How safe are our sponsors?

[Block 18]

It's not just West Ham United that have lost a sponsor.

 

American International Group (AIG) are reported as having to seek a $40billion lifeline from the US Federal Reserve. Otherwise they too go under. What price having rich owners now.

 

How long before the Glazers and Gillette Brothers start off-loading their "leverage" (that's big debts to you and me) from their great English football acquisitions?

 

We have a smaller company sponsoring than XL sponsoring us, but as I sit here I can hear the Flybe planes still going over my house, but I do wonder will they keep on doing so. If they do fail what are the implications for Saints, anyone know how much we would loose?

[Arizona]

As airlines go, flybe are a pretty safe bet. In fact they are one of the few airlines in Britain currently taking delivery of new aircraft. I believe they also made a proffit last year, could be wrong on that.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I keep a close eye on the aviation business and as far as I'm aware Flybe are relatively OK at the moment . They made of profit of £15m in the year ending 31st March with a healthy increase in turnover . Having said that all airlines are taking a significant hit with the massive rise in the cost of aviation fuel so it's a tricky business to forecast .

[um pahars]

Air Florida me up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[eurosaint]

http://www.flybe.com/news/0809/08.htm

 

Doesn't look bad according to this !

[Dicko]

I think they have cutback on some routes at some airports, but by and large they appear to be doing OK

[rj0912]

Aren't Flybe ordering new economical planes that use much less fuel.

 

The contract is worth billions, and keeps there costs well down compared to the likes of XL.

 

I'm sure I heard this on a news report looking into XL's rocketing costs and how only Flybe have predicted it and been proactive.

[dubai_phil]

They are well placed to come out of the recession stronger than they went in.

 

Good effocient fleet of aircraft, good route planning and careful cost control

 

Will probably end up bigger than BMI and Alitalia :-)

 

Now if they would just lengthen the runway at Eastleigh, proper planes could fly in...

 

link to article this week

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/09/08/bcnflybe108.xml

Edited 15 September, 2008 by dubai_phil
added link

[Marsdinho]

Also, I think there were other factors involved. From what I can make out, XL haven't gone t1ts up just because of the current financial climate.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/61357/Auditor-s-XL-irregularity-warning

 

"The former auditor of collapsed tour operator XL warned of "financial irregularities" at the firm almost two years ago, it has emerged.

In a strongly-worded resignation letter, accountancy firm KPMG claimed in October 2006 that it was blocked from investigating alleged misrepresentations by company directors that could have resulted in "material errors" in financial statements."

Edited 15 September, 2008 by Marsdinho

[dubai_phil]

Also, I think there were other factors involved. From what I can make, out XL haven't gone t1ts up just because of the current financial climate.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/61357/Auditor-s-XL-irregularity-warning

 

"The former auditor of collapsed tour operator XL warned of "financial irregularities" at the firm almost two years ago, it has emerged.

In a strongly-worded resignation letter, accountancy firm KPMG claimed in October 2006 that it was blocked from investigating alleged misrepresentations by company directors that could have resulted in "material errors" in financial statements."

 

Hopefully they'll find something dubious that means West Ham have to pay back the money they received in sponsorship - nasty but nice

 

More to the point WHU owner is hit with a 152million quid bill for the loan guarantees

(you guys google it can't be ars*d)

[SW5 SAINT]

Hopefully they'll find something dubious that means West Ham have to pay back the money they received in sponsorship - nasty but nice

 

More to the point WHU owner is hit with a 152million quid bill for the loan guarantees

(you guys google it can't be ars*d)

 

Hopefull West Ham will be liable for the costs to repartriate all those stranded travellers!

[Window Cleaner]

T

Now if they would just lengthen the runway at Eastleigh, proper planes could fly in...

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/09/08/bcnflybe108.xml

 

What and knock down someone's allotment shed?,won't happen in our lifetime.

Little England rules OK.

If little england didn't rule we'd have been playing in a sensibly budgeted 30K styadium at Stoneham for donkey's year; might not be in the financial mire because of & 28 million quid mortgage at St Mary's, but then that might have displeased 2 grannies and a pekinese dog.

Edited 15 September, 2008 by Window Cleaner

[TopGun]

Aren't Flybe ordering new economical planes that use much less fuel.

 

The contract is worth billions, and keeps there costs well down compared to the likes of XL.

 

I'm sure I heard this on a news report looking into XL's rocketing costs and how only Flybe have predicted it and been proactive.

 

Flybe's Dash-8 turbo prop fleet uses about 25% less fuel on a journey than an equivalent short haul jet. If anything, they could expand to take over the routes of other airlines.

[Micky]

Isn't Tommac in the 'Aviation Industry', perhaps we could ask him to give us the low down on Flybe... errr then again - maybe not....!!!

[itchen]

What and knock down someone's allotment shed?,won't happen in our lifetime.

Little England rules OK.

If little england didn't rule we'd have been playing in a sensibly budgeted 30K styadium at Stoneham for donkey's year; might not be in the financial mire because of & 28 million quid mortgage at St Mary's, but then that might have displeased 2 grannies and a pekinese dog.

 

I was told by the airport MD that it's the width of the runway rather than the length that restricts the size of the planes (can't have engines overhanging the edges) and that BAA has no plans to change this. But we are getting way off topic...

[Fan The Flames]

Aren't Flybe ordering new economical planes that use much less fuel.

 

The contract is worth billions, and keeps there costs well down compared to the likes of XL.

 

I'm sure I heard this on a news report looking into XL's rocketing costs and how only Flybe have predicted it and been proactive.

 

Gliders.

 

Flybe are doing alright.

[Arizona]

I was told by the airport MD that it's the width of the runway rather than the length that restricts the size of the planes (can't have engines overhanging the edges) and that BAA has no plans to change this. But we are getting way off topic...

 

Southamptons runway is 1,723m. Ryanair will not fly to any airports with a runway less than 1,900m at the bare minimum. There are very few jets in service smaller than the 737s Ryanair opperate, other than the small regional jets flybe already uses.

 

Width could be a factor, but it would have to be a f*cking narrow runway for the engines to overhang the sides.

 

Edit: Just checked, Southampton's runway is 37m and 46 is pretty much bog standard for most airports, so they would probably have to widen it by about 9m.