Today could well be a good day for the Zimbabwe and her people, with some dramatic news from Harare. Longstanding dictator Robert Mugabe is under house arrest, with the Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA) taking control, meaning it is likely the evil old man will be forced out at long last.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-41997982

Leaving aside the political ramifications, which is not this thread's remit, it would be good to - in the light of this potentially optimistic development for this beautiful country and her people who I hold dear to my heart - gauge your views on the future of the country's aviation sector and the national airline Air Zimbabwe.

Air Zim has recently apparently been undergoing a rebrand to Zimbabwe Airways, at least for long haul flights, but also possibly for regional, and domestic too. Yet this has been called into question on several occasions, especially when it appears that Mugabe's son in law is involved with the new company, which some say is a vehicle to sideline Air Zim:

http://www.iol.co.za/news/special-featu ... e-11760744

It'd be good to hear your views on affairs. Some questions to start may include:

* What are your views on today's developments and their impact on Air Zimbabwe and Zim aviation?
* Will Zimbabwe Airways ever get off the ground?
* What will be the impact on a change of leadership on new services; could we see BA among others finally return, among others?

Plus it would be good to discuss any other points you all feel may be of interest.

Mods and others...if you feel it pertinent, we could turn this into a Zimbabwe Aviation Thread. I for one would contribute regularly and hope others would too. Now might be a good time.

Best wishes
The Lion

I guess we won’t see the Air Zimbabwe 767 at SWF any more. Someone in the government likes to go shopping at Woodbury Commons apparently.

This is for the UK government to decide.

Much to soon to say anything at all. let's just wait and see.

Has anyone heard from, or, secured Tsvangirai?

In reality, he remains the nation's one great hope.

Let's be pragmatic in the following fact;
If not this, death would have rid us of the Robert Mugabe regime sooner, than later. The fate of the nation's political future was soon to be determined, by any time line.

I do not see a direct, representative democracy being allowed to take control of the nation, immediately;
Consider, here, how the last elections were handled, and then compose them against the canvas of criticism, and international reactions (incrimination).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwea ... tion,_2013

Either under a military led junta, or preferably under a Tsvangirai led democratic government (which might indeed be more successful if implemented as a medium-term goal) - the nation would likely better be served towards the purpose of direct foreign investment. The direct cause and rod of Mugabe's strength has been nationalization. Future generations (and with him having held to his position for such a long term), have likely softened towards such attitudes. How have the current Mugabe generations fared, with their investment portfolios? They certainly neither fear nor loathe the neo-colonialism of the P.R.C.'s 'debt financing'. So, even if the the current reigns of the nation are handed over to another Mugabe - it's likely that even there too, direct foreign investment will open up too - but in a much more 'controlled' form.


This leads to my point about how crucial foreign capital will be in order to (re)build some of the necessary infrastructure to court the transportation industries. If, in any way, Zimbabwe were to 'open-up' - it is going to need to have the infrastructure in place to do so. This will also be a fruitful time to make changes to (and/or more clearly see the realities of the market) - Air Zimbabwe (and perhaps, the entire aviation market as a whole). By that I mean, perhaps the entire notion of how the airline is run, and the airports designed - should be re-done.

Case in point;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZimbabweIn 2016, the total contribution of tourism to Zimbabwe was $1.1 billion (USD), or about 8.1% of Zimbabwe's GDP. It is expected to rise 1.4% in 2017. Employment in travel and tourism, as well as industries travel and tourism indirectly supports, was 5.2% of national employment and is expected to rise by 1.4% in 2017.[172]

Several airlines have also pulled out of Zimbabwe. Australia's Qantas, Germany's Lufthansa, and Austrian Airlines were among the first to pull out and most recently British Airways suspended all direct flights to Harare.[171][173]

Adding to the fact the Zimbabwe is also land-locked - the necessity of transportation being cheap is immensely noticeable. For this reason, an LCC-esque operation, especially one with a larger aircraft capacity to handle routes abandoned by European carriers (and thus, deprive them of returning, and/or building on their leads) - and airports designed to handle tourists needs well (but also keeping in mind a need for low cost options). The boost in tourism numbers, are from a year ago (when we were well into the 'stability' of Mugabe's reign) - and show a positive number. Under the right conditions, that can be grown significantly, and catering to it properly (with a focus on lowering costs, and increasing access) can provide ample and fertile ground for not only the future state-run carrier, but also, for local (and/or regionally assisted) carriers to further grow the markets.

Oddly, I see a 'plug-and-play' style approach as necessary here. No need for a Mumbai-style terminal, or a SIN-esque operation; rather, copy the Narita LCC terminal, at HRE for a new expansion, and/or accompany it with many more parking spaces. Make the operation low cost friendly. Either J/V, or copy (and crucially learn to compete with) the South African LCC airlines. These will likely be the crux of their competition, and thus, either learning to compete at those costs (or, adopting a 'can't beat them, so join them' via J/V or investment) is necessary. Towards Northern Africa, and towards Europe (and increasingly towards China) - the airline should focus on long-haul, low-cost, with a focus on lucrative cargo. That operation can perhaps better be handled (re-worked) to suit the current AirZimbabwe. Spare 777s will come to market in the short-medium term, and picking up a few EK's second-hand 777-300/ERs can allow them to come by capacity at a decently depreciated price. Deciding to go with the A330, though - would be a cleanly efficient choice for them as well. "New" aircraft need not apply.

Though dysfunctional herself, SAA poses a distinct model here - with SAA for long-haul (and, though not land-locked) heavily focus on tourism traffic, and cargo (though should be better concerned with the tasks of lowering costs), and Mango for domestic/short/regional (at their lower costs).

I imagine that the shockwaves from the collapse of such a prestigious and well-regarded carrier will be felt around the world

But seriously; I suspect it is too early to make a judgement just yet - and it is probably the last thing on anyone's mind in Harare right now.

I just booked a friend in Harare a flight to get out of there. I suggested yesterday that he book to get out today (the 15th), but he wanted to see how things shake out.

I don't know how the situation is around the airport, but flights seem to be operating out of the country. From what I am told, there is currently no significant violence.

I think I would spectate from a safe distance.

Things could get nasty.

Ironic really seeing that Harare Airport was only renamed Robert Mugabe International Airport last week, I wonder if that name will remain after this!

Rajahdhani wrote:

In reality, he remains the nation's one great hope.

.

Usually, anyone labelled as the one great hope is, in fact, the exact opposite and is more often than not responsible for the Coup d'etat. Mugabe was once Zimbabwe's one great hope, so was Kagame in Rwanda and in more recent times Aung San Suu Kyi was given Nobel peace prize and now she is complicit in the genocide of the Rohingya minority.

The reality for the aviation scene is that it will probably quieten down to just a trickle of passengers while any new government gets established. Once they show their colours it will either be more of the status quo or it will open right up to foreign investment and carriers like FastJet and Ethiopian will fill the gap. If whoever is in power still uses Air Zim like a private jet service the country will not change just the head on the currency.

iflyalexair wrote:

I guess we won’t see the Air Zimbabwe 767 at SWF any more. Someone in the government likes to go shopping at Woodbury Commons apparently.

If I'm not mistaken, many governments choose to park their aircraft at SWF when visiting the United Nations in NYC — I mean, surely no one would travel that distance to settle for shopping at Woodbury Commons.

There are only 5 planes in their entire fleet; 4 if you take out the 1 WB that goes on shopping spree's. Someone wants to do a LCC there? In my view, it would only work if it was in conjunction with surrounding countries. Either that or go in empty and leave full.

aerorobnz wrote:

If whoever is in power still uses Air Zim like a private jet service the country will not change just the head on the currency.

Just as well that the 787 deal fell through.....


http://members.ziggo.nl/sknepper/images/AirZim788_3.jpg


http://www.financialgazette.co.zw/airzi ... collapses/

727200 wrote:

There are only 5 planes in their entire fleet; 4 if you take out the 1 WB that goes on shopping spree's. Someone wants to do a LCC there? In my view, it would only work if it was in conjunction with surrounding countries. Either that or go in empty and leave full.

There’s real opportunity for FastJet here. There could be another 2 E145 fast.

What should happen is that the government of Zimbabwe does not spend money on prestige projects like having it's own national airline. There are in fact lots of airlines that can provide airliner service. Instead, they should spend whatever small amount of money they have on things like food and roads and elementary schools. When those are taken care of ...

