Search

Notices

[Breeze] Airways

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-20-2019, 12:59 PM
  #441  
Perennial Reserve
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,096
Default

Originally Posted by CrowneVic
Nor does income constitute profit. After income you have to subtract your expenses. Only then do you have profit.
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Let me rephrase that:


A half billion dollar difference in an annual profit of $5.1 billion does not constitute chump change.
Excargodog is online now  
Old 12-20-2019, 03:21 PM
  #442  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog
Ridiculous. Upscale those numbers to a Delta fleet 20 times as big and it is a half billion dollars annually. Delta profit for 2018 as given in their annual report:



A half billion dollar difference in an annual income of $5.1 Billion does not constitute chump change, whether you will ever admit it or not.
You don't need to scale to the size of Delta's fleet. Delta won't be competing against a fleet the same size. The comparison is only for the size that MOXY's fleet is going to be.
Baradium is offline  
Old 12-20-2019, 04:44 PM
  #443  
Perennial Reserve
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,096
Default

Originally Posted by Baradium
You don't need to scale to the size of Delta's fleet. Delta won't be competing against a fleet the same size. The comparison is only for the size that MOXY's fleet is going to be.

And yet it was YOU who brought up the comparison to Delta.


Originally Posted by Baradium
For Delta right now, that's close to being a rounding error.
You seem to try to change the subject when the facts don’t agree with your initial opinion.
Excargodog is online now  
Old 12-20-2019, 05:14 PM
  #444  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog
And yet it was YOU who brought up the comparison to Delta.




You seem to try to change the subject when the facts don’t agree with your initial opinion.
Let's try this again.


The theory was that Moxy would have a cost advantage, I said it is a rounding error. The cost advantage is only as far as how many airplanes Moxy will have. Delta doesn't have to compete with Moxy with airframes that Moxy won't have. Delta can match anything Moxy can do price wise without even noticing.

I have made no effort to change the subject, but trying to quantify the cost difference across Delta's entire fleet when Moxy will have such a small number of aircraft is a fallacy and I am calling you on it.
Baradium is offline  
Old 12-20-2019, 07:32 PM
  #445  
Perennial Reserve
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,096
Default

Originally Posted by Baradium
Let's try this again.
If you insist.


The theory was that Moxy would have a cost advantage, I said it is a rounding error. The cost advantage is only as far as how many airplanes Moxy will have.
Moxy has 60 aircraft on order. Delta has taken delivery of 28 but have so far committed to a total of 95. On the 60 Moxy has on order they will have a personnel cost advantage because of decreased seniority.

The difference in seniority equates to at least $120 an operating hour I do not believe $24 million a year is a rounding error. I don’t think most people do.


Delta doesn't have to compete with Moxy with airframes that Moxy won't have. Delta can match anything Moxy can do price wise without even noticing.
Straw man argument. No man said that Delta couldn’t undercut Moxy if they were willing to do so since they have much deeper pockets. No one said they couldn’t negotiate a better price with a 85 aircraft order than Moxy could with a 60 aircraft order. I was strictly comparing the personnel costs of 60 aircraft operated at Delta seniority levels to that off startup seniority. That difference is roughly $24 million annually.

I have made no effort to change the subject, but trying to quantify the cost difference across Delta's entire fleet when Moxy will have such a small number of aircraft is a fallacy and I am calling you on it.
I repeat: YOU WERE THE ONE who attempted to the $24 million annual personnel savings on a 60 aircraft fleet to a “rounding error” for Delta, not I.
Excargodog is online now  
Old 12-20-2019, 08:24 PM
  #446  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Position: Upright
Posts: 396
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Let me rephrase that:


A half billion dollar difference in an annual profit of $5.1 billion does not constitute chump change.
Don’t get me wrong. I was agreeing with you. Not chump change at all.
CrowneVic is offline  
Old 12-21-2019, 10:36 AM
  #447  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,558
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog
If you insist.




