REX Financially Secure?

[p--and--t]

Under current economic conditions there is no rush to scale up
VA original (VB) was able to get flying within months not years
Worse for creditors? - Bidders have no concern for the interest of creditors.

While everyone is doing a distracted sticky beak at the VA crash and burn, no one is looking at who is coming in out of left field (I have no intel) .

AirNZ- what are they doing? Whats to stop AirNZ setting up an AirNZ Aus subsidiary?

...and a profitable established REX in the wings allegedly sucessfully raising finance to fund expansion

 

[BNEFlyer]

...and a profitable established REX in the wings allegedly sucessfully raising finance to fund expansion

The only reason Rex didn't go under is because the government gave them millions of dollars two months ago. They were in a worse position than VA, and if there's any truth to them raising the $200m of finance, that doesn't mean they'll be successful with the jets.

 

[muppet]

The only reason Rex didn't go under is because the government gave them millions of dollars two months ago. They were in a worse position than VA, and if there's any truth to them raising the $200m of finance, that doesn't mean they'll be successful with the jets.

That’s right!
And REX didn’t raise anything. The ASX suspended REX shares while the chairman clarified his lies.

 

[Quickstatus]

And REX didn’t raise anything. The ASX suspended REX shares while the chairman clarified his lies.

Yes. read it here
A quick walkback and no mention of the $200m

 

[dajop]

They were in a worse position than VA.

I don't really think so. Rex wouldn't have been in administration yet with some government funding. They just wouldn't be flying at all.

So a company that claims it had enough cash to survive the next six months, and has never made a loss in its 17 year history, with owned fleet and no substantial debt was in a worse position than a company that hadn't made a profit for >10 years and had not only huge debts, but massive lease obligations?

Rex only got government money to keep some services going, and destinations served - they were basically threatening to stop all services, because it would cost money to operate any service than they could ever hope to receive in revenue from such a service.

Don't forget that VA and QF are also getting money to keep a certain interstate network going and QF Link and VARA getting money for some regional services.

 

[p--and--t]

The only reason Rex didn't go under is because the government gave them millions of dollars two months ago. They were in a worse position than VA,

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

 

[BNEFlyer]

I don't really think so. Rex wouldn't have been in administration yet with some government funding. They just wouldn't be flying at all.

So a company that claims it had enough cash to survive the next six months, and has never made a loss in its 17 year history, with owned fleet and no substantial debt was in a worse position than a company that hadn't made a profit for >10 years and had not only huge debts, but massive lease obligations?

Rex only got government money to keep some services going, and destinations served - they were basically threatening to stop all services, because it would cost money to operate any service than they could ever hope to receive in revenue from such a service.

Don't forget that VA and QF are also getting money to keep a certain interstate network going and QF Link and VARA getting money for some regional services.

Rex got a bailout and is part of the Fed Govt minimum domestic network with QF and VA, which makes none of them any money.

Post automatically merged: May 21, 2020

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Rex would have stood down 90% of staff without bailout

Regional Express (Rex) and the Airlines for Australia and New Zealand industry group have both welcomed Saturday's $298 million government bailout for the regional airline industry.

australianaviation.com.au

 

[jakeseven7]

Maybe the REX dogfight can move to its own thread

Back on topic, Feds say no thanks again to VA1.

Govt rejects another bailout push for Virgin Australia

The Morrison Government has rejected another push by Queensland to bail out embattled airline Virgin Australia. Administrators admitted the airline did not have enough funding to remain operational beyond June. While all requests for financial support were rejected, the government insisted it...

www.skynews.com.au

 

[p--and--t]

Rex got a bailout and is part of the Fed Govt minimum domestic network with QF and VA, which makes none of them any money.

Post automatically merged: May 21, 2020

Rex would have stood down 90% of staff without bailout

Regional Express (Rex) and the Airlines for Australia and New Zealand industry group have both welcomed Saturday's $298 million government bailout for the regional airline industry.

australianaviation.com.au

Prior to Feb 2020

REX - profit every year for as far back as anyone can remember, own their own fleet, no concerning debt load

VA - unprofitable for 8+ years, insurmountable debts, very few assets, teetering

After Feb 2020

Every airline in the entire world - struggling because of covid and no passenger demand, downsizing staff, fleets and ditching services, many will not survive, a dozen already in receivership

 

[p--and--t]

Interesting new thread title created by admin.

I'm no REX "fan boy".

While I don't know the guy, Sharp seems to come out with some brash & misleading statements with regularity. I find some of their fares nothing less than eye-wateringly gouging and the onboard service nothing to write home about.

However, they appear to run a tight ship, service a market in many places no-one else does and make a consistent profit in a cutthroat industry where many fail every year. I've had the choice on a few occasions, pay their fare for a 40 min trip or take a 4.5 hour train ride.

What happens after covid is subject to conjecture but a fairly safe bet they are in as good a position as anyone else to come out of it at the other end.

 

[Quickstatus]

I find some of their fares nothing less than eye-wateringly gouging

It usually means the cheaper fares on that flight have gone.
But they make a profit and is financially sound.
What do we want as the flying public.

Often cheap fares and financial stability don’t mix.

 

[p--and--t]

Often cheap fares and financial stability don’t mix.

...and even sometimes not cheap fares, poorly run, unsound financially (not referring to REX)

 

[flydoc]

Interesting announcement by Rex to the ASX after close of trading today, basically pushing back against recent media commentary and setting out the recent distribution of Commonwealth government assistance to the various airlines as they see it. They suggest they’ve received no more or less than their proportional ‘entitlement’.

They also state they have
- paid their fair share of Federal and State taxes over the past two decades (I’ve not trawled their annual reports to ascertain the quantum of this )
- provided secure employment (certainly the positions exist but I’m lead to believe pay and conditions contribute to churn on the flightdeck)
- provided ‘reliable and affordable air services to regional and remote communities which may not otherwise have been serviced’ (generally reliable, yes...but no mention of the subsidies that keep these routes viable/relatively affordable )

https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20200604/pdf/44jdb0rvm5pxf1.pdf

 

[farmboy]

The only reason Rex didn't go under is because the government gave them millions of dollars two months ago. They were in a worse position than VA, and if there's any truth to them raising the $200m of finance, that doesn't mean they'll be successful with the jets.

No. Rex were never in danger of 'going under'. And any comparison with Virgin is ridiculous, Rex has made consistent profits for most of eighteen years. And owns its 60 odd planes.
What they did say was that, post pandemic, they could not continue to fly to the remote small towns, without government support. None of the other airlines go anywhere near many of Rex's destinations.
If the government had not come good with support, those towns would have been abandoned. Many are small but are the centre of billion dollar export earning business.
No government support would have meant instant service withdrawal by Rex.
With no debt and plenty of assets, it could hardly be considered broke.

 

[cove]

We are supportive shareholders of REX because they service so much of country Australia. Without REX there would be folks driving long distances so we view this airline as essential. Airlines are not an easy business.
When most of us live in or near a major city we need to be mindful of our 3 million square mile country so it can be developed properly.

 

[jakeseven7]

Feels like we need @RAM analysis here

 

[jakeseven7]

Would be a little bit weird a fleet of REX painted ex-VA1 birds flying around. I wonder if they would keep VA1's old J class too?

-------
REX CLOSE TO DEAL FOR 737S TO FLY SYDNEY-MELBOURNE-BRISBANE


Rex has today announced it’s close to a deal to lease six 737-800 NG aircraft to fly its new network between Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

It’s not known whether these are the same aircraft previously used by Virgin Australia before it took the decision to trim its 737 fleet.

The news comes after Rex revealed it was in advanced negotiations with an APAC investment firm to secure $150 million of investment to launch the new domestic network in March 2021.

On Wednesday, the regional airline announced it had signed a letter of intent with two lessors that will see three of the Boeing aircraft ready to fly between Sydney and Melbourne at launch, with another two to follow by Easter and the final one shortly after.

Rex close to deal for 737s to fly Sydney-Melbourne-Brisbane

Rex has announced it’s close to a deal to lease six 737-800 NG aircraft to fly its new network between Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

australianaviation.com.au

 

[DC3]

It usually means the cheaper fares on that flight have gone.
But they make a profit and is financially sound.
What do we want as the flying public.

Often cheap fares and financial stability don’t mix.

Well, yes. Rex is not a Good Samaritan, and doesn’t claim to be as far as I know. It’s a business that needs to make a financial return. Any airline is a risky business in my view.

 

[farmboy]

Interesting announcement by Rex to the ASX after close of trading today, basically pushing back against recent media commentary and setting out the recent distribution of Commonwealth government assistance to the various airlines as they see it. They suggest they’ve received no more or less than their proportional ‘entitlement’.

They also state they have
- paid their fair share of Federal and State taxes over the past two decades (I’ve not trawled their annual reports to ascertain the quantum of this )
- provided secure employment (certainly the positions exist but I’m lead to believe pay and conditions contribute to churn on the flightdeck)
- provided ‘reliable and affordable air services to regional and remote communities which may not otherwise have been serviced’ (generally reliable, yes...but no mention of the subsidies that keep these routes viable/relatively affordable )

“...but no mention of the subsidies that keep these routes viable/relatively affordable )”
Surely that issue has been done to death by the Fin Review and other papers. Rex made its cobsistent profits over the last 18 tears with no subsidy.
It beggars belief that the subsidy now enabling Rex to keep servicing a lot of rural areas that the elites will never service, - still attracts so much derision. A rather selfish narrow minded view.
What most forget is that many tiny remote towns serve areas that have a GDP that is bigger than some small countries.

 

[Melburnian1]

So far the sharemarket likes Rex's mooted expansion.

I am yet to be convinced it'll be sustainable or profitable, as I vaguely remember the Compass Mk I and II days, although have long forgotten what exactly led to each's demise. History may not perfectly repeat, but it can be somewhat of a guide. It suggests the survival of 'the third airline' is unlikely. More recently, VA 1.0 never made money, and QF's finances are questionable according to our man RAM.

However, Rex might surprise with foreign-owned VA 2.0 the casualty. I wonder if Bain thought it would have the depressed demand 'semi-post-COVID trading environment' it and other airlines face?