Originally Posted by
G4er
Yep, you got me. The Airbus just appeared magically at the company with Zero investment from MG. I agree more should be invested in the company but when you say Zero I think you lose all credibility.
The -80s aren't delivering the immediate financial returns the Airbus can. If you believe that renting a used and abused Airbus for immediate higher profit is investment, than it is you that losses credibility. If those savings were re-invested back into the operation and its employees you might have an argument, but instead, $180M went right out the door to the shareholders at a time when capital infusion in infrastructure was desperately needed. These are high cycle planes and unlike the -80s, they are limited lifespan. This is no more an investment than a building rented out for a Ponzi scheme.