Originally Posted by
KenHamer
Recently there have been many claims that Air Canada's rapidly escalating stock price was due to the skill (nay, brilliance) of their executive management team. I think that's utter nonsense.
Who's claimed that?
Originally Posted by
KenHamer
More nonsensical still were the claims last summer that their increasing profits† were due to the recently announced yet not yet implemented rouge program. Apparently rouge was so brilliant it had the ability to retroactively affect profits.
Are you talking profit OR Stock price?
Who claimed Rouge was positively impacting AC's bottom line before it got going? What are you talking about?
Originally Posted by
KenHamer
But once the economy turns, as it inevitably always does, then Air Canada will be stuck with lots of excess capacity and a substandard product.
Substandard to whom exactly?
How come you didn't include AC's stock/profit performance analysis during the years where their product was at/near the top and you allocated your personal spend to them? Wouldn't that tell the whole story?
Originally Posted by
KenHamer
Don't believe me that Air Canada's stock price is primarily (if not solely) due to market conditions? Then have a look at the chart below. It shows the share price of 10, count 'em, 10, different North American airlines. And to highlight the best of Air Canada's "performance" I've trimmed the chart to only include the period from mid-August (when the price started its rapid increase) to mid-January (just prior to the big "crash.")
Which one of those lines is different from the rest?
Trailing
6-month share movement :
AC : +103.8%
DL : +69.2%
UA : +54.1%
US : +34.1%
WS : +11.1%
Trailing
52-week share movement :
AC : +143.2%
DL : +134.2%
UA : +65.5%
US : +65.4%
WS : + 5.2%