New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 179

qf789 · Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:52 am

Please continue discussion here

New Zealand Aviation Thread Part 178 (by qf789 May 26 2016 in Civil Aviation)

ZKOJH · Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:03 pm

"United Airlines prepares return to NZ"

United Airlines, preparing to return flights into Auckland, says that its product and service has changed for good.

The airline is the world's biggest by the size of its network and will start flying from San Francisco to Auckland from July 1, in partnership with Air New Zealand.

The service will be three times a week initially and increase to daily from October using a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

Julie Reid, director for Australia and New Zealand sales, said the airline was a "new United."

In the past, United along with other US carriers had been slow to upgrade planes and products and some crew had a reputation for being grumpy.

Reid said her airline was undergoing a transformation.

"The perception is incorrect. The people who have travelled with us recently say "wow'," she said.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business-t...cle.cfm?c_id=813&objectid=11653004

ZKOJH · Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:15 pm

"Air New Zealand tipped to ditch premium economy SpaceSeat"

Air New Zealand could axe the advanced premium economy SpaceSeat of its Boeing 777-300ER fleet in favour of the more conventional seat introduced on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner (below).

"We haven't made a final decision yet, and we're in an advantageous position where we have two very good options in premium economy," Luxon told Australian Business Traveller at a meeting of Star Alliance airline CEOs in Zurich.

It also seems that 2017 will be a year of new things? new toys ?

"AirNZ CEO Chris Luxon says the airline is currently running the ruler over the merits of both seats ahead of a 2017 "refresh" for its long-range Boeings"

http://www.ausbt.com.au/air-new-zeal...ditching-premium-economy-spaceseat

I know we raised this before but the thing that got my attention was this - "Refresh" = a complete upgrade of the 77W?

xiaotung · Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:18 pm

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 2):
I know we raised this before but the thing that got my attention was this - "Refresh" = a complete upgrade of the 77W?

Any chance we will see Zodiac seats in Business?

sunrisevalley · Thu Jun 09, 2016 6:34 pm

Quoting xiaotung (Reply 3):
Any chance we will see Zodiac seats in Business?

NZ should be taking a leaf out of QF's book with their state of the art seating in the recent refurbishment of the A330.

zkncj · Thu Jun 09, 2016 7:20 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 4):
NZ should be taking a leaf out of QF's book with their state of the art seating in the recent refurbishment of the A330.

I wouldn't say the J on the 77W will be getting replace - more or less it will just an an refreshed with soft fittings replaced.

Zkpilot · Thu Jun 09, 2016 7:29 pm

Space seats are almost guaranteed to go. They are heavy, expensive and because they had to take 6 out of each aircraft they are also not very profitable.

aerohottie · Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:18 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 4):
NZ should be taking a leaf out of QF's book with their state of the art seating in the recent refurbishment of the A330.

I would prefer VA's or CX's over QF's new seat

Motorhussy · Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:22 pm

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 1):

Does NZ's AKL-SFO service change at all? Is this 'as well as' or does it replace some NZ flights?

mariner · Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:27 pm

Air NZ sells its Virgin Australia stake - or most of it - to China;s Nashan group:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviat...r-new-zealand-20160609-gpfw5q.html

"China's Nanshan Group to buy Virgin Australia stake from Air New Zealand

Chinese conglomerate Nanshan Group is poised to emerge as a major shareholder in Virgin Australia after agreeing to purchase a 19.9 per cent stake from Air New Zealand for around $232 million."

Nathan paid 33 cents a share, which will mean a loss fro Air NZ, but better out than in, I say.

mariner

Motorhussy · Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:30 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 9):

Deservedly, there's a separate thred on this here...

https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eneral_aviation/read.main/6716375/

zkncj · Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:31 pm

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 8):
Does NZ's AKL-SFO service change at all? Is this 'as well as' or does it replace some NZ flights?

Not really NZ is still 6x Weekly 77W and 1x Weekly 772. Although they haven't added in the additional NW16 Peak services onto off the daily service.

sunrisevalley · Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:56 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 9):
Nathan paid 33 cents a share, which will mean a loss fro Air NZ, but better out than in, I say.

