Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Boyd Prognosticates
- Thread starter Big Slick
- Start date
- Watchers 18
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Marko Ramius
Vilnius Nastavnic
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 378
It's the nature of the game...
Analysts are just that, analysts, there to analyze the pieces of data about something and draw the best conclusions. They don't control the pieces, so it's hard to be absolutely sure of what will happen. Therefore they do leave room for updates to their positions. Pilots in general are all about black and white, clearly evident concise statements, that lead to quick, straighforward conclusions/decisions-so we're bound to look at most analysts as weak or hedging(unless they tell us what we want to hear of course!). If you look at these guys the same way you look at sports writters/analysts it would make more sense. Some writters are good providing in-depth analysis and predictions, some make interesting but usually meaningless soundbites, and many just regurgitate the middle of the road (AP) position. Almost all of them though leave room to be wrong-they always tell you the ways the other team could win or pull of the upset to avoid looking stupid.
As far as the article goes, the effects what Boyd is talking about depend on the airline so the analysis seems scatterbrained at times. As far as new a/c go, I don't think Boyd's focus is so much on the efficiency of the new aircrcraft but the ability to deploy them at a profit. I think he's saying the carriers with the lion's share of new a/c on order are already starting to run into problems deploying their current fleets profitiably, so where are they going to put new airplanes in an enviroment that is tilted against the discretionary traveller they often seek? No amount of fuel savings is going to offset that at the predicted oil prices, and in fact you're likely to give much of the savings back in the form of higher lease rates or purchase payments. The leasing companies don't have to give deals anymore, have indicated that aren't interested in doing so, and if JetBlue's cute little dump the C check on someone else plan comes to fruition don't think there won't be a fundamental change in the way planes are leased(read more$$$). There are businesspeople on both sides of the table there.
I think Boyd sees WN as a player because they realize the problem and have been doing things to fix it. He leaves room to reverse himself because the 'morphing' plan is still a work in progress and we won't have an idea of how well it worked until the effect of the hedges on operating numbers is minimized. Also, anytime you make (potential) changes to your product and also the way you do business(IAD,PHL,DEN, international??) there can be execution issues that could crater the plan. Seems logical that he qualified his remarks to me. I'm just wondering when people will realize that WN's recent moves have more to do with succesfully dominating the LCC segment in this country than trying to put a legacy out of business. Hopefully we'll realize it quicker than we've realized that the 50 seat RJ is dead.
It sounds like he still thinks Airways is vulnerable. He's hinted for some time now that he thinks WN is going to make a push on CLT b/c they percieve weakness at AAA. His comment about companies who are counting heavily on domestic growth to make $$$ seems to hit Airways as well. They have international for sure, but it's quite limited in scope when compared to AA, CO, UA, DL, and NW. They don't seem intent on growing it materially anytime soon either. Their A350 order is a long way off in this industry and a few extra 757's aside they seem to be letting the rest of the Star Alliance carriers take the pax and revenue from the international side. Hard to believe some in PHX, SAN, LAS, etc is going to fly all the way to PHL or CLT to go to Europe when they can go on LH, UA, BMI from the west coast and still get the miles. In those cases, Airways might not even get the incremental revenue pittance from the feed leg that cost them money to book (SBA-LAX-LHR) for example.
In the rest of the article, Boyd seems to dance around what will happen to AirTran, F9, Spirit and the others because it's too much of a wildcard in his opinion. Most of them aren't as extended/exposed as B6 is currently, so their futures are more intertwined with what goes on with WN's plan to dominate the LCC portion of the industry, the DL and NW bancruptcy cases, and of course oil.
Analysts are just that, analysts, there to analyze the pieces of data about something and draw the best conclusions. They don't control the pieces, so it's hard to be absolutely sure of what will happen. Therefore they do leave room for updates to their positions. Pilots in general are all about black and white, clearly evident concise statements, that lead to quick, straighforward conclusions/decisions-so we're bound to look at most analysts as weak or hedging(unless they tell us what we want to hear of course!). If you look at these guys the same way you look at sports writters/analysts it would make more sense. Some writters are good providing in-depth analysis and predictions, some make interesting but usually meaningless soundbites, and many just regurgitate the middle of the road (AP) position. Almost all of them though leave room to be wrong-they always tell you the ways the other team could win or pull of the upset to avoid looking stupid.
As far as the article goes, the effects what Boyd is talking about depend on the airline so the analysis seems scatterbrained at times. As far as new a/c go, I don't think Boyd's focus is so much on the efficiency of the new aircrcraft but the ability to deploy them at a profit. I think he's saying the carriers with the lion's share of new a/c on order are already starting to run into problems deploying their current fleets profitiably, so where are they going to put new airplanes in an enviroment that is tilted against the discretionary traveller they often seek? No amount of fuel savings is going to offset that at the predicted oil prices, and in fact you're likely to give much of the savings back in the form of higher lease rates or purchase payments. The leasing companies don't have to give deals anymore, have indicated that aren't interested in doing so, and if JetBlue's cute little dump the C check on someone else plan comes to fruition don't think there won't be a fundamental change in the way planes are leased(read more$$$). There are businesspeople on both sides of the table there.
I think Boyd sees WN as a player because they realize the problem and have been doing things to fix it. He leaves room to reverse himself because the 'morphing' plan is still a work in progress and we won't have an idea of how well it worked until the effect of the hedges on operating numbers is minimized. Also, anytime you make (potential) changes to your product and also the way you do business(IAD,PHL,DEN, international??) there can be execution issues that could crater the plan. Seems logical that he qualified his remarks to me. I'm just wondering when people will realize that WN's recent moves have more to do with succesfully dominating the LCC segment in this country than trying to put a legacy out of business. Hopefully we'll realize it quicker than we've realized that the 50 seat RJ is dead.
It sounds like he still thinks Airways is vulnerable. He's hinted for some time now that he thinks WN is going to make a push on CLT b/c they percieve weakness at AAA. His comment about companies who are counting heavily on domestic growth to make $$$ seems to hit Airways as well. They have international for sure, but it's quite limited in scope when compared to AA, CO, UA, DL, and NW. They don't seem intent on growing it materially anytime soon either. Their A350 order is a long way off in this industry and a few extra 757's aside they seem to be letting the rest of the Star Alliance carriers take the pax and revenue from the international side. Hard to believe some in PHX, SAN, LAS, etc is going to fly all the way to PHL or CLT to go to Europe when they can go on LH, UA, BMI from the west coast and still get the miles. In those cases, Airways might not even get the incremental revenue pittance from the feed leg that cost them money to book (SBA-LAX-LHR) for example.
In the rest of the article, Boyd seems to dance around what will happen to AirTran, F9, Spirit and the others because it's too much of a wildcard in his opinion. Most of them aren't as extended/exposed as B6 is currently, so their futures are more intertwined with what goes on with WN's plan to dominate the LCC portion of the industry, the DL and NW bancruptcy cases, and of course oil.
YourPilotFriend
YourPilotFriend
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Posts
- 1,570
If boeing can find a way to strap engines on a 737 that allowed it to go overseas and SWA actually expanded into the LCC international + LCC domestic it could retain its current wage structure. SWA having a code share for international probably will not work. We are now a global economy and we will see more capacity increases in the global market. Any company that can't compete on the global scale is doomed, and that's a fact.
capt. megadeth
Metal Momma!
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 2,898
Boris Yelling said:
It is worse! We have a needless war based on lies and deceit, and causing the ongoing deaths of thousands of Americans!
I'd much rather take the possible endangerment of an "embarrassment and a willing enabler to third world American hating kooks," who attempts to broker a more peaceful world, rather than the definate murderer of american GIs in a reckless and needless war that creates more terrorists, jihadists, and furthers the image of the imperial USA capriciously enforcing its "correct" vision on the rest of the weak and stupid world...
You tell me what is more dangerous, a citizen working for a more peaceful world, however misguided, or an elected president actively engaging in war based on lies, continuously killing americans, and justified in whatever way the citizenry can be conned into accepting this week?
brainhurts
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2006
- Posts
- 826
El Ocho said:
Dude, Go back to your bong--where everything seems to fit your "be nice to everybody world". With or without Bush, 9-11 would have happened. Saddam was thumbing his nose at the resolutions that were supposed to constrain him. WHERE DID THE WMD GO? No one denies they were there. Where are they? (Think Syria) Without Bush, Amamalingdong in Iran would still be enriching uranium and doing his best to be the next Sulliman. If you and your aunt Cindy were supporting this cause more instead of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, (who, by the way will not thank you by not nuking you) maybe freedom could get planted in the Arab world. Chavez would still be knocking America and catering to the Chinese. 99 percent of the guys and gals "in theatre" are in support of the effort. They do not need you to speak for them.
The citizen working for peace, however misguided, is the more dangerous. You fit that catagory.
Peace & Love,
bh
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
