Air Serbia launches debt restructuring talks


Air Serbia has commenced “intensive communication” with special purpose vehicles set-up by Etihad Airways in 2015 called Etihad Airways Partners I BV and Etihad Airways Partners II BV, over the restructuring of its multi million dollar debt. The carrier previously informed the funding vehicle that due to the financial strain caused by the coronavirus Covid-19 pandemic it may not be able to meet its obligations and payments. “Air Serbia has sent its creditors at EAP I BV and EAP II BV a joint proposal with the revised amounts and loan repayment deadlines, in good faith that a mutually acceptable solution can be reached through negotiations. It is important to note that Air Serbia, in relation to the creditors, as well as others such as banks, suppliers and leasing companies, regularly settles all of its obligations to this day”, the company said in a statement.

Air Serbia noted that it continues to enjoy the backing of its shareholders during the ongoing crisis. “The Serbian national carrier has strong support from all sides involved in the adjustment of its business and the further development of the company in these altered market conditions resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic”, it said. Last month, the special purpose vehicle noted, “The Borrower [Air Serbia] has stated its willingness to engage in meaningful discussions to find a mutually acceptable and suitable outcome. The Issuer confirms that payments due under the Debt Obligation Agreement were made by the Borrower on the most recent interest payment date being, on or around, March 19, 2020”.

Five years ago, Air Serbia’s part-owner Etihad embarked on an international roadshow in Abu Dhabi, Dubai and London, supported by lead advisor Goldman Sachs and UAE-based ADS Securities and Anoa Capital by creating the funding vehicles. The group successfully raised 500 million US dollars, rising within days by a further 200 million following a surge in interest from the international finance community. The raised funds were split across the seven Etihad Partners entities, including Air Serbia, for a mixture of capital expenditure and investment in fleet, as well as for refinancing. The funding vehicle comprises largely of local and international investment funds. In September 2015, Air Serbia concluded a loan for 52.9 million US dollars from EAP I BV which matures in September 2020 with an annual interest rate of 6.96%. Furthermore, it finalised a loan for 63 million dollars with EAP II BV on May 20, 2016, which matures in June of next year.

Comments

  1. Anonymous09:07

    Exyuaviation
    Please remove this text because you are saying negative things about JU so that means JU bashing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous09:25

      You don't know anything Jon Snow. Wording is everything ;)

      Delete
    2. Anonymous09:26

      I get the sarcasm ... HOWEVER, let's see if people can engage in rational debate throughout the day. The situation is tough and not necessarily of JU's own making. All airlines are going through the same crappy situation of how to fund their future existence. The problem here is that these loans were a product of the situation that JU face a number of years ago. They needed funding, had no credit rating and couldn't borrow money to do what they needed to do back when these loans were first taken out. They bet on the future and no one could foresee such a pandemic that would wipe out the industry. So now they need to revisit everything to figure out wht might be the best way forward. I'm not so sure that putting so much money into a venture which will never recoup this investment is the smartest thing to do. I pity the people that have to figure out how to untangle this situation

      Delete
    3. Anonymous14:11

      @"Anon" at 9:07 Always first to get triggered. I was expecting your typical "bad news for Air Serbia".

      Delete
  2. Anonymous09:07

    Wow, what a sinkhole ! $115M debt that needs to be repaid on top of whatever else the GoS is pumping in since covid-19 hit the industry, not to mention the debt of old Jat Airways that it is carrying forward. This is going to take years and years to recoup - if at all

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous16:31

      Interesting how fast the Air Serbia fanboy community became quiet when the numbers of this mess are shown.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous16:42

      How is it a mess if you don't know how much of that money has been spent? Do you know the exact amount? You don't. Air Serbia haters are a mess, as always.

      Delete
  3. Anonymous09:08

    In other words it looks like themselves do not know who are they in debt with and for how much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous09:15

      On the contrary - I think they know exactly how much they owe. The question is whether or not the business in its current format and planning is sustainable and able to service its debt, without the GoS providing a blank cheque for it to do so. At some point, someone has to ask the question if there is a better or another way forward

      Delete
    2. Anonymous09:26

      On the contrary - that is not the question at all. The business is definitely not able to service its debt without government support.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous09:31

      Ok, so if you were the government, what would you do ?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous09:39

      Indefinite state aid ?

      Delete
    5. Nemjee09:47

      Isn't state aid actually going down? Didn't they receive 72 million Euros back in 2013? That number is considerably lower today. Why stop a project that's showing signs of improvement?

      Let's not forget that JU had to deal with a few things that were imposed on them like JFK, INI and KVO flights. So if the government puts requirements on them then it's only fair for them to pay their share?

      Delete
    6. Anonymous10:57

      Nemjee - have you been living in a bubble these past few mths ? State Aid may have been going down, but what do you think is going to happen in repaying this $115million and in all the financial support that the govt has been contributing since covid-19 hit and will continue to provide in the next few years, not withstanding the repayment of this mega loan ?? If that isn't state aid, then what is ? Moreover, do you think it'll continue to go down or will it spike in the other direction ?

      Geez ....

      Delete
    7. Anonymous11:19

      Anon 10:57 I am sure Nemjee knows all that.
      But he can't help himself praising ASL management.

      Delete
    8. Nemjee11:32

      That's why we need to differentiate between two kinds of state aid:

      1. one related to corona
      2. one unrelated to corona

      Anon 11.19

      I am not praising anyone, I just think there is too much anti-JU hysteria on here.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous11:37

      Reality and stating facts in not hate, hysteria or anything else.

      Delete
    10. Nemjee11:45

      I agree about facts but here there are a lot of 'facts' and many assumptions which are either not true or not verifiable.

      Just look at how toxic every topic on JU is, no matter if it's positive or negative.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous11:55

      According to Nemjee's logic today's ExYu story is an assumption, with no verifiable facts and of course "toxic".
      SMFH

      Delete
    12. Anonymous11:58

      People here do not hate JU. People here hate people who see JU differently then JU fanboys do.

      Delete
    13. Anonymous12:01

      "Just look at how toxic every topic on JU is, no matter if it's positive or negative." Do you want to say how JU fanboys are toxic when you say to them that you didnt got vouchers for cancelled flight or when you say to them that JU relies on the state aid?

      Delete
    14. Anonymous12:26

      Can people here talk a little bit more about aviation then about "hate", "fanboys", "insults", "toxic" and other useless word which have no connection with one normal aviation converstion about debt, loans, growth and etc. ?

      Delete
    15. Nemjee12:27

      You do realize that I can give you the exact opposite situation which will mean that we will go in circles without end... especially since the same rhetoric was repeated here for the past six years yet JU is still around. Furthermore, founding your arguments on rekla kazala is not a serious argument especially since you expect us to take it for a fact.

      Since you are speaking of vouchers, could you please inform me how many received them and how many have not? Same for refunds.

      Delete
    16. Anonymous16:30

      And yes, that is a scam. You lend huge amount of money and than "bankrupt" after what you open new company. Scam!

      Delete
    17. Anonymous06:27

      hahaha strange how Anon hater couldn't provide any actual number. How predictable.

      Delete
  4. Anonymous09:11

    Wouldn't it cost the Govt far less just to start a new carrier again, debt free ? Take the healthy assets into a "newco" and let the debt burdened "oldco" die ? Otherwise, this carrier will never be debt free - certainly not in this generation. The business simply doesn't generate enough money

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. +1000 I have the new name :Serbian Airways.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:43

      Completely agree. Bankrupt the existing one, change name to Air XXX or XXX Airways, transfer the IATA code and vola, you can be proud to be in the skies for centuries!

      Delete
    3. Anonymous13:20

      I can already see the comments how if it didn't work in the past it won't now. Why waste tax money on something like that bla bla

      Delete
    4. Anonymous16:31

      And yes, that is a scam. You lend huge amount of money and than "bankrupt" after what you open new company. Scam!

      Delete
    5. So you think if Air Serbia start new company under the new name the debt will disappear? What world you guys live on? Lmao

      Delete
  5. Anonymous09:12

    This is going to be an interesting day ahead ... can't wait to read the comments as the day rolls on !

