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.

Then there’s always depreciation.....which is one of those “paper expenses”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.