Norwegian burning cash!
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Escaped the sandpit 53° 32′ 9.19″ N, 9° 50′ 13.29″ E
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by directmisbi
If norwegian needs more money, it will get it. The business case is sound and the product well received. No governants will be breached.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: where I lay my hat
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even within the last month or so, renegotiating debt has become much more difficult - against the backdrop of some failed rights issues, with underwriters expensively carrying the can, many many companies dearly wanting to widen covenants, and the Fed squeezing until the pips squeak. Equally, any potentially bidder will be loath to take on Norwegians debt. Once it's bust, that debt magically disappears!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: World
Posts: 2,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leverage itself is not a problem in an healthy business. Actually, if the business works it is often a good idea in order to amplify the profits.
The problem here, disregarding for a second the debt situation, is that the company is not making money in its core activity, which is flying passengers from A to B. In this context leverage is only going to make the situation worse.
Of course the passengers love the product, they are flying under cost price. I would love it too. Until it lasts.
The problem here, disregarding for a second the debt situation, is that the company is not making money in its core activity, which is flying passengers from A to B. In this context leverage is only going to make the situation worse.
Of course the passengers love the product, they are flying under cost price. I would love it too. Until it lasts.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: uk
Age: 65
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by directmisbi
If norwegian needs more money, it will get it. The business case is sound and the product well received. No governants will be breached.
That seems to contradict most, if not all, of the financial opinions out there!
Join Date: May 2016
Location: The EU
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wizzair lost money for the first 9 years of operation. A lot of 'experts' don't realise that, in business, you have to spend money to make money.
That Forbes link which seems to be doing the rounds is nothing more than a Blog, which references a website, which references a newspaper, which quotes an unassociated employee of a bank.
Norwegian have significant assets, including the bulk of the 737 fleet, which are owned. Stop the scaremongering.
That Forbes link which seems to be doing the rounds is nothing more than a Blog, which references a website, which references a newspaper, which quotes an unassociated employee of a bank.
Norwegian have significant assets, including the bulk of the 737 fleet, which are owned. Stop the scaremongering.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Limbo
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we are to quote analysts then why not use Mr Kenneth Sivertsen of Pareto Securites, a private investment bank, stating
the norwegian Airlines stock is underrated, and the potential joint venture (95 airbus and 45 Boeings future deliveries)is according our calculation well worth over 40 billion norwegian kr thus removing the speculation about debt and cash position for good.
the norwegian Airlines stock is underrated, and the potential joint venture (95 airbus and 45 Boeings future deliveries)is according our calculation well worth over 40 billion norwegian kr thus removing the speculation about debt and cash position for good.
Last edited by directmisbi; 23rd Dec 2018 at 20:22.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 872
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by directmisbi
If norwegian needs more money, it will get it. The business case is sound and the product well received..
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hunterboy
The great thing about these type of threads is time will tell......would love to reread it in 12 months time.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Limbo
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RexBanner
not it’s not. Not whatsoever. Net costs are higher than net revenues. Hardly a sound business, low cost long haul has never worked and never will. Norwegian are just the latest example of it. Of course some other fool will always come along to prove that they are the ones who can do it. I fail to see how selling off all their remaining assets paints the picture of a healthy company.
Could the record order of 222 aircrafts back in 2012 and the extremely lucrative price of some of these to be sold later on with huge profit be part of a business plan? Has Mr. Kjos stated earlier that this has in fact been the plan since the very beginning? Maybe you should try to research a little before jumping the gun? Could MOL have an agenda with his scaremongering? Did he badmouth Primera or Wow air? No, because they were not hurting his business.
The joint venture is imminent, and will put to rest most of the critics in the media and elsewere. Merry Christmas :-)
Post edited, the forbes article has now been updated.
I rest my case.
”...and based on communication sent from the carrier this Saturday, the airline’s liquidity position is reportedly stable. As the end of the year approaches, Norwegian seems keen on having its debts fully settled”
Last edited by directmisbi; 23rd Dec 2018 at 22:15.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: england
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who works for an IAG company, it gives me no pleasure to offer the opinion that the various so called smart CEO’s running IAG and its OpCo’s are no smarter than you or I. What they are is opportunistic sociopaths that happily exploit legal loopholes and gaps in employment legislation in different jurisdictions to drive down (mainly) employee costs while happily vastly increasing their own renumeration. I don’t believe that they have any more foresight than you or I.
Join Date: May 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFS
Unbelievable. Same comments from same people. You cannot piss passengers off as long as these guys have done. Yes the aircraft are good but they lack infrastructure and those behind the scenes don’t care.
They’ll go bust.
They’ll go bust.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: The EU
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intrigued to know how you came to the conclusion they’ve “pissed people off”. Their short and long haul product is excellent and their on time performance has improved markedly and is now one of the best in Europe.
The only customers that may be “pissed off” are those that end up on wet leases. Blame RR for that, I doubt BA pax were too pleased to be flying with Air Belgium either.
The only customers that may be “pissed off” are those that end up on wet leases. Blame RR for that, I doubt BA pax were too pleased to be flying with Air Belgium either.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: big green wheely bin
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by directmisbi
So why did IAG acquire 4.6 percent of norwegian earlier this year. The even tried to buy the company, twice but both offers were rebuffed. These are hard facts.
Not saying Norwegian will go under, just saying I wouldn’t be taking any comfort from the fact IAG invested in it.
I REALLY SHOULDN'T BE HERE
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: TOD
Posts: 1,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why did IAG acquire 4.6 percent of norwegian earlier this year.
The the only reason Norwegian stands is because there are investors who choose to divert capital from successful economic activities into it, a marginally (at best) performing business enterprise. Things may improve over time but no rational investor looking at Norwegian’s financial results over the past few years could come to the conclusion that this is a business which is going to perform consistently well in the short term. Indeed when you look at the share price performance the most significant positive change in the last three years has occurred when a successful enterprise was contemplating a takeover (ie providing better security for Norwegian’s debts). Apart from that the share price trajectory has been steadily negative.
It is a good product which Norwegian offer but the cost of providing the product is greater than customers are willing to pay for it. To put it differently: Norwegian either have to provide the same product at lower cost or somehow convince more customers to part with more money for the product they provide. In any case, if they wish to survive in the long run they need to change, the current business model is underperforming.
Norwegian have significant assets, including the bulk of the 737 fleet, which are owned. Stop the scaremongering.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 872
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by directmisbi
Maybe you should phone up your CEO and tell him that low cost long haul "has never worked and never will".
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Cutting grass in dessert
Age: 43
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RexBanner
Done one better than that, I told him that in a face to face conversation on a LHR-DUB flight earlier this year when the takeover speculation was going on and, for what it’s worth, he basically agreed with me and said that it’s a very niche market. I got the very real impression that Norwegian would be severely pruned back in the event of any real IAG interest and that most of the 787’s would be redeployed elsewhere. But what do I know? (I genuinely mean that by the way)
