All Over for Sabena?
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
From: U.S.A.
An airline is worth nothing without its route licenses. Now, if an airline goes bankrupt, like Swissair or Sabena, why doesn't the government involved offer the route licenses to the highest bidder or any interested party/airline? It seems very strange to me that these route licenses go to Crossair or Sabena's regional without any discussion or bidding process. Any inputs on this?
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
From: Belgium
Ttraffic rights are indeed not transferable, but the point is that when you split a company which owns route rights, there are no rules as to which part should have what rights; there is no rule that says each part must have an equal share of the traffic richts. in short, you can split in 2 parts, one having all the good things like the lots, traffic rights, etc. etc. and one having only the depts.
That's what they did at SR and also what is now going on at SN.
It is not easy, but it is not impossible eighter.
That's what they did at SR and also what is now going on at SN.
It is not easy, but it is not impossible eighter.
Joined: Oct 1998
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
From: UK
Ok chaps, there are two companies. Both companies have their own AOC, both have their own set-up.
The only thing both have in common is, that one company holds shares in the other. This does still keep both companies run their own business and either of them is still treated as an own airline.
If now one company "sells" or "transfers" (for whatever reason or price) than this is not possible???
You will see that there is no objection from the individual government as both in question are more than interested that this deal will be finished sooner than later to continue with the scheduled shut-down!
Now you want to tell me that in the case of Crossair it is not an independent company, likewise with DAT...in this case you better go back and do your homework.
If, and this just as a hint for your reply, Crossair or DAT would be dependant, how would it be possible to shut the doors at SR and SN with their dependants still able to continue....
SR shuts down, does that mean SN has to shutdown because of just this happening (donīt look at the money issue at this point, just understand the relation...)
And this transfer or whatever it may be called is in full swing right now.
More to see soon I guess...
The only thing both have in common is, that one company holds shares in the other. This does still keep both companies run their own business and either of them is still treated as an own airline.
If now one company "sells" or "transfers" (for whatever reason or price) than this is not possible???
You will see that there is no objection from the individual government as both in question are more than interested that this deal will be finished sooner than later to continue with the scheduled shut-down!
Now you want to tell me that in the case of Crossair it is not an independent company, likewise with DAT...in this case you better go back and do your homework.
If, and this just as a hint for your reply, Crossair or DAT would be dependant, how would it be possible to shut the doors at SR and SN with their dependants still able to continue....
SR shuts down, does that mean SN has to shutdown because of just this happening (donīt look at the money issue at this point, just understand the relation...)
And this transfer or whatever it may be called is in full swing right now.
More to see soon I guess...
