Opus99 wrote:DobboDobbo wrote:Opus99 wrote:Besides the face that WW made it clear that those flights were cash positive. I don’t wheat would constitute a cash positive flight if not high loads. Please enlighten us. I don’t what else would result in a cash positive flight. Like what is this argument. Unless you’re saying they’re selling every seat at a loss. Then what is the point of the flight? Like if you’re going to argue please bring sensible points. Don’t argue for the sake of argument. Please tell us what would allow a flight to be cash positive? That’s when the revenue outweighs the cost of the flight? What would be the main driver for that? High loads. Please. Bear in mind these loads are not just the route. They are attached to the actual flight, that’s where my data comes from. 107 to DXB Is at 60-70% load factor I’m not just generalising. Yesterday was at 63% on A35K and a lot of these 747 flights actually have not been down gauged they’ve just been down gauged heavily they’ve just moved to an A35K. The New York flights 113 that’s on 40% load factor was on a 777 beforehand and it’s on a 777 now so the change in load factors is not influenced by changing equipment actually.
TBH you need to explain what is meant by “cash positive” and by that I mean what cost centres and revenues does it recognise.
However, the central point (as tacitly acknowledged) is that a high load does not necessary mean the flight is profitable, or cash positive or whatever vague term anyone from IAG or BA wishes to use to portray stability to the outside world.
I don’t see how this is anything other than obvious.
Nobody is portraying anything that is not there. The cash operating cost of the flight is lower than the revenue from said flight. If you’re looking for what the cash operating cost is please google it. I don’t know why you’re just ignoring the facts if the CEO says the flights are cash positive. Who are you to say they are not? Are you the CFO? Please run with the facts. When you’re ready to argue with sensible points and not just bicker on for argument sake, then we can continue this discussion
Do you mean the CEO or the CFO?
Do you mean “cash positive” or “cash operating cost”?
It’s a bit odd that you should feel so strongly about something when you don’t seem to have much clarity about who or what it is you are trying to assert.