SOUTHEND 5
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 894
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Daws Heath Essex
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buster
And to put things in proportion Buster the next day Heathrow cancelled over 100 flights because of the same weather system that affected the Sen Malaga service.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe
The Flybe website is still having flights/schedules added. They aim to have it all released by the end of October / beginning of November so plenty of time for additions (e.g. the possible return of NQY for S15).
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stobart Results
The airport and full group results can be found here:
Interim Results for the six months ended 31 August
As usual, clear as mud but a few things can be gleaned from this. First, the airport property asset has been removed from the airport operating division and now sits in the infrastructure division. Second, is that the airport operating division results exclude the rent paid to the infrastructure division for use of the airport. When this "internal rent" is added back the airport looks to have made a £160,000 loss in the period.
The loss is in line with the reduction in Easyjet passengers that have not been replaced by new routes/airlines.
Interesting to note that the airport is targeting City of London passengers which suggests a move towards business rather than pleasure flights.
The target still seems to be 2.5m pax which will require plenty of new and varied airlines/routes.
Interim Results for the six months ended 31 August
As usual, clear as mud but a few things can be gleaned from this. First, the airport property asset has been removed from the airport operating division and now sits in the infrastructure division. Second, is that the airport operating division results exclude the rent paid to the infrastructure division for use of the airport. When this "internal rent" is added back the airport looks to have made a £160,000 loss in the period.
The loss is in line with the reduction in Easyjet passengers that have not been replaced by new routes/airlines.
Interesting to note that the airport is targeting City of London passengers which suggests a move towards business rather than pleasure flights.
The target still seems to be 2.5m pax which will require plenty of new and varied airlines/routes.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No loss in passenger numbers up to September 2014 - each month showed an increase over the previous year's equivalent. So any loss is on a slowly growing passenger total. They certainly need new routes soon in order to turn the loss into profit....... also need to generate more income from sales in the terminal. Let's hope they don't hit on the idea of an ADF..........
asdf1234
Perhaps I am misreading the interim trading figures but I cannot find your £0.160m loss, although I admit that I am no expert at deciphering financial results. I do see an EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest Taxation Depreciation and Amortisation) figure of £1.394m for the Aviation Division. An internal rent charge of £0.713m is applied to this giving a net earnings figure of £0.681m on a turnover of £12.27m.
The comparable figures a year ago were £0.574m EBITDA, £0.144m internal rent, £0.430m net earnings on £10.38m turnover.
That looks like something of an improvement to me, although the disappointing element of the report that accompanies the results is the relatively downbeat statement about future prospects. Just the rather general ".... positive, ongoing discussions with a good number (of airlines) about bringing routes to London Southend Airport". That doesn't sound like any further announcements can be expected soon - despite rumours that have recently been circulating the SEN scene.
Perhaps I am misreading the interim trading figures but I cannot find your £0.160m loss, although I admit that I am no expert at deciphering financial results. I do see an EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest Taxation Depreciation and Amortisation) figure of £1.394m for the Aviation Division. An internal rent charge of £0.713m is applied to this giving a net earnings figure of £0.681m on a turnover of £12.27m.
The comparable figures a year ago were £0.574m EBITDA, £0.144m internal rent, £0.430m net earnings on £10.38m turnover.
That looks like something of an improvement to me, although the disappointing element of the report that accompanies the results is the relatively downbeat statement about future prospects. Just the rather general ".... positive, ongoing discussions with a good number (of airlines) about bringing routes to London Southend Airport". That doesn't sound like any further announcements can be expected soon - despite rumours that have recently been circulating the SEN scene.
Last edited by Expressflight; 23rd Oct 2014 at 12:34. Reason: additional content
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expressflight,
You have stated the internal rent figures as quoted in the interim results correctly. However upon a closer examination it is clear that these figures need to be treated with caution (hence my earlier comment about them being "as clear as mud"). The internal rent figure is supposed to be closely linked to the asset value that is being used however neither this 6 month period's figure of £713k makes sense on a £100m+ asset, nor does the increase in the internal rent by a factor of x5 from the previous 6 monthly figures.
Either the infrastructure division is not making the most of the asset of the operating division is not paying for the use of the asset. If Stobart Group had maintained the previous EBITDA only reporting stance then no one would look at the internal rent but since it has been disclosed the figures are subject to scrutiny.
I've assumed a like-for-like earning potential on the airport as for other assets in the infrastructure division's portfolio. I calculate the internal rent on a like for like basis to be £1.56m. This is still represents a 77 year pay-back period for the investment in the airport but is a lot more realistic than the quoted £713k, which was undoubtedly used to show that the airport operations are making a modest profit.
The "muddiness" of the figures is not a concern for me. The statement that the new Flybe and Skyworks flights will not off-set the loss of Easyjet routes is. I think a radical rethink of the marketing strategy is in order. It is nice to see the management thinking about the City of London and hence business customers but a large number of business customers need early morning/late evening same day flights otherwise they will go elsewhere. The Easyjet Geneva offering is a classic example that won't attract a single business passenger. I think the golf club toting Malaga set have enough flights to satisfy them. What the airport now needs is early morning departures to key European business destinations (supported by a train service running early in the morning) and late evening return flights. Let's hope the management are thinking along the same lines!
