AirBaltic published its financials last week. The press release suggested your first half-year indicators were stellar.

They were.

Were they really? That is only half the truth, as you sported a hefty loss, which you did not mention in your press release. Does it seem fair to owners and customers to only present financials in a certain light?

The way airBaltic reports its half-year or quarterly results has always worked on the same basis, as we have bonds on the Dublin exchange. Looking at our results, I believe every educated economic expert can interpret them the same way, namely that the value of our bonds has grown. That is the fact of record results the airline presented.

The six-months loss of €88.8 million is also a fact.

Our net loss for the half-year did indeed come to €88.8 million. Nothing about it is a secret. Net loss will affect the value of our equity if it persists at the end of the year. But that does nothing to change the business. We have been done very well for ourselves, and it is the most successful half-year airBaltic has reported.

Should the net loss persist, however, how much longer can you keep going? Until the end of the year?

Cash flow is not the same as net loss. The dollar exchange rate shift as of June 30, which is when our financials were locked down, created a loss of €16 million for us. If we calculated it now, we would be in the black, as even a one-cent variation in the exchange rate has an effect of €4.9 million on our results. Therefore, airBaltic remains the most successful airline in the Baltics after 28 years.

Still, your bonds sport an interest of 14.5 percent. Why so high? Why were you unable to raise funds with a lower interest rate?

Because the market did not comply. So it is a combination of the market, our geopolitical situation, but even more our debt. If we analyze our balance, we see that our loans amount to €1.3 billion. Add to that the geopolitical risk and you end up with this interest rate.

Are your financials good enough for airBaltic to be listed?

That is up to the people whose business it is to greenlight the move. What mattered to airBaltic was investor feedback to our half-year results, which saw the value of bonds grow.

When you were trying to attract investors and were also negotiating with the Estonian government...

We did not negotiate anything with the Estonian government.

Alright, talked to...

Exactly, we had a conversation.

... with the Estonian government. Why didn't the government negotiate with you? Why was there no interest on the Estonian side?

Our two neighbors (Estonia and Lithuania – ed.) had asked us for a meeting. I met with them and explained airBaltic's plans for the future. We did not discuss a stake, because that it up to the owner, and we know who owns airBaltic. I do not negotiate over stakes in the company. But I believe every government worth its salt wants to ask questions, especially regarding airBaltic as the backbone of connections to and from Estonia.

Rail Baltica is owned by all three Baltic countries, while only Latvia is behind airBaltic. Would it be sensible for Estonia and Lithuania to own a stake in airBaltic?

Its three owners should do everything in their power to see Rail Baltica succeed, as it is a major infrastructure project in need of serious investments. While airBaltic also forms a part of infrastructure, we are competing at the private market. An airline jointly owned by several countries does not constitute a good business model, as evidenced in the example of SAS.

Climate change is also causing turbulence in the sector, if you'll excuse the pun, alongside other challenges. How do you see the future?

The sector is growing in general, with Asia – China and India – the main locomotives. There are 1.4 billion people in India, most of whom have never flown. Some of them will take their first flight in the next 20 year, which means hundreds of millions of people. So globally speaking, aviation is a growing field.

But it is also a difficult time because we don't have enough planes, engines and spare parts. We outgrew our parts supply.

We also need to rise to the challenge of flying emissions-free by 2050. We are taking various measures, testing different kinds of engines in order to be carbon neutral by then. But people will still fly after 2050 and tell stories of how planes used to have emissions. It's like the case of electric vehicles – people will simply forget there used to be planes that needed fuel.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!