|
Originally Posted by edy4eva
(Post 24017311)
But you and the OP allege that the reporting done by EK is so screwed up it must therefore be a scam with a black hole through which funds flow. We sort of go back to that point raised a month ago on this thread: to whose benefit might this be? This worked quite well in countries like Italy or the Netherlands, where EK had all kinds of problems to establish themselves, Canada is certainly another example (when it comes to Government aid, Canada is probably as close as a country can be to Dubai) In countries like Germany, the Government is not willing to re-negotiate the current BASA, EK is accepted, but was forced to raise its fares some years ago, especially in the premium classes. That was the only time LH went really crazy, the regular lobbying against EK in Berlin is pretty normal stuff. :D In order to counter the arguments by all those countries, EK asked everyone from Booz to BCG, McK to Arthur D., KPMG to PWC to compile reports send to everyone with the slighest interest in the matter. Most of the reports listed all the subsidies that European airlines received and supported the fact that EK is as clean financially as a company can be. ;) Honestly, and I am not trying to make fun of the posters here, who really believe that EK is not getting any Government help, but those things are not really discussed in expert circles anymore since roughly ten years. So aside from getting access to certain markets, I assume that a certain amount of pride also plays a role. As pointed out, airlines who made it without help are rare, legends like Southwest & Kelleher come to mind.
Originally Posted by missingmanager
(Post 24017184)
Your assurances are more likely to persuade me if backed by numbers rather than the innuendo that you know things that the rest of us do not. Where are the figures to give credence to your claims?
Aside from that, IATA or the Air Finance Journal are publications writing about the financial status a lot, just recently about the UK sukuk bond and some EK 380's. On top of that, companies like Hannover Leasing, DN2 or Dr. Franck are always looking for customers, so they have to disclose a lot of financial information to the public. I am fairly confident that passenger load factors for some EK destinations can be calculated at various Government agencies, in case you do not have access to folks working at airports, Destatis is the German Government agency. The amount of money DFW is paying Qantas during the first two to three years will probably never become public knowledge, at least not until someone hacks their intranet, but based on comparable scenarios, people should be able to make a very educated guess based on other airlines getting support before. Lastly, let me recommend various conferences during which you can talk to the people involved, e.g. http://www.euromoneyseminars.com/glo...n/details.html |
Originally Posted by FD1971
(Post 24016429)
Neither EK nor any other airline is able to operate ultra long-haul flights at a profit, that is for sure, not even between major major markets like NYC-Delhi, ultra long haul turned out to be a good idea.
Many airlines and not just EK have and are currently operating multiple ULH routes profitably. Have you read this thread? Seen the multiple posts explaining multiple calculations about it being profitable even in the most dire circumstances? Need I say more? |
Just a few thoughts about things raised in previous pages, apologies for not threading it together in a more thematic way:
aviation infrastructure - One could argue that state capitalism is a useful tool to kickstart the building or rebuilding of industries - the state is sometimes the only actor in an area with the capital to provide massive infrastructure outlays. If a state builds an airport and associated infrastructure and then later on founds an airline which uses this airport, I think it's unclear whether this in itself is an ongoing subsidy of the airline, especially if the airport is available to all on a commercial basis. I think it’s a different argument than the one about whether the airline is being subsidised because I think that governments making capital investments and creating a benign operating environment in order to attract private capital investment and economic activity is different to providing direct cash transfers/free money in the form of loans that don’t need to be repaid to cover on-going operating losses. In post 375, a point about the (paraphrasing) "[..] cost of airports being xx EUR and tax workers spend in dubai being xx EUR and so the airport made money" - the tone of the paragraph and the context makes it sound as if the posters is rolling his eyes at this idea and think this is a rather silly way to think of things: however, is this not the way that government expenditure is usually thought of when looking at financial returns of major capital and infrastructure outlays? The amount of future GDP that a project can generate? Governments are not corporate entities that need to make a surplus - they exist to govern, ideally making their citizens have a better quality of life, of which economic prosperity, measured in GDP growth is one factor. Is it accurate to conflate aviation and aviation infrastructure here with airlines? The expectation that EK by itself has to cover the entire capital expenditure of the infrastructure it uses otherwise it is being subsidised is I think unreasonable: it’s a problem for the infrastructure operator, not for EK (the airline). If indeed these investments in infrastructure are loss making (as opposed to having a long time for financial return) then perhaps it is EK subsiding the infrastructure, not the other way around? Chicken and the egg - what's the difference (for the airline) between building an airport to make people come to a place, or for people to want to get a place and so you need to build an airport? Talking about debt from previous years I don’t think is really relevant to the discussion about whether EK requires regular cash infusion to prop up loss making operations. If you buy into that argument, every airline that has ever gone through a debt restructuring is benefitting from an ongoing