Jump to content

Flybe nosedives on profits warning


Recommended Posts

@thesultanofsheight @sir nige - rather than criticising the govt numbers, each tell us how you would have done it different.

Me - I'd have let anyone who wanted to dock with freight. And I would have come down hard on restrictive practices by any operator. But then I'm a free market capitalist. And I'd don't especially care if there is only a passenger and vehicle service a few days every week. But I'm interested to hear alternative perspectives.

Edited by pongo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As predicted, when his holiness the Chief Cockwomble was interviewed on BBC Breakfast this morning, his only reference was about TT visitors being able to get here. No mention of the effect on residen

I think when most people hear of a contingency plan being in place the expectation is for that contingency plan to kick in immediately upon the happening of the event the contingency was planned for.

Writing the adverts now, ‘Steam Packet Airlines, if there ain’t a boat in the morning, there probably won’t be a plane either’.

Posted Images

16 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

New board has global ship building experience and will get design/specification right from start and not change it halfway through the build. 

Interesting. Does that refer to the Ben then? Did the previous Board not have experience? Genuine questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Interesting. Does that refer to the Ben then? Did the previous Board not have experience? Genuine questions.

No, that was referring to calmac situation.

No idea about previous board experience in respect of ship building 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Interesting. Does that refer to the Ben then? Did the previous Board not have experience? Genuine questions.

Wasn't it an off the peg cancelled order?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

Calmac mess is not analogous. 

Iomg will not insist vessel is built in  ramsey shipyard.

New board has global ship building experience and will get design/specification right from start and not change it halfway through the build. 

Capital R if you don't mind!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pongo said:

@thesultanofsheight @sir nige - rather than criticising the govt numbers, each tell us how you would have done it different.

I haven’t criticized anything. What are government numbers too. Is b4mbi ‘government’ as they were the only one who disagreed with me and challenged me on the £200M. I only made my case and as far as I can see nobody has come back and challenged me properly on the figure of £200M as that’s pretty much what will be spent. £124M in debt and equity to buy plus £40M for the terminal, plus £150M borrowed (to be serviced out of future profits to be foregone by the taxpayer) to cover new ships and repay other debt. It doesn’t matter whether it’s debt, equity, or capital that’s been spent. It will be spent. With the refinancing a 100% taxpayer owned business is taking on much more debt in order to directly repay the taxpayer debt it already had and to invest into new assets. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a direct or an indirect relationship. I actually supported the SPC deal (still do) but let’s be honest about the money that’s involved here. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, b4mbi said:

Sigh. 

Look at it this way then, effectively £124m was spent (£76m of which will be repaid within 2 years of the deal) to purchase a company that is pretty much guaranteed to generate at least £250m cash over the next 25 years, but crucially it also purchased control over our vital sea route.

It was a great deal.

so won't even cover the cost of 2 new boats.......and in 25 years end up in the same mess....

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pongo said:

@thesultanofsheight @sir nige - rather than criticising the govt numbers, each tell us how you would have done it different.

Me - I'd have let anyone who wanted to dock with freight. And I would have come down hard on restrictive practices by any operator. But then I'm a free market capitalist. And I'd don't especially care if there is only a passenger and vehicle service a few days every week. But I'm interested to hear alternative perspectives.

i wouldn't of bought the sp.....:lol:

also whats best for the iom or iomg?

me- write off the £200m......write off the cost of 2 new boats.....

then run the service at cost plus £10m* a year.....

(£10m into a fund to pay for the next set of boats)

doesn't matter if its run by iomg or private if the deal is done right.....

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cheesypeas said:

I'm sure easyJet would cease flying here tomorrow, if there was no money in it for them.

Money in the easy jet thing is not as straightforward as it may appear I don't think ! Their "money" is I understand generated from a number of sources, an increase in passenger numbers to the UK taking them onto a better scale of airport discounts and aircraft not parked in expensive places. If all this is strictly true I do not know, but the info was from a large business at the airport!.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

I haven’t criticized anything. What are government numbers too. Is b4mbi ‘government’ as they were the only one who disagreed with me and challenged me on the £200M. I only made my case and as far as I can see nobody has come back and challenged me properly on the figure of £200M as that’s pretty much what will be spent. £124M in debt and equity to buy plus £40M for the terminal, plus £150M borrowed (to be serviced out of future profits to be foregone by the taxpayer) to cover new ships and repay other debt. It doesn’t matter whether it’s debt, equity, or capital that’s been spent. It will be spent. With the refinancing a 100% taxpayer owned business is taking on much more debt in order to directly repay the taxpayer debt it already had and to invest into new assets. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a direct or an indirect relationship. I actually supported the SPC deal (still do) but let’s be honest about the money that’s involved here. 

I'm not government, but understand the finances from their position. 

Immediate cash flow out  £124m

Back in 2 years, £76m

Out over next 2 years £40m (liverpool)

Back from IoMSPC any excess cashflow they manage to dividend up.

Plus they own an asset (iomspc) that has a net asset value of approx equal to ships + future income streams less debt. 

So from govt point of view they have not spent £200m, and why I also am challenging you on it 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

Plus they own an asset (iomspc) that has a net asset value of approx equal to ships 

That’s a bit like saying you don’t actually have a mortgage as your house is worth what the mortgage value is (like any mortgage). That’s £150M of new debt. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Government accounting. It comes with a free handful of fairy dust and something intoxicating to sniff before you sit down and analyse. £40M for the Liverpool Terminal might be a bit on the light side yet too..?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

I'm not government, but understand the finances from their position. 

Immediate cash flow out  £124m

Back in 2 years, £76m

Out over next 2 years £40m (liverpool)

Back from IoMSPC any excess cashflow they manage to dividend up.

Plus they own an asset (iomspc) that has a net asset value of approx equal to ships + future income streams less debt. 

So from govt point of view they have not spent £200m, and why I also am challenging you on it 

it was 2 years from 2018.......have iomsp repaid this yet?.......plus what happened to the bail-out loan before iomg bought iomsp.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

It's Government accounting. It comes with a free handful of fairy dust and something intoxicating to sniff before you sit down and analyse. £40M for the Liverpool Terminal might be a bit on the light side yet too..?

Re Liverpool Terminal agreed ! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, b4mbi said:

I'm not government, but understand the finances from their position. 

Immediate cash flow out  £124m

Back in 2 years, £76m

Out over next 2 years £40m (liverpool)

Back from IoMSPC any excess cashflow they manage to dividend up.

Plus they own an asset (iomspc) that has a net asset value of approx equal to ships + future income streams less debt. 

So from govt point of view they have not spent £200m, and why I also am challenging you on it 

I'm sorry but this is nonsense - it's smoke and mirrors accounting.

If the Steam Packet is going to take out a loan to 'pay back' the Government then the money to service that loan and pay it back will have to come from Steam Packet profits.  Those would otherwise go to the Government or be put to one side for future investment in boats.  In fact doing it that way will probably work out more expensive as government can notoriously borrow cheaper than everyone else and there will be arrangement costs to the Steam Packet with regards to the loan.  

The only advantage for the government in this procedure is that it is hiding government debt in an arms-length company.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...