Air Canada warns of quarterly loss in preliminary results
Apr 22, 2013, 2:08 pm
#31
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 5,813
Try reading the posts in context FFS
Apr 22, 2013, 2:40 pm
#32
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Programs: AC E75K / Marriott Silver Elite / SPG
Posts: 141
http://ca.reuters.com/article/busine...93L0DA20130422
Air Canada's Class B shares were down 13.3 percent at C$2.60 at midmorning on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
Air Canada's Class B shares were down 13.3 percent at C$2.60 at midmorning on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
I am sure it can rebound in the near future with the new 777 and Rouge airline.
Apr 22, 2013, 4:39 pm
#33
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,446
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...-earnings.html
The stock had been on a tear, rising from a low of 82 cents last year to a peak of $3.40 earlier this month.
Apr 22, 2013, 5:59 pm
#35
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,222
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9780; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.448 Mobile Safari/534.8+)
My thoughts exactly. In fact it appears to have hurt them, especially given their excuse that they had too many leisure travellers - the very type of traveller they are now trying to attract with rogue.
"We lose money on every passenger, but we make up for it in volume."
My thoughts exactly. In fact it appears to have hurt them, especially given their excuse that they had too many leisure travellers - the very type of traveller they are now trying to attract with rogue.
"We lose money on every passenger, but we make up for it in volume."
Apr 22, 2013, 6:01 pm
#36
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,222
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9780; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.448 Mobile Safari/534.8+)
Doubly odd when you consider recent comments on another thread about how AC's announcements of record loads were supposed evidence of the the airline doing much better now under the new management.
Doubly odd when you consider recent comments on another thread about how AC's announcements of record loads were supposed evidence of the the airline doing much better now under the new management.
Apr 22, 2013, 6:33 pm
#37
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 5,813
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9780; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.448 Mobile Safari/534.8+)
Doubly odd when you consider recent comments on another thread about how AC's announcements of record loads were supposed evidence of the the airline doing much better now under the new management.
Doubly odd when you consider recent comments on another thread about how AC's announcements of record loads were supposed evidence of the the airline doing much better now under the new management.
When AC warns of a miss, Why don't you take the time to compare to other airline's results?
Apr 22, 2013, 6:55 pm
#38
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,222
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9780; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.448 Mobile Safari/534.8+)
Mostly 'cause most other airlines have not yet released their numbers.
But my main complaint is that airlines release essentially meaningless "load factors" as evidence that everything is rosy when in fact loads are used as a red herring to hide the real (and usually not so good) situation.
But I don't think I've ever heard an airline blame an operating loss on an overly high load factor before now.
Mostly 'cause most other airlines have not yet released their numbers.
But my main complaint is that airlines release essentially meaningless "load factors" as evidence that everything is rosy when in fact loads are used as a red herring to hide the real (and usually not so good) situation.
But I don't think I've ever heard an airline blame an operating loss on an overly high load factor before now.
Apr 22, 2013, 6:58 pm
#39
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,222
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9780; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.448 Mobile Safari/534.8+)
Which to say I don't consider increasing load factors as evidence of improved performance.
Which to say I don't consider increasing load factors as evidence of improved performance.
Apr 22, 2013, 11:34 pm
#42
Join Date: May 2011
Programs: AC Elite
Posts: 73
Regarding the A340-300, C-FYLD was delivered to AC on 29-04-1997 then it was leased to Iberia on 05-06-2008. It has been withdrawn from service and in storage since 27-02-2013. I think AC can't lease it and they are losing money.
Apr 23, 2013, 12:30 am
#43
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,161
Apr 23, 2013, 12:38 am
#44
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,446
After AC stopped flying C-FYLD it flew cargo for Gestair then was picked up by IB 01Jul09 before being parked in Feb. this year but would agree the $24M is likely outstanding lease obligation AC is writing off on this aircraft.
Apr 23, 2013, 12:38 am
#45
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,161
The many changes last year, e.g., introduction of the Tango fare on many international routes, higher tier thresholds, etc., AC has successfully pruned many Elites for 2013.
Will this group continue to fly AC or will they be actively seeking alternatives when they fly since they now have no or just meaningless status, e.g., the A25K?
Also, the introduction of Premium Economy by some airlines also "changes the game".
Will this group continue to fly AC or will they be actively seeking alternatives when they fly since they now have no or just meaningless status, e.g., the A25K?
Also, the introduction of Premium Economy by some airlines also "changes the game".
This year I am buying a Delta ticket.
They were really successful in getting rid of a lot of business. They very clearly isolated their "bottom feeders" and chased them away. Some got sucked into programs like the 25k level which doesn't really do anything at all. I mean say you were a 25k level and consistently attempted to use your puny number of upgrades, you'd be paying a premium all year long on tickets then getting boned on R space and the crumbs left over by the 37 tiers above you.
So at the end of the year, in order to get your one or two "free upgrades" you'd have shoveled over a huge accumulated chunk of change. Probably more than it would have cost you to just LMU the "free upgrades" you were given. And then leapfrog over guys waiting in the upgrade queue anyway.
It's a negative tier with negative benefits.
Screw that. Amex gave me Gold on Delta baby. Fire and forget business class seat here I come. If it's there it's mine, if not oh well.
The best part of it is that I paid $300 for the ticket vs. the $1300 AC wanted to charge me.
I'd never even have considered it before but it's so in my interest to do so because that benefit plan is not so useful to me.