subsidy. And as is said, even if it’s the case that that is a subsidy, is it even unfair - one could argue any company that goes through bankruptcy and administration proceedings and emerges the other side is also benefitting from a subsidy, but the very point of those procedures is to help rehabilitate companies to make them viable again, protect those who risks capital and in a way, make investors demand returns for their capital. If our definition of subsidy/scam becomes too wide then it becomes a useless term of obfuscation. The point about affiliates buying tickets on your services - if it’s done to inflate revenue fraudulently, then that’s an issue for how much we trust their accounts and auditing. If the affiliates buying tickets on an airline actually use those tickets for legitimate needs and pay at or below market rates, then how is this different from companies and governments having preferred carriers - or indeed, the Fly America Act? I think it’s unfair to cast aspersions on government-owned, relatively opaque entities, when fraud also occurs in major publicly traded (and audited) companies. Yes, auditing may count for not very much, but let’s not pretend that publicly traded companies operating in relatively more transparent jurisdictions are paragons of ethical corporate behaviour - the issue of what the definition of ethical corporate behaviour actually is notwithstanding. After all, what is the point of the "free-market" economic system: it is not an end in and of itself. The idea is that its proponents believe it is the most efficient way to allocate resources and to promote freedom of expression and ideas. This is why, in say, the EU, where the idea of free movement and mobility of ideas is a bedrock principle of the union, the Commission frowns upon "State Aid" even when it ostensibly could help the recipients of that aid survive and compete in a global world: there is a philosophical idea that in the longer run, it is better for the citizens and the wider economy to let these companies die and those resources be used elsewhere. But does this idea system work for other nations and can it be implemented in practice? Are the shouts of "unfair" simply a mistranslation of "we think you're doing it wrong"? employees - A poster commented that cabin crew earn the least out of EK staff - I’m afraid that isn’t true, there are all sorts of ground staff who earn less than crew, for instance, ticketing, outstations, lounge agents. However, EK does have an attractive proposition for people - a relatively decent wage, social benefits that are generally provided through taxation are provided by the company and a quite safe working and living environment. Quality of life can be had if you work for EK. However, I think it would be presumptuous for us to make blanket assumptions as to why people would want to work for EK. The points about industry-status, pay and benefits, lifestyle, even sexual orientation was raised at one point - all irrelevant to the discussion about subsidy and financial viability of EK and The Emirates Group. Whereas it is true that there are some places where actual slave labor happens, or morally dubious practices under the kafala system in the Middle East occurs, the proposition for employees at EK is quite transparent - and you are free to leave if you don’t like it. So our discussion should focus on the employee cost base, and whether the comparative advantage that EK enjoys is indeed actually a special benefit or simply part of the economic environment of its corporate and operational base. A government uses its tax revenue mostly to provide services - Dubai itself doesn’t have much in the way of public services for all its residents compared to many other places in the world clearly, and so to attract these employees it is not forcing to be there, they have to offer something better to compensate for the expat lifestyle. Do the public expenditure choices of the Dubai government (for instance, relatively low military spending, little foreign bureaucracy, few welfare payments, education and health provision only for citizens) amount to a de facto subsidy for EK? Or is EK doing the government a favor by paying for the all the living costs of its employees out of its own pocket? I mean, the government does run at a deficit, so perhaps this is welcome news for them! Of course EK, like most other airlines, is a beneficiary of government support in some way or another - from the historical infrastructure investments made to kick start aviation globally and in specific regions (governments and airports do like to pay carriers to start routes, look at CTU and BA), the low costs of labor and operations due to the public expenditure demands of the country requiring little in the way of personal taxation allowing the company to offer an attractive expat employment proposition at little extra cost to the company in terms of taxation on benefits, an aviation policy that allows 24 hour operations, no noise and pollution concerns - it would be exceptionally difficult for an airline to get established there without government support. But as to whether this makes the airline heavily subsidised requires a much more specific definition of subsidy, I think. I think it’s also worth mentioning new global demographics and how that affects arguments about competition - whilst it may be true that some carriers don’t want low yielding pax and focus their operation on getting all of the highest yield pax possible, there is still this emerging market of ultra price sensitive, lower yielding pax - which can be profitable if the cost base makes it viable. If the market is big enough, there is clearly room for multiple competitors, each of which with different value propositions and feasibility models. You work with what you have - creating entirely new markets and industries is what major capital investment is for: but we don’t call education institutions, cultural power and capital availability a subsidy for Silicon Valley tech companies, nor do we call the UK’s NHS taxpayers subsiding the healthcare costs of private employers. |
Man, what a thread. My head hurts :) It's taken me 3 G&T's just to get thru the last days worth of posts...
