Is Re-Regulation the Answer?

[TXCAP4228]

JBLU

I don't want to divert from the thread, but I thought I'd look into this whole thing about JBLU defering payment for airplanes.

The September 30, 2002 10Q statement filed by JBLU shows:


Ballance Sheet - Current Liabilities
Current maturities of Long Term Debt $51.8 Million.

Operating Expenses
Aircraft Rent $29.85 Million YTD,
Aircraft Rent $10.06 Million in the 3rd quarter.

Consolidate dstatement of Cash Flows
Predelivery Deposits for Flight Equipent $88.4 Million.

It sure looks to me like they are paying for their airplanes, and even putting up significant money for future deliveries. But what do I know? I only read their financial statements.

The notes didn't say anything about payment deferal and they don't show it on the financials. They do have $14.9 Million listed under "Other Accrued Liabilities" but that's not for airplanes.

Interesting reading. You can find the fiancials here.

Re-regulation would be a terrible idea - like using tarrifs to make sure that Ford, GM and Chrysler don't have to compete with Honda. Why should we support companies who don't perform?

 

[chawbein]

The writer of that article needs a MAJOR attitude adjustment. I would like to find out what airline he flies for so that I may NEVER have the opportunity of giving them my hard-earned money.

Why do you think people fly SWA? Because they get a smile from their employees and maybe a joke, not a condescending greeting or a look of disgust.

That guy's attitude explains EXACTLY what is wrong with the "Major" airline industry.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Attitude

Jeez. The author of that article has a serious attitude problem. If anyone know what airlines he flies for I'll be happy never to fly on it again.

Alternatively, if he has the stones to actually make a post here I'd be happy to discuss it with him.

 

[nonstop]

The government already runs this industry. They call practically all the shots, and they tax the sh1t out of the airlines. One of the few variables left, and the largest is the employee cost. So everytime the government adds a new tax or burden, guess to pays for it?

The government needs to regulate it, or get the hell out of the process.

Comparing Jet Blue and Southwest to any major carrier that provides global service is totally unfair. If you think the answer is survival of the fittest, you better be careful what you wish for.

 

[waka]

I'm no MBA but I have to say that this writer's suggestion section is right on for the most part. This practice of a difference of sometimes hundreds of dollars between pax sitting next to each other is ridiculous. In many respects, the airlines act like juvenile banshees. To (at least) this extent, regulation would be prudent.

Unchecked capitalism does not work. The market cannot dictate public policy.

 

[Draginass]

Assuming you believe the company's financial statement . . . .

Aircraft Rent $10.06 Million in the 3rd quarter.

$10 million divided by 3 months = $3.3 million/month divided by 32(?) acft = $103,000 per month for a A320? That's pretty cheap or maybe . . . .

 

[trainerjet]

The code of tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are
riding a dead horse the best strategy is to dismount.

I guess to some, this wisdom is hard to come by.

 

[F9 Driver]

What do you

think the ATSB is?

Propping up the industry in the immediate aftermath on 9/11 was a good idea, but giving out cash to some, but not all airlines IS WRONG!

The ATSB is subsidizing (sp?) some disfunctional carriers and some good ones (like F9 with little regard for long term viability.

Some have given the govt a share (warrents) in their business in return thus guarnteeing they will always be a drain on the tax payer no matter how poor their performance.

How can the govt pull back and say "no more" when all of the cash is gone and the company that we own a share in says that they need more?

Just my .02

 

[ifly4food]

Comment #1: It's interesting to see how the two or so posters who think the author of that article has an attitude problem are not airline pilots.

Comment #2: My remarks about deregulation failing in other industries was an off-the-cuff remark based on what I hear in the news, on NPR talk shows and my own observations. Of course I don't have hard numbers to back up that statement because, frankly, I have better things to do than research every topic lest someone challenges me to an academic debate. Sorry. I guess I should preface every statement with IMO lest anyone takes me seriously, because everything I write here is IMO. I think of it more than an a crew lounge discussion than an academic debate. If you challenge me to an academic debate, I'll lose every time.

Rant Alert:

IMO re-regulation is the answer. It will promote safety(good for the public) by ending the "cut corners" mentality of our airlines. It will return profits to investors (good for the economy) by forcing airlines to sell their product for what its worth. It will improve labor relations by relieving the airlines from having to make profits off the employees' backs. It will be good for the public because they won't have to worry about cities losing service because the four major airlines and their "codeshare partners" deem it no longer competetive. It will reduce crowding in the skies and airports.
True, it will reduce the number of pilots needed, but I'm prepared to accept that.
Not everyone is meant to fly. The USA is among few countries in the world where air travel is cheaper than ground travel. This has only been possible because the airlines have been charging less than cost for discount fares. It's time we invest in rail and bus travel networks and return flying to what it was meant to be.

That's my rant for the day and it's all IMO.

 

[flywithastick]

My remarks about deregulation failing in other industries was an off-the-cuff remark based on what I hear in the news, on NPR...

Oh, now it's more clear!!