MENU
 Registered users can save articles to their personal articles list. Login here or sign up here
  Author profile
 
  7 COMMENTS

  NkunaG, I think I see and understand what your proposed methodology seeks to achieve - robust governance and accountability. I stand to be corrected. Moreso, I believe if you were to list SoEs as you...  

 Registered users can save articles to their personal articles list. Login here or sign up here

Mango pays double bonuses as Treasury bails out SAA

Low-cost subsidiary surprisingly exceeds profit target.

Staff at low-cost airline Mango received bonuses of up to 15% of their annual salaries despite the dire financial position of the South African Airways (SAA) group it is part of.

Finance minister Malusi Gigaba announced early in July that treasury had to urgently step in with a R2.2 billion cheque to prevent SAA from defaulting on maturing debt with Standard and Chartered. SAA was unsuccessful in its attempt to refinance the amount.

The group recorded a R1.46 billion loss in the first quarter, has R6.7 billion debt maturing at the end of September and is in need of a further R13 billion capital injection from government over the next three years.

Mango acting CEO Nic Vlok confirmed the bonus payments to Moneyweb. He said the airline’s remuneration structure consists of guaranteed pay as well as variable pay. “Variable pay was paid to employees based on over-performance on targeted net profit,” Vlok said.

He said variable pay applies to all Mango employees. They were awarded between 10% and 15% of their annual pay subject to the performance of both the airline and the individual employee.

That means Mango staff members might have received a bonus almost equal to two months’ salary.

“When the Company performance outperforms set targets after provision for variable pay, variable pay is due and payable in line with the remuneration philosophy,” Vlok said.

Sources with intimate knowledge of Mango are however surprised that the airline recorded a profit at the end of its 2016/17 financial year.

An internal document Moneyweb has seen shows the airline at a R31.5 million loss a month earlier at the end of February. Curiously SAA reports to parliament in March put the Mango loss at the end of February at R23 million.

The same report to parliament shows a further discrepancy. It states that Mango’s result “has showed significant improvement from the previous year, though still incurring a loss of R23 million compared to the prior year loss of R87 million.”

In November last year parliament was however told that Mango showed a R36.9 million loss for 2015/16.

Vlok would not confirm Mango’s loss at the end of February this year and would not respond to any further questions about the reason for Mango’s change of fortunes shortly before year-end, including the total staff complement and total amount spent on bonuses.

Following a second set of questions from Moneyweb, Vlok said via email: “The Annual Financial Statements will become a matter of public record in due course, and will contain all the information that you require below.

“Unfortunately Mango will not be answering any further questions at this time.”

In the previous financial year (2015/16) Mango’s employee cost amounted to R232 million. Based on that, Moneyweb has calculated that the bonuses could have cost Mango well more than R30 million.

One of the questions that remains unanswered is why Mango’s income statement for February shows that provision for “return conditions” was R94.2 million, which was R37 million below budget. Moneyweb also asked what the balance of the provision was at year end.

“Return conditions” refers to an airline’s obligations to return a leased aircraft in a specified conditions at the end of the lease. This may include repainting the aircraft, repairs to a specified level and removing the seats. It can amount to considerable cost and airlines provide for the expense during the lifetime of the lease.

Sources have suggested that reversing this or other provisions might explain a sudden and unexpected return to profitability.

DA shadow minister of finance Alf Lees points out that the aircraft leases were granted on favourable conditions by SAA to Mango and are currently the subject of an investigation by the Competition Authorities.

He says the performance targets are set by the very people who stand to benefit from it. It is immoral and unethical for a subsidiary like Mango to award bonuses while tax payers have to make great sacrifices to keep the group afloat.

Looking for a financial education solution for your staff?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
   7 comments

To comment, you must be registered and logged in.

LOGIN HERE

Don't have an account?
Sign up here

Despite the assurances and promises of financial discipline, they are still abusing the taxpayers purse.

Malusi Gagupta, now make your past statements and promises on the airlines financial discipline instructions, or resign.

SAA and Mango should be taken off ”life support”.
It amazes me that certain journalists and financial advisers criticise these airlines and yet support them by flying with them.
all non govt citizens should boycott them and let them die.

They only bailed them out so when it comes to the ‘good story to tell’ bs, they can say they employ x number per race…

Nothing more than delaying the coming larger bankruptcy of the state.

To me the problem is the shareholder over and above some of the employees. I’ve been saying that I believe SOEs like SAA and I guess its subsidiaries should be owned by the tax payer, customer, citizen directly not through a representative like parliament. To me some of the guys in Parly have their own narrow-minded agendas and loyalties, when the time comes to sort SOE problems they do very little to find effective resolutions.
I believe: List the SOEs on an exchange, give government say 20% ownership, publicly float the rest, and encourage citizens to be shareholders if they so choose. Smart public shareholders will use the Companies Act and other Acts to bring their investment in line.

NkunaG, I think I see and understand what your proposed methodology seeks to achieve – robust governance and accountability. I stand to be corrected.

Moreso, I believe if you were to list SoEs as you propose, there should be a maximum number of shares that an individual (including related persons) can own – a similar shareholding model adopted at the SARB. This will prevent “the haves” from buying large percentages that could potentially land SoEs in their control.

“Socialism is the philosophy of failure – its inherent virtue is the sharing of misery”.
How true do Churchills’ words ring when as usual nothing coming out from SAA is clear simply because they themselves don’t know what is going on or are hiding the truth.As a SOC funded by the tax payer you would have expected Nick Vlok to be more transparent with those who fund his business ,pay his salary and are potential clients of Mango.

LATEST CURRENCIES  

ZAR / USD
ZAR / GBP
ZAR / Euro

Podcasts

MONEYWEB NEWSLETTERS

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Moneyweb newsletters
GO TO SHOP CART

Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company:
server: 172.17.0.2