European Commission unhappy with Slovenia flag carrier plan


The European Commission is said to be dissatisfied with a draft of Slovenia’s Recovery and Resilience Plan, which it must approve in order to allocate the country 1.6 billion euros in grants and 3.6 billion euros in repayable funds to soften the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic. According to public broadcaster RTV SLO, European officials have expressed concerns over parts of the plan, including the 76 million euros which have been earmarked towards the creation of a new flag carrier. The Commission is currently in dialogue with the Slovenian authorities with the aim of making the best possible use of the funds to support economic recovery, in line with the European Union's priorities.

Slovenia will see the greatest decline in commercial flights and capacity in Europe this month despite government attempts to alleviate the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic through aid and subsidies. In February, both traffic and capacity at Ljubljana Airport will decline over 90% compared to the same month last year. This is despite Russia’s Aeroflot restoring operations to the Slovenian capital yesterday after eleven months, with a one weekly service from Moscow with a Sukhoi Superjet 100 planned for the foreseeable future. In total, there are 7.740 seats on sale to and from Ljubljana on commercial flights this month. In January, the airport handled under 5.000 passengers.

On the other hand, the European Commission has approved the five million euros in aid the Slovenian government has granted to Ljubljana Airport’s operator Fraport. In a statement, Europe's executive body said, “The European Commission has approved, under EU state aid rules, a five million euro Slovenian aid measure to compensate Fraport Slovenija, the operator of Jože Pučnik Airport, for the damage it suffered due to the coronavirus outbreak. The aid measure, which will take the form of a direct grant, will allow the Slovenian authorities to compensate the airport for revenue losses suffered during the period between March 17 and June 30, 2020”. The aid measure includes a claw-back mechanism, whereby any possible public support in excess of the actual damage received by the beneficiary will have to be paid back to the Slovenian state. Therefore, the risk of the state aid exceeding the damage is excluded.


Comments

  1. Anonymous09:07

    Surprise surprise

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous09:08

    Unfortunate. Ljubljana's connectivity won't improve much without a national airline.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous09:27

      LJU seems to struggle like BTS.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous18:45

      Or a few low costers based in LJU.

      Delete
  3. Anonymous09:10

    I wonder how the billions in aid the European Commission approved for Lufthansa was in line with EU policy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous09:28

      Because member states are not equal. Big airlines don't want to fight will smaller ones so they are slowly cleaning up the market.

      The whole JP saga should be a warning to OU and Croatia. They need to reform the airline before its too late.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:08

      Lufthansa was a profitable airline for years before Covid-19, unlike Adria, which went bankrupt even before this mess started.

      Big difference.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous10:22

      It's profitable because they are using their position of bigger airlines. What about AZ, were they profitable as well and they received injections every single year. I hope that government will continue with that project despite of EU opinion..

      Delete
    4. Anonymous12:17

      Lufthansa was not always profitable. About a decade ago they were in a really bad place and almost went bankrupt. Maybe not 10 but 15 years ago. Also they enjoy an almost monopolistic position in many airports in Germany but also in places like Zurich.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous13:21

      Sure, not always. But most years in recent times.

      Adria was NEVER profitable. Except for that year when they sold their trademark for 5m to make the books look nice.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous13:34

      Yes but Adria does not have monopol in interline business as LH has. If small airlines has to give majoritiy of their revenue from interline tickets than it's much easier to be profitable. Not to mention monopol at all those airports so when same conditions will be in place for every airline then we can talk who did good job and who didnt...

      Delete
    7. Anonymous16:06

      Look at LH's dominant position at FRA and MUC and how long it took FRA to let LCCs enter the airport. Lufthansa is a massive hypocrite. Forcing others to make moves they are not willing to do themselves.

      Delete
  4. Anonymous09:14

    How can italy then spend billions and billions on new alitalia? And italy has way better connections than slovenia, even without alitalia

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous09:15

      Probably because Italy is the third largest economy in the EU.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:18

      Which means that "profitable" airlines would took routes of AZ very quickly. Problem solved...

      Delete
    3. Anonymous12:48

      The new Alitalia cannot buy and use the name Alitalia. This is one of the conditions of the EC. The EC sent a long list of comments and questions to the Italian Government. Among other things, it explicitly states that they must send an Excel spreadsheet with all the planned routes with a detailed analysis for each one with a justification of why the new company on this route will be successful, unlike the existing Alitalia. They are not satisfied with some general assessment, they require an analysis of financial eligibility for each route. It would be similar for Adria 2 as well. Even if the EC were to generally approve an investment in a new airline, it would require approval of the strategic plan and the financial viability of each planned flight segment.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous13:31

      I guess what would happen if LH cancels all their loss making routes. I doubt that all those longhaul flights would still be profitable.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous13:56

      Well, for one, i'm glad SKP did not use your logic. They were handling 700-800k before starting to give subsidies to W6. Look at where they got in 2019. How did that happen if there was no demand to begin with...

      Delete
    6. Anonymous13:58

      Wrong comment sorry

      Delete
  5. Anonymous09:14

    So what now?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous09:14

    Common sense prevails. This unlikely project should only be allowed to proceed with private money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous09:16

      This was supposed to be half half. Half was public money and half was private. Plus the government said it would be provided as a loan which would have to be paid back.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:10

      Which private partner would invest 76m (assuming 50:50 share) into an airline that is likely to make loss? And how would it pay back the loan?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous10:20

      Solinair

      Delete
    4. Anonymous10:24

      Solinair of course want money from government because it's state economy which gain the most of good connectivity. Why would private company spend money for good of state economy, it just doesn't make sense...

      Delete
    5. Anonymous10:26

      And where would Solinair get 76m? Out of thin air?

      Delete
    6. Anonymous12:53

      This cooperation with Solinair would be the best solution for Slovenia and Slovenians.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous13:29

      I agree with comment 12:53! That would have most effect on Slovenia's economy

      Delete
  7. Anonymous09:17

    Should have just renationalised Adria when it was about to collapse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10:11

      That would likely be deemed illegal state aid anyway. It would just be kicking the can down the road for another year, nothing more.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:18

      Than the same rules would have to apply for all airlines. I would simply forbid any airlines which received state money to fly to LJU. So out of 4 airlines which are flying to LJU we would not have any of it.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous10:27

      That's not how single European aviation market works.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous11:14

      I am aware of that, but on the other hand EU have different criteria for each of their member..I hope our government will proceed with their plans despite of EU opinion

      Delete
    5. Anonymous11:37

      lets wait and see the official statement. they are also not happy with highway investments. they want more money for railways.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous12:32

      “Not being happy” is just a polite wording for “being rejected”. This is the second time now. For the second time, the Slovenian government has sent a document that the EC estimates is without a vision and does not follow the EU strategy, which is a green and digital society. The current Slovenian government is not capable of preparing a vision, but only sends a set of investments that are completely unrelated to each other, far from any vision or strategy. It is not a matter of waiting for what will happen in the end, Slovenia must first send a new proposal.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous13:28

      Earth is really happy with EC approval of 9 B € to LH. World will be much more green after that injection..

      Delete
    8. Anonymous14:09

      We are not talking about the same funds. 9 billion rescue plan has nothing to do with special EU funds to soften the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous16:54

      Those two fund are not the same, but institution is so same people gave approval for that.

      Delete
    10. @An.12.32
      I agree with you, EU, being one of the players in favour of globalism, has "green and digital strategy". And what a coincidence, and only coincidence, nothing else, is covid, with its "crisis, with all of its dramas and mutations and media rape, which cuts by 80 % air traffic, to make it all greener, and locks us inside, sentencing us without court proceedings, to do everything digital

      Delete
    11. Anonymous21:05

      No, we speak about two different financial mechanisms that are not under the "same people" as you define them. First is supervised by general EC rules, wile the EU funds to soften the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic are new funds adopted by EP with the new set of rules not defined just by general EC rules but also the documents adopted by EP. You probably remember the whole discussion about the "rule of law" discussion that was the most discussed part of the documents also included in that package. While general EC rules are always under specific DG, the EU funds to soften the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic will be supervised by coordination of DGs and simply must be within the line of all the documents adopted just for this funds by the EP, that is why national proposals must follow strategic guidelines adopted by EP and not EC.

      Delete
    12. Relax dude, it's not healthy to get upset whenever I write something. And try not to look at the things so narrowly and bureaucratically . And please, don't put under quotations something I never said or wrote. Kissy kissy!

      Delete
  8. Anonymous09:29

    If I am not mistaken, the decision is not final. If the EU decides not to approve a new national carrier, it will only show they are working in the best interest of the big players. Namely Germany.

    Taxpayers will have to subsidize Lufthansa and Fraport. In return, they'll get nothing. All the profit will go back to Germany. I blame the previous two governments for this mess.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous09:58

    I don't really understand the big deal about all of this. About having a national carrier or paying aid to carriers flying.
    Why? Just why?
    If people are not willing to fly to LJU, then the market has spoken.
    I do not support any kind of aid or a new national carrier. I do not benefit from neither of those two things.
    If you wanna create new routes, create demand. Promote the country as a destinations and people will come. Yes, they'll use cars, buses and trains to get here, but if you target countries outside EU, then you'll get plane passengers.
    Demand creates routes. I do not support paying millions in aid to planes flying empty, because literally nobody is flying right now anyways and I also do not support a loss making new carrier who'd make millions in losses every year, because Slovenians just don't have it in them to run a successful and profitable carrier. And the market is tough enough already to run a profitable regional carrier at the moment anyways. It's literally a WASTE of taxpayers money. For either of those 2 options.
    Market has spoken. People don't want to travel here by plane and if that's how it is. If they would, carriers would open up more routes since there'd be bigger demand anyways. But there isn't. Having a flag carrier who flies half empty to satisfy those few people who fly those routes is just stupid and clearly shows who's in bed with who in terms of politics. It's always been like that here, with politics treating the flag carrier as their personal carrier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10:15

      +1000000

      It's time to realise the Slovenian market is extremely small, with a lot of competition around and good road connections.

      There just isn't enough demand to sustain direct connection to every city in Europe.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:16

      I am quite sure that 90% of countries would not agree with you, why? Because having good connectivity is on of the crucial things for good state economy. If that's arranged with national carrier or foreign ones I don't really care, but it is obvious that without decent connectivity state economy suffer. I still think that having national carrier is much cheaper than paying to foreign carriers which normally don't base aircrafts at LJU. And we could also have long disccussion regarding demand terminology because demand is not only driven by connectivity but there are many factors which impact on that (one of the most important is also price sensitivity).

      Delete
    3. Anonymous10:19

      Intersting why croatia, serbia, montenegro, albania, macedonia are investing money into national airlines or paying someone to fly at their airports.. i guess they are all dumb..

      Delete
    4. Anonymous12:47

      All those countries you just mentioned are too far away to travel to by car for 95% of people.
      Your point also doesn't make sense as neither of those countries has a competitive market such as LJU, with airports all around and neither of those countries get Germans and Austrians and Italians (main nationality of Slovenian visitors, both business and pleasure) primarily by road, except for tourist Croatia.
      Those countries need a plane connection, for their disapora living literally everywhere and in big numbers in most places across Europe, as they'd lose 2 days or more traveling by car. You can get to lots of places from Slovenia in 1 day, so people generally like to choose that option, so they don't need to rent cars at places, such as Milan, Bavaria, Czech Republic, Rome, CH, ...
      Comparing countries south of Slovenia to Slovenia is like comparing apples to oranges. There's just too many differences and the market is way way different too.
      Those countries need their airports and carriers serving them.
      Slovenia does not. The demand clearly shows that and has been showing that for years. It's not just 2020. If there would be demand, we'd see more routes at LJU for years and years already. But there isn't enough. And whatever demand is, is good for those few flights LJU operates as they can just easily connect onwards to literally everywhere.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous12:58

      This is first time i heard slovenia doesnt need airport and airlines serving it

      Delete
    6. Anonymous13:09

      2 days of travelling?

      Frankfurt-Belgrade 12 hours by car

      Delete
    7. Anonymous13:24

      @anon 12:47

      I'm doing all the best to take you comment seriously but so much nonsense I haven't read in quite some time. I doubt you have checked figures when JP was around, as those figures were better and better each year. And even at those time JP was not managed well and there was a lot of space for improvement. I am also guessing why Italy does not just cancel all domestic flights as they have everything you mentioned, good road connections, much better railway infrastructure as Slovenia but still they have huge amount of domestic flight. Very strange...
      And who told you that demand is not here? If there is not any offer then even passengers won't come, but that does not mean demand isn't there.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous13:57

      Well, for one, i'm glad SKP did not use your logic. They were handling 700-800k before starting to give subsidies to W6. Look at where they got in 2019. How did that happen if there was no demand to begin with...

      Delete
    9. Anonymous15:29

      So your point is, that just because there is no direct flight between LJU and Scotland, people will not fly? They won't book connecting flight? They'll just give up? No. If they want to fly, they have the option to. There's just not enough demand to most places in Europe for having direct flights from LJU. Figures at LJU were getting better and better by the year, due to the general market moving that way. JP was still racking huge losses and conditions were favorable then. Since then the market pretty much collapsed and investing in a new carrier that will eat away a big chunk of taxpayers money from the start and then each year due to losses, is something I just can't get behind.
      It will not fix the single issue that LJU has faced for years and that is high prices. That's why people go to other airports. In 2020 I booked a flight 1 month before traveling in December for 180 EUR return ticket from LJU to ARN. Each year before that, prices were not lower than 350 EUR. JP's collapse did wonders on air fare prices and without the covid19 happening in a year or two, we would get more carriers, more versatility and lower fares, because of COMPETITION. Having a flag carrier who flies direct flights to the exact same places without competition, doesn't solve anything.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous16:53

      If you are reffering to JP because you paid 350 eur to ARN then you should give you thanks to LH because they were controling prices on that route. People would travel also with 1 stop, but after JP demise connections on EU hubs are practically impossible due to late departures from LJU. If we can get LH/LX/SN/OS/JU to base aircraft here then I agree that we don't need national carrier. But bill for that would be much higher then paying few millions to our own carrier. You also mentioned that JP was loss making even when there was good times for aviation, so by your logic JU and OU should close their doors as well? And you have to know that even when there was good times, JP never had capable managers behind the wheel.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous21:26

      I do agree with Anon 15:29 "JP's collapse did wonders on air fare prices and without the covid19 happening in a year or two, we would get more carriers, more versatility and lower fares, because of COMPETITION. Having a flag carrier who flies direct flights to the exact same places without competition, doesn't solve anything." Since I live between Ljubljana and Trieste airport only after JP's collapse I totally switch to Ljubljana, before I mostly opted for LH flights from Trieste since the price was almost the half of the price for the same destination with JP via MUC/FRA connecting to LH flights. For me combined Star Alliance flights from LJU were just fine specially because I always plan business trip for me or my colleagues in our private company with overnight stay before meetings, it is absolutely necessary to have a meeting after a good night sleep and not after an early morning flight when you have to wake up in the middle of the night. For me LH+LX+SN flights from LJU were much better scheduled that JPs.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous06:24

      @Anon 12:47

      I think you're too pessimistic there. It's a pity that the COVID-19 pandemic happened, because Ljubljana/Slovenia is actually a growing market. Economically, Slovenia is growing out of the Eastern bloc and growing into the Western bloc and its citizens are gradually getting richer, meaning more and more people can afford to fly. Slovenia is also a growing tourist destination as more and more people are discovering the natural beauty and the diversity of the country.

      People do want to fly and there is certainly demand. Before the pandemic, HV flights to/from AMS and W6 flights to/from CRL were completely full. And BA and SN quickly jumped into the gap that JP left behind, because they saw business opportunities there.

      Also, market size does not say so much. It's all about strategy. Look at KEF with FI, RIX with BT and AMS with KL. They're all examples of airports and airlines that would be way too big for their market size if they didn't have their succesfull strategy. Moreover, even Estonia, Luxembourg and Malta, markets much smaller than Slovenia, are able to sustain a national carrier. And I'm just realising that Iceland has even less citizens than Malta.

