Someone flew over the Cuckoo’s nest. Alitalia: "a real mess"
For the carrier, the most tragic period of its existence
Alitalia lives the most dramatic period of its existence and the compulsory administration, that could and was supposed to be an important incentive for at least a partial renovation, actually it is revealing to be a choice that does not solve the problem at all. Let us see why, taking in consideration the poor information by the company.
· Nothing has been done during costs reorganization if not a revision of the fuel supply contract limited to the handling part that oppressed Alitalia, a contract in perfect conflict of interest with the same banks that were shareholders. The aircraft operating costs have basically remained with the aggravating factor that many top managers’ layoff has further destabilized the company internal processes. Other top managers, linked to Gubitosi from previous working experience, were hired but they are not related to the aviation field.
· The commissioners have never submitted any three-month report as, instead, is expected by the law concerning big companies in extraordinary administration and so far no one knows the balance sheet related to the year 2016 nor the Alitalia clear property.
· In the absence of a clear reorganization strategy, both the company internal processes and the maintenance are moving forward more by inertia its responsibles’ willingness and not according to clear indications.
· Whoever is going to buy Alitalia today is going to buy a brand whose goodwill is not available in the extraordinary administration availability. Indeed, during “Brave Captains” management, in order to cover the poor economical results, a company called “Alitalia loyalty” was created ad hoc, on which the real treasure of Alitalia, or the customer loyalty program called Mille Miglia spun off. The majority of this company was then sold to the Arabic Etihad that acquired the only element of true value. Alitalia loyalty, unlike Alitalia SAI, has not been declared insolvent, i.e. it has not gone into default and therefore the state is owned by the Arab and clearly the extraordinary administration has no power to sell the real treasure of the company, or customers’ loyalty, or its own market segment. Thus, considering that the true value of Alitalia is and remains essentially the goodwill that, as evidenced is not in the availability of the seller, here it is explained the arcane. The Arabs of Etihad could reclaim Alitalia "cleaned up" of many managers and staff for a few Euros and then rejoin it to Loyalty.
Are we mischievous to hypothesize this possibility? The commissioners, and in particular the loquacious Gubitosi, could deny us by answering these simple questions:
In this year of temporary receivership (whose end is not foreseen)
- what has been done about the renegotiation of aircraft leasing?
- what has been done to improve fuel purchase management, and today, how much does Alitalia spend on fuel?
- what is the income market positioning strategy?
- what has been done to improve the efficiency of internal processes that have always been too expensive?
· Are there any checks on the appropriateness of the take-off and landing permits (slots) value on Heathrow airport, sold, as written in the 2015 budget, for 12 million dollars each when it is known that other airlines have sold the same slots at about 70 million dollars each? And if so, were the statutory communications made in the three-month reports?
· Could the commissioners inform Italian citizens, who are financing Alitalia with the bridge-loan, on the economic-financial performance of the company, or they could explain why, as has been declared, besides the 600 million euros of money not used is there the need of a further 300 million euro loan of public money?
· Can the commissioners now exclude the interest of Etihad from the purchase of Alitalia's assets?
· How come the credit monitoring committee has not been appointed by MISE (Italian Economic Development Ministry) so far? What is the reason for this anomaly, in spite of the provisions of the law?
· Has the so-called report pursuant to art. 33 bankruptcy law -that requires the commissioners/curators to report the delegated judge, the prosecutor and the creditors on the causes of the failure – drawn up?
· How distinguished professionals hired by this extraordinary administration have accepted to be part of a company that should be sold in a short time to a foreign operator who would certainly appoint people of its total trust in those places? What is the logic of these changes?
We could go on with further questions, but already responding to these the commissioners could usefully inform the public opinion.
© World Aeronautical Press Agency Srl