Can we get back to this? Bus- With you being a superior being to all of us as you have noted in the past, how can you not tell the "subtle" difference between the definition of "revenue" vs. "profit"?
Please note that for future reference, a PROFIT is something that the company actually retains after expenses are taken out. It is obvious that you mean REVENUE which is just the money that they take in...and that means very little since the airline industry has such a low (often negative) profit margin. To even make an argument based on revenue is pointless b/c if costs are out of control...all the revenue in the world won't make a difference. But to make an argument claiming that REVENUE is the same as PROFIT is just plain ignorance. I hope UAL does make a $10B profit b/c that would sure stump Wall Street (and the rest of the world since it would be a majestic feat).
Oh...and your assertions that WN's PROFIT (you used it correctly there!) was made up of investments...how about researching before pulling numbers from your rear. If you want the actuals, WN's last annual statement has them generating $6.5 B in operating REVENUE and an additional $65M in other revenue. In other words, these investments totaled only 1% of all revenue. Oh...and their PROFIT was $313M...only 3% of what you say that UAL will get in '07.
I know it's confusing with all of those statements and line items to understand but since you accuse others (I believe you call them "liberals) of repeating lies to try to get others to believe them...maybe you should check your hugely ignorant assertions.
You sure are slow for a "top 1%" guy. Considering you are a member of "management" at a "legacy" carrier lends clarity to the real reasons the legacy carriers have struggled so much over the last half decade.
Now let's go over your "points".
1. No, you are incorrect, I MEANT PROFIT. The "Profit" will be largely in the form of writeoff from the balance sheet. If a company loses over $10 billion in debt over a period, then to "fix" the numbers, the company must either account for this with lower asset values, OR WITH A SPECIAL "ADJUSTMENT" TO THE BALANCE SHEET. Does it indicate that in the future the company will be able to pull of $10 billion Q profits? NO. The point was to illustrate to certain posters the complete folly of their past assumptions concerning the relative strength of the UNDERLYING business at UAL. For example, UAL would post an OPERATING PROFIT, and then add additional BK "Charges" to the income statement and this would push the results to a negative number. These posters would then rant about the unprofitability of UAL and how UAL should "just go away". My mention of the absolutely HUGE quarterly PROFIT that UAL will post in Q1 was to point out the HYPOCRACY of these posters. If you are going to count the huge charges in BK, then you must ALSO count the huge writeoffs if you are to be consistant. Do you now understand? Do we need to go over this more slowly?
2. My contention that UAL's JETS are more profitable than WN's JETS was based on the Q3 2005 numbers. This is the MOST RECENTLY reported period. If you can use your advanced 99% intellect and vast management experience, then you should be able to (without any help) find SWA's Q3 SEC filing. In that filing, you will see that SWA claimed GAINS FROM HEDGING THAT WERE LARGER THAN THEIR PROFIT. UAL made a billion $'s in 1999, BUT IT'S IN THE PAST AND IRRELEVENT. That is why I chose the MOST RECENT performance.
Piney,
SWA's "legacy" is ANYTHING but industry wages and benefits. The only reason they are now "industry leading" in 737 wages (not pilot wages) is due to other airlines LOWERING wages after giving higher wages for the previous 30 years of SWA's existance. And SWA has NEVER given out a Defined Benefit plan. One has to wonder if SWA would even EXIST if they had given industry standard wages from day one.
WKOFH,
I believe the "croc" is considered by many to be a "dinosaur". Not all dinosaurs die, some adapt to the new enviroment and thrive. I'm hopefull your example, GM, is turning the corner. The new Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade, and new offerings from Pontiac give me hope.
I'd disagree with your contention that terrorism didn't destroy the "old" UAL. The credit ratings prior to 911 would indicate that UAL was not on the verge of BK. Additionally, one of the reasons UAL was performing below the industry is that our biggest rival, AMR was enjoying a HUGE cost advantage via lower wages. That was about to end. Additionally, prior to 911, I think AMR had the financial power (and will) to have destroyed Jblu in it's infancy, and DAL would have stymied AirTrans growth prospects.
As to the "blame everyone else" attitude, does it matter WHO you blame? What is important is how you act.
