post your odds on JetBlue's survival 1 year out
Feb 20, 2007, 3:24 pm
#31
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 119
And I don't care if you think they shouldn't respond. While I generally don't agree with the "jetBlue Cheerleaders", I wouldn't presume to tell them not to post. Perhaps I missed the memo that anointed you thread cop...
Feb 20, 2007, 4:11 pm
#33
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Long Island, NY and Boca Raton, FL
Programs: JetBlue TrueBlue, AAdvantage, Rapid Rewards, Sky Miles, SPG, Marriott Rewards, HHonors, Hertz
Posts: 2,275
If I recall correctly, the first person to use the term "stupid" in this thread was one of the "Jet Blue Cheerleaders."
If the "Jet Blue Cheerleaders" want this forum to be nothing more than one long advertisement for Jet Blue, with everybody touting its praises and responding in excitement to such threads such as "Jet Blue's Newest Tail Design," or "Jet Blue now serves blue chocolate chip cookies!" then they are, obviously, in the wrong place.
Jet Blue failed miserably in its mission to its passengers last week and this week, and has yet to show any real signs of trying to change the way it does business.
If the "Jet Blue Cheerleaders" want this forum to be nothing more than one long advertisement for Jet Blue, with everybody touting its praises and responding in excitement to such threads such as "Jet Blue's Newest Tail Design," or "Jet Blue now serves blue chocolate chip cookies!" then they are, obviously, in the wrong place.
Jet Blue failed miserably in its mission to its passengers last week and this week, and has yet to show any real signs of trying to change the way it does business.
The funny thing, though, is that it has only been this way since the mess at JFK last week. Debates are ALWAYS welcome here, as on any forum, but the activity on this forum has been MUCH higher than usual - mainly with bashers trashing even the non-related threads.
The "cheerleaders" including myself openly admitted jetBlue's mistakes during the last week. I even used words such as "terrible" and "unacceptable". What else do you want us to say? Just because we SUPPORT, not defend, the company during good and bad times does not make this forum "one long advertisement" for jetBlue.
How are we in the wrong place, Bam Bam, by discussing jetBlue's newest tail design??? In no way were you jetBlue bashers asked to RESPOND in that thread - let alone read it! You're entitled to respond in that thread, however, if it's going to be off-topic then just keep your thoughts to yourself. My thoughts expressed in the JFK mess-related threads were at least on topic. Whether you agree with them or not, I did not trash your JFK mess threads with stuff like jetBlue's tail designs or IFE. Instead, I inteligently debated/discussed the topic at hand.
As SkaterJasp pointed out above, jetBlue's new tail design is company news of interest to many on this forum. Just because there was a mess at JFK this week does not mean the ENTIRE forum must discuss that issue. For example, when the WN jet skid off the runway at MDW a little over a year ago, although 99% of the discussion was bout that incident, does not mean "other business" discussions came to an end. There was still talk about paint schemes, employee jokes over the PA, etc. etc. etc.
Same goes for the NY Times, for instance - when a life/world changing story occurs, the paper does not stop covering other news - even though it may be smaller than the big story on the front page.
So, in conclusion, this forum is open for ALL to discuss and/or debate whatever the title in any given thread is.
Feb 20, 2007, 4:14 pm
#34
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LA, NYC, DFW
Programs: AA AAdvantage, NWA Worldperks, SWA Rapid Rewards, Hilton HHonors, TripRewards
Posts: 150
As I see it, it's the jetBlue "bashers" vs. the jetBlue "cheerleaders"...
The funny thing, though, is that it has only been this way since the mess at JFK last week. Debates are ALWAYS welcome here, as on any forum, but the activity on this forum has been MUCH higher than usual - mainly with bashers trashing even the non-related threads.
The "cheerleaders" including myself openly admitted jetBlue's mistakes during the last week. I even used words such as "terrible" and "unacceptable". What else do you want us to say? Just because we SUPPORT, not defend, the company during good and bad times does not make this forum "one long advertisement" for jetBlue.
How are we in the wrong place, Bam Bam, by discussing jetBlue's newest tail design??? In no way were you jetBlue bashers asked to RESPOND in that thread - let alone read it! You're entitled to respond in that thread, however, if it's going to be off-topic then just keep your thoughts to yourself. My thoughts expressed in the JFK mess-related threads were at least on topic. Whether you agree with them or not, I did not trash your JFK mess threads with stuff like jetBlue's tail designs or IFE. Instead, I inteligently debated/discussed the topic at hand.
As SkaterJasp pointed out above, jetBlue's new tail design is company news of interest to many on this forum. Just because there was a mess at JFK this week does not mean the ENTIRE forum must discuss that issue. For example, when the WN jet skid off the runway at MDW a little over a year ago, although 99% of the discussion was bout that incident, does not mean "other business" discussions came to an end. There was still talk about paint schemes, employee jokes over the PA, etc. etc. etc.
Same goes for the NY Times, for instance - when a life/world changing story occurs, the paper does not stop covering other news - even though it may be smaller than the big story on the front page.