You have stated the internal rent figures as quoted in the interim results correctly. However upon a closer examination it is clear that these figures need to be treated with caution (hence my earlier comment about them being "as clear as mud"). The internal rent figure is supposed to be closely linked to the asset value that is being used however neither this 6 month period's figure of £713k makes sense on a £100m+ asset, nor does the increase in the internal rent by a factor of x5 from the previous 6 monthly figures.
Either the infrastructure division is not making the most of the asset of the operating division is not paying for the use of the asset. If Stobart Group had maintained the previous EBITDA only reporting stance then no one would look at the internal rent but since it has been disclosed the figures are subject to scrutiny.
I've assumed a like-for-like earning potential on the airport as for other assets in the infrastructure division's portfolio. I calculate the internal rent on a like for like basis to be £1.56m. This is still represents a 77 year pay-back period for the investment in the airport but is a lot more realistic than the quoted £713k, which was undoubtedly used to show that the airport operations are making a modest profit.
The "muddiness" of the figures is not a concern for me. The statement that the new Flybe and Skyworks flights will not off-set the loss of Easyjet routes is. I think a radical rethink of the marketing strategy is in order. It is nice to see the management thinking about the City of London and hence business customers but a large number of business customers need early morning/late evening same day flights otherwise they will go elsewhere. The Easyjet Geneva offering is a classic example that won't attract a single business passenger. I think the golf club toting Malaga set have enough flights to satisfy them. What the airport now needs is early morning departures to key European business destinations (supported by a train service running early in the morning) and late evening return flights. Let's hope the management are thinking along the same lines!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is nice to see the management thinking about the City of London and hence business customers
Luton is just heaving with business jets parked up to 5 deep on 7 different aprons so there is plenty of business to go around. When you add to that the amount of biz jet traffic that uses Farnborough, Stansted, Biggin Hill and Northholt Southend should be buzzing but is it?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southend
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southend could not cope with more than a couple of exec jets. Poor staffing and lack of amenities for crew. Plus they often have refuelling issues due again to lack of staff and insufficient bunkered fuel. ( Big Orange get priority on fuel). Even based aircraft and crew have problems.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bizjets at SEN
LTNman
The airport management are not interested in attracting meaningful bizjet movements to SEN. Many have tried but none have succeeded in making the airport a home for their bizjet operations.
The airport management seems to think they know best and can do it all by themselves. The official statistics tell a different story!
When the airport decides to treat bizjet operators, FBO providers and existing tenants as partners in their business rather than potential cash cows to be pillaged they might see an improvement in bizjet movements. Just don't hold your breath!
The airport management are not interested in attracting meaningful bizjet movements to SEN. Many have tried but none have succeeded in making the airport a home for their bizjet operations.
The airport management seems to think they know best and can do it all by themselves. The official statistics tell a different story!
When the airport decides to treat bizjet operators, FBO providers and existing tenants as partners in their business rather than potential cash cows to be pillaged they might see an improvement in bizjet movements. Just don't hold your breath!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surprised to hear about a lack of effort to attract business jet traffic. There is money to made out of these flights and quite a bit of money at that if SEN can hit high numbers. With the airport running at a loss all avenues for making money should be seized.
I wouldn't argue with a lot that has been said in the past couple of posts although I think at last there may be something of a change of management style with a number of perhaps more enlightened staff in post recently. I don't agree that SEN is loss making though, as the published figures don't support that view, and surely it's a given that they will be exploring all avenues to gain new business.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a depressing article. Every airport with spare capacity is talking to every possible airline, so in that sense there are hundreds of airlines circling dozens of airports. It will only be of interest when he says that two or three carriers are giving really serious consideration to using SEN. That really needs to happen some time soon.....
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Daws Heath Essex
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stobart Air
I watched Andrew Tinkler being interviewed on TV yesterday. and no I wouldn't buy a second hand car from that man. It was a pitiful performance.
Southend Airport needs professional aviation marketing. They are ' talking to 50 airlines '. I had presumed that is what they have been doing since the airport was given its planning permission, but having had close contact with some its endless parade of no hoper management and pr people I will not hold my breath.
I hope I am proved wrong, and I await some announcement that was flagged up a couple of weeks ago.
Stobart Air have much to learn, but sadly it seems currently they are bottom of the class.
Southend Airport needs professional aviation marketing. They are ' talking to 50 airlines '. I had presumed that is what they have been doing since the airport was given its planning permission, but having had close contact with some its endless parade of no hoper management and pr people I will not hold my breath.
I hope I am proved wrong, and I await some announcement that was flagged up a couple of weeks ago.
Stobart Air have much to learn, but sadly it seems currently they are bottom of the class.
Last edited by Planespeaking; 24th Oct 2014 at 18:05.