NetJets' profitability

[AeroBoy]

From today's AINalerts (http://www.ainalerts.com/ainalerts/alerts/051606.html):

NetJets Poised for a Profitable Year?
If Berkshire Hathaway’s first-quarter results are any indication, its NetJets subsidiary will record a profit this year, which would be a reversal from $80 million in losses incurred by the fractional aircraft provider last year. The investment company’s flight services division, composed of NetJets and FlightSafety International, had $919 million in revenues in the first quarter–a $152 million, or 20 percent, increase over the same period last year. According to Berkshire, this was “primarily due to a 23-percent increase in revenues from NetJets,” as the result of a 19-percent rise in flight operations and management service fees and fewer outsourced flights. First-quarter revenues for training provider FlightSafety increased a more modest 7 percent over last year. Pre-tax first-quarter earnings of the flight services businesses totaled $21 million, versus $7 million last year. Meanwhile, NetJets Europe CEO William Kelly said yesterday that he expects his company to post an operating profit this year and be profitable next year.

 

[notaNJApilot]

That's really interesting, and I hope it's true. But on the company side things are still scary.

 

[old*art]

Oldest trick in the book to head off other request for pay increases ... threaten layoffs.

 

[sweptwingz]

Any company that is posting record sales, buying large numbers of aircraft, hiring hundreds of pilots, constructing and enlarging it's buildings and expanding the company both in the USA, EU , and CIS, and has been doing so for 10 years, IS MAKING MONEY....Count on it.

Mr. Buffet doesn't buy non-producers. Period.

It's a money shell game, nothing more.

 

[CapnVegetto]

I find it so amusing how it was doom and gloom, fiery flaming pit of death during contract negotiations, and now, with fuel more expensive than ever, all of a sudden a profit is being made, with much higher pilot costs than before.

What a bunch of f-ing tools. Liars. I just don't know how they sleep at night.

 

[Diesel]

So lets give the god damn floor people a raise.

You want to keep good workers pay them a good wage.

 

[NJAowner]

A ?

Not taking any side here or advocating disseminating inaccurate information, but, which of the following would you prefer to be employed by and have your long term career with:

1 -- a company in a horrible financial situation which portrays it as such;
2 -- a company in a horrible financial situation which portrays it as great; or
3 -- a company in a fine financial situation which portrays it as horrible.

I have left out #4 on purpose -- a company which is in a fine financial situation which portrays is as such. Such a company can regret its statements by many (other than its unionized labor) like plaintiffs attorneys, shareholders attorneys, its suppliers, its creditors and others it does business with. Such a position may also make a company's employees (non-union, i.e., sales) complacent with the satus quo instead of always striving to move ahead and be better.

I would prefer #3 -- I know I will always get my check and it will clear and I have a long term job. Most employees can not afford the altruistic principle of having their company be #1 -- completely honest.

Fly safe.

 

[Ultra Grump]

So lets give the god dang floor people a raise.

You want to keep good workers pay them a good wage.

It's a crime that our schedulers are paid more than our dispatchers.

 

[gunfyter]

So lets give the god dang floor people a raise.

You want to keep good workers pay them a good wage.

I vote for Raises!

 

[RTRHD]

I think there just trying to see where they are financialy. (thats all)