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous09:17

    Very successful carrier. You can see that it has money for new widebody, compete with Wizz and that it is in parallel universe from OU.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous09:20

      is there really any reason to make mention of OU here ?? C'mon ... give it a break

      Delete
    2. Anonymous09:22

      As far I know, every time when I mention aid and loses in JU someone needs to talk about OU to show me how Im a double standard user. So yeah, I need to mention it.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous09:25

      Well OU is also restructuring its debt and talking to suppliers. Read the news here.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous09:31

      Exactly!!! Thats why it is not in paralel universe from OU. Do you understand my point now?

      Delete
    5. Anonymous09:39

      Well they have double the route network size.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous09:46

      Still, passanger numbers are in about 500.000 difference, both carriers are relaying on the state aid, goverment is doing everything that it can for save them. Maybe managnent in JU is more successful, but still, JU is not in a paralel universe or in so different situation from OU.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous09:49

      JU has a perspective. So no direct comparison is required with smaller regional "competition".

      Delete
    8. In ex-yu, Slovenia was always the first to do new things. They were first today to get rid of their "pride",Adria. Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro should follow, because all 3 airlines are in deep sh.t , even before corona, not to mention after. If politicians, who are still deciding about aviation, or at least "flag carriers", were fair enough, and really caring about their people, frrom all ex-yu, they could seat together, and make one single airline, big and solid, like JAT Yugoslav Airlines was, for the entire ex-yu, similar as SAS for Scandinavia or Air Baltic for Baltic countries. But of course it will not happen because of their egos, their chauvinism, their opportunity to steal money from such airlines and employ party buddies and relatives.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous10:06

      OU has 14 aircraft in the fleet, Air Serbia 21 and these airlines are not for comparasion?? From perspective of Lufthansa, what is then JU for them? An ant?

      Delete
    10. Anonymous10:08

      Backward Balkan tribes cannot grasp the concept of "common good".

      Delete
    11. Anonymous10:10

      Pozdrav iz Rijeke
      Making an flag carrier for 7 coutries is immposibile. That means 7 hubs but for an airline even 2 are not so good idea. Air Baltic is not a flag carrier of the all baltic states, goverments of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia never had a deal around Air Baltic. Actually not even that Lithuania and Estonia are not considering Air Baltic as their carrier but they are planing their own flag carriers. Lithuania now wants establish a new carrier after 5 years.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous10:40

      Remember about a decade ago OU and JP could not agree on their common airline so what makes you think others will do? If those two couldn't agree then it's unrealistic to expect a new JAT to work. Also, sorry but from that concept Serbia and BEG would stand to lose the most especially given how much money it was invested into making JU a strong airline.

      Delete
    13. Anonymous12:03

      It is true that Serbia invested a lot of money into JU, but did goverment made from JU a financial success? Absolutly not.

      Delete
    14. JATBEGMEL12:59

      @ pozdrav iz Rijeke

      If anything, what Slovenia had done with JP is exactly what should not be done in the other countries. It is exactly in these times where a national carrier can show its value to its respective country. JU for example was used to repatriate over 15.000 Serbian nationals at no charge, not to mention the amount of flights that have gone to bring much needed medical supplies to Serbia.

      As for a 'Yugoslav' carrier, we already had that. Had our politicians wanted to do something for their people, the scenes of the 1990's would never of happened. 30 years on and all carriers combined are still not at pre 1990 levels and wont be any time soon. Fact is, until there is some radical change in the structure, from what ever aspect, nothing much will come in the years to follow.

      Delete
    15. Marko13:01

      @anon 10:10 they should call it Air Balkan or Air Coruption

      Delete
    16. Anonymous13:22

      Actually Belgrade, Skopje and coastal airports are much better today than they were in Yugo times. Why change something that obviously works just fine.

      Delete
    17. JATBEGMEL13:50

      @ 13,22

      Are they really? As with every other airport in the world, traffic would of increased. However, that increase would of came from a higher base number and not a lower one. Not to mention the fact that 30 years ago BEG, ZAG, LJU and DBV had long haul flights to multiple destinations, which was set to grow further. 30 years on and we still see BEG, ZAG and LJU trying to regain some of the Euro-Med destinations. Also, serving the coast was 3 domestic carriers.

