Serbia's Finance Minister, Siniša Mali, has said the country's national carrier has operated with a profit over the past year and has not been a recipient of state subsidies. "Air Serbia has not been receiving subsidies for the past two years, and that is not down to me or the government but the European Commission which monitors state support", Mr Mali said, which is contrary to previous statements. Air Serbia's financial results for last year are expected to be made public in late June or early July by the Serbian Business Registers Agency, if the airline itself does not publicise its data beforehand.
Air Serbia has posted a profit since 2014 but has also received state funds. In 2014, the carrier's net profit stood at 2.7 million euros, which was followed by a 3.7 million euro profit in 2015. In 2016, upon launching its first long haul service, the airline's figures declined 77% with Air Serbia managing a 990.000 euro profit. However, in 2017 its profit soared to sixteen million euros. Those record results were achieved in part due to a significant reduction in expenditures and an increase in revenue. Furthermore, the state provided a twenty million euro subsidy, which is half of what the company used to receive from its majority shareholder, although the carrier was also granted twelve million euros for the "development of tourism". Late last year, Mr Mali said that the payment credited under tourism development is primarily for the support of the carrier's long haul service to New York. "As part of our tourism development strategy until 2025, the Serbian government has decided to extend its support to whatever contributes to tourism growth. In this case, it is flights to North America. Without that support there would be no service to the US. However, Air Serbia's financial performance would remain unchanged", Mr Mali said.
Air Serbia has been listed as one of several companies which will receive subsidies from the state budget this year as well, however, the Finance Minister noted this is in relation to debt accumulated by the airline's predecessor Jat Airways. "We did not have 380 million dollars to pay off the debt straight away. Instead, we will be making payments over a ten-year period. We process the loan a debt repayments either through Air Serbia or directly. However, none of the money goes into Air Serbia itself", Mr Mali said last week.
The Serbian Prime Minister, Ana Brnabić, recently noted, "The government of Serbia will maintain its strong support for Air Serbia. This support will be in line with European Union regulations, as it has been so far, however, no one can prevent us or limit our support for Air Serbia". The PM added, "Air Serbia plays an important role in the development of tourism, improves our economic ties with numerous countries and strengthens our country's brand. It has been an important driver of economic growth and I am certain that we will see even better results ahead since there are good prospects for further growth".


Comments
The only issue here is that Etihad did not invest a single penny and it never contributed to improving Air Serbia's liquidity.
LOL, the absolute example of politicians telling us the biggest and most obvious lies with a straight face...
This is of course not just the Balkan way of politics, it is like that all over the world.
We just tend to be more obvious about it.
Got it!
https://i.postimg.cc/vHNLxs6v/screenshot-205.png
By EU law it is forbidden to directly subsidise an airline, similar to what happened to Malév, back in 2012:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-7_en.htm
Why would you fly a half empty A319 and lose money than leasing it to another warmer country in need just like many other European airlines do?
Zagreb-Split, Zagreb-Zadar-Pula, Zagreb-Brač, Zagreb-Dubrovnik, Osijek-Split, Osijek-Dubrovnik.
Yes all of them. Around 7.5 million per year. Will be increased next year when current PSO contract runs out.
But hey, József Váradi managed to escape the fiasco and cunningly took over W6.
How exactly did they contributed to tourism growth?
If anything with the 7% cut in the number of flights they sabotaged tourism.
It is also way of financial support allowed by EU.
On the same way direcy financial support to JU by GoS is also legal as EU is not the member of EU. As we all know membership in EU has many advantages but also non membership could be good.
All in all, there is actually no difference between financial help OU received through PSO and financial help done by GoS to JU for tourism promotion
wizz air no longer receives subsidies from the n mac government. all routes are 100% operative.
https://www.exyuaviation.com/2018/12/wizz-air-to-launch-new-macedonia-flights.html
JU's subsidies are nothing compared to what they give foreign investors or other failing government businesses.
They write, among others:
'Last year, Jet Airways “suddenly” discovered serious financial issues, which led to a highly dramatic rescue effort by the main creditors (chiefly state-owned State Bank of India and private-sector ICICI Bank) and minority shareholder Etihad under the new Sashakt legislation introduced by the Indian government to deal with the chronic “sudden liquidity problems” of the giant Indian economy.'
Care to read the article attentively?