leghorn wrote:

No really, I have to take you to task on this; there is absolutely no way that the company can return the additional debt\equity and still keep the business on an even keel but you are asserting that it is entirely possible. Somebody may be drinking the Kool Aid but it isn't me.

Time will tell.

Agreement reached, now pending approval of EU, LH board and Germand Covid-19 fund steering committee.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN23110F

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Agreement reached, now pending approval of EU, LH board and Germand Covid-19 fund steering committee.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN23110F

Shares are up 7,50% on the news as if all the problems magically disappeared

LH is either going to saddle more debt or shareholders are going to be diluted.
Hardly a reason for celebrations considering the long and foggy road ahead.

shareholders have to be diluted. To get a 20%shareo fthe company the amount of shares issued to the government will be around 25% of the current issued shares in circulation.
So the cost so far is 3 billion loan plus unknown amount for the 20% share.

Any word on the fate of the Airbus condition?

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Any word on the fate of the Airbus condition?

See #247.

https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/lufthans ... id=1134174
German text.

DLF says that the E.U. will demand that Lufthansa surrender slots at their fortress airports in exchange for support but Merkel has rejected it although last time I looked her Federation didn't extend to the other 26 countries in the Union.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Agreement reached, now pending approval of EU, LH board and Germand Covid-19 fund steering committee.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN23110F

Will be interesting see if EU just rolls over and accepts the deal without requiring any subsidiary airlines to be divested and/or limits on airport traffic share. I remember the EU insisting on Lloyds in the UK selling off a subsidiary bank to increase competition.

EDIt: x-post with post above.

SamYeager2016 wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Agreement reached, now pending approval of EU, LH board and Germand Covid-19 fund steering committee.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN23110F

Will be interesting see if EU just rolls over and accepts the deal without requiring any subsidiary airlines to be divested and/or limits on airport traffic share. I remember the EU insisting on Lloyds in the UK selling off a subsidiary bank to increase competition.

EDIt: x-post with post above.

I think it also depends if some airlines are encouraging their governments to pursue this matter. Will be interesting to see if something becomes of it.

SamYeager2016 wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Agreement reached, now pending approval of EU, LH board and Germand Covid-19 fund steering committee.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN23110F

Will be interesting see if EU just rolls over and accepts the deal without requiring any subsidiary airlines to be divested and/or limits on airport traffic share. I remember the EU insisting on Lloyds in the UK selling off a subsidiary bank to increase competition.

EDIt: x-post with post above.

It's interesting to see if EC will come up with something about airline bailouts, so far carbon emissions reduction have been discussed among MEPs.

Back than bailouts were just about banking sector thus relatively straightforward to oversee, apart from Llyods TSB, RBS was also pushed to sell assets but then again treasury held a stake of over 70 per cent and the government shared the view that high street retail banking was too concentrated in the hands of the "Big Four".

This time the situation is slightly different, for most sectors across EU are having their leading firms receiving state aid at the moment, Adidas, TUI, SNCF, Jaguar Land Rover, IHG, etc. The existing sector-specific adjustments might not be sufficient enough in practice. And the EC has also adopted new framework to relax state aid rules altogether for Covid-19.

Did the EU have any conditions or even comments on the support given to for example Iberia and AF-KLM?

RvA wrote:

Did the EU have any conditions or even comments on the support given to for example Iberia and AF-KLM?

I wonder if there is a difference from an EU point of view between a loan and a government taking a stake. They don't look very favourably at state ownership of companies. Not saying it's right or wrong either way.

SamYeager2016 wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Agreement reached, now pending approval of EU, LH board and Germand Covid-19 fund steering committee.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN23110F

Will be interesting see if EU just rolls over and accepts the deal without requiring any subsidiary airlines to be divested and/or limits on airport traffic share. I remember the EU insisting on Lloyds in the UK selling off a subsidiary bank to increase competition.

EDIt: x-post with post above.

It's not a question of "rolling over" but how competitive they judge a market to be. In the case of Lloyd's, did the UK government not take over the majority and become the defector owner?

There are too many apples and oranges comparisons on this forum.

SamYeager2016 wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Agreement reached, now pending approval of EU, LH board and Germand Covid-19 fund steering committee.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN23110F

Will be interesting see if EU just rolls over and accepts the deal without requiring any subsidiary airlines to be divested and/or limits on airport traffic share. I remember the EU insisting on Lloyds in the UK selling off a subsidiary bank to increase competition.

EDIt: x-post with post above.

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.

Meanwhile Austrian Airlines further delays its return to the skies, new date 14.06.2020.

They have also struck a deal with their employees regarding cost savings. Still no word on the state aid.

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/luft ... l-14-june/

LH is expected to drop out of the DAX stock index (30 largest corporations in Germany) during the next reassessment in June due to its low value. LH is now ranked #52. This will likely lead to an additional drop in share value.
https://www.handelsblatt.com/finanzen/m ... NW2EYn-ap4

Waterbomber2 wrote:

SamYeager2016 wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Agreement reached, now pending approval of EU, LH board and Germand Covid-19 fund steering committee.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN23110F

Will be interesting see if EU just rolls over and accepts the deal without requiring any subsidiary airlines to be divested and/or limits on airport traffic share. I remember the EU insisting on Lloyds in the UK selling off a subsidiary bank to increase competition.

EDIt: x-post with post above.

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.

I think only the last of your three points are in any way a condition that would hurt LH. The first one has no meaning, what size are you talking about? Fleet size? No Problem, Passenger Volume? Will be down anyway together with the fleet size so no problem, or do you think in routes? Even this is no problem, a lot of them will be gone.
Point number two? Really, then LH can just load all the liabilities into said subsidiaries (EW and either EN or OR SN, maybe OS), put them up for an IPO that will clearly fail, and then let that subsidiary go bankrupt. Even if LH does not load liabilities into said subsidiaries, none of them would survive without their own state aid, so they are worthless and no one would even buy them of 1€, only LX has some kind of value and that is the last one LH would drop. And as it is not in the EU, the EU could also not force a sale through your conditions.
Number three could be a problem at FRA but who would take them slots? Which competitor are you talking about? FR? Wizz? Or one of the other big Europeans? The ones that have no money and have to reduce their fleets?

I think there are much worse conditions to be met, especially contitions on environmental changes and domestic flying.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

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.

@Waterbomber2

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 ?

Waterbomber2 wrote:

SamYeager2016 wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Agreement reached, now pending approval of EU, LH board and Germand Covid-19 fund steering committee.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN23110F

Will be interesting see if EU just rolls over and accepts the deal without requiring any subsidiary airlines to be divested and/or limits on airport traffic share. I remember the EU insisting on Lloyds in the UK selling off a subsidiary bank to increase competition.

EDIt: x-post with post above.

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.

Imho the only fair solution is to let LH go into insolvency and break up the LH group.

seahawk wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

SamYeager2016 wrote:

Will be interesting see if EU just rolls over and accepts the deal without requiring any subsidiary airlines to be divested and/or limits on airport traffic share. I remember the EU insisting on Lloyds in the UK selling off a subsidiary bank to increase competition.

EDIt: x-post with post above.

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.

Imho the only fair solution is to let LH go into insolvency and break up the LH group.

And let AF go bust. Oh, and AA, DL and UA. And while we are on the subject, let SQ go bust, CX and the big Chinese carriers. Have I forgotten someone? Ah, yes, SK, TP and TG.

cityshuttle wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

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.

@Waterbomber2

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.

I think that you are overreacting

no he is not

Other European airline groups have not shown such expansive behavior

is this LH`s fault ?

Because then you would have taxpayer money competing against another country's taxpayer money

or is it illegal subsidies compete against taxpayer money in the same country ?

But then again, they have huge amounts of slots for LHR ...

wich were not a present from Santa Claus , isn`t it ?

