Member Info for big-blue

The next issue is, who the chuck hissed away 1.7bn on fuel purchase mismanagement? Is that an industry record? You've got what, 50% odd les flights but oer spend 1.7bn on fuel? Should't the SFO be called in?

Shares in Issue 4,963m, 4,963,000,000 1.7bn 1,700,000,000
That is 34p a share!
No heads going to role?

Anyway, the goons who filtered me will not have the clarification of what is actually in the RNS, only Hexam's version, and will therefore continue making investment errors listening to the echoes in the chamber. And more fool them.
I have a small holding in IAG which I wish I didn't have as sp recovery is going to be delayed now through Q1 as the 'significant' operating cost will weigh down the sp.
There you go.
I declare this Friday a KFC bargain bucket day.

Here we go again, back round the circle, the CEO DID NOT explicitly rule it out, like at lot of other people you only quoted an abridged statement used in some newspapers. The full statement was;
"""We have revolving credit facilities, we are analysing other ways of financing the group so we have alternatives before we [consider] another rights issue,""
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/ba-owner-iag-not-planning-tap-investors-funds-sunday-times-2021-09-19/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-wont-tap-city-for-emergency-funds-says-ba-owner-luis-gallego-mnz6szjtm

Today you are trying to claim the RNS indicates REVENUE will cover the expected operating loss in Q1, and the word SIGNIFICANT is used in the RNS. It is a warning of a black hole in the finances.

You might wish for and want revenue to cover it, the company is clearly advising it won't. There would have been a big bells and whistle statement if that was the case. It discusses the liquidity being more than sufficient to cover it.

The company expects liquidity to cover Q1. I expect that means, if the don't lose another billion on fuel purchase mismanagement, the chances of further fund raising is very low and would be in the form of a bond anyway.

The bottom line and end word is do not try and falsify what is in the RNS. You will be called out for it. You're reputation is in tatters and you are seen now as nothing but a ramping troll.

"It is perfectly possible with further advanced bookings for easter and summer"

I that were the case it would be set out in the stress tests. Liquidity is referenced for operating costs, not revenue. Do not claim or imply the RNS says something that it does not. That is deliberately misleading people.

YOU hope revenue 'might' cover operating costs rather than the company using its liquidity. The company is not saying revenue will or even 'might'. Stop trying to mislead people.

You've knowingly mixed the company declaration with your own ramping spin.
Show me anywhere in the RNS that states
"with continued advance bookings, doesn't necessarily mean the cash flow will be negative as well and therefore their ability to 'cover' Q1 may be impacted much less and possibly not at all."

It does not say anywhere income will cover expected Q1 operating loss - huge chunks of the RNS discuss credit and liquidity to continue operating to cover losses.

As clever as you think you are trying to polish the turd, the market doesn't agree.

"Revenue is not going to cover Q1' is misleading as cash flow very well might."

MIGHT??? That is gambling speculation and not suggested in the RNS anywhere. That's the kind of fake propaganda used to mislead people by covert ramping. And tat is trolling and that is why you and your mates work so hard to block my input.

You should be ashamed of yourself getting involved with that.

I posted exactly what was in the results and there is a clear and plain warning about Q1
"Trading outlook

A significant quarterly operating loss is expected for quarter 1, 2022 due to normal seasonality, the impact of Omicron on near-term bookings and the impact on operating costs of re-building capacity."

That isn't even buried, it is directly after CO statement.

If you have a problem with that, complain to the company.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/russia-lost-over-450-personnel-on-first-day-of-ukraine-attack-uk/2514278

I understand the mud I talked of week or so ago is a bit of a problem for the convoys too. This is no walk over.

Come on Hexham, what are you? Man or mouse? Post it.

10% risk of raising money to cover Q1, if it happens most likely via bonds.

What abuse? I challenge directly to post what I have said. Be honest.

10% risk of raising money to cover Q1, if it happens most likely via bonds.

Now tell the board what I said about the need to raise money, if you have an ounce of honesty in you.

Oh I get it Hexam. This was a covert message to everyone implying that I am being negative or deramping and therefore you wish to keep people filtering me so te do not have a wider input and can be ket under control. How pathetic.

My sources tell me there is a raid backlash growing in Russia. Also, the troops used at the spearhead of the ingres were conditioned to fire and kill and therefore reliable. The bulk of the follow up troops are not as reliable and more likely to shoot over heads. If your troops on the ground don't feel the cause in their guts, if they question what they are doing, if they start thinking, then they are a weak force.

With revolt growing in the Kremlin, growing unrest on the streets and unsure troops now getting more involved, this could be over by Monday. I don't think it is wishful think either.

Twist what narrative? Did you read anything I said or just auto post?

debt increases 1.9bn, fuel hedging loss 1.7bnSo the increase in debt was due to ****ing away fuel spending thanks to some twat in accounts thinking they are cleverer than anyone else.
Any way for now I put the risk of raising money from markets at 10% and of that is would most likely be by bonds.

"A significant quarterly operating loss is expected for quarter 1, 2022"
Put the Q1 interim date in your diary for a dump just before and buy back a week later!

"the Group had derivative contracts for which there was no corresponding purchase of jet fuel, leading to discontinuance of hedge accounting for these derivatives, with a mark-to-market loss of €1,781 million recognised as an exceptional charge in the Income statement.

1.7bn loss hedging fuel. WTF! Heads must role tat is a major error.

"Gross debt increased by €3,931 million"...." Cash increased by €2,026 million, leading to net debt €1,905 million higher at €11,667 million."

"The debt actions above resulted in total 'Proceeds from borrowings' for the year of €4,817 million."
"• The Group has assumed that the committed and undrawn general facilities of €2.9 billion will not be drawn over the going concern period. The availability of certain of these facilities reduces over time, with €2.7 billion being available to the Group at the end of the going concern period;

• The Group has assumed that of the committed and undrawn aircraft specific facilities of €1.1 billion, €0.9 billion would be available to be drawn over the going concern period if required, but is not expected to be drawn;"

"Having reviewed the Base Case, Downside Case, Downside Lockdown Case and additional sensitivities, the Directors have a reasonable expectation that the Group has sufficient liquidity to continue in operational existence over the going concern period and hence continue to adopt the going concern basis in preparing the consolidated financial statements for the year to December 31, 2021."

Still have cash in bank and credit to draw down on. However, what will major shareholders want? Draw more credit to get through Q1, or fund Q1 raising money from markets? There is a black hole warning although there are stress tests. There is no explicit reference to raising money which can be good but also bad as not ruled out. Raising new money is now a lower probability, perhaps 10% depending on what the board decides for funding the debt. Revenue is not going to cover Q1.

What about the ordnance?

Why do you feel the need to say you filtered me? What is the purpose of such a statement?

https://112.international/ukraine-top-news/severe-fights-reported-in-pishchevik-donetsk-region-70083.html

If they get there! And the 5000 German helmets have't been deployed yet. This potentially could turn into humiliation or Russia yet. However, Ukraine is big enough for battlefield nukes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

I Putin senses losing, I think he will use them. That is what the testing was all about. We now know he isn't just posturing.

"destructive, divisive and near totally chaos creating nature of the man"

I hear a lot of people say things like this, but have yet to hear of any concrete examples. He was not woke, for sure, and that seems to have rattled the cages. He was proof that the elite did not have the great unwashed subjugated. He also acted independently of the TV gods, and they spent 4 years automatically spinning every single issue and utterance against him. Pelosi and the whole Washington establishment spent 4 years trying to dig up any dirt they cloud and failed. And the only way to defeat im as with very dubious last minute changes in key election states to allow mysterious voting patterns and then close down all routes to investigate vote rigging claims despite the previous 4 years one log ever ending investigation trying to prove Trump rigged his win.

STINKS!