But I see a bonus to shareholders mentioned. How would this be so with a loss or has NZ been writing down their VA holding? I agree , they are much better out . Will the new owner pick up the most recent VA bank loan? I wonder where this leaves Temasek. Find it hard to believe they are not going to react in someway.

[Edited 2016-06-09 16:01:04]

mariner · Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:30 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 12):
But I see a bonus to shareholders mentioned. How would this be so with a loss or has NZ been writing down their VA holding? I agree , they are much better out . Will the new owner pick up the most recent VA bank loan?

As it stood in April:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviat...n-virgin-sale-20160331-gnuwpx.html

"Air New Zealand to wear loss on Virgin sale

According to Deutsche Bank analysts, Air NZ has already written down its stake by $NZ70 million to $NZ390m.

"Unless the shareholding transacts at a premium, there would be another circa $NZ60 million-plus losses on sale," Deutsche Bank analyst Matt Peek said.

"Notwithstanding value already lost, we view the potential sale as a positive given the quantum of capital released to Air NZ and the lack of visibility regarding future returns from the shareholding," Mr Peek said."

mariner

aerorobnz · Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:03 am

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 1):
The people who have travelled with us recently say "wow'," she said.

"Wow, I don't believe they charge for that, Wow I can't believe she just said that to a passenger ... "

No doubt it has improved in the last 12 years with delivery of 787s, but both UA/AA wouldn't be in the top 10 for service at AKL. Just off the top of my head (and in no order) NZ/EK/QF/LA/CX/CI/SQ/TG/TN/FJ would all offer better service

And remember there is a month of 777 service to AKL for a while until daily 789 starts. Be cautious of booking at that time frame as although the configuration might be 3-3-3 which is positive, it would not be modern

Quoting mariner (Reply 9):
Air NZ sells its Virgin Australia stake - or most of it - to China;s Nashan group:

Good riddance. Better out than in when it comes to going the way of AN... I think the fact Chinese investors are in charge Botghetti will be chopped soon. They are probably not so lenient on incompetence

mariner · Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:59 am

Sounds Air in "advanced" talks for BHE-CHC:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/8...h-route-dropped-by-air-new-zealand

"Marlborough airline Sounds Air in advanced talks over Blenheim-Christchurch route dropped by Air New Zealand

The airline was weighing up costs and developing a proposal before a decision was reached, which Crawford said was expected to be announced early next week."

I hope it happens. CHC seems a natural growth point on their route map.

mariner

NZ107 · Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:41 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 14):
And remember there is a month of 777 service to AKL for a while until daily 789 starts

Where did you get that from? The 788 is still showing as the aircraft in their system, which it has been since the beginning.

ZK-NBT · Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:47 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 16):

He means from late October when it goes daily.

According to airline route CI have applied for a fifth weekly seasonal BNE- AKL to run Dec-Feb with A333's so no more 744's. Did I see SYD will be 5 weekly as well? So 10 weekly CI A333's to AKL.

aerorobnz · Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:22 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 16):
Where did you get that from? The 788 is still showing as the aircraft in their system, which it has been since the beginning.

UA informed of that a while ago internally within AKL - I mentioned it a few threads ago but got no response. I haven't heard anything since to indicate this has changed again so as far as I am aware this is still the case - From memory it's when they first go daily until they can get enough 787-9s to support daily.

sunrisevalley · Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:31 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 14):
I think the fact Chinese investors are in charge Botghetti will be chopped soon.

This will mean changing the minds of The Board. Something NZ was not able to do.

aerorobnz · Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:45 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 19):
This will mean changing the minds of The Board. Something NZ was not able to do.

They now will have 40% + combined shareholding to threaten with and multiple board members. It holds a lot more clout than just Luxon.

Motorhussy · Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:20 pm

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 20):
They now will have 40% + combined shareholding to threaten with and multiple board members. It holds a lot more clout than just Luxon.