So, in conclusion, this forum is open for ALL to discuss and/or debate whatever the title in any given thread is.
The funny thing, though, is that it has only been this way since the mess at JFK last week. Debates are ALWAYS welcome here, as on any forum, but the activity on this forum has been MUCH higher than usual - mainly with bashers trashing even the non-related threads.
The "cheerleaders" including myself openly admitted jetBlue's mistakes during the last week. I even used words such as "terrible" and "unacceptable". What else do you want us to say? Just because we SUPPORT, not defend, the company during good and bad times does not make this forum "one long advertisement" for jetBlue.
How are we in the wrong place, Bam Bam, by discussing jetBlue's newest tail design??? In no way were you jetBlue bashers asked to RESPOND in that thread - let alone read it! You're entitled to respond in that thread, however, if it's going to be off-topic then just keep your thoughts to yourself. My thoughts expressed in the JFK mess-related threads were at least on topic. Whether you agree with them or not, I did not trash your JFK mess threads with stuff like jetBlue's tail designs or IFE. Instead, I inteligently debated/discussed the topic at hand.
As SkaterJasp pointed out above, jetBlue's new tail design is company news of interest to many on this forum. Just because there was a mess at JFK this week does not mean the ENTIRE forum must discuss that issue. For example, when the WN jet skid off the runway at MDW a little over a year ago, although 99% of the discussion was bout that incident, does not mean "other business" discussions came to an end. There was still talk about paint schemes, employee jokes over the PA, etc. etc. etc.
Same goes for the NY Times, for instance - when a life/world changing story occurs, the paper does not stop covering other news - even though it may be smaller than the big story on the front page.
So, in conclusion, this forum is open for ALL to discuss and/or debate whatever the title in any given thread is.
I haven't seen anybody here, other than you, try to stifle debate.
Feb 20, 2007, 4:27 pm
#35
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,223
100%
BUT: If you asked the same question about Enron one year before the stock crashed, most people would have said 100%. So who knows?
(I'm hoping that mentioning Enron will stir things up and get people to stop yapping about who's a cheerleader and who isn't a cheerleader.
)
BUT: If you asked the same question about Enron one year before the stock crashed, most people would have said 100%. So who knows?
(I'm hoping that mentioning Enron will stir things up and get people to stop yapping about who's a cheerleader and who isn't a cheerleader.
)
Feb 20, 2007, 4:40 pm
#36
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 223
Okay, I'll bite, what do you purpose they do and accomplish in the course of less than 1 week? Business process takes time to change, and in situations where it's irregular operations related, that irregular operation needs to occur again to really tell if those changes made impact.
Feb 20, 2007, 4:53 pm
#38
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NYC (formerly BOS/DCA)
Programs: UA 1K, IC RA
Posts: 60,745
Till then,
M/S
Feb 20, 2007, 4:55 pm
#40
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Night Vale
Posts: 1,872
IT Systems a factor
Here is a link to an article discussing how the IT systems were maxed out.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/...icleId=9011581
At the bottom of the page is a link to a 2003 article which is even more interesting.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/...icleId=9011581
At the bottom of the page is a link to a 2003 article which is even more interesting.
Feb 20, 2007, 5:11 pm
#41
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PUW
Programs: AS MVPG
Posts: 131
This will blow over
It's not the first time this has happened. People say they will never fly an airline again blah blah blah, but when they see a great deal on airfare, they will take it.
Once the weather gets nice, people will forget allllll about it.
Once the weather gets nice, people will forget allllll about it.
Feb 20, 2007, 5:37 pm
#42
Join Date: Oct 2005
Programs: AA EXP, Hertz 5*, Marriott PLT
Posts: 1,092
To the poster above who said this will be a third year of loss for jetBlue while other airlines are getting their act together....here's a little news flash: JetBlue basically BROKE EVEN in 2006. That's not a loss. 2005 was a loss...and the company's RTP plan has proven wonders thus far.
"We had a net loss of $1 million in 2006 compared to a net loss of $20 million in 2005."
I read the above to say they had a net loss of $1 million in 2006 compared to a net loss of $20 million in 2005.
I think that qualifies as losses for two consecutive years.
IMHO, as it relates to Calendar Year 2007, I don't think they will make a profit this year. Before last week, B6 announced they would probably have a loss in Q1. Coupled with the recent events, I believe it will hamper future bookings.
B6 has been getting bigger by serving more cities and not so much by serving existing cities more. The low hanging fruit isn't as abundant as it once was meaning if B6 couldn't previously fill more flights with their existing cities, where is the growth going to come from?
As it relates to the original question, B6 will be around (unless they agree to a buyout by someone) although I believe its growth trends will mirror those more of a legacy than of a "can't find enough planes" airline.
Feb 20, 2007, 5:45 pm
#43
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
Nonsense.
In 2006, B6 lost $7 million before special items; hardly call that "broke even."
Special items consisted mainly of $6 million gain from the sale of five A320s. With the proceeds from the asset sale included, the net loss was close to break even at $1 million.
I prefer to judge the results before gains from asset sales are factored in. YMMV.
Today Neeleman said that the fiasco of this past week will easily cost the airline $20 million, maybe $30 million or even more.
There goes this year's profits.
In 2006, B6 lost $7 million before special items; hardly call that "broke even."
Special items consisted mainly of $6 million gain from the sale of five A320s. With the proceeds from the asset sale included, the net loss was close to break even at $1 million.
I prefer to judge the results before gains from asset sales are factored in. YMMV.
Today Neeleman said that the fiasco of this past week will easily cost the airline $20 million, maybe $30 million or even more.
There goes this year's profits.
How much money did AA lose after 9/11?
Feb 20, 2007, 5:52 pm
#44
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Long Island, NY and Boca Raton, FL
Programs: JetBlue TrueBlue, AAdvantage, Rapid Rewards, Sky Miles, SPG, Marriott Rewards, HHonors, Hertz
Posts: 2,275
Per Jetblue's SEC 10-k filing for Calendar Year 2006...
"We had a net loss of $1 million in 2006 compared to a net loss of $20 million in 2005."
I read the above to say they had a net loss of $1 million in 2006 compared to a net loss of $20 million in 2005.
I think that qualifies as losses for two consecutive years.
IMHO, as it relates to Calendar Year 2007, I don't think they will make a profit this year. Before last week, B6 announced they would probably have a loss in Q1. Coupled with the recent events, I believe it will hamper future bookings.
B6 has been getting bigger by serving more cities and not so much by serving existing cities more. The low hanging fruit isn't as abundant as it once was meaning if B6 couldn't previously fill more flights with their existing cities, where is the growth going to come from?
As it relates to the original question, B6 will be around (unless they agree to a buyout by someone) although I believe its growth trends will mirror those more of a legacy than of a "can't find enough planes" airline.
"We had a net loss of $1 million in 2006 compared to a net loss of $20 million in 2005."
I read the above to say they had a net loss of $1 million in 2006 compared to a net loss of $20 million in 2005.
I think that qualifies as losses for two consecutive years.
IMHO, as it relates to Calendar Year 2007, I don't think they will make a profit this year. Before last week, B6 announced they would probably have a loss in Q1. Coupled with the recent events, I believe it will hamper future bookings.
B6 has been getting bigger by serving more cities and not so much by serving existing cities more. The low hanging fruit isn't as abundant as it once was meaning if B6 couldn't previously fill more flights with their existing cities, where is the growth going to come from?
As it relates to the original question, B6 will be around (unless they agree to a buyout by someone) although I believe its growth trends will mirror those more of a legacy than of a "can't find enough planes" airline.
Feb 20, 2007, 5:55 pm
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
If the point of this thread is to link the meltdowm of last week with a possible shutdown of jetBlue, then the only reasonable response is that jetBlue has a 100% chance of survival.
Yes, jetBlue lost a little money these past two years, and the meltdown will cost them in lost revenue, lawsuits, etc. But the total losses incurred in this meltdown do not even come close to putting in question B6's ability to survive given their cash on hand as of 01/2007.
Their new Bill of Rights will be costly, too, possibly more costly than any of the events of last week because they will represent an on-going cost. That will certainly be a drag on revenues as delays are pretty much an unavoidable feature of the business.
This is just anecdotal, but I flew jetBlue this morning from JFK to FLL. The terminal at JFK was perfectly efficient. Customers and employees both seemed in a surprisingl good mood given the warzone that had occurred there.
I did OLCI and bagdrop and this proceeded as normal.
Security took about 5 minutes. The flight was completely full and many of the passengers went out of their way to lend support to the cabin crew after the debacle.
This was also my first experience in the new 36" seat pitch. It was absolutely glorious.
Flight pulled in at the gate 7 minutes early and my bags were at the carousel when I got there.
The only image that stays in mind is how many people on that full plane went out of their way to voice their support for jetBlue.
Yes, jetBlue lost a little money these past two years, and the meltdown will cost them in lost revenue, lawsuits, etc. But the total losses incurred in this meltdown do not even come close to putting in question B6's ability to survive given their cash on hand as of 01/2007.
Their new Bill of Rights will be costly, too, possibly more costly than any of the events of last week because they will represent an on-going cost. That will certainly be a drag on revenues as delays are pretty much an unavoidable feature of the business.
This is just anecdotal, but I flew jetBlue this morning from JFK to FLL. The terminal at JFK was perfectly efficient. Customers and employees both seemed in a surprisingl good mood given the warzone that had occurred there.
I did OLCI and bagdrop and this proceeded as normal.
Security took about 5 minutes. The flight was completely full and many of the passengers went out of their way to lend support to the cabin crew after the debacle.
This was also my first experience in the new 36" seat pitch. It was absolutely glorious.
Flight pulled in at the gate 7 minutes early and my bags were at the carousel when I got there.
The only image that stays in mind is how many people on that full plane went out of their way to voice their support for jetBlue.
Last edited by TWA Fan 1; Feb 20, 2007 at 6:01 pm