Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
10-25-2012, 04:04 PM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
Well, let's be apolitical for a moment. Both candidates say you have two different choices of what will happen. Both say elect them or else suffer the consequences as the other ruins the country.
So take them at their word, there are two distinct paths that will be taken and thus businesses need to plan accordingly. And Delta serves business folks.
So as well know indecision is the key to flexibility so why commit to anything for another two weeks?
So take them at their word, there are two distinct paths that will be taken and thus businesses need to plan accordingly. And Delta serves business folks.
So as well know indecision is the key to flexibility so why commit to anything for another two weeks?
10-25-2012, 04:10 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,512
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
Or they just hate us.
I have no idea.
I have no idea.
10-25-2012, 04:12 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
Wouldn't that mean if the revenue does materialize cost increase does not remain?
Revenue is one column. Costs are a different column. The two columns only intermix for determining the net difference, or various types of profitability. You're correct that capacity does impact production cost, but look over the press release and you'll find that the cost growth wasn't triggered by capacity cuts. Jacobson gave the reasons.
10-25-2012, 04:14 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by Sink r8
I'm certain you're not trying to confuse your audience with numbers that don't have a common baseline, so in the interest of clarity... What would the forecast fleet size for mainline be, for 2017?
Because 127+796 sounds promising.
Because 127+796 sounds promising.
10-25-2012, 04:15 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
I'd like to believe that business plans are (maybe) on hold for the election. I just don't see the REAL economy rocketting out of the doldrums. The market may bump or tank, but it will rationalize.
IMO a prime mover of the REAL economy is housing starts. There is still a ton of overcapacity of empty houses on the market. Businesses and households are leverage driven. There is no leverage because there is no lending. I am not saying this is right, but it is true.
When the economy tanked, the people and small businesses that were hurt were the ones that paid their debts and owned their equipment. The (irresponsible) businesses and individuals that did not operate that way were given many outs and were sometimes bailed out.
IMO, the reality is no matter which way this elecction goes, it doesn't end real well.
Question: Who has higher compensation, a drug addict who is considered by the government as disabled or a factory worker who worked his/her whole life and has social security?
Question#2: Which of the above two individuals has more to fear about their compensation drying up and why?
IMO a prime mover of the REAL economy is housing starts. There is still a ton of overcapacity of empty houses on the market. Businesses and households are leverage driven. There is no leverage because there is no lending. I am not saying this is right, but it is true.
When the economy tanked, the people and small businesses that were hurt were the ones that paid their debts and owned their equipment. The (irresponsible) businesses and individuals that did not operate that way were given many outs and were sometimes bailed out.
IMO, the reality is no matter which way this elecction goes, it doesn't end real well.
Question: Who has higher compensation, a drug addict who is considered by the government as disabled or a factory worker who worked his/her whole life and has social security?
Question#2: Which of the above two individuals has more to fear about their compensation drying up and why?
10-25-2012, 04:47 PM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
To quote an article about businesses storing up cash:
"It's a chicken and egg problem," said Christopher Dvorak, president of Dvorak Technical Research, a Minneapolis-based equity research firm. "If there was a demand for products, companies would hire employees to fill that demand. And because they're not hiring, there's not enough demand."
StarTribune.com Mobile | News, weather, sports
I guess it's more a question of consumer confidence.
"It's a chicken and egg problem," said Christopher Dvorak, president of Dvorak Technical Research, a Minneapolis-based equity research firm. "If there was a demand for products, companies would hire employees to fill that demand. And because they're not hiring, there's not enough demand."
StarTribune.com Mobile | News, weather, sports
I guess it's more a question of consumer confidence.
10-25-2012, 05:07 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by Elvis90
To quote an article about businesses storing up cash:
"It's a chicken and egg problem," said Christopher Dvorak, president of Dvorak Technical Research, a Minneapolis-based equity research firm. "If there was a demand for products, companies would hire employees to fill that demand. And because they're not hiring, there's not enough demand."
StarTribune.com Mobile | News, weather, sports
I guess it's more a question of consumer confidence.
"It's a chicken and egg problem," said Christopher Dvorak, president of Dvorak Technical Research, a Minneapolis-based equity research firm. "If there was a demand for products, companies would hire employees to fill that demand. And because they're not hiring, there's not enough demand."
StarTribune.com Mobile | News, weather, sports
I guess it's more a question of consumer confidence.
Its Clemson halftime. Great for my homelife, momma's happy, but not a real "great" game.
10-25-2012, 05:07 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
editing..........
Last edited by forgot to bid; 10-25-2012 at 05:23 PM. Reason: massive cleanup
10-25-2012, 05:19 PM
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,722
Originally Posted by buzzpat
Hey Swabbies,
Two Air Force guys taking your football team to ECU tomorrow.....Check the NOTAMs.
Two Air Force guys taking your football team to ECU tomorrow.....Check the NOTAMs.
Well make sure you slam it on, catch the 3 wire and make them feel at home!
Remember;
Flare to land?
Squat to pee!
10-25-2012, 05:26 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by slowplay
Man, I sure hope your wife keeps the budget at your house!
Revenue is one column. Costs are a different column. The two columns only intermix for determining the net difference, or various types of profitability. You're correct that capacity does impact production cost, but look over the press release and you'll find that the cost growth wasn't triggered by capacity cuts. Jacobson gave the reasons.
Revenue is one column. Costs are a different column. The two columns only intermix for determining the net difference, or various types of profitability. You're correct that capacity does impact production cost, but look over the press release and you'll find that the cost growth wasn't triggered by capacity cuts. Jacobson gave the reasons.
But if revenue increases due to the reasons RA and GH gave (re-fleeting, productivity, profit sharing reduction) then the costs are offset by increasing revenue.
You mentioned if the revenue doesn't materialize as forecast, the cost increase still remains. Or no matter what, the cost in comparison to our peers remains whether or not the revenue happens. Sure. I agree with that.
What I said is if the revenue does actually materialize then the cost increase will no longer remain as a pressure on (in this case) cost reductions as EB was saying. Or, the pilot contract makes more money than it costs therefore it's not a pressure (cost increase) that detracts from the $1B they're trying to invest into the airline to increase future margins later.
But I was thinking in percentages and not actual costs, or admittedly I was on a different page. To me as long as the contribution % increases per unit then I don't think they care if the CASM increases, otherwise we wouldn't run banks right? I mean if they make more on this contract than they lose then they've still got their $1B to invest in airline improvements and we're not hurting them.
So just to check this, if we increase our costs from 2012 to 2013 by 8% it'd be what, a 1% increase in non fuel costs? As long as they made (paper napkin) at least 3/4 of 1% increase in revenue due to productivity gains, reduced profit sharing, re-fleeting (maybe), then they've broken even.
I bet they can do a lot better than that. If our contract increases revenue by 2%, they've made a 9 figure ROI on the new contract over the increase in the increased cost.
So sure, a 8% increase in pilot costs puts pressure on profits. But if it increases revenue by at least 1% then they have a positive ROI. 8% pilot cost increase < 1% revenue increase. And thus, big picture, the contract shouldincrease their margins and not detract from them.
I actually don't think I'm disagreeing with you. Just looking at it differently. I think.But I was thinking in percentages and not actual costs, or admittedly I was on a different page. To me as long as the contribution % increases per unit then I don't think they care if the CASM increases, otherwise we wouldn't run banks right? I mean if they make more on this contract than they lose then they've still got their $1B to invest in airline improvements and we're not hurting them.
So just to check this, if we increase our costs from 2012 to 2013 by 8% it'd be what, a 1% increase in non fuel costs? As long as they made (paper napkin) at least 3/4 of 1% increase in revenue due to productivity gains, reduced profit sharing, re-fleeting (maybe), then they've broken even.
I bet they can do a lot better than that. If our contract increases revenue by 2%, they've made a 9 figure ROI on the new contract over the increase in the increased cost.
So sure, a 8% increase in pilot costs puts pressure on profits. But if it increases revenue by at least 1% then they have a positive ROI. 8% pilot cost increase < 1% revenue increase. And thus, big picture, the contract shouldincrease their margins and not detract from them.
And no, I wouldn't run my household budget on percentages because no cost at my house increases income to the house. If however my job was 100% sales commission and a new computer, car, etc, increased income then I'd deal in %s.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 10-25-2012 at 05:37 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
