Looks like it’s going to be a weak Q1FY27. The west of Chennai routes - Hanoi, Yangon etc have been slashed down considerably since the fuel shortage started.
1 Like
Results look flat QoQ, lower taxes give large benefit, cash looks ok, accounting shifts from GAAP to IND-AS
1 Like
1 Like
The answer by management on VT-AFN being grounded was not very believable to be honest - they said the war situation would have affected the data. But the data being absent for just the one plane, and all other plane data being available as normal , just confirms that the plane was indeed grounded.
This quarter earnings could be down, if the plane doesn’t fly.
1 Like
There is a comment made by promotors of afcoms-
“fuel cost is a direct pass-on to the end customer” via “fuel surcharge,” and “100% of the increased fuel cost is passed on.”.
If anyone familiar with flysbs or aviation industry in general could tell whether there is similar provision for Flysbs (same promotor as afcoms) as well or not (impact of fuel volatility on H1 results)
Are you able to monitor 3rd plane? What is its tailgate number. Also management said they are holding 3rd aircraft for major work coming soon. However why would they idle an asset if demand is there
Third is reserved to fly from end of this month for a contract already committed
1 Like
It means there will not be any revenue from 3rd plane for this quarter. How can you keep asset idle for 3 months if there is a demand?
So confusing
1 Like
So I was looking at the listed sister company by the same promoters, FlySBS initially I thought wow, this also looks very interesting. And then I started to did deeper into FlsSBS but eventually I discovered a lot about Afcom Holdings also which I invested in the last week and I thought that I should share my findings here.
I’ll even share my exact chain of thoughts that lead me to the conclusion about afcom.
A Little Background about FlySBS
So essentially FlySBS is a company of the same promoter group that came up with it’s ipo on 1st Aug 2025. The company provides private charter jet services to it’s clients. They had 2 aircrafts on wet lease and 1 one dry lease and just like they did with the Afcom model they wanted to shift their operations from Wet Lease aircraft to all dry lease aircraft operations for “Sweating the Assets more”.
They raised ~103Cr through IPO to fund the acquisition of 6 more aircrafts on dry lease.
| Object of the Issue | Amount Allocated (INR in Crs) |
|---|---|
| Funding Capital Expenditure (Acquisition of 6 Pre-Owned Aircraft on long-term dry lease) | 80.5 |
| Prepayment/Repayment (Full or partial clearance of certain outstanding borrowings) | 7.3 |
| General Corporate Expenses | 9.8 |
| Issue Related Expenses | 5.0 |
| Total IPO Proceeds | 102.5 |
The Sharp Jump in ‘Long-Term Loans and Advances’ Caught my Eye
In the RHP the cost breakup for the planned CAPEX of 80.5Cr was given.
The major components were:
1. Lease Deposits: 6-8 Months of lease deposits needs to be deposited with the lessor.
The total Lease Deposits for the 6 aircrafts supposed to be done out of IPO proceeds was ~37Cr.
2. Customs & Clearance Charge: This was ~10.2Cr.
3. Misc. Repairs and Upgradations: ~33Cr. (further details are in RHP, which might not be of much relevance hence I didn’t cover)
Now the cause of concern was that at the end of FY25 the company already had ~50Cr in long term loans and advances. Which consisted primarily of security deposits for the aircrafts that the management were planning to induct post the IPO. They mentioned in an IPO Roadshow that to get the planes early they have started paying Security Deposits already. And looking at the trend in the figures of security deposit we can conclude that out of all the 6 aircrafts post ipo and the one 13 Seater onboarded pre-ipo, almost all of those security deposit is already accounted for in FY25 numbers. Still the FY26 numbers for long term loans and advances has increased by ~135Cr.
One might think that this might be due to the capitalization of pre-operating expenses or other advances to suppliers etc. But those are taken care under ‘Other Non-Current Assets’. and that has also increased from 21 to 31Cr from FY25 to FY26.(That might be due to the operational start of either 1 or 2 aircrafts).
So this lead me to thinking what might have propped up the ‘Long Term Loans and Advances’ for the company for FY26. I thought that this might be due to that the co is using it’s balance sheet to give loans/advances to it’s Related Party like Afcom?
But I don’t have notes to accounts for either of the cos, so I checked whether such transactions have taken place in the past?
What I found was the truest biggest redflag for both Afcom Holdings and FlySBS.
Both Companies are reporting their Related Party Transactions with each other very differently.** How is that allowed and how is that possible.**
Below I’ve shown how the '“Same” transactions are disclosed in such different manner in both the companies filings. I would trust the RHP filings more because RHP is made after higher scrutiny than the AR.
The Discrepancy and Its Implication: In Afcom Holdings’ own RHP and financial disclosures, the company specifically avoided labeling these multi-crore cash transfers as “loans”. Instead, Afcom described these exact same balances to its investors as being strictly operational—claiming they were merely instances where one company “made payment to vendors on behalf of” the other or balances accrued for “availing services”.
FlySBS’s RHP strips away this operational disguise, confirming that tens of crores were actually being routed back and forth as unsecured debt between the two entities. This highlights a significant inconsistency in reporting, indicating that the promoters may have deliberately classified these transactions as vendor payments on Afcom’s books to avoid showing massive related-party loans during its IPO, while FlySBS was later forced to correctly identify them as unsecured loans in its own filings.
The Auditing Overlap (KRMM & Associates): The firm KRMM & Associates has been deeply involved in the auditing processes of both sister companies:
-
At Afcom Holdings: KRMM & Associates serves as the Internal Auditor for the company.
-
At FlySBS Aviation: KRMM & Associates concurrently served as the Statutory Auditor for FlySBS, having audited their financial statements for FY23 and FY24.
A governance point worth noting is that the company saw two consecutive auditor resignations before the IPO—KRMM & Associates resigned in Sept’24, followed by K E K and Associates LLP in Feb’25. The current auditor, A. John Moris & Co., was subsequently appointed and was responsible for restating the historical financial statements included in the IPO documents.
Also during the Dec-25 IPO funds monitoring note by Care, the agency stated:
Conclusion:
This clearly shows that there is no traceability of the uses of the funds by FlySBS and how are they using the money to give unsecured off the books loans to it’s sister entities and using the cash on FlySBS’s books as a revolving credit line to maybe fund Afcom’s WC.
So one must be careful of the unreliable and poor quality of reporting of both the companies.
Disclaimer: I invested in Afcom Holdings last week, but now am reconsidering my decision.
This is not an investment advice, do your own due diligence.
17 Likes
3rd Plane VT-AFJ has started showing up on flightradar24 now.
But VT-AFN has been grounded for about a month.
3 Likes
