No doubt but as I was stating while the business plan might have been solid it's still much more difficult for 50 seat aircraft to absorb fluctuations in expenses. I never said they didn't offer a good product and I've never said it wasn't well run and wouldn't meet it's goals. I simply said that after looking at the paperwork it didn't seem like a good investment for the company, that it wouldn't last. They could have met all the goals they wanted, have had 100% load factors, and the highest customer satisfaction out there but in the end it didn't make it. The revenue was not there. I've never argued that the spike in oil didn't have something to do with it. I said it didn't look like a good business move and in the end it wasn't. This wasn't a long term legacy that has been here for decades and has to roll with the punches. This was a decision by management to start a new airline in an already troubling time. The price of oil had doubled within the previous 3 years and was still showing an upward trend. When XJT went branded oil was sitting around $65 a barrel with signs it was going higher. Legacy's had been around forever and were forced to deal with it. Jim Ream decided to jump into an already flooded market with climbing operating expenses. It ended up not being a good idea and ultimately led to the closing of it's doors. Regardless of who, what, when, where, or why the investment by the airline turned out to be a bad one as many thought would happen. The CASM of a 50 seater is much higher than the larger planes and to keep ticket prices in line meant much smaller profits/if any. Even JO(as much as it chills me to say his name) admits that using RJs for branded flying will never make money. It's away to utilize aircraft, if even a little, to help offset the loss the company would incur if they kept them parked on the ramp.