Author: Ilona Bērziņa/Opinion piece
Unfortunately, it is more and more likely that the half a billion of taxpayers’ money provided by the government to airBaltic will have been wasted in the end. There is no sight of the initial public offering (IPO), but there are plenty of various oddities. It seems that airBaltic has basically cheated around 67 000 passengers who were supposed to fly out on 4 670 flights this summer, and no one cares.
There are more questions than answers, but the people who have calmly allowed the Latvian national airline to land in a ditch are hiding behind the back of aircraft engine manufacturer “Pratt & Whitney”. The manufacturer’s inability to provide timely engine maintenance is to blame for everything – airBaltic is not at fault here.
Does anyone in the government really think that Martin Gauss, CEO and chairman of the board of airBaltic, who tolerated all this congestion, is a good CEO of our national airline and honestly earns those eight hundred thousand euros a year?
What were those insurmountable obstacles that prevented the maintenance of these engines from being carried out portion of the aircraft, then again for the next batch, etc.?
Was it really not possible to distribute work across a smaller number of aircraft in different time periods? If there was none, then for what reason? I also directed these and other questions to airBaltic’s corporate communications department, and I am looking forward to answers.
The most important question – why did the announcement about the cancellation of 4 670 flights appear on the first workday for 2025 – the 2nd of January? I don’t think some high-ranking officer at “Pratt & Whitney” decided to call up Martin Gauss to tell him: listen, we can’t finish the maintenance on engines. The fact that there would be problems with engine maintenance was obvious for a long time, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some clever person had the idea to inflate the financial indexes in this whole situation. Let’s not forget that in the first half-year airBaltic operated with losses worth nearly EUR 90 million. The media were told this is “mainly due to the expected deficit of “Pratt & Whitney” engines in 2024, as well as accelerated depreciation costs due to full engine maintenance ahead of schedule, partly due to problems with the supply of metal powder”.
We have to conclude that airBaltic was well-aware as early as August that there would be problems with engine maintenance, and, knowing full-well the majority of flights would have to be cancelled, still went on selling tickets for flights of aircraft with unmaitained engines.
But perhaps it is still possible to reserve tickets on airBaltic website for the flights that are already on the chopping block? Am I the only one who finds such treatment of customers unacceptable? Why proudly announce opening new destinations if you’re planning to close them back down very soon?
The report from the media from the 4th of September, 2024. “The Latvian airline airBaltic continues to expand its route network by launching flights from Riga to four new destinations – Cluj-Napoca, Mykonos, Rzeszów and Stavanger. The new destinations provide customers with a wide range of travel options, offering leisure, business and onward connectivity needs.”
And now the media report from the 2nd of January 2025. “During the summer season, the airline will cancel flights on 10 routes from Riga – to Aberdeen, Belgrade, Cluj-Napoca, Yerevan, Gothenburg, Mykonos, Pristina, Rzeszów, Skopje and Stavanger.” Passengers didn’t even get the chance to get used to getting from Riga to Stavanger and we’re already shutting them down? Stories that passengers are understanding and will not worry too much about the cancellation of flights are unlikely to be true. As sad as it is to admit, Latvia’s national airline is already not considered to be particularly passenger-friendly. There is no shortage of stories about rude stewards and passengers abandoned by the airline. Reading those reports, one gets the impression – “we didn’t let them on because we could!” It’s that simple.
Of course Minister of Transport Kaspars Briškens was quick to demonstrate his shock over this situation. He even wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that “airline management’s reluctance to publicly explain their decision is unacceptable”. But Mr Briškens! The Ministry of Transport is the holder of the shares owned by the Latvian state in Air Baltic Corporation, and the share owned by the state is considerable – 97.14%. Lars Tussen’s “Aircraft Leasing”, with is minuscule 3.86%, is unlikely to be conductor of this parade.
Perhaps the Ministry of Transport should also look into airBaltic’s decision to lease 21 of its aircraft to the German Lufthansa? Otherwise it becomes odd – a portion of airBaltic’s flights are performed by other airlines, passenger opinions on which vary between “bad” and “very bad”, whereas our best aircraft are used by others and a portion of airBaltic’s fleet remains idle without appropriate engine maintenance.