And NZ has 6% remaining of which I'm sure they'd vote against Borghetti with.

ZKNCL · Sat Jun 11, 2016 3:20 am

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 21):

And NZ has 6% remaining of which I'm sure they'd vote against Borghetti with.

Incorrect. The HNA group buying new shares dilutes the remaining NZ % to around 2%

Motorhussy · Sat Jun 11, 2016 10:34 am

Quoting ZKNCL (Reply 22):

That's all been approved then? But yes indeed, take your point.

[Edited 2016-06-11 03:35:18]

mariner · Sat Jun 11, 2016 10:46 am

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 23):

That's all been approved then?

It's been approved by the Virgin board. It still has to be approved by the regulators, both Australian and Chinese.

mariner

ZKOJH · Sat Jun 11, 2016 3:36 pm

"Air New Zealand Schedules Dreamliner Samoa / Tonga Flights in Dec 2016"

Air New Zealand during Christmas and New Year season plans to introduce Boeing 787-9 aircraft on flights to Samoa and Tonga, as a result of aircraft redeployment. Planned 787-9 service to Apia and Nuku’Alofa as follow.

Auckland – Apia

Boeing 787-9 operates on 08DEC16 / 09DEC16 / 13DEC16 / 15DEC16 / 22DEC16 / 23DEC16 / 03JAN17

NZ290 AKL0915 – 1410APW 789
NZ295 APW1530 – 1830AKL 789

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/...r-samoa-tonga-flights-in-dec-2016/

aerorobnz · Sat Jun 11, 2016 10:45 pm

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 25):
Air New Zealand during Christmas and New Year season plans to introduce Boeing 787-9 aircraft on flights to Samoa and Tonga, as a result of aircraft redeployment

It had to happen. those were 767 flights for which there is no airframe any longer. It's a good aircraft for that market not many J, plenty of Y. It must be a result of the NRT/EZE type swap making the spare during the day a 789 rather than a 772

DavidByrne · Sun Jun 12, 2016 12:54 am

Quoting ZKNCL (Reply 22):

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 21):

And NZ has 6% remaining of which I'm sure they'd vote against Borghetti with.

Incorrect. The HNA group buying new shares dilutes the remaining NZ % to around 2%

Eh, how does that work?

A relatively small increase in the overall total capitalisation can't possibly reduce a 6% stake down to 2%, surely? Have I missed something here - in which case, can you put me right?

mariner · Sun Jun 12, 2016 1:01 am

Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 27):
A relatively small increase in the overall total capitalisation can't possibly reduce a 6% stake down to 2%, surely? Have I missed something here - in which case, can you put me right?

The Hainan shares are additional shares to those already issued, either shelf shares or newly created, dunno which, but probably "shelf" - unissued shares held in reserve (on the shelf) for times when the company wants to raise more capital (as here) or reward directors or the CEO..

http://skift.com/2016/06/01/hainan-a...cquires-stake-in-virgin-australia/

"Major shareholders will see their shareholdings diluted. Air New Zealand’s stake will fall to 22.5 percent from 25.9 percent; Singapore Air’s will decline to 20.1 percent from 23.1 percent; and Etihad’s will decrease to 21.8 percent from 25.1 percent, a Virgin spokeswoman said. Virgin Group goes to 8.7 percent from 10 percent."

mariner

[Edited 2016-06-11 18:53:38]

aerorobnz · Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:28 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 28):
"Major shareholders will see their shareholdings diluted. Air New Zealand’s stake will fall to 22.5 percent from 25.9 percent; Singapore Air’s will decline to 20.1 percent from 23.1 percent; and Etihad’s will decrease to 21.8 percent from 25.1 percent, a Virgin spokeswoman said. Virgin Group goes to 8.7 percent from 10 percent."

Regardless of NZ who VA don't care about diluting their share, How will EY and SQ take that?

1) They lose out to a rival airline
2) Their shares which are already loss making on invested price are worth even less.
3) They still have to bail out VA who are now on the scrounge for even more due to QF Group ripping VA a new rectum right now.

