Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > Delta
Peach Corps Gate Agents? >

Peach Corps Gate Agents?

Search
Notices

Peach Corps Gate Agents?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-21-2020, 07:58 AM
  #101  
Gets Weekends Off
 
GogglesPisano's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Position: On the hotel shuttle
Posts: 5,815
Default

Originally Posted by ChazzMMichaels View Post
No worries!

Granted my MBA is about 12 years old, and even then I checked my work with google/investopedia/whatever, but there's a difference between operating cash flow and the cash flow from investments and financing. I was suggesting that the cash flow that mgmt is talking about is specifically operating cash flow, basically the daily revenue/expenses directly tied to flying airplanes. I'm thinking that is typically what execs are referring to when they say "cash flow" in this respect. But I very well could be wrong.
That sounds like a good explanation. "Cash Flow," is day-to-day -- or even "flight to flight." Fuel, crews, lease payments, landing fees ... Taken as a microcosm.

Overall corporate profitability takes into account marketing, real estate, taxes, interest and finance stuff. And is measured quarterly.

That about right?
GogglesPisano is offline  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:09 AM
  #102  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ChazzMMichaels's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Position: Doggie Style
Posts: 586
Default

Originally Posted by GogglesPisano View Post
That sounds like a good explanation. "Cash Flow," is day-to-day -- or even "flight to flight." Fuel, crews, lease payments, landing fees ... Taken as a microcosm.

Overall corporate profitability takes into account marketing, real estate, taxes, interest and finance stuff. And is measured quarterly.

That about right?
I think that’s the gist. I don’t have a masters in finance which is what you’d need to really explain all the minutia.
ChazzMMichaels is offline  
Old 05-21-2020, 09:13 AM
  #103  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Position: 737B
Posts: 366
Default

Then there’s always depreciation.....which is one of those “paper expenses”.
asacimesp is offline  
Old 05-21-2020, 11:27 AM
  #104  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 140
Default

Originally Posted by ERflyer View Post
We were throwing off excess cash. Buying back stocks was a not an entirely selfless choice management made because much of their compensation is in stock options. Yes, everyone was doing it. Doesn’t make it right. They could have sunk more money into assets which then could be borrowed against when we needed to raise cash - like now.



Additionally, the dividend could have been raised much higher. The above and below line in return percentage for calculating the dividend-buyback percentage is completely arbitrary. A choice. Shareholders would have been rewarded with a higher dividend and more cash, at least half, sunk into assets. The stock price would have appreciated with both those options although not as much.



$11.5B in buybacks was a mistake. Dividend cash would have been gone but the amount of unencumbered assets would be higher.



Since management is asking us to voluntarily take a $1B annual hit to our contract in the form of a lower ALV it does provide context.
I do not think it should be characterized as "throwing off" cash. We were returning cash to shareholders. Could we have bought more assets or paid down more debt? Yes. Would we have? No. We would have returned the money to shareholders somehow.

Its not not an arbitrary line.There is a calculation for it. I just have not personally done it and don't know where the line falls.
AUP09 is offline  
Old 05-25-2020, 06:01 AM
  #105  
Gets Weekends Off
 
notEnuf's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,034
Default

Originally Posted by AUP09 View Post
No regrets on buybacks. The cash would not be available to us today even if it was not used to buy back stock. Will there be buy backs in the future? Probably, but it will be long after the company is very profitable again.

Summer schedules are being adjusted every day. Mostly adding capacity but there are cuts too.

If it comes to it, they may let a few.
Buy backs are theoretical returns to share holders. You have to have the assumption that the trading range of $48 - $58 was supported by the reduction in shares. And had they not spent that money on the stock the trading range would have slid lower. It certainly didn't boost share value by eliminating 18% of the ownership. Had that money been spent to secure the retirement fund or pay down other secured debt there would have been less obligation now and more unencumbered assets to secure more loans or at a better rate. The buybacks did do one thing well, secure the performance metrics for management compensation.
notEnuf is offline  
Old 05-25-2020, 06:12 AM
  #106  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 140
Default

Originally Posted by notEnuf View Post
Buy backs are theoretical returns to share holders. You have to have the assumption that the trading range of $48 - $58 was supported by the reduction in shares. And had they not spent that money on the stock the trading range would have slid lower. It certainly didn't boost share value by eliminating 18% of the ownership. Had that money been spent to secure the retirement fund or pay down other secured debt there would have been less obligation now and more unencumbered assets to secure more loans or at a better rate. The buybacks did do one thing well, secure the performance metrics for management compensation.
The money would not have been spent on other things. Buyback or no buyback the money would have been returned to shareholders one way or another.
AUP09 is offline  
Old 05-25-2020, 06:18 AM
  #107  
Gets Weekends Off
 
notEnuf's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,034
Default

Originally Posted by AUP09 View Post
The money would not have been spent on other things. Buyback or no buyback the money would have been returned to shareholders one way or another.
What other things? Dividends and buybacks were the vehicles of choice, The theory of stock appreciation with balance sheet improvement is just as valid as the buybacks. We will never know if that money would have served the shareholders better by increasing shareholders equity book value (balance sheet) by reducing debt. That also side steps the real motivation, management compensation.
notEnuf is offline  
Old 05-25-2020, 06:55 AM
  #108  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 140
Default

Originally Posted by notEnuf View Post
What other things? Dividends and buybacks were the vehicles of choice, The theory of stock appreciation with balance sheet improvement is just as valid as the buybacks. We will never know if that money would have served the shareholders better by increasing shareholders equity book value (balance sheet) by reducing debt. That also side steps the real motivation, management compensation.
You (and many others) say the buybacks were a waste and the money should have spent elsewhere (like paying down debt, and securing the retirement fund). I'm saying that would not have happened. Buyback or no buyback the money would have only gone to shareholders through some method.
AUP09 is offline  
Old 05-25-2020, 07:11 AM
  #109  
Gets Weekends Off
 
notEnuf's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,034
Default

Originally Posted by AUP09 View Post
You (and many others) say the buybacks were a waste and the money should have spent elsewhere (like paying down debt, and securing the retirement fund). I'm saying that would not have happened. Buyback or no buyback the money would have only gone to shareholders through some method.
I agree with the sentiment but not the manner. Reducing debt literally increases shareholder equity, buying back stock concentrates equity but doesn't increase it.
notEnuf is offline  
Old 05-25-2020, 07:11 AM
  #110  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2016
Posts: 428
Default

Originally Posted by AUP09 View Post
You (and many others) say the buybacks were a waste and the money should have spent elsewhere (like paying down debt, and securing the retirement fund). I'm saying that would not have happened. Buyback or no buyback the money would have only gone to shareholders through some method.
You’ve said this many times in this thread. Could you explain to us why this money would have only gone to shareholders? You’re making it sound as though allocating the money for other things was not an option.
CoefficientX is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Dark Knight
Hangar Talk
32
04-30-2008 08:01 PM
Fly IFR
Regional
84
12-29-2007 11:53 AM
kalyx522
Regional
48
09-27-2007 07:40 PM
ghilis101
Regional
18
12-28-2006 05:06 PM
RockBottom
Major
16
04-27-2006 01:47 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices