CX announces 2008 interim results
loss
the (just) 9 billion HK$ increase in revenue about covers the increase in fuel..so with that out of the way and assuming a zero balance in that department..why is the airline not up there with last years' profits figures?
the increase in staff,overflights,handling etc came to less than 1 billion hk.
of course throwing 60 million USD at the FAA didn't help..
but with fuel surcharges and increased fares..i don't see a half billion dollar loss with the 'stated ' increase in fuel bill.
the increase in staff,overflights,handling etc came to less than 1 billion hk.
of course throwing 60 million USD at the FAA didn't help..
but with fuel surcharges and increased fares..i don't see a half billion dollar loss with the 'stated ' increase in fuel bill.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The company owes us all (employees and shareholders) an explanation as to where in the loss statement the US$60M (HK$468,000,000) is being accounted for.
The claims they are making are fraudulent and misleading to the public and employees if they are covering up this fine by using fuel costs as a smokescreen.
We all have a right to know exactly where/ how this $468,000,000 fine is being accounted.
The claims they are making are fraudulent and misleading to the public and employees if they are covering up this fine by using fuel costs as a smokescreen.
We all have a right to know exactly where/ how this $468,000,000 fine is being accounted.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: mars
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'minority interests' seems to be a winner for the company, with a loss from one year to the next year....
Yeah, it's hard to believe such a large loss when load factors have been so high. 79-80% LF as a breakeven is pretty damm high....
anotherbusdriver ; It's not fraud, it's called Creative accounting...
Yeah, it's hard to believe such a large loss when load factors have been so high. 79-80% LF as a breakeven is pretty damm high....
anotherbusdriver ; It's not fraud, it's called Creative accounting...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: greensboro
Age: 45
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at the share repurchase scheme, you will realize that Cathay bought back shares worth around 150,000,000 HKD.... and those shares were cancelled. Also, if you look at the depreciation on assets owned, that is 1,551,000,000 HKD. Depreciation is not a cash expense! so our actual cash flow is hugely positive.... maybe Cathay is learning from the US airlines. Post big losses, and then renegotiate with all of your suppliers and employees.... fortunately, we understand what they are doing.
The 60 million was not thrown at the FAA. It was given to the Department of Justice, for wrongdoings of cathay. Of course, that is why we have a risk management department, to take risks that pay off!
The 60 million was not thrown at the FAA. It was given to the Department of Justice, for wrongdoings of cathay. Of course, that is why we have a risk management department, to take risks that pay off!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: in time anda space
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mr did,
the fuel hedging is mentioned on page 6 of the interim report!
blunderbus,
I don't know what to say - I know its really hard, but if you get one of those calculators that has a + and a - button, add the revenues and fuel recoveries, take away the expenses, you end up with a minus number - or in accounting language, a loss.
I hope you don't work out your fuel load as scientifically as CX's profit?
gtbilly,
where to begin???? Shares bought and cancelled have no net effect to other shareholders. If CX held the $148million as cash, then each share would be worth that fraction of a cent more each. By buying the shares and then canceling them, the remaining shareholders are left with the exact same amount of money!
Yes depreciation is a non cash expense - but it is used to help apportion, over time, the cost of replacements. If they didn't depreciate then yes it would make a profit - and then 10 years from now where does the money come from to buy the new aircraft and how was it accounted for?
Stick to flying planes and leave the abacus alone for a little while!
anotherbusdriver,
its in the interim report - try reading it if your attention span will allow it!
the fuel hedging is mentioned on page 6 of the interim report!
blunderbus,
I don't know what to say - I know its really hard, but if you get one of those calculators that has a + and a - button, add the revenues and fuel recoveries, take away the expenses, you end up with a minus number - or in accounting language, a loss.
I hope you don't work out your fuel load as scientifically as CX's profit?
gtbilly,
where to begin???? Shares bought and cancelled have no net effect to other shareholders. If CX held the $148million as cash, then each share would be worth that fraction of a cent more each. By buying the shares and then canceling them, the remaining shareholders are left with the exact same amount of money!
Yes depreciation is a non cash expense - but it is used to help apportion, over time, the cost of replacements. If they didn't depreciate then yes it would make a profit - and then 10 years from now where does the money come from to buy the new aircraft and how was it accounted for?
Stick to flying planes and leave the abacus alone for a little while!
anotherbusdriver,
its in the interim report - try reading it if your attention span will allow it!
Last edited by Hiro Nakimura; 10th Aug 2008 at 11:41.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anagram
I've been scratching my head and trying to re-arrange the letters of Kim Jong Phil to arrive at Hiro Nakimura. I just can't work it out.
Can you please explain how you came up with that handle Phil.
Can you please explain how you came up with that handle Phil.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: in time anda space
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
broadband
Unlike GMA, I do know that increasing retirement age will increase time it takes to command. So I guess I can't be him! I just get frustrated with many of the stupid comments made by some of our peers!
Unlike GMA, I do know that increasing retirement age will increase time it takes to command. So I guess I can't be him! I just get frustrated with many of the stupid comments made by some of our peers!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: the fatigue curve
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another way to think.
why not read the swire pacific interim results that were also released to the HKEC at about the same time.
If you read the interim results on the HKEC (not the blurb on the company website) you can see quite clearly that this loss includes a charge for the 60 mil USD fine.
Interestingly in Swire Pacific - The aviation division made a profit of 10 Million. Think carefully about the increased costs in the CX report e.g. increased maintenance costs etc.
think about the fact that the maritime division (they also use fuel/oil don't they?) reported good business conditions
also note that by making a loss the accountants have taken the tax bill from a substantial bill to a refund of 10 million.
Think about the depreciation of retiring some classics - reduces the asset size, and also about cash paid up front for assets e.g new 777's, 330's, 744 freighters. also reduces cash available and reduces profit/ increases the loss.
Looks like convenient and legal accounting to me.
If you read the interim results on the HKEC (not the blurb on the company website) you can see quite clearly that this loss includes a charge for the 60 mil USD fine.
Interestingly in Swire Pacific - The aviation division made a profit of 10 Million. Think carefully about the increased costs in the CX report e.g. increased maintenance costs etc.
think about the fact that the maritime division (they also use fuel/oil don't they?) reported good business conditions
also note that by making a loss the accountants have taken the tax bill from a substantial bill to a refund of 10 million.
Think about the depreciation of retiring some classics - reduces the asset size, and also about cash paid up front for assets e.g new 777's, 330's, 744 freighters. also reduces cash available and reduces profit/ increases the loss.
Looks like convenient and legal accounting to me.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at the share repurchase scheme, you will realize that Cathay bought back shares worth around 150,000,000 HKD.... and those shares were cancelled. Also, if you look at the depreciation on assets owned, that is 1,551,000,000 HKD. Depreciation is not a cash expense! so our actual cash flow is hugely positive.... maybe Cathay is learning from the US airlines. Post big losses, and then renegotiate with all of your suppliers and employees.... fortunately, we understand what they are doing.
The 60 million was not thrown at the FAA. It was given to the Department of Justice, for wrongdoings of cathay. Of course, that is why we have a risk management department, to take risks that pay off!
The 60 million was not thrown at the FAA. It was given to the Department of Justice, for wrongdoings of cathay. Of course, that is why we have a risk management department, to take risks that pay off!
So now the big question with regards to 13th month, I wonder how the company is going to spin it? If you deduct our HKD148 million share buy back and the HKD468 million DOJ charges from our net losses of HKD663 million... you will notice that we have only make a loss of HKD47 million. so things might not be as bad as it looks but by no mean good for CX standard.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly in Swire Pacific - The aviation division made a profit of 10 Million
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maintenance Costs
Interestingly in Swire Pacific - The aviation division made a profit of 10 Million. Think carefully about the increased costs in the CX report e.g. increased maintenance costs etc.
I'd bet my provident fund that CX, and probably KA, pay significantly more to these companies than they need to, thus simply moving the cash & profits to other Swire companies, where the profit can be skimmed off out of the spotlight with much less fuss.