Don't be fooled Zimbabwe has money it's just not going to the citizens of Zimbabwe, the BBC did an excellent report the other evening and went into great detail regarding the true state of their economy in fact the Chinese alone have interests in the country amounting to billions of dollars and with the increased diamond mining industry the economy should be in a good position but the actual monies is not distributed fairly enough hence why the financial status of the Zimbabwe economy has almost crashed.

What the country clearly needs is a new government who can take the country forward to it's full potential and hopefully this will eventually mean some sort of investment in the national flag carrier, a return of HRE to LGW should be a priority.

Zimbabwe as some have rightly pointed out doesn't need a national carrier for at least another 10 years. What the Govt can do is let another airline form a de facto national carrier and pay a small royalty to the HRE Govt annually such as 1-2% of total revenue which can be used then on other essential public uplift projects.

The Govt needs to focus its spending on boosting the economy and uplift the lives of the people.

The new Govt should engage QR or ET to set up a new carrier with 5 planes initially based out of HRE doing domestic + regional flights and let them have full ownership control.

On another note once the local Govt makes the wise decision to give back ill gotten land to at least half of the white farmers then expect the economy to start growing rapidly. Future potential for Zimbabwe is very bright in mining, tourism and agriculture as long as they have a sane business savy leader at the top rather than Mugabe who just ruined it from 1997 onwards.

sudenmorsian wrote:

iflyalexair wrote:

I guess we won’t see the Air Zimbabwe 767 at SWF any more. Someone in the government likes to go shopping at Woodbury Commons apparently.

If I'm not mistaken, many governments choose to park their aircraft at SWF when visiting the United Nations in NYC — I mean, surely no one would travel that distance to settle for shopping at Woodbury Commons.

Typical is to fly to JFK and then to another airport for parking. Only Israel tends to remain at JFK because JFK is a station for El Al and an LY B763 is usually used, although other Middle Eastern countries have parked at JFK.

Now, as for the topic, this is where the new government should invite Ethiopian, who has figured out how to be profitable in Africa, to try to build Harare into a regional hub that also feeds ADD and LFW.

If Zimbabwe remains under control of the ruling party, then the only thing that is happening is Mugabe is being replaced by a different dictatorial thug. If that is how it goes down, then no real change for Zimbabwe or its airline.

Unfortunately I dont think Bob has got given up yet. And even if he is moved out, as long as the ZanuPF remains in charge in whatever shape or form, Zim is still screwed up.

As for AirZim, I think a regional carrier like South African can be invited to take a 49% stake and run the airline for 5 years. Something like what Sri Lanka did to turnaround their national carrier.

I wouldn't trust Mnangagwa at all - he's a Zanu PF tried and true supporter - likely he will be President later on Monday if (and that's a BIG IF) Mugabe does step aside. I predict he won't and that Zanu PF will impeach him. As others here have noted - this is a change of guard in Zanu PF - hardly free elections coming soon - hardly a real democracy. "Meet the new boss... Same as the old boss"

Don't count on any breakthrough on Zimbabwe civil aviation. Anything that comes about if it does will be short lived. Likely will see Mnangagwa push for "openness" that will yield NOTHING.

NickLAX wrote:

I wouldn't trust Mnangagwa at all - he's a Zanu PF tried and true supporter - likely he will be President later on Monday if (and that's a BIG IF) Mugabe does step aside. I predict he won't and that Zanu PF will impeach him. As others here have noted - this is a change of guard in Zanu PF - hardly free elections coming soon - hardly a real democracy. "Meet the new boss... Same as the old boss"

Don't count on any breakthrough on Zimbabwe civil aviation. Anything that comes about if it does will be short lived. Likely will see Mnangagwa push for "openness" that will yield NOTHING.

The world has lots of authoritarian leaders. Very few of them are as bad as Mugabe in his later years. I would think almost anyone would be able to do better.

Some interesting responses and the makings of a good discussion. I’ll reply to some of your points later. Keep them coming please, as there is some good debate material here, especially with the fluid unfolding situation in Zim.

behramjee wrote:

Zimbabwe as some have rightly pointed out doesn't need a national carrier for at least another 10 years. What the Govt can do is let another airline form a de facto national carrier and pay a small royalty to the HRE Govt annually such as 1-2% of total revenue which can be used then on other essential public uplift projects.

