Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
LeCoqFrancais
Topic Author
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:03 pm

NAI post €53.4m loss for 2015

Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:20 pm

Norwegian Air International (NAI), the Dublin-based carrier whose efforts to launch flights between Cork and America have been stymied by US officials, posted a $59.7m (€53.4m) loss last year.
Total revenue at the airline, which is a subsidiary of Norwegian Air Shuttle, hit $719m (€644m), according to accounts for the Irish carrier.
That included ticket and ancillary revenue of $577.7m and so-called wet lease revenue of $141.2m.

http://www.independent.ie/business/norw ... 58679.html
--
I don't understand why the aviation sector is no nationalist and protective when you compare too other sectors that have had multinational companies for decades! I mean just imagine the benefits of having a multinational airline with bases all around the globe!
 
User avatar
exunited
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2015 10:48 pm

Re: NAI post €53.4m loss for 2015

Sun Aug 14, 2016 1:27 pm

Airliners and air lift capability are considered to be valuable assets in times of war. At least in the US, the government can take civilian airliners and use them for military troop transport and to have the airlines controlled by a foreign entity could possibly make things more difficult should the foreign company disagree with the US government. The rationale is simply a nationalistic security issue and not a business concern.
 
User avatar
LeCoqFrancais
Topic Author
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:03 pm

Re: NAI post €53.4m loss for 2015

Sun Aug 14, 2016 1:40 pm

exunited wrote:
Airliners and air lift capability are considered to be valuable assets in times of war. At least in the US, the government can take civilian airliners and use them for military troop transport and to have the airlines controlled by a foreign entity could possibly make things more difficult should the foreign company disagree with the US government. The rationale is simply a nationalistic security issue and not a business concern.

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, yet I sadly know its true. We could theoretically say the same thing about other sectors like the pharmaceutical and automotive ones, the Gov. could take pharmaceutical companies in time of war to develop medication for the soldiers and the Gov. could take automotive companies to build more vehicles for the military...
I personally don't find it OK that the US Government can order an airline to transport troops, that should be the sole job of the military branches involved. Its not up to civil parties to take part of the war.
 
448205
Posts: 2323
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: NAI post €53.4m loss for 2015

Sun Aug 14, 2016 3:00 pm

LeCoqFrancais wrote:
exunited wrote:
Airliners and air lift capability are considered to be valuable assets in times of war. At least in the US, the government can take civilian airliners and use them for military troop transport and to have the airlines controlled by a foreign entity could possibly make things more difficult should the foreign company disagree with the US government. The rationale is simply a nationalistic security issue and not a business concern.

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, yet I sadly know its true. We could theoretically say the same thing about other sectors like the pharmaceutical and automotive ones, the Gov. could take pharmaceutical companies in time of war to develop medication for the soldiers and the Gov. could take automotive companies to build more vehicles for the military...
I personally don't find it OK that the US Government can order an airline to transport troops, that should be the sole job of the military branches involved. Its not up to civil parties to take part of the war.


Perhaps you should tell that to the countries in Europe who quite literally have to call the U.S. Air Force to come pick them up and take them places. NAI is attempting to bring the flag of convenience model to the airlines. Bringing third world aviation dangers into first world flying just to save a buck.. What happens when these airlines are no longer flagged in Ireland but places like Liberia and Mozambique? A consumer on a trans atlantic flight would not assume that they are subjecting themselves to 3rd world african safety standards, especially when that airline flat out bears the name of a country they aren't flagged in.

It has occurred to me that your really take safety in aviation for granted. Perhaps gaining more operational or technical insight would allow you to see that this isn't some trivial task. The rules and oversight that surround it are written in blood.

Airlines are a strategic and public interest. Period.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: NAI post €53.4m loss for 2015

Sun Aug 14, 2016 3:18 pm

LeCoqFrancais wrote:
I don't understand why the aviation sector is no nationalist and protective when you compare too other sectors that have had multinational companies for decades! I mean just imagine the benefits of having a multinational airline with bases all around the globe!


Simple, there is a lot of money and jobs involved.

Imagine country X. Country X has a massive airline called HIJ. HIJ is based out of a massive airport, ABC. ABC airport is one of the biggest employers in country X if you include all the functions of the airport (airline emloyees, baggage handlers, shopkeepers, taxidrivers etc). It is a massive contributor to the X'ish economy, both directly but also indirectly, by offering direct connections through the national airline, HIJ, which in turn help X'ish corporations connect with the world, in turn making more money, employing more people and paying more taxes.
Now imagine if HIJ goes bust because the foreign low-cost airline Moravian out-competes it. Would Moravian ever place as many aircraft and employees in ABC as HIJ did? Not likely. There will ultimately be a reduction of flights, making country X less accessible to the world, which would probably harm X'ish corporations and jobs in the long term. And if the economy takes a turn for the worse, Moravian might not feel as obliged to keep running unprofitable flights as HIJ would have been. Moravian and it's employees might not even pay taxes in the country X.

On top of that, there are issues on safety, work regulations and ethics, like Varsity1 touches on.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but it is a fact that many countries see need a reliable air-service with all the money and jobs involved.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2233
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: NAI post €53.4m loss for 2015

Sun Aug 14, 2016 3:51 pm

LeCoqFrancais wrote:
exunited wrote:
Airliners and air lift capability are considered to be valuable assets in times of war. At least in the US, the government can take civilian airliners and use them for military troop transport and to have the airlines controlled by a foreign entity could possibly make things more difficult should the foreign company disagree with the US government. The rationale is simply a nationalistic security issue and not a business concern.

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, yet I sadly know its true. We could theoretically say the same thing about other sectors like the pharmaceutical and automotive ones, the Gov. could take pharmaceutical companies in time of war to develop medication for the soldiers and the Gov. could take automotive companies to build more vehicles for the military...
I personally don't find it OK that the US Government can order an airline to transport troops, that should be the sole job of the military branches involved. Its not up to civil parties to take part of the war.


As I recall, the use of the airliners is paid and is part of a much larger agreement that includes government travel on the US carriers. Would the carriers agree to it if it wasn't beneficial?

Many of the pilots that I know are former military and often jump at the chance to fly the military charters and perform CRAF (Civlil Reserve Air Fleet) flying.
 
User avatar
kngkyle
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:33 am

Re: NAI post €53.4m loss for 2015

Sun Aug 14, 2016 4:17 pm

exunited wrote:
Airliners and air lift capability are considered to be valuable assets in times of war. At least in the US, the government can take civilian airliners and use them for military troop transport and to have the airlines controlled by a foreign entity could possibly make things more difficult should the foreign company disagree with the US government. The rationale is simply a nationalistic security issue and not a business concern.


Yep, and the same logic is used to justify farm subsidies. Not having to rely on other nations for food production in the event of a war is a valuable asset as well.

As far as the Civil Reserve Air Fleet - pretty much every large US airline participates and the fleet as of 2014 was over 500 frames with the majority being widebodies.

As far as the NAI result, sounds like some growing pains that are to be expected with what they are trying to do.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 6045
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: NAI post €53.4m loss for 2015

Sun Aug 14, 2016 6:28 pm

exunited wrote:
Airliners and air lift capability are considered to be valuable assets in times of war. At least in the US, the government can take civilian airliners and use them for military troop transport and to have the airlines controlled by a foreign entity could possibly make things more difficult should the foreign company disagree with the US government. The rationale is simply a nationalistic security issue and not a business concern.


Both Norwegian Air Shuttle and SAS - Scandinavian Airlines System has done this in the past. Both for national emergencies and also for international emergencies. Back in 2004, during the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, there were som many Scandinavians in Thailand, that the Scandinavian governments and SAS went into action and started an airlift of both emergency personell and equipment as well as helping stranded Scandinavians and also other internationals that were struck. Recently when Nepal was struck by an eartquacke, both SAS and Norwegian transported emergency equipment. In a recent These are just a few examples.

For small nations, having a certain control over national airlines is a matter of national security.
 
User avatar
LeCoqFrancais
Topic Author
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:03 pm

Re: NAI post €53.4m loss for 2015

Sun Aug 14, 2016 9:08 pm

The biggest problem with all this Military and National Security BS is that it hurts the customer at the bottom because the prices are higher then they could considering we can't have large multinational airlines.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos