Originally Posted by
CaptCoolHand
Does this suck from our standpoint. Absolutely 100%. Any reductions in perceived growth hurts fwd progression. Especially since we lack any retirement movement.
I think this is a smart move. Here's why and you can flame away. The NEOs are not performing now and this buys us time to watch and see how that pans out. This "fleet review" is actually probably good for us. Whether it brings us new planes less planes is anyones guess at this point, but it may just simply reshuffle how we use them. It is good to look at to see if you're using your assets efficiently.
The last point I have is probably the most eye opening for me. We seem to have reached another growth point of critical mass. This happened to us back in 07 too. We have planes coming assume we have places in the system to fly them, but our current infrastructure is cracking on the weight of 1000+ flights a day. God forbid you throw a wrench into the mix...
Our support structure simply wasn't designed to handle the mass and it fails due to staffing issues throughout MX and CS and the lack of automations that we're desperately attempting to put into place. We don't want to grow too fast again and step our our dicks and end up days away from financial nuclear winter like we did in 08'. Taking a step back isn't necessarily all bad. At the risk of being a juicebox, we are still taking about a plane every month and paying for many in cash.
so... "what got us here won't get us there" well DB was right about that. I think the new admin in the crystal palace has taken note of our shortfalls and is setting up the motion to move us up to the next level. Everything takes time and we have to see how it pans out.
Take stock, wait and see or heat up your apps and run for the hills. Bottom line for me is I need this place to be successful for another 27 years and I can only hope that they're making the right decisions. I don't know what goes on behind the curtain even though I've solved all the company and countries problems between BOS and FLL...
That's my .02 Ill know if i was right in 2044.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears they deferred some CEO deliveries as well. They are also touting to Wall Street how this reduced capex is good for the company and stock holders. That seems to negate the argument that this is a NEO thing. Especially since these deferrals are 2-3 years out. They did swap some deliveries from NEO to CEO and that is probably good. But the deferrals specifically are 2-3 years out and some of them are CEO models. And if you are bragging to Wall Street that you are saving all this capex, it would seem a hard sell to announce 330s 3 months later for 2019-2020 deliveries. Aren't the analysts going to say hey I just bought the stock because you were touting capex restraint 3 months ago and now you are betting the company with a 330 order?
As for pausing growth for infrastructure improvements, do you not agree things are trending the wrong direction lately with respect to infrastructure spending? They seem to be slashing budgets, not investing in improvements.
What am I missing?