Let me just say that this is some of the most intelligent and articulate writing I have seen in FT since I joined (some 5+ years ago). I dont agree with all of it, but I am super impressed with the effort some of you are making. Please continue... |
Originally Posted by eightblack
(Post 24021817)
Please continue...
|
Originally Posted by eshaq786
(Post 24019721)
Wrong, Incorrect, Flawed, Inaccurate, Mistaken, False, Error.
Originally Posted by eshaq786
(Post 24019721)
Many airlines and not just EK have and are currently operating multiple ULH routes profitably.
Originally Posted by eshaq786
(Post 24019721)
Have you read this thread? Seen the multiple posts explaining multiple calculations about it being profitable even in the most dire circumstances?
Are you a relative of Uri? |
Originally Posted by eternaltransit
(Post 24020558)
Just a few thoughts about things raised in previous pages, apologies for not threading it together in a more thematic way:
aviation infrastructure - In post 375, a point about the (paraphrasing) "[..] cost of airports being xx EUR and tax workers spend in dubai being xx EUR and so the airport made money" - the tone of the paragraph and the context makes it sound as if the posters is rolling his eyes at this idea and think this is a rather silly way to think of things: however, is this not the way that government expenditure is usually thought of when looking at financial returns of major capital and infrastructure outlays? The best managed airport in the world, MUC, provides another beautiful and comparable example. For years, the gound handling affiliate (IIRC, it was already named Aeroground back then) made losses of around € 30 million per year, mostly by providing handling services below cost. The profits from all passengers on those airlines, which received services below cost, severely outweighted the losses from handling, so the other MUC airport affiliates, Commercial + Real Estate to name the two most important ones, certainly benefitted from that airlines operated to Munich, partly due to the low handling charges. This has become a sustainable business model in the airport industry and is also applied by Dubai, by more or less copying Schiphol 100% Old Schiphol Approach, KLM can only survive by offering rock bottom fares, low airport charges would help, so let's try to milk the passengers and not the airlines, worked to perfection over the 40 years and another example where Dubai learned from the best. Who cares, if an airport loses x, while providing ground handling, when all the passengers shop and create X+1 for the airport. If you take it to the next level, MUC is owned by the city, the state and the Government..., which brings us back to DTM. It does not work with LCC passengers, they do not spend enough, but if they spend more while staying in the city and the city owns the airport, we may have a working business case again, at least if all stakeholders understand the concept... So as long as any economic surplus exists, I really do not think that anyone really cares, at least within Dubai, Dortmund or Munich. The only people, who really care seem to be some FT members, who are desperately trying to convince certain airlines that top notch inflight services are the way to go for every other airline... Well, let me quote eshaq786: Wrong, Incorrect, Flawed, Inaccurate, Mistaken, False, Error. |
Originally Posted by FD1971
(Post 24024304)
My example of the airport in DTM is currently one of my favourite examples, when I explain the idea behind EK.
The best managed airport in the world, MUC, provides another beautiful and comparable example. For years, the gound handling affiliate (IIRC, it was already named Aeroground back then) made losses of around € 30 million per year, mostly by providing handling services below cost. The profits from all passengers on those airlines, which received services below cost, severely outweighted the losses from handling, so the other MUC airport affiliates, Commercial + Real Estate to name the two most important ones, certainly benefitted from that airlines operated to Munich, partly due to the low handling charges. This has become a sustainable business model in the airport industry and is also applied by Dubai, by more or less copying Schiphol 100% Old Schiphol Approach, KLM can only survive by offering rock bottom fares, low airport charges would help, so let's try to milk the passengers and not the airlines, worked to perfection over the 40 years and another example where Dubai learned from the best. Who cares, if an airport loses x, while providing ground handling, when all the passengers shop and create X+1 for the airport. If you take it to the next level, MUC is owned by the city, the state and the Government..., which brings us back to DTM. It does not work with LCC passengers, they do not spend enough, but if they spend more while staying in the city and the city owns the airport, we may have a working business case again, at least if all stakeholders understand the concept... So as long as any economic surplus exists, I really do not think that anyone really cares, at least within Dubai, Dortmund or Munich. The only people, who really care seem to be some FT members, who are desperately trying to convince certain airlines that top notch inflight services are the way to go for every other airline... Well, let me quote eshaq786: Wrong, Incorrect, Flawed, Inaccurate, Mistaken, False, Error. |
I haven't read all 444 posts of this in detail, and have never flown EK (if truth be told I only searched EightBlack's latest posts to see if he had any of his award winning, five star, Christmas holiday capers to read :D).
However I think that the OP, in assuming that the US model of aviation is the only one that works, is fundamentally flawed. The assertion that you can't sell 600 seats on a plane at a profit must (without any factually based evidence :eek:) be incorrect. I have often wondered over the last couple of years how the long haul market will work out - there seems to be the (not very popular) point-to-(possibly another not very popular) point, isn't it wonderful that you don't have to change planes model (probably best suited to something like a 787 in long haul) versus the mega-hub, fly everyone there in 380s and then get them to change onto another 380 to go where they want to go. I think that there is merit in both models. The point was well made at the beginning of the thread that travellers (and in particular business travellers) would favour frequency of flights over anything else, hence the fact that BA/AA fly something like 20 times a day between NYC and LON, and that BA fly something like 15 times a day between EDI and LON. However, reduce the number of flights in half and an A380 will work, certainly on the NY-LON route. As I said, I haven't flown EK, but if most of my travel was East to Asia/Oz, I'd certainly give them a go. However, the reality is that most of my travel is in Europe/the US, so I will give them a miss whatever planes they fly. |
Originally Posted by LondonAndy
(Post 24038175)
I have often wondered over the last couple of years how the long haul market will work out - there seems to be the (not very popular) point-to-(possibly another not very popular) point, isn't it wonderful that you don't have to change planes model (probably best suited to something like a 787 in long haul) versus the mega-hub, fly everyone there in 380s and then get them to change onto another 380 to go where they want to go. I think that there is merit in both models. The point was well made at the beginning of the thread that travellers (and in particular business travellers) would favour frequency of flights over anything else, hence the fact that BA/AA fly something like 20 times a day between NYC and LON, and that BA fly something like 15 times a day between EDI and LON. However, reduce the number of flights in half and an A380 will work, certainly on the NY-LON route. As I said, I haven't flown EK, but if most of my travel was East to Asia/Oz, I'd certainly give them a go. However, the reality is that most of my travel is in Europe/the US, so I will give them a miss whatever planes they fly. About your comment about the two models: I think the idea that point-to-point model vs mega hub model is synonymous with a frequency vs capacity trade off is becoming increasingly inaccurate - as the catchment area for one connecting bank to another increases and demand is spread throughout the day, some quirks of scheduling are starting to appear: for instance, I travel LON-BKK quite often. The direct options are: BA - 1x daily TG - 2x daily BR - 1x daily spread across: 1150 (TG), 1455 (BA), 2120 (BR), 2135 (TG) - which arrive in BKK at 0610, 0910, 1545, 1555 respectively if I connect in Europe on a legacy, out of their hubs they fly: AF ex-CDG - 1x daily KL ex-AMS - 1x daily LH ex-FRA - 1x daily LX ex-ZRH - 1x daily which depart/arrive 1400-0705+,1720-1005+,1800-1050+,1755-1050+, so a similar story. Now, compare this with EK which has 5 daily departures ex-LHR, 3 daily ex-LGW and has 6 (six! rising to 7 during peak if they need it) daily arrivals in BKK! I can leave LHR at: 0910, 1335, 1615, 2015, 2200 or LGW at: 0940, 1335, 2010 and arrive in BKK at: 0020, 0735, 1205, 1230, 1805, 1840. More frequent arrivals and departure slots, and the flexibility to be able to leave London early (or later) and still be in time for whatever appointments on the other side. The trade off of course is a 90 min - 2 hour connection in DXB - but even taking that into account the additional frequency ex-DXB can be enough to get to an appointment in BKK without having to wait x hours around at destination because the flight arrived too early. Additionally it's quite easy and relatively cheap to rearrange flights to a different time on a different day without finding yourself with a day to spare. Frequencies on the other mega-hub carriers TK (2x daily into BKK), EY (3x daily), QF (4x daily) are similar. So this leaves point-to-point carriers in a slightly more awkward position on some routes: the frequency/schedule premium is gone - they only have 1 or 2 (although I hear TG may be cutting down ex-LHR to 1 now) departure slots a day, so the arrival time is fixed, necessitating an extra day of travel the day before if those flights are inconveniently timed. The only premium they can charge is for non-stop service and product. For some carriers, the premium to pay for the additional fuel costs for LH/ULH service might be too large for pax who think the 2 hour trade off is fine for a saving of 200 GBP in Y or 1k/1.5k in J. Or their product is not good enough value in the eyes of pax to pay that premium. Of course, this only works on some routes where the aggregate connecting bank demand for the final destination is really high, so the point to point model isn't going away any time soon, but where the stage length and demand coincides, the hub model has its advantages, I think. |
i quoted financial statements and ran a bunch of numbers in prior thread >
Originally Posted by Kagehitokiri
(Post 23358240)
Originally Posted by geminidreams
(Post 23354873)
http://www.theemiratesgroup.com/engl...ness-Type.aspx emirates airline (94% of group revenue) in emirates group annual report > wholly owned by a Government of Dubai entity...commenced commercial operations on 25 October 1985 and is designated as the International Airline of the UAE $1,160m operating profit 5.2% margin > $886m profit attributable to owner [76%] [withdrew 25% dividend] $44m profit attributable to non-controlling interests [3.8%] [withdrew 85% dividend] $80m equity non-controlling interests [1%] [revenue breakdown] [93.3%] transport revenue [4.4%] sale of goods, hotel operations, destination and leisure, others [0.1%] [$27m] [?] [2.2%] liquidated damage and other compensation received in connection with aircraft, sale and leaseback of aircraft and parts, ancilliary services and activities incidental to Emirates' operations $8,361m [spent on] jet fuel 82.4% economy class seat factor 79.4% passenger seat factor 66.5% load factor 64.9% break even load factor A380 load and seat factors well above the network average, both in the premium and economy cabins world's largest B777 operator $27,685m total assets > $11,907m non-current liabilities $8,828m current liabilities $6,948m total equity raised in aircraft financing funded through finance and operating leases and...two corporate bonds...issue two amortising bonds - a conventional '144A / Reg S' and a Sukuk format. These pioneering amortising bond structures continue to win awards across the globe and gain recognition from the financing and investor community...first ever floating rate capital market bond backed by a COFACE (the French Export Credit Agency) guarantee. This trend-setting transaction has set a standard to be followed in the industry and comes on the back of the first ever capital market bond backed by a COFACE guarantee issued in the last financial year...last of the existing bullet bonds, SGD 150 million Singapore Dollar 2006 (Tranche B) bond and US$ 1 billion Reg S bond 2011 totaling to AED 4.1 billion, are due for repayment in June 2016 [this lists 4 to 6 bonds] $2,743m bonds fair value [not sure how many bonds this includes] total equity increased $681m on account of the profit for the year including $225m dividends declared to the Owner...dividend declared for the year is in line with the Owner's strategy to reinvest the majority of profit to support the Emirates' growth. This year's dividend represent 25% of the profit attributable to the owner compared with 32% last year. page 45 independent auditor's report investments in subsidiaries, associates, and joint ventures page 53 independent auditor's report related party transactions page 77 group companies of Emirates the annual report stated exchange rate of 3.67 AED to $1 (for less informed people like me, load is pax + cargo)
Originally Posted by Kagehitokiri
(Post 23358622)
load factor minus break even load factor =
1.6 - 2013-2014 0.6 - 2012-2013 0.8 - 2011-2012 5.3 - 2010-2011 2.4 - 2009-2010 1.0 - 2008-2009 2.7 - 2007-2008 5.2 - 2006-2007 5.6 - 2005-2006 (or 5.5)* 7.1 - 2004-2005 5.9 - 2003-2004 4.6 - 2002-2003 3.2 - 2001-2002 4.0 - 2000-2001 3.8 - 1999-2000 4.7 - 1998-1999 5.4 - 1997-1998 is this believable, regardless how "break even" is defined? for example 5.3 in 2010-2011, although fleet is a factor * discrepancy in one year's break even load factor 2013-2014 annual report says 60.2 for 2005-2006 http://www.theemiratesgroup.com/engl...2005-2006.aspx emirates operating statistics at that link says 60.3 (i did not check all reports against all others)
Originally Posted by Kagehitokiri
(Post 23346469)
12 Feb 2014 [Amedeo...The lessor’s chief executive...]Lapidus believes that Airbus’s earlier marketing strategy that concentrated on the A380’s spaciousness hampered demand. As part of the A380 marketing drive it launched last year, Airbus increased the A380’s baseline three-class configuration from 525 seats to 558 by moving all premium seating to the upper deck. “Airbus miss-sold the A380 as a luxury airplane, then they allowed people to move things on the aircraft too much,” says Lapidus. “With the A380 Airbus started with ‘it’s a big piece of real estate do what you want to do’. That has not helped with the key factors that are great on this aircraft which are the lowest seat cost economics of anything flying today or in five years.”
Originally Posted by ffI
(Post 23558755)
SQ is the launch customer for the A380 and is quoted as saying that their costs were 20% below the 747s.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...ation-hub.html GUWonder's posts in this thread > http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/emira...t-amazing.html |
Is Emirates a financial scam?
Nice work Kage. Of course the profit deniers will continue to ignore hard facts and numbers and use more qualitative analysis to support their theory that Ek is a scam and that the earth is In fact flat!
|
discussion should be accounting, how numbers can be manipulated
not to mention comparisons to other airline financial statements if emirates is not charging enough, that seems like charity not "scam" financial statements are for bondholders? basically no minority equity? |
Is Emirates a financial scam?
Yes you are right mainly for bond holders and lending banks. They would be the Main victims of any "scam" as the question is often asked and unanswered here which is who is the victim and who is the beneficiary of this scam. As you point out the analysis should focus on the numbers. It would be the longest running scam in financial history. A real record breaker.
|
Originally Posted by Kagehitokiri
(Post 24076732)
discussion should be accounting, how numbers can be manipulated
not to mention comparisons to other airline financial statements if emirates is not charging enough, that seems like charity not "scam" financial statements are for bondholders? basically no minority equity? First and foremost, auditing companies do not check factors beyond what is stated in a financial report. As pointed out before, the EK 'scam' is created around several affiliates and other aviation infrastructure owned by the Government, pretty much comparable to the old KLM and Schiphol approach. If you compare the total costs other airlines have for airport and handling and compare it to EK, you will find a difference, a factor of around 7 or 8. ;););) You will also find a lack of fundamental information about financing most of their activities in their annual reports, not as bad as in the case of the folks from AUH, but still noticeable. Once again, off-balance sheet financing, i.e. operating leases among other factors is a major factor in the industry and played a significant role during bankruptcies of airlines in the US already, when the real total liabilities were thrice as high as on seen on the first take. As stated before, aside from the airport game EK is playing, one of the most common practices to reduce liabilities....i.e. when you finance an armada of aircraft. Do Deloitte, KPMG, PWC care about that, no, as long as you state it somewhere on the last page under: ****** ;) In the end, somebody has to pay the bill and as long as it is an entity in Dubai (comparable to the utility provider of the city of Dortmund or Muc International Airport) nobody really cares to answer the question poses by HAVOC10G. During the regulated era, the taxpayer picked up the tab, during the unregulated era in the US most of the tab was picked up by shareholders and employees and the tab in Dubai is picked up by several other entities owned by the Government. As long as the Government is not bleeding too much (apparently Duabi had to pay too much, an airline, an airport, a Metro and a huge skyscraper apparently was too much) and there is an economic surplus on the horizon, it should be okay. As stated before, Dubai is merely copying the efforts by nearly all European Governments and airlines post WWII, when they had to get back on the map... |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:52 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.