Moxy has 60 aircraft on order. Delta has taken delivery of 28 but have so far committed to a total of 95. On the 60 Moxy has on order they will have a personnel cost advantage because of decreased seniority.

The difference in seniority equates to at least $120 an operating hour I do not believe $24 million a year is a rounding error. I don’t think most people do.




Straw man argument. No man said that Delta couldn’t undercut Moxy if they were willing to do so since they have much deeper pockets. No one said they couldn’t negotiate a better price with a 85 aircraft order than Moxy could with a 60 aircraft order. I was strictly comparing the personnel costs of 60 aircraft operated at Delta seniority levels to that off startup seniority. That difference is roughly $24 million annually.



I repeat: YOU WERE THE ONE who attempted to the $24 million annual personnel savings on a 60 aircraft fleet to a “rounding error” for Delta, not I.
I think his point was, if the difference in cost is $24 million annually, Delta would eat that for a few years in order to push moxie/breeze/jetLDS out of the competition.
Iceberg is offline  
Old 12-21-2019, 10:42 AM
  #448  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,588
Default

You guys do understand that the HQ is being placed in SLC because he is LDS? The real operating headquarters will remain on the east coast and the decision for the HQ in SLC has zero to do with route planning. He has no plans for any real flying out of SLC. His entire business plan is point to point from secondary markets. The entire Delta discussion is moot.
sailingfun is offline  
Old 12-21-2019, 11:21 AM
  #449  
Perennial Reserve
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,096
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun
You guys do understand that the HQ is being placed in SLC because he is LDS? The real operating headquarters will remain on the east coast and the decision for the HQ in SLC has zero to do with route planning. He has no plans for any real flying out of SLC. His entire business plan is point to point from secondary markets. The entire Delta discussion is moot.
1. It was never a “Delta discussion” to begin with. It was a discussion of the relative personnel outlay advantage of starting a new airline with everybody at year one on the pay scale.
2. I have no dog in the LDS fight. Clearly, the man has started airlines in Canada, Brazil, and New York in the past, and clowns one in Portugal. These areas are not - to my knowledge - hotbeds of LDS activity.
3. The CEO implies that the reason for headquartering in SLC was low cost and a favorable tax climate:

In putting his startup in Salt Lake City, Neeleman, who also founded JetBlue Airways, may have sought to correct one issue that once plagued his former employer. When Neeleman started JetBlue, he created a satellite office in Utah, but based it in New York City, near its largest hub at John F. Kennedy International Airport. (Neeleman had run a much smaller airline, Morris Air, from Salt Lake before selling it to Southwest in 1993.)

New York has been expensive, and Neeleman’s successors have complained about high costs. JetBlue nearly moved to Florida in 2010, but stayed put after winning new incentives from New York.

This time, putting the airline in Utah was an easy decision, Johnson said, even though the local airport is not expected to be a focus city, perhaps because it is dominated by Delta Air Lines.

“People can be working and living everywhere,” he said. “It doesn’t make sense to be trying to hire in the highest cost of living places. It doesn’t make a ton of sense for a competitive business.”
I am disinclined to believe him. YMMV however.
Excargodog is online now  
Old 12-21-2019, 01:58 PM
  #450  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: retired 767(dl)
Posts: 5,739
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun
You guys do understand that the HQ is being placed in SLC because he is LDS? The real operating headquarters will remain on the east coast and the decision for the HQ in SLC has zero to do with route planning. He has no plans for any real flying out of SLC. His entire business plan is point to point from secondary markets. The entire Delta discussion is moot.
I think you can count on him getting a little walk around money from the church.
badflaps is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Frisky Pilot
Regional
20
01-01-2022 05:02 PM
Drums4life
Regional
107
08-16-2011 11:21 PM
ryane946
Major
25
03-06-2007 08:53 PM
RedBaron007
Major
3
01-31-2007 09:05 PM
RockBottom
Major
0
03-07-2005 11:04 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices