

Or maybe does the blegian politics not believe that Brussels can be turned into profitability?
I don't know what your agenda is, all we know is that you are for the German team and have a few dozen posts on this website waving the Lufthansa flag, going to extremes to bend facts.

Lufthansa had a problem in the early 2010s with a lot of enheritaed fleet of the former companies they bought and bad decisions from pervious managements. Thus a big chuck of money is going into fleet investments.

If you compare the figures of the last years , than you had something like 2,8 bln EUR EBIt as a maximum and above 3 bn annual investments into new fleet. You might blame it, but this is the way the industry is growing and creating jobs - by the way trough flying old A320 until they were 30 years old and so on on the positive side and of course retiring early A346 which were an unfortunate purchase on the downside.


BS.
Fleet investments are not taken from earnings like you suggest.
If new aircraft are leased they are operating costs and if owned they are asset depreciations and hence are included already in earnings calculations.
Example: New A380 acquired for 200M USD to be used over 20 years, used as collateral for a loan over the same period and same amount: Linear depreciation of 5% or 10M USD per year and you pay off the loan at the same pace. Each year your EBIT already includes 10M USD in costs, so no need to use the earnings of the past year for that.

A fleet investment typically means that your depreciations or lease costs become higher, but you hope to recover more than that by saving on fuel and maintenance. In some cases you also hope in an increase in revenue (when you replace by a larger aircraft or better product attracts more pax). Otherwise it's not an investment but stupid vanity.
A fleet investment should hence increase your future EBIT by decreasing some cost centers more than other cost centers increase, and you don't need to finance them from earnings.


If all these people would loose their jobs for the next 2 years - what would be than the cost for the Belgian social systems?

Remember the golden rule of business - the difference between 1 euro spent and 1 euro earned is always 2 euros!

What would be the monthly cost of opportunity for each employee?

Let'S assume they would be unemployed - can we calculate a "cost" of 2.500 euro per month for the Belgian state? Unemployment allowance, additional social system costs that have to be paid by the social systems, additional revenues of the state like VAT, fuel accizes etc for lost additional spending power etc.

On the contrary, if these people stay employed, even if they earn less due to part time, temporary income reductions etc, they are still net payrs in the social systems , pay direct taxes , pay indirect taxes on what they earn above an unemployment allowance etc. So you would have on average maybe 1.500-2.000 euro earnings for the state each month coming from retirement, health , jobless insurances paid both by employee and employer, some little additional indirect taxes as they would have more money in the pocket tha unemployed...

So if you calculate, the cost of opportunity for the Belsian state for each employee of maybe around 4.000 euro /month .. or 50.000 eur / year.


Well actually, if those employees lose their jobs, it's the fault of Lufthansa.
Don't buy companies if you can't support their employees during the next downturn. :roll:

Why should employees or taxpayers pay the price for Lufthansa's hunger for world domination?

"We own Switzerland (LX), we own Austria (OS), we own Belgium (SN), we own Germany (AB), let's own Italy (AZ), let's own Portugal (TP). Ow no, the Polish are stealing Condor from us. Ow no the Italian government don't want to agree to our conditions."

Instead of playing this game, they should have saved cash, paid off debt, and done risk management reviews of their lease contracts, debt covenants, and workforce; and run all kinds of scenario's including a pandemic scenario. SO BASICALLY DO THEIR FREAKING JOBS AS MANAGERS OF A MULTINATIONAL HOLDING.
This crisis almost happened with SARS and already happened several times in human history so was a credible scenario and we recently also had the volcano scenario which had the potential to cause long-lasting groundings.


As for the cost of saving the jobs to the Belgium State, it's not the same if they invest 290 or 390 Millions into a SN owned by Lufthansa or a 100% nationalized SN.

The difference is that if SN is nationalized, they can control how the money will be spent to save jobs and the airline, while under Lufthansa, at least 1000 jobs are going to be cut anyway and the other 3000 jobs are also not secure while demanding insane sacrifices.
LH is not even willing to let the Belgian State monitor how they spend the money.


The Italians preferred to nationalize their airline rather than give it to LH with all the cuts they were asking.
They are investing 3 Billions to ride this crisis out and then come back stronger and better funded than ever.


As for Lufthansa receiving 6 Billions in AID as you call it, or capital injection, do they really need so much, or is the German government trying to give its favorite airline a boost in their quest for world domination?
All good and well, but what about all the rest of corporate and SME Germany? If they start giving money like that to LH, you can bet that other companies are going to line up for their own free hand-outs.

