if the business case is that sound, why did they burn that much cash?

Sound business case, really?!!

That seems to contradict most, if not all, of the financial opinions out there!

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 great thing about these type of threads is time will tell......would love to reread it in 12 months time.

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.

I think you’ll be able to reread this thread in 12 weeks and find your answer...

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. Maybe you should phone up your CEO and tell him that low cost long haul "has never worked and never will". And Norwegian will be bust before the new year, so better sell the shares IAG took up because Norwegian is "hardly a sound business". Or a "ponzi scheme"
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”

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.

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.

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.

They want the LGW slots when/if Norwegian no longer exists. Thought that was obvious.

Not saying Norwegian will go under, just saying I wouldn’t be taking any comfort from the fact IAG invested in it.

Building a stake from which to launch a takeover bid. To say that part of the business model has always been to buy airframes in order to sell them off is to admit that the senior management have been adopting a ludicrously high risk strategy based on future asset values in a notoriously volatile industry - a strategy which would be unnecessary for a company which was generating a sufficient margin from its operational activities.

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.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2f2d5875b.jpeg

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)

isnt IAG Level Airways 330s low cost long haul?