10 Billions of which 3 Billions in loans, 6.50 billions in non-voting shares with coupon as a pseudo-loan, and 300 million via share issuance.
The conditions that I would require if I were the EU:
-Limit to LH expansion to its size before the Coronavirus crisis, including purchase of stakes in other airlines, as long as the loan and non-voting shares have not been repaid in full and 3 years after that.
-Completely divesting through a sale or IPO one or two of their airline subsidiaries representing 10-15% of their fleet count within 12 months. Either SN, OS, LX, EN or EW. They can choose which subsidiaries. This to boost competition within the EU.
-Giving up up to 20% of slots at any slot-limited airport to competitors requesting them until the loan and non-voting shares have been repaid in full and 3 years after that.
With these measures LH is saved but also constrained.
If these conditions are met, I would consider the bailout fair.
What has Lufthansa done to you, that each and every post of you is suggesting various options to hurt LH or force them to suffer business-wise ???
Did they reject your application to work for them, did they cancel a specific flight that you were booked on, did they loose your luggage ? What is the reason for your ongoing massive LH bashing in this forum ?
I think that you are overreacting.
If you look at the conditions I list, all items amount to quid pro quo's balancing the advantage acquired through the bailout by measures imposing limitations to LH's growth.
I don't know if you have noticed but the LH groups owns 6 airlines in Europe: LH, LX, OS, SN, EN, EW (+Edelweiss if you want to count it)
In the past few years, they acquired parts of AB, SN and expressed interest in AZ and TP.
Before that, they acquired BD and stripped it for its LHR slots.
They are also part of lots of joint ventures, including but not limited to A++, Japan+, Sun Express.
As you can see, LH's behavior has been very predatory and expansive.
Other European airline groups have not shown such expansive behavior.
The biggest airline group in Europe should not be allowed to expand and use bailout money to strangle competitors and/or gain market share while receiving bailouts of this magnitude .
They can protect market share, ok, but invading other airlines' turfs with bailout money is a no no.
Because then you would have taxpayer money competing against another country's taxpayer money.
Hence the 3 listed conditions.
Perhaps giving up 20% of slots upon request is a bit harsh.
But then again, they have huge amounts of slots for LHR, a monopoly in FRA and ZRH and a massive operation in LIN.
It wouldn't hurt to open up those airports to more competition.
Environmental conditions would be much harsher and impossible to meet.
For instance, increasing the fuel efficiency of aircraft would be very difficult and expensive to achieve.
Swapping flights for trains is also a challenge and much more so for the travelling public than the airline.
Going carbon neutral like Easyjet is expensive and impossible to enforce as a legal condition (as opposed to Easyjet's voluntary initiative).
I'm all for planting trees, but if LH would be required to plant a tree for every 1000 EUR in bailout money, they would have to plant lots of trees... 10 million trees over 10.000 hectares.