I really would laugh if EY and SQ bailed too and wrote it all off as a loss like NZ, and left VA as well.

zkncj · Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:37 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 29):
I really would laugh if EY and SQ bailed too and wrote it all off as a loss like NZ, and left VA as well.

Agreed - surely there must be a point that EH/SQ have decided that its not worth poring anymore of there own capital into the airline. With the rumored $900m+ Capital that VA is meant to be doing by the end of the month, would EH,SQ really want to put more in, when the value of there shares have lost even more.

If VA is still operating in 5 years I would probably be shocked, the airline is beyond repair.

Probably the best option would be to close it down and sell of the assets. The shareholders probably would get an better return that way, that any other way they are going to get an return in the next 5-10 years.

mariner · Sun Jun 12, 2016 5:26 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 29):
Regardless of NZ who VA don't care about diluting their share, How will EY and SQ take that?

I'm scratching my head.

In the end, for long term investors, some small dilution doesn't matter so much as long as the share price is on an upward trajectory, but that isn't the case at Virgin.

Borghetti seems to have an extraordinary ability to persuade some very intelligent people (who should know better) that it will all be alright - there will be jam tomorrow, but he's been promising jam tomorrow since he took over the airline six (?) years ago and that tomorrow has never arrived.

mariner

aerorobnz · Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:21 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 30):
If VA is still operating in 5 years I would probably be shocked, the airline is beyond repair.

NZ/EY/SQ and even HU would almost be better off saying we will all take a hit on shares, "cash up" and all throw in the same money we would have spent on VA (Aka Ansett II) into a new well invested domestic startup collaboration with a planted CEO and BoD, useful fleet to serve the combined demands of the airlines, drive VA out of business and immediately cash in on the gap in the market.

777ER · Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:12 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 32):

With a Star membership sponsered by NZ and SQ to finally give an Australian domestic carrier

zkncj · Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:50 am

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 32):
With a Star membership sponsered by NZ and SQ to finally give an Australian domestic carrier

NZ/SQ over the recent few years, have distanced them self from *A maybe it could be take for something new all together?

aerorobnz · Sun Jun 12, 2016 10:10 am

Quoting zkncj (Reply 34):
NZ/SQ over the recent few years, have distanced them self from *A maybe it could be take for something new all together?

Star would want in on that potential airline as it fills a gap. I'm not sure NZ/SQ would find that so easy find a reason to keep them out without being dumped by Star themselves, especially as it would be a way to fight QF dominance. UA/AC/TG/SQ/OZ/NZ/NH all with easy Star feed.

sunrisevalley · Sun Jun 12, 2016 2:36 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 30):
Agreed - surely there must be a point that EH/SQ have decided that its not worth poring anymore of there own capital into the airline. With the rumored $900m+ Capital that VA is meant to be doing by the end of the month, would EH,SQ really want to put more in, when the value of there shares have lost even more.

By withholding their support at the Bank they may well force the Bank to put in a receiver or the two Chinese companies will need to cover the capital shortfall to protect their interests. If they blink then SQ/EY/Virgin should negotiate with the receiver for what is left. Elizabeth Byrne, Borgetti and the Board will have been sidelined and out of the way. Alternatively It would be an interesting scenario if EY/SQ declined to go to the Bank. What would the Chinese do? Pay up or support at the Board level to call in a receiver in expectation of being able to do a deal for the assets such as they are at a firesale price. The risk for them is that SQ/EY might outbid them.

[Edited 2016-06-12 07:45:42]

mariner · Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:46 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 30):
Agreed - surely there must be a point that EH/SQ have decided that its not worth poring anymore of there own capital into the airline. With the rumored $900m+ Capital that VA is meant to be doing by the end of the month, would EH,SQ really want to put more in, when the value of there shares have lost even more.

I have no idea what Etihad is up to, they have investments in several airlines, such as Air Berlin, which many regard as "questionable" - but who knows what the master plan is?

Singapore appears to be caught in a trap of its own making. They've said very little about the Hainan buy-in - and nothing about Nanshan - but what they have said indicates the predicament.

Singapore wants the status quo, the Australian pax that Virgin gives it, including the "remote" pax - and has said so - and so has left themselves open to problems.

http://www.todayonline.com/business/...-grip-squeezing-singapore-airlines

"Chinese tighten Virgin Australia grip, squeezing Singapore Airlines

Chinese companies strengthened their grip on Virgin Australia Holdings as a second conglomerate bought a stake in the carrier, handing a blow to key shareholder Singapore Airlines (SIA).

“It’s not a marriage made in heaven,” said Mr Neil Hansford, chairman of Strategic Aviation Solutions, a consultancy firm north of Sydney. “You’ve got two sophisticated legacy-type carriers in Singapore and Etihad mixing with start-up Chinese. I think it would be a very difficult board table to sit around.”

Yet Singapore has largely brought this on themselves, by inaction, by trying to protect the status quo of Australian access:

"Last month, Singapore Air Chief Executive Officer Goh Choon Phong described the Australian market as “very important”. He said Virgin Australia was “commercially very important”, partly because the airline could reach remote parts of Australia more easily than SIA. “We are happy with our stake currently,” Mr Goh said at the time."

It is one thing that they didn't support Luxon on the Virgin board (protection of the status quo) but by not doing so they allowed Luxon to "go rogue" and sell the Air NZ shares to the highest bidder, with Singapore unable to do anything about it.

The problem being that both Hainan and eventually Nanshan (through Qingdao Airlines) will want many of the same pax that Singapore does, both to China and beyond.

mariner

sunrisevalley · Sun Jun 12, 2016 9:26 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 37):
Yet Singapore has largely brought this on themselves, by inaction, by trying to protect the status quo of Australian access

Seems to me their inaction with Virgin ultimately forced them out or into doing a deal with DL. I am sure they could have had the NZ position for a few more penny's per share.

kiwiandrew · Sun Jun 12, 2016 9:35 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 38):
I am sure they could have had the NZ position for a few more penny's per share.

Yes, but that would have forced SQ to try for a takeover. If they succeeded they would have had a significantly larger exposure to a risky investment.

mariner · Sun Jun 12, 2016 10:32 pm

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 39):
Yes, but that would have forced SQ to try for a takeover. If they succeeded they would have had a significantly larger exposure to a risky investment.

Singapore doesn't really seem to care if Virgin makes money so long as they have that Australian access. Luxon couldn't persuade them that the airline should be profitable.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviat...block-chinese-20160408-go1xto.html

"Singapore Airlines could buy Virgin Australia to block Chinese

"If somebody like United or Delta came in, Singapore would rest comfortably with them," he said. "If it was somebody like China Southern or China Eastern that could be something that is not in Singapore's interest. If the Chinese came in and started to drag more hubbing over Beijing or Guangzhou or somewhere similar, that would drag even more people away from the Singapore hub."

Mr Hansford said under that scenario, Singapore Airlines might feel it had no choice but to bid for the remainder of Virgin."

Obviously, that didn't work - or hasn't so far - and it's tough, but not impossible, to imagine it could happen now.

mariner

kiwiandrew · Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:06 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 40):
Singapore doesn't really seem to care if Virgin makes money so long as they have that Australian access. Luxon couldn't persuade them that the airline should be profitable.

No, but I imagine they'd care if they painted themselves into a corner ( like NZ did with Ansett) and ended up with a 100% share of a failed airline.

mariner · Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:19 pm

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 41):
No, but I imagine they'd care if they painted themselves into a corner ( like NZ did with Ansett) and ended up with a 100% share of a failed airline

Sure, they would. But (a) they wouldn't need 100% and (b) if they did it and the airline were to fail, whose head would it be on?

The one area where Virgin can probably be said to be doing okay is Australian domestic, which is the area that Singapore would want:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviat...c-fares-surge-20160210-gmqr1w.html

"Virgin Australia in profit as domestic airfares surge"

mariner

Nouflyer · Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:05 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 40):
Singapore doesn't really seem to care if Virgin makes money so long as they have that Australian access. Luxon couldn't persuade them that the airline should be profitable.