      Delete
    18. Anonymous14:33

      30 years ago, hub & spoke model was not so developed so you had more long haul flights everywhere. Curretly long haul flights mostly exist at bigger hubs from where you can transfer to smaller airports like BEG, ZAG, SPU & DBV. This system is quite easier for the airlines so they dont need to fly long haul to every village in Europe.

      Delete
    19. JATBEGMEL14:56

      @ 14,33

      Now its just a guessing game, however it isnt unrealistic to think that long haul would of concentrated in BEG, a few routes from ZAG, while something seasonal would of operated out of DBV. JU wouldnt be the first example of this.

      Delete
    20. Anonymous15:51

      And who will pay for that? And why not to have major long haul hub in Zagreb?

      Delete
    21. Anonymous17:31

      Can you please tell me what more BEG would get from that set up than it has right now? By creating a Yugo airline many passengers that would have flown on JU via BEG would be flying from other airports directly.

      Yugoslavia failed for a reason. Better not to revive something that obviously couldn't work.

      Delete
    22. Anonymous19:43

      Anon 17:31
      So true. I wouldnt just say that BEG would get abosolutly nothing from that, but nobody in the region would get anything good. System of more coutries having a one flag carrier is dead for decades. SAS still exist but they have many problems from 3 hub system. They even cuted all long haul from Oslo because it had no any sense.

      Delete
    23. JATBEGMEL20:54

      @ 15,51

      Belgrade was the capital and largest city in Yugoslavia, as well as where Aeroput/JAT was established, and where today still has the higher traffic flow.

      As I can recall from previous topics regarding profitability, JAT was a profitable airline. JAT was on its own financing expansion, as well as owning airports and hotels throughout Yugoslavia. @Pozdrav iz Rijeke would have better incite into this seeing he was part of the company at that time.

      @ 17,31

      Again its speculation of what could of been, JAT was set to launch new long haul routes and take on brand new MD11's. Tokyo and Caracas if I remember right. JAT at the time had ATR's, B733, DC9, B727, DC10, Im sure the numbers would of grown at least. Airlines like OS, MA, OK would not have grown like they did. VIE would probably not be as large as it is had Yugoslavia not fallen apart, with this traffic flying via Yugoslavian hubs.

      Delete
    24. Anonymous21:39

      And yes, that is a scam. You lend huge amount of money and than "bankrupt" after what you open new company. Scam!

      Delete
    25. POZDRAV IZ RIJEKE@ Croatia in my opinion is the only country that should have its own Airline based on Air flow & passenger flow which is double higher compared to any other country in the region.Trust me ,you don't want to compare your country with countries such as Slovenia, Serbia, Montenegro Bosnia etc, do the math Croatia has more traffic flow and passengers than Serbia ,Slovenia Bosnia and Montenegro together.

      Delete
    26. Anonymous14:26

      And based on how Croatia's airline has been performing, it shouldn't even have the one that it has !

      Delete
  7. Anonymous09:19

    All will end well

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous09:20

    And people here were commenting last month how JU would default on the debt and so on. It was obviously planned so the debt could be renegotiated and repayment rates reduced. Pretty much what any airline has done in these circumstances

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous09:21

    Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nemjee09:26

    If they cut routes on which they have competition and if they dumped transfer passengers they could pay all the loans they have.

    ...at least according to some.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous09:34

      I remember that we had converstion about that, but as far I know i never said that dumping routes of cutting transfers will pay off debts. I just said it is useless to spend goverments money on that.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous09:36

      Nemjee, cutting routes is not the answer. Even if they doubled the number of routes they fly, they still wouldn't generate enough revenue from which to service their debt. And if the govt underwrites this going forward - which they would have to do for many years ahead - this will fall into the domain of state aid. Tough situation ... I'm not sure what is the answer

      Delete
    3. Nemjee09:40

      Spend on what? Are you still insisting they are losing money on all routes where they face competition? For example Oslo which had 90 and 115 passengers yesterday while tickets were not dirt cheap?

      What this is is yet another usual argument used to bash JU. They are quite common on here. I am fortunate enough (or not) to have been following comments from the start so I could see how they have changed over time. We have really come a long way since the cheap agricultural land argument. I guess that's good because it shows that JU has been moving in the right direction.

      I am genuinely curious to see how long this one sticks around before we move onto a new one.

