Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BMI Profits UP Despite Pax Drop (I'm Not Joking!)  
User currently offlineConcorde001 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1230 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2866 times:

According to an online business paper, BMI will report pre-tax profits of £10 million this financial year against £2.6 million last year.
Here is how they did it:

Quote:
The airline, Heathrow's second-biggest carrier, said today the disappearance of low-yielding passengers meant it could concentrate on building an operation around higher fare-paying business class travellers.
Concorde001: That is why they removed business class!   


The number of passengers flying bmi and its low-cost sister airline bmibaby stalled at 10.5m last year but increases in yield - the amount it charges per passenger - allowed turnover to grow almost 5% to £869m.


That, plus an 8% cut in costs before rising fuel charges, helped the group to pre-tax profits of £10m against £2.6m in 2004.


However, the future of bmi remains uncertain as its joint-venture partners and major shareholders, Lufthansa and SAS, are demanding a break-up of the current alliance.

Source: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/ar...?in_article_id=408049&in_page_id=2

Well I don't know about you, but I'm surprised! However my question is, as bmi report profts for the whole group (bmi baby), how much of this is attributable to bmi baby's low cost operation and bmi's longhaul ops? I may be wrong, but BMI's profits gives the airline an operating margin of 1.2% - that cannot be good. Could it be the case that bmi is only making money from its longhaul ops from LHR, MAN and its low cost airline bmibaby?
Thought credit where credit is due, so well done bmi for not reporting a loss.

Incidentally, bmi have not published anything on their website, so maybe we will find out more when they do.

[Edited 2006-04-04 12:57:58]

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMhodgson From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2002, 5047 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2845 times:

While undeniably good for bmi, I am curious to know which divisions are making money - mainline, regional, baby or long haul?


No trees were harmed by this message. However, several million electrons were terribly inconvenienced
User currently offlineA340600 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 4105 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2811 times:

How bizarre, as said it will be interesting to see where the goldmine lays,

Sam



Despite the name I am a Boeing man through and through!
User currently offlineConcorde001 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1230 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2805 times:

Does anyone know if QR gave bmi some money for the slots being used on LHR-DOH?

[Edited 2006-04-04 13:08:41]

User currently offlineBDKLEZ From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 1735 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2805 times:

Also, not being a PLC means that they can publish whatever figures they want. I'm not saying that they're not telling the truth, but there could be a temptation to "cloud" the figures by not specifying what areas of the group are/are not making money.

I suspect WW is the major earner, and perhaps the engineering division through it's third party work.



Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be shot again!
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7123 posts, RR: 57
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2791 times:

Congratulations to Bmi.


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2791 times:

Well good news for Bmi if achieved through their operational changes.

Of course there is also the possibility that the profts have been helped by one or two exceptional one-time items as well.



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineBDKLEZ From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 1735 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2764 times:

Quoting Cornish (Reply 6):
Of course there is also the possibility that the profts have been helped by one or two exceptional one-time items as well.

Indeed, this was also the case for figures published for 2001-2002 which included the sale of British Midland Handling Services and the subsequent merger of Go-Ahead into what has now become Aviance. The BD group made a lot of cash out of that deal (13M IIRC) and was one of only a few airlines to post a profit after Sept. 11th as a result.



Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be shot again!
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7123 posts, RR: 57
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2740 times:

Quoting Cornish (Reply 6):
Of course there is also the possibility that the profts have been helped by one or two exceptional one-time items as well.

I think its down to this also. However, Im just a cynic. Its certainly not down to yields or loads ex heathrow.

Are BD fuel hedged?



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineBDKLEZ From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 1735 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2730 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 8):
Are BD fuel hedged?

I believe so, but cannot confirm. It certainly was the case in the past.



Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be shot again!
User currently offlineConcorde001 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1230 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2471 times:

BMI have published their results on their website:

STRATEGIC FOCUS DELIVERS PROFIT GROWTH

highlights:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Turnover
2005: £869.0m
2004: £830.1m
Change: 4.70%
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating profit*
2005: £5.5m
2004:(£3.2m)
Change: +£8.7m
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Profit
2005: £10.0m
2004: £2.6m
Change: 284.60%
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash
2005: £143.4m
2004: £138.6m
Change: 3.50%
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt
2005: (£85.8m)
2004: (£122.3m)
Change: -29.90%
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Passengers boarded
2005: 10.5m
2004: 10.5m
Change: 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft operated as at 31 December
2005: 60
2004: 57
Change: 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(RPKs)
2005: 9,325m
2004: 8,775m
Change: 6.30%
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(ASKs)
2005: 13,129m
2004: 12,209m
Change: 7.50%
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Load Factor
2005: 71.00%
2004: 71.90%
Change: - 0.9 points
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Average staff numbers
2005: 4,555
2004: 4,557
Change: static
---------------------------------------------------------------------

* before exceptional items

Commenting on the results, bmi chairman Sir Michael Bishop said: “These figures demonstrate good progress. We beat expectations last year and bmi’s strategic focus created further substantial improvements in 2005. Our concentration on higher yields, better resource allocation and cost control has delivered a good foundation for future growth.”

As you can see, BD only made £5.5 million from actually flying passengers and cargo. The remaining £4.5 million came from somewhere else.

Sir Michael Bishop's review is online if you want to read it: Sir Michael Bishop's Review
I found this part of the statement quite amusing:

Quote:
We have a very clear strategy. In our mainline business we are focusing on quality business-purpose traffic

 rotfl 


User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2425 times:

Well, good on them, i choose them over BA anyday ona competing route in Europe.

User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4918 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2363 times:

Well done to bmi. Some good news for them after recent troubles and criticsm


Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
User currently offlineStarGoldLHR From Heard and McDonald Islands, joined Feb 2004, 1529 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2281 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 8):
f course there is also the possibility that the profts have been helped by one or two exceptional one-time items as well.

Sale of a few A321's perhaps.



So far in 2008 45 flights and Gold already. JFK, IAD, LGA, SIN, HKG, NRT, AKL, PPT, LAX still to book ! Home Airport LCY
User currently offlineOzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5073 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2261 times:

Quoting Concorde001 (Thread starter):


However, the future of bmi remains uncertain as its joint-venture partners and major shareholders, Lufthansa and SAS, are demanding a break-up of the current alliance.

This is a rather cryptic statement. Granted I don't keep up too much with BMI, are SK and LH wanting them out of STAR or does this imply something else?



Next Up: STL-LGA-RIC-ATL-STL
User currently offlineBDKLEZ From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 1735 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2248 times:

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 14):
are SK and LH wanting them out of STAR or does this imply something else?

It refers to an agreement signed between BD, SK & LH a number of years ago whereby their "European Co-operation" was consolidated into a deal whereby joint liabilities are distributed equally between the three airlines. Individual profits are to the benefit of all three but individual losses are also absorbed by all three.

Given BD's performance of recent years, I can understand their (SK/LH) train of thought. However, as an ex employee of BD, and as much as their recent form frustrates me, I'm glad that they've had some good news for a change.



Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be shot again!
User currently offlineOzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5073 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2241 times:

Quoting BDKLEZ (Reply 15):


It refers to an agreement signed between BD, SK & LH a number of years ago whereby their "European Co-operation" was consolidated into a deal whereby joint liabilities are distributed equally between the three airlines. Individual profits are to the benefit of all three but individual losses are also absorbed by all three.

Thanks for the info BDKLEZ. I wasn't aware of that particular arrangement.



Next Up: STL-LGA-RIC-ATL-STL
User currently offlineCainanuk From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 551 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2023 times:

I can assure you that NO other Star Partners want bmi out of Star as bmi own 12% of Heathrow slots. And big or small airline, THAT in and amongst itself is gold. By comparison, VS (whom everyone else thinks is a bigger carrier) own about 1%. BD and their Star Alliance Partners into LHR (AC, UA, LH, SK, and TG especially) get very good value for money on that arrangement.


Cainan Cornelius
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7123 posts, RR: 57
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1951 times:

BMI profitability is down to slot sales it seems.


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineMyt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, RR: 70
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1932 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 18):
BMI profitability is down to slot sales it seems.

Where are these slot machines placed? In the galleys or are they at the gate's?



One Life, Live it.
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7123 posts, RR: 57
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1835 times:

Quoting Myt332 (Reply 19):
Where are these slot machines placed? In the galleys or are they at the gate's?

At the front of the aircraft where the coat area used to be.  Smile



The world is really getting smaller these days
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fresno Up 12% More Pax In May Vs National Pax Drop posted Wed Jul 5 2006 21:39:54 by FATFlyer
Bmi Giving Up On Bombay? posted Mon Oct 2 2006 18:00:51 by Thediplomat
UA Cooks Up Some Pax In A 777 posted Wed Aug 2 2006 18:20:47 by Clickhappy
Kenya Airways Profits Up 24pc posted Wed May 31 2006 15:06:30 by Dkny
Profits Up For Frankfurt Airport Operator posted Tue Mar 7 2006 11:28:19 by AirWales
WN Profits Up 75% posted Thu Jan 19 2006 09:04:34 by Cabso1
Eads Profits Up posted Thu Nov 10 2005 15:26:09 by Kappel
BA Profits Up posted Fri Aug 5 2005 09:24:15 by Scotron11
BBC: Airbus Profits Up On Rising Sales posted Mon May 9 2005 10:48:13 by Joni
EasyJet Profits Up 16% To $110m posted Thu Sep 23 2004 10:29:14 by BestWestern