Siemens, Volkswagen but also the entiree German Mittelstand want to dominate the world in their respective sectors. Germany is already giving all of them huge subsidies to boost their competitiveness, but they're still a long way from giving 100k per employee like they're doing for LH.


I think that LH is either lining up to dump SN or they are playing the comedy in collaboration with the Belgian government.
They wouldn't otherwise have announced the job cuts and insane salary cuts before having a deal with the government. I don't know but perhaps they're trying to find a scapegoat for SN's failure.
The alternative is that perhaps they already have a deal but pretend that they don't so that the job and salary cuts become more digestable.
We'll find out in a couple of weeks I guess.
Last edited by Flanker2 on 17 May 2020, 12:58, edited 1 time in total.

Flanker2
Posts: 1729
Joined: 05 Dec 2012, 23:15

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by Flanker2 »

Passenger wrote: 17 May 2020, 10:50
Flanker2 wrote: 16 May 2020, 19:05
Passenger wrote: 16 May 2020, 16:15 Brussels Airlines doesn't need growth (in turnover). They need more profit - as Christina Foerster explained before 'corona' started.
It's all about the profits right? Can you explain then why LH are going around asking for money like beggars after years of profits in their other units? What did they do with their profits?
I can try to give an answer to the questions.

You just have to accept the principle that people like Geert Noels, Ivan Van de Cloot, VOKA and others say about state aid. The ongoing crisis hits that hard that even intrinsically healthy companies get into trouble. And for aviation, it’s even worse because the necessary capital is extremely high: an aircraft is the most expensive single company tool that exists. Company funding therefore is a mix of own capital (ex. ownership, shareholders, profits from the past) and “vreemd vermogen” like deposits. Once that flow is disrupted and a lot of operational expenses cannot be put on hold (example aircraft leases, insurances, maintenance staff), problems arise.
Daimler hasn't been doing so well before the Covid-19 crisis.
Dealerships were closed, production is restarting slowly with barely any demand for new vehicles as people don't have income security and financing has dried up, banks and auto manufacturers' financing arms are not taking risk.
Same country, a company much bigger than Lufthansa, same problems, and yet they are not begging for money because they have reserves and their financial structure keeps money flowing in even when the full economy grinds to a halt, as people keep paying their leases and deposits are taken on cars that were already ordered.

Lufthansa staff are now receiving government unemployment money.
Rumors are that LH is even paying the salary difference with unemployment, while the workforce is at home watching television.
Why the hell are they doing that?
Are they also doing that for their Belgian staff? No, I know for a fact that the Belgian staff is only relying on unemployment money.

So Lufthansa really doesn't need the full 9 billions, they are asking this money to continue their quest for world domination once traffic picks up again and the industry comes out damaged.

SN needs money, but LH doesn't want to take it out of their own reserves. Instead they want Belgium to carry its weight based on the argument that it's Belgian jobs at stake.
"We own Brussels Airlines and control the Belgian market, but it's your jobs, so you pay the price."

SN isn't profitable and can never be under LH ownership, unless a new miracle CEO comes to Lufthansa.
When LH was making 3 Billions a year, they could have invested in SN.
Everyone in Belgium was saying, when LH gets 100% of SN, they will start investing heavily. It didn't happen.
So if SN is going to be break-even or slightly loss-making, LH would just want to keep it as a placeholder with the least financial losses and the least staff possible.
A nationalised SN may also only break-even or be slightly loss-making but there will be a clear focus on growth and SN would be a vehicle to create direct and indirect jobs. Of course, it will no longer be a placeholder for LH but a direct competitor taking away traffic from LH's hubs, ie German jobs lost in favor of Belgian jobs.
That's fine with me.

If LH had plans to turn SN into a thriving subsidiary, I would be the first one waving the LH flag and definding LH, rest assured of that. But that's not the case.

User avatar
RoMax
Posts: 4445
Joined: 20 Jun 2009, 16:32

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by RoMax »

Flanker2 wrote: 17 May 2020, 12:57 Lufthansa staff are now receiving government unemployment money.
Rumors are that LH is even paying the salary difference with unemployment, while the workforce is at home watching television.
Why the hell are they doing that?
If only sitting 'at home watching television' would be paying your bills... Any idea how many 'average' people can pay their basic living expenses (including rent or loans) with 60% of their normal base salary...
Besides, LH doesn't compensate up to 100% either.
Flanker2 wrote: 17 May 2020, 12:57 Are they also doing that for their Belgian staff? No, I know for a fact that the Belgian staff is only relying on unemployment money.
In Belgium you keep (now) a higher percentage of your base salary (vs. the German 'Kurzarbeitergeld') if you have a low income and SN does give a (small) extra compensation in addition to the government paid unemployment fee. SN also advanced the holiday payments to limit the short term impact for the staff - but by doing so they increased the short term cash drain. So yes also SN is still spending money on salaries!

Obviously cabin crew with very low base salaries (on which the unemployment compensation is based) is very impacted, especially in Belgium - even with the small extra from SN and advancement of holiday payment to help bridging this period - but I don't see a reason to make it another LH vs. SN battle :roll:

Bracebrace
Posts: 235
Joined: 04 Apr 2006, 00:00

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by Bracebrace »

Flanker2 wrote: 17 May 2020, 12:27 I don't know what your agenda is
Relax man, this is a forum. There is no agenda, just opinions suited to be accompanied by a beer at a bar. Relax.

If Covid hadn't been there, salary cuts wouldn't have been discussed. Anywhere.

Aviation connects the world and the world is unpredictable. So forget about your A321 promise, forget about your destination promises. Forget about all your long term planning. Aviation only knows empty promises and what I call "chasing of the curve". If economy goes up, it's full afterburner and shortage and blablabla (whatever the fleet, whatever the destination). If economy goes down it's bankrupcy, furlough, salary cuts yada yada yada (whatever the fleet, whatever the destination).

At the end of the day investors use this crisis to reduce costs. The offer is low, lower than low, with an eye on negociations that will pull the bar up and end up somewhere in the middle. Because this is the moment, this is the timing Covid has given the economy to cut costs and dig deep.

The government is spending a lot of money which will have to be compensated by "investors" aka taxpayers. No government employed person is asked for a salary cut, but we will all pay for it, we are all investors hoping for 0% ROI to use your terms (read as: no tax increases). In the future. I don't hear anybody complain that 90% of those people are sitting at home, employed full salary, nothing to worry about. Because that's the government, these people "earn" their salary, they are not responsible for the inefficiency, nor for the Covid, unlike in aviation...

So go ahead with all your long term plans for aviation, but have a beer and chill. Because I'm wondering how you pay your bills. Did you have to work from home? Are you asked for a salary cut? Speaking of bills, how much is the first bill a young pilot has to pay these days? 100.000€? Something like that?

Cheerz!

Poiu
Posts: 847
Joined: 14 Nov 2015, 09:38

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by Poiu »

Bracebrace wrote: 17 May 2020, 14:16
Relax man, this is a forum. There is no agenda, just opinions suited to be accompanied by a beer at a bar. Relax.
Exactly! Unfortunately there is no bar open.

Bracebrace wrote: 17 May 2020, 14:16 If Covid hadn't been there, salary cuts wouldn't have been discussed. Anywhere.
Salary cuts were part of Reboot.

Passenger
Posts: 6868
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by Passenger »

There must be a reason why minister of Finance Alexander De Croo and prime minister Sophie Wilmès have such a long list with demands for their loan. Interests on the loan (23M to 29M), one seat at the Lufthansa Board, 25%+1 at the SN Airholding Board, a guarantueed growth (new A321LXR and new longhaul destinations), less CO², no ‘corona’ jobs cut. That’s not the flexibility and not the attitude one expects from politicians who stand for a free market society and minimal state interference in private matters. Maybe the reason for their anti-liberal attitude is a pre-agreement for a next government with fierce anti-aviation parties, who ask them to adapt already to the new Belgian anti-aviation policy?

Anyway - Lufthansa cannot accept those demands. And because De Croo forgot to keep discretion about the ongoing negotiations, a 290M state loan is now excluded (unless De Croo and Wilmès accept an ultimate humiliation).

Brussels Airlines needs cash, but there is another solution: a loan by Brussels Airlines on the private market, covered (guaranteed) by everyone who benefits from their survival:
- Lufthansa (benefits: they keep their domination at BRU, they keep their jackpot FRA-BRU-FRA, they keep their long term prospect on dividends);
- Brussels Airport (benefits: they keep their best client, they remain a hub (or transit point));
- Belgium (benefits: they avoid massive unemployment, they allow to cash in employment and other taxes, less risk then with a state loan).
(Handling agent Swissport is excluded as bond: they are in distress themselves).

