This is a Singapore Airline (SIA) blog . The stories are written by an ex cabin crew. The stories are about the crew of SIA, especially concerning cabin crew and pilots.
I think the most profitable subsidiary might be SIA Engineering or, for that matter, any aircraft engineering company. In the case of SQ group, SIA Engeering has a captive market (comprising SIA and subsidaries' fleet of aircraft). Whether an airline makes money or not, their plane has to go through the mandatory checks in the first place. There's also the maintenance and repairs. Apart from SQ group, some smaller airlines do not have an engineering subsidiary and might have to consider SIA Engineering, it be a trusted name.
I share Kaypoh's sentiment. In the aftermath of another corona virus pandemic about 20 years ago, "someone" suggested that SIA should divest SIAEC so that SIA could focus on its core business. While SATS was (unfortunately) divested based on the advice of "someone", thankfully some folks then had the wisdom to still keep SIAEC in the fold.
Looking at SATS today, as well as their growth trajectory; you can imagine how much more powerful SIA could have been had the advise of "someone" been considered in greater detail before letting SATS go. It is one thing wearing the uniform and supporting the operations of the golden bird; than doing the same thing and being part of the golden bird family - I daresay the motivations and culture in turn would be very different.
I agree with KRISFLYTIM's observations and comments over the privatisation of SATS. Like SIAC, it had a captive market (or almost, until CIAS moved in). KRISFLYTIM also recapped a very relevant thought and phrase at that time, which was "focus on its core business". At that time, this was the trend and DBS also took the same step. If you all will recall, DBS Bank had a subsidiary known as DBS Land, which was in the real estate business. "Someone" there also suggested divesting DBS Land, so that DBS Bank can "focus on its core business". I think the financials of SIA Group might be different if SATS is still part of the Group. Amongst other reasons, SIAEC and SATS will not have the same worrying factors as SIA, like intensive competition from budget carriers, accelerated depreciation of its assets (the main bulk of which is the fleet of aircrafts), increasing fuel prices (hedging will help up to a certain extent only), etc. So, what will the "someone" say now? Well, he might well argue that , if the subsidiary company was not privatised, it might not grow so big. Well, rightly or wrongly, that's all history now.
I agree with KRISFLYTIM's observations and comments over the privatisation of SATS. Like SIAC, it had a captive market (or almost, until CIAS moved in). KRISFLYTIM also recapped a very relevant thought and phrase at that time, which was "focus on its core business". At that time, this was the trend and DBS also took the same step. If you all will recall, DBS Bank had a subsidiary known as DBS Land, which was in the real estate business. "Someone" there also suggested divesting DBS Land, so that DBS Bank can "focus on its core business". I think the financials of SIA Group might be different if SATS is still part of the Group. Amongst other reasons, SIAEC and SATS will not have the same worrying factors as SIA, like intensive competition from budget carriers, accelerated depreciation of its assets (the main bulk of which is the fleet of aircrafts), increasing fuel prices (hedging will help up to a certain extent only), etc. So, what will the "someone" say now? Well, he might well argue that , if the subsidiary company was not privatised, it might not grow so big. Well, rightly or wrongly, that's all history now.
6 comments:
I think the most profitable subsidiary might be SIA Engineering or, for that matter, any aircraft engineering company. In the case of SQ group, SIA Engeering has a captive market (comprising SIA and subsidaries' fleet of aircraft). Whether an airline makes money or not, their plane has to go through the mandatory checks in the first place. There's also the maintenance and repairs. Apart from SQ group, some smaller airlines do not have an engineering subsidiary and might have to consider SIA Engineering, it be a trusted name.
I share Kaypoh's sentiment. In the aftermath of another corona virus pandemic about 20 years ago, "someone" suggested that SIA should divest SIAEC so that SIA could focus on its core business. While SATS was (unfortunately) divested based on the advice of "someone", thankfully some folks then had the wisdom to still keep SIAEC in the fold.
Looking at SATS today, as well as their growth trajectory; you can imagine how much more powerful SIA could have been had the advise of "someone" been considered in greater detail before letting SATS go. It is one thing wearing the uniform and supporting the operations of the golden bird; than doing the same thing and being part of the golden bird family - I daresay the motivations and culture in turn would be very different.
I agree with KRISFLYTIM's observations and comments over the privatisation of SATS. Like SIAC, it had a captive market (or almost, until CIAS moved in). KRISFLYTIM also recapped a very relevant thought and phrase at that time, which was "focus on its core business". At that time, this was the trend and DBS also took the same step. If you all will recall, DBS Bank had a subsidiary known as DBS Land, which was in the real estate business. "Someone" there also suggested divesting DBS Land, so that DBS Bank can "focus on its core business". I think the financials of SIA Group might be different if SATS is still part of the Group. Amongst other reasons, SIAEC and SATS will not have the same worrying factors as SIA, like intensive competition from budget carriers, accelerated depreciation of its assets (the main bulk of which is the fleet of aircrafts), increasing fuel prices (hedging will help up to a certain extent only), etc. So, what will the "someone" say now? Well, he might well argue that , if the subsidiary company was not privatised, it might not grow so big. Well, rightly or wrongly, that's all history now.
KayPoh aka BusyBody
I agree with KRISFLYTIM's observations and comments over the privatisation of SATS. Like SIAC, it had a captive market (or almost, until CIAS moved in). KRISFLYTIM also recapped a very relevant thought and phrase at that time, which was "focus on its core business". At that time, this was the trend and DBS also took the same step. If you all will recall, DBS Bank had a subsidiary known as DBS Land, which was in the real estate business. "Someone" there also suggested divesting DBS Land, so that DBS Bank can "focus on its core business". I think the financials of SIA Group might be different if SATS is still part of the Group. Amongst other reasons, SIAEC and SATS will not have the same worrying factors as SIA, like intensive competition from budget carriers, accelerated depreciation of its assets (the main bulk of which is the fleet of aircrafts), increasing fuel prices (hedging will help up to a certain extent only), etc. So, what will the "someone" say now? Well, he might well argue that , if the subsidiary company was not privatised, it might not grow so big. Well, rightly or wrongly, that's all history now.
KayPoh aka BusyBody
Ah....further to my earlier post, forgot to mention that [the previous] DBS Land is now CapitaLand, one of the big players in the real estate sector.
KayPoh aka BusyBody
Post a Comment