Cargo B financial woes ?

[Acid-drop]

This is called investment ...
The walloon gov invest in a tool that can become (and is becoming) quite important, creating many jobs and a whole new attraction for companies of the whole region. This plan includes incentives, a few years without benefits, and a few jalous people all around :)
Still, I believe this do all this in a very clever way, creating a top 5 european cargo airport in 15 years. How can you be negative after that. You can only be jealous ;)
PS: you should check if the flemish harbours became what they are just by the god's wills. I believe it's just the same story ;)
PS2: the federal gov plans to use a lot of money for intencives to make green power, the objective is to create jobs. What's the difference ?

[Filou]

Acid drop, this is not called investment, this is called using citizen's tax money to create jobs, unfortunately state-supported jobs, while at the same moment you do reject and lose privately paid jobs...(and lose money again on unemployment compensation !)
and you know yourself that by 2015 you will still not be making money, while BRU is a privately owned company who makes money and offers private jobs - not state supported jobs-.
And this while some of them are lost @ BRU to be replaced by state-supported jobs@LGG...you really call this investment ?
And don't compare with harbours, we are talking about airports here, please compare apples with apples and not with pears. And compare an independent privately airport with no subsidised jobs with a subsidised govemt owned airport who trows money away for nothing, even not for people's benefit !!!

[Filou]

PS to Acid Drop:
If the LGG approach would work, even including throwing money out of open windows, why did they only have 2 successes in the last 5 years ?????

[Acid-drop]

haha :)
because you only see things trough the narrow vision of the flemish/guatemala (any place where they don't care about wallonia) media maybe ? ;-)

[Filou]

No sir, because we see through European eyes perhaps. B'cause AMS, FRA and many others all face the same narrow LGG mind...(why did another airport - a non belgium airport - take LGG to court ? And why did LGG directly admit their mistake and adjust their way of working in order to withdraw the courtcase ???
hmmm, think of that perhaps, as they admitted some of their incentives were way out of the acceptable things to do as an airport...)
And indeed you act exactly like other's would do, when facing poblems and reality, the best thing is to laugh with it and hope problems will disappear, instead of facing the reality and find a solution... pity...

[Nevihta]

You can add, and that's only about aviation, that there's way less traffic at LGG which means less holding, less taxi time, cat 3 B approcahes available. Less slots inbound to LGG etc...

[Filou]

On way less, the things I see are indeed way less interlining opportunities, way less flexibility for an airline during TNT peaktime, etc...I will not argue on way less traffic, with only a few customers it indeed is a fact, and all the rest I will be pleased to argue if you want ( or why would an airline who was going to switch to LGG due to taxi time change his mind when really measuring it all themselves ??? )

[Acid-drop]

dude, get a life.
You are a new member on the forum, and all 6 messages you wrote were about destroying LGG image. What's the deal man ? You can't digest the fact that LGG is becoming an important aiport ? Is it that annoying ?

Futhermore, this topic is about Carbo B. If you wanna talk about "LGG vs BRU" or "LGG vs the world", feel free to create a new topic, although we had already discussed a lot about this with most of the time the same conclusion.

[Conti764]

haha
because you only see things trough the narrow vision of the flemish/guatemala (any place where they don't care about wallonia) media maybe ?

Oh boy, here we go again... Don't you ever get tired of this?

[Conti764]

Cargo B was not a viable company anymore

It never wass in my opinion. You can't compare cargo to pax flights, but have you ever seen a company starting with one and soon after two jumbo's of which one was used as spare equipment? The leasing rates on this second plane had to be payed even it wasn't flying.

A company should start 'small' (A300/B757/B767) with planes who are cheaper to lease and easier to fill thus turning a profit. And only when your network and services get established you can take a calculated risk of improvement to bigger equipment and it's not like (converted) B747 planes are hard to find, while it will become even easier in the near future. Even more so, their two original 747 classics were gas slurping machines so not the most economical to operate.

NCA stepped in the game and provided them with two efficient B747 cargoplanes, but originally both classics had to payed as well and with one standing at the BRU appron written off due to a tail strike (who is responsible for the costs?) and one as a spare aircraft (quite an achievement for such a young company to have 50 to 25 percent as spare equipment) this was asking for troubles. The only excuse Cargo B had was the economic downturn witch hit cargo extra hard, but then again they took huge risks which would guarantee a disaster one th economy took a dive.

