Do they have the A319 up and running yet? It's about the only way they'll be able to close their loss margin, and even then it's a long shot. Too bad, it would have been nice to see them succeed with it. But it was doomed from the start....
Do they have the A319 up and running yet? It's about the only way they'll be able to close their loss margin, and even then it's a long shot. Too bad, it would have been nice to see them succeed with it. But it was doomed from the start....
Failed the proving runs....no shock there, they could have had Ryan do it for them, but once again, in the wisdom of the powers that be, FLY I's management thought it was just to expensive!!!!
They would have had the Baby Bus's producing revenue by now....they need to make a 100mil lease payment on the RJ's in Jan or Bankruptcy it is for ACA!!
Typical management....tripping over dollars to pick up nickles!!!!
I doubt they could have gotten their pilots to go along with Ryan flying their A319's. I'm pretty sure the A319's were the big carrot to get the pilots to go along with their plans for Flyi.
How in the world did they fail their Airbus proving runs?
And as it turns out, their operating loss was $108mil, their net loss was $82mil.
Also, in their press release, they noted a $100mil (or 33%) reduction in cash Year-to Date... But, at the end of 2Q, they had $345mil in cash, and at the end of 3Q $198mil cash... or a drop of $147mil... That translates into a cash drain of $1.6mil per day. If this rate of cash drain continues, thats only 123 days (or roughly 4 months) of cash on hand left. In other words, as one of the analysts recently stated, FlyI could be VERY close to BK... Probably around the holidays...
(By the way, in March 2004, using this same method, I predicted a US Airways BK in October of 2004... the escalating cost of fuel helped move it into September... the point, I've unfortunately been right before...)
I assumed that "Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Short-Term Investments" exclude Restricted Cash... But really, I don't know for certain. I did not listen to their conference call to hear either... I figured that there was going to be nothing good to hear in that call...
The ACA/FLYi pilots did make provisions in their contract for a company like Ryan to fly contract on the Bus's till they could get the program running.....
I know that ACA/FLYi's management was in negotiation's with Ryan and who know's who else to crew and establish the program for them.....
But the Management team of ACA/FLYi felt that Ryan was tooooooo expensive and not worth it.....hhhhmmmmm....airplane's sitting with no revenue....sounds like it would have been worth it in the long run.
Their problem is obviously that the labor costs are too high. No reason why they can't make a profit at 50% load factors. Passengers shouldn't have to subsidize employee salaries.
Their problem is obviously that the labor costs are too high. No reason why they can't make a profit at 50% load factors. Passengers shouldn't have to subsidize employee salaries.
I agree. The FLYI employees need to pay the company for the privelege of working there. If that policy gets implemented, that should help narrow the losses slightly.
Their problem is obviously that the labor costs are too high. No reason why they can't make a profit at 50% load factors. Passengers shouldn't have to subsidize employee salaries.
Maybe if 50% LF meant 200 seats filled, but when it means only 25 seats filled...well...the employees could all volunteer and ANY airline would still be losing money.
Ch12, we were obvious being sarcastic. Any airline is going to lose money flying with 50% loads regardless of aircraft size, especially in today's yield environment. Heck, even at 80% loads, airlines are losing money. It's just plain brutal.
Problem is, the easy solution is to go after employee wages.
