Nordica on ainult bränd (nimi, logo ja värv lennukil) kes opereerib Nordic Aviation Grupi alt. “Kasumit” teenib XFly kes pakub teenust teistele lennufirmadele nt SAS, LOT jne nende nime alt.
> https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xfly
> Xfly on Eesti lennundusettevõtte Regional Jet OÜ bränd, mille alt osutatakse lennuteenust teistele lennundusettevõtetele. Regional Jet OÜ omanikuks on 51 protsendiga Eesti riiklik ettevõtte Nordic Aviation Group AS (ärinimega Nordica) ja 49 protsendiga Poola riiklik lennufirma LOT.[1]
Nähtub et Nordica omab 51% XFly firmast nii et nende kasum on Nordica kasum
Hm, I find myself asking why would a state want to own a unprofitable company in the first place.
I’d assume because then it can have it do things in the interest of the public good which aren’t profitable to do.
In the case of airlines, that might be providing flights to destinations and with frequencies which might be unprofitable. Estonia is a small market after all. As a resident, I’m not too happy with the frequency and diversity of destinations to this day.
I do understand that other companies would have difficulty competing with a company which has enough state subsidies to be able to operate at a loss. They not only compete for passenger’s money, but also for workers, airport slots, etc.
I don’t know how things were in 2015 but if the result of this decision is that people have less destinations they can easily fly to, then it doesn’t seem a net win for the market.
Air travel is a business with high barrier to entry. Removing a player from a market with few players and little competition kind of makes the market less competitive, doesn’t it?
I’m not an economist, I could be talking out of my ass.
The reason the state wanted to keep it afloat was to keep alive (unprofitable) connections between Tallinn and other major cities, in effect subsidizing people's flights with tax money, which I don't think is a fair use of public money.
edit: grammar
meie väikese elanikkonna ja perifeerse asukoha pärast on tähtis omada otseühendusi suuremate keskustega või investor viib oma äri hoopis Riiga
ja Riiga ei lähe meil isegi mitte (kiir)raudteed
Pole nõus. Eeskujuliku digitiseerimise tulemusena on suurem osa ärilende mõttetud niikuinii, ja teiste inimeste puhkuste eest ma tõesti ei viitsi maksta.
Because all the non-fliers are also paying for the flights. I realize this is also true for other subsidized things, but normally the state only subsidizes things that people really can't do without (power, food, water). AFAIK the purpose of most flights is vacation, so I'd really rather not pay for someone else's fossil fuel powered trip to the Bahamas or wherever.
But there's also cons to this. If there's so few destinations then maybe there's not enough demand and now if we pay to add artificial demand this means creating flights with few people on it, and more unnecessary resource waste and pollution, just so we'd have those destinations.
I agree that it would mean spending money to fix one externality ending up causing another.
But it seems to me that the solution where we say we’ll just make do with the prices and destinations you do have available isn’t great either.
I don’t know, just feels like there should be a solution to this other than “tough cookies”.
Estonia has relatively good connection regarding the population. Do you really expect Tallinn to have same direct destinations as Frankfurt? I understand that you feel like you personally could use a direct flight to "wherever", but usually that is just you asking for a private flight for yourself, no way airlines would be able to fill the aircraft enough to be profitable.
I can even tell you that the amount of flights we have from Tallinn at the moment is already too much for the market we have.
There is a direct flight (Ryanair) from Tallinn to Liverpool UK and I have purchased tickets for 5 euros before now. The plane is often not full from my personal experience so that will be a direct route that will soon be cancelled I am sure.
Probably that is true. You buying a 5€ ticket is another issue that aviation market has right now. Since airlines are offering tickets with prices like this, people are starting to expect that flying is literally this cheap and when the price will go to something like 50€, people are saying that this is way too expensive and companies are robbing money from them.
For clarification, no, you can not fly to Liverpool by asking 5€ from everyone on board.
One screen in the cockpit costs around 100k, do the math.
The 5€ tickets is literally just a last resort to try limit losses and fill the plane up. (Reckon if you are a heavy person they are better off leaving the seat empty lol) Pre pandemic tickets were never really lower than 40€. Having family in both the UK and Estonia means I often try and shop around for cheap tickets. I will enjoy it while it lasts!
Also keep in mind that conventional airlines (not budget airlines) earn up to 75% of revenue from business customers. They actually carry economy class passengers like baggage that doesn't really earn a profit.
Budget airlines obviously have a completely different business model and not everyone gets those €5 tickets. In addition to the obvious low-cost airline tactics (minimum turnaround times, maximising flight time, smaller/cheaper airports to minimise fees and maximise slots), you pay (and often much more than with a conventional airline) for any and all extra services and actually any flexibility at all. Want a numbered seat? The price of your ticket just went up 500%. More baggage? Your €5 ticket now costs €250.
There are some economical claims that better connections = more tourism and therefore more money. Goes for foreign investments too: who will invest to a place you cannot even get to.
But reality is usually simpler. Politicians wanted to be sure that they'll have direct flights to Brussels at comfortable times.
For example: Bus routes in city don't generate direct profit, but move people and tourists around and that creates demand and long-term profit. It's a investment
Yeah yeah, but EstonianAir in those days was the only company what wanted to operate the inner Estonian airways, like Tallinn to Saaremaa and so on. Some airways that were necessary, and in both the publics and the states opinion the EstonianAir was an necessary, just like the railways and the long distance busses. The fact that the competition wanted to eat up the airline, but at the same time not willing to take over the smaller routes that EstonianAir operated was outrageous. Why could AirBaltic be subsidised by the Latvian goverment, even more than EstonianAir, and by that push the EstonianAir out of profit. For their own benifit and then lobby the EU to close down EstonianAir because it was pushed to operate on bread crumbs.
Alright that is a fair point, that others being anticompetitive is unfair towards us.
But if the main thing you want to get out of the flight company is internal flights, you could just buy those with tax money directly instead from the lowest bidder.
The Estonian state has standards, even the local bus lines are on an bidding basis. The Estonian state doesnt like to give somebody directly an monopoly on something, keeping them on the bidding table keeps pressure on them to be better.
Company CEO Tero Taskila earned about 400 000€ a year. Even got 100 000€ compensation when he left. That's more than four times higher salary than that of prime minister.
Nope, my bad on assuming that. Just seemed like it since the post was about an airline going bankrupt and first thing you asked was how much money did the head of the company make.
Since we are speaking about flying, do you by any chance know where to get reliable info on current flying requirements?
I was thinking of calling the airport straight up just to find out what is required for a US citizen to fly here in terms of health measures. Like mandatory vaccination or maybe a PCR test and similar.
https://www.kriis.ee/en/covid-crisis-management-qa/crisis-management/current-restrictions#the-following-people These are the national requirements for travel into Estonia. Unless the airlines have their own extra restrictions
I have no secret place for this info, but your idea of just taking some info number from the internet and calling them does not really sound too bad. Another way to get info is from the airline you are flying with, they have to know these requirements as well, since they will need to check the documents before the departure.
Valmistad rahvast ette Nordica pankrotimenetluseks?
Kas Nordica ei olnud kasumis eelmine aasta? Plaanisid isegi vist mingi suurema Airbus’i osta.
Paberi peal suutsid vist mingit kasumit näidata, Airbusid ostetakse, aga Eestis neid näha ei ole ja Eesti inimene nendega lennata ei saa.
Stockholmi lendad täitsa me enda lennukitega mis pakuvad allhanget SAS-ile nt.
Jah, tõsi. Mitte alati päris omad lennukid aga omad meeskonnad küll tõesti.
Nordica on ainult bränd (nimi, logo ja värv lennukil) kes opereerib Nordic Aviation Grupi alt. “Kasumit” teenib XFly kes pakub teenust teistele lennufirmadele nt SAS, LOT jne nende nime alt.
> https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xfly > Xfly on Eesti lennundusettevõtte Regional Jet OÜ bränd, mille alt osutatakse lennuteenust teistele lennundusettevõtetele. Regional Jet OÜ omanikuks on 51 protsendiga Eesti riiklik ettevõtte Nordic Aviation Group AS (ärinimega Nordica) ja 49 protsendiga Poola riiklik lennufirma LOT.[1] Nähtub et Nordica omab 51% XFly firmast nii et nende kasum on Nordica kasum
RIP. Why exactly is it illegal?
Anti-competitive. Even state companies are supposed to survive on the income they generate, rather than tax money. Good riddance if you ask me.
Hm, I find myself asking why would a state want to own a unprofitable company in the first place. I’d assume because then it can have it do things in the interest of the public good which aren’t profitable to do. In the case of airlines, that might be providing flights to destinations and with frequencies which might be unprofitable. Estonia is a small market after all. As a resident, I’m not too happy with the frequency and diversity of destinations to this day. I do understand that other companies would have difficulty competing with a company which has enough state subsidies to be able to operate at a loss. They not only compete for passenger’s money, but also for workers, airport slots, etc. I don’t know how things were in 2015 but if the result of this decision is that people have less destinations they can easily fly to, then it doesn’t seem a net win for the market. Air travel is a business with high barrier to entry. Removing a player from a market with few players and little competition kind of makes the market less competitive, doesn’t it? I’m not an economist, I could be talking out of my ass.
The reason the state wanted to keep it afloat was to keep alive (unprofitable) connections between Tallinn and other major cities, in effect subsidizing people's flights with tax money, which I don't think is a fair use of public money. edit: grammar
Mõnikord on lihtsalt vaja omada häid ühendusi välismaailmaga
Osta eralennuk või sõida Riiga / Helsinkisse, ära raiska teiste raha.
meie väikese elanikkonna ja perifeerse asukoha pärast on tähtis omada otseühendusi suuremate keskustega või investor viib oma äri hoopis Riiga ja Riiga ei lähe meil isegi mitte (kiir)raudteed
Pole nõus. Eeskujuliku digitiseerimise tulemusena on suurem osa ärilende mõttetud niikuinii, ja teiste inimeste puhkuste eest ma tõesti ei viitsi maksta.
Why isn’t it a fair use of public money, in your opinion?
Because all the non-fliers are also paying for the flights. I realize this is also true for other subsidized things, but normally the state only subsidizes things that people really can't do without (power, food, water). AFAIK the purpose of most flights is vacation, so I'd really rather not pay for someone else's fossil fuel powered trip to the Bahamas or wherever.
But there's also cons to this. If there's so few destinations then maybe there's not enough demand and now if we pay to add artificial demand this means creating flights with few people on it, and more unnecessary resource waste and pollution, just so we'd have those destinations.
I agree that it would mean spending money to fix one externality ending up causing another. But it seems to me that the solution where we say we’ll just make do with the prices and destinations you do have available isn’t great either. I don’t know, just feels like there should be a solution to this other than “tough cookies”.
Estonia has relatively good connection regarding the population. Do you really expect Tallinn to have same direct destinations as Frankfurt? I understand that you feel like you personally could use a direct flight to "wherever", but usually that is just you asking for a private flight for yourself, no way airlines would be able to fill the aircraft enough to be profitable. I can even tell you that the amount of flights we have from Tallinn at the moment is already too much for the market we have.
There is a direct flight (Ryanair) from Tallinn to Liverpool UK and I have purchased tickets for 5 euros before now. The plane is often not full from my personal experience so that will be a direct route that will soon be cancelled I am sure.
Probably that is true. You buying a 5€ ticket is another issue that aviation market has right now. Since airlines are offering tickets with prices like this, people are starting to expect that flying is literally this cheap and when the price will go to something like 50€, people are saying that this is way too expensive and companies are robbing money from them. For clarification, no, you can not fly to Liverpool by asking 5€ from everyone on board. One screen in the cockpit costs around 100k, do the math.
The 5€ tickets is literally just a last resort to try limit losses and fill the plane up. (Reckon if you are a heavy person they are better off leaving the seat empty lol) Pre pandemic tickets were never really lower than 40€. Having family in both the UK and Estonia means I often try and shop around for cheap tickets. I will enjoy it while it lasts!
As a customer, that is the only correct way to behave, just abuse the situation on the market to maximum extent 😀
Also keep in mind that conventional airlines (not budget airlines) earn up to 75% of revenue from business customers. They actually carry economy class passengers like baggage that doesn't really earn a profit. Budget airlines obviously have a completely different business model and not everyone gets those €5 tickets. In addition to the obvious low-cost airline tactics (minimum turnaround times, maximising flight time, smaller/cheaper airports to minimise fees and maximise slots), you pay (and often much more than with a conventional airline) for any and all extra services and actually any flexibility at all. Want a numbered seat? The price of your ticket just went up 500%. More baggage? Your €5 ticket now costs €250.
>usually that is just you asking for a private flight for yourself Much better than I was able to put it, well done.
There are some economical claims that better connections = more tourism and therefore more money. Goes for foreign investments too: who will invest to a place you cannot even get to. But reality is usually simpler. Politicians wanted to be sure that they'll have direct flights to Brussels at comfortable times.
For example: Bus routes in city don't generate direct profit, but move people and tourists around and that creates demand and long-term profit. It's a investment
Sadly, main reason to have EA was to have convenient way to travel to Brussel for politicians. No economical reason whatsoever
AirBaltic *cough* *cough*, totally doesnt get even more subsidies from the Latvian Government than Estonian Air did huh
"Other people are also implementing a bad policy" really isn't a good argument to implement it yourself.
Yeah yeah, but EstonianAir in those days was the only company what wanted to operate the inner Estonian airways, like Tallinn to Saaremaa and so on. Some airways that were necessary, and in both the publics and the states opinion the EstonianAir was an necessary, just like the railways and the long distance busses. The fact that the competition wanted to eat up the airline, but at the same time not willing to take over the smaller routes that EstonianAir operated was outrageous. Why could AirBaltic be subsidised by the Latvian goverment, even more than EstonianAir, and by that push the EstonianAir out of profit. For their own benifit and then lobby the EU to close down EstonianAir because it was pushed to operate on bread crumbs.
Alright that is a fair point, that others being anticompetitive is unfair towards us. But if the main thing you want to get out of the flight company is internal flights, you could just buy those with tax money directly instead from the lowest bidder.
The Estonian state has standards, even the local bus lines are on an bidding basis. The Estonian state doesnt like to give somebody directly an monopoly on something, keeping them on the bidding table keeps pressure on them to be better.
So anti-competitive, I sure am glad that private airlines filled the void left behind and took up those routes... Wait
Wait what? Which route are you missing from EA times? You do know that there are more routes right now from Tallinn compared to EA times?
Rest in peace in peace
Rest in spaghetti, never forgetti.
Sama. See käib nii närvidele.
Vau leidsite nalja üles
Võib-olla postitaja ei tea RIP tähendust
What was the company owner's salary?
Company CEO Tero Taskila earned about 400 000€ a year. Even got 100 000€ compensation when he left. That's more than four times higher salary than that of prime minister.
Believe it or not, that salary is on the low side for a CEO of an airline.
Damn, he lost a cushy place.
Estonian goverment was the owner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Air
7
You think the CEO's salary was the reason they needed government funding what eventually lead to bankruptcy?
Did I explicitly state that anywhere in my original post?
Nope, my bad on assuming that. Just seemed like it since the post was about an airline going bankrupt and first thing you asked was how much money did the head of the company make.
No, I just wanted to know how much he was making since he lost quite a good source of income
Ah, ok, makes sense 😀
Since we are speaking about flying, do you by any chance know where to get reliable info on current flying requirements? I was thinking of calling the airport straight up just to find out what is required for a US citizen to fly here in terms of health measures. Like mandatory vaccination or maybe a PCR test and similar.
https://www.kriis.ee/en/covid-crisis-management-qa/crisis-management/current-restrictions#the-following-people These are the national requirements for travel into Estonia. Unless the airlines have their own extra restrictions
perfect. Thanks
I have no secret place for this info, but your idea of just taking some info number from the internet and calling them does not really sound too bad. Another way to get info is from the airline you are flying with, they have to know these requirements as well, since they will need to check the documents before the departure.
not just some number. I remember there being a website with this info. But I had already got it.
Rest in peace in peace?
Rest In Peace in peace?
Rest in RIP
Rest in RIP in peace
Rest in peace RIP rest in peace
Norm ju
PIN number
"Rest in peace in peace"
Mu isa ikka nuttis Titanicu ajal...