cessna53996
Topic Author
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:27 am

B6 Outlook After Poor January

Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:55 pm

Article: https://skift.com/2017/01/26/jetblue-ma ... h-january/

- Could LGB see cuts now that they won't be flying int'l?
- Did B6 put too much capacity on Cuba too quick? Downgauge from A321s to A320s or E190s?

Discuss!
 
Abeam79
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:16 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:06 pm

But yet they paid down almost all their debt and paid cash for all new airplanes while buying out another dozen leases, all while giving employees 8% raise and still having biggest profit to date. Wall Street has gone insane with obsessing with these margins. Mint is proving to be increasingly more profitable.
B6 is aggressive these days with their monetary orders, they will do fine and thrive. I will surmise the sluggish Latam countries will get a lil pullback, and they will focus in the next few years jumping on the transatlantic market where they can certainly deliver a premium product, mint, and drive up yields now that market seems like it's gaining decent traction.
 
DesertAir
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:34 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:19 pm

I think January is a poor month is measure performance. B6 suffered from winter storms and the usual downturn in traffic after the holidays. It seems like many airlines rushed into the Cuban market without understanding the restrictions the market presents. The Long Beach vote to not construct for international use fits in with the long history of Long Beach attempting to limit airline usage of the terminal. B6 must maximize its use of the airport or abandon its plans. Airlines have a history of abandoning projects. For example: the AA hub in San Jose, CA, US Airways abandoned Pitt as a hub, Delta abandoned CVC...
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2459
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:21 pm

Abeam79 wrote:
But yet they paid down almost all their debt and paid cash for all new airplanes while buying out another dozen leases, all while giving employees 8% raise and still having biggest profit to date. Wall Street has gone insane with obsessing with these margins. Mint is proving to be increasingly more profitable.
B6 is aggressive these days with their monetary orders, they will do fine and thrive. I will surmise the sluggish Latam countries will get a lil pullback, and they will focus in the next few years jumping on the transatlantic market where they can certainly deliver a premium product, mint, and drive up yields now that market seems like it's gaining decent traction.


You cant argue with that. B6 is putting themselves in better financial position. Any time you can cut your debt is a good thing. Wall Street just needs to take a seat.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 2822
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:34 pm

Abeam79 wrote:
But yet they paid down almost all their debt and paid cash for all new airplanes while buying out another dozen leases, all while giving employees 8% raise and still having biggest profit to date. Wall Street has gone insane with obsessing with these margins. Mint is proving to be increasingly more profitable.
B6 is aggressive these days with their monetary orders, they will do fine and thrive. I will surmise the sluggish Latam countries will get a lil pullback, and they will focus in the next few years jumping on the transatlantic market where they can certainly deliver a premium product, mint, and drive up yields now that market seems like it's gaining decent traction.


I always wondered how of all of the new A321s they are getting, how only one was sold and leased back. I do notice that on the non-Embraers, B6 is buying the planes off-lease. However, down the line, B6 can afford to do more sale-leasebacks if needed..

As for Latin America, I would suggest that MCO be the base for operations to there, other than what JFK needs. As for LGB, I wonder if B6 should consider trying to build up a mini-hub at LAX or even at SJS or OAK where international flights from the West Coast could be launched, even though all 3 legacy carriers and WN have a hub (WN - focus city since it doesn't call any concentrations hubs) at LAX (the competition at SJS is less, and B6 could garner some international traffic from codeshares with either ANA or Hainan, who both fly into SJS; a codeshare with Lufthansa, which flies CityLine into SJS, is a foregone conclusion).
 
flyby519
Posts: 1421
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:49 pm

cessna53996 wrote:
Article: https://skift.com/2017/01/26/jetblue-ma ... h-january/

- Could LGB see cuts now that they won't be flying int'l?
- Did B6 put too much capacity on Cuba too quick? Downgauge from A321s to A320s or E190s?

Discuss!


I can't see any cuts to LGB unless they have another viable option (and there aren't any good ones). Cuba downgrade to E190s for everything except HAV maybe? I also think LGB would be a good candidate for an E190 base. Use up as many slots as they can with short haul flights on the E190 and a couple transcons. The problem is that the E190 fleet is pretty well utilized and there isn't any spare capacity for Cuba or LGB E190 flying.
 
msycajun
Posts: 1050
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:13 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:10 am

It seems that the fleet as it is could be a problem for revenue management. With the 320s going to 162 seats, there's a huge gap between the 190s and 320s. You'd think they'd be seriously considering the C Series. CS100 at about 100 seats could replace the 190s and the CS 300 at about 130 seats would be a nice middle ground.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 3:39 am

I think the issue is that Wall Street continues operating under the assumption that the current oil price lows are temporary, thus they get skittish anytime an airline does something that squeezes margins because they keep thinking about the day when oil will go back up to $90/barrel.
 
catiii
Posts: 3119
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:52 am

msycajun wrote:
You'd think they'd be seriously considering the C Series.


