BMI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: On the side of the pitch!
Age: 47
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bmi group has been bought by the Lufthansa Group which includes airlines like Lufthansa, Brussels Airlines, Swiss, Jade etc. bmi will just be another company under the Lufthansa banner trading as bmi for the time being anyway, exactly in the same way as Swiss International Airlines. This hasn't got anything to do with Lufthansa as an airline but Lufthansa as a group of companies. You're not going to see a fleet of large blue tailed German registered aircraft based at Heathrow for the foreseeable future. I think it could be a great thing for bmi, with some much needed investment especially in marketing and the brand. Providing jobs are safe.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Put / Call Option
Some earlier comments after my last post seem to misunderstand the situation (I certainly did not realise until a few months ago either). However, there is a great overview here on the FT website.
In fact there is loads of detail in the link that has been omitted on earlier comments, including German translation.
FT Alphaville » Blog Archive » BMI ‘Kinder-Surprise’
I quite like the new airline name they give it...B-mi kinder surprise...!
Deutsche Lektionen jedermann?
In fact there is loads of detail in the link that has been omitted on earlier comments, including German translation.
FT Alphaville » Blog Archive » BMI ‘Kinder-Surprise’
I quite like the new airline name they give it...B-mi kinder surprise...!
Deutsche Lektionen jedermann?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jetting across the universe..
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kind of amusing to see people assuming this came as some kind of surprise to VS. Unless they had their eyes and ears shut for a long time, they knew it was coming and probably before we did.
Of course VS want to link up with this, and it might make a lot of commercial sense than LH trying to come in "cold" to Heathrow and do long haul..there is quite a lot of synergy there...
As for baby? Adoption will most likely in the near future, IMHO.
Of course VS want to link up with this, and it might make a lot of commercial sense than LH trying to come in "cold" to Heathrow and do long haul..there is quite a lot of synergy there...
As for baby? Adoption will most likely in the near future, IMHO.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether Sir Michael choose this moment before a general market downturn for sound financial reasons or preempted an inevitable Lufthansa takeover is immaterial.
FT.com / Home UK / UK - Lufthansa plans to take control of BMI
Since they signed the agreement bmi was always going to be a Lufthansa company. The essentail difference between a strategically run company like Lufthansa and a reactive one like bmi is that you plan for the future and let events fine tune your model rather than develop your model on events.
Once the initial pain of transition occurs, bmi, in whatever from it takes, should hopefully become a more stable place to work with a consistent product provided to customers.
FT.com / Home UK / UK - Lufthansa plans to take control of BMI
Since they signed the agreement bmi was always going to be a Lufthansa company. The essentail difference between a strategically run company like Lufthansa and a reactive one like bmi is that you plan for the future and let events fine tune your model rather than develop your model on events.
Once the initial pain of transition occurs, bmi, in whatever from it takes, should hopefully become a more stable place to work with a consistent product provided to customers.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luftansa bmi and Virgin
Firstly with the "put/call option.
SMB had until the 1st Dec 08 to either sell to whoever he wanted to or to make Lufty buy his share, after that Lufty had the option to buy without SMB saying no. I think there is more to this story than meets the eye,and i think we only have half the story at the moment.
The time SMB has decided to sell is slightly odd. It could be as speculated that now is a good time to get out and let the big boys play or as i suspect there has been a deal done with Lufty and Virgin! Possibly Lufty has bought Singapores share in Virgin or the whole lot and i think that will be announced when the dust settles from the Lufty takover of bmi.
That would also explain why Ridgeway is looking like a desperate idiot saying he will buy bmi from Lufty. Lufty dont want a one off payment they want to build a sustainable business that makes money year on year and that is not achieved by giving it to virgin.
Virgin serve no major use to Lufty or BA. The only reason i can think that Ridgeway is being so arrogant is that either he knows Virgin has been bought and wants to make it look like his idea to save face or, he really is stupid enough to actually beleive his own rhetoric that BA or Lufty care about Virgin!
If there are no plans in place for Virgin though its not looking good for them because they are now completely isolated!
As to the brand if it is only bmi that lufty have aquired then it would make sense to put it under Luftansas name. If virgin are involved then a new name maybe but i personally cant see any sense in keeping the lack of a brand bmi.
