UltimoTiger777 wrote:Except this government had nothing to do with bailing out those firms. That was the last government. I also doubt any government would have had the courage (or insanity) to allow two major banks to collapse considering what kind of damage that could do to the economy at large.
Try uk sport - 30Mil
UltimoTiger777 wrote:The engineering business hasn't been carved off though. It's always been separate. It actually predates the airlines foundation in 1967 by several months.
It was part of the monarch group of companies, with the same ceo and directors and was contributing to results
There's loads of examples of this - Dart/Jet2/FW if one of these companies were in trouble would the group not fund the other to help survival whilst they dealt with the issues. They could move profits around artificially if required - look at amazon and the likes.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:, then they should be repatriating their own passengers as far as they can, right up to the moment their bank balance turns red.
UltimoTiger777 wrote:I was under the assumption that the CAA won't grant a licence to an airline unless they can prove they have sufficient cash reserves. Flying until they are "in the red" would mean the CAA would pull the licence surely since trading while insolvent is illegal in the UK.
This is the airline that added an order of 15 max jets around 12 weeks before - so it clearly thought it would have cash coming from somewhere.
How do you go from spending billions (list price) to 12 weeks later having nothing. And we dont know it had nothing left we just know its stopped.
This is where its odd.
If you're projecting a 100MIL loss you dont order another 15 jets you know you cant pay for.
If you're trying to 'pivot' your business to long haul you dont buy 45 short haul jets - you certainly dont buy another 15 and consult after.
If you're trying to sell your short haul company, you dont commit to a costly aircraft order and liability.
Something does not add up with the entire way this company has been run.