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

If every airline in this world ( especially the ones with old gas guzzler ) would do so this planet was a big forest

Westerwaelder wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

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.

Imho the only fair solution is to let LH go into insolvency and break up the LH group.

And let AF go bust. Oh, and AA, DL and UA. And while we are on the subject, let SQ go bust, CX and the big Chinese carriers. Have I forgotten someone? Ah, yes, SK, TP and TG.

Yes, survival of the fittest.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

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.

Hmm, as before, you are misleading with your accusations.
Have a look at IAG/BA and you will see that they own nearly as many airlines as LHG.
BA, IB, EI, LV, VY, CJ, I2 and eventually UX. The transatlantic JV is nearly as big as the one from LHG, same goes for the alliance.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/tra ... -1.4262909

Ryanair are, understandably, unhappy and will go to the E.U. Courts.

Westerwaelder wrote:

RvA wrote:

Did the EU have any conditions or even comments on the support given to for example Iberia and AF-KLM?

I wonder if there is a difference from an EU point of view between a loan and a government taking a stake. They don't look very favourably at state ownership of companies. Not saying it's right or wrong either way.

I guess with some of the other loans there was already a stake at play anyway right? Curious what will happen. My guess is it will be approved as is.

leghorn wrote:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/ryanair-to-challenge-lufthansa-s-9bn-aid-1.4262909

Ryanair are, understandably, unhappy and will go to the E.U. Courts.

Michael O’Leary told and tells so many things and I`m not surprised at all the article is from "The Irish Times"
From the article : Ryanair will appeal against this latest example of illegal state aid to Lufthansa, which will massively distort competition and [the] level playing field makes me laugh
Things he practice all the time ( without pandemic ) are out of a sudden bad when some other airline do it in a different time ? What a joke !

The big question is whether LH can start turning a positive cash flow before they use up the 10 Billions.

Because I see that LH and subsidiaries are folding out an entire group of routes from next month.
That means that the cash burn is going to increase again while load factors will remain low and the people who do travel are going to be using vouchers to pay for their trips.
The fares are also very low.

Intercontinental flights are not going to return this summer.
Whatever remains of bookings to be cancelled will have to be processed over the coming months.

By the end of the year they will be back for another 10 billions.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

The big question is whether LH can start turning a positive cash flow before they use up the 10 Billions.

Because I see that LH and subsidiaries are folding out an entire group of routes from next month.
That means that the cash burn is going to increase again while load factors will remain low and the people who do travel are going to be using vouchers to pay for their trips.
The fares are also very low.

Intercontinental flights are not going to return this summer.
Whatever remains of bookings to be cancelled will have to be processed over the coming months.

By the end of the year they will be back for another 10 billions.

Intercontinental flights are not returning this summer? They are in the schedule already as of next week (a select few) so not sure about that. Same goes for BA, AF, KL etc. It’s drastically less than before but step by step routes are getting added back in.

Why would they need another 10B by the end of the year? At the worst time they were burning 1M per hour. If that continues, which it won’t, wouldn’t 9B give them another year?

fraT wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

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.

[...]

As you can see, LH's behavior has been very predatory and expansive.
Other European airline groups have not shown such expansive behavior.

Hmm, as before, you are misleading with your accusations.
Have a look at IAG/BA and you will see that they own nearly as many airlines as LHG.
BA, IB, EI, LV, VY, CJ, I2 and eventually UX. The transatlantic JV is nearly as big as the one from LHG, same goes for the alliance.

What's misleading?

LH Group:

- is over 25% larger than IAG in terms of aircraft count (763 vs 598);
- has total revenues that are 43% greater (€36.4bn vs €25.5bn);
- has 20% more in total assets (€42.7bn vs €35.7bn);
- has a wider geographical spread, operating airlines in 5 different countries compared to IAG's 3; and
- carried 23% more passengers (145.1m vs 118.3m) than IAG.

(2019 data from their respective investor relations webpages)

The only 2 measures that allow IAG to beat LH Group are the total number of employees (half the number of LH Group) and accessing only 13% of the value of sought by LH in state aid, via loans from the British and Spanish governments.

LV is a brand, not an airline. CJ and I2 are subsidiaries in the same way that CL and WK are.
Not to mention that LH has joint ventures with DHL regarding AeroLogic and Turkish regarding SunExpress.

LH Group is a behemoth.
Any bailout should absolutely come with stringent conditions attached. Additionally, the European Commission should open an investigation into whether the bailout restricts or distorts competition.
Given the precedents set, I would expect the Commission to seek remedies that will reduce the benefits that LH receives from such a hefty amount of state aid.

F737NG wrote:

fraT wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

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.

[...]

As you can see, LH's behavior has been very predatory and expansive.
Other European airline groups have not shown such expansive behavior.

Hmm, as before, you are misleading with your accusations.
Have a look at IAG/BA and you will see that they own nearly as many airlines as LHG.
BA, IB, EI, LV, VY, CJ, I2 and eventually UX. The transatlantic JV is nearly as big as the one from LHG, same goes for the alliance.

What's misleading?

LH Group:

- is over 25% larger than IAG in terms of aircraft count (763 vs 598);
- has total revenues that are 43% greater (€36.4bn vs €25.5bn);
- has 20% more in total assets (€42.7bn vs €35.7bn);
- has a wider geographical spread, operating airlines in 5 different countries compared to IAG's 3; and
- carried 23% more passengers (145.1m vs 118.3m) than IAG.

(2019 data from their respective investor relations webpages)

The only 2 measures that allow IAG to beat LH Group are the total number of employees (half the number of LH Group) and accessing only 13% of the value of sought by LH in state aid, via loans from the British and Spanish governments.

LV is a brand, not an airline. CJ and I2 are subsidiaries in the same way that CL and WK are.
Not to mention that LH has joint ventures with DHL regarding AeroLogic and Turkish regarding SunExpress.

LH Group is a behemoth.
Any bailout should absolutely come with stringent conditions attached. Additionally, the European Commission should open an investigation into whether the bailout restricts or distorts competition.
Given the precedents set, I would expect the Commission to seek remedies that will reduce the benefits that LH receives from such a hefty amount of state aid.

What of profitability and profit margins are HUGE point seems to be missing there

cityshuttle wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

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.

@Waterbomber2

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 ?

Waterbomber2 was pretty fair in their proposition. LH group is a huge MNC that controls a very large part of EU traffic with multiple subsidiary and have a near monopoly in many markets. If they want 10B Euro of tax payers' money, there should be fair amount of restrictions and measures to make sure of fair competition. And it is not just LH group, those kind of policy should apply to all the large MNCs that seek billions of dollars of tax payers' money.

With the remaining A380s being moved to MUC, it really makes me wonder if we will start seeing a gradual shift of their focus from Frankfurt to Munich? I know FRA is building a new terminal but the airport is already full as is so it won't go to waste. It's also no secret that MUC is much cozier with LH than FRA is, especially since the latter tried to attract airlines such as Ryanair and Wizz Air.

FRA is much more cargo heavy than MUC, so using the 747s at FRA and the A380s at MUC make sense - well as far as using A380s can make sense.

The EU should definitely attach strings to this enormous government support. Breaking up LH-group might be appropriate. LX and OS together and with their governments support can go their own way. That way LH and Germany get a very clear message that they aren’t exempt from EU regulations. Many people in Europe have enough from Merkel & co’s exceptionalism and she needs to be taught a lesson.

Jetty wrote:

The EU should definitely attach strings to this enormous government support. Breaking up LH-group might be appropriate. LX and OS together and with their governments support can go their own way. That way LH and Germany get a very clear message that they aren’t exempt from EU regulations. Many people in Europe have enough from Merkel & co’s exceptionalism and she needs to be taught a lesson.

What strings were attached to AFKL´s 7+ bn EUR package? Air France & KLM & Transavia claim a market share of 77% for domestic flying in France, Lufthansa claims a market share of 80% for is home markets Germany, Austria and Switzerland. That´s a negligable difference in market shares and would call for a equal-for-equal treatment. Means breaking up AFKL or at least force them to sell Transavia.

IAG´s purchase of Air Europe will lead IAG to have a market share within Spain of in the same magnitude as all three major airlines (Iberia, Vueling, Air Europe) will be under one control.

If market share is your concern you´ve to argue that AFKL needs to release control of Transavia and IAG is not allowed to purchase Air Europe.

As both won´t happen there is no reason to attach such a string (or release of slots or anything else) towards a Lufthansa package. Can´t cry for a level playing field and have others pass unharm.

Flying-Tiger wrote:

What strings were attached to AFKL´s 7+ bn EUR package? Air France & KLM & Transavia claim a market share of 77% for domestic flying in France, Lufthansa claims a market share of 80% for is home markets Germany, Austria and Switzerland. That´s a negligable difference in market shares and would call for a equal-for-equal treatment. Means breaking up AFKL or at least force them to sell Transavia. .

Given that the Dutch haven't approved anything (yet), the French requirements are at least;
- elimination of point-to-point traffic within France when there is an alternative by train withing 2.5hours
- some additional environmental goals

The Dutch will probably attach conditions on bonus pay to the package.

Note that both the French and Dutch governments were already shareholder (each for around 14%), thus cutting dividend payments will impact their P&L In addition, AF/KL only receives loan guarantees and loans (against relatively high rates). As such it's different then getting a recapitalization.

LJ wrote:

Flying-Tiger wrote:

What strings were attached to AFKL´s 7+ bn EUR package? Air France & KLM & Transavia claim a market share of 77% for domestic flying in France, Lufthansa claims a market share of 80% for is home markets Germany, Austria and Switzerland. That´s a negligable difference in market shares and would call for a equal-for-equal treatment. Means breaking up AFKL or at least force them to sell Transavia. .

Given that the Dutch haven't approved anything (yet), the French requirements are at least;
- elimination of point-to-point traffic within France when there is an alternative by train withing 2.5hours
- some additional environmental goals

The Dutch will probably attach conditions on bonus pay to the package.

Note that both the French and Dutch governments were already shareholder (each for around 14%), thus cutting dividend payments will impact their P&L In addition, AF/KL only receives loan guarantees and loans (against relatively high rates). As such it's different then getting a recapitalization.

I´m aware that the shareholding structure is (or shortly was) different, but now becomes pretty equal, too, which makes it even more possible for a 1-to-1 comparision. And it is not only equity but loans, too.

What needs to be noted that it was necessary to ensure the ownership structure remains majority Germany-owned to ensure that traffic rights remain as they are, thus the entry of the KfW was pretty much the only way to ensure same.

Further please note that Lufthansa shareholders won´t recieve any dividend payments in the next years, however the KfW´s loans (not sure if only loans or the equity, too) has a 4% coupon attached to it, rising to 9.50 % in 2027 if the KfW is not exiting further. That looks pretty much like market rates to me.

Further we don´t know yet which additional strings have been put on the actual package. And I guess that AFKL won´t be unhappy to get rid of the 2.5 hours-by-train-connection as they have a very easy excuse and finger-pointing-excercice to drop these flights now, making room for more profitable arrangements down the line.

Reports are that the supervisory board is withholding their "OK" to the bailout. They first want to calculate some scenarios of a bailout including EU conditions (give up slots at FRA, MUC) against alternative measures. I guess this is mostly a warning shot at the EU that LH can still decide whether any terms & conditions of the bailout are acceptable or not. If the conditions are too harsh, they have the option to decline and try to ride this out on their own.

fraT wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

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.

Hmm, as before, you are misleading with your accusations.
Have a look at IAG/BA and you will see that they own nearly as many airlines as LHG.
BA, IB, EI, LV, VY, CJ, I2 and eventually UX. The transatlantic JV is nearly as big as the one from LHG, same goes for the alliance.

IAG and LH group are not even close to comparable in terms of competition. LH group carriers pretty much hold a monopoly on a majority of their long haul routes at FRA, MUC, ZRH and VIE. Even competition from DL/AA to these destinations is minimal. Is there even a single competor operating non-stop from major US destinations like LAX, SFO, ORD, IAD, IAH, EWR, MIA, etc. to Germany, Switzerland or Austria?? Same to Asia as well. On the other hand, BA and IB are not even the sole carriers hubbed at LHR and MAD (with VS and UX being DL partners/SkyTeam) and face competition on almost all routes.

onwFan wrote:

fraT wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

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.

Hmm, as before, you are misleading with your accusations.
Have a look at IAG/BA and you will see that they own nearly as many airlines as LHG.
BA, IB, EI, LV, VY, CJ, I2 and eventually UX. The transatlantic JV is nearly as big as the one from LHG, same goes for the alliance.

IAG and LH group are not even close to comparable in terms of competition. LH group carriers pretty much hold a monopoly on a majority of their long haul routes at FRA, MUC, ZRH and VIE. Even competition from DL/AA to these destinations is minimal. Is there even a single competor operating non-stop from major US destinations like LAX, SFO, ORD, IAD, IAH, EWR, MIA, etc. to Germany, Switzerland or Austria?? Same to Asia as well. On the other hand, BA and IB are not even the sole carriers hubbed at LHR and MAD (with VS and UX being DL partners/SkyTeam) and face competition on almost all routes.

The reason no competitor is flying a route from/to the US destinations you mentioned to Germany is that all of those except MIA are hubs of the JV partner UA. The benefit of UA as a partner is that they have their hubs at the biggest and most attractive cities compared to ATL/CLT/DTT/MSP/SLC/DFW. And saying that there is no competition to Asia is ridiculous. Leaving the Gulf carriers out, there are still lots of Asian carriers flying to the major cities. Of course there are some JVs as well (SQ,NH,CA), but still lots of Chinese, Japanese and Korean carriers left with nonstop service to FRA and MUC.
So what is true for UA on the other side of the Atlantic, is also having an effect on FRA and MUC. In terms of importance (both for corporate and leisure traffic) it comes way behind London and Paris, so of course the percentage for LH here in Germany is higher than AF in CDG or BA in LHR. But as you could see with Ryanair three years ago, it is possible to gain slots in FRA so it is not really LH's fault that they have this position in their hubs. Is it LH's fault that QF, GA, MH and others have stopped their service to FRA well before the current crisis?

fraT wrote:

onwFan wrote:

fraT wrote:

Hmm, as before, you are misleading with your accusations.
Have a look at IAG/BA and you will see that they own nearly as many airlines as LHG.
BA, IB, EI, LV, VY, CJ, I2 and eventually UX. The transatlantic JV is nearly as big as the one from LHG, same goes for the alliance.

IAG and LH group are not even close to comparable in terms of competition. LH group carriers pretty much hold a monopoly on a majority of their long haul routes at FRA, MUC, ZRH and VIE. Even competition from DL/AA to these destinations is minimal. Is there even a single competor operating non-stop from major US destinations like LAX, SFO, ORD, IAD, IAH, EWR, MIA, etc. to Germany, Switzerland or Austria?? Same to Asia as well. On the other hand, BA and IB are not even the sole carriers hubbed at LHR and MAD (with VS and UX being DL partners/SkyTeam) and face competition on almost all routes.

The reason no competitor is flying a route from/to the US destinations you mentioned to Germany is that all of those except MIA are hubs of the JV partner UA. The benefit of UA as a partner is that they have their hubs at the biggest and most attractive cities compared to ATL/CLT/DTT/MSP/SLC/DFW.

Really? LAX is also a hub for AA/DL. ORD is also a hub for AA. Plus, LAX/SFO/ORD/IAH/EWR/MIA are big enough airports where at least LCCs will be interested in flying if they can. Just look at the level of LCC competition on London/Paris-USA. As for Germany, even COndor is an LH/Miles&More partner.

Anyway, you were comparing IAG and LH from a competition perspective - it is not the source of the monopoly that is the point, it is whether they enjoy a monopoly or not.
LAX - LHR has BA+AA/VS/UA
SFO-LHR has BA/UA/VS
ORD-LHR has BA+AA/UA
IAH-LHR has BA/UA
IAD-LHR has BA/VS/UA
EWR has BA/UA/VS (VS only withdrew last month).

Now, you will say London is a big market and FRA/MUC/ZRH/MUC is not. But AA has also attempted ORD/MIA/JFK/PHL-FRA etc before and not been successful. I know, then you will say it is AA's problem - but AA has historically had no presence in Germany the way DL has through Pan Am's FRA hub. But, it is not like AA/DL doesn't want to fly more to Germany; the competitive landscape on US/Canada - Germany and the monopoly of LH group is certainly the reason why they cannot.

mxaxai wrote:

Reports are that the supervisory board is withholding their "OK" to the bailout. They first want to calculate some scenarios of a bailout including EU conditions (give up slots at FRA, MUC) against alternative measures. I guess this is mostly a warning shot at the EU that LH can still decide whether any terms & conditions of the bailout are acceptable or not. If the conditions are too harsh, they have the option to decline and try to ride this out on their own.

If there are other options, those should be pursued first and state aid only as last resort.

If it's not a state aid of last resort, then you need to attach ropes, not strings, to this bailout.

RvA wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

The big question is whether LH can start turning a positive cash flow before they use up the 10 Billions.

Because I see that LH and subsidiaries are folding out an entire group of routes from next month.
That means that the cash burn is going to increase again while load factors will remain low and the people who do travel are going to be using vouchers to pay for their trips.
The fares are also very low.

Intercontinental flights are not going to return this summer.
Whatever remains of bookings to be cancelled will have to be processed over the coming months.

By the end of the year they will be back for another 10 billions.

Intercontinental flights are not returning this summer? They are in the schedule already as of next week (a select few) so not sure about that. Same goes for BA, AF, KL etc. It’s drastically less than before but step by step routes are getting added back in.

Why would they need another 10B by the end of the year? At the worst time they were burning 1M per hour. If that continues, which it won’t, wouldn’t 9B give them another year?

Sorry you are right, intercontinental flights are returning.
I meant that demand for intercontinental flights is not returning this summer.

There is some criss-crossing of diplomatic staff, people going back home, etc... But borders closures make it impossible to travel.
Me and my partner are stuck on different continents too, she can't come over and I can't go to visit her.
And even if you could fly, only people who really need to will fly.

The 1 million an hour figure was during the beginning of the grounding.
If they start flying empty planes, they're going to burn more than a million an hour and that's not only for LH.
There is a lot of risk associated with operating a network during extremely low demand and I think that they won't be able to fly any route profitably.

The window for summer bookings is closing very fast.
Schedules are changing a lot, people won't book when the first thing they see on the Eurowings website is FLIGHT VOUCHER.
Tell them to fix that, for their own sake...

onwFan wrote:

fraT wrote:

onwFan wrote:

IAG and LH group are not even close to comparable in terms of competition. LH group carriers pretty much hold a monopoly on a majority of their long haul routes at FRA, MUC, ZRH and VIE. Even competition from DL/AA to these destinations is minimal. Is there even a single competor operating non-stop from major US destinations like LAX, SFO, ORD, IAD, IAH, EWR, MIA, etc. to Germany, Switzerland or Austria?? Same to Asia as well. On the other hand, BA and IB are not even the sole carriers hubbed at LHR and MAD (with VS and UX being DL partners/SkyTeam) and face competition on almost all routes.

The reason no competitor is flying a route from/to the US destinations you mentioned to Germany is that all of those except MIA are hubs of the JV partner UA. The benefit of UA as a partner is that they have their hubs at the biggest and most attractive cities compared to ATL/CLT/DTT/MSP/SLC/DFW.

Really? LAX is also a hub for AA/DL. ORD is also a hub for AA. Plus, LAX/SFO/ORD/IAH/EWR/MIA are big enough airports where at least LCCs will be interested in flying if they can. Just look at the level of LCC competition on London/Paris-USA. As for Germany, even COndor is an LH/Miles&More partner.

Anyway, you were comparing IAG and LH from a competition perspective - it is not the source of the monopoly that is the point, it is whether they enjoy a monopoly or not.
LAX - LHR has BA+AA/VS/UA
SFO-LHR has BA/UA/VS
ORD-LHR has BA+AA/UA
IAH-LHR has BA/UA
IAD-LHR has BA/VS/UA
EWR has BA/UA/VS (VS only withdrew last month).

Now, you will say London is a big market and FRA/MUC/ZRH/MUC is not. But AA has also attempted ORD/MIA/JFK/PHL-FRA etc before and not been successful. I know, then you will say it is AA's problem - but AA has historically had no presence in Germany the way DL has through Pan Am's FRA hub. But, it is not like AA/DL doesn't want to fly more to Germany; the competitive landscape on US/Canada - Germany and the monopoly of LH group is certainly the reason why they cannot.

Why is that? Why is DL not flying SFO/LAX to Germany? Why has AA failed on those routes? Because LH gets the majority of corporate traffic (at least the German originating part)? Same with BA in GB and AF in France. Corporate traffic tends to prefer the home carrier. Again, is that LH's fault? Are they doing something different than competitors in their respective home markets?

As mentioned before, it should be no problem to get slots in FRA and MUC so if the competition is not starting flights, then nobody should complain.

Lufthansa board rejects bailout package

https://onemileatatime.com/lufthansa-bo ... state-aid/

I commented earlier in this thread that LH management is arrogant. This news proves me right.

max999 wrote:

Lufthansa board rejects bailout package

https://onemileatatime.com/lufthansa-bo ... state-aid/

I commented earlier in this thread that LH management is arrogant. This news proves me right.

As per German media, the decision has only been postponed since nobody know whether and what limitations the EU will ask for.

https://www.aero.de/news-35588/Lufthansa-vertagt-Entscheidung-ueber-Rettungspaket.html (German)

Would you sign a contract without knowing the details?

max999 wrote:

Lufthansa board rejects bailout package

https://onemileatatime.com/lufthansa-bo ... state-aid/

I commented earlier in this thread that LH management is arrogant. This news proves me right.

They didn't "reject" it, they simply didn't accept it prematurely without knowing the full details of the deal. Once those become known, they will give a firm yes or no.

[twoid][/twoid]

max999 wrote:

Lufthansa board rejects bailout package

https://onemileatatime.com/lufthansa-bo ... state-aid/

I commented earlier in this thread that LH management is arrogant. This news proves me right.

One mile at a time isn’t the best source for news generally speaking. As mentioned above the word “rejects” isn’t appropriate here. At least not at present.

fraT wrote:

[As per German media, the decision has only been postponed since nobody know whether and what limitations the EU will ask for.

Doesn't the EU typically work the other way around? Meaning the parties present the competition commission an agreed upon deal on which the EU issues its conclusions? I may be wrong, but I don't think the commission deals in hypotheticals (i.e. if the terms are this we want that remedy). I think the normal path forward is for the board to agree to the deal, with walk-away clauses in case they do not accept the competition commission's proposed remedies, but "normal" doesn't exactly describe our current environment either.

mxaxai wrote:

I guess this is mostly a warning shot at the EU that LH can still decide whether any terms & conditions of the bailout are acceptable or not. If the conditions are too harsh, they have the option to decline and try to ride this out on their own.

I'm not seeing how you are spinning this. I'm reminded of the scene in Blazing Saddles where the black Sheriff holds the gun to his own head warning the people who want to shoot him that he'll shoot himself if they don't back off.