      JP did come up with a strategy, namely to focus on ACMI, just like EE, but that strategy came too late. JP should also have been much more integrated into Star Alliance, but they seemed to focus just on their FRA connection. Membership of an alliance is only smart if you want to be a true network carrier, not just point-to-point. The latest fleet strategy of purchasing 15 Superjets was good too, but came too late as well.

      Long story short, there is absolutely potential for LJU and for a national carrier. There is existing demand and, pandemic aside, demand is only growing with the Slovenian economy. A new national carrier should develop a clear and plausible strategy and it should know its place in the airline market. It must definitely be possible to operate a fleet of 15-20 medium-sized aircraft out of LJU. LJU itself must have a strategy too, what kind of airport they want to be, what kind of airlines they want to attract and which destinations they want to have served.

      Delete
  10. Anonymous11:15

    LJU results are dire. A new carrier is really needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:26

      What would be a good result in the middle of pandemic when no leisure travel is allowed?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous11:29

      @anon 11:26

      and it's allowed in other countries right? We have same restrictions as any other country but we have biggest drop among all airports..

      Delete
    3. Anonymous11:36

      @11.26 more than 5,000 passengers per month.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous14:20

      @12:47 - in the era of digital nomads, trust me on the the first things they look into is an airport and how connected it is to the rest of the world. Take OTP as a very good example. It may not have many long-haul flights but has excellent connections to the most important points in Europe and the surrounding countries. You can go to Cyprus, Spain, Israel, Portugal, Italy over the weekend for less than €50-80 and people love this. The more flights you have, the better.
      And not only good connections, but cheap! Such other trends are visible in other cities such as CLJ, SOF, KRK, VNO, LWO, etc.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous14:23

      I love how the pandemic is an excuse for abysmal results. Like how is BEG managing to do so well considering Serbian passport holders are banned from visiting the EU (more or less been like that for a year).

      Delete
    6. Anonymous16:10

      Yes, but Russia and China are open to enter Serbia so those are huge populations. No surprise here.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous16:11

      Chinese are not allowed to leave China.

      Delete
  11. Anonymous11:15

    The government has tried to give money to foreign airlines and it didn't work. Only 3-4 are flying. Now it is time to try and get a national carrier to start flights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:48

      Why would you fly when you have empty planes? The government aid doesn't cover the loss you still make flying empty planes. No demand=no routes. Demand=routes. It's as easy as that.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous13:15

      It's not easy as you think. Even those passenger on half empty aircraft have huge impact on state economy so it's not everything about airlines profit. Do you really think that every LH flight is profitable? I am quite sure that they were operating on LJU route with loss, but those small routes are making their long/short haul flights profitable.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous13:55

      Lufthansa is draining money every day, just as every single other airline around these days.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous16:09

      Lufthansa just raised another €1.6 billion on top of the €1.5 billion they already secured and on top of the €9 billion they got from the government. That's a lot of money right there. Since the German government entered the airline they barely made any painful cuts, it was business as usual in terms of salaries and layoffs. Why? Because now lenders know that if they go bus the German government will pay the bill.

      Delete
  12. Anonymous11:16

    Slovenia deserves to have good national air carrier connecting Ljubljana to the other European cities.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous11:18

    Anyone knows the loads on the first SU flight?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:27

      They mentioned around 30 pax on inbound flight, I don't know about LJU-SVO..

      Delete
    2. Anonymous11:35

      Thanks

      Delete
    3. Anonymous16:16

      33 and 12 passengers on SU.

      Delete
    4. For the first flights quite good

      Delete
  14. Anonymous11:19

    Surprising how aid for Fraport isn't a problem for European Commission

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous13:18

      Subsidising airports is different. You cannot build 5 airports for LJU and have them compete on the open market.

      On the other hand, you can have 5 airlines competing at the same airport.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous13:36

      So even you said that it's much easier for aiport to make revenue without real competition. So why on earth should state give them any subsidies?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous13:57

      Fraport subsidy was required due to Covid-19.

      National carrier would require permanent life support.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous14:22

      Let me translate that for you: Germany wants their companies to succeed, so y'all gotta be giving them money.

      Delete
  15. Anonymous13:26

    Conditional free market and capitalism.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous14:02

    I think Slowenija must borrow the Estonian model. TLL is roughly the size of LJU yet has much higher figures. They are a country with less diaspora as well and very close to a big primary airport - HEL but also not far away from RIX.
    In 2019, TLL handled almost 3,3 million pax! They have a very good mix of legacy, LCC and charter flights. Also, LJU needs to work on outbound and inbound charters just like many other countries do. In the summer, focus on Japan or ME charters and in winter focus on warmer destinations for Slovenes and inboud UK ski flights.
    In 2019, there were more than 6 million tourists (!):

    https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/en/News/Index/8997#:~:text=Slovenia%20with%20record%20numbers%20of,recorded%20in%20Slovenia%20in%202019.

    Imagine what would happen if you additionally try restoring a flag carrier or base an aircraft. This number will most likely double, In other words, Slovenia is the second most visited country in ex-Yu after Hrvatska.

    What I find a bit odd is the lack of Polish tourists. Poland is a very important market even though they tend to visit the SouthEast part of Europe.
    Again, lots of work to be done from the Ministry to promote the country and spend on advertising. The capital, Bled and the coast to start with....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Estonia until 2021 did NOT had national carrier. It was owned by LOT. Other players are basicly airbaltic only, as air serbia in case of balkans. So about wich model we speak?

      Delete
    2. Estonia DID have national carrier, created shortly after its independence, named Estonian Air and operating B737-500 for long years. Only after it was shut, Nordica was created, owned by LOT

      Delete
    3. And what a nonsense comparing Air Serbia, which has no rights to to operate from other ex-yu republics, with Air Baltic which as EU operator freely operates and has bases in Riga, Vilnius and Tallin. Not to mention statement Air Serbia being the only player on the Balkans, with Aegean, even Croatia around. Personally, have nothing against JU, on the contrary, but facts are facts

      Delete
    4. Anonymous07:11

      Wow relax dude, it's not healthy to get worked up like that. Just like the Baltics have BT, that's how ex-YU has OU with its planned bases all around.

      Delete
    5. Wow, not only that you are an expert, but very original, too :) :) :) But I expect nothing else from fanboy triggered by placing JU and OU in the same category, way below Aegean and accusing me, the biggest criticist of OU here, to be in favour of OU. Or maybe you are the same guy who just needs to spit on everything I write here every single time I write it. Therefore no more posts from me for today. Enjoy your weekend!

      Delete
    6. Anonymous16:08

      First, Nordica was NOT owned by LOT. Nordica and LOT had until 2020 common enterprise Regional Jet (now Xfly), where LOT was minority owner.
      Second, Nordica was until 2018 biggest airline in TLL. In 2019 they gave up because of aggressive airBaltic. In the end, why use Estonian taxpayers money, if the Latvian taxpayers are willing to pay for it.
      Third, in 2019 there were 16 airlines flying in TLL. Biggest was airBaltic - 21%. Although Nordica scaled down strongly in the beginning of the year and stopped in summer, they had 14%. No 3 was Ryanair (10%). Other big legacy airlines were SAS, Finnair, Lufthansa, LOT (Regional Jet in reality), Aeroflot, Belavia etc. Other LCCs were Easyjet, Norwegian, Wizzair.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous16:44

      One correction: this 14% in 2019 was Nordica and LOT combined. When Nordica stopped, LOT took over 3 lines (Regional Jet did the actual flying in both cases). In 2018 Nordica's market share was 23% and airBaltic's 15%.

      TLL official data: market share in 2019

      airBaltic – 21%
      LOT / Nordica – 14%
      Ryanair – 10,2%
      Finnair – 9,1%
      Lufthansa – 8,7%
      SmartLynx – 7,6%
      SAS – 6,3%
      Norwegian – 4%
      Aeroflot – 3,7%
      Wizz Air – 3,6%
      Turkish – 3,4%
      easyJet – 3%
      others – 5,4%

      Delete
    8. I bag for mercy and forgiveness his Majestic Expertic Highness for omitting word "partially" when I talked about LOT ownership. However :" 19 Nov 2016 Nordica entered into strategic partnership with LOT, using LOT 's commercial platform, ticketing system, and flight code. As most of the flights were marketed by LOT, which OWNED 49 PERCENT of Nordica shares, Nordica also carried LOT flight codes and callsign on most of its flights". That much about the expertise of Nordica NOT being (partially) owned by LOT. But, hey, who cares about the facts, only important is to spit on everything I write here. I wish you told me why you are so disturbed with my writing here. Or maybe you should just seek some help. For your sake.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous17:32

      Well, I don’t know about your internal squabbles. I am simply posting here to straiten some facts.

      Nordica was and is 100% owned by Estonian state. Nordica was until 2020 virtual airline, it used in the beginning Adria's and then LOT's commercial platform, ticketing system and flight code. In the later case the flight code for Nordica was LO8.

      Regional Jet (Xfly) is ACMI company and was until 2020 owned by Nordica (51%) and LOT (49%). It did the actual flying for Nordica and for LOT, SAS, Adria, Luxair, Loganair etc.

      https://www.nordica.ee/en/about-the-company/company/

      From 2020 Nordica has its own AOC and flight codes, commercial platform and ticketing system will follow in 2021. Also from 2020 Regional Jet (Xfly) is 100% owned by Nordica.

      Delete
    10. Regional jet is subsidiary of Nordica. The fact it's ACMI operator providing services for others, does not change the fact it is not independent company but part of Nordica. And LOT shares are in Nordica, not directly in Regional jet, which did start as joint venture of LOT and Nordica. LOT invested in Nordica in order to start Regional jet. Estonian Air was 100% state owned until 2015 when it ceased operations and was substituted by Nordica, which is true, was again 100 % state owned, but only for one year, until 2016, when LOT became owner of 49 percent shares of Nordica, which made possible Regional jet creation.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous18:37

      So you don’t believe, what is written on the official site of Nordica?

      No, LOT shares were in Regional Jet: https://news.err.ee/1232395/minister-state-does-not-need-to-support-nordica-any-further

      No, Regional Jet did not start as a joint venture of LOT and Nordica. Regional Jet was started right after Estonian Air demise and already in February 2016 it got its AOC. https://www.ecaa.ee/sites/default/files/delta-04-03-2020_15-01-13_0.pdf

      No, LOT did not invest in Nordica in order to start Regional Jet. LOT acquired shares in Regional Jet in April 2017. https://triniti.eu/2017/04/10/lot-acquired-share-in-regional-jet-ou/

      Well, I remember correctly, LOT paid for Regional Jet shares 40 000€.

      Delete
    12. State does not need to support NORDICA, any further, not Regional jet. Enough for me. And another one : 40. 000 e for 49 %? Enough for me as well. And yes, I don't believe what is written on Nordica official page, and not only Nordica, much wider, because there is often, almost always, "for public true" which almost never corresponding reality. Over and out.

      Delete
    13. Anonymous22:01

      You don't believe and so you invent your own alternate facts. It must be very lonely in your world...

      Delete
  17. Who owns Solinair? It is not owned by EU investments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous19:44

      Turkish cargo company MNG Airlines.

      Delete
  18. Anonymous18:22

    I do not know where RTV SLO got it, but this information is not completely accurate

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous18:57

    The cheaper way to have more connections from LJU is new national carrier with hub in LJU. Subventions of other carriers is waste of money, as they will never step together to make hub for improving load factor. Passenger potencial only from LJU is too poor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous19:41

      LJU as a hub is dead.

      Delete
  20. Anonymous19:05

    The only company able to manage new carrier together with government on a long term basis is Solinair with their experiences and facilities. Slovenian government should ask EU commission how they agreed with all billions for LH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous19:47

      How about Amelia?

      Solinair has no experience in passenger transport, selling tickets, etc.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous21:43

      The only way to go is clean sheet design. No members of the old guard.

      Delete
    3. I have a feeling that Amelia is not interested much in this..

      Delete
  21. Of course, plan does not include German owned companies....like Fraport which will get 5M €.

    ReplyDelete

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.