Virgin America discloser?

[Midge]

Because we're tired of hearing "Ooooo, we can't compete unless you pilots are willing to work for peanuts too!" Really, they can't go the way of Skybus soon enough.

From the looks of it, they probably will.

 

[OurMoney1]

I hope for the young pilots starting their careers today and the ones stuck at the regionals trying to break out that VA collapses and folds.

Aspire for more; better pay, benefits, and working rules. You didn't pay your dues to work for sub standard wages. Your hard work alone bears witness to more than what these type of outfits offer.

VA disappearing is for the good of all. I am sympathetic to the guys/gals trying to feed their families but in the spirit of majority we all stand to gain when flea bag operators like VA pass in the night.

 

[Dizel8]

Here is part of the release, appears they are doing okay:


Virgin America Releases Financial Results
Monday February 2, 12:49 pm ET Start-up Carrier Reports Steadily Growing Revenue Despite Fuel Costs and Challenging Economy
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Virgin America, the new California based domestic airline, today reported the company's past financial data for the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first three quarters of 2008. Despite record fuel costs and a challenging economic climate, the new airline reported consistent and steadily growing unit revenue and load factors since its launch in Aug. 2007, with record growth in the latter part of 2008.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/090202/aqm088.html?.v=66

 

[~~~^~~~]

Key facts in the Form 41 release include:
-- Start-up losses: The airline reported a $175.4 million net loss for the first three quarters of 2008 on operating revenues of $259.6 million;
-- Strong load factors: 77.6 percent load factor in the second quarter of 2008 and 81.4 percent load factor in the third quarter of 2008.
-- Significant top line progress: Quarter over quarter unit revenue improved by 28 percent in the first quarter of 2008, 26 percent in the second quarter and 10 percent in the third quarter. Despite a near doubling of capacity, unit revenue in the third quarter was up over 75 percent versus the fourth quarter of 2007, Virgin America's first full operating quarter.

It is easy to have record growth when you start from zero. But their revenues are not growing as quickly as capacity.

Apparently the secret to running an airline isn't paying your pilots crap wages and basing the operation in a very expensive locale during a oil crisis followed by a recesso-depression. Who'd have thought? Mike Boyd's crunching the numbers for his clients now and probably have his usual colorful commentary in a couple days.

Should be easy to raise cash to cover the losses. Where's Bernie Madoff?

Still , there's some good guys working as pilots over there. It is the risk you take with these instant Captain gigs.

 

[Lear70]

Ouch.

Key facts in the Form 41 release include:

-- Start-up losses: The airline reported a $175.4 million net loss for the first three quarters of 2008 on operating revenues of $259.6 million;

Ummm, I'm not an accountant, but...

Revenue (cash coming in): $260 Million.
Loss: $175 Million

So they lost more than 70% more than they made in cash? That's equivalent to you making $2,600 a month and then spending ALL of that and another $1,700 bucks.

Wonder how much unrestricted cash they have on hand and how much more Branson's willing to throw at it...

-- Strong load factors: 77.6 percent load factor in the second quarter of 2008 and 81.4 percent load factor in the third quarter of 2008.

Over 80% of the seats are full and they're still losing $0.70 cents more than every dollar that comes in...?

Again, ouch.

-- Significant top line progress: Quarter over quarter unit revenue improved by 28 percent in the first quarter of 2008, 26 percent in the second quarter and 10 percent in the third quarter. Despite a near doubling of capacity, unit revenue in the third quarter was up over 75 percent versus the fourth quarter of 2007, Virgin America's first full operating quarter.

Read that last part again. Capacity DOUBLED, and unit revenue didn't double with it? That means load factors on the increased flights actually went DOWN. Not a good mix for positive cash flow.

Talk about spending yourself into profitability, let's buy a bunch of planes, fill them with fewer and fewer people each route we put them on, operating at a loss on ALL of it, and see if that works.

Guess it's all a matter of how much money Virgin has on hand and how much the investors are willing to continue to throw at them.

 

[tzskipper]

Read that last part again. Capacity DOUBLED, and unit revenue didn't double with it? That means load factors on the increased flights actually went DOWN. Not a good mix for positive cash flow

.

Lear, see the definition of "Unit Revenue" below. It is commonly known as "RASM". It is actually a good indicator and measure of an airlines pricing power (yield). An increasing rasm in the face of huge (percentage) growth in new markets indicates that yields and/or load factors are actually increasing. By your comment above, it reads as though you mean "Passenger Revenue". (see below).

A doubling of rasm is something no airline has accomplished quarter over quarter that I know of...

Skipper

Passenger Revenue
Revenue received by the airline from the carriage of passengers in scheduled operations.


Revenue per Available Seat Mile (RASM)
Also called "unit revenue," this figure is calculated by dividing the airline’s total revenue by all the available seat miles.

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/Res_Glossary.html

 

[Lear70]

.

Lear, see the definition of "Unit Revenue" below. It is commonly known as "RASM". It is actually a good indicator and measure of an airlines pricing power (yield). An increasing rasm in the face of huge (percentage) growth in new markets indicates that yields and/or load factors are actually increasing. By your comment above, it reads as though you mean "Passenger Revenue". (see below).

A doubling of rasm is something no airline has accomplished quarter over quarter that I know of...

Skipperl

You're right, Skipper. And Virgin hasn't done it yet, either. I think you need to review that press release again and the definition of RASM.

Hint: they did NOT say that Revenue doubled.

CAPACITY doubled. Which is AVAILABLE SEAT MILES, not "Revenue" per ASM. The problem is that ASM's increased by 100% and unit revenue didn't increase equally.

I stand by my original statement.

 

[atldc9]

You are talking about total revenue, not unit revenue.

 

[tzskipper]

Hint: they did NOT say that Revenue doubled

Lear, you posed the question;

"Capacity DOUBLED, and unit revenue didn't double with it? That means load factors on the increased flights actually went DOWN. Not a good mix for positive cash flow.

That was not said in the release. It stated that quarter over quarter load factors increased, as did unit revenues. That was what I was pointing out...

Again....

Key facts in the Form 41 release include:
-- Start-up losses: The airline reported a $175.4 million net loss for the first three quarters of 2008 on operating revenues of $259.6 million;
-- Strong load factors: 77.6 percent load factor in the second quarter of 2008 and 81.4 percent load factor in the third quarter of 2008.
-- Significant top line progress: Quarter over quarter unit revenue improved by 28 percent in the first quarter of 2008, 26 percent in the second quarter and 10 percent in the third quarter. Despite a near doubling of capacity, unit revenue in the third quarter was up over 75 percent versus the fourth quarter of 2007, Virgin America's first full operating quarter.


Skipper

 

[~~~^~~~]

Wow you guys are brutal.. I start a post with some factual info and a rumor i heard and these va guys are going bonkers yet they are no in this thread...

Non union, probably scared to post. Management might be sensitive.