      Delete
    4. Nemjee09:43

      Anon 09.36

      We don't know what kind of performance those routes will have because we don't know what kind of yield they will create. Many airlines who were in a similar situation such as JU have managed to pull through once they started working on creating more and more volume (LO and BT being good examples). So if they did it why can't JU?

      There is just too much pessimism on here when it comes to JU. It's as if most won't be happy until they are shut down. Like I wrote before, JU isn't hindering growth of any foreign airline at any of the four international airports in Serbia. Matter of fact is that the last time JU was truly commercially run was back in the 1930s.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous09:58

      It's pointless to argue with them. They have an obvious agenda.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous10:00

      Nemjee 09:40
      Im not insisting that they are losing money on every route but that goverment is spending its money which can be used for making higher living standards in Serbia on an airline which is in the most of cases flying on the same routes as other carriers. So it is not like that on these routes only JU is flying so you need to pay it because it means connectivity to the country and you cannot do anything without these routes. There is a difference when you are paying carrier to bring tourist in your country because no one wants to fly there because there in no profitabilty and paying state carrier to compete with other airlines. Literally your money is going to JU just because it wants to compete with Wizz on the same routes and not because no one is flying on these routes. Im not saying that you need to shut down JU, just make it to try be independent from state aid. After you do that, then it should try to compete with Wizz with its own money and make transfer network with its own money and take a risk in its own hands and not hoping that state will pay for its games. They should just try to make money and not losses. Nothing else.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous10:33

      Haha yeah JU IS trying to make losses which why they reduced them the past several years.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous10:40

      This 115.9 million $ debt doesnt seems to me as reducing losses.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous10:41

      Debt and losses are not the same thing. They are two different accounting concepts. You should look it up.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous10:55

      Do you understand what did you actually said? As far I know debt is made from a loan and loan means taking from a bank some amount of money valuable on the market. Losses are products of losing money valuable on the market what means that with a money from a loan you can recover money losses. I know that OU is not successful in growth and JU is, that is a fact and I cannot do anything against the facts, but as far I know both carriers are not successful in finances because both are getting goverments money and they have to pay off their debts to banks or suppliers.

      Delete
    11. "Even if they doubled the number of routes they fly, they still wouldn't generate enough revenue from which to service their debt"

      the revenue isn't the point. profitability is

      Delete
    12. Anonymous12:28

      Revenue and profitability are linked on to the other.

      Delete
    13. JATBEGMEL13:31

      @ 10,00

      Without digging too deep into politics, there are alot of other projects and companies that are more of a burden to the Serbian tax payers that JU. There are also other, affordable initiatives that the Serbian government could do to improve the standards of its people, but thats not the topic.

      Looking at the last financial results published, JU was in the negative of just under 9 million Euros. I am sure the state indirectly recieved alot more in return.

      Money spent on JU isnt being done so just to compete with Wizz. JU is increasing Serbias connectivity, which helps make Serbia more attactive for business and foreign investment. You can bring in foreign companies to fly most of the same routes, however not at the same frequencies. Not to mention that especially in these times, having a national carrier has allowed Serbia to remain better connected to the outside world, just take a look at our neighbouring countries. The same can be said for the transit pax. They are contributing to adding more capacity where Serbs want to fly, or where the O&D demand would not justify profitabily opening the route.

      JU would be independant of state aid if it wasnt for the 'brilliant' ideas from our government. The full service concept took a massive toll to their finances for years.

      Delete
    14. @12:28

      no, they are not linked. quick comparisment of JU's CASK with competition is part of an answer

      Delete
    15. Anonymous17:10

      Petar CASK without RASK doesn't give you the whole picture. On the other side, what would you do if foreign competitor with much lower cost in your industry comes in and displaces your line of work with better and lower cost deal?

      Delete
  11. Anonymous09:28

    What does "founding vehicle" even means? Can somebody explain, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous09:30

      It says funding not founding. It's a group of private investors that provide you loans.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous09:43

      It;s explained in the article

      "Five years ago, Air Serbia’s part-owner Etihad embarked on an international roadshow in Abu Dhabi, Dubai and London, supported by lead advisor Goldman Sachs and UAE-based ADS Securities and Anoa Capital by creating the funding vehicles. The group successfully raised 500 million US dollars, rising within days by a further 200 million following a surge in interest from the international finance community. The raised funds were split across the seven Etihad Partners entities, including Air Serbia, for a mixture of capital expenditure and investment in fleet, as well as for refinancing. The funding vehicle comprises largely of local and international investment funds."

