Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Xjet Posts 2nd Quarter Loss  
User currently offlineXJET From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 492 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5131 times:

The total loss for the quarter was $26.4 million. Here is the link to the press release on XJET's website.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....-newsArticle&ID=1038042&highlight=


During the conference call Jim Ream talked about the struggles with getting the reservations system robust enough for travel agents. Apparently the system doesn't have a lot of the functionality that travel agents desire to create complicated itineraries. He also discussed some scheduling changes that would make connections possible to increase revenue. He stated that 70% of our locations are performing well and traffic is growing. 30% are not that great. No markets were named individually.

The load factor for the entire quarter on the branded side was 39%. For July, which includes the branded flying plus the 8 aircraft under pro-rate with Delta, the load factor is up to 65%.


There are a lot of interesting figures listed on the release above. Not great news for XE, but I think it is expected with only 90 days in operation. Plus, there was a ton of transition cost associated with aircraft painting, ground equipment, moving employees, etc. The next quarter will probably be a better indicator.

64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCLE757 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5123 times:

I think Xjet needs to get back only with Continental, and Continental should only use XJEt (except prop cities)


Cleveland the best location in the Nation
User currently offlineXJET From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 492 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5102 times:

Quoting CLE757 (Reply 1):
I think Xjet needs to get back only with Continental, and Continental should only use XJEt (except prop cities)

Ah, the good ole days. Would be nice.


User currently offlineRJNUT From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5078 times:

what caught my eye was the into plane fuel costs for the branded service...3 times that of the CO service..YIKES...They could still bump their fares up and not lose traffic


I am a real supporter and glad to hear that they recognize the limitations of their res system!!

some connections via ONT or AUS, etc, could be very interesting!


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25172 posts, RR: 48
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5068 times:

To put things more bluntly, while young the ExpressJet branded operation performed terribly.

Looking at their finances, the branded operation produced $28.2 revenues. Considering the airlines CO flying is under a revenue and profit guarantee(+10%) one must assume the resultant $26.4 loss must be near all attributed to new branded flying. In otherwords they probably lost quite a bit more then $26.4 that CO flying helped cover.

While I am sure they will build on the 39% load factor this quarter, I doubt it will approach anywhere close to profitability before heading down again for the fall.

Good thing Xjet they can cross subsidize the branded operation with other revenue streams, otherwise I'd say these guys are Independence Air #2, with such negative margins.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5420 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5051 times:

Quoting RJNUT (Reply 3):
what caught my eye was the into plane fuel costs for the branded service...3 times that of the CO service..YIKES..

I believe that under the agreement with CO, XJet's fuel cost is capped at 77 cents - no doubt one of the reasons CO was unhappy with the deal.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25172 posts, RR: 48
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4905 times:

Dug thru the numbers a little more;

They had revenue of $360m on CO flying with about $36 profit (+10% operating margin) while the branded service and DL at risk flying had revenues of $28m with loss of about $62m. (negative 221% margin!)



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineAtomother From United States of America, joined May 1999, 440 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4885 times:

So any speculation on the new flying?

Looks like they will be expanding with a carrier that they are currently flying for and a new carrier.

Am guessing the CO flying will only decrease if it doesn't stay the same so the DL operation has to be the one that may expand.

As for the other carrier? Maybe replacing Mesa and pick up some of their United flying?


User currently offlineRJNUT From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4824 times:

their at-risk agreement with DL gives them the opportunity to experiement with various P2P routes withouth having to start up an entire operation (i.e Reservations, counters, etc), I would think alot of growth could come there!

User currently offlineTcfc424 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 517 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4703 times:

Some of you guys are pretty harsh! They have only been flying for 90 days! In that time, they have had many one-time costs. I know we have accounts et al here, so perhaps somebody can dig through the one-time charges and find out what they REALLY lost.

XJET does have a variety of income streams (lets not forget their maintenance operation(s)?). It is because of that they are able to try new things out. It takes time to figure out what works, what doesn't, and how to tweak everything. XJET is a strong company, and I would give them a year before seriously evaluating their overall viability as far as branded service. That gives them time to develop a customer base, settle into regular operations, and increase/align flights and times. Until then...

Good luck XJET...perhaps I will be on one of those flights soon...either AUS-TUS or AUS-MSY.

Mike S. in AUS


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6372 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4684 times:

Quoting XJET (Thread starter):
He stated that 70% of our locations are performing well and traffic is growing. 30% are not that great. No markets were named individually.

I will speculate here that ELP-ONT is not one of XE's stellar perfoming routes...  scratchchin 



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineRJNUT From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4620 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 10):
will speculate here that ELP-ONT is not one of XE's stellar perfoming routes...

looks to be sold out on aug 12th


1 XE 106 W. S. Y. H. M. L. T. G. ELPONT 625P 723P ERJ 0E
2*A#US2908 Y9 B9 M9 H9 Q9 N9 V9 W9 ELPPHX 600A 616A *9 CR9 0E
L9 S9 T9 G6 K2 U0 E0 R0
3*A#US 641 F8 A7 P7 Y9 B9 M9 H9 Q9 ONT 747A 905A *9 733 0E
N9 V9 W9 L9 S9 T9 G9 K9 U9 E9 R9
4*A#UA5838 Y9 B9 M9 E9 U9 H9 Q9 V9 ELPDEN 600A 744A * CRJ 0E
W9 S9 T3 K9 L3 G2
5*A#UA1461 Y9 B9 M9 E9 U9 H9 Q9 V9 ONT 928A1038A *8 32S 0E
W9 S9 T3 K9 L3 G2
>


User currently offlineWhatUsaid From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 664 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4577 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 10):
I will speculate here that ELP-ONT is not one of XE's stellar perfoming routes...   

Having some time to burn at ONT while awaiting my evening flight to FAT on Monday, checking out the loads on both departing and arriving flights, there was no pattern that would allow anyone to draw conclusions as to how well XE is doing. Eastbound flights - MKC and Omaha were very light, which for a Monday night isn't really anything to get too excited about. In-bound loads seemed much better, let's say no less than 40% LF to higher than 70% on some arrivals.

The report in Aviation Week gave at least some insight into the growth in the last month of Q2 that is not fully recongized when looking at the performance for Q2 as a whole: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0Shed%20Light%20On%20New%20Service

The XE branded model isn't broken by any means. If, as one report today indicated, three additional aircraft are coming on-line, and if they're to actually use the slots they have at LGB, one can wonder if they're not about to become more focused on the Western region.

It's interesting that in today's announcement, they're specifically referenced the strength in the West. My flight to FAT had about 45 pax, which I never expected. I did notice some connecting traffic into FAT from TUS and XE is not set up to capitalize on connecting traffic at all. They don't need to hub per se, just make it easier to connect to maximize their LF out of ONT.

I'd say what actions they take in the next few months will be far more telling than either the Q2 or Q3 stats.


User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2754 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4567 times:

Some thoughts I had from the conference call:

How much is it going to cost to upgrade their reservation system? Further, I seem to recall limitations with the reservation system being an issue with Independence Air. If I'm correct on that, then why didn't XE learn that lesson before start-up.

Jim Ream at times sounded a little like Alberto Gonzales in front of Congress. He refused to give CASM guidance, other than to say higher, and that it was ok with them that CASM would go up. I can't recall ever listening to an airline conference call and not being able to get some kind of number for expected CASM in the next quarter, and I'm sure that annoyed analysts and institutional investors. Why would he not give a CASM projection?  scratchchin 

Then he was asked about the blocked seats online, which everyone on this website is aware of, and said he knew nothing about it. Not sure I believe him. He was asked if they were profitable and cash positive without the transition and arbitration costs. He said they were cash positive, but didn't know if they were profitable. I find it hard to believe that he would know they were cash positive, but not know if they would have been profitable without the two huge one time costs they incurred this quarter. That seems like a bit of information the CEO should be fully aware of.

Further, I would have liked to see more numbers offered for the branded operation in the press release, since XE decided to issue their 10-Q after the conference call. Would have been nice to have the numbers to assess the branded operation, instead of having to listen to analysts try to extract the numbers from Jim Ream.

I didn't have any problem with the financial performance. It was in line with what I expected, and I think they are doing fine right now. But that conference call was a head scratcher for me. I kept hearing things that made me wonder what XE is hiding. I hope nothing, but something sounded fishy.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25172 posts, RR: 48
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4550 times:

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 13):
It was in line with what I expected

Certainly not what Wall Street expected. Xjet loss was 3X what analyst estimates banked on.

As a result stock took a nice 6% tumble on a day the regional airline index as a whole ended up 3%.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineOsprey88 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 330 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4530 times:

Quoting Tcfc424 (Reply 9):
Some of you guys are pretty harsh! They have only been flying for 90 days! In that time, they have had many one-time costs.

I have to echo this sentiment. XE has been flying for only a few months, and it will take some time before they are able to fine tune their operations. Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day. It will take time for XE to evaluate route profitability, scrub non profitable routes and add frequencies to other profitable routes. I think it will take time, but I believe XE can find the sweet spot for their branded operations.

Listening to the Q2 conference call this morning, one person brought out something that I think is a very real problem for XE. Their online reservation system is less than helpful for those people with complex routings. It does not have a multi-city option, and it does not allow you to make reservations between cities that do not have direct flights between them. If you need to book a flight for example from FAT-ABQ, you have to book two separate flights.

A related question was asked by James Higgens during the call about connecting traffic across the network. Jim Nides said that their were "minor" of connecting traffic to other XE flights. I personally think this at least partly due to their basic reservations system. Nides also mentioned that the reservation system should be "exactly where we want it to be" by Q3.

James Higgens from Solay Securities also asked about the QX challenge to XE's intrusion into their markets and Nides responded that they were doing fine in those markets.

Mike Lindinburgh from Merril-Lynch asked a good question as to what the break even load factor would be for XE figuring out the one time costs associated with their Q2 losses. Nides said the load would have to be 30 to 35 passengers (probably anticipating selling those seats somewhere in the mid $100 range)

The main thing Nides said they were looking for was whether or not the routes could perform with flights twice daily. Overall, I think we need to wait until XE has accumulated that information and used it to modify their October-November scheduling, and then to see how they do.

I still have a lot of enthusiasm for XE, and I think their branded operations profitable given some time.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Cameron Bowerman - Airplanespotters




"Reading departure signs in some big airports reminds me of the places I've been"
User currently offlineACVitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 922 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4334 times:

Unfortuately, I am one who believes the Expressjet branded flying is not going to be fixed any tme soon.


The best estimations are that the XJet branded flying lost about $52 M USD for the quarter on revenue of 28.2 M USD for the X Jet branded flying. (These are estimates based on the what information was published. XJet did not publish the branded flying numbers but rather included them only as bundled on into the fee for departure and at risk flying for CO and DL)

I believe the Delta at risk flying costs around 10M USD in losses between start up and operational costs. I think that may turn a breakeven within the next 120 days. Unfortunately, it will not be enough to offset branded flying losses.

While they are trending up load factors the yields are still too low the bad news is we are now going into one of the weakest quarter of the year and they will likely have another significant loss.


I would project that without significant changes branded flying will see a loss of around $65M USD and it could easily be worse if fuel spikes this month or in Sep. (Fuel is again at record high levels).

They will need to raise yields to reach breakeven. As they are operating at a 39% load factor it would be reasonable to expect a maximum of 75% achievable and sustainable load factor with increased per pax costs they need to obtain almost double the yield and increase the load factor to 65% to reach a break even.

The management plan discussed on the conference call of utilizing more connection traffic will not help the situation as the connection traffic will see addl traffic generated but at relatively flat yield and higher costs (2 segments each way instead of 1 so twice the costs) (less revenue per pax per segment). If the management achieves a 33.3% connection traffic goal then the yield will need to increase by approx 104% and the load factor would need to be sustained at 75% to reach break even.

If yields do not increase then they would need to have a load factor of about 112% at current and with connection traffic it would be about 128%. As we are aware that is not possible. In fact any airline that exceeds a sustained 80% load factor is pretty amazing. But we cannot Express Jet to have passengers standing in the aisles when the plane fills up it is against FAA regs amongst other things (My attempt at humor).

Of course this is all approximate and based on outside observation. They could adopt a different model and simply limit the losses on the branded routes to a level that could be supplimented by the fee for departure and at risk flying for DL and CO but eventually shareholders will figure it out and question management competence. Especially considering that X Jet could have returned some of the aircraft to CO and limit the damages they are experiencing now.

Despite what some said about break even on 8 pax on the EMB-145XR that is not real with the yields they have. They would not have lost if it were. Airlines have some control over costs but at the end of the day the costs are largely similar and one can make estimations based on their peers in the industry. Based on that it is likely they need 56 pax on a 50 seater to breakeven on Q3 yields.

Best hope will be Q2 and Q3 in 2008. Revenue picks up and the load factors as well over the summer period.

If they can make it without the losses getting too extreme they may make it on current course. Otherwise the issues outlined above could be a reality.

If the losses are more significant over Q4 2007 and Q1 2008 the cash flow situation could be critical. Most debt structures have clauses ("covenents") that have significant requirements. If the losses continue, cash levels drop between certain levels the covenents will apply. They could force the sale of assets or other significant items that could damage the airline going forward.

They will need to focus on enhancing their distribution systems and probably drop marginal markets. They may need to evaluate some changes to the cities served and build a more traditional model. They may be able to reallocate resources to some of the better proforming markets.

I personnally think they need to hit more of the SE USA markets with larger population cachement areas. Possibly some N/S flying to augment the E/W flying they are focused on. Additional frequencies in stronger markets will bolster their position allow increased yields make them more attractive and allow better use of fixed station assets.

Of course a better solution would be to secure additional fee for departure flying for a major (They have a good reputation). It does appear that their relationship with CO is a little strained and they did lose the arbitration for 14 M USD that will probably show as a special adjustment on the next quarter which will not help the situation. Possibly the relationship with DL could be expanded or explore lift for other carriers like NW or US. (NW and US are not likely viable and UA is probably absolutely out of the question)

All in all the next several months will be critical for ExpressJet. The danger is with current cash burn they will probably need to look at dropping some routes, layoffs and subleasing aircraft to other carriers to avoid self distruction.

Without making difficult choices things could deteriorate. I wish all Expressjet employees the best and hope that they will thrive and survive. Let us hope that the situation improves rapidly. Possibly they obtain addl fee for departure flying that really is the only positive option they can hope for.


User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1958 posts, RR: 33
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4297 times:

I think the writing is more or less on the wall here. As someone who sees it on the front lines the load factors are not good enough. Take a look at the fares on the website and combine it with the costs of outfitting those planes with XM, catering, etc and it's easy to see how the losses occured. I never really gave the xjet flying more than 24 months and I would be awfully surprised if it lasts longer than that, but I hope it does.

User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2754 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4272 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 14):
Certainly not what Wall Street expected. Xjet loss was 3X what analyst estimates banked on.

Load factor was about exactly what I expected. I figured yield would be pretty weak as well, with introductory fares to try and introduce themselves to customers. Guess I should have shorted the stock. As ACVitale pointed out, the revenue side of the equation just isn't there yet. During the conference call, it was stated that they are looking to increase yield 20-30%, but didn't get very specific as to how they would do so. They brought up the reservation system issues for connecting traffic, but as ACViale already mentioned, that won't likely have the opposite effect. It will however raise overall revenue and bolster cash flow, possibly buying them enough time to get the revenue side on track and make it to next summer and hopefully some profits from the branded flying.

I decided to split the difference on XE's target yield increase and played with some numbers assuming a 25% increase (from current average of average fare of $108 to $135). This gives them a breakeven load factor of 90% It would be easier to estimate breakeven L/F going forward if ExpressJet had provided the start-up costs incurred during the quarter. To really figure out what's going on we need ExpressJet to break out a few numbers, but for now wild ass guessing will have to suffice. Just for fun, lets assume that start-up costs were $15 million. Then things look more like this:

Breakeven L/F at Q2 yield with reduced costs: 91%

Breakeven L/F at average fare of $135 and reduced costs: 73%

Of course I don't know what start-up costs for the branded and Delta at-risk flying were, so these numbers are just random neural firings that may or may not be close to reality. Last month was a 65% load factor, but we don't know what the yields were.

Quoting ACVitale (Reply 16):
I personnally think they need to hit more of the SE USA markets with larger population cachement areas. Possibly some N/S flying to augment the E/W flying they are focused on. Additional frequencies in stronger markets will bolster their position allow increased yields make them more attractive and allow better use of fixed station assets.

I agree that additional frequencies in their strongest markets will help, but I'm not sure about expanding in the SE. I seem to recall comments to the effect that the strength was in the West and Southwest.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineMSYtristar From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 6564 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4204 times:

Summer figures will always trend higher, so I would expect to see improved results next quarter. The real test will be the quarter after that, when traffic historically falls off some.

As for specific cities, I personally think that cities having a minimum of 45% load factor are doing fairly well for a new startup at this point. It's good to see many cities posting a 5% or more increase in load factor month over month. Hopefully the people trying out XE will have a good enough experience to reccomend the airline to friends and colleagues.
I bet you that XE is looking at the routes with a fine toothed comb.


User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5420 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4159 times:

Having elected to keep the 69 aircraft, is XJT now stuck with them? Can they return them to CO prior to the next fleet review in 2010? or ever? (My understanding is they are still subleased from CO.)


I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineJBLUA320 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3179 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4144 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well, despite the people who have low expectations and hopes for our branded flying, the new schedule changes that are effective in September help to create stronger connection possibilities as well as same-day flying for business travelers. While I am sure the LF will fall in historically weak periods, I do not think we'll see a huge decrease, as a great deal of our traffic (at least out of RDU) is business, a solid half of which is same-day returns.

There were a lot of 1 time costs associated with the start up, and a multitude of additional costs to "fix" the system -- our reservation system changes all the time, getting updated and whatnot- but right now, there are a lot of bugs that need to be fixed, and those fixes are coming.

Also, for anyone saying that we need above a 100% load factor to break even-- again, I will tell you, you are wrong. Most of our routes have a fare structure that is designed (with the right balance of full-fare Y business travelers and then leisure travelers) to facilitate break even at around 50%.

We're not doing badly for only 4 months in operation, and the numbers are increasing because customers like and believe in our product. To go from a nobody to a somebody in 24 cities takes longer than 4 months...

JBLU


User currently offlineACVitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 922 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4007 times:

guys and gals not to dis what you are saying but...

They are not garnering the Y fare pax. It is much harder then you might think. That is clear from the financial results.

They spent a lot of money in Q1 for startup costs so the argument that its largely startup costs does not hold true.

They are flying to the the SE but not to key markets like TPA, MIA or FLL, MCO, ATL, and others.

Florida to MSY, RDU, BNA, CLT are good markets. Many other examples but you need large cachement areas to compete.

And anyone asserting they can break even on 50% LF is crazy. The released numbers clearly dispute that. I suggest you read the above post I made again. The problem is two fold 1. Yield and 2. LF. You can have one but without the other you still lose $$$ and the situation is clear they dont have enough of either but the LF is getting marginally better.

Again the connection traffic will boost the LF numbers but the RASM will plummet.

If you have a choice between flying a major like CO, UA, DL, AA on mainline equipment with frequent flyer miles etc and connecting thru DFW, LAX, ORD, or where ever vs. X Jet and connecting it is gonna be a tough road for X Jet.

Please gang lets look at things realitistically. This is a mess they need more fee for departure flying - The End.


Anyone want to talk about the cash on hand now vs. burn rate for Q3-4 2007 and Q1-2 2008 and make predictions on a date with destiny?


User currently offlineJumbojettim From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 193 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3920 times:

Quoting ACVitale (Reply 22):
guys and gals not to dis what you are saying but...

They are not garnering the Y fare pax. It is much harder then you might think. That is clear from the financial results.

They spent a lot of money in Q1 for startup costs so the argument that its largely startup costs does not hold true.

They are flying to the the SE but not to key markets like TPA, MIA or FLL, MCO, ATL, and others.

Florida to MSY, RDU, BNA, CLT are good markets. Many other examples but you need large cachement areas to compete.

And anyone asserting they can break even on 50% LF is crazy. The released numbers clearly dispute that. I suggest you read the above post I made again. The problem is two fold 1. Yield and 2. LF. You can have one but without the other you still lose $$$ and the situation is clear they dont have enough of either but the LF is getting marginally better.

Again the connection traffic will boost the LF numbers but the RASM will plummet.

If you have a choice between flying a major like CO, UA, DL, AA on mainline equipment with frequent flyer miles etc and connecting thru DFW, LAX, ORD, or where ever vs. X Jet and connecting it is gonna be a tough road for X Jet.

Please gang lets look at things realitistically. This is a mess they need more fee for departure flying - The End.


Anyone want to talk about the cash on hand now vs. burn rate for Q3-4 2007 and Q1-2 2008 and make predictions on a date with destiny?

Man! You should become the CEO of an airline someday.


User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1958 posts, RR: 33
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3895 times:

Quoting Jumbojettim (Reply 23):
Man! You should become the CEO of an airline someday.

Maybe ACVitale is Jonathan Ornstein's screen name.


25 Jumbojettim : It's amazing how people automatically assume that Xjet is doomed just like FlyI, just because we lost 26 million in the first 3 months of operation. N
26 Drewwright : It is a widely known fact that FL is a low-yield market and highly competitive. Why on earth would XJET enter into that mess? High load factors in a
27 MAH4546 : People aren't predicting an end to Xjet, but an end to Xjet's independently branded operations are almost a given. There is just too much money to be
28 FlyPNS1 : You're right, but I'm not sure there are many majors left who want to do a fee-for-departure contract using 50 seaters. This is why XJet is doing som
29 RJNUT : the majors ARE NOT going to continue the gravy train for regionals....if you think they are going to give lucrative contracts to provide 50 seat servi
30 MasseyBrown : The loss is daunting; but cash flow from operations stayed strongly positive and the balance sheet is solid. There is no immediate threat to company's
31 BNAtraveler : XE is on Amadeus' hosted reservation platform. If this is a true limitation of Amadeus' platform, I'll be surprised; I would imagine the trouble is h
32 RJNUT : Or their level of participation..If they go full service, then they can do more, but their res agents ARE their weakest link , because they put a che
33 Laxintl : One thing to keep in mind as we talk about finances is the Xjet CASM is about $0.14. Exlude some special items which might haved up the Q2 number a li
34 Frontierflyer : Most majors are steering clear of 50 seaters leaving xjet with too many planes. Got to love their effort though.
35 MSYtristar : That's the GUI version, and let me tell you, it is quite popular these days...probably for the reasons you mentioned above. I think it's a lot wiser
36 Post contains images ACVitale : What is the status with the current CO contract. Can CO drop any more Expressjet fl Ok I know I never was good at Voodoo economics. I only studied the
37 MAH4546 : No, not right now, however I can foresee possible American Airlines and United Express wanting some for regional jet flying 18-24 months from now.
38 Post contains images Alias1024 : Now that the 10Q is out, we have some numbers to use so we can stop guessing at the expenses for the branded operation. Based on last quarter, with t
39 Cubsrule : Is AA obligated to use MQ for RJ flying outside of STL?
40 Jumbojettim : Granted you are saying most majors, however Delta origanally taking 10 a/c, then taking an additonal 8, and supposedly wanting more. Xjet is in talks
41 Post contains links MasseyBrown : Their cash flow statement shows +$20 million from operations and is on page 5 of: http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/...00114433107000054/xjt10q0630
42 Jetdeltamsy : They (XJ) would have to get their costs down before Continental wouldl even consider it. This was something everyone saw coming.
43 Alias1024 : They could achieve a 60-70% breakeven with the 20-30% yield improvements they are targeting, but not at the average fare of $108 from last quarter. I
44 Drewwright : You must have missed the ten million other threads that discuss this topic. ExpressJet is cost competitive. XJT could have even underbid everone else
45 XJET : So true. I am growing tired of the "ExpressJet was too expensive" argument.
46 Jetdeltamsy : I didn't "miss" anything. Express Jet was asked years ago by Continental to contain or lower their cost for flying services. EJ went to their unioins
47 XJET : Well, pardon me for saying so.....BUT, you don't know what you are talking about. Everyone was asked to cut costs. XE lowered costs. What you are say
48 Post contains images B737900er : CO had nothing to do with XJT going independent. Expressjet airlines is seven years in the making. It took alot longer than one year to put that syst
49 RJNUT : I am calling BS on this one!! They run very well !!!,Its the flimsy Mesa's and Trans States' that get that poor rating..MQ runs quite well in ORD wit
50 Lightsaber : First, I was an FLYI fan when they were around... so I have a bias to see Xjet succeed. That said, in this era of expensive fuel, I just do not see ho
51 Laxintl : Take a look at DOT numbers, they tell a very different story about MQ. For 12months ending June. Ontime arrivals - 4th worst in industry 69.46% (Mesa
52 Jetdeltamsy : I'm not trying to pick a fight here. relax. but the reality is that other regional airlines were able to bid on and win contract flying because their
53 Jumbojettim : So you're saying every regional airline nowadays has to undercut everybody else by making their employees work for minimum wage. Heck we could have e
54 KAUSpilot : I think you're overemphasizing how much of a factor xjet's labor costs were in the withdrawal of the 69 planes from CO. The negotiations seemed to ce
55 MasseyBrown : In the interest of precision, the fuel cost is capped at 71.2 cents, not 77 cents. Mea cupla.
56 SkyyMaster : A friend of mine in California recently flew Xjet ONT-AUS-CRP and back. He indicated the ONT-AUS leg had maybe 15 pax. AUS-CRP had three. On the retur
57 WhatUsaid : They're already making changes with their Sept schedule. Those numbers you toss out are as good as those I tossed out on FAT-SAN being 100% full on t
58 MAH4546 : What are they adding other than SMF-BFL?
59 Jumbojettim : There are 6 flights in and out of ONT today and all I'll say is that Xjet is making money on this route.
60 SkyyMaster : If they are making money thats great, I would be curious to know how you "know" they are making money - a full plane does not necessarily equate to a
61 XJET : I am not trying to pick a fight here either. But you were speaking as if you knew what was going on. Obviously you don't. We were never asked to take
62 Drewwright : JetDeltaMSY, your posts are loaded with misinformation presented as fact. ExpressJet is XE. Mesaba is XJ. XE has a very efficient and productive workg
63 JetBlueAUS : Well then, CO Express and DL Connection is definitely not making enough to cover the losses of the solo operation.
64 Jumbojettim : Have you ever heard of start-up costs. Xjet did open 24 cities in as little as 2 months. There was also the repainting of 69 a/c (branded, Delta) and
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Cintra (MX & AM) Post 2nd. Quarter Loss posted Thu Jul 28 2005 16:47:36 by Juventus
US Airways Posts 3rd Quarter Loss posted Fri Oct 29 2004 18:25:40 by Willbdsp
Boeing Reports 2nd Quarter Loss posted Thu Jul 24 2003 18:50:05 by Danny
Air Transat Posts 4th Quarter Loss Of 7 Million posted Wed Mar 19 2003 17:13:18 by Dash8King
United Posts 1st Quarter 2007 Loss posted Wed Apr 25 2007 16:17:00 by Spoke2Spoke
NW 2nd Quarter Results: $182M Loss posted Thu Jul 22 2004 04:00:25 by Mikey711MN
Allegiant Reports 2nd Quarter Profit. posted Tue Aug 7 2007 05:48:58 by Laxintl
AeroMexico Posts 2Q $63m Loss posted Sat Jul 28 2007 19:39:24 by SR117
2nd Quarter Earnings - Who's Winning? posted Tue Jul 24 2007 21:52:03 by Bistro1200
CO 2nd Quarter Results posted Thu Jul 19 2007 14:13:28 by IAHFLYR