|
Originally Posted by jumppilot
(Post 3945662)
The big airlines don’t make money flying people.
https://www.economist.com/business/2...airlines-aloft “You might expect America’s most valuable airline to earn its keep flying passengers. But you would be mistaken. Last year Delta Air Lines notched up an operating profit of $6bn, comfortably ahead of its domestic rivals. Buried in the financial statements, however, was a more revealing point. Without the revenue from its loyalty programme, it would have operated at a loss.” Delta didn't have over $6B in "credit card revenue". Even if it did, there were costs associated with it. If you remove the people that traded in credit card miles to fly, you also have to remove the costs associated with them. At Delta's profit margin that would be billions of costs. Which would still make them wildly profitable. If Delta and United can't make money with the scale they both have how did Spirit, Jetblue etc ever make money? So small airlines can be profitable because they have "great management" but large ones with scale only make money because of credit cards? Ask any pilot from a small airline and they will tell you how they are itching to merge with some other airline because they need "scale to compete with the Big 3". But if big airlines aren't really profitable then why do they want to be part of a bigger airline? United made $5B last year, but only took in $1.9B in "all other revenue" including credit card miles, club memberships, etc. Even without that United would have been profitable. Total actual profit to United last year from credit card miles was likely less than $1B of its $5B. Still more profit than all other US airlines combined, not counting Delta. These bad take articles only make people feel good about hating on successful airlines. There is little factual information in them. |
Originally Posted by FriendlyPilot
(Post 3945720)
Not true. Anyone that can actually read a balance sheet and income statement can understand this is fake.
Delta didn't have over $6B in "credit card revenue". Even if it did, there were costs associated with it. If you remove the people that traded in credit card miles to fly, you also have to remove the costs associated with them. At Delta's profit margin that would be billions of costs. Which would still make them wildly profitable. If Delta and United can't make money with the scale they both have how did Spirit, Jetblue etc ever make money? So small airlines can be profitable because they have "great management" but large ones with scale only make money because of credit cards? Ask any pilot from a small airline and they will tell you how they are itching to merge with some other airline because they need "scale to compete with the Big 3". But if big airlines aren't really profitable then why do they want to be part of a bigger airline? United made $5B last year, but only took in $1.9B in "all other revenue" including credit card miles, club memberships, etc. Even without that United would have been profitable. Total actual profit to United last year from credit card miles was likely less than $1B of its $5B. Still more profit than all other US airlines combined, not counting Delta. These bad take articles only make people feel good about hating on successful airlines. There is little factual information in them. |
Originally Posted by Vernon Demerest
(Post 3945719)
United lags at least 3 other airlines in Florida capacity so it makes sense to be interested should an opportunity present. I like that our pilot group isn’t high fiving each other on forums and elsewhere (like SWA pilots would do in the early 2000s as the big 5 legacies floundered post 9–11)but are mostly showing concern for the effected pilots at Spirit.
|
Originally Posted by drywhitetoast
(Post 3945423)
He may be an a-hole, but he's our a-hole.
|
For something to even start to be considered for a pilot base, much less a hub, it needs to at the bare minimum start with service to all the existing hubs. FLL and MIA do not even have service to LAX. Those airports are a far ways away from being a pilot base, much less a hub
|
Originally Posted by iahflyr
(Post 3948126)
For something to even start to be considered for a pilot base, much less a hub, it needs to at the bare minimum start with service to all the existing hubs. FLL and MIA do not even have service to LAX. Those airports are a far ways away from being a pilot base, much less a hub
|
Originally Posted by iahflyr
(Post 3948126)
For something to even start to be considered for a pilot base, much less a hub, it needs to at the bare minimum start with service to all the existing hubs. FLL and MIA do not even have service to LAX. Those airports are a far ways away from being a pilot base, much less a hub
|
Originally Posted by Andy
(Post 3948148)
That would quickly change if a lot of gates suddenly became available. The big constraint right now is gates. United currently has only 4 FLL gates.
|
Originally Posted by FriendlyPilot
(Post 3948194)
GUM is a pilot base. How many direct GUM flights do we have to hubs?
|
Originally Posted by FriendlyPilot
(Post 3948197)
FLL is a low margin leisure destination and most airlines lose money flying into there.
There are a lot of wealthy people who live in the area and a lot of wealthy people who visit there. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:33 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands