Originally Posted by
CE750
I work for Skybus, bbtp is a F/A 18 IP .. But he knows a lot about our model. What he said is 100% spot on.
I agree that SX must adapt or go away, they know this too, and they're making all kinds of necessary "tweaks".. More over, we're in one of the worse economies since the late 70's.. and starting an airline now may not have been the best idea (hind sight being 20/20). With that, I think SX has the capital to ride out the downturn, and IF their leaders are smart enough (we all hope they are), will adapt. Portsmouth loads are thru the sky, while loads out of MKC and MKE are in the 35% range.. Just as with pulling out of the expensive trans-cons, they need to pull out of certain markets and focus their capital on ones that are working.
CE750, How does the financing work? Does SX get the 160 million in tranches, as certain performance targets are met, or is there some other arrangement? When will the latest quarter's earnings be released?
It would seem that due to the nature of SX's fare structure, a short haul marketing structure would be more appropriate. Your management's decisions regarding the transcon California markets seem to be well grounded. The Northeastern US is by far the largest population center, and would most likely do quite well as the focus of SX's efforts for now, perhaps providing direct service to southern destinations such as FL.
Perhaps some focus cities for short haul flying out west would be a different way to approach the California flying again one day. A separate California short haul operation would help offset revenue disruptions experienced in the NE US during major winter storm events, and to a smaller degree FL during active hurricane seasons. JP