-
15-10-2014, 04:20 PM
#1841
Member
Its funny how people always post when they have exited a few weeks afterwards. At a favorable exit price relative to the day of course.
Not saying individuals didn't exit at those prices but it would hold a little more validation if you announced that closer to the day. Posting your favorable exit price now does nothing and adds nothing to this thread.
-
15-10-2014, 05:02 PM
#1842
Some of us like to keep our cards close to our vest as we execute over a period of time to average the price across a number of trading days. To be honest I couldn't care less whether people believe me regarding vwap exit price and only posted that because one particular argumentative individual inferred it was some sort of panic decision. Besides that, in my case it was a few days afterwards, not weeks.
As always it pays to DYOR. Hoop and New Guy appear to have exited cleanly in one day and posted quickly afterwards which is probably what I would have done if it was all done in one day.
Last edited by Beagle; 15-10-2014 at 05:10 PM.
-
15-10-2014, 05:56 PM
#1843
-
15-10-2014, 06:11 PM
#1844
Last edited by Beagle; 15-10-2014 at 06:24 PM.
-
16-10-2014, 08:50 AM
#1845
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/busi...15-116e4l.html
Wow, I thought it was only boats that leaked !! Landing at dramatically over the recommended maximum weight is also a bit of an eye-opener.
-
16-10-2014, 09:59 AM
#1846
Member
Originally Posted by Roger
They did not land over the maximum weight. They dumped fuel to avoid being overweight.
-
16-10-2014, 10:17 AM
#1847
Originally Posted by freddagg
They did not land over the maximum weight. They dumped fuel to avoid being overweight.
Have another read mate. Extract
The pilots decided the best course of action was to return to Los Angeles, in a process that involved them jettisoning some fuel to reduce the overall landing weight to 445 tonnes - above the maximum landing weight of 391 tonnes.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviat...#ixzz3GFbIm6U8
I read that as they landed 54 tonnes above maximum recommended landing weight
Last edited by Beagle; 16-10-2014 at 10:19 AM.
-
16-10-2014, 10:33 AM
#1848
Member
Not changing my position on AIR at all - remain maximum overweight . Australia and NZ are good economies to be in right now, and the US consumer should benefit from cheaper gas, supporting NZs's most profitable international routes, asia is doing okay, and thankfully NZ has minimal exposure to europe...
Regarding the oil price, have read some good theories about current weakness. Expecting this to be a short term phenomenon, and Brent to move back towards 90-100 bbl in the next 12m once Saudi get OPEC members in line. Does provide AIR with the opportunity to get some cheap fuel next year if the treasury team are making moves. Right now they are looking at expensive hedge losses, I wonder if they have covered (reversed) some positions like they did in the crisis. The next hedge update 18 November.
Re the operating stats I should have commented last month, they looked pretty weak at first glance, but if you look at the year over year comps for the month - comparisons were very tough so I would take comfort from that. Comparisons get dramatically easier so I would expect a pretty robust looking RSK growth number in the next release. The NZD move lower will certainly help the yield figures going forward, but I am slightly nervous my forecast assumption of 6% passenger revenue growth (based on 4% RSK and 2% yield) may be too optimistic. I really do think they will deliver this though! Next months stats will hopefully give me re-assurance. This is one area I am ahead of consensus forecasts. I think Marcus Curley is using 4%, but he has consistently been too conservative.
I would love to share my forecasts and where I differ from consensus with people, but before I do I want to get more clarity on aircraft ownership costs. It's a pretty big moving part on earnings, and I am thinking 2 777's on operating leases must be c.60m in additional lease costs per year, vs say 10m depreciation on 2 aged 747's that have now departed. The 787's I think have been purchased for cash and at good rates, but guessing what depreciation costs are annually on these could easily result in estimation errors in the 10's of millions. Broadly its safe to say I see eps at between 26 and 30 cents per share based on 6% pax revenue growth - so I believe consensus is too low...just like last year and the year before
Lastly I should apologies to roger for personal attacks - sorry mate. I'm going to stay in a positive mood on this thread from now on regardless.
-
16-10-2014, 10:36 AM
#1849
So now a 2nd nurse is confirmed with Ebola in the states(she just got off a commercial airliner hours before feeling sick)WHO now thinks incubation could be double the 21days first predicted
I think Its time to start the inevitable thread--(wont clutter up this thread with more info)
-
16-10-2014, 10:41 AM
#1850
Originally Posted by skid
So now a 2nd nurse is confirmed with Ebola in the states(she just got off a commercial airliner hours before feeling sick)WHO now thinks incubation could be double the 21days first predicted
I think Its time to start the inevitable thread--(wont clutter up this thread with more info)
Good idea Skid and keep perspective after all there are around 2 million deaths per year worldwide from aids
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks