Northwest SJ Details
03-14-2006, 06:52 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Right Seat 744
Posts: 946
"I'm not a NWA guy, but one thing that caught my eye was something about the number of RJs wouldn't be finalized until one year after bankruptcy exit?
Is that true?"
To tell the truth, I have'nt been to one of the roadshows YET, and the writing of the whole RJ thing is very confusing. But my talks with others who have been "say it is so Joe"
Is that true?"
To tell the truth, I have'nt been to one of the roadshows YET, and the writing of the whole RJ thing is very confusing. But my talks with others who have been "say it is so Joe"
03-14-2006, 06:52 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,002
Originally Posted by freezingflyboy
I am making this post with the full knowledge that I will get flamed and that I haven't quite figured out the difference between my head and my a$$ but here goes:
I see 2 problems with the airline industry and they are not new problems at all.
1) Airline management has gotten ever greedier and we, as a labor group, have let their greed destroy many companies. Like I said, this is not new. A few names come to mind...Icahn, Lorenzo, Chechi... Why is this? I think its great that the AA groups kicked Carty out on his gold plated a$$ after that deal with the management bonuses and labor paycuts, there needs to be more of that. We, meaning all labor groups, need to grow a pair of brass balls when it comes to management jerking us around.
2) Pilot productivity is an area where I see a lot of waste. How is that SWA can have on of THE BEST pay scales in the industry AND be turning a profit. Don't say fuel hedges because the math just doesn't add up on that. The answer is PRODUCTIVITY. Yes, their pilots fly a lot and therefore get paid a lot. But you don't hear a lot of whining, do you? Imagine how great it would be if you worked at an airline where people actually enjoyed going to work rather than doing everything they could to get out of working. If every employee did their damnedest to make that the best company out there, I wonder how that would translate to profitability and ultimately working conditions. It seems to work for SWA.
I know these aren't the only problems with the industry, but the way I see it these are the problems we, as pilots, have the most control over.
Now, I'm going to go wipe the snot from my nose and put on my flame retardant suit
I see 2 problems with the airline industry and they are not new problems at all.
1) Airline management has gotten ever greedier and we, as a labor group, have let their greed destroy many companies. Like I said, this is not new. A few names come to mind...Icahn, Lorenzo, Chechi... Why is this? I think its great that the AA groups kicked Carty out on his gold plated a$$ after that deal with the management bonuses and labor paycuts, there needs to be more of that. We, meaning all labor groups, need to grow a pair of brass balls when it comes to management jerking us around.
2) Pilot productivity is an area where I see a lot of waste. How is that SWA can have on of THE BEST pay scales in the industry AND be turning a profit. Don't say fuel hedges because the math just doesn't add up on that. The answer is PRODUCTIVITY. Yes, their pilots fly a lot and therefore get paid a lot. But you don't hear a lot of whining, do you? Imagine how great it would be if you worked at an airline where people actually enjoyed going to work rather than doing everything they could to get out of working. If every employee did their damnedest to make that the best company out there, I wonder how that would translate to profitability and ultimately working conditions. It seems to work for SWA.
I know these aren't the only problems with the industry, but the way I see it these are the problems we, as pilots, have the most control over.
Now, I'm going to go wipe the snot from my nose and put on my flame retardant suit
03-14-2006, 07:27 AM
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
SWA and hedges:
"The carrier has about 70% of its fuel hedged this year at $36 a barrel. But even with that price locked in place, executives have warned that fuel costs will rise between $500 million-$600 million (DAILY, Oct.27, 2005), which could exceed the $548 million profit the airline logged in 2005."
"The carrier has about 70% of its fuel hedged this year at $36 a barrel. But even with that price locked in place, executives have warned that fuel costs will rise between $500 million-$600 million (DAILY, Oct.27, 2005), which could exceed the $548 million profit the airline logged in 2005."
03-21-2006, 04:19 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: 7ER B...whatever that means.
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by Eric Stratton
can you show me your math to prove your point. I'm being serious here, I want to see how you come up with that conclusion.
SWA 2005 2004 2003
Fuel Cost 1,342,000,000 1,000,000,000 830,000,000
% Change34.2% 20.4%
Net Income548,000,000 313,000,000 442,000,000
%Change 75.1% -29.2%
NWA 2005 2004 2003 2002
Fuel Cost 2,086,882,200 1,413,413,600 1,314,496,800
% Change47.6% 7.5%
Net Income-862,000,000 248,000,000 -798,000,000
% Change -347.6% 130%
The numbers are hard to read but basically SWA's fuel costs increased 34.2% from 2004 to 2005 yet net income increased 75.1%. NWA on the other hand saw a 47.6% increase in fuel costs and their net income FELL 347.6% (2003 to 2004 numbers). NWAs fuel costs rose 13.4% more compared to SWA but that doesn't explain the horrifying loss in net income.
Disclaimer: I'm a pilot, not an accountant so don't crucify me if my numbers are innacurate nor would I use this information for any investment decisions
All of this information was taken directly from the annual reports of both companies.
03-22-2006, 05:27 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,002
Originally Posted by freezingflyboy
This information is based on the latest data that I could find. NWA has not put out their figures for 2005 yet, so I based my calculation on their 2004 numbers but I think the comparison is still valid. I'm sure these numbers are somewhat in error due to my own math and the purposely vague way companies do their accounting.
SWA 2005 2004 2003
Fuel Cost 1,342,000,000 1,000,000,000 830,000,000
% Change34.2% 20.4%
Net Income548,000,000 313,000,000 442,000,000
%Change 75.1% -29.2%
NWA 2005 2004 2003 2002
Fuel Cost 2,086,882,200 1,413,413,600 1,314,496,800
% Change47.6% 7.5%
Net Income-862,000,000 248,000,000 -798,000,000
% Change -347.6% 130%
The numbers are hard to read but basically SWA's fuel costs increased 34.2% from 2004 to 2005 yet net income increased 75.1%. NWA on the other hand saw a 47.6% increase in fuel costs and their net income FELL 347.6% (2003 to 2004 numbers). NWAs fuel costs rose 13.4% more compared to SWA but that doesn't explain the horrifying loss in net income.
Disclaimer: I'm a pilot, not an accountant so don't crucify me if my numbers are innacurate nor would I use this information for any investment decisions All of this information was taken directly from the annual reports of both companies.
SWA 2005 2004 2003
Fuel Cost 1,342,000,000 1,000,000,000 830,000,000
% Change34.2% 20.4%
Net Income548,000,000 313,000,000 442,000,000
%Change 75.1% -29.2%
NWA 2005 2004 2003 2002
Fuel Cost 2,086,882,200 1,413,413,600 1,314,496,800
% Change47.6% 7.5%
Net Income-862,000,000 248,000,000 -798,000,000
% Change -347.6% 130%
The numbers are hard to read but basically SWA's fuel costs increased 34.2% from 2004 to 2005 yet net income increased 75.1%. NWA on the other hand saw a 47.6% increase in fuel costs and their net income FELL 347.6% (2003 to 2004 numbers). NWAs fuel costs rose 13.4% more compared to SWA but that doesn't explain the horrifying loss in net income.
Disclaimer: I'm a pilot, not an accountant so don't crucify me if my numbers are innacurate nor would I use this information for any investment decisions
All of this information was taken directly from the annual reports of both companies.Continental says for every increase in $1 per barrel it costs the company $40 million more per year. The 2 airlines are very similar in size.
If this statement is true southwest would have saved about $672 million last year over continental in fuel alone. That to me sounds like the fuel hedging theory has some weight to it.
$60-$36=$24 per barrel savings at an increase of $40 million per barrel is a $672 million savings at 70%.
Last edited by Eric Stratton; 03-22-2006 at 05:32 AM.
03-23-2006, 01:51 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: 7ER B...whatever that means.
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by Eric Stratton
I was looking for what southwest saved in their fuel hedging vs. what everyone else was paying. Here's my example if the other airlines were paying $60 a barrel (just an est.) while southwest had 70% of theirs at $36 a barrel (dizel 8's #) what was the savings.
Continental says for every increase in $1 per barrel it costs the company $40 million more per year. The 2 airlines are very similar in size.
If this statement is true southwest would have saved about $672 million last year over continental in fuel alone. That to me sounds like the fuel hedging theory has some weight to it.
$60-$36=$24 per barrel savings at an increase of $40 million per barrel is a $672 million savings at 70%.
Continental says for every increase in $1 per barrel it costs the company $40 million more per year. The 2 airlines are very similar in size.
If this statement is true southwest would have saved about $672 million last year over continental in fuel alone. That to me sounds like the fuel hedging theory has some weight to it.
$60-$36=$24 per barrel savings at an increase of $40 million per barrel is a $672 million savings at 70%.
03-23-2006, 02:16 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: B747FO
Posts: 148
Me Too!
Originally Posted by reddog25
Don'y worry my friend...I am an A-320 Captain who will be voting NO on this perfumed Pig....this TA will never see the light of day in it's present form.
03-23-2006, 02:23 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: B747FO
Posts: 148
Thanks for your support.
Originally Posted by 757Driver
Christ, I smell 1983 over here at CAL again with statements like that. I'll bet you'd work there for free if you "won't get furloughed". Hopefully you're in the minority over there Einstein.
Lets hope there's never a strike at NWA or you'll have Duffrick and his buddies leaping across the picket line.
(PS, I know several NWA guys who will be voting "No" on this so I'm only directing this at Duffrick, not the others on here who will obviously reject this Piece of Sh!t)
Lets hope there's never a strike at NWA or you'll have Duffrick and his buddies leaping across the picket line.
(PS, I know several NWA guys who will be voting "No" on this so I'm only directing this at Duffrick, not the others on here who will obviously reject this Piece of Sh!t)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
