Qatar Airways announces financial loss

Old Mar 7, 18, 10:59 pm
  #16  
Suspended
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: AUH
Programs: EY Guest Gold, Hilton HHonors Gold, Le Club Accor Silver, AAdvantage Gold
Posts: 552
Chapter 11 protection that the US Airlines got during their worst days is pure evil. Those airlines attacking "foreign" so called "subsidised" airlines while they lynch billions in US taxpayers should be left to rot and die for their awful service.
DatBoi is offline  
Old Mar 8, 18, 3:18 am
  #17  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BOS/UTH
Programs: AA EXP, LT PLT; QR PLT; Bonvoy LT TIT
Posts: 12,600
Originally Posted by BRITINJAPAN3 View Post
100% agree, just like the US airlines dont get help from the shareholders, ....
Huh? When a company goes public, the proceeds from that initial sale of stock go to the company. After that, the company gets nothing from the shareholders. When people buy stock (for example, on the NYSE), they're buying it from shareholders. When they sell stock, they're selling it to other people. The company has nothing to do with the transaction (and sees no money from it) other than keeping track of who owns the shares.
Dr. HFH is offline  
Old Mar 8, 18, 4:02 am
  #18  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 935
Originally Posted by Dr. HFH View Post
Huh? When a company goes public, the proceeds from that initial sale of stock go to the company. After that, the company gets nothing from the shareholders. When people buy stock (for example, on the NYSE), they're buying it from shareholders. When they sell stock, they're selling it to other people. The company has nothing to do with the transaction (and sees no money from it) other than keeping track of who owns the shares.
Rights issues, open offers, shareholder loans, Parent company investments - all of these are ways that a company can raise additional funds from shareholders after any IPO?
strichener is offline  
Old Mar 8, 18, 5:12 am
  #19  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Berlin, TXL
Programs: OW Emerald, *A gold, Skyteam elite plus, Hilton gold, SPG gold
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by MattEvan View Post
Is anyone surprised by this?

Not Really, just wonder if any of the Middle East airlines has ever posted a real accountable profit
RolfD is offline  
Old Mar 10, 18, 3:41 am
  #20  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Flatland
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold 1MM, BA Gold, UA Peon
Posts: 5,776
Originally Posted by BRITINJAPAN3 View Post
ALL airlines get subsidies one way or another,
That's a very broad statement - it is not true.

British Airways gets no help from the UK government, and has not had any since the 1980s. If BA was a Middle Eastern Airline I'm sure they would have had some of:
3rd runway at LHR with state funding support.
Crossrail station at LHR paid by state funding.
2nd runway at LGW with state funding support.
No awkward public inquiries and a rapid decision about any of the above.
Lower air passenger duty.
More generous noise limits.
Easing of air pollution enforcement.
Soft loans or other trade finance support for fleet expansion and renewal.
etc, etc.

They get none of this from the UK Government.

ANA gets very little help from the Japanese government in recent years and has not had much help for a long time, unlike JAL's several funding rounds from the Japanese government in the 1980s and 1990s.

I'm sure you can come up with other airlines if you think about it.
flatlander is offline  
Old Mar 10, 18, 4:48 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,365
Originally Posted by flatlander View Post
They get none of this from the UK Government.
.
The above suggests that BA has to pay out for runways and Crossrail out of their own pocket which isn't the case. There's no doubt that the ME3 receive subsidies in various forms (infrastructure, loans, etc.), but I doubt that there's any airline out there currently receiving no subsidy whatsoever. BA is likely to receive subsidies to open/keep open some of their routes, a game played to the extreme by FR.

Moreover, BA was a nationalised company from 1939 to 1984 and did certainly receive similar aids during that period. Same goes for Lufthansa, Air France, KLM, etc.
synd, beepee and mpkz like this.
WorldLux is offline  
Old Mar 11, 18, 3:01 am
  #22  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, LH, QR, TK
Posts: 13,842
Originally Posted by WorldLux View Post
The above suggests that BA has to pay out for runways and Crossrail out of their own pocket which isn't the case. There's no doubt that the ME3 receive subsidies in various forms (infrastructure, loans, etc.), but I doubt that there's any airline out there currently receiving no subsidy whatsoever. BA is likely to receive subsidies to open/keep open some of their routes, a game played to the extreme by FR.

Moreover, BA was a nationalised company from 1939 to 1984 and did certainly receive similar aids during that period. Same goes for Lufthansa, Air France, KLM, etc.
State aid to airlines operates under a highly restrictive framework within the EU. State-owned carriers cannot turn to their owners for funding injections, unless these are explicitly authorised.

European carriers certainly do receive subsidies from governments to operate routes deemed as essential for social-economic reasons. But the subsidy is authorised and regulated under the EU PSO legislation. There are similar programmes operating in the US and Australia.

Much of the aid received by Ryanair, and other LCCs, is trickier - it is generally not state aid, nor is it aimed at keeping the airline afloat: rather it is provided by regional authorities to promote accessibility and tourism. to the area under their jurisdiction.


There's an interesting but rather dense paper on subsidies to aviation available through MDPI
IAN-UK is offline  
Old Mar 11, 18, 5:06 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,365
Originally Posted by IAN-UK View Post
State aid to airlines operates under a highly restrictive framework within the EU. State-owned carriers cannot turn to their owners for funding injections, unless these are explicitly authorised.

European carriers certainly do receive subsidies from governments to operate routes deemed as essential for social-economic reasons. But the subsidy is authorised and regulated under the EU PSO legislation. There are similar programmes operating in the US and Australia.
Today. But those rules weren't around pre-European communities/in non-European communities countries.

Originally Posted by IAN-UK View Post
Much of the aid received by Ryanair, and other LCCs, is trickier - it is generally not state aid, nor is it aimed at keeping the airline afloat: rather it is provided by regional authorities to promote accessibility and tourism. to the area under their jurisdiction.
It is generally state aid. In most cases the question revolved around whether the given state aid was compatible with EU treaties.
WorldLux is offline  
Old Mar 11, 18, 5:55 am
  #24  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: FB AF Silver, BA Gold
Posts: 13,196
The statement I read at Reuters is:
“Not for the foreseeable future, but if it continues long term our shareholders will have to put additional equity into the company,”

I am not an expert on EU regulations, but I guess that such a capital increase would be OK at any EU airline, even those with a part-ownership by the State like AFKL or even AZ. I know that State aid can take many forms but if all shareholders, including the State, subscribe to the capital increase, is that prohibited?
brunos is offline  
Old Mar 11, 18, 7:41 am
  #25  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, LH, QR, TK
Posts: 13,842
Originally Posted by WorldLux View Post
Today. But those rules weren't around pre-European communities/in non-European communities countries.
We have to face the world today, not as it was. Your earlier post referred to 1984. That was over a generation ago. Things have changed: airlines in most states are no longer government departments, Germany is reunited, Donald Trump is president of the United States and I no longer wear short trousers.

Originally Posted by WorldLux View Post
[the subsidies low-cost carriers receive] is generally state aid.
the term 'state aid' in this instance covers a multitude of facets, from direct intervention by the government through to rational investment by public bodies such as airports and regional tourism authorities. The first of those is viewed frostily by DG COMP, the others less so, where a convincing argument is that the airport/tourism authority etc benefit from the arrangement, or have reasonable expectations of gaining benefit and are behaving as a rational investor might. Ryanair, for one has had quite a measure of success in justifying aid received from public, and non-public, entities as incentives to operate at/into the airports and regions, and to increase operations there. And worth noting such incentives to start new routes, or increase capacity on a route, are expected to be open to all carriers, not only LCCs
.
We were discussing direct intervention by the state in improving QR's financial position, not the incentive deals it may or may not receive from Cardiff et al.

Last edited by IAN-UK; Mar 11, 18 at 8:07 am
IAN-UK is offline  
Old Mar 11, 18, 8:00 am
  #26  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, LH, QR, TK
Posts: 13,842
Originally Posted by brunos View Post
The statement I read at Reuters is:
“Not for the foreseeable future, but if it continues long term our shareholders will have to put additional equity into the company,”

I am not an expert on EU regulations, but I guess that such a capital increase would be OK at any EU airline, even those with a part-ownership by the State like AFKL or even AZ. I know that State aid can take many forms but if all shareholders, including the State, subscribe to the capital increase, is that prohibited?
"putting equity into the company" is a euphemism for giving the airline cash. As such it would most certainly be seen as state aid. A cash call or rights issue faces a rational investor with a dilemma: would you put money into QR? The terms offered to entice our rational investor would probably need to be so attractive, it would make the exercise pointless.


But of course the Qatar situation is quite different. The Portuguese government did not claim the existence of TAP was crucial to the socio-economic well-being of Portugal, other carriers would, after all, step into its shoes. But QR faces an existential crisis and the airline is vital to the state - though perhaps not in its current form.
IAN-UK is offline  
Old Mar 11, 18, 1:40 pm
  #27  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,365
Originally Posted by IAN-UK View Post
We have to face the world today, not as it was. Your earlier post referred to 1984. That was over a generation ago. Things have changed: airlines in most states are no longer government departments, Germany is reunited, Donald Trump is president of the United States and I no longer wear short trousers.
Sure. On the other hand, I dislike the attitude of established legacy carriers grand standing about not getting massive subsidies. Considering the relatively high market entry barriers, having been a nationalised company until fairly recently certainly allowed them to achieve significant market shares and crush smaller competitors. Airlines shouldn't receive subsidies (aside the context of flying less profitable regional routes), but IMO legacy airlines should be the very last to complain.

Originally Posted by IAN-UK View Post
We were discussing direct intervention by the state in improving QR's financial position, not the incentive deals it may or may not receive from Cardiff et al.
You brought up the notion of state aid (EU law terminology IIRC) which includes a wide range of advantages given by directly by the state, regional authorities or state controlled companies, including reducing landing/handling fees. BTW pumping cash into a company wouldn't necessarily be contrary to EU law.
dodgeflyer likes this.
WorldLux is offline  
Old Mar 11, 18, 4:35 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SLC/HEL/Anywhere with a Beach
Programs: Marriott Ambassador; AA EXP 3MM; AS MVP, Hilton Gold, CH-47/UH-60/C-23/C-130 VET
Posts: 5,234
And the subsidy question seems to me as something that makes it difficult for LH, BA, and AF to compete on certain routes.

I'm still lost how it impacts the US carriers since even in the absence of the ME3, they wouldn't have any routes that would otherwise compete with those operated by the ME3.
C17PSGR is offline  
Old Mar 11, 18, 5:32 pm
  #29  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,365
Originally Posted by DatBoi View Post
I don't give a flying f**k about subsidies unless the end product delivered is superior.
I think it should when it potentially impacts competition. The worst case scenario would be competitors going bust and the few subsidised airlines dominating the market. That seems IMO however far fetched.

Originally Posted by C17PSGR View Post
I'm still lost how it impacts the US carriers since even in the absence of the ME3, they wouldn't have any routes that would otherwise compete with those operated by the ME3.
The many US-Asia routes for instance. The US3 have gotten quite a bit of pressure on those routes by the ME3 and, more recently, Chinese airlines.
WorldLux is offline  
Old Mar 11, 18, 6:23 pm
  #30  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, LH, QR, TK
Posts: 13,842
Originally Posted by C17PSGR View Post
I'm still lost how it impacts the US carriers since even in the absence of the ME3, they wouldn't have any routes that would otherwise compete with those operated by the ME3.
As an example, certain routes between the US and India are important in terms of traffic volume and revenue. Before the prominence of the Middle-East carriers, much of this traffic routed through the major European hubs with the transatlantic component operated by a US carrier or a revenue-sharing code-share partner of a US carrier.

The likes of QR now bypass the European hubs, flying (eg) Bangalore Doha New York.
IAN-UK is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: