Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Dieuwer wrote:Wall Street disagrees with the JetBlue haters in this thread. The Street is cheering JetBlue. Stock up 4+% (2 PM EST).
LHUSA wrote:Dieuwer wrote:Wall Street disagrees with the JetBlue haters in this thread. The Street is cheering JetBlue. Stock up 4+% (2 PM EST).
Someone simply pointing out declining performance does not make them a hater. I suspect the market has responded well since B6 beat forecasts.
LHUSA wrote:Dieuwer wrote:Wall Street disagrees with the JetBlue haters in this thread. The Street is cheering JetBlue. Stock up 4+% (2 PM EST).
Someone simply pointing out declining performance does not make them a hater. I suspect the market has responded well since B6 beat forecasts.
Dieuwer wrote:LHUSA wrote:Dieuwer wrote:Wall Street disagrees with the JetBlue haters in this thread. The Street is cheering JetBlue. Stock up 4+% (2 PM EST).
Someone simply pointing out declining performance does not make them a hater. I suspect the market has responded well since B6 beat forecasts.
Revenue went up. No nothing "declining".
It's easy to pick numbers right?
Brickell305 wrote:Dieuwer wrote:LHUSA wrote:
Someone simply pointing out declining performance does not make them a hater. I suspect the market has responded well since B6 beat forecasts.
Revenue went up. No nothing "declining".
It's easy to pick numbers right?
Their PROFIT declined. That's the bottom line figure of any financial statement.
Dieuwer wrote:Brickell305 wrote:Dieuwer wrote:
Revenue went up. No nothing "declining".
It's easy to pick numbers right?
Their PROFIT declined. That's the bottom line figure of any financial statement.
Not in today's market.. Ever heard of TESLA? Or Netflix? Twitter? etc..... Plenty of companies that grow and don't care about profits (the lack thereof, at this moment in time).
Dieuwer wrote:Wall Street disagrees: stock up 5+%. (2:30 PM EST).
I take the opinion of Wall Street any day over that of a bunch of nobodies in this thread.
Dieuwer wrote:Anyhow, if you think B6 is such as bad airline investment...SHORT IT. Put your money where your mouth is.
Brickell305 wrote:Dieuwer wrote:LHUSA wrote:
Someone simply pointing out declining performance does not make them a hater. I suspect the market has responded well since B6 beat forecasts.
Revenue went up. No nothing "declining".
It's easy to pick numbers right?
Their PROFIT declined. That's the bottom line figure of any financial statement.
Brickell305 wrote:Their financial situation is worsening and now they plan to undertake an extremely expensive undertaking with transatlantic flights. Every hub they operate is in an extremely competitive market. And yes, their fans will say they are "beating" the competition in all of those markets but all of those competitors are more profitable overall than B6. As such, they can withstand a longer, drawn out battle in those places while B6 cannot. I don't see how B6 raises revenue with the level of competition they have at every turn and their costs are only going to increase. They are caught between a rock and a hard place and they don't have the fortress hubs, global alliances and deep FF membership loyalty that other airlines have to help them out.
airbazar wrote:Brickell305 wrote:Dieuwer wrote:
Revenue went up. No nothing "declining".
It's easy to pick numbers right?
Their PROFIT declined. That's the bottom line figure of any financial statement.
These discussions are always so silly but i'll bite.
Different airlines are at different stages of their life cycle. Just because one airline is doing great right now it doesn't mean they all should do great in the same period. A year ago UA was everyone's favorite pinata. This year it's B6. I'm sure next year it will be someone else.
winginit wrote:The one-year, and even two-year trends will show you that a short JBLU strategy would have paid off nicely...
impilot wrote:So let's recap:
impilot wrote:There's a discussion about JBLU and its worsening financials implying a rocky future
impilot wrote:Someone responds to put their money where their mouth is and short it
impilot wrote:You decide to pull up a chart based on past performance to make a case for future performance...that's laughable
impilot wrote:Based on your statement, a hindsight good short opportunity implies a future good short opportunity?
impilot wrote:I hope you DO put your money where your mouth is and short JBLU
airbazar wrote:Brickell305 wrote:Dieuwer wrote:
Revenue went up. No nothing "declining".
It's easy to pick numbers right?
Their PROFIT declined. That's the bottom line figure of any financial statement.
These discussions are always so silly but i'll bite.
Different airlines are at different stages of their life cycle. Just because one airline is doing great right now it doesn't mean they all should do great in the same period. A year ago UA was everyone's favorite pinata. This year it's B6. I'm sure next year it will be someone else.
flyby519 wrote:Brickell305 wrote:Their financial situation is worsening and now they plan to undertake an extremely expensive undertaking with transatlantic flights. Every hub they operate is in an extremely competitive market. And yes, their fans will say they are "beating" the competition in all of those markets but all of those competitors are more profitable overall than B6. As such, they can withstand a longer, drawn out battle in those places while B6 cannot. I don't see how B6 raises revenue with the level of competition they have at every turn and their costs are only going to increase. They are caught between a rock and a hard place and they don't have the fortress hubs, global alliances and deep FF membership loyalty that other airlines have to help them out.
So what should B6 do in your mind? Just go straight to Chapter 7 liquidation? I am genuinely curious.
Brickell305 wrote:airbazar wrote:Brickell305 wrote:Their PROFIT declined. That's the bottom line figure of any financial statement.
These discussions are always so silly but i'll bite.
Different airlines are at different stages of their life cycle. Just because one airline is doing great right now it doesn't mean they all should do great in the same period. A year ago UA was everyone's favorite pinata. This year it's B6. I'm sure next year it will be someone else.
Actually, one would think that if the industry as a whole is doing well, it would be a boon for all airlines.flyby519 wrote:Brickell305 wrote:Their financial situation is worsening and now they plan to undertake an extremely expensive undertaking with transatlantic flights. Every hub they operate is in an extremely competitive market. And yes, their fans will say they are "beating" the competition in all of those markets but all of those competitors are more profitable overall than B6. As such, they can withstand a longer, drawn out battle in those places while B6 cannot. I don't see how B6 raises revenue with the level of competition they have at every turn and their costs are only going to increase. They are caught between a rock and a hard place and they don't have the fortress hubs, global alliances and deep FF membership loyalty that other airlines have to help them out.
So what should B6 do in your mind? Just go straight to Chapter 7 liquidation? I am genuinely curious.
Who said anything about Chapter 7 or any other form of bankruptcy? Simply pointing out that net income significantly declined YoY and so did RASM for that matter isn't saying that the company is going out business. It's simply stating the fact that B6's finances are worsening. When that is looked at int he context of the fact that they have uber-competitive hubs (and the pricing pressure that accompanies that), the fact that their costs are set to rise, even moreso now that they plan an extremely expensive transatlantic expansion and that their main competitors are stronger financially overall and are therefore better positioned to battle it out long term, will make it difficult for them going forward.
Bluewho wrote:Brickell305 wrote:airbazar wrote:
These discussions are always so silly but i'll bite.
Different airlines are at different stages of their life cycle. Just because one airline is doing great right now it doesn't mean they all should do great in the same period. A year ago UA was everyone's favorite pinata. This year it's B6. I'm sure next year it will be someone else.
Actually, one would think that if the industry as a whole is doing well, it would be a boon for all airlines.flyby519 wrote:
So what should B6 do in your mind? Just go straight to Chapter 7 liquidation? I am genuinely curious.
Who said anything about Chapter 7 or any other form of bankruptcy? Simply pointing out that net income significantly declined YoY and so did RASM for that matter isn't saying that the company is going out business. It's simply stating the fact that B6's finances are worsening. When that is looked at int he context of the fact that they have uber-competitive hubs (and the pricing pressure that accompanies that), the fact that their costs are set to rise, even moreso now that they plan an extremely expensive transatlantic expansion and that their main competitors are stronger financially overall and are therefore better positioned to battle it out long term, will make it difficult for them going forward.
How expensive is this trans Atlantic deal. Sure slots and ETOPS but it’s the same plane, same mx, same training. You keep saying it’s so expensive. How much are we taking?
Brickell305 wrote:Bluewho wrote:Brickell305 wrote:Actually, one would think that if the industry as a whole is doing well, it would be a boon for all airlines.
Who said anything about Chapter 7 or any other form of bankruptcy? Simply pointing out that net income significantly declined YoY and so did RASM for that matter isn't saying that the company is going out business. It's simply stating the fact that B6's finances are worsening. When that is looked at int he context of the fact that they have uber-competitive hubs (and the pricing pressure that accompanies that), the fact that their costs are set to rise, even moreso now that they plan an extremely expensive transatlantic expansion and that their main competitors are stronger financially overall and are therefore better positioned to battle it out long term, will make it difficult for them going forward.
How expensive is this trans Atlantic deal. Sure slots and ETOPS but it’s the same plane, same mx, same training. You keep saying it’s so expensive. How much are we taking?
As you yourself pointed out, both the slots and becoming ETOPS certified are both significant investments. It will also be expensive competing against deeply entrenched alliances on transatlantic routes. It’s not a simple (or cheap) undertaking by any means.
Bluewho wrote:Brickell305 wrote:Bluewho wrote:
How expensive is this trans Atlantic deal. Sure slots and ETOPS but it’s the same plane, same mx, same training. You keep saying it’s so expensive. How much are we taking?
As you yourself pointed out, both the slots and becoming ETOPS certified are both significant investments. It will also be expensive competing against deeply entrenched alliances on transatlantic routes. It’s not a simple (or cheap) undertaking by any means.
I just don’t think it will be as expensive as you think.
I have no doubt knowing jetblue they have run the numbers over and over and over.
Brickell305 wrote:Their financial situation is worsening and now they plan to undertake an extremely expensive undertaking with transatlantic flights. Every hub they operate is in an extremely competitive market. And yes, their fans will say they are "beating" the competition in all of those markets but all of those competitors are more profitable overall than B6. As such, they can withstand a longer, drawn out battle in those places while B6 cannot. I don't see how B6 raises revenue with the level of competition they have at every turn and their costs are only going to increase. They are caught between a rock and a hard place and they don't have the fortress hubs, global alliances and deep FF membership loyalty that other airlines have to help them out.
Who said anything about Chapter 7 or any other form of bankruptcy? Simply pointing out that net income significantly declined YoY and so did RASM for that matter isn't saying that the company is going out business. It's simply stating the fact that B6's finances are worsening. When that is looked at int he context of the fact that they have uber-competitive hubs (and the pricing pressure that accompanies that), the fact that their costs are set to rise, even moreso now that they plan an extremely expensive transatlantic expansion and that their main competitors are stronger financially overall and are therefore better positioned to battle it out long term, will make it difficult for them going forward.
VS4ever wrote:They have 870m cash and 625m in undrawn credit so I think they are doing ok, and if needed they could also suspend their buybacks for a quarter along with the fact they are only on planning on getting around 1/2 of their aircraft this year, which will help their cash position a bit. I don’t see cost as being the issue here, it’s an investment over the medium term that can be partly paid out of future cashflows. As long as the regular business doesn’t tank the risk and cost should not be out of control
Veigar wrote:While the numbers are a mixed bag, this definitely won't help the phone booth knife fights over B6 that regularly take place on Anet
richierich wrote:When will Cuba be rationalized to just HAV? Surely the other cities B6 serves cannot be profitable, especially with the further tightening of travel restrictions. Very sad, Cuba is a great place to visit. They need (and want) our money but I don't see how any airline will be making money flying there from the USA.
Brickell305 wrote:airbazar wrote:Brickell305 wrote:Their PROFIT declined. That's the bottom line figure of any financial statement.
These discussions are always so silly but i'll bite.
Different airlines are at different stages of their life cycle. Just because one airline is doing great right now it doesn't mean they all should do great in the same period. A year ago UA was everyone's favorite pinata. This year it's B6. I'm sure next year it will be someone else.
Actually, one would think that if the industry as a whole is doing well, it would be a boon for all airlines.
shadez wrote:richierich wrote:When will Cuba be rationalized to just HAV? Surely the other cities B6 serves cannot be profitable, especially with the further tightening of travel restrictions. Very sad, Cuba is a great place to visit. They need (and want) our money but I don't see how any airline will be making money flying there from the USA.
I'm not convinced the secondary Cuban markets are money pits. Yes, the loads are low (about 60 passenger per flight), but the fares are usually around $125 per way (or higher), before taxes and ancillary fees. That equals about $7,500 in income from airfare alone per flight. Flight time is only an hour. I obviously have no idea how expensive these stations are to operate, but the math does not seem terrible. I still don't know why the've subbed the E90 for 320 on these flights; that seems to make these flights less economically sensible.
tphuang wrote:shadez wrote:richierich wrote:When will Cuba be rationalized to just HAV? Surely the other cities B6 serves cannot be profitable, especially with the further tightening of travel restrictions. Very sad, Cuba is a great place to visit. They need (and want) our money but I don't see how any airline will be making money flying there from the USA.
I'm not convinced the secondary Cuban markets are money pits. Yes, the loads are low (about 60 passenger per flight), but the fares are usually around $125 per way (or higher), before taxes and ancillary fees. That equals about $7,500 in income from airfare alone per flight. Flight time is only an hour. I obviously have no idea how expensive these stations are to operate, but the math does not seem terrible. I still don't know why the've subbed the E90 for 320 on these flights; that seems to make these flights less economically sensible.
imo, one of the easiest places for B6 to cut their losses. Especially given the current administration's view toward Cuba. You have to remember they subbed in E90 for A320s, because they couldn't fill the planes. Which is why the fares are higher. This seems to be one bet they should retreat from.
frmrCapCadet wrote:Profit margins at or over 10% are desirable even for airlines. Profit margins under 5% are worrisome.
tphuang wrote:frmrCapCadet wrote:Profit margins at or over 10% are desirable even for airlines. Profit margins under 5% are worrisome.
Q1 is typically the worst quarter for airlines, especially in ones without Easter holiday like this one. Comparison to competitors would be a good gage.
MIflyer12 wrote:See my original post for reporting dates.
The problem with rationalizing poor performance as a first quarter problem is that it ignores B6's poor year-over-year comparison.
cledaybuck wrote:tphuang wrote:frmrCapCadet wrote:Profit margins at or over 10% are desirable even for airlines. Profit margins under 5% are worrisome.
Q1 is typically the worst quarter for airlines, especially in ones without Easter holiday like this one. Comparison to competitors would be a good gage.
What are the comparisons (I realize everyone has not reported yet)?
tphuang wrote:frmrCapCadet wrote:Profit margins at or over 10% are desirable even for airlines. Profit margins under 5% are worrisome.
Q1 is typically the worst quarter for airlines, especially in ones without Easter holiday like this one. Comparison to competitors would be a good gage.
cledaybuck wrote:cledaybuck wrote:tphuang wrote:Q1 is typically the worst quarter for airlines, especially in ones without Easter holiday like this one. Comparison to competitors would be a good gage.
What are the comparisons (I realize everyone has not reported yet)?
Answering my own question, it looks like the operating margins so far are:
B6-4.1%
DL-9.7%
UA-5.2%
UALifer wrote:cledaybuck wrote:cledaybuck wrote:What are the comparisons (I realize everyone has not reported yet)?
Answering my own question, it looks like the operating margins so far are:
B6-4.1%
DL-9.7%
UA-5.2%
Not a good sign for B6. If you have a worse margin than UA in Q1, something is wrong. B6 has solid exposure to highly profitable Q1 flying (e.g. Florida, Caribbean) whereas UA’s hub structure and overall market strength lends itself to poor performance in Q1. Maybe these numbers speak more to a good UA quarter as opposed to bad B6 quarter, but it’s troubling nonetheless.
Brickell305 wrote:Bluewho wrote:Brickell305 wrote:Actually, one would think that if the industry as a whole is doing well, it would be a boon for all airlines.
Who said anything about Chapter 7 or any other form of bankruptcy? Simply pointing out that net income significantly declined YoY and so did RASM for that matter isn't saying that the company is going out business. It's simply stating the fact that B6's finances are worsening. When that is looked at int he context of the fact that they have uber-competitive hubs (and the pricing pressure that accompanies that), the fact that their costs are set to rise, even moreso now that they plan an extremely expensive transatlantic expansion and that their main competitors are stronger financially overall and are therefore better positioned to battle it out long term, will make it difficult for them going forward.
How expensive is this trans Atlantic deal. Sure slots and ETOPS but it’s the same plane, same mx, same training. You keep saying it’s so expensive. How much are we taking?
As you yourself pointed out, both the slots and becoming ETOPS certified are both significant investments. It will also be expensive competing against deeply entrenched alliances on transatlantic routes. It’s not a simple (or cheap) undertaking by any means.
ECAMerror wrote:Brickell305 wrote:Bluewho wrote:
How expensive is this trans Atlantic deal. Sure slots and ETOPS but it’s the same plane, same mx, same training. You keep saying it’s so expensive. How much are we taking?
As you yourself pointed out, both the slots and becoming ETOPS certified are both significant investments. It will also be expensive competing against deeply entrenched alliances on transatlantic routes. It’s not a simple (or cheap) undertaking by any means.
Why do you believe ETOPS is a significant investment?
winginit wrote:ECAMerror wrote:Brickell305 wrote:As you yourself pointed out, both the slots and becoming ETOPS certified are both significant investments. It will also be expensive competing against deeply entrenched alliances on transatlantic routes. It’s not a simple (or cheap) undertaking by any means.
Why do you believe ETOPS is a significant investment?
I'm curious about this as well. I have some friends at WN who were closely involved in what had to be done in order for WN to serve Hawaii and it honestly didn't sound like a big deal or a notable financial investment.
UALifer wrote:cledaybuck wrote:cledaybuck wrote:What are the comparisons (I realize everyone has not reported yet)?
Answering my own question, it looks like the operating margins so far are:
B6-4.1%
DL-9.7%
UA-5.2%
Not a good sign for B6. If you have a worse margin than UA in Q1, something is wrong. B6 has solid exposure to highly profitable Q1 flying (e.g. Florida, Caribbean) whereas UA’s hub structure and overall market strength lends itself to poor performance in Q1. Maybe these numbers speak more to a good UA quarter as opposed to bad B6 quarter, but it’s troubling nonetheless.
LHUSA wrote:Dieuwer wrote:Wall Street disagrees with the JetBlue haters in this thread. The Street is cheering JetBlue. Stock up 4+% (2 PM EST).
Someone simply pointing out declining performance does not make them a hater. I suspect the market has responded well since B6 beat forecasts.
MIflyer12 wrote:Delta reported 4/10
UA reported 4/16
AS due 4/25
WN due 4/25
AA due 4/26
Spirit due 5/2
http://blueir.investproductions.com/inv ... 23-04-2019
Not strong, IMHO. Declining RASM year-over-year. Too much expansion/wrong markets?
GAAP pre-tax income of $58 million, a decline of 48.5% from $113 million in the first quarter of 2018. Excluding the one-time costs, adjusted pre-tax income of $70 million(1), a decline of 38.2% from the first quarter of 2018.
Pre-tax margin of 3.1%, inclusive of the one-time costs, a 3.3 point decline from the first quarter of 2018. Adjusted pre-tax margin of 3.7%(1), a 2.7 percentage point decline year over year.
CASM ex-fuel is expected to increase between 1.5% and 3.5% for the second quarter of 2019, principally driven by engine maintenance timing and the year-over-year impact of the pilot contract effective on August 1st, 2018.
dolphinflyer wrote:What about Alaska and jetBlue working out some sort of agreement under which both carriers would focus on joint Mint service in key, large transcon markets (BOS/JFK/DCA/MCO/FLL with SEA/PDX/SFO/LAX/SAN) and use the duplicate slots (esp. at JFK) to launch commercially desirable (AS-style F/Y service) times in key secondary transcon markets (i.e. 7am-8am departures ex-SJC/SMF/BUR/ONT and 5pm-7pm departures ex-JFK)) as well as (AS-style F/Y service) in transcon markets ex-LAX to key secondary East Coast markets like PVD/BDL/ALB/BUF/ORF/RIC/CHS/SAV/JAX/RSW). Both carriers would stand to benefit from such a cooperation and provide real competition to the Big 3.
dolphinflyer wrote:What about Alaska and jetBlue working out some sort of agreement under which both carriers would focus on joint Mint service in key, large transcon markets (BOS/JFK/DCA/MCO/FLL with SEA/PDX/SFO/LAX/SAN) and use the duplicate slots (esp. at JFK) to launch commercially desirable (AS-style F/Y service) times in key secondary transcon markets (i.e. 7am-8am departures ex-SJC/SMF/BUR/ONT and 5pm-7pm departures ex-JFK)) as well as (AS-style F/Y service) in transcon markets ex-LAX to key secondary East Coast markets like PVD/BDL/ALB/BUF/ORF/RIC/CHS/SAV/JAX/RSW). Both carriers would stand to benefit from such a cooperation and provide real competition to the Big 3.
tphuang wrote:UALifer wrote:cledaybuck wrote:Answering my own question, it looks like the operating margins so far are:
B6-4.1%
DL-9.7%
UA-5.2%
Not a good sign for B6. If you have a worse margin than UA in Q1, something is wrong. B6 has solid exposure to highly profitable Q1 flying (e.g. Florida, Caribbean) whereas UA’s hub structure and overall market strength lends itself to poor performance in Q1. Maybe these numbers speak more to a good UA quarter as opposed to bad B6 quarter, but it’s troubling nonetheless.
more relevant is the adjusted pre-tax margin since that excludes special items
B6 - 3.7%
UA - 4.1%
DL - 9.0%
WN - 9.8%
So B6 and UA are about the same ballpark. We will see how Q2 looks, but I would expect about the same numbers too.