RAH Net Income 4Q 2009 = $0.9 million.

[CX880]

Republic prevents the growth of Southwest .

uh.. no it doesn't. 1Q at a time.

 

[Minimaniac]

Bedford stated earlier in 2009 that a loss was anticipated in 4q 2009, 1q 2010 and 2q 2010. The losses were expected to arise from the branded side, and the costs associated with the merger. As expected, 4q 2009 was dismal. But a profit was squeezed out, which means RAH is ahead of where they expected to be.

There are a lot of things to look to as a sign of RAH failure, but performing as expected and publicly stated is not one of them.

 

[ePilot22]

But a profit was squeezed out, which means RAH is ahead of where they expected to be.

Squeezed out? It's a Fee-For-Departure. As long as you spend less than what you earn, it's a profit. It's really not that tough unless you start buying more than you can afford. I'll look forward to 3Q10 results then.




eP.

 

[nerjdriver]

Bedford stated earlier in 2009 that a loss was anticipated in 4q 2009, 1q 2010 and 2q 2010. The losses were expected to arise from the branded side, and the costs associated with the merger. As expected, 4q 2009 was dismal. But a profit was squeezed out, which means RAH is ahead of where they expected to be.

There are a lot of things to look to as a sign of RAH failure, but performing as expected and publicly stated is not one of them.

You are a moron. Stop sitting on the throttles in the 170 ok? Its bad for maintenance.

 

[Minimaniac]

Squeezed out? It's a Fee-For-Departure. As long as you spend less than what you earn, it's a profit. It's really not that tough unless you start buying more than you can afford. I'll look forward to 3Q10 results then.




eP.

This was the first quarter in which branded operation performance from both Frontier AND Midwest were included in financial figures. That means that the overall profit was not based strictly on fee-per-departure. Fee-per-departure was profitable. Branded ops were not. Branded ops were expected to completely wipe out any profit gained from fee-per-departure ops, and then some. Also, one time costs associated with the acquisitions were expected to contribute to the overall loss. The fact that any profit was turned overall shows that the cost of taking over the branded operations and executing the branded schedule were less than anticipated. This means that RAH management has to date planned conservatively, even by a small margin, and has anticipated the cost of their new business model with an acceptable degree of accuracy. That means claims made by Bedford regarding the success of branded ops and a return to branded operation profitability in mid 2010 have more credibility than many of us originally thought.

This isn't cheerleading. I am just saying that a 0.9 million dollar profit is not the sign of weakness from RAH that many of you are hoping for, but rather an affirmation that RAH has had a handle on what it was getting into.

 

[Minimaniac]

You are a moron. Stop sitting on the throttles in the 170 ok? Its bad for maintenance.

Your post is irrelevant, without thought, inappropriate, and utterly useless.

 

[CX880]

Your post is irrelevant, without thought, inappropriate, and utterly useless.

Please do you guys have a policy where the CA has to do the walk around? You're embarassing yourself, it's only an ERJ170.

 

[Lear70]

Your post is irrelevant, without thought, inappropriate, and utterly useless.

Yes, it is, but it's within the board TOS so it stays...

We can moderate TOS violations, but we don't moderate inane arguments. Just one of the joys of FI, and one of the reasons I don't read all the threads in all the forums anymore, better things to do with my time.