They are...
 
Jshank83
Posts: 2834
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:58 am

cessna53996 wrote:
- Did B6 put too much capacity on Cuba too quick? Downgauge from A321s to A320s or E190s?

Discuss!


I feel like everyone added too much capacity to Cuba too quick. Is anyone doing that well there? I feel like many airlines have been cutting back.
 
ericm2031
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:46 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:16 am

Jshank83 wrote:
cessna53996 wrote:
- Did B6 put too much capacity on Cuba too quick? Downgauge from A321s to A320s or E190s?

Discuss!


I feel like everyone added too much capacity to Cuba too quick. Is anyone doing that well there? I feel like many airlines have been cutting back.


WN said they are pleased with what they are seeing, but also admitted it's not where they want it eventually. They also mentioned they are seeing traffic from both ends, which is a change from their other international cities currently.

I think it is going to come down to who is the most patient for the routes to mature.
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4563
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:43 am

catiii wrote:
msycajun wrote:
You'd think they'd be seriously considering the C Series.


They are...


No, they are not.
 
RollerRB211
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 10:39 pm

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:54 am

ericm2031 wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:
cessna53996 wrote:
- Did B6 put too much capacity on Cuba too quick? Downgauge from A321s to A320s or E190s?

Discuss!


I feel like everyone added too much capacity to Cuba too quick. Is anyone doing that well there? I feel like many airlines have been cutting back.


WN said they are pleased with what they are seeing, but also admitted it's not where they want it eventually. They also mentioned they are seeing traffic from both ends, which is a change from their other international cities currently.

I think it is going to come down to who is the most patient for the routes to mature.


WN is claiming they are getting traffic from the Cuban POS? I'd love to see that quote.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 2184
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:26 pm

msycajun wrote:
It seems that the fleet as it is could be a problem for revenue management. With the 320s going to 162 seats, there's a huge gap between the 190s and 320s. You'd think they'd be seriously considering the C Series. CS100 at about 100 seats could replace the 190s and the CS 300 at about 130 seats would be a nice middle ground.


If it's in an all-Y layout, the CS100 would seat 120-125, and the CS300 would be 140+.

They are comparable to the 737-500/600 (CS100) and 737-300/700/A319 (CS300) in size.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
richierich
Posts: 3581
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:59 pm

jumbojet wrote:
clearly, all the B6 fanboys are out in full force in this thread. I mean, B6 can do no wrong and they have the midas touch. Well, to the real experts, the ones that matter, that's not the case. sorry to burst the B6 bubble.


Jumbojet never has anything nice to say about B6, so there is that. The reality is that people of his ilk (very often DL fanboys, for what it is worth) have been predicting JetBlue's demise for years, and unless there is some major purchase or merge announced, B6 isn't going anywhere for a long, long time.

B6's outlook is not all rosy at the moment, but it is hardly a dire situation either. January 2017 looks like it will be a big disappointment, but so was January 2016 and the rest of the year turned out more or less good. The way I see it, JetBlue is simply running out of room to grow and needs to make some big decisions. As the OP identified, Cuba and LGB ops are just two issues that need to be resolved, but I think there are even bigger issues lurking, such as what to do with the E190s and when will there be a move toward long-haul. As I understand it (and I don't,) revenue management is a bit of a crapshoot at the best of times but it was clear from JetBlue's earnings call that RM was a concern to Wall Street. I can only hope that doesn't lead to overselling flights - if there is one thing I really hate about flying WN, AA, DL and other airlines, it is the overbooking process at the gate.

Cuban flights will be right-sized, and my personal expectation is that B6 may follow AA and other's lead by downsizing to E190s and/or flight reductions in the next few months. I think everybody knew Cuba, especially non-HAV cities, would take time to grow, and JetBlue wanted to be first and commit to flights to Cuba, but there is a cost to that. Let's be honest here, with the new administration in Washington it may only be a matter of time before Cuban flights - and/or the travel rights of citizens of both countries are impeded - are further restricted anyway. The LGB FIS ruling was clearly a disappointment to everybody except the NIMBYs of SoCal, so your guess is as good as mine with what happens to B6 there. I could see JetBlue leaving LGB completely for greener pastures (but where?) or perhaps significantly cutting the number of flights and giving up the slots. I could also see a reallocation of E190s to LGB to keep a small west coast presence, and reduce LGB's revenues by almost a third in the process, but I really don't expect that to happen. JetBlue does not generally strike me as a retaliatory airline; they want to make a decision that keeps their investors happy, whatever that means in this case.

As for the E190s, they have a fleet of sixty. Not a small fleet, but not a huge fleet either. In my opinion, the E190s are not going anywhere unless they are directly replaced by the C-series or other models (A319s?), however I am not sure the gains from replacement aircraft would outweigh the extra cost of a new fleet type or heavier planes. Besides being a good aircraft from the customer's perspective - and now that dispatch reliability is reasonably good - the E190s form a vital part of JetBlue's route map and are versatile enough to be operated effectively on shorthaul routes, such as JFK-BDA and FLL-JAX, or slightly longer routes such as JFK-AUS. But at 100 seats and no chance to increase that, they are somewhat limited in their size.

The real question everybody on a.net has been asking is 'when is JetBlue going to Europe?' Well, I am wondering if that time has come. Operating a small, widebody fleet was always inevitable, perhaps, and maybe now makes sense (figure start operations in 1-2 years time.) Mint has developed into a viable sub-brand of JetBlue, and I think it would translate well to long-haul services. Obviously 15-20 larger planes would represent a huge risk for JetBlue, and there will be plenty of detractors like Jumbojet, and others on The Street, predicting doom and failure along the way, but I think not doing anything could be the most risky move of all. I guess we will have to wait and see.
None shall pass!!!!
 
lostsound
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 1:43 pm

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 3:05 pm

heavymetal wrote:
catiii wrote:
msycajun wrote:
You'd think they'd be seriously considering the C Series.


They are...


No, they are not.


Yes, they are.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-03/jetblue-and-bombardier-said-to-resume-talks-on-c-series-order

Since a bunch of these articles have been released B6 has still not publicly announced "we will not order at this time" like most other airlines so one can assume these aircraft are still on the table.
 
catiii
Posts: 3119
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:12 pm

heavymetal wrote:
catiii wrote:
msycajun wrote:
You'd think they'd be seriously considering the C Series.


They are...


No, they are not.


And yet they are.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 7298
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:39 pm

Right now is a pretty risky time to be jumping into TATL flying byobtaining a fleet of a widebody aircraft. There has been massive yield depression on TATL with the proliferation of low cost TATL flying. Getting a fleet of widebody aircraft, that inherently have much less flexibility to use elsewhere in a network of B6 size is very high-risk situation.

Its more prudent to use A321s to launch TATL service if and where feasible and they are more flexible and redeployable to based on seasonality and their route structure.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3184
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:45 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
Abeam79 wrote:
But yet they paid down almost all their debt and paid cash for all new airplanes while buying out another dozen leases, all while giving employees 8% raise and still having biggest profit to date. Wall Street has gone insane with obsessing with these margins. Mint is proving to be increasingly more profitable.
B6 is aggressive these days with their monetary orders, they will do fine and thrive. I will surmise the sluggish Latam countries will get a lil pullback, and they will focus in the next few years jumping on the transatlantic market where they can certainly deliver a premium product, mint, and drive up yields now that market seems like it's gaining decent traction.


I always wondered how of all of the new A321s they are getting, how only one was sold and leased back. I do notice that on the non-Embraers, B6 is buying the planes off-lease. However, down the line, B6 can afford to do more sale-leasebacks if needed..

As for Latin America, I would suggest that MCO be the base for operations to there, other than what JFK needs. As for LGB, I wonder if B6 should consider trying to build up a mini-hub at LAX or even at SJS or OAK where international flights from the West Coast could be launched, even though all 3 legacy carriers and WN have a hub (WN - focus city since it doesn't call any concentrations hubs) at LAX (the competition at SJS is less, and B6 could garner some international traffic from codeshares with either ANA or Hainan, who both fly into SJS; a codeshare with Lufthansa, which flies CityLine into SJS, is a foregone conclusion).



San Jose California is SJC, not SJS.
 
wnflyguy
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:58 pm

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:22 pm

I don't think B6 will scale back LGB that much or if At all. They could scale back some flights to SFO and LAS making room to add new cities like PHX,ABQ or DEN.

As for finding another western focus city how about COS?

Flyguy
my post are my opinion only and not those of southwest airlines and or airtran airlines.
 
flyby519
Posts: 1421
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:03 pm

wnflyguy wrote:
I don't think B6 will scale back LGB that much or if At all. They could scale back some flights to SFO and LAS making room to add new cities like PHX,ABQ or DEN.

As for finding another western focus city how about COS?

Flyguy


Didn't F9 try COS fairly recently? If they couldn't make it work then I doubt B6 could. Same could be said for just about all remaining options for west coast hubs though. Tough position.
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2350
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:16 pm

Why would JetBlue want to look at the CS100 when the E2 is available for less money and wouldn't have a huge setup penalty for crews and provisioning? Seems to me like much ado about nothing.
 
User avatar
aeromoe
Posts: 793
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:34 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:04 pm

wnflyguy wrote:
I don't think B6 will scale back LGB that much or if At all. They could scale back some flights to SFO and LAS making room to add new cities like PHX,ABQ or DEN.

Flyguy


They have been serving PHX for several years now.

Moe
AA AC AS BA BD BF BN BR BY B6 CO CP(2) DG DL EA EI EN FL FT F9 HA HP ICX JI JQ J7 KE KS LH MC NW OC OO OZ(1) OZ(2) PA PI PT QF QQ RM RO RV(1) RV(2) RW SK SM SQ S4 TI TS TW UA UK US UZ VS VX WA WN WS W7 XV YV YX(2) ZZ 9K
 
richierich
Posts: 3581
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:07 pm

aeromoe wrote:
wnflyguy wrote:
I don't think B6 will scale back LGB that much or if At all. They could scale back some flights to SFO and LAS making room to add new cities like PHX,ABQ or DEN.

Flyguy


They have been serving PHX for several years now.

Moe


WNflyguy means from LGB
None shall pass!!!!
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4563
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:00 am

lostsound wrote:
heavymetal wrote:
catiii wrote:

They are...


No, they are not.


Yes, they are.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-03/jetblue-and-bombardier-said-to-resume-talks-on-c-series-order

Since a bunch of these articles have been released B6 has still not publicly announced "we will not order at this time" like most other airlines so one can assume these aircraft are still on the table.


catiii wrote:
heavymetal wrote:
catiii wrote:

They are...


No, they are not.


And yet they are.


You both can't be serious quoting an article from May 2016 that discussed possible "resumption" of discussions. The article is suspect at best. JetBlue even placed an order with Airbus in 2016 for 30 more planes.
 
DeltaB717
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:49 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:05 am

[quote="heavymetal"][/quote]

I also think an 8 month old article might be a bit of a stretch, but so is dismissing the possibility that B6 is looking at the C-Series based on a top-up order for 30 A321s. Apples and oranges.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2815
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:08 am

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Right now is a pretty risky time to be jumping into TATL flying byobtaining a fleet of a widebody aircraft. There has been massive yield depression on TATL with the proliferation of low cost TATL flying. Getting a fleet of widebody aircraft, that inherently have much less flexibility to use elsewhere in a network of B6 size is very high-risk situation.

Its more prudent to use A321s to launch TATL service if and where feasible and they are more flexible and redeployable to based on seasonality and their route structure.


I think B6 sees the low cost carriers that are currently flying over the Atlantic and sees some very cheap airfare. For example, Norwegian, BOS-LGW in June for as low as $550 RT NS with taxes. Then there is Wowair for $649 for June travel. While the A321 would be the perfect aircraft for B6, I guess the million dollar question is, can they compete against Norwegian and Wowair and turn a profit? Loyalty will only get you as far as the cost of the ticket. Even though B6 has a pretty good following in Boston, not sure if they will make money on $550 RT flights to Europe.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 1932
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:11 am

MCI, STL, IND, OKC.. There is still plenty of room for B6 to expand. The midwest is a giant crater to them.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
Varsity1
Posts: 1932
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:12 am

jumbojet wrote:
PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Right now is a pretty risky time to be jumping into TATL flying byobtaining a fleet of a widebody aircraft. There has been massive yield depression on TATL with the proliferation of low cost TATL flying. Getting a fleet of widebody aircraft, that inherently have much less flexibility to use elsewhere in a network of B6 size is very high-risk situation.

Its more prudent to use A321s to launch TATL service if and where feasible and they are more flexible and redeployable to based on seasonality and their route structure.


I think B6 sees the low cost carriers that are currently flying over the Atlantic and sees some very cheap airfare. For example, Norwegian, BOS-LGW in June for as low as $550 RT NS with taxes. Then there is Wowair for $649 for June travel. While the A321 would be the perfect aircraft for B6, I guess the million dollar question is, can they compete against Norwegian and Wowair and turn a profit? Loyalty will only get you as far as the cost of the ticket. Even though B6 has a pretty good following in Boston, not sure if they will make money on $550 RT flights to Europe.


Neither WOW or Norwegian have connecting traffic on the US side. They wont be competing much.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
catiii
Posts: 3119
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:38 pm

heavymetal wrote:
lostsound wrote:
heavymetal wrote:

No, they are not.


Yes, they are.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-03/jetblue-and-bombardier-said-to-resume-talks-on-c-series-order

Since a bunch of these articles have been released B6 has still not publicly announced "we will not order at this time" like most other airlines so one can assume these aircraft are still on the table.


catiii wrote:
heavymetal wrote:

No, they are not.


And yet they are.


You both can't be serious quoting an article from May 2016 that discussed possible "resumption" of discussions. The article is suspect at best. JetBlue even placed an order with Airbus in 2016 for 30 more planes.


I didn't quote from an article. Another poster did. I know from firsthand knowledge.

Tell me, how do you know they aren't? You work on the 7th floor?
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 3067
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:33 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Right now is a pretty risky time to be jumping into TATL flying byobtaining a fleet of a widebody aircraft. There has been massive yield depression on TATL with the proliferation of low cost TATL flying. Getting a fleet of widebody aircraft, that inherently have much less flexibility to use elsewhere in a network of B6 size is very high-risk situation.

Its more prudent to use A321s to launch TATL service if and where feasible and they are more flexible and redeployable to based on seasonality and their route structure.


I think B6 sees the low cost carriers that are currently flying over the Atlantic and sees some very cheap airfare. For example, Norwegian, BOS-LGW in June for as low as $550 RT NS with taxes. Then there is Wowair for $649 for June travel. While the A321 would be the perfect aircraft for B6, I guess the million dollar question is, can they compete against Norwegian and Wowair and turn a profit? Loyalty will only get you as far as the cost of the ticket. Even though B6 has a pretty good following in Boston, not sure if they will make money on $550 RT flights to Europe.


Neither WOW or Norwegian have connecting traffic on the US side. They wont be competing much.


WW ancillary fees are brutal - its a better deal flying the legacies for S17 from BOS. DY a bit fairer - no charges for carry-on and they have a bundle deal with 1 bag/meal/seat selection. The best deal for low cost flying is Thomas Cook's (MT) BOS-MAN flight - base fare always has carry-on and one checked bag and there are some sub $600 fares in June.
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AF, AM, BA, B6, CA, CO, CX, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, OU, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WE, WN

2019: CX BOS-HKG, WE HKG-HKT, CA HKT-PEK-EWR, B6 EWR-BOS
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:53 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
I think the issue is that Wall Street continues operating under the assumption that the current oil price lows are temporary, thus they get skittish anytime an airline does something that squeezes margins because they keep thinking about the day when oil will go back up to $90/barrel.

That is exactly what is going on.

It seems like in every investor call DL mentions that every move they make should be profitable with oil at $70-90 a barrel. Its also why I don't believe executives anymore when they say XXX isn't profitable. They are really saying it is profitable but the margins aren't high enough.
 
RollerRB211
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 10:39 pm

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:27 pm

catiii wrote:
I didn't quote from an article. Another poster did. I know from firsthand knowledge.

Tell me, how do you know they aren't? You work on the 7th floor?


If you had real firsthand knowledge you would know that a decision like that wouldn't be made by someone on the 7th floor.
 
catiii
Posts: 3119
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:26 pm

RollerRB211 wrote:
catiii wrote:
I didn't quote from an article. Another poster did. I know from firsthand knowledge.

Tell me, how do you know they aren't? You work on the 7th floor?


If you had real firsthand knowledge you would know that a decision like that wouldn't be made by someone on the 7th floor.


Right it's made on the 6th floor, but the poster's profile lent that he may be on the north side of the 7th floor.
 
User avatar
aeromoe
Posts: 793
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:34 am

Re: B6 Outlook After Poor January

Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:41 pm

Quote: WNflyguy means from LGB. Makes sense now. Thanks for the clarification.
AA AC AS BA BD BF BN BR BY B6 CO CP(2) DG DL EA EI EN FL FT F9 HA HP ICX JI JQ J7 KE KS LH MC NW OC OO OZ(1) OZ(2) PA PI PT QF QQ RM RO RV(1) RV(2) RW SK SM SQ S4 TI TS TW UA UK US UZ VS VX WA WN WS W7 XV YV YX(2) ZZ 9K

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos