El País and The Times of London has reported that IAG is in talks with the Spanish government in case of a no deal. One possibility is to move the entire operations of the company to España.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ba-o ... -kw8699ccl

Spanish Airways coming soon? Nice

Surely this would be the worst possible option in the event of a "no deal brexit" ?

BA would lose its rights as a UK airline as it would then be operating under a Spanish AOC, as presently stands BA has UK rights and the rest of IAG would be under the EU, which would be ok as they all only operate flights that start or finish in their place of registration.

Quite telling about the level of preparedness by and confidence in the British government`s ability to solve the problem that a company hq`ed in the UK talks with an EU government instead ... actually it is in line with the UKs official recommendations.

My bet is IAG will officially relocate to Spain to protect Iberia, Aer Lingus and vueling, and the UK will just have to accommodate an officially foreign owned BA in its markets: another proof that 'taking back control' is actually resulting in exactly the contrary: the United Kingdom might as well rename to the United Colony, post Brexit. :

IAG office is in Heathrow. Iberia office is inside Madrid (not the greatest area, but not the worst; it was previously way more central). I think the new Madrid Nuevo Norte https://distritocastellananorte.com with direct connection to T4 would work great for an IAG HQ.

Who would like to work in Heathrow instead of Madrid? Madrid has a far better quality of life than London.

SCQ83 wrote:

IAG office is in Heathrow. Iberia office is inside Madrid (not the greatest area, but not the worst; it was previously way more central). I think the new Madrid Nuevo Norte https://distritocastellananorte.com with direct connection to T4 would work great for an IAG HQ.

Who would like to work in Heathrow instead of Madrid? Madrid has a far better quality of life than London.

One point to keep in mind is that BA HQ and IAG offices are located bang in the middle of where the 3rd runway will be. So they need a new home anyways.

You MAY get what you voted for. Can you imagine the public outrage of BA being a foreign carrier in the future... Hope they can find a solution.

to volar to servir

sabenapilot wrote:

Quite telling about the level of preparedness by and confidence in the British government`s ability to solve the problem that a company hq`ed in the UK talks with an EU government instead ... actually it is in line with the UKs official recommendations.

My bet is IAG will officially relocate to Spain to protect Iberia, Aer Lingus and vueling, and the UK will just have to accommodate an officially foreign owned BA in its markets: another proof that 'taking back control' is actually resulting in exactly the contrary: the United Kingdom might as well rename to the United Colony, post Brexit. :

Exactly ....the new Greenland , even more dependent on the EU than before but without a seat at the table.

Presuimably in a no deal scenario , IAG can asset strip most of BA''s fleet etc and relocate to Dublin, Madrid etc

You know the saying 'careful what you wish for'....

Galwayman wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Quite telling about the level of preparedness by and confidence in the British government`s ability to solve the problem that a company hq`ed in the UK talks with an EU government instead ... actually it is in line with the UKs official recommendations.

My bet is IAG will officially relocate to Spain to protect Iberia, Aer Lingus and vueling, and the UK will just have to accommodate an officially foreign owned BA in its markets: another proof that 'taking back control' is actually resulting in exactly the contrary: the United Kingdom might as well rename to the United Colony, post Brexit. :

Exactly ....the new Greenland , even more dependent on the EU than before but without a seat at the table.

Presuimably in a no deal scenario , IAG can asset strip most of BA''s fleet etc and relocate to Dublin, Madrid etc

Comparing Greenland to the UK is a bit of, no, a giant stretch. A Hard Brexit may force the break up IAG. Meaning that they would have to spin off BA if the UK played hardball with their air rights. The EU is at a crossroads with so many countries objecting to some EU policies. I always considered it some Euro version of the states but only in a half ass way.

RalXWB wrote:

You MAY get what you voted for. Can you imagine the public outrage of BA being a foreign carrier in the future... Hope they can find a solution.

BA is owned by IAG who are incorporated in Spain with the Government of Qatar owning 20% of it along with various other investment funds. It is techincally a foreign carrier anyway.

BA may of been founded in the UK and operates in the UK but that’s about it these days.

Galwayman wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Quite telling about the level of preparedness by and confidence in the British government`s ability to solve the problem that a company hq`ed in the UK talks with an EU government instead ... actually it is in line with the UKs official recommendations.

My bet is IAG will officially relocate to Spain to protect Iberia, Aer Lingus and vueling, and the UK will just have to accommodate an officially foreign owned BA in its markets: another proof that 'taking back control' is actually resulting in exactly the contrary: the United Kingdom might as well rename to the United Colony, post Brexit. :

Exactly ....the new Greenland , even more dependent on the EU than before but without a seat at the table.

Presuimably in a no deal scenario , IAG can asset strip most of BA''s fleet etc and relocate to Dublin, Madrid etc

Asset strip the most valuable part of IAG pffft hahahahahaha. It would just be sold off, BA is a highly profitable operation operating out of the worlds premier airport.

What aircraft could IAG relocate to Madrid/Dublin? The short haul airbus fleet and that is about it.

Arion640 wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

You MAY get what you voted for. Can you imagine the public outrage of BA being a foreign carrier in the future... Hope they can find a solution.

BA is owned by IAG who are incorporated in Spain with the Government of Qatar owning 20% of it along with various other investment funds. It is techincally a foreign carrier anyway.

BA may of been founded in the UK and operates in the UK but that’s about it these days.

I imagine this has to be with the way the EU perceives IAG as a company. For instance, if IAG has X employees and 99% of X is based in the UK, the EU can say that being incorporated in Spain is "fake" and they are actually a British company. This is the reason why all those finance companies need now to outsource jobs to the EU from London; to have a minimum % of the company working from the EU in order to have the "EU passport"

Bongodog1964 wrote:

Surely this would be the worst possible option in the event of a "no deal brexit" ?

BA would lose its rights as a UK airline as it would then be operating under a Spanish AOC, as presently stands BA has UK rights and the rest of IAG would be under the EU, which would be ok as they all only operate flights that start or finish in their place of registration.

I suspect that allows the UK to pass a law allowing BA to qualify as a British carrier regardless. The goal would be to satisfy foreign laws. The UK can change their own as needed.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Quite telling about the level of preparedness by and confidence in the British government`s ability to solve the problem that a company hq`ed in the UK talks with an EU government instead ... actually it is in line with the UKs official recommendations.

My bet is IAG will officially relocate to Spain to protect Iberia, Aer Lingus and vueling, and the UK will just have to accommodate an officially foreign owned BA in its markets: another proof that 'taking back control' is actually resulting in exactly the contrary: the United Kingdom might as well rename to the United Colony, post Brexit. :

Exactly ....the new Greenland , even more dependent on the EU than before but without a seat at the table.

Presuimably in a no deal scenario , IAG can asset strip most of BA''s fleet etc and relocate to Dublin, Madrid etc

Comparing Greenland to the UK is a bit of, no, a giant stretch. A Hard Brexit may force the break up IAG. Meaning that they would have to spin off BA if the UK played hardball with their air rights. The EU is at a crossroads with so many countries objecting to some EU policies. I always considered it some Euro version of the states but only in a half ass way.

It wouldn't be the UK that would be the issue, it will be the US & EU. As of now BA is a EU airline. Under the current rules and ownership split it would be a non EU for the purposes of the UK-EU along with all of the other IAG airlines. Even worse this would cause Iberia, Aer Lingus, Level, etc to lose their rights to the US. Further, depending on the ownership split if the single largest shareholder of IAG were non UK and over 25% it would also not be a UK airline for the purposes of US traffic. By moving to Spain IAG and changing the % owned by UK shareholders that don't have dual nationality with another EU country (what Easyjet is doing) will preserve its EU status for all of the airlines outside of BA. The issue is that BA would then be a non UK airline WRT the US. The only way to get back in the good graces would be to divest so that IAG or any non-UK shareholder was <25%. Incidentally of the current UK AOCs that operate to the US only one or none will qualify as UK for the purposes agreements after Brexit. VS's largest shareholder either is or will soon be DL, TUI is an EU airline, Norwegian is well Norwegian (pseudo-EU). The only one that might qualify is Thomas Cook, and that depends on what happens to Condor.

Even if the US-UK reverts to Bermuda II, any entity with standing in US courts could force BA and VS to stop operating to US destinations.

Not surprised with the preparation. Any responsible management with significant business in Europe and UK will need to do that, as we draw closer to the deadline and there are still significant differences between the two sides. All banks are full-steam ahead with internal planning and legal review already of what needs to move from London to EU locations. Many have actually started to move since moving takes time and cannot be done with a flick of a switch.

SCQ83 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

You MAY get what you voted for. Can you imagine the public outrage of BA being a foreign carrier in the future... Hope they can find a solution.

BA is owned by IAG who are incorporated in Spain with the Government of Qatar owning 20% of it along with various other investment funds. It is techincally a foreign carrier anyway.

BA may of been founded in the UK and operates in the UK but that’s about it these days.

I imagine this has to be with the way the EU perceives IAG as a company. For instance, if IAG has X employees and 99% of X is based in the UK, the EU can say that being incorporated in Spain is "fake" and they are actually a British company. This is the reason why all those finance companies need now to outsource jobs to the EU from London; to have a minimum % of the company working from the EU in order to have the "EU passport"

No, that’s not the case. Banking is very different within his own laws and requirements. So I wouldn’t compare the two.

IAG is a Spanish company. The operational IAG HQ is in the UK. To move the operational HQ to Spain wouldn’t be any issue whatsoever. Willy and his team of let’s say 100 people will have a shiny new office in Madrid and that’s it.

Galwayman wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Quite telling about the level of preparedness by and confidence in the British government`s ability to solve the problem that a company hq`ed in the UK talks with an EU government instead ... actually it is in line with the UKs official recommendations.

My bet is IAG will officially relocate to Spain to protect Iberia, Aer Lingus and vueling, and the UK will just have to accommodate an officially foreign owned BA in its markets: another proof that 'taking back control' is actually resulting in exactly the contrary: the United Kingdom might as well rename to the United Colony, post Brexit. :

Exactly ....the new Greenland , even more dependent on the EU than before but without a seat at the table.

Presuimably in a no deal scenario , IAG can asset strip most of BA''s fleet etc and relocate to Dublin, Madrid etc

Greenland had a good reason to leave. Their economy is largely dependent on fishing and the EU fishing quotas meant that other EU nations gained the right to fish in Greenland's territorial waters while Greenland itself was restricted. The agreement after withdrawing from the EU was much more favorable to Greenland as the EU started paying Greenland and subsidizing the Greenland fishing fleets in exchange for limited fishing quotas. Greenland, Iceland and Norway will never join the EU as long as the common fisheries policy stays the way it is. Plus with the opening of the Arctic, all three have strong and growing access to other natural resources. All three have strong (but non-voting) relationships with the EU but the EU will have to bend on some of its rules to get full membership for those three.

Also Greenland never really had a seat at the table. At the time, they didn't have home rule so Denmark was voting on behalf of Greenland. The UK on the other hand stands to lose far more and they don't really have a clear reason to leave. This is going to be so devastating if there is no deal.

aircatalonia wrote:

I think they would rather split the company. BA would do much better than IB.

Sure.
Dont u get fed up of crapping everything that has to do with IB or Spain in general?
At least if you provided further evidence to support ur idea...but that empty comment Is just that empty.

'Aerolineas Inglaterra' has a certain ring about it, more so than Aerolineas Londres I suppose ?

senatorflyer wrote:

No, that’s not the case. Banking is very different within his own laws and requirements. So I wouldn’t compare the two.

IAG is a Spanish company. The operational IAG HQ is in the UK. To move the operational HQ to Spain wouldn’t be any issue whatsoever. Willy and his team of let’s say 100 people will have a shiny new office in Madrid and that’s it.

But isn't it the same with Amazon and Luxembourg? I thought Amazon had set its European HQs in Luxembourg so they could pay Luxembourgish VAT instead of (higher) national VATs (this has been reverted, but years ago it was this way). Amazon is not a bank (yet).

SCQ83 wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

No, that’s not the case. Banking is very different within his own laws and requirements. So I wouldn’t compare the two.

IAG is a Spanish company. The operational IAG HQ is in the UK. To move the operational HQ to Spain wouldn’t be any issue whatsoever. Willy and his team of let’s say 100 people will have a shiny new office in Madrid and that’s it.

But isn't it the same with Amazon and Luxembourg? I thought Amazon had set its European HQs in Luxembourg so they could pay Luxembourgish VAT instead of (higher) national VATs (this has been reverted, but years ago it was this way). Amazon is not a bank (yet).

You’ve answered your own question. Having an HQ in a country with lower tax is simply to save money. A bank provides a service, regulated by the EU and various institutions in the member states. While the UK is in the EU they can provide services out of London for the EU. If there is no deal reached for the banking sector then they don’t have the same access anymore and would need to shift operations. That’s not the same as in trading with goods which still can happen relatively easy in a no deal Brexit scenario. Granted it will be more expensive (VAT, customs, tariffs) and it won’t be as quick anymore, holdup at the borders for processing.

Kadish wrote:

aircatalonia wrote:

I think they would rather split the company. BA would do much better than IB.

Sure.
Dont u get fed up of crapping everything that has to do with IB or Spain in general?
At least if you provided further evidence to support ur idea...but that empty comment Is just that empty.

It don’t think he’s crapping. It’s pretty much true, BA’s Heathrow slots alone are gold.

Arion640 wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

You MAY get what you voted for. Can you imagine the public outrage of BA being a foreign carrier in the future... Hope they can find a solution.

BA is owned by IAG who are incorporated in Spain with the Government of Qatar owning 20% of it along with various other investment funds. It is techincally a foreign carrier anyway.

BA may of been founded in the UK and operates in the UK but that’s about it these days.

Location of the HQ is indeed a minor issue - it is the ownership that is complicated. To have an EU AOC the airline should be more than 50 % owned and effectively controlled by EU citizens or governments. To qualify for the EU-US OpenSkies, and many other EU agreements, a similar condition must be met. What the US has proposed for the UK as a mutual bilateral is based on similar assumptions of UK citizenship which is the standard for almost all bilaterals in aviation.

To avoid a disaster, the UK has to allow airlines soliciting the UK AOC to be owned by foreigners and negotiate that into their bilaterals. I just wonder how they can make a legislation about UK AOC in time and particularly set up all the authorities recognized internationally? Maybe unilaterally allowing British airlines (like BA) to have a EU AOC (like from Spain) is just the interim solution?

Today's news about the UK politics are very discouraging and everybody should be prepared for a very hard Brexit.

spannacomo wrote:

Spanish Airways coming soon? Nice

Bongodog1964 wrote:

BA would lose its rights as a UK airline as it would then be operating under a Spanish AOC,

Nobody has said a thing about the airlines.... IAG is not an airline. IAG is a holding company with about 100 employees which business purpose is owning transportation-related companies.

It is registrered and HeadQuartered in Madrid, Spain,where the annual shareholders meeting takes place, operates under the Spanish law and has a Spanish VAT number.
This company has a branch with office in Heathrow, UK with a GB VAT number. Workers of IAG split bettween the two different entities. There will be people based in Spain employed by IAG SA and people based in LHR Compass Centre employed by "IAG SA sucursal en Reino Unido"

Arion640 wrote:

BA is owned by IAG who are incorporated in Spain with the Government of Qatar owning 20% of it along with various other investment funds. It is techincally a foreign carrier anyway.

BA may of been founded in the UK and operates in the UK but that’s about it these days.

In fact, BA technically is a UK carrier. Although "British Airways SA Sociedad Operadora" is wholly owned by IAG SA by having 100% of economical-right shares, only 49,9% of voting-right shares are in IAG hands. There is a British registrered and 100% UK-owned company acting as a trustée holding 50,1% of voting rights. That was made (same case on IB) to prevent any 3rd country to acuse BA of not bring British and thus not allowing to fly under the Air Service Agreement signed between that country and the UK.

phollingsworth wrote:

As of now BA is a EU airline.

As of now, there is no such thing as "EU airline" as the EU does not regitrer planes or issue EU AOCs. Only the 28 member countries can do that. If a company is granted a UK AOC, its G-xxxx planes can fly:

any route within any two points in the European Common aviation Area
any route between the EU and any other country with an agreement with the EU as a whole
any route indicated in the multiple UK-3rd countries agreements,

no1 does not seem to have a problem as no EU member state can't object an airline being foreign owned/controlled as long as those foreigners hold a EU nationality passport
no2 again is not a problem as those third countries accept the British airline to be foreign owned/controlled as long as those foreigners hold a EU nationality passport
no3 could be tricky, but as long as it is owned/controlled by UK nationals, any UK airline should be safe to fly under those existing agreements being or not member ot the EU.

The real problem here is the ownership/control of IAG as the holding company of these several airlines within the IAG Group.

YIMBY wrote:

Location of the HQ is indeed a minor issue - it is the ownership that is complicated.

As the IAG is set up (read my 1st awnser above) the majority of the BoD (and surely staff) is based in Compass Centre, UK. That could imply anyone would think the head where all decisions are being taken in the company IAG SA is effectively located in Britain.
As Britain is to leave the EU next March, anyone could say a Spanish (EU) company is being controlled from the UK, and that could thrive a number of legal issues. No problem till now, but Board might not be allowed to be based and hold Board meetings in London for much longer....

Arion640 wrote:

Kadish wrote:

aircatalonia wrote:

I think they would rather split the company. BA would do much better than IB.

Do not forget, that the IB cash saved BA from maybe bankruptcy some years ago. At this point, BA is not in a position to dictate terms inside the IAG. And maybe from this point on, will never be. This is happening when you vote with the dick, not with the head.

Sure.
Dont u get fed up of crapping everything that has to do with IB or Spain in general?
At least if you provided further evidence to support ur idea...but that empty comment Is just that empty.

It don’t think he’s crapping. It’s pretty much true, BA’s Heathrow slots alone are gold.

Maybe today. But tomorrow....
And do not forget, Madrid-barajas has 4 runways, 4 terminals and lot of space to grow. Nobody will stay in England for the Queen sake, or for the chips and fish. If will be a hard exist, with no, or little agreement on the flying wrights then by-by BA, as we know it today.

talonone wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Kadish wrote:

Do not forget, that the IB cash saved BA from maybe bankruptcy some years ago. At this point, BA is not in a position to dictate terms inside the IAG. And maybe from this point on, will never be. This is happening when you vote with the dick, not with the head.

Sure.
Dont u get fed up of crapping everything that has to do with IB or Spain in general?
At least if you provided further evidence to support ur idea...but that empty comment Is just that empty.

It don’t think he’s crapping. It’s pretty much true, BA’s Heathrow slots alone are gold.

Maybe today. But tomorrow....
And do not forget, Madrid-barajas has 4 runways, 4 terminals and lot of space to grow. Nobody will stay in England for the Queen sake, or for the chips and fish. If will be a hard exist, with no, or little agreement on the flying wrights then by-by BA, as we know it today.

Why would they not want to stay in England, is it likely they will move to Wales or Scotland instead?

talonone wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Kadish wrote:

Do not forget, that the IB cash saved BA from maybe bankruptcy some years ago. At this point, BA is not in a position to dictate terms inside the IAG. And maybe from this point on, will never be. This is happening when you vote with the dick, not with the head.

Sure.
Dont u get fed up of crapping everything that has to do with IB or Spain in general?
At least if you provided further evidence to support ur idea...but that empty comment Is just that empty.

It don’t think he’s crapping. It’s pretty much true, BA’s Heathrow slots alone are gold.

Maybe today. But tomorrow....
And do not forget, Madrid-barajas has 4 runways, 4 terminals and lot of space to grow. Nobody will stay in England for the Queen sake, or for the chips and fish. If will be a hard exist, with no, or little agreement on the flying wrights then by-by BA, as we know it today.

Eh?

Arion640 wrote:

talonone wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

It don’t think he’s crapping. It’s pretty much true, BA’s Heathrow slots alone are gold.

Maybe today. But tomorrow....
And do not forget, Madrid-barajas has 4 runways, 4 terminals and lot of space to grow. Nobody will stay in England for the Queen sake, or for the chips and fish. If will be a hard exist, with no, or little agreement on the flying wrights then by-by BA, as we know it today.

Why would they not want to stay in England, is it likely they will move to Wales or Scotland instead?

Brexit can get confusing and a lot of people interchange England, the UK and Britain, which can confuse people. The full name of the country that takes up about three quarter of the British Isles is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The UK is therefore made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The entire UK voted to leave the EU (although on a country basis Scotland and Northern Ireland had a majority vote to remain in the EU, but the overall majority in the UK voted to leave). I hope I haven’t confused things further.

With this in mind, an IAG move to Wales or Scotland makes no odds as the same problems still apply.

IAG can always own 49% of BA. If there are no UK investors interested in owning the controlling 51% then the UK Government could always buy the controlling stake - isn’t Brexit about “taking back Control”?

Baexecutive wrote:

talonone wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

It don’t think he’s crapping. It’s pretty much true, BA’s Heathrow slots alone are gold.

Maybe today. But tomorrow....
And do not forget, Madrid-barajas has 4 runways, 4 terminals and lot of space to grow. Nobody will stay in England for the Queen sake, or for the chips and fish. If will be a hard exist, with no, or little agreement on the flying wrights then by-by BA, as we know it today.

Eh?

Simple like that. Just search to see from where did the cash came, to save the "pension funds" problem... an author things.
IB put on the BA account via IAG some hundred of millions of pounds.

bx737 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

talonone wrote:

Maybe today. But tomorrow....
And do not forget, Madrid-barajas has 4 runways, 4 terminals and lot of space to grow. Nobody will stay in England for the Queen sake, or for the chips and fish. If will be a hard exist, with no, or little agreement on the flying wrights then by-by BA, as we know it today.

Why would they not want to stay in England, is it likely they will move to Wales or Scotland instead?

Brexit can get confusing and a lot of people interchange England, the UK and Britain, which can confuse people. The full name of the country that takes up about three quarter of the British Isles is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The UK is therefore made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The entire UK voted to leave the EU (although on a country basis Scotland and Northern Ireland had a majority vote to remain in the EU, but the overall majority in the UK voted to leave). I hope I haven’t confused things further.

With this in mind, an IAG move to Wales or Scotland makes no odds as the same problems still apply.

O

The term ‘British Isles’ can be confusing mainly because it’s a made up Victorian word that pretends there’s such a thing ... these islands are called Britain and Ireland , they’re not a collective , they’re not together , there not a single thing ... they’re two separate islands . Ones British , ones Irish

It’s a bit like when you’re sitting on an airplane and the flight attendant thinks you’re travelling with the random stranger who just happens to be sitting beside ...

talonone wrote:

Baexecutive wrote:

talonone wrote:

Maybe today. But tomorrow....
And do not forget, Madrid-barajas has 4 runways, 4 terminals and lot of space to grow. Nobody will stay in England for the Queen sake, or for the chips and fish. If will be a hard exist, with no, or little agreement on the flying wrights then by-by BA, as we know it today.

Eh?

Simple like that. Just search to see from where did the cash came, to save the "pension funds" problem... an author things.
IB put on the BA account via IAG some hundred of millions of pounds.

NAPS funding hasn't come from Iberia - BA has self funded NAPS, always has and always will. It's now closed to future accruel and IAG has booked a near €1bn beneficial net gain as a result. BA has reported only 2 years of losses in the last 10: 2009 and 2010, only just exceeding the profit generated in 2008 alone.

By 2012, Iberia's losses exceeded the profits of BA, placing Iberia in a fight for survival. By 2013 Iberia had lost €1bn. BA's pension deficit was a paper one - it was exacerbated by the reduction of interest rates to near 0%. BA now accounts for ~70-75% of IAG's profits and hundreds of millions of pounds in BA profits have been diverted to fund capex for Iberia. It's clear to see who is the gem in the IAG crown; BA has the highest margins, the highest ROIC and the greatest profits. IAG knows it too.

That's the other side of the story, at least.

NAPS funding hasn't come from Iberia - BA has self funded NAPS, always has and always will. It's now closed to future accruel and IAG has booked a near €1bn beneficial net gain as a result. BA has reported only 2 years of losses in the last 10: 2009 and 2010, only just exceeding the profit generated in 2008 alone.

By 2012, Iberia's losses exceeded the profits of BA, placing Iberia in a fight for survival. By 2013 Iberia had lost €1bn. BA's pension deficit was a paper one - it was exacerbated by the reduction of interest rates to near 0%. BA now accounts for ~70-75% of IAG's profits and hundreds of millions of pounds in BA profits have been diverted to fund capex for Iberia. It's clear to see who is the gem in the IAG crown; BA has the highest margins, the highest ROIC and the greatest profits. IAG knows it too.

That's the other side of the story, at least.[/quote]

Well said!

Galwayman wrote:

bx737 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Why would they not want to stay in England, is it likely they will move to Wales or Scotland instead?

Brexit can get confusing and a lot of people interchange England, the UK and Britain, which can confuse people. The full name of the country that takes up about three quarter of the British Isles is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The UK is therefore made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The entire UK voted to leave the EU (although on a country basis Scotland and Northern Ireland had a majority vote to remain in the EU, but the overall majority in the UK voted to leave). I hope I haven’t confused things further.

With this in mind, an IAG move to Wales or Scotland makes no odds as the same problems still apply.

O

The term ‘British Isles’ can be confusing mainly because it’s a made up Victorian word that pretends there’s such a thing ... these islands are called Britain and Ireland , they’re not a collective , they’re not together , there not a single thing ... they’re two separate islands . Ones British , ones Irish

It’s a bit like when you’re sitting on an airplane and the flight attendant thinks you’re travelling with the random stranger who just happens to be sitting beside ...

There are a few more islands not only the two.

Galwayman wrote:

The term ‘British Isles’ can be confusing mainly because it’s a made up Victorian word that pretends there’s such a thing ... these islands are called Britain and Ireland , they’re not a collective , they’re not together , there not a single thing ... they’re two separate islands . Ones British , ones Irish

There's this thing called the British Isles. It's an archipelago that consists of over 6000 individual islands with the biggest two being Great Britain and Ireland, followed in size by places like the Isle of Man, Orkney, Shetland, the Western Isles, the Isle of Wight and so on and so forth.

Also part of the island of Ireland happens to be in the UK.

See, everyday's a school day isn't it?

Baexecutive wrote:

NAPS funding hasn't come from Iberia - BA has self funded NAPS, always has and always will. It's now closed to future accruel and IAG has booked a near €1bn beneficial net gain as a result. BA has reported only 2 years of losses in the last 10: 2009 and 2010, only just exceeding the profit generated in 2008 alone.

By 2012, Iberia's losses exceeded the profits of BA, placing Iberia in a fight for survival. By 2013 Iberia had lost €1bn. BA's pension deficit was a paper one - it was exacerbated by the reduction of interest rates to near 0%. BA now accounts for ~70-75% of IAG's profits and hundreds of millions of pounds in BA profits have been diverted to fund capex for Iberia. It's clear to see who is the gem in the IAG crown; BA has the highest margins, the highest ROIC and the greatest profits. IAG knows it too.

That's the other side of the story, at least.

Well said![/quote]

Yeah, that's why BA did not.want to do became part of IAG in 2009. And what a coincidence, in 2008, and 2009 BA received from IB some hundred of million of euros as loan. IB did marked 2 years of losses, but a 1bilion euros!?
Man, I really want to tell me what are u smoking. Because I want to.
P.S. All that I spoke, you can find it in the annual balances of IB wich are public.
Can you prove your words!?

talonone wrote:

Baexecutive wrote:

NAPS funding hasn't come from Iberia - BA has self funded NAPS, always has and always will. It's now closed to future accruel and IAG has booked a near €1bn beneficial net gain as a result. BA has reported only 2 years of losses in the last 10: 2009 and 2010, only just exceeding the profit generated in 2008 alone.

By 2012, Iberia's losses exceeded the profits of BA, placing Iberia in a fight for survival. By 2013 Iberia had lost €1bn. BA's pension deficit was a paper one - it was exacerbated by the reduction of interest rates to near 0%. BA now accounts for ~70-75% of IAG's profits and hundreds of millions of pounds in BA profits have been diverted to fund capex for Iberia. It's clear to see who is the gem in the IAG crown; BA has the highest margins, the highest ROIC and the greatest profits. IAG knows it too.

That's the other side of the story, at least.

Well said!

Yeah, that's why BA did not.want to do became part of IAG in 2009. And what a coincidence, in 2008, and 2009 BA received from IB some hundred of million of euros as loan. IB did marked 2 years of losses, but a 1bilion euros!?
Man, I really want to tell me what are u smoking. Because I want to.
P.S. All that I spoke, you can find it in the annual balances of IB wich are public.
Can you prove your words!?[/quote]

It’s too hard for many folks to admit the pensions issue...instead some prefer to believe how great and superior are...I guess it has to do with the imperial times...

BA777FO wrote:

[...] It's clear to see who is the gem in the IAG crown; BA has the highest margins, the highest ROIC and the greatest profits. IAG knows it too.

That's the other side of the story, at least.

Just check the last Capital Markets Day slides... you will be surprised!!!

talonone wrote:

Baexecutive wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

NAPS funding hasn't come from Iberia - BA has self funded NAPS, always has and always will. It's now closed to future accruel and IAG has booked a near €1bn beneficial net gain as a result. BA has reported only 2 years of losses in the last 10: 2009 and 2010, only just exceeding the profit generated in 2008 alone.

By 2012, Iberia's losses exceeded the profits of BA, placing Iberia in a fight for survival. By 2013 Iberia had lost €1bn. BA's pension deficit was a paper one - it was exacerbated by the reduction of interest rates to near 0%. BA now accounts for ~70-75% of IAG's profits and hundreds of millions of pounds in BA profits have been diverted to fund capex for Iberia. It's clear to see who is the gem in the IAG crown; BA has the highest margins, the highest ROIC and the greatest profits. IAG knows it too.

That's the other side of the story, at least.

Well said!

Yeah, that's why BA did not.want to do became part of IAG in 2009. And what a coincidence, in 2008, and 2009 BA received from IB some hundred of million of euros as loan. IB did marked 2 years of losses, but a 1bilion euros!?
Man, I really want to tell me what are u smoking. Because I want to.
P.S. All that I spoke, you can find it in the annual balances of IB wich are public.
Can you prove your words!?

I can prove my words: https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... fit-155549

Iberia’s 2013 pre-exceptional operating loss was an improvement on its 2012 result, but it has now seen six successive years of losses and has accumulated more than EUR1.1 billion of operating losses since 2008.

Now where's your proof BA received a loan from Iberia? The NAPS deficit was always a paper deficit, until its closure to future accruals NAPS received more payments in than it had to pay out. It's future liabilities that were issue - however last financial year IAG booked a €800m improvement due to its closure to future accrual and reduction in benefits.

Only thing being smoked is reality over here. No need to be so rude, especially when you're wrong.

tobsw wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

[...] It's clear to see who is the gem in the IAG crown; BA has the highest margins, the highest ROIC and the greatest profits. IAG knows it too.

That's the other side of the story, at least.

Just check the last Capital Markets Day slides... you will be surprised!!!

Not entirely sure Aer Lingus' margin is sustainable, year end 2018 results will paint a slightly different picture. BA's profit is still much larger than all other IAG opcos combined. BA definitely is IAG's jewel and cash cow.

BA777FO wrote:

talonone wrote:

Baexecutive wrote:

Well said!

Yeah, that's why BA did not.want to do became part of IAG in 2009. And what a coincidence, in 2008, and 2009 BA received from IB some hundred of million of euros as loan. IB did marked 2 years of losses, but a 1bilion euros!?
Man, I really want to tell me what are u smoking. Because I want to.
P.S. All that I spoke, you can find it in the annual balances of IB wich are public.
Can you prove your words!?

I can prove my words: https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... fit-155549

Iberia’s 2013 pre-exceptional operating loss was an improvement on its 2012 result, but it has now seen six successive years of losses and has accumulated more than EUR1.1 billion of operating losses since 2008.

Now where's your proof BA received a loan from Iberia? The NAPS deficit was always a paper deficit, until its closure to future accruals NAPS received more payments in than it had to pay out. It's future liabilities that were issue - however last financial year IAG booked a €800m improvement due to its closure to future accrual and reduction in benefits.

Only thing being smoked is reality over here. No need to be so rude, especially when you're wrong.

If you the prof, you can find it in the annual balances of Iberia. It is at the free disposal of everybody. You can find it in the "Registro Mercantil" of Madrid website.
And oh, what the heck is Centerofaviation!? Another paper who throw crap when is well payed ?

BA777FO wrote:

Not entirely sure Aer Lingus' margin is sustainable, year end 2018 results will paint a slightly different picture. BA's profit is still much larger than all other IAG opcos combined. BA definitely is IAG's jewel and cash cow.

Numbers don't lie. Whether you like it or not. The biggest margins and ROIC are from Aer Lingus.

I'm not disagreeing with your other statements: BAs is the big guy, biggest profits and THE cash cow.

talonone wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

talonone wrote:

Yeah, that's why BA did not.want to do became part of IAG in 2009. And what a coincidence, in 2008, and 2009 BA received from IB some hundred of million of euros as loan. IB did marked 2 years of losses, but a 1bilion euros!?
Man, I really want to tell me what are u smoking. Because I want to.
P.S. All that I spoke, you can find it in the annual balances of IB wich are public.
Can you prove your words!?

I can prove my words: https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... fit-155549

Iberia’s 2013 pre-exceptional operating loss was an improvement on its 2012 result, but it has now seen six successive years of losses and has accumulated more than EUR1.1 billion of operating losses since 2008.

Now where's your proof BA received a loan from Iberia? The NAPS deficit was always a paper deficit, until its closure to future accruals NAPS received more payments in than it had to pay out. It's future liabilities that were issue - however last financial year IAG booked a €800m improvement due to its closure to future accrual and reduction in benefits.

Only thing being smoked is reality over here. No need to be so rude, especially when you're wrong.

If you the prof, you can find it in the annual balances of Iberia. It is at the free disposal of everybody. You can find it in the "Registro Mercantil" of Madrid website.
And oh, what the heck is Centerofaviation!? Another paper who throw crap when is well payed ?

You've never heard of CAPA? They're a very well respected aviation analyst, yet because the facts disagree with your opinions you condemn it without foundation.

Iberia made a loss of €32m in 2008. I assume you're going to throw mud at Reuters too? If Iberia made a loss in 2008 I'm not sure what they'd be doing giving BA a loan! I know...they didn't! You haven't provided one shred of evidence for your baseless claims yet you try and dismiss CAPA for using company financial statements.

https://www.reuters.com/article/iberia/ ... 8720080805

And from the Financial Times:

Iberia’s operating loss widened from €61m in 2011 to €896m last year, including charges of €545m that related to restructuring and impairment.

https://www.ft.com/content/5e4985c2-817 ... 144feabdc0

Are the FT and Reuters throwing mud and bought by others too? Iberia lost a ton of money, BA never had a loan from Iberia. Either provide facts for your baseless claims or accept the FT and Reuters as proof you're wrong.

tobsw wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

Not entirely sure Aer Lingus' margin is sustainable, year end 2018 results will paint a slightly different picture. BA's profit is still much larger than all other IAG opcos combined. BA definitely is IAG's jewel and cash cow.

Numbers don't lie. Whether you like it or not. The biggest margins and ROIC are from Aer Lingus.

I'm not disagreeing with your other statements: BAs is the big guy, biggest profits and THE cash cow.

IAG only reports individual opco results at half yearly intervals. For 1H 2018 Aer Lingus'operating margin was 11.5%. BA's was 12.4%. That's why I said Aer Lingus'margins weren't sustainable - BA is ahead so far for 2018. By way of comparison Iberia's margin was 6.1% and Veuling's just 2.8%. BA was ahead of all other opcos for lease adjusted margin too.

Year end 2018 results will make interesting reading.

BA777FO wrote:

talonone wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

I can prove my words: https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... fit-155549

Iberia’s 2013 pre-exceptional operating loss was an improvement on its 2012 result, but it has now seen six successive years of losses and has accumulated more than EUR1.1 billion of operating losses since 2008.

Now where's your proof BA received a loan from Iberia? The NAPS deficit was always a paper deficit, until its closure to future accruals NAPS received more payments in than it had to pay out. It's future liabilities that were issue - however last financial year IAG booked a €800m improvement due to its closure to future accrual and reduction in benefits.

Only thing being smoked is reality over here. No need to be so rude, especially when you're wrong.

If you the prof, you can find it in the annual balances of Iberia. It is at the free disposal of everybody. You can find it in the "Registro Mercantil" of Madrid website.
And oh, what the heck is Centerofaviation!? Another paper who throw crap when is well payed ?

You've never heard of CAPA? They're a very well respected aviation analyst, yet because the facts disagree with your opinions you condemn it without foundation.

Iberia made a loss of €32m in 2008. I assume you're going to throw mud at Reuters too? If Iberia made a loss in 2008 I'm not sure what they'd be doing giving BA a loan! I know...they didn't! You haven't provided one shred of evidence for your baseless claims yet you try and dismiss CAPA for using company financial statements.

https://www.reuters.com/article/iberia/ ... 8720080805

And from the Financial Times:

Iberia’s operating loss widened from €61m in 2011 to €896m last year, including charges of €545m that related to restructuring and impairment.

https://www.ft.com/content/5e4985c2-817 ... 144feabdc0

Are the FT and Reuters throwing mud and bought by others too? Iberia lost a ton of money, BA never had a loan from Iberia. Either provide facts for your baseless claims or accept the FT and Reuters as proof you're wrong.

I’ve always heard about IB n BA pensions...when people from IB always tells the same story I guess sth may be hidden, what I’m saying its that’s so difficult to lie this big, smells fishy anyway.

You are right, IB loss in 2008 is there, nevertheless they could have tons of money from the previous years....

But if BA made an operating profit in 2008, and Iberia made a loss in 2008, why would Iberia make a loan to BA that year? They wouldn't, it plainly doesn't make sense.

Talonone either has a blind hatred of BA or an unconditional love of Iberia clouding his/her judgement.

[twoid][/twoid]

BA777FO wrote:

But if BA made an operating profit in 2008, and Iberia made a loss in 2008, why would Iberia make a loan to BA that year? They wouldn't, it plainly doesn't make sense.

Talonone either has a blind hatred of BA or an unconditional love of Iberia clouding his/her judgement.

BA could make a profit but maybe not enough...
Im just saying that we dont know the truth and maybe de wont in a future.

Having said that, why do you think BA merged with IB if the last one was a mess and losing tons of money whereas BA was in a really good shape?
Charitty...I dont think so.

Kadish wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

BA777FO wrote:

But if BA made an operating profit in 2008, and Iberia made a loss in 2008, why would Iberia make a loan to BA that year? They wouldn't, it plainly doesn't make sense.

Talonone either has a blind hatred of BA or an unconditional love of Iberia clouding his/her judgement.

BA could make a profit but maybe not enough...
Im just saying that we dont know the truth and maybe de wont in a future.

Having said that, why do you think BA merged with IB if the last one was a mess and losing tons of money whereas BA was in a really good shape?
Charitty...I dont think so.

No hate to BA, neither an "unconditional" love to IB
Let's say I have access to papers and facts that few people have! And I do not speak just to make the day past, or because I am bored. All the loses of IB on the past years where covered by the earnings( some huge ones) that the company made prior to 2008.