$216mn profit keeps record intact, sort of

[SQtraveller]

post deleted

[boing]

Is it me or am I the only one who seems to know that SQ actually made a loss on the last FY ?

http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_UK/docs/company_info/investor/financial/AnalystBriefingFY0910.pdf?http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_UK/docs/company_info/investor/financial/AnalystBriefingFY0910.pdf?

Going to slide 24 on the link above shows that for FY09/10, SQ as an airline actually made a loss of $38.6 mil, compared to MI which surprisingly raked in a profit of $49.2 mil.

The official statement that SQtraveller posted seems to mask these losses showing the SQ groups consolidated profit. I'm not good with these financial fineprints, so please do correct me if i'm wrong. But if I'm reading it correctly, then it seems to be a bloody good job by PR.

And just out of curiosity, SATS, the unit they sold off, made an operating profit of $184 mil, up 24% from last FY. Just reinforces my view that selling them off was a big mistake.

[LionCity]

Is it me or am I the only one who seems to know that SQ actually made a loss on the last FY ?

http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_UK/docs/company_info/investor/financial/AnalystBriefingFY0910.pdf?http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_UK/docs/company_info/investor/financial/AnalystBriefingFY0910.pdf?

Going to slide 24 on the link above shows that for FY09/10, SQ as an airline actually made a loss of $38.6 mil, compared to MI which surprisingly raked in a profit of $49.2 mil.

The official statement that SQtraveller posted seems to mask these losses showing the SQ groups consolidated profit. I'm not good with these financial fineprints, so please do correct me if i'm wrong. But if I'm reading it correctly, then it seems to be a bloody good job by PR.

And just out of curiosity, SATS, the unit they sold off, made an operating profit of $184 mil, up 24% from last FY. Just reinforces my view that selling them off was a big mistake.

I think MI is helped by transferring some destinations including KUL, PEN, SUB and soon Chennai and Bangalore. Some of these changes may be the result of SQ flying to Haneda and Munich and short of cabin crew to handle some of the shorter hauls. This is my speculation.

[ycp81]

I think MI is helped by transferring some destinations including KUL, PEN, SUB and soon Chennai and Bangalore. Some of these changes may be the result of SQ flying to Haneda and Munich and short of cabin crew to handle some of the shorter hauls. This is my speculation.

SQ could not compete efficiently with the influx of budget carriers on its home turf and thus have to "outsource" certain routes to MI. MI could compete better due to its lower cost base and also could offer more frequencies using its A319/A320s which SQ could not on the A330s/B777s.

[9V-SIA]

I'm not surprised MI making money.
They are charging SQ fares on former SQ routes in J.
SIN-PEN comes to mind.
I fly them for their J seats. Budget airlines cannot compete.

Flew SIN-KMG in J too. Full both ways.

[boing]

I think MI is helped by transferring some destinations including KUL, PEN, SUB and soon Chennai and Bangalore. Some of these changes may be the result of SQ flying to Haneda and Munich and short of cabin crew to handle some of the shorter hauls. This is my speculation.

That escaped my mind totally. They used to be making single digit profits or at most $20 mil+ tops and here they have far surpassed that. Lower cost base, smaller a/c but SQ pricing, you don't need a financial analyst to tell you the end result.

On the other hand, the fact that SQ( airline) actually made a loss is not highlighted anywhere in the media. Was highly suspicious when I saw the first press release and after some digging, found out the truth. Seems they are not immune after all.

[feb01mel]

SIA remains cautious despite economic recovery

SIA remains cautious despite economic recovery

Posted: 24 May 2010

SINGAPORE : Singapore Airlines remains cautious about expanding its fleet despite the economic recovery, saying it does not believe it is out of the woods yet.

Last Friday, the carrier unveiled full-year earnings, which kept its profitable record intact.

Business and leisure travellers are flying again with the economic recovery. That has helped SIA bounce back after losing money in its first two quarters to report a net profit of S$216 million for the full-year ending March.

Despite the profitable showing, SIA said it aiming to add only 2 per cent of new capacity in the next year.

Chew Choon Seng, CEO, Singapore Airlines, said: "Crude oil went up to an 18-month high as of May 3rd or there about. And within the space of 10 days, as a result of all the turmoil in the currency markets, it went down by 13 dollars per barrel in about 10 days. So volatility is still here."

Fuel is a major part of SIA's expenses, making up almost 40 per cent of its costs.

SIA has been making more efficient use of its seats - with passenger loads recovering to 80 per cent in the fourth quarter, from 72 per cent in the depths of the financial crisis - resulting in higher passenger volumes.

But the carrier said volumes alone will not be enough to return the firm to full health.

Mr Chew said: "The challenge for us is to not only sustain the recovery, not only just in loads, but also in yields. So by having a judicious rate of growth, it is our aim to keep load factors that are above break even, and yet allow us to recover more of the yield loss."

While SIA is confident about growth in the next year, especially with the return of the business traveller, it does say that revenues and operating profit are still far behind pre-crisis levels. As a result, there is still a lot of work to be done before the carrier can take to the skies again.

SIA also said its search to find a successor for its current CEO continues. An announcement is expected before his term runs out at the end of the year.

Mr Chew joined SIA as chief executive in 2003.

- CNA/al

[trekkie]

Its not 216 Mn profit.

deleted

[coffeeblack]

How does SQ achieve its profits? How about cutting every last amenity it can wring out of it's customer loyalty programmes, on board amenities, forgetting its roots in being one of the most innovative airlines in the industry, and sticking their fingers in their ears as the rest of the industry embraces such things as social media...

Sorry I know that statement is quite flame worthy, but in particular the last point, I think SQ really can do something. Not necessarily particularly well, but definitely something must be done and fast.

[MAN Flyer]

SQ the airline itself apparently lost money, but profits from the others areas - I am also impressed with MI's results - allowed them to spin it as the intact record. Not really surprising I suppose.

[LionCity]

SATS made a profit of SGD 181 Million for the same period. If SQ has not sold off SATS, the profit of SQ could potentially be SGD 396 Million. That 181 Million is from a Cash cow that they sold off.

[Singapore_Air]

SATS made a profit of SGD 181 Million for the same period. If SQ has not sold off SATS, the profit of SQ could potentially be SGD 396 Million. That 181 Million is from a Cash cow that they sold off.

Indeed - a stupid decision from a company perspective. I haven't worked out the cost/benefits from a (very passive) shareholder view though.

[boing]

Indeed - a stupid decision from a company perspective. I haven't worked out the cost/benefits from a (very passive) shareholder view though.

Mentioned it myself earlier as well on how stupid a decision it was to sell them off. It could be a form of protection during rainy days as SATS has diversified interests outside aviation which could shield SIA balance sheet during times of downturn in aviation.

The present board of SIA came to this decision after an old man advised them to sell it off. I see more repercussions from this ill thought decision in the future. Heck, i can see wastage among the diff groups now that was not present before.

[benlee]

SQ is doing well bec of improved loads. My recent flights saw full loads in both J and F. And cost cutting helps. Anyone notice the food portions are getting smaller and smaller across all class? Problem is SQ does not see the need to set any high standards, it just need to set same or slight better standards than competition airlines which from what I read in other forums, are no better or even worse.

[9V-SIA]

SQ is doing well bec of improved loads. My recent flights saw full loads in both J and F. And cost cutting helps. Anyone notice the food portions are getting smaller and smaller across all class? Problem is SQ does not see the need to set any high standards, it just need to set same or slight better standards than competition airlines which from what I read in other forums, are no better or even worse.

Agree with you. Standards are falling on all airlines from cost cutting.

SQ just has to make sure they decline at a slower rate than other airlines ( and so remain no 1 )

Cynical I know but most PAXs just want the cheapest fares, not lounges/IFE/seat