|
Originally Posted by irishguy28
(Post 31561817)
...
To condemn Condor to face the winter alone, having had its circumstances so brutally altered just now, through no fault of its own, just as it faces into the tough part of the year, appears quite vindictive. … |
Originally Posted by speed.skater
(Post 31561102)
I view it differently.
Yes, maybe it's TUI who will buy Condor. Maybe it's Lufthansa. Maybe it's someone else. The most likely buyers at this moment - TUI and LH - are both not in their best shapes - even if they are more healthy than their competitors. In every case there will be changes of Condor due to its integration in a new structure. Changes means problems for a while. And there is still the risk of bankrupty - if the potential buyers prefer to buy parts from Condor instead of buying the whole company. Based on that I won't book a Condor flight now and in the next months and many other customers won't book a Condor flight for the same reasons. I agree that it's very likely that a buyer will use the Condor brand. But brands haven't much to do with operations. And I'm wondering about speculations about Condor's profitability. Condor was part of a large group. In a large group the profitability of a single legal entity doesn't mean a lot. The truth is, that you can not predict the profitability of Condor when it's not part of TC. It is very unlikely, that Condor is viable on its own. |
Originally Posted by irishguy28
(Post 31561817)
Then I would advise you, as a reasonable person, to go and look.
You will find that, unlike its parent and former owner, it is a profitable business. With Thomas Cook's collapse - taking Condor's profit with it - Condor finds itself with the rug pulled from under its feet, and would struggle to survive the lean winter period. Many airlines - particularly those that are highly seasonal, such as holiday charters - make their profit in the high (summer) season. To condemn Condor to face the winter alone, having had its circumstances so brutally altered just now, through no fault of its own, just as it faces into the tough part of the year, appears quite vindictive. That Condor, like many other airlines, has a seasonal business model is not one that means it is inherently unprofitable. That it should now, with its profit-making season just completed - and those profits ripped away - somehow be expected to survive the lean winter months, unaided, is not something that appears fair. Should all businesses that seek credit be denied and then pushed to failure? Note that Thomas Cook was in the same boat last week - but no-one was prepared to stump up the credit there, as it was clear that it would not be enough to get them through the winter. No point in sending a good airline after a bad one! |
Originally Posted by thbe
(Post 31562831)
It is very unlikely, that Condor is viable on its own.
|
Originally Posted by Ldnn1
(Post 31563218)
I am almost certain that Condor is not viable on its own.
|
Originally Posted by Ldnn1
(Post 31563218)
I am almost certain that Condor is not viable on its own.
Based on my one post-TC-liquidation DE flight the other day (which was fairly full despite not carrying any TC customers), I am almost certain that Condor is viable on its own. I fully realize that my one data point is not worth much, but it’s more data to back up my claim than you provided for yours, so I win :-) Ultimately, unless you are an insider at DE with access to internal financial data and the ability to predict the development of the overall economy for the next few years, I think it is very difficult to make “almost certain” predictions.
Originally Posted by thbe
(Post 31562831)
The truth is, that you can not predict the profitability of Condor when it's not part of TC. It is very unlikely, that Condor is viable on its own. If the truth is that you can’t predict the profitability of Condor when it’s not part of TC, how can you then conclude that it is very unlikely to be viable on its own? |
Originally Posted by notquiteaff
(Post 31564790)
If the truth is that you can’t predict the profitability of Condor when it’s not part of TC, how can you then conclude that it is very unlikely to be viable on its own?
Btw: TC wanted to sell Condor before. So it's likely that Condor's books are shining brighter than the reality. |
Real shame that Manchester has had it's flights to the States decimated by TC's demise.
TC flew to NYC, Vegas, San Francisco, Orlando, LA, Seattle and Miami from memory. Virgin offer some options, TUI cover Orlando and there is some minor competition on the NYC route with United offering a daily flight as well as Virgin, but I'm going to take a guess that 50% of capacity has gone overnight along with some of the destinations. Hope someone steps in to offer some options as Virgin's prices have gone through the roof (might be temporary, but they were always more expensive even when TC were flying). |
Originally Posted by thbe
(Post 31565098)
Because of its size, structure and business model. Maybe you are not aware what it means for a company to be part of a large group. There are pros and cons, but for sure it's a different kind of business. You need much more additional money for a change like that.
Btw: TC wanted to sell Condor before. So it's likely that Condor's books are shining brighter than the reality. TC announced a £1.5 billion half-year loss last May. That's why they looked again at selling various assets - but it became clear that offloading the divisions that actually made money was unsustainable and would have hastened the end of the parent. Cutting them free from the sinking TC corpse would have been the right thing to do; TCUK would have gone under before the summer, so at least hundreds of thousands of Brits managed to get their last TC summer holiday. |
Originally Posted by Fawltyaces
(Post 31566312)
Real shame that Manchester has had it's flights to the States decimated by TC's demise.
TC flew to NYC, Vegas, San Francisco, Orlando, LA, Seattle and Miami from memory. Virgin offer some options, TUI cover Orlando and there is some minor competition on the NYC route with United offering a daily flight as well as Virgin, but I'm going to take a guess that 50% of capacity has gone overnight along with some of the destinations. Hope someone steps in to offer some options as Virgin's prices have gone through the roof (might be temporary, but they were always more expensive even when TC were flying). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Airport AA MAN-PHL DL MAN-BOS (seasonal) SG MAN-HOU AA used to fly to JFK from MAN but they stopped a while back. |
BA also used to fly MAN - JFK but they pulled the route years ago. I thought Boston was a Virgin flight (Delta codeshare) but could be wrong.
Point is that Manchester's offering to the States has been decimated - for example TC flew twice per day to Orlando peak season - TUI fly twice a week, Virgin seem to be daily so that is 23 direct flights a week down to 9. For a regional airport to lose 20-30 transatlantic flights per week plus the likes of Cuba and other Caribbean destinations isn't great. Can't see who else will dive in other than Virgin. |
Originally Posted by Fawltyaces
(Post 31566590)
For a regional airport to lose 20-30 transatlantic flights per week plus the likes of Cuba and other Caribbean destinations isn't great. Can't see who else will dive in other than Virgin.
|
Originally Posted by salut0
(Post 31566532)
SG MAN-HOU
|
Originally Posted by duvin
(Post 31566761)
This is naturally Singapore Airlines (SQ), not SpiceJet (SG)
|
Originally Posted by salut0
(Post 31566619)
True. But maybe connecting carriers will pick up the traffic and offer cheaper fares than VS. LH? KL? AF? etc
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:04 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.