I hope its good news for bmi employees. There is going to be a lot of restructuring going on and people will loose there jobs but hopefully the majority of jobs will be safe.
Good luck to everyone in bmi lets hope it works out!
SMB had until the 1st Dec 08 to either sell to whoever he wanted to or to make Lufty buy his share, after that Lufty had the option to buy without SMB saying no. I think there is more to this story than meets the eye,and i think we only have half the story at the moment.
The time SMB has decided to sell is slightly odd. It could be as speculated that now is a good time to get out and let the big boys play or as i suspect there has been a deal done with Lufty and Virgin! Possibly Lufty has bought Singapores share in Virgin or the whole lot and i think that will be announced when the dust settles from the Lufty takover of bmi.
That would also explain why Ridgeway is looking like a desperate idiot saying he will buy bmi from Lufty. Lufty dont want a one off payment they want to build a sustainable business that makes money year on year and that is not achieved by giving it to virgin.
Virgin serve no major use to Lufty or BA. The only reason i can think that Ridgeway is being so arrogant is that either he knows Virgin has been bought and wants to make it look like his idea to save face or, he really is stupid enough to actually beleive his own rhetoric that BA or Lufty care about Virgin!
If there are no plans in place for Virgin though its not looking good for them because they are now completely isolated!
As to the brand if it is only bmi that lufty have aquired then it would make sense to put it under Luftansas name. If virgin are involved then a new name maybe but i personally cant see any sense in keeping the lack of a brand bmi.
I hope its good news for bmi employees. There is going to be a lot of restructuring going on and people will loose there jobs but hopefully the majority of jobs will be safe.
Good luck to everyone in bmi lets hope it works out!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the upside it might be a great chance for Lufthansa to invest some more money into bmibaby, get rid of those B733 and replace them with A319 for example...
Whois Record
Domain name: britishwings.co.uk
Registrant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Registrant type: Non-UK Corporation
Registrant's address: Airportring Frankfurt/Main 60546 DE
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Trindade
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the Spring the free business newspaper City:AM had an article about Singapore wanting to sell its stake in Virgin Atlantic.
In the Summer, an article about Sir Michael Bishop suggested that he knew the value of his Heathrow slots but was not about to sell the airline.
Virgin has obviously wanted to get on Board with Sir Michael. When I saw that DLH had bought his 50% I was quite surprised.
There is quite a bit going on behind the scenes, certainly for Bishop to reverse his position from the summer.
Will Lufthansa buy Singapore's 49% stake in Virgin Atlantic ??
Or is Virgin's announcement a panic media measure?
The balance sheets will probably tell the true story.
My German teacher used to tell me that the Germans don't have a word for efficient, they just are !!
This conflicts with an episode from the TV series 'Secret Army' . The British Army Major Bradley, an SOE operative said, "The Germans are neither efficient or organised, when things go wrong, they panic!"
Take your pick, perhaps this article helps?:-
Sir Michael Bishop: Plotting a steady course through stormy skies
BMI's boss tells Andrew Cave he is optimistic about the future of the airline industry, despite its current travail
Sir Michael Bishop wants to make one thing clear. While he has spent his working life in aviation, he's not passionate about it. Passion, it seems, is for fools. Instead, the BMI chairman sees himself as a pragmatist. So that's how he's survived a bumpy ride of 44 years in one of the world's most volatile industries?
"I think people will always journalistically use this term just because I started at BMI when I was 22 and I am now 66," he says carefully.
" That's 44 years in the same company, which is unusual in today's business life, but the word 'passion' implies you are immune to a pragmatic approach to your business and that's not true.
"I'm not passionate in the sense that I would do something that I felt was not in the best interests of the business or the employees. I'm pragmatic about things."
But he is enthusiastic, prods his watching PR man. "Yes," BMI's majority shareholder concedes. "And I hope I possibly have a little knowledge of it but then a little knowledge, they say, is a dangerous thing."
More on transport
It certainly can be in the airline industry but Bishop, who took control of BMI as part of a consortium in 1978, has been in it a lot longer than the backers of grounded business-only airlines MaxJet, Eos and SilverJet.
"It's an extremely vibrant industry," he says, a little wearily. "It attracts a lot of interested publicity because people think it's a glamorous business. But I can assure you it is not, a lot of the time."
He turns to the failed carriers, whose lack of longevity is in stark contrast to his own. "MaxJet, Eos and SilverJet were financed by people who were prepared to put money in business plans, all of which failed. It's easy to say they went down because the oil price went up and there was certainly an element of that. But what absolutely amazed me is that each of these carriers actually went through about £50m of capital and cash in about 18 months." Bishop's contrasting approach is evident as he continues: "The airline industry burns cash faster than any other when things go wrong. In business, to survive, you have to be very pragmatic.
"People find the industry extremely interesting. It gives them a buzz. But it's also a quick way to lose money."
BMI is not yet doing that, though its profits last year nose-dived from £29.7m to £15.5m. To counter this, BMI has imposed fuel surcharges, like other airlines. Its restructuring scheme, Blue Skies, was already in place and has trimmed costs by £100m in the past four years. And it is reducing capacity by substituting 50-seater regional jets for 130-seater aircraft on four of its winter routes out of Heath*row. Yet the worst of th e downturn may be yet to come, with Ryanair's colourful chief executive Michael O'Leary predicting that only five European airlines will survive it.
Sir Michael is, characteristically, circumspect. "I have a certain amount of déjà vu because I think that what's happening in the airline industry is not too dissimilar to what happened in 2001 or in 1992 or in 1981," he notes.
"It's actually what happened when I first started running an airline in 1973. The problems in 1973 were basically caused one weekend when I was running BMI as a very much smaller airline and the price of oil jumped from $6 to $36.
"There was the same level of international tension in the Middle East; there were poor UK economic prospects and there was in 1974 a very similar kind of credit crisis and the prospect of recession.
"So all the ingredients that are making the airlines have difficulties now are very similar to then and I think we will have the same effects. Airlines did go out of business but we certainly didn't finish up with five airlines. I think Michael O'Leary is wrong. It's far too radical an outcome."
Instead, he's "fundamentally optimistic" about the continued long-term growth of the industry, though he believes its recovery is probably between 18 months and two-and-a-half years away.
So how does he rank the industry's problems? Predictably, the oil price tops his list. Will it rise much further? "If I knew that, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you."
Next, he's worried about high airline taxes around the world. Then it's airport costs: the subject of week's Competition Commission report into whether BAA, the airports operator, should be broken up. Sir Michael is in no doubt that it should be.
"This was a very early privatisation and I think it's recognised that in today's world a privatisation giving this degree of market preference to one operator would not be considered to be in the national interest," he says. "We need a revision."
The main reason, he says, is that BAA's block ownership of Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Southampton in the south-east and the Scottish airports of Glasgow and Edinburgh mean that there's no way of benchmarking the costs and efficiency of airports.
"We're told that airports cost so much and runways cost so much but there are a lot of different views and we have to rely on one monopoly operator to set the bar as to what the costs of building an airport are," he says. "That can't be right and it certainly can't be right to have the iniquitous level of charging that we have for short-haul flights at Heathrow.
" Airport fees should be based on costs incurred by the operation providing the facility and not on charging because of the scarcity value of the airport location. "
Sir Michael stresses that BMI supports Ferrovial, BAA's Spanish owner, and wants to co-operate with it.
"If you take a long-term view, the amount of money that Ferrovial paid is probably the value of Heathrow on its own," he says. "They won't be out of pocket on this purchase and certainly not if they have to dispose of other airports. I think there would be a strong case for them to keep Heathrow but any two of the four of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Stansted or Gatwick would probably be the right level of disposal."
Then he switches his attention to another bugbear, the ownership restrictions that he says make it difficult for global airlines to merge.
Last week's news of agreement between British Airways, Iberia of Spain and American Airlines to form a joint business to co-operate on flights from the UK and Europe to the US, Canada and Mexico is merely the latest consolidation plan to test the US Department of Transportation and the European Commission.
Bishop sees this as a natural continuation of the airline industry's three large alliances, BA and American's OneWorld, Air France and KLM's Skyteam and the Star Alliance, which includes Lufthansa, United and BMI.
"The question with American Airlines is the same one that many of the alliances share," he says phlegmatically. "The Star Alliance and Skyteam have already secured the kind of anti-trust immunity in the US that BA and American are now seeking, so it's not breaking any new ground.
"The path along which BA is now proceeding is no different. BA and Iberia are seeking to merge in the same way that Air France and KLM have. And they are seeking immunity in the same way as Air France/KLM have done with North-West in the US and Lufthansa has done with United.
"I don't think this is anything new. In fact it is more likely to be successful because there are precedents for it now. They're catching up with what's been going on for the past three or four years."
BMI has its own consolidation to consider too, with Lufthansa's call options over Bishop's stake in BMI expiring next year but he won't be drawn on what might happen.
"The two principal shareholders - Lufthansa has 30 per cent less one share and I have 50 per cent plus one share - are weighing up their options and no decisions have been made," is all that he will say.
Nor does he want to discuss his own future. At 66, can he foresee a time when he doesn't want to be involved in owning an airline? Suddenly the air turns frosty. "It's not a subject that I think it would be wise to be drawn on," he says quietly and that, apparently, is that.
Is there the hint of emotion there? It's hard to tell. But maybe this lifetime aviation man is more passionate about the industry than he cares to admit.
Source: The Telegraph
In the Summer, an article about Sir Michael Bishop suggested that he knew the value of his Heathrow slots but was not about to sell the airline.
Virgin has obviously wanted to get on Board with Sir Michael. When I saw that DLH had bought his 50% I was quite surprised.
There is quite a bit going on behind the scenes, certainly for Bishop to reverse his position from the summer.
Will Lufthansa buy Singapore's 49% stake in Virgin Atlantic ??
Or is Virgin's announcement a panic media measure?
The balance sheets will probably tell the true story.
My German teacher used to tell me that the Germans don't have a word for efficient, they just are !!
This conflicts with an episode from the TV series 'Secret Army' . The British Army Major Bradley, an SOE operative said, "The Germans are neither efficient or organised, when things go wrong, they panic!"
Take your pick, perhaps this article helps?:-
Sir Michael Bishop: Plotting a steady course through stormy skies
BMI's boss tells Andrew Cave he is optimistic about the future of the airline industry, despite its current travail
Sir Michael Bishop wants to make one thing clear. While he has spent his working life in aviation, he's not passionate about it. Passion, it seems, is for fools. Instead, the BMI chairman sees himself as a pragmatist. So that's how he's survived a bumpy ride of 44 years in one of the world's most volatile industries?
"I think people will always journalistically use this term just because I started at BMI when I was 22 and I am now 66," he says carefully.
" That's 44 years in the same company, which is unusual in today's business life, but the word 'passion' implies you are immune to a pragmatic approach to your business and that's not true.
"I'm not passionate in the sense that I would do something that I felt was not in the best interests of the business or the employees. I'm pragmatic about things."
But he is enthusiastic, prods his watching PR man. "Yes," BMI's majority shareholder concedes. "And I hope I possibly have a little knowledge of it but then a little knowledge, they say, is a dangerous thing."
More on transport
It certainly can be in the airline industry but Bishop, who took control of BMI as part of a consortium in 1978, has been in it a lot longer than the backers of grounded business-only airlines MaxJet, Eos and SilverJet.
"It's an extremely vibrant industry," he says, a little wearily. "It attracts a lot of interested publicity because people think it's a glamorous business. But I can assure you it is not, a lot of the time."
He turns to the failed carriers, whose lack of longevity is in stark contrast to his own. "MaxJet, Eos and SilverJet were financed by people who were prepared to put money in business plans, all of which failed. It's easy to say they went down because the oil price went up and there was certainly an element of that. But what absolutely amazed me is that each of these carriers actually went through about £50m of capital and cash in about 18 months." Bishop's contrasting approach is evident as he continues: "The airline industry burns cash faster than any other when things go wrong. In business, to survive, you have to be very pragmatic.
"People find the industry extremely interesting. It gives them a buzz. But it's also a quick way to lose money."