I don't actually see why Singapore Airlines (or Air NZ) requires Virgin Australia at all.

SQ serve Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane themselves and Cairns and Darwin using Silk Air.

NZ serve Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Cairns, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast.

Unless they are desperate to tap into the hidden goldmines that are Hobart and Newcastle and Canberra and Wagga Wagga and Townsville, what on earth do they require Virgin Australia for?

mariner · Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:10 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 43):
I don't actually see why Singapore Airlines (or Air NZ) requires Virgin Australia at all.

As above and from the mouth of Singapore Airlines:

Quoting mariner (Reply 37):
"Last month, Singapore Air Chief Executive Officer Goh Choon Phong described the Australian market as “very important”. He said Virgin Australia was “commercially very important”, partly because the airline could reach remote parts of Australia more easily than SIA. “We are happy with our stake currently,” Mr Goh said at the time."

I'm just the messenger.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 43):
Unless they are desperate to tap into the hidden goldmines that are Hobart and Newcastle and Canberra and Wagga Wagga and Townsville, what on earth do they require Virgin Australia for?

Partly that, apparently - and obviously Canberra, since they're starting non-stops SIN-CBR.

mariner

Zkpilot · Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:06 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 37):
It is one thing that they didn't support Luxon on the Virgin board (protection of the status quo) but by not doing so they allowed Luxon to "go rogue" and sell the Air NZ shares to the highest bidder, with Singapore unable to do anything about it.

SQ could have bought NZ's stake if they had upped their offer (remember that NZ sold it for a lot less than it had even recently been trading at)

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 39):

Yes, but that would have forced SQ to try for a takeover. If they succeeded they would have had a significantly larger exposure to a risky investment.

Yes this is true however there is no way that they would have had to buy the whole lot off the market if they only offered even $0.34 ($0.01 more than NZ sold at). The only way they would potentially have to buy the whole lot is if they offered $0.60 as there are too many out there that wouldn't want to sell cheaply.

mariner · Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:40 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 45):
SQ could have bought NZ's stake if they had upped their offer (remember that NZ sold it for a lot less than it had even recently been trading at)

NZ sold for more - NZ 34 cents/Aus. 33 cents - than Hainan paid for theirs - Aus. 30 cents - and both were anomalies in price.

Today Virgin shares are back to trading at about 29 cents, which is roughly where they were before the two sales.

mariner

Zkpilot · Mon Jun 13, 2016 3:26 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 46):

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 45):
SQ could have bought NZ's stake if they had upped their offer (remember that NZ sold it for a lot less than it had even recently been trading at)

NZ sold for more - NZ 34 cents/Aus. 33 cents - than Hainan paid for theirs - Aus. 30 cents - and both were anomalies in price.

Today Virgin shares are back to trading at about 29 cents, which is roughly where they were before the two sales.

mariner

Ok Captain Obvious?
It is typical when buying a large block of shares to pay a premium for them (often 25% more than the current share price).

mariner · Mon Jun 13, 2016 4:48 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 47):
Ok Captain Obvious?
It is typical when buying a large block of shares to pay a premium for them (often 25% more than the current share price).

Sure. That block of shares, just about the maximum it could buy under the foreign investment rules, gives them a strong voting position in the company and the possibility of a seat on the board.

There's no other way that they could have achieved such a strong hand without paying that (quite small) premium, because only Air NZ was selling such a block of shares.

I assume - as I'll bet Singapore Airlines does - that Nanshan will buy more and already it's in a position to do so under the incremental purchases (3% every six months as Air NZ did), once the deal is sealed and and assuming the FIRB agrees.

Hainan has already said it wants to get to 20% so that would give the Chinese companies a minimum 40% of the stock or more and within coo-ee of a joint takeover.

mariner

[Edited 2016-06-12 21:52:01]

qf789 · Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:22 am

SQ says bookings for new WLG service are encouraging

http://news.google.com/news/url?sr=1...or-new-capital-flights-encouraging

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net