Cointrin330 wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Makes you wonder if it would cost them less to have tried to save MXP than to have completely cut and suffered the consequences because of it.

AZ building a hub at MXP is futile when the key domestic and European routes by competitors are flown from the in city LIN for which customers have a preference for.

It simply repeats the failures of the past where AZ had to discount MXP flights to compete against LIN.

One only needs to look at the Milan Airports to understand Italy's aviation problem and AZ's inability to ever overcome its problems. MXP is too far from Milan, poorly served by public transportation, and LCCs, namely Easy Jet, have a significant footprint there at this point, meaning short-haul just won't work for anyone else and certainly not AZ. LIN and MXP duplicate short-haul routes didn't work in the 2000s and they won't work now. FCO is AZ's main hub, an airport with a patchwork of terminals, a tourist destination, with very limited business traffic. Much of Italy's cargo by air goes through MXP. The fact that AZ can't serve Italy's business capital says a lot about Italy and Alitalia.

MXP is not poorly served by public transportation..on the contrary..Bergamo is..But LIN is so close to the city, it's only natural travellers prefer it..

Cointrin330 wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Makes you wonder if it would cost them less to have tried to save MXP than to have completely cut and suffered the consequences because of it.

AZ building a hub at MXP is futile when the key domestic and European routes by competitors are flown from the in city LIN for which customers have a preference for.

It simply repeats the failures of the past where AZ had to discount MXP flights to compete against LIN.

One only needs to look at the Milan Airports to understand Italy's aviation problem and AZ's inability to ever overcome its problems
....

No sir, milan has nothing to do with AZ problems, AZ's inability to overcome their problems is entirely due to politics wanting them to stay in the wrong airports, where demand is seasonal or weak or cheap or a bit of all of that, as the last 20+ years showed. That's all.

spannacomo wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

AZ building a hub at MXP is futile when the key domestic and European routes by competitors are flown from the in city LIN for which customers have a preference for.

It simply repeats the failures of the past where AZ had to discount MXP flights to compete against LIN.

One only needs to look at the Milan Airports to understand Italy's aviation problem and AZ's inability to ever overcome its problems
....

No sir, milan has nothing to do with AZ problems, AZ's inability to overcome their problems is entirely due to politics wanting them to stay in the wrong airports, where demand is seasonal or weak or cheap or a bit of all of that, as the last 20+ years showed. That's all.

Yes sir , that`s the truth ! What baffles me is why this politic people doing it this way for so long ( burning taxpayer money ) ?
Ah , maybe a simple way to fill their own pockets ?

European Commission approved €73mil COVID-19 related aid for AZ.
This was in addition to €200 million previously approved COVID compensation in September.

https://www.aerotime.aero/26819-EU-give ... litalia%20

No matter that the company is being renamed, in all of this it isn't quite clear if the new Airline will still be called Alitalia as a brand or not.

As for the longhaul fleet, all of the 14 A330-200s will have to go, and 6 out of the 12-strong 777-fleet (I assume the oddball 77W will be among the retirees).

With that option, apart from 6 B777, you only have A319/A320.

I exclude the A321 because there are only 5 and they are pretty elderly.

What sort of LH network do you envisage?

bennett123 wrote:

With that option, apart from 6 B777, you only have A319/A320.

I exclude the A321 because there are only 5 and they are pretty elderly.

What sort of LH network do you envisage?

Per AZ's presentation on the new AZ, only EZE, GRU, HND, JFK & LAX (or MIA) for the first 1-2 years,

Hey, nobody touch IAD-FCO!

European Commission is seeking clarifications on the latest Alitalia rescue plan.

The commission is requesting that ITA takes over only the flight operations of current Alitalia, without including the maintenance division or the ground handling which could be spun off separately.
Commission also believes that ITA should not be given preferential treatment in any auction of AZ assets such as its brand, frequent flyer program, ticket code etc. The bidding should be open and based on market price.
Additionally, the Commission voiced concern about slots at LIN where AZ and its affiliates currently hold about 70% of slots, suggesting some slots are given up to other airlines including new entrants seeking to enter the prefered airport.

https://www.milanofinanza.it/news/l-ue- ... 2159503306

EU pushing Italy to drop the 75-year-old Alitalia brand as part of relaunching the airline. EU says the brand is an emblematic indicator of continuity, so a "new" operation should have a new name.

https://centreforaviation.com/news/alit ... on-1048734

For one reason or another, I don't see Italy giving up on the AZ brand. At least not without trying several different things to go around the EU/EC recommendations and requests. When you read the letter, it does ask Italy some good questions like "Please provide an estimate of the value of the brand of Alitalia and provide support for this valuation. Please also explain whether ITA plans to acquire the brand at market price, and whether that market price would result from a tender" and asking what is the plan B if the Alitalia brand is not sold to ITA.

Worth noting that the letter says the Alitalia brand "should no" be continued, but doesn't explicitly says it "can not" be sold and used by ITA. All Italy needs to do is provide the EU with how they got the Alitalia brand value and that ITA will buy it at market price.

If it re opens as Alitalia, will it be subject to the liabilities and commitments.

Alitalia is like a cockroach. It will be around forever.

With the UK gone, Italy's position in the EU got stronger. I believe they moved from being the 4th economy to being 3rd. That's why Brussels has to be extremely careful with Alitalia since Rome has no intention on shutting it down.

bennett123 wrote:

If it re opens as Alitalia, will it be subject to the liabilities and commitments.

I doubt it, as it will just be taking over the intellectual capital (aka the name and logos), it will be a completely different company. No different than Frontier resurrecting the old brand for the new discount airline or the several attempts to restart Pan Am...or the low end marketers who buy old brand names and slap it on cheap dime-store products. As far as I can keep count, this would be the fourth legal entity called Alitalia...

According to Airways, the EU has ruled against an Italian restructuring for AZ; and that in order for there to be assistance, a new entity and new branding must be created.

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/alitali ... in-revamp/

If this is indeed the case, then after 75yrs, the long-troubled Alitalia brand will finally be laid to rest.
The new entity is reportedly to be called ITA.

The core issue remains unchanged. Lol.

Antarius wrote:

The core issue remains unchanged. Lol.

No doubt about that.

But from the AvGeek perspective, it's interesting that this may indeed finally be it, for the branding with more lives than a dozen alley cats.

Same employees, same seniority, same work rules and wage rates?

MIflyer12 wrote:

Same employees, same seniority, same work rules and wage rates?

I'm betting same livery too, with but the most minor unnoticeable tweaks.

That new name is also so horrible (ITA). Couldn't they have come up with a better name?

A388

Antarius wrote:

The core issue remains unchanged. Lol.

So True

A388 wrote:

Couldn't they have come up with a better name?

It remains to be seen how much effort will be put into this at all...

...I wouldn't be surprised if it's basically scratching the name "Alitalia" off some of the same procured aircraft, changing a bit of paperwork, then injecting money into the exact same failed model/structure as they have been for decades.

al-ITA-lia

A388 wrote:

That new name is also so horrible (ITA). Couldn't they have come up with a better name?

A388

Indeed. Despite them being unprofitable, ‘Alitalia’ is such a classy name, and their livery is one of the best out there!

How shallow of a decision by the EU about judging a book by its cover. I mean how livery-racist is that decision? Thanks EU for insulting a good portion of the Italian community out there. Alitalia is ITALY. What poor rationale, dictator-like. I mean, really? INSULTING. Italexit.

jmmadrid wrote:

al-ITA-lia

#CantBeUnseen

TYWoolman wrote:

How shallow of a decision by the EU about judging a book by its cover. I mean how livery-racist is that decision? Thanks EU for insulting a good portion of the Italian community out there. Alitalia is ITALY. What poor rationale, dictator-like. I mean, really? INSULTING.

You may well have many talents-- but comedy is clearly not one of them.

How about Al operated by Italia ?

Al could be Ted’s Italian cousin in a way.

LAX772LR wrote:

jmmadrid wrote:

al-ITA-lia

#CantBeUnseen

TYWoolman wrote:

How shallow of a decision by the EU about judging a book by its cover. I mean how livery-racist is that decision? Thanks EU for insulting a good portion of the Italian community out there. Alitalia is ITALY. What poor rationale, dictator-like. I mean, really? INSULTING.

You may well have many talents-- but comedy is clearly not one of them.

Well sorry to disappoint you thinking I was being comedic. I was not being comedic at all. Dead serious. Imagine telling Lufthansa they shall not be called that. Are you kidding me? Call it ITALEXIT!

A388 wrote:

That new name is also so horrible (ITA). Couldn't they have come up with a better name?

A388

They may haven't got the name right, but I'm sure their business plan is top notch. Oh, wait...

Cheers,
MN

Blerg wrote:

With the UK gone, Italy's position in the EU got stronger. I believe they moved from being the 4th economy to being 3rd. That's why Brussels has to be extremely careful with Alitalia since Rome has no intention on shutting it down.

Not really following your conclusion here:
for what reason will jumping from 3rd to 4th suddenly make Brussels care or change their analysis in the least? I mean, what's Italy going to "do" now that they're 3rd, that couldn't have been done when they were 4th, to elicit that effect?

TYWoolman wrote:

Well sorry to disappoint you thinking I was being comedic. I was not being comedic at all. Dead serious. Imagine telling Lufthansa they shall not be called that. Are you kidding me? Call it ITALEXIT!

That someone would write that with a straight face, is even scarier than the idea of them just being bad at comedy....

LAX772LR wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

Well sorry to disappoint you thinking I was being comedic. I was not being comedic at all. Dead serious. Imagine telling Lufthansa they shall not be called that. Are you kidding me? Call it ITALEXIT!

That someone would write that with a straight face, is even scarier than the idea of them just being bad at comedy....

I guess you're not Italian. BADABING Are you from fantasia or from the shire?

LAX772LR wrote:

jmmadrid wrote:

al-ITA-lia

#CantBeUnseen

Is there a link to the stunning new business plan that will make me believe something substantial changed?

Lightsaber

AZ got 99 problems, but branding is not one of them so far. The EU should rather mandate structural reforms and prioritizing profitability instead of just a name change, rather than forcing AZ to spend even more money to rebrand itself. But if there is a new name, then problems are gone in the eyes of politicians (exclusively).........

I doubt that anyone is advocating JUST a name change.

The new name will be Italia (ITA-ila!) of course!
Italia!

A388 wrote:

That new name is also so horrible (ITA). Couldn't they have come up with a better name?

A388

EE-TAY-AH will roll smoothly off Italian tongues.

jmmadrid wrote:

al-ITA-lia

exactly!

Italian prime minister to resign tomorrow.... wonder if this decision is peripheral to a change in government?

Capricorn wrote:

AZ got 99 problems, but branding is not one of them so far. The EU should rather mandate structural reforms and prioritizing profitability instead of just a name change, rather than forcing AZ to spend even more money to rebrand itself. But if there is a new name, then problems are gone in the eyes of politicians (exclusively).........

Well, that is a problem. European Commission operates within the rules its member states wrote for it.

I don't believe anywhere in those rules, it says "European Commission has a right to decide, what a company should do, to meet EU's fancy". So EU mandating "structural reforms and prioritizing profitability" would probably be treated for what it is -- an awfully illegal intervention into corporate affairs. Probably undermining national sovereignty of Italy, as well.

Now, the shenanigans with assets (a brand is one) as part of a package, designed to dodge (again) complying with state aid rules -- that's something EU's is mandated to look into. So they are doing that, and it appears they are catching folks red-handed with breach of rules.

LAX772LR wrote:

Blerg wrote:

With the UK gone, Italy's position in the EU got stronger. I believe they moved from being the 4th economy to being 3rd. That's why Brussels has to be extremely careful with Alitalia since Rome has no intention on shutting it down.

Not really following your conclusion here:
for what reason will jumping from 3rd to 4th suddenly make Brussels care or change their analysis in the least? I mean, what's Italy going to "do" now that they're 3rd, that couldn't have been done when they were 4th, to elicit that effect?

TYWoolman wrote:

Well sorry to disappoint you thinking I was being comedic. I was not being comedic at all. Dead serious. Imagine telling Lufthansa they shall not be called that. Are you kidding me? Call it ITALEXIT!

That someone would write that with a straight face, is even scarier than the idea of them just being bad at comedy....

Because of the money they pay into the EU budget. As a leading European economy they always had a major say in how the EU is run but now it will be even more. In 2019 they already surpassed the UK in EU contributions: Italy €14.96 billion, The UK €14.05.

Blerg wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Blerg wrote:

With the UK gone, Italy's position in the EU got stronger. I believe they moved from being the 4th economy to being 3rd. That's why Brussels has to be extremely careful with Alitalia since Rome has no intention on shutting it down.

Not really following your conclusion here:
for what reason will jumping from 3rd to 4th suddenly make Brussels care or change their analysis in the least? I mean, what's Italy going to "do" now that they're 3rd, that couldn't have been done when they were 4th, to elicit that effect?

Because of the money they pay into the EU budget. As a leading European economy they always had a major say in how the EU is run but now it will be even more. In 2019 they already surpassed the UK in EU contributions: Italy €14.96 billion, The UK €14.05.

That doesn't answer the question:
what could they do/cause now, that they could not have before? What does marginally higher contribution grant them, that they wouldn't have been able to negotiate previously?

LAX772LR wrote:

Blerg wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Not really following your conclusion here:
for what reason will jumping from 3rd to 4th suddenly make Brussels care or change their analysis in the least? I mean, what's Italy going to "do" now that they're 3rd, that couldn't have been done when they were 4th, to elicit that effect?

Because of the money they pay into the EU budget. As a leading European economy they always had a major say in how the EU is run but now it will be even more. In 2019 they already surpassed the UK in EU contributions: Italy €14.96 billion, The UK €14.05.

That doesn't answer the question:
what could they do/cause now, that they could not have before? What does marginally higher contribution grant them, that they wouldn't have been able to negotiate previously?

The question was answered in my previous post, you are obviously not familiar with how things work in the EU so let me put in more simple terms: they have much more say in how the EU is run and what goes on. In even simpler terms it means that AZ will be protected even more than before. Member states are only equal on paper.

Blerg wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Because of the money they pay into the EU budget. As a leading European economy they always had a major say in how the EU is run but now it will be even more. In 2019 they already surpassed the UK in EU contributions: Italy €14.96 billion, The UK €14.05.

That doesn't answer the question:
what could they do/cause now, that they could not have before? What does marginally higher contribution grant them, that they wouldn't have been able to negotiate previously?

The question was answered in my previous post, you are obviously not familiar with how things work in the EU so let me put in more simple terms: they have much more say in how the EU is run and what goes on. In even simpler terms it means that AZ will be protected even more than before. Member states are only equal on paper.

Due to many decisions needing unanimous consent, even small countries wield their influence and engage in horse trading. I agree that Italy will find a way to get the airline into the exact shape they want.

On the other hand I do not think that the EU's demands are "fanciful". Alitalia had had more state aid and chances than any other airline before Covid. They played the system, strong armed Italian state owned companies to make "commercial investments" that they never would have made otherwise. So demanding to draw a line underneath is not unreasonable. However, as Blerg said, Italy will find a way and Alitalia will continue if they decide it's in their best interest.

Westerwaelder wrote:

Blerg wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

That doesn't answer the question:
what could they do/cause now, that they could not have before? What does marginally higher contribution grant them, that they wouldn't have been able to negotiate previously?

The question was answered in my previous post, you are obviously not familiar with how things work in the EU so let me put in more simple terms: they have much more say in how the EU is run and what goes on. In even simpler terms it means that AZ will be protected even more than before. Member states are only equal on paper.

Due to many decisions needing unanimous consent, even small countries wield their influence and engage in horse trading. I agree that Italy will find a way to get the airline into the exact shape they want.

On the other hand I do not think that the EU's demands are "fanciful". Alitalia had had more state aid and chances than any other airline before Covid. They played the system, strong armed Italian state owned companies to make "commercial investments" that they never would have made otherwise. So demanding to draw a line underneath is not unreasonable. However, as Blerg said, Italy will find a way and Alitalia will continue if they decide it's in their best interest.

We also have to wonder if there is public consent on shutting down AZ. There has to be a reason why Alitalia gets away with it each time. Sure, people on this forum might agree that the airline must go but the Italian electorate probably disagrees. After all, every single government in Rome weighs their decision against public opinion and if none shut AZ down then there has to be a reason for that.

Blerg wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

Blerg wrote:

The question was answered in my previous post, you are obviously not familiar with how things work in the EU so let me put in more simple terms: they have much more say in how the EU is run and what goes on. In even simpler terms it means that AZ will be protected even more than before. Member states are only equal on paper.

Due to many decisions needing unanimous consent, even small countries wield their influence and engage in horse trading. I agree that Italy will find a way to get the airline into the exact shape they want.

On the other hand I do not think that the EU's demands are "fanciful". Alitalia had had more state aid and chances than any other airline before Covid. They played the system, strong armed Italian state owned companies to make "commercial investments" that they never would have made otherwise. So demanding to draw a line underneath is not unreasonable. However, as Blerg said, Italy will find a way and Alitalia will continue if they decide it's in their best interest.

We also have to wonder if there is public consent on shutting down AZ. There has to be a reason why Alitalia gets away with it each time. Sure, people on this forum might agree that the airline must go but the Italian electorate probably disagrees. After all, every single government in Rome weighs their decision against public opinion and if none shut AZ down then there has to be a reason for that.

It's funny you think "every single government in Rome weighs their decision against public opinion " because it is not like that (Italian living in Italy here), and voters would have shut down Alitalia AGES ago, the issue are Unions.

All-ITA-lia

Nope, still not working

Swissair --> SWISS
Alitalia --> ITA
British European Airways --> FlyBE

What's next?

Deutsche Lufthansa --> LUFT
Iberia --> BER
Olympic Air --> LYMP
Aeroflot --> ROFL

bennett123 wrote:

If it re opens as Alitalia, will it be subject to the liabilities and commitments.

Not necessarily. If a new airline (ITA) acquires the brand name, that is just an asset; they do not necessarily acquire any liabilities not expressly assumed. Alitalia is operating in the Italian Bankruptcy system - that will wipe out a lot (if not substantially all) of their liabilities.

So it can wipe out it's debts and re open as Alitalia 25 or whatever.

Over say 10 years it racks up billions in debt.

Then rinse and repeat.