Gold Air becomes Air Partner
 

http://www.advfn.com/news_Acquisitio..._17179831.html

Interesting. So, what do we all think then...?

Well it's another exit startegy. Would suspect it will be to enhance the block / fractional wing of AP?

What do operators of similar aircraft to the LR45 think? If AP ring up LEA for an XL quote what will the response be?



Phil

Well I expect they'll see a reduction in business from the other brokers that's for sure but I guess Gold Air / Air Partner won't miss it.

Indeed. Most brokers would be loathed to expose their clients to one of their direct competitors. Furthermore, unless the 45's are marketed at rates more inline with their competitors similar aircraft (always overpriced), the ad-hoc broker link for GA/AP will cease to exist.

I hear that Mr Curtis has been doing the rounds to the brokers ensuring them that all flights booked through Gold Air will be confidential and that Air Partner will not get hold of any passenger manifests. Hmmm. Not sure about that - With Mr B as Commercial Director I can't help but feel that the temptation would be too great to send accross any interesting "names" to the AP HQ! Sorry, I just don't trust em :suspect:

All my Lear 45 & Hawker 800 business ex UK will be heading FAB from now on!

doesn't every brokering agent give his client details to the air operating company on every flight, so surely the jet companies know who everyone's client is, during the flight? And especially if going to USA they need to details for security.

I posted something to this effect back in April. However, whilst I knew they were up for sale, I didn't think Air Partner would buy "Dirty Books"!

See here....:ooh:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...highlight=gold

Well, yes they do, but there is an understanding between operators and brokers that the operators will not chase after a brokers clients directly, partly down to a gentlemans agreement, but mostly (I suspect) down to resources and time. However, when the operator in OWNED by a brokerage you can bet details will be passed back for a marketing department to research and target at their leisure.

Well guys,

I have to use Bookajet, Twinjet,TAG and LEA..even the London City Jet Centre to name a few and they are all brokers in their own right,so theres another to this list AP,

So why are we getting our knickers in a twist, i have use all of these guys and this so called gentlemans agreement still stands,

Lets just face it lads this is the way the aviation industry is moving...
:ugh:

Great partnership !
 

I say good luck to Airpartner and Gold Air. I am sure that both companies will benefit from this new partnership. I am also sure that the Gold air serivce will remain at its high standard and will continue to offer their aircraft as they have always done.

Welcome JetKing and Dad! Both interesting first posts, probably from the "inside".

Well, that's not true! You have a thing called "choice" in today's market so no one HAS to use anyone! Whilst I appreciate that all the above do broking, they are first and foremost operators who broke - this new alliance is now a broker who operates. A small, but notable difference IMHO.

Knickers is a twist? Not really, just find the whole thing a wee bit hypocritical. AP spent a long time telling us that people should approach brokers for impartial advice as there's no operator / manufacturer tie in, and now they're own Gold Air and provide Bombardier products. It seems that in the last 6 years they're policies have done a complete U-turn.

I tend to agree with MB. AP have spend years saying that going direct an Operator is not the sensible thinig to do and that block hour programmes dont work - I remember an ad of theirs that read "it's smarter to charter" in an attempt to sell against the netjets product.

Yet now they are offering 25 hour blocks and operating their own aircraft.

I am all for develping your company but I would suggest that you should never be so negative towards your competition because when you end up copying them you can look a little foolhardy.....

Anyway, best of luck to all involved, hopefully it wont affect the chaps on the groung too much.

Can you imagine WC and Air Partner......... recipe made in heaven :ugh:

I think there is more to come on this story.

Whispers are seeping out that AP have designs on seriously taking on netjets by building up a fleet and competing on a more like for like basis.

It would only take the purchase of a few strategically placed operators to give them a foot hold.

Thoughts?

First time post from the ‘inside’…

When an operator says to a broker “No availability”; he is effectively saying “Thanks, but I’m busy flying already; go find availability elsewhere; I can’t take any more today”

When they say that most days in most peak months, and all the quality aircraft are out flying, where do they expect us to take our business? If our clients want a high quality late model jet and the market only has a tired 25 year old, should we tell them to go away as well?

The simple conclusion is to go control our own – what’s wrong with that? It means we have our own aircraft to cover our own guaranteed card hours for our own clients. Without it, we’d have to break a commitment to a client. That’s basic strategic sense.

And as for pinching other brokers business, we just want to go flying – why start a war to own the business direct inside, when they’re giving us the business indirectly already? Everyone expects to pay commissions for 3rd party business.

Yes there’s a Gentleman’s agreement; to date ALL of our flying for the last 22 years has been flown by 3rd party operators under that Gentleman’s agreement (some more tightly than others) – brokers have no choice; so why do people think we’ll operate any other way. Let’s get real, everyone knows everyone else’s clients already; that’s sorted, but perhaps people need to remember the market is growing at 30+% and that’s where a growing company needs to focus. This is not a shrinking market with everyone gasping for their last breath to stay alive.

And on ‘independence’, I have no problem whether our client chooses an in-house or an external supplier's jet; in my experience clients are extremely well educated and quite smart enough to figure it out for themselves – if we move any more than 5% of our business in-house the Lears would be fully committed, without any external growth.

I dont quite understand your figures, maybe you could clarify for me? Are you saying that 5% of your business would occupy all of the Lears?

Working those figures and the fact that Gold Air didnt have them completley occupied with a turnover of 10mn, that would give AP a turnover on jets of 200mn or am I missing something??

Please do correct me if I am wroing as maths never was my strong point....

Now that GoldAir has become Air Partner, perhaps the AP ops boys can sort out the mess that Gold Ops were and probably are in.

WC can now spend 100% of his time flying his sukhoi and not 99.9%.

Best of luck to the crews at GoldAir - very hard working guys and girls.

D

Jimbob69 - The announcement to the stockmarket read: -

"Air Partner has also announced record preliminary results with turnover of £140.4m and profit before tax of £5.13m; a full announcement is available on RNS"

However, this figure would include commercial aircraft charters, cargo flights and sub charters. Given the nature of the business, I would say the majority of that turnover came from the commercial aircraft charters. Also, I'm not sure if those figures take in the group activity as a whole (world wide) or just the Gatwick office.

Thanks MonkeyBoy -

Thats exactly my point, I had seen those figures in the market announcment which is why I was confused by the data stated by G-TTTT that "5% of their business would keep all the Lears busy".

keeping them busy ?!
 

I think what it probably means is that the lears at Gold Air are already very busy and adding 5% of AP business to their current schedules will mean they are maxed out.
Gold Air already run as a successful company on their own back. AirPartner will hopefully just add to this !:ok: