http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ffiliates.html

Singapore airlines posted a profit!!

This is disappointing, Cathay should have started phasing out 747's four years ago!!

This is what happens when you have consistent poor service, high base fare with monster surcharges that will surely drive the loyal customers away. Blame it also on poor decisions, migration to new software and outsourcing core businesses that should have been done by CX and not to another company to perform your work.

People here don't seem to know how to read airline financial statements.

If you take SIA's results, their results include SIA Engineering which is profitable but if you take airline operations, then it's very ordinary.

As for CX, operating loss was HKD 212 million which is close to break even and there are no engineering profits to include now as HAECO is now integrated into Swire.

The results had a cost element for retiring the 747-400 fleet and there was a large charge for maintenance as a result of extra shop visits for the Rolls-Royce powerplant.

The airline grew its revenue and passenger numbers but in this environment and implied volatiality, getting the balance can be difficult especially when cargo is big for CX.

Also, I'm sure that CX in comparison to SIA's 1st Quarter period (Mar-Jun) would have been profitable as there is no visibility in CX's numbers as they don't report in Quarters.

Please read the financials before saying all the comments. I think CX is doing a good job in maintaining its position in this tough operating environment.

Looking ahead, I think their profit bottom line will be a profit for the whole year as second half is much stronger and they will benefits from upswing in cargo business. Overall, my prediction is that it will surpass SIA numbers for Jan-Dec period.

Weak cargo demand was expected, but worse than initially thought. Really, high maintenance costs caught a lot of sell side analysts off guard (such as HSBC) but there is no long-term warning as these costs (as well as fuel costs) will be eased with the introduction of newer planes and the retirement of 747's.

CX is still better placed than SQ long-term, no changes to that view.

The higher maintenance cost was due to additional shop visit for RR powered 744 fleet.

Agreed!

They should have replaced 747 earlier though

Singapore has no 747

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B206 Safari/7534.48.3)

Just saw an sq cargo 747 at HKG last last week!

Was referring to passenger 747-most costly

The balance sheet is neutral. They moved some revenue to HAECO (which SWIRE owns) made it a cost to CX and a couple of other sly things. Goal is to pull all the value out of CX prior to turning the carcass over to Air China.
Nothing to see here, except the British pulling money out of China.

Don't quite understand the speculation here... care to elaborate/ explain?

airlines don't make money as a rule globally, theyre probably still a lot better than most carriers...

Except the financial industry expected gains... then again, the past few years have proved we really know diddly-squat

This result really caught me by surprise. I thought CX had the southern mainland Chinese market to help them sustain profitability. Even SQ would die to have a share of this market.

Slosar on the results: http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2...nexpected-loss

I have experienced several delayed or cancelled long haul flights on 747's in past 12 months and even one engine fire on landing, it got to the stage where I had to make sure the plane was not a 747 for my trips and even using other airlines as it was becoming so regular