Change of management at Ocean Sky
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Change of management at Ocean Sky
Can anyone confirm or explain what is happening at OCS ?
I heard an unconfirmed whisper that Kurosh Tehranchian has been replaced at CEO of OCS
Seems odd considering the recent and surprising Triple Alpha purchase.
SB
I heard an unconfirmed whisper that Kurosh Tehranchian has been replaced at CEO of OCS
Seems odd considering the recent and surprising Triple Alpha purchase.
SB
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has been on the go since June.
They were advertising for a new MD/CEO with a number of agencys for a few months now.
When speaking to one in Aug they said he was bing replaced as things were not going well.
They were advertising for a new MD/CEO with a number of agencys for a few months now.
When speaking to one in Aug they said he was bing replaced as things were not going well.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Only upon request
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoever is next, (s)he may still have some money left to play with:
From a May 2009 Forbes article:
"A month ago the Tehranchians and their investors put another 32 million pounds ($50.9 million) into the business. "We wanted to send a signal that we don't need to raise [more capital]"
Rough Ride In Russia - Forbes.com
From a May 2009 Forbes article:
"A month ago the Tehranchians and their investors put another 32 million pounds ($50.9 million) into the business. "We wanted to send a signal that we don't need to raise [more capital]"
Rough Ride In Russia - Forbes.com
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flat Spin: "fastjet45 -what bull**** road? From where I sit they've done ok"
You think a $9M loss on $101M of sales is OK ?!!
Surely it would have been better to stay at home; you can have a hell of a party for $8m and still have a $million change. Kerosene makes people lose all sense of any business reality.
You think a $9M loss on $101M of sales is OK ?!!
Surely it would have been better to stay at home; you can have a hell of a party for $8m and still have a $million change. Kerosene makes people lose all sense of any business reality.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flat-spin: if I sell you a load of genuine $100 bills for $90 each, and you're so impressed you buy a million of them from me, have I done "bloody well" in being a great salesman and selling so many of them to you "in the current market" ....or have you done "bloody well" in taking me for one hell of a big ride at my expense?
In any market, there's no pride in selling below face value; you're just postponing the inevitable.
In any market, there's no pride in selling below face value; you're just postponing the inevitable.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In Exile...
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+1 to PT_Wind. What business school did you go to to think that loosing $9m off the back of $101m Sales could possibly be considered as "good"?! That's loosing just shy of 9% on every flight - or, selling a Ģ10k charter for Ģ9,100 ad infinitum. And that's just silly. Likewise using NJE as comparison to OCS is like comparing Enron to my local independant petrol station.
-$9m...by my reconing and at current rates that's like opening the hangar door one morning and finding someone's stolen a CJ2 and an XLS - and writing it off.
-$9m...by my reconing and at current rates that's like opening the hangar door one morning and finding someone's stolen a CJ2 and an XLS - and writing it off.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hell,
Someone ought to tell all the majors still losing mega-millions on mega billions turnover a quarter to shut up shop............... What's the big picture at OS?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A loss, even at 10 % on turnover, does not necessarily mean that business is bad.
Imagine that you sell a service. Year x you sell for and generate $100 million, at the same time you have costs reaching $80 million. Result, $20 profit. Year y you generate $115 million, have running costs at $85 million and make investments at $40 million. Result, $10 million loss.
Bad business?
CP
Imagine that you sell a service. Year x you sell for and generate $100 million, at the same time you have costs reaching $80 million. Result, $20 profit. Year y you generate $115 million, have running costs at $85 million and make investments at $40 million. Result, $10 million loss.
Bad business?
CP
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
x933 is very sound - was definitely listening at school. And very witty too!
CaptProp: you're right esp when you talk about 'making investments of...' but is that the case today? I think people are on survival rations and no one's seriously investing in anything (as an AOC holder), which means a loss is a loss. Serious investments appear on the balance sheet anyway, not the P&L.
CaptProp: you're right esp when you talk about 'making investments of...' but is that the case today? I think people are on survival rations and no one's seriously investing in anything (as an AOC holder), which means a loss is a loss. Serious investments appear on the balance sheet anyway, not the P&L.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pt-wind, you may or may not be correct. I don't know. I was just making a general point.
Having said that, a company could have made commitments on an investment years earlier when business was prospering. In this case you either cancel your investment, take the possible (likely!!) financial hit, or you stick to your commitments hoping for business to turn around so that your investment will start generating income.
CP
Having said that, a company could have made commitments on an investment years earlier when business was prospering. In this case you either cancel your investment, take the possible (likely!!) financial hit, or you stick to your commitments hoping for business to turn around so that your investment will start generating income.
CP
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: germany
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember what happened in US when de-regulation came in the 80īs, only survived those who could loss less money in long term. Anyhow Biz-jet is no longer a good business to run, it was, but thatīs part of history
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The long and the short of it guys is any fool can sell below cost and thtas exactly what they have been doing now it does not take a business school to teach you that selling below cost is going to result in a loss! In times of recesssion its is often better to actually increase your prices even if it means flying less! One profit making flight is better than 10 loss making flights any day.Having looked at some of their quotes it clear why they are making a loss!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a Manch biz magazine this week
PRIVATE JET REPOSSESSED
A Manchester-based Bombardier Challenger 605 private jet belonging to Ocean Sky Aviation Ltd, the private terminal operator at Manchester Airport, has been repossessed after the company allegedly failed to keep up with mortgage payments. The plane was placed into administrative receivership last month by Ohio-based National City Commercial Company, who provided the finance for the $26.7m 12-seater aircraft. Private jet movements at the airport have fallen by 26 per cent in the past 12 months. Ocean Sky Aviation, a Manchester-based subsidiary of Luxemburg firm Ocean International Group, is not in receivership. Ocean Sky Aviation said in a statement: The receiver has been appointed against a single aircraft, a Challenger, in a dispute with the bank over this particular account. Ocean Sky Aviation is one of a number of trading companies in the group.
A Manchester-based Bombardier Challenger 605 private jet belonging to Ocean Sky Aviation Ltd, the private terminal operator at Manchester Airport, has been repossessed after the company allegedly failed to keep up with mortgage payments. The plane was placed into administrative receivership last month by Ohio-based National City Commercial Company, who provided the finance for the $26.7m 12-seater aircraft. Private jet movements at the airport have fallen by 26 per cent in the past 12 months. Ocean Sky Aviation, a Manchester-based subsidiary of Luxemburg firm Ocean International Group, is not in receivership. Ocean Sky Aviation said in a statement: The receiver has been appointed against a single aircraft, a Challenger, in a dispute with the bank over this particular account. Ocean Sky Aviation is one of a number of trading companies in the group.