In April 2020, Jan Smets took over from Etienne Davignon as Brussels Airlines Chairman. Smets is a former Director at - and a former Governor from our Nationale Bank / Banque Nationale. Anyone knows a better person to clear the job?

(edited: typo)
Last edited by Passenger on 17 May 2020, 16:58, edited 1 time in total.

Bracebrace
Posts: 235
Joined: 04 Apr 2006, 00:00

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by Bracebrace »

Poiu wrote: 17 May 2020, 15:38 Exactly! Unfortunately there is no bar open.
Oops... touché :D

Flanker2
Posts: 1729
Joined: 05 Dec 2012, 23:15

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by Flanker2 »

RoMax wrote: 17 May 2020, 13:32
Flanker2 wrote: 17 May 2020, 12:57 Lufthansa staff are now receiving government unemployment money.
Rumors are that LH is even paying the salary difference with unemployment, while the workforce is at home watching television.
Why the hell are they doing that?
If only sitting 'at home watching television' would be paying your bills... Any idea how many 'average' people can pay their basic living expenses (including rent or loans) with 60% of their normal base salary...
Besides, LH doesn't compensate up to 100% either.
Flanker2 wrote: 17 May 2020, 12:57 Are they also doing that for their Belgian staff? No, I know for a fact that the Belgian staff is only relying on unemployment money.
In Belgium you keep (now) a higher percentage of your base salary (vs. the German 'Kurzarbeitergeld') if you have a low income and SN does give a (small) extra compensation in addition to the government paid unemployment fee. SN also advanced the holiday payments to limit the short term impact for the staff - but by doing so they increased the short term cash drain. So yes also SN is still spending money on salaries!

Obviously cabin crew with very low base salaries (on which the unemployment compensation is based) is very impacted, especially in Belgium - even with the small extra from SN and advancement of holiday payment to help bridging this period - but I don't see a reason to make it another LH vs. SN battle :roll:
From what I have heard, LH is bridging the difference for the cabin crew in Germany, for the rest of the workforce it's not very clear.

Kurzarbeit is much more advantageous than RVA/Onem temporary unemployment, especially for higher salaries.

Belgian temporary unemployment:
Gross salary with premiums of min. 1445,34 EUR - max. 2754,76 EUR
x 70% (until June 30th 2020)
+ corona supplement of 5,63 EUR per day x 26 days
- 26,75% tax prepyament, but this income is taxed as regular salary.

Take home unemployment
Min. 1165,93 EUR - Max. EUR 1519,79 EUR



German Kurzarbeit
Nett salary incl. premiums of max. 6450 EUR or 6900 EUR with children. Lower income tax rate in Germany.
x 60% or 67% with children - 70% or 77% from the 4th month - 80 or 87% from the 7th month until Dec. 31st
x 1 as there is no tax.

Max. take home unemployment 4623 EUR, 6003 EUR from October.


1519,79 EUR vs 4623 EUR, yeah there is no comparison.


To make matters worse, salaries are much lower at SN, cost of life is higher in Belgium.
LH should be bridging the salaries of their cabin crew in Belgium, not the ones in Germany.

oldblueeyes
Posts: 91
Joined: 13 Apr 2020, 12:44

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by oldblueeyes »

Flanker, why do you claim as comparison German net salaries if the law says gross?

If you have a politica Agenda stipulate it clearly, but the Argumentation should be at least supported by real and not "alternative" facts.

We're not Trumpish here.

Flanker2
Posts: 1729
Joined: 05 Dec 2012, 23:15

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by Flanker2 »

oldblueeyes wrote: 17 May 2020, 17:31 Flanker, why do you claim as comparison German net salaries if the law says gross?

If you have a politica Agenda stipulate it clearly, but the Argumentation should be at least supported by real and not "alternative" facts.

We're not Trumpish here.
It looks like you are the Trump. Actually, it's clear that you are a puppet for Spohr.
The German law clearly says net and more specifically, net final pay difference.




Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) Drittes Buch (III) - Arbeitsförderung - (Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 24. März 1997, BGBl. I S. 594)
§ 105 Höhe
Das Kurzarbeitergeld beträgt
1.
für Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer, die beim Arbeitslosengeld die Voraussetzungen für den erhöhten Leistungssatz erfüllen würden, 67 Prozent,
2.
für die übrigen Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer 60 Prozent
der Nettoentgeltdifferenz im Anspruchszeitraum.


My agenda?
I'm a taxpayer, consumer, small entrepreneur in Belgium, in an unrelated sector of international trade.

oldblueeyes
Posts: 91
Joined: 13 Apr 2020, 12:44

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by oldblueeyes »

You don't understand the law and what it means.
The upper limit to be considered is the upper limit for social insurance - Germany has gross value for unemployment, retirement, health insurances capped.
The Payment is 69 or 67% or the net resulting from a typical net from these capped amounts.
The German System works than with terms as "fictional gross" , if for Taxi reasons tge year has splits in revenues.

Coming back in reality, it means that er for pursers the company has a little compensation in top, for pilots in the high end Tarifs a lot, around 60% of total.

So keep calm and gross fingers that In the coming days a solution will be found.

User avatar
lumumba
Posts: 1798
Joined: 04 Sep 2003, 00:00
Location: brussels Europe

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by lumumba »

Passenger wrote: 17 May 2020, 16:03 There must be a reason why minister of Finance Alexander De Croo and prime minister Sophie Wilmès have such a long list with demands for their loan. Interests on the loan (23M to 29M), one seat at the Lufthansa Board, 25%+1 at the SN Airholding Board, a guarantueed growth (new A321LXR and new longhaul destinations), less CO², no ‘corona’ jobs cut. That’s not the flexibility and not the attitude one expects from politicians who stand for a free market society and minimal state interference in private matters. Maybe the reason for their anti-liberal attitude is a pre-agreement for a next government with fierce anti-aviation parties, who ask them to adapt already to the new Belgian anti-aviation policy?

Anyway - Lufthansa cannot accept those demands. And because De Croo forgot to keep discretion about the ongoing negotiations, a 290M state loan is now excluded (unless De Croo and Wilmès accept an ultimate humiliation).

Brussels Airlines needs cash, but there is another solution: a loan by Brussels Airlines on the private market, covered (guaranteed) by everyone who benefits from their survival:
- Lufthansa (benefits: they keep their domination at BRU, they keep their jackpot FRA-BRU-FRA, they keep their long term prospect on dividends);
- Brussels Airport (benefits: they keep their best client, they remain a hub (or transit point));
- Belgium (benefits: they avoid massive unemployment, they allow to cash in employment and other taxes, less risk then with a state loan).
(Handling agent Swissport is excluded as bond: they are in distress themselves).

In April 2020, Jan Smets took over from Etienne Davignon as Brussels Airlines Chairman. Smets is a former Director at - and a former Governor from our Nationale Bank / Banque Nationale. Anyone knows a better person to clear the job?

(edited: typo)
No bank will be crazy enough to lend money to a airline company today?!

Sure not 9 billion :shock: and after the 9 billion again 390 millions.....

I like the way France is managing Air France with a stake in it for example I think that all strategic industries like electric production etc.. should be nationalized.

Another question for you Passenger after Corona and 2008 crisis how can you still believe in free market?
I doesn't exist we need a strong state to redistribute the wealth etc.
Today you have people richer than the Belgian state for example that's crazy.
Hasta la victoria siempre.

Passenger
Posts: 6868
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by Passenger »

lumumba wrote: 17 May 2020, 20:48 No bank will be crazy enough to lend money to a airline company today?!
Sure not 9 billion :shock: and after the 9 billion again 390 millions.....

I like the way France is managing Air France with a stake in it for example I think that all strategic industries like electric production etc.. should be nationalized.

Another question for you Passenger after Corona and 2008 crisis how can you still believe in free market?
I wasn't talking about Lufthansa. I was talking about Brussels Airlines and their Belgian partners. And I also said: a loan by Brussels Airlines on the private market, covered (guaranteed) by everyone who benefits from their survival...

KLM has also abtained such a bank loan: 2B to 4B, 9%, guaranteed by the Netherlands.

Jetter
Posts: 478
Joined: 06 Nov 2015, 21:07

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by Jetter »

lumumba wrote: 17 May 2020, 20:48Today you have people richer than the Belgian state for example that's crazy.
The Belgian state is burried in debt, even you and me are richer than the Belgian state. :lol:

User avatar
lumumba
Posts: 1798
Joined: 04 Sep 2003, 00:00
Location: brussels Europe

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by lumumba »

Passenger wrote: 17 May 2020, 21:02
lumumba wrote: 17 May 2020, 20:48 No bank will be crazy enough to lend money to a airline company today?!
Sure not 9 billion :shock: and after the 9 billion again 390 millions.....