      Delete
  12. Anonymous09:30

    JU will survive, that is for certain.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous09:35

    So where they will find money for that + to recover losses for this year because of travel restrictions + to pay these debts from JAT?!?! It seems to me that we actually have no any state owned successful carrier in this region when every is relaying on the state aid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10:37

      This debts are not from Jat time, but are new debts. Debts from Jat time was paied in 2014 and 2015 from State budget. Also there are some debts to State and to commercial banks of some 30 million USD on top of that 116 million USD. If they decide to split from Etihad that would cost another 40 million USD. Also there is 25 million they get from country just for regular business not to bi in red. So, they need 210 million + PSO + Covid-19.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:39

      ^ I'm sorry to find a flaw in your expert analysis, but if you haven't seen, these loans mature within 2 months and a year, meaning the absolute majority of the loans have been paid off.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous10:49

      You do not understand what "mature" means in financial world. When loan matures that means that after that becomes payable, or simply explained, after it matures you are starting to pay it off.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous11:15

      That's not what maturity means in the financial world. Maturity is the date when you have to pay back the principal amount of the loan. That's the final transaction. So no, it's not after that that you're "starting to pay it off".

      Delete
    5. Anonymous12:15

      So you want to say that loan is paid off already?

      Delete
  14. Anonymous09:40

    Has the Serbian government provided financial assistance for JU? They were saying for many months how they will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous09:41

      Also how have the Etihad negotiations concluded?

      Delete
  15. Anonymous09:42

    I read somewhere that Air Seychelles are also trying to negotiate loans they got from these funding vehicles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous09:43

      And Etihad too which is trying to get out of the debt owed by Alitalia and Air Berlin.

      Delete
  16. Anonymous09:53

    But if one loan matures in two months time and other in just under a year, then that means these loans have already all but been paid off? The first vehicle drawing shouldn't even be an issue at all. There are very small amounts outstanding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous09:56

      Bingo

      Delete
    2. Anonymous11:21

      No. It means that every year JU is paying the 6.7% interest of the loan. When the loan matures means you have to pay back the principle. The 105.7 million dollars.

      Delete
  17. I really don't see huge issue here. If they were paying all their obligations to date, excluding July, out of 116,000,000 of total debt they have only 3,3mil of the first tranche and 10,4mil of the second one left to return.
    Actually, I am positively surprised they were able to pay out ~24mil annually to service these two loans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10:39

      +1

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:40

      Not. They pay just interest. This loan has to be paid back in 2020.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous10:41

      @anon 10.40 you obviously don't know how loan repayment works.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous10:58

      They are just running from a facts... They are sad that JU is not financial successful as they tought.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous11:17

      @Anon 10:41

      It's you who doesn't know how loan repayment works. Anon 10:40 is correct. In this kind of transaction, you take out a loan, then you only pay interest over the years, and at the end you repay the principal amount of the loan as a lump sum.

      Delete
    6. I mean, we are all now speculating here it seems. Does anyone know, if the Air Serbia was paying only interests for the last 4 years, or monthly instalments of lump sum? If they were paying only interest, then they really deserve to go under regardless how much I support them, because that would be an obvious "muko moja predji na drugoga" mentality. And yes, the annual interest rate of 6,96% is crazy, I fully agree with that. Also, not strictly related to this topic, but everyone should really stop with the "taxpayers" mentality. Pretty much every airline, as well as all other means of public transportation, state or private owned, are subsidised one way or another. It's unfair to constantly bash JU/OU for that. They should be named and shamed for shitty service, bad business model, etc.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous12:12

      They are violating a free market with goverment "donations". Same as Alitalia, Qatar Airways... Except PSO for regional important flights there should be no donations for these airlines. A lot of airlines are flying on the same routes as JU/OU and are still not getting any money.

      Delete
    8. annon 10:40 is correct

      this loan was a show for US authorities to see that EY is doing everything according to market terms (not being funded by UAE). however it turned into a shitshow

      Delete
    9. Anon 12:12. First and foremost - there is no free market. Do you want to say that all nonEU carriers, let's say f.e. MEB3, SU, TK are not being heavily subsidised by their governments? Also, we don't even go what EU/US did to the region (whole ex-yu, some more, some less) and put it economically 20 years back. I don't understand why wouldn't JU and/or OU rely on government subsidies. Again, not to repeat myself, the way how they are spending that money is problematic and that's something they should be tar&feathered for, but not for getting support most of their competitors are getting as well. If everyone's ultimate goal is to end up with a handful of global legacy megacarriers and few megaLCCs and if you believe that will bring any good to the average traveller, or in this case average taxpayer in Serbia then :shrug: - let's agree to disagree.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous14:46

      "I don't understand why wouldn't JU and/or OU rely on government subsidies." Maybe because airlines should bring something to the local economy not take money from it. These aids are really something hilarious when you are every year giving something to them and still are making losses every year. Goverment owned airlines should do something useful for goverment not opposite.

      Delete
    11. JATBEGMEL15:22

      @ 14,46

      There is a fair point to the argument however if the airline is bringing more back into the economy than it recieves, why not offer them subsidies?

      Many airlines are recieving subsidies in some form, even the largest of LCC. Macedonia for years has been subsiding Wizz. Passenger numbers in SKP have grown, connectivity on the other hand is amongst the worst in Europe.

      However, in the case with JU, its the government who has brought in the ideas and models without proper strategy that have affected the airlines finances.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous16:43

      But it is about amount of money

      Serbia till now invest in Air Serbia (including Jat debts) more than 600 million EUR. That is in 6 years. And now there is 120 USD debt + every year 25 million EUR + PSO. Croatia gets 140 million EUR + PSO in 8 years. Wizz in Macedonia gets in 6 years some 10 million EUR. So, it is 60 times less then in Serbia and 14 times less than in Croatia excluding PSO.

      Delete
    13. Anonymous18:11

      Wooow you nailed it with the mathematics, Sir! Basically 100 million EUR each year is spent by Serbia on an airline with 20 planes?? In other words, the losses are way much higher than expected. What is your say about the last year destination expansion? Was it beneficial? Destinations like HEL or KRR don't bring so much money, no?

      Delete
    14. Anonymous06:29

      lol in what universe does JU get €100 million per year? Jat in its worse year EVER got €70 million. You do realize JU gets subsidies from a government fund meant for ALL government owned companies that are not profitble whose total size is €80 million? Please do some research before writing nonsense on here.

      Delete
  18. Anonymous11:03

    So basically, this airline is just flying and losing money all the time. Tbh, $115m is a lot of money for a country like Serbia. And if the debt excludes the Jat one, then this puts ju in a very fragile and hostile moment. Any other corona outbreak will mean the end of this 7 year journey that started in 2013 with the growth of the new company. All what is related to Etihad is a complete disaster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:06

      I think you should go take up drama classes. Or maybe comedy? Both suit you.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous12:07

      Well drama is very often here, especialy if you say something against JU. I am still thinking how that JU fanboys didnt called me out for financial sabotage? Maybe that still didnt come on their timetable.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous12:08

      ^you really need to give it a rest. You posted at least 20 of the same comments today. Doesn't that tell you something about yourself.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous12:13

      That was my first today (this was second one) lol

      Delete
    5. Anonymous12:15

      I'm sure. Only problem is I can read identical comments from the first one.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous12:22

      So if you have more people with same opinion that is not possible because everyone thinks like you (i didnt wrote comments 12:07 and 12:13)? Im bored of these hate comments from both sides, can we have conversations without insults and using words drama, fanboy and others? Can we just talk today about financial results and how to pay back debts and not about fanboys, drama, haters etc.?

      Delete
    7. Anonymous13:24

      By its end Jat was losing much more than JU is today while operating a tiny fleet. How fast people forget.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous14:49

      JAT operated 17 aircraft in 2013. while Air Serbia today operates 21. So its not like that it is huge difference.

      Delete
    9. JATBEGMEL15:24

      @ 14,49

      Its actually 18 (minus 1 ATR, 1 B733 and 1 A320)

      Delete
    10. Anonymous17:33

      First of all JAT did not exist in 2013 but Jat had no more than 8 or 9 aircraft in service back then so I don't know where you got the 17 number from. They had a total of ten B733 and they were not all flying sicne they were grounded, they couldn't afford to have them fly.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous18:06

      Jat Airways was not left to prosper correctly. It's a pity to simply kill such a well known worldwide brand / especially the Jat that comes from Jugoslavija. The brand lasted for 66 years i.e. almost a quarter of a century which for an airline is a lot!
      Plus, Jat Airways used to have a revenue of more than 160m€!

      Delete
    12. Anonymous21:10

      @ Anonymous 17:33
      In summer 2013 Jat Airways had 17 aircrafts, incl.2 stored 733s
      https://www.planespotters.net/airline/JAT-Airways
      YU-ALN ATR 72
      YU-ALO ATR 72
      YU-ALP ATR 72
      YU-ALT ATR 72
      YU-ALU ATR 72
      YU-AND Boeing 737-300
      YU-ANF Boeing 737-300 Sep 2012 Scrapped
      YU-ANH Boeing 737-300 Nov 2007 Stored
      YU-ANI Boeing 737-300
      YU-ANJ Boeing 737-300
      YU-ANK Boeing 737-300
      YU-ANL Boeing 737-300
      YU-ANV Boeing 737-300
      YU-ANW Boeing 737-300
      YU-AON Boeing 737-300
      YU-AOU Boeing 737-300
      YU-AOV Boeing 737-300

      Delete
    13. Anonymous21:18

      If you were from Serbia you would know that almost none were operative. Only about 7 planes were in operation. You can even check the news here from that time. Jat was in a dire state that summer.

      Delete
    14. Anonymous00:10

      No, I'm from Papua New Guinea, ahaha, ahaha... Long live JAT!!!

      Delete
    15. Anonymous06:34

      You literally have articles on here that reported on how Jat's fleet was down to eight aircraft.

      https://www.exyuaviation.com/2013/01/jat-to-decide-on-future-fleet-on.html

      '...joining six Boeing 737-300s and two ATR72s.'

      So could you please stop writing nonsense?

      Delete
  19. Why on Earth did they agree on an annual interest rate of 6.96%???
    That is huge!!!
    No wonder the airline keeps being in the red.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous14:53

      Good point and I agree about this coming from a mouth a taxpayer like you. The figures are quite worrying if you ask me. This is also questions the future of the airline itself.

      Delete
    2. Because you can't get your personal piece of the pie with a normal international interest rate of near 1%.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous18:02

      Q400
      Exactly!

      Delete
  20. Anonymous12:59

    First, this is game of bigger players then AirSerbia, its negotiations between Etihad Group and creditors about restructuring and partial "forgiveness" of debt on account of parties involved that went into bankruptcy process.
    Second, as somebody already mention, this whole project was an exercise to show that Etihad Group is independent from government of UAE. Related to that, nobody is asking if AirSerbia did actually spend those funds or maybe they just deposit them on some bank account.

    https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/etihad-bondholders-put-airline-on-notice-with-debt-revamp-sources
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-etihad-airways-debt-restructuring/new-york-court-subpoenas-etihad-fitch-in-1-2-billion-debt-battle-idUSKBN23X1QX
    https://www.ft.com/content/bcd6e28e-8f5e-11e8-bb8f-a6a2f7bca546

    ReplyDelete
  21. Soo many experts on this blog.. you name it, financing experts, airline and airport experts, global market expert , gouvermant and national bank experts.. list goes on and on.. wonder if people ever get embarrassed of their comments on here ? Does anyone think in no ex YU countries people complain how their airlines get paid of many billion dollars and pray to national airlines to collapse? Our people are soo negative and that is why we are in a state like this in all ex yu countries.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous21:39

    And yes, that is a scam. You lend huge amount of money and than "bankrupt" after what you open new company. Scam!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous02:03

      Dude ffs you posted this like a dozen times.

      Delete

Post a comment

EX-YU Aviation News does not tolerate insults, excessive swearing, racist, homophobic or any other chauvinist remarks or provocative posts with the intention of creating further arguments. A full list of comment guidelines can be found here. Thank you for your cooperation.