[an-148]

he will get tired, .......for sure

I am, and since a long time: now, I'm only reading, without any intervention, because I see it's totally useless and only re-inforcing the jealousy and the outrageous nationalism of ALL flemish forumers.

[Conti764]

he will get tired, .......for sure

I am, and since a long time: now, I'm only reading, without any intervention, because I see it's totally useless and only re-inforcing the jealousy and the outrageous nationalism of ALL flemish forumers.

You're intervening now

I am not going to react accordingly to your provocation, since I don't want to turn this into a political discussion. But I do know it's a cowards way of discussing when you spark the fire with stating the above but flee when it gets to hot, blaming other for inferno

I'm always into a political discussion, but not on this forum. Feel free to PM if you want to discuss our nations politics.

[TCAS_climb]

I think that an insurance company must compensate, depending on the terms of the insurance contract, the loss of aircraft revenue for the period it was U/S until repairs are made or in case of scrap, until a suitable replacement aircraft is found/provided.

Insurance is usually only good enough for major disasters. Other than that you can't consider yourself "covered". One insurance company's experience: 273 out of 274 claims made by operators were below the deductible. The average cost of an occurrence is the the range of 250 k$, whereas the deductible for a wide-body is the range of 1 M$.

Amazing, isn't it ?

[flightlover]

Maybe a better on-time performance could have helpt also. Theire flights got cancelled or reschedulled most of the time as far as I recall. Not a good thing with the perishable cargo they carried I suppose.

[teddybAIR]

Oops, and I thought this thread was about Cargo B...

I've just spent 15 minutes reading another typical Flemish vs. Walloon clash of the ego's where none of you (hey, me neither) have the full picture. Really entertaining guys, but not really the essence of this thread don't you think?

Talking Cargo B,
I fully agree with Conti764: how can you expect to survive in a challenging economic environment if 50% of your capacity (for which you still pay astronomous leasing rates) is permanently on idle! To this idle time you have to add the partial idle time of the two B744's every hour they are not bringing cash to the register! To draw you a very comprehensible picture. What Cargo B tried to do is the following:

You take a fully loaded 747 and climb it from FL100 to FL340...while attempting this, you switch of the two outboard engines. Furthermore, you also reduce the thrust on the two remainig engines to about 90%...now, my question to you: what do you expect the plane to do? And let's not get into the nitty-gritty technical details...I'm just trying to make a point that should be very easy to grasp intuitively...even to people without an economic background!

Best regards,
bAIR

[Ozzie1969]

You can't digest the fact that LGG is becoming an important aiport ?

LGG important? Maybe in Liège, but where else?

[Acid-drop]

You can't digest the fact that LGG is becoming an important aiport ?

LGG important? Maybe in Liège, but where else?

I guess you don't know LGG became the #1 in belgium and probably the 6-7-8th place in europe ? (for cargo only of course)

[teddybAIR]

Guys, get on topic!

Anybody got more news on "the plan to the plan" for Cargo B. I mean, we know they shut down, but that does not mean that there are no more important decisions to be taken!

Best regards,
Tom

[Bralo20]

You take a fully loaded 747 and climb it from FL100 to FL340...while attempting this, you switch of the two outboard engines. Furthermore, you also reduce the thrust on the two remainig engines to about 90%...now, my question to you: what do you expect the plane to do? And let's not get into the nitty-gritty technical details...I'm just trying to make a point that should be very easy to grasp intuitively...even to people without an economic background!

Best regards,
bAIR

Most likely... keep on flying I doubt it would be efficient, but it will keep on flying

[LX-LGX]

"... On 18 May 2009, the Board meeting of Cargo B Airlines took notice of the dismissal of administrator ParticipatieMaatschappij Vlaanderen nv, represented in the Board by Daniel Schurmans..."

Source: http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/tsv_pd ... 094390.pdf

Registered at the Brussels trade court on 25/06/2009
Published in Belgium's State Gazette on 08/07/2009

- - -

This dismissal is a logical consequence of the move to LGG, because PMV is only allowed to invest in (employment in) the Flemish part of Belgium.