I like the way France is managing Air France with a stake in it for example I think that all strategic industries like electric production etc.. should be nationalized.

Another question for you Passenger after Corona and 2008 crisis how can you still believe in free market?
I wasn't talking about Lufthansa. I was talking about Brussels Airlines and their Belgian partners. And I also said: a loan by Brussels Airlines on the private market, covered (guaranteed) by everyone who benefits from their survival...

KLM has also abtained such a bank loan: 2B to 4B, 9%, guaranteed by the Netherlands.
I'm sure Lufthansa is aware of this also KLM is partly state owned Brussels Airlines is 100% a private company.
That's why I think it's always good to be partly state owned.

I'm not sure that Germany would be happy to be used to save a foreigner company and jobs for another country knowing the Germans.
Last edited by lumumba on 17 May 2020, 21:28, edited 2 times in total.
Hasta la victoria siempre.

User avatar
lumumba
Posts: 1798
Joined: 04 Sep 2003, 00:00
Location: brussels Europe

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by lumumba »

Jetter wrote: 17 May 2020, 21:20
lumumba wrote: 17 May 2020, 20:48Today you have people richer than the Belgian state for example that's crazy.
The Belgian state is burried in debt, even you and me are richer than the Belgian state. :lol:
I understand but I was speaking about turnover.

That's interesting, that's why we have to start taxing more wealth and less work
Hasta la victoria siempre.

LJ
Posts: 895
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:00
Location: Heiloo NL

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by LJ »

lumumba wrote: 17 May 2020, 21:22I'm sure Lufthansa is aware of this also KLM is partly state owned Brussels Airlines is 100% a private company.
KLM is 100% owned by Air France - KLM SA, in which both the French and the Dutch state have a stake (both around 14%).
lumumba wrote: 17 May 2020, 21:22I'm not sure that Germany would be happy to be used to save a foreigner company and jobs for another country knowing the Germans.
It's irrelevant what they think, they [Belgian government] could have done it if they wanted to safeguard Belgian interests. The German state could have done the same. Both haven't done it and that's their choice.

Jetter
Posts: 478
Joined: 06 Nov 2015, 21:07

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by Jetter »

LJ wrote: 17 May 2020, 22:43
lumumba wrote: 17 May 2020, 21:22I'm sure Lufthansa is aware of this also KLM is partly state owned Brussels Airlines is 100% a private company.
KLM is 100% owned by Air France - KLM SA, in which both the French and the Dutch state have a stake (both around 14%).
No its isn't, 49% actually. There are foundations that have non-dividend paying shares, the Dutch government has 6% and individuals 1%. So the Dutch government has shares in both KL and AF-KL.

If the Belgian government wants to buy influence in LH they can do the same as what the Dutch government did: secretly buy a lot of shares and announce this later.

brusselsairlinesfan
Posts: 877
Joined: 29 Mar 2007, 14:44

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by brusselsairlinesfan »

Boavida wrote: 16 May 2020, 12:56 When I see those logos of Austrian and Swiss, I can't help to think that Belgian Airlines would have been a better name for SN, it could be used as simply 'Belgian'...

Image

Just a sidenote ofcourse, I know this is the least of the concerns right now...
I do 200% agree with you! Brussels Airlines as a brand sounds weak, very tiny little local... to me.
Belgian is by far more appealing !
Would be a good move within the group : Swiss, Austrian, Belgian...

Passenger
Posts: 6868
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: Brussels Airlines in 2020

Post by Passenger »

brusselsairlinesfan wrote: 18 May 2020, 03:03
Boavida wrote: 16 May 2020, 12:56 When I see those logos of Austrian and Swiss, I can't help to think that Belgian Airlines would have been a better name for SN, it could be used as simply 'Belgian'...
Image
Just a sidenote ofcourse, I know this is the least of the concerns right now...
I do 200% agree with you! Brussels Airlines as a brand sounds weak, very tiny little local... to me. Belgian is by far more appealing! Would be a good move within the group : Swiss, Austrian, Belgian...
Euh... Let me adjust that with "German" as new name for "Lufthansa".
So great list indeed: German, Swiss, Austrian, Belgian.
Let's hope that Lufthansa euh German is not going to establish an airline in Bosnia-and-Herzegovina or in North Macedonia.

Post Reply