BMI is not yet doing that, though its profits last year nose-dived from £29.7m to £15.5m. To counter this, BMI has imposed fuel surcharges, like other airlines. Its restructuring scheme, Blue Skies, was already in place and has trimmed costs by £100m in the past four years. And it is reducing capacity by substituting 50-seater regional jets for 130-seater aircraft on four of its winter routes out of Heath*row. Yet the worst of th e downturn may be yet to come, with Ryanair's colourful chief executive Michael O'Leary predicting that only five European airlines will survive it.
Sir Michael is, characteristically, circumspect. "I have a certain amount of déjà vu because I think that what's happening in the airline industry is not too dissimilar to what happened in 2001 or in 1992 or in 1981," he notes.
"It's actually what happened when I first started running an airline in 1973. The problems in 1973 were basically caused one weekend when I was running BMI as a very much smaller airline and the price of oil jumped from $6 to $36.
"There was the same level of international tension in the Middle East; there were poor UK economic prospects and there was in 1974 a very similar kind of credit crisis and the prospect of recession.
"So all the ingredients that are making the airlines have difficulties now are very similar to then and I think we will have the same effects. Airlines did go out of business but we certainly didn't finish up with five airlines. I think Michael O'Leary is wrong. It's far too radical an outcome."
Instead, he's "fundamentally optimistic" about the continued long-term growth of the industry, though he believes its recovery is probably between 18 months and two-and-a-half years away.
So how does he rank the industry's problems? Predictably, the oil price tops his list. Will it rise much further? "If I knew that, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you."
Next, he's worried about high airline taxes around the world. Then it's airport costs: the subject of week's Competition Commission report into whether BAA, the airports operator, should be broken up. Sir Michael is in no doubt that it should be.
"This was a very early privatisation and I think it's recognised that in today's world a privatisation giving this degree of market preference to one operator would not be considered to be in the national interest," he says. "We need a revision."
The main reason, he says, is that BAA's block ownership of Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Southampton in the south-east and the Scottish airports of Glasgow and Edinburgh mean that there's no way of benchmarking the costs and efficiency of airports.
"We're told that airports cost so much and runways cost so much but there are a lot of different views and we have to rely on one monopoly operator to set the bar as to what the costs of building an airport are," he says. "That can't be right and it certainly can't be right to have the iniquitous level of charging that we have for short-haul flights at Heathrow.
" Airport fees should be based on costs incurred by the operation providing the facility and not on charging because of the scarcity value of the airport location. "
Sir Michael stresses that BMI supports Ferrovial, BAA's Spanish owner, and wants to co-operate with it.
"If you take a long-term view, the amount of money that Ferrovial paid is probably the value of Heathrow on its own," he says. "They won't be out of pocket on this purchase and certainly not if they have to dispose of other airports. I think there would be a strong case for them to keep Heathrow but any two of the four of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Stansted or Gatwick would probably be the right level of disposal."
Then he switches his attention to another bugbear, the ownership restrictions that he says make it difficult for global airlines to merge.
Last week's news of agreement between British Airways, Iberia of Spain and American Airlines to form a joint business to co-operate on flights from the UK and Europe to the US, Canada and Mexico is merely the latest consolidation plan to test the US Department of Transportation and the European Commission.
Bishop sees this as a natural continuation of the airline industry's three large alliances, BA and American's OneWorld, Air France and KLM's Skyteam and the Star Alliance, which includes Lufthansa, United and BMI.
"The question with American Airlines is the same one that many of the alliances share," he says phlegmatically. "The Star Alliance and Skyteam have already secured the kind of anti-trust immunity in the US that BA and American are now seeking, so it's not breaking any new ground.
"The path along which BA is now proceeding is no different. BA and Iberia are seeking to merge in the same way that Air France and KLM have. And they are seeking immunity in the same way as Air France/KLM have done with North-West in the US and Lufthansa has done with United.
"I don't think this is anything new. In fact it is more likely to be successful because there are precedents for it now. They're catching up with what's been going on for the past three or four years."
BMI has its own consolidation to consider too, with Lufthansa's call options over Bishop's stake in BMI expiring next year but he won't be drawn on what might happen.
"The two principal shareholders - Lufthansa has 30 per cent less one share and I have 50 per cent plus one share - are weighing up their options and no decisions have been made," is all that he will say.
Nor does he want to discuss his own future. At 66, can he foresee a time when he doesn't want to be involved in owning an airline? Suddenly the air turns frosty. "It's not a subject that I think it would be wise to be drawn on," he says quietly and that, apparently, is that.
Is there the hint of emotion there? It's hard to tell. But maybe this lifetime aviation man is more passionate about the industry than he cares to admit.
Source: The Telegraph
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: gate 67 JFK
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virginblue
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, lots of companies will reg: co names that might or might not be of use in the future. I read an article earlier this year about a chap who spent his entire days setting up comanies with names that he thought others might want in the future. For example he would look at a sector such as banking and think LLoyds & TSB might get together at some time and Reg: Lloydstsb, he would do the same with Dot com, when a company tried to use that name he would block it until he was bought off. Ever wondered why flybmi.com wasn't bmi.com?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
INKJET,
I did not mean to say that it is the most likely of all scenarios (Lufthansa has registered all kind of "...wings"-domains all over Europe). It was just a light-hearted remark as others brought up the idea of bringing bmibaby under Lufthansa's LCC umbrella.
I am convinced that the preferred option will be to dump bmi baby asap. It is pretty evident - if you look at Germanwings - that Lufthansa is only interested in its LCCs as a strategic tool. They are not really developing this kind of business at a large scale, but use it at places where it keeps others at bay and does not hurt mainline operation too much. In the UK market, there is no need for such a strategic tool for Lufthansa, I would guess.
OTOH, I am not sure about bmi regional. Regional affiliates have been used to put some pressure on Lufthansa's (direct) regional subsidiaries, so if bmi regional books look alright and they have a sound cost base, one option could be to keep it to operate the regional routes between the UK and Germany and Belgium plus a number of hand-picked high-yield routes (as bmi regional already does).
I did not mean to say that it is the most likely of all scenarios (Lufthansa has registered all kind of "...wings"-domains all over Europe). It was just a light-hearted remark as others brought up the idea of bringing bmibaby under Lufthansa's LCC umbrella.
I am convinced that the preferred option will be to dump bmi baby asap. It is pretty evident - if you look at Germanwings - that Lufthansa is only interested in its LCCs as a strategic tool. They are not really developing this kind of business at a large scale, but use it at places where it keeps others at bay and does not hurt mainline operation too much. In the UK market, there is no need for such a strategic tool for Lufthansa, I would guess.
OTOH, I am not sure about bmi regional. Regional affiliates have been used to put some pressure on Lufthansa's (direct) regional subsidiaries, so if bmi regional books look alright and they have a sound cost base, one option could be to keep it to operate the regional routes between the UK and Germany and Belgium plus a number of hand-picked high-yield routes (as bmi regional already does).
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My guess [and it is only that].....Ezy takes baby and (surely the biggest winner) flybe to take regional -then flybe have the whole market water-tight and good luck to 'em! LHR is up in the air - although everyone has a slight spring in their step.....
The future could be good....but definitely not Orange!
The future could be good....but definitely not Orange!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Barton Upon Humber
Posts: 1,984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Currently bmi regional and Flybe only compete directly on MAN-GLA/EDI so while the OfT would probably look at any BE/regional deal should it ever happen, direct competition is limited. Its the market share in the regional domestic market that would be the issue
Join Date: May 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like so many others I choked when I heard the news and then burst out laughing when I read todays papers about VS seeking some sort of deal with LH. I wonder why LH would be interested in VS if SIA still haven't managed to flog their share in Sir Bearded Jumpers airline? Answers in no more than three words please.
On a serious note, I hope that the BD staff all manage to get through the re-organisation and I hope that they will emerge a better and stronger airline. Look at what LH have done to Swiss. LH will do the same thing to BMI and I for one think that the BMI's future is in excellent hands.
On a serious note, I hope that the BD staff all manage to get through the re-organisation and I hope that they will emerge a better and stronger airline. Look at what LH have done to Swiss. LH will do the same thing to BMI and I for one think that the BMI's future is in excellent hands.
