IMisstheAladdinTrays
Veteran
The other thing I remember from Secretarial School...you have to spend some money, to make some money!Damn, how did i forget about "merger related" costs. I thought it was supposed to bring about "synergies", not costs.![]()
The other thing I remember from Secretarial School...you have to spend some money, to make some money!Damn, how did i forget about "merger related" costs. I thought it was supposed to bring about "synergies", not costs.![]()
Damn, how did i forget about "merger related" costs. I thought it was supposed to bring about "synergies", not costs.![]()
LCC actually earned in the neighborhood of $507 million in 2006 before merger related costs
Actually, that was before special items, which include a lot more than merger related costs. Of course, you could say that US made about $3 billion before fuel costs or $2.5 billion before employee costs, but so what?
The bottom line is, well, the bottom line - revenue minus expenses = profit. Using that fundamental measure, CO had a larger profit than US.
Jim
And miss all the fun? I really get a laugh out of the US folks that just loved to stir the pot on the DL board for the last couple of months now want the DL folks to stay on their own turf. Sore losers, I guess - right Fluf.....There is alot better things to be doing.
And miss all the fun? I really get a laugh out of the US folks that just loved to stir the pot on the DL board for the last couple of months now want the DL folks to stay on their own turf. Sore losers, I guess - right Fluf.....
Jim
Hey, Clown, back off! :rant: Show a little respect to those who have graciously let us inheret a proud history. I, for one, enjoy Jim's thoughtful insight and challenges to "expert" opinion.
And Jim, I don't disagree with you that CO's profit was larger than US. However, I think it's important to take it in context.
The theory here is that if you have a "large global footprint" blah blah blah you are king of the skies and a company to be envied. We hear time and time again that airlines like UA offer a better product and service. We are told that DL is upgrading their service and has just undergone the largest international expansion in their history. Well golly gee, good for them.
These "improvements", we are told, is why US will be unsuccessful and, well I don't need to repeat it all, do I?
Here's the simple truth. If you have a vast international network, ala CO, and we are to believe what these Internet "experts" tell us, then their profit should have been far more than $43 million more than US's. Likewise UA's profit of $25 million, at more than double our size and with a vast global network, superior service, and catering to high-yield passengers should have proferred a net profit of at least double our measly $500 million. But it didn't.
Don't get me wrong, I think we have made plenty of missteps, I don't care what Spreadsheet says. However, this year proves that passengers are willing to pay for 1 thing, and it's not what CO, DL and UA are offering.
We hear time and time again that airlines like UA offer a better product and service.
They do.
However, this year proves that passengers are willing to pay for 1 thing, and it's not what CO, DL and UA are offering.
So why aren't they making more money? Because they should be...
So why aren't they making more money? Because they should be...
You obviously aren't listening to your bread and butter passengers, the FF'ers. They're leaving in droves, just read some of their comments on this very forum!!!
Don't get me wrong, I think we have made plenty of missteps... However, this year proves that passengers are willing to pay for 1 thing, and it's not what CO, DL and UA are offering.