Airlines are like a bank, as the customer is lending (depositing) money to the airline in return for a flight in the future.
If you believe this you don't know much about the way credit card companies operate.
My take is that this gives them a bit longer than the 6 months other's are guessing at - their previous burn rate on cash would suggest they should be OK for at least a year - maybe longer especially if they make some changes - especially on the lease/purchase front
This sort of comment makes no sense at all. You and others have absolutely no idea of "previous burn rate" as you only have (carefully crafted) press reports of what has been put in and absolutely no idea of what has been taken out - this company has been profitable (which nobody seems to be disputing) for the past two years and was profitable for 95% of its previous existence before late 2014 and since the late sixties under its previous owners. Previous cash injections (reported) and lots of dividends and loans repaid (not reported) makes for a pretty distorted picture to the outside world.
Everyone seems to think Greybull are shrewd, ruthless investors, so what are they doing investing (again) in a basket case then? Could it be that they have already seen a return on their initial investments in years 1 and 2?
The reality is that the cost base is the same or better than other locos since 2014 even without the benefits of the re-fleeting deal with Boeing, which will not bear fruit fully for a number of years. Yes, "Brexit" presents challenges with the weaker pound, but this applies to other UK carriers too who compete on similar routes with similar $ and Euro costs.
And as for "slashing fares" (
Independent article cited above), I very much doubt that the various fares algorithms will change as it seems bookings are holding up well and better than this time last year and will always be mainly influenced by those of competitors and other market conditions.