The Govt needs to focus its spending on boosting the economy and uplift the lives of the people.

The new Govt should engage QR or ET to set up a new carrier with 5 planes initially based out of HRE doing domestic + regional flights and let them have full ownership control.

On another note once the local Govt makes the wise decision to give back ill gotten land to at least half of the white farmers then expect the economy to start growing rapidly. Future potential for Zimbabwe is very bright in mining, tourism and agriculture as long as they have a sane business savy leader at the top rather than Mugabe who just ruined it from 1997 onwards.

I agree the country does not need a national carrier at this time, use the monies better.
As for Bob he will have to get on a Chinese jet to visit his bank account.

I think Zimbabwe needs a national airline with majority local ownership. Its can have ET or whoever owning 49% and then the rest 51% can be listed in the local stock exchange. . WB fleet of 4 (right sized 787-8 or 9/A330-900) this will serve UK (daily), and flights to Dubai, China. Narrow bodies 737/A320/E190 (4) for regional ATR72 (2) for domestics. The market is there and and WHEN the economy recovers this will be very vibrant.

chiki wrote:

I think Zimbabwe needs a national airline with majority local ownership. Its can have ET or whoever owning 49% and then the rest 51% can be listed in the local stock exchange. . WB fleet of 4 (right sized 787-8 or 9/A330-900) this will serve UK (daily), and flights to Dubai, China. Narrow bodies 737/A320/E190 (4) for regional ATR72 (2) for domestics. The market is there and and WHEN the economy recovers this will be very vibrant.

Lets suppose the Zimbabwe government has a finite supply of money. Lets suppose they can build some new hospitals, or build a very small ( 8 aircraft) national airline. Why would you favor the airline? Is medical care in Zimbabwe really much better than seems to be reported?

It appears that many here are expecting or at least hoping for Zimbabwe to turn around overnight with Mugabe's demise. The reality is that he was the leader of the revolutionaries who appear to have control over the country. A 180 degree turn would mean that those that remain in power will want to keep their control and not much change can be expected so quickly, be it from starting up a flag carrier to turning around the economy.

kitplane01 wrote:

chiki wrote:

I think Zimbabwe needs a national airline with majority local ownership. Its can have ET or whoever owning 49% and then the rest 51% can be listed in the local stock exchange. . WB fleet of 4 (right sized 787-8 or 9/A330-900) this will serve UK (daily), and flights to Dubai, China. Narrow bodies 737/A320/E190 (4) for regional ATR72 (2) for domestics. The market is there and and WHEN the economy recovers this will be very vibrant.

Lets suppose the Zimbabwe government has a finite supply of money. Lets suppose they can build some new hospitals, or build a very small ( 8 aircraft) national airline. Why would you favor the airline? Is medical care in Zimbabwe really much better than seems to be reported?

They just lease the aircraft and not buy, its an essential part of the economy from a business, tourism point of view. The airline exists, there are pilots so its an issue of upgrading the aircraft operated.
Zimbabwe has significant infrastructure which need to be upgraded, so its not that te country is a rundown war zone. The hospitals will need more medicines, new equipment but they dont need to build them. Electricity and Road and rail are the ones ones where huge amounts of money need to be put in. Airports its just HRE which need upgrading.

Well down he goes at loooong last. He’s resigned!

Yes! Yes! Yes! After 37 years it’s all over! I’m sooooo happy right now

But more than anything I’m crazy happy and delighted in a way I’ve rarely ever been for the Zimbabwean people ❤️

However we can’t be complacent...Mugabe’s successor as Zanu-PF leader Emmerson Mnangagwa is wholly complicit with this regime’s worst abuses over the years and is arguably not a fit and proper person to potentially lead Zimbabwe. So I fervently hope that free and fair multiparty elections will soon follow.

As for the impact on aviation, the next few weeks will be interesting. Firstly, we may see what happens with the nascent Zimbabwe Airways. Thereafter a lot will depend on who is chosen as leader and, indeed, the result of next year’s election.

sudenmorsian wrote:

iflyalexair wrote:

I guess we won’t see the Air Zimbabwe 767 at SWF any more. Someone in the government likes to go shopping at Woodbury Commons apparently.

If I'm not mistaken, many governments choose to park their aircraft at SWF when visiting the United Nations in NYC — I mean, surely no one would travel that distance to settle for shopping at Woodbury Commons.

Yeah, I know. But the Air Zim 767 is a frequent visitor outside of UN times.

chiki wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

chiki wrote:

I think Zimbabwe needs a national airline with majority local ownership. Its can have ET or whoever owning 49% and then the rest 51% can be listed in the local stock exchange. . WB fleet of 4 (right sized 787-8 or 9/A330-900) this will serve UK (daily), and flights to Dubai, China. Narrow bodies 737/A320/E190 (4) for regional ATR72 (2) for domestics. The market is there and and WHEN the economy recovers this will be very vibrant.

Lets suppose the Zimbabwe government has a finite supply of money. Lets suppose they can build some new hospitals, or build a very small ( 8 aircraft) national airline. Why would you favor the airline? Is medical care in Zimbabwe really much better than seems to be reported?

They just lease the aircraft and not buy, its an essential part of the economy from a business, tourism point of view. The airline exists, there are pilots so its an issue of upgrading the aircraft operated.
Zimbabwe has significant infrastructure which need to be upgraded, so its not that te country is a rundown war zone. The hospitals will need more medicines, new equipment but they dont need to build them. Electricity and Road and rail are the ones ones where huge amounts of money need to be put in. Airports its just HRE which need upgrading.

There are many airlines that would fly to Zimbabwe as an as it becomes safe and economical to do so. Zimbabwe does not need a national airline to have air connectivity.

I agree the airplanes could be leased. But stating airlines costs money. Please be explicit: you would spend money on that, reducing the money sent in hospitals and schools??

kitplane01 wrote:

chiki wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Lets suppose the Zimbabwe government has a finite supply of money. Lets suppose they can build some new hospitals, or build a very small ( 8 aircraft) national airline. Why would you favor the airline? Is medical care in Zimbabwe really much better than seems to be reported?

They just lease the aircraft and not buy, its an essential part of the economy from a business, tourism point of view. The airline exists, there are pilots so its an issue of upgrading the aircraft operated.
Zimbabwe has significant infrastructure which need to be upgraded, so its not that te country is a rundown war zone. The hospitals will need more medicines, new equipment but they dont need to build them. Electricity and Road and rail are the ones ones where huge amounts of money need to be put in. Airports its just HRE which need upgrading.

There are many airlines that would fly to Zimbabwe as an as it becomes safe and economical to do so. Zimbabwe does not need a national airline to have air connectivity.

I agree the airplanes could be leased. But stating airlines costs money. Please be explicit: you would spend money on that, reducing the money sent in hospitals and schools??

Air Zimbabwe/Zimbabwe Airways can be profitable so it will not need injections from Gvt hence there is no money for schools/hospitals being spent. Its possible and it can be done as long as Mnangagwa does not do like Mugabe and use it as his private airline. Routes which are profitable are there but they just need to be reliable. Tourism with democracy can be grow resulting in need for direct flights from other destination like Germany, China, etc.

Enormous potential in Zimbabwe aviation as (only if the new government is open to it, which seems unlikely) huge growth opportunities in business and tourism as well as the large diaspora who left the country wanting to return and have laid down strong roots in neighbouring countries.

So much potential, and I am willing to bet that most of it will be squandered.

chiki wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

chiki wrote:

They just lease the aircraft and not buy, its an essential part of the economy from a business, tourism point of view. The airline exists, there are pilots so its an issue of upgrading the aircraft operated.
Zimbabwe has significant infrastructure which need to be upgraded, so its not that te country is a rundown war zone. The hospitals will need more medicines, new equipment but they dont need to build them. Electricity and Road and rail are the ones ones where huge amounts of money need to be put in. Airports its just HRE which need upgrading.

There are many airlines that would fly to Zimbabwe as an as it becomes safe and economical to do so. Zimbabwe does not need a national airline to have air connectivity.

I agree the airplanes could be leased. But stating airlines costs money. Please be explicit: you would spend money on that, reducing the money sent in hospitals and schools??

Air Zimbabwe/Zimbabwe Airways can be profitable so it will not need injections from Gvt hence there is no money for schools/hospitals being spent. Its possible and it can be done as long as Mnangagwa does not do like Mugabe and use it as his private airline. Routes which are profitable are there but they just need to be reliable. Tourism with democracy can be grow resulting in need for direct flights from other destination like Germany, China, etc.

You think Air Zimbabwe can become profitable without government investment? Cool. Good luck

I will nearly point out there are many small African countries. As far as I know none of them have small profitable airlines. Can you offer an example of an airline like the one you envision. Because I don’t think it exists anywhere in the world (though I’m willing to be educated).

Personally, I would like to see the old CAA revived. Back in the day, it was like an African version of SAS serving then Rhodesia (Zim), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), and Nyasaland (Malawi). It split up into Zambia Airways, Air Malawi and Air Rhodesia sometime in the early sixties. Zambia Airways and Air Malawi are no longer around and Air Rhodesia morphed into Air Zimbabwe which isn't saying much. I don't know how feasible such a venture would nowadays be given current market conditions. Perhaps it could fill a regional gap for an alliance, who knows? In any case, these three countries could benefit from better network coverage and enjoy economies of scale as opposed to operating their own separate flag carriers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MVFHRLXMfA

kitplane01 wrote:

chiki wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

There are many airlines that would fly to Zimbabwe as an as it becomes safe and economical to do so. Zimbabwe does not need a national airline to have air connectivity.

I agree the airplanes could be leased. But stating airlines costs money. Please be explicit: you would spend money on that, reducing the money sent in hospitals and schools??

Air Zimbabwe/Zimbabwe Airways can be profitable so it will not need injections from Gvt hence there is no money for schools/hospitals being spent. Its possible and it can be done as long as Mnangagwa does not do like Mugabe and use it as his private airline. Routes which are profitable are there but they just need to be reliable. Tourism with democracy can be grow resulting in need for direct flights from other destination like Germany, China, etc.

You think Air Zimbabwe can become profitable without government investment? Cool. Good luck

I will nearly point out there are many small African countries. As far as I know none of them have small profitable airlines. Can you offer an example of an airline like the one you envision. Because I don’t think it exists anywhere in the world (though I’m willing to be educated).

There can take loans with Gvt guarantees so it does not need direct funding. the tourism sector has huge potential and will need to be developed. It just needs good management, they are many professional Zimbabweans who can run the airline well. Its a matter of good management as the market is there. As long as SAA, BA/Comair, SA Airlink, SA Express, Fastjet, Emirates, KQ, ET, Rwandair, Malawaian-ET, Air Bostwana, LAM, are flying into HRE, BUQ, VFA it means the market is there and there is an opportunity for UM to offer direct flights.

planeguy wrote:

:twocents: Personally, I would like to see the old CAA revived. Back in the day, it was like an African version of SAS serving then Rhodesia (Zim), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), and Nyasaland (Malawi). It split up into Zambia Airways, Air Malawi and Air Rhodesia sometime in the early sixties. Zambia Airways and Air Malawi are no longer around and Air Rhodesia morphed into Air Zimbabwe which isn't saying much. I don't know how feasible such a venture would nowadays be given current market conditions. Perhaps it could fill a regional gap for an alliance, who knows? In any case, these three countries could benefit from better network coverage and enjoy economies of scale as opposed to operating their own separate flag carriers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MVFHRLXMfA

It wont work, Malawaian is now part of ET and they will never do this again as it has colonial legacy of an unwanted federation which Zambian until today say benefited Zimbabwe.

chiki wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

chiki wrote:

Air Zimbabwe/Zimbabwe Airways can be profitable so it will not need injections from Gvt hence there is no money for schools/hospitals being spent. Its possible and it can be done as long as Mnangagwa does not do like Mugabe and use it as his private airline. Routes which are profitable are there but they just need to be reliable. Tourism with democracy can be grow resulting in need for direct flights from other destination like Germany, China, etc.

You think Air Zimbabwe can become profitable without government investment? Cool. Good luck

I will nearly point out there are many small African countries. As far as I know none of them have small profitable airlines. Can you offer an example of an airline like the one you envision. Because I don’t think it exists anywhere in the world (though I’m willing to be educated).

There can take loans with Gvt guarantees so it does not need direct funding. the tourism sector has huge potential and will need to be developed. It just needs good management, they are many professional Zimbabweans who can run the airline well. Its a matter of good management as the market is there. As long as SAA, BA/Comair, SA Airlink, SA Express, Fastjet, Emirates, KQ, ET, Rwandair, Malawaian-ET, Air Bostwana, LAM, are flying into HRE, BUQ, VFA it means the market is there and there is an opportunity for UM to offer direct flights.

I would be very surprised if the Zimbabwe government has money to loan out. And if they do I’d rather they spend it on education and health care.


Again, can you name a small African airline that flys long distance that is not losing
money? The thing you’re trying to build does not exist. It’s been tried (and failed) several times.

kitplane01 wrote:

chiki wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

You think Air Zimbabwe can become profitable without government investment? Cool. Good luck

I will nearly point out there are many small African countries. As far as I know none of them have small profitable airlines. Can you offer an example of an airline like the one you envision. Because I don’t think it exists anywhere in the world (though I’m willing to be educated).

There can take loans with Gvt guarantees so it does not need direct funding. the tourism sector has huge potential and will need to be developed. It just needs good management, they are many professional Zimbabweans who can run the airline well. Its a matter of good management as the market is there. As long as SAA, BA/Comair, SA Airlink, SA Express, Fastjet, Emirates, KQ, ET, Rwandair, Malawaian-ET, Air Bostwana, LAM, are flying into HRE, BUQ, VFA it means the market is there and there is an opportunity for UM to offer direct flights.

I would be very surprised if the Zimbabwe government has money to loan out. And if they do I’d rather they spend it on education and health care.


Again, can you name a small African airline that flys long distance that is not losing
money? The thing you’re trying to build does not exist. It’s been tried (and failed) several times.

Any small or large airline where a market exists and has the right equipment and management will make a profit on long haul irrespective of geographical location.

It's now up to the UK, US and EU to throw the Zimbabwe leadership a lifeline, in terms of investment, construction, tourism, and trade (both ways). The country should also drop its Visa requirement to encourage this. If it remains a safe place to travel, and they can fill the shelves in shops, tourism will come.

Let's not fool ourselves. It's the former VP who's taken the reins, keeping Zanu-PF in absolute power. He keeps his money stashed in the same places as Uncle Bob, and is sure to have WAGs just itching to be the next Gucci Grace. Which means whatever Air Zim has that's airworthy, will be used by him and his cronies on jollies to Paris, London and Geneva. Unlike Uncle Bob they're not (yet) wanted by the UN WCT and are free to go anywhere, an opportunity they are certain not to miss.

But in the extremely unlikely case the new dictator decides to do something to bring Zim forward, there is an almost endless parade of areas in need of fixing, top of which is a 70% unemployment rate. You don't fix that by hiring a couple thousand people to run, what is bound to be, a loss making an airline.

But isn't Emerson Mnangagwa already banned from traveling to the EU as I think the BBC stated that the other evening.

chiki wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

chiki wrote:

There can take loans with Gvt guarantees so it does not need direct funding. the tourism sector has huge potential and will need to be developed. It just needs good management, they are many professional Zimbabweans who can run the airline well. Its a matter of good management as the market is there. As long as SAA, BA/Comair, SA Airlink, SA Express, Fastjet, Emirates, KQ, ET, Rwandair, Malawaian-ET, Air Bostwana, LAM, are flying into HRE, BUQ, VFA it means the market is there and there is an opportunity for UM to offer direct flights.

I would be very surprised if the Zimbabwe government has money to loan out. And if they do I’d rather they spend it on education and health care.


Again, can you name a small African airline that flys long distance that is not losing
money? The thing you’re trying to build does not exist. It’s been tried (and failed) several times.

Any small or large airline where a market exists and has the right equipment and management will make a profit on long haul irrespective of geographical location.

Now you’re just being silly. There are lots of airlines Waymarket exists and they have the right equipment but they’re losing money.

There are no small long distance airlines in Africa. That’s because the business model you propose doesn’t work.

Cunard wrote:

But isn't Emerson Mnangagwa already banned from traveling to the EU as I think the BBC stated that the other evening.

Is he? Now that would be a pleasent surprise!