-
11-09-2016, 08:49 AM
#8671
Originally Posted by Jantar
Yes. it was Korean, Asiana Airlines Flight 214. A Boeing 777-200 ER. We were talking about it our local flying club shortly after the event, and even our student pilots present had more take-offs and landings than both 777 pilots combined. Despite their combined flying time of over 20,000 hours their actual hands on flying experience was severely lacking. One pilot had some hands on as a military pilot, the other had almost none at all. Neither had ever done a visual approach in a 777.
Thanks
We put a heap of faith in these pilots, or is it computers, dont we
“ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”
-
11-09-2016, 09:06 AM
#8672
Originally Posted by winner69
Thanks
We put a heap of faith in these pilots, or is it computers, dont we
One of the reasons I choose not to fly with airlines that use only simulator to PTF training.
My son is a pilot for Qantas Link on a Boeing 717. Before he even went to the Aviation College at Ardmore I had sent him solo in gliders, and progressed him to single seaters, flying in the Southern alps, with only minimal navigation aids. He needed over 1000 hours to get even a basic Commercial flying job in Australia, and almost 6,000 hours hands on flying, before any Australian or New Zealand airline would even consider him. In many asian airlines it is possible that one of the pilots up front has less than 500 hours, and most of that in a simulator.
-
11-09-2016, 01:50 PM
#8673
Passed Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim & Christian places of worship on the way to breakfast
Originally Posted by fish
Thank you so much for this PT.
Revenue is what is most important if costs can be reduced and margins increased.
It will however be difficult for many reasons for QAN to achieve similar margins-and if possible will this not take years?
I worry about you posting at this time
Where in the world are you and what time is it?
best
Fish
Top to bottom:
You are welcome.
To shareholders is it not sustainable profit that is most important, and how the company achieves it is secondary (assuming they do so ethically)?
Current analyst group think is that FY17 AIR has better margins and FY18 & FY19 QAN wins that contest.
[However I still act on my bias that airlines in general are not a good investment but it is your call with your money.]
Worry not for me.
Currently home in Malaysia where the clock is 4 hours behind the one on your wall. Grounded until my new NZ passport arrives and I get the necessary visas fitted.
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
Last edited by Snow Leopard; 11-09-2016 at 01:51 PM.
om mani peme hum
-
11-09-2016, 08:38 PM
#8674
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11707664
Government sector contracts would be substantial domestic market share to retain or lose..
-
12-09-2016, 08:36 AM
#8675
Originally Posted by see weed
Don't know, but higher the close the better for all shareolders. Sold down 15000 at 2.40 to get av pr down to 2.147, not selling any more today.
When you guys do your averages do you include dividends
Just curious
“ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”
-
12-09-2016, 08:59 AM
#8676
Originally Posted by winner69
When you guys do your averages do you include dividends
Just curious
I do. Simply because the dividend is immediately reinvested in more shares.
-
12-09-2016, 09:09 AM
#8677
QAN running substantially higher leverage than AIR and still flying old gas guzzling 747's. A strategy that works when oil is cheap and travel demand is high....at other times ????...well lets just say many of us remember a $2billion plus loss not that long ago. Assumptions require a significant body of accumulated evidence to validate same. Analysts have been saying for a long time now QAN is worth a lot more than AIR and yet they keep hitting very similar EPS numbers. Assumptions valid or requiring an awful lot more further verification...you folks be the judge.
Apart from their incredible fuel efficiency this is one of the reasons why AIR are so keen on the Dreamliner and why I would chose one or an A380 which is pressurised at 5,000 ft over an older tech aircraft...you arrive in much better shape. http://www.msn.com/en-nz/money/techn...cid=spartandhp
Last edited by Beagle; 12-09-2016 at 09:16 AM.
-
12-09-2016, 09:30 AM
#8678
Looks like there is a wee analyst re-rating going on:
2017 revenue estimate down to $5196m (from $5531m)
2017 EPS estimate down to 33.7 cts per share (from 47.8 cents / share)
Predicting further EPS drops in 2018 and 2019 (but then - who knows?)
http://www.4-traders.com/AIR-NEW-ZEA...07/financials/
12 month consensus now down to $2.20 ($2.10 to $2.35) and recommendation "Hold".
http://www.4-traders.com/AIR-NEW-ZEA...407/consensus/
Given that analysts are typically optimistic and slow in changing their (recently quite upbeat) estimates ... maybe a good idea to wait until this cyclical stock comes closer to the bottom.
Discl: not holding; DYOR;
----
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)
-
12-09-2016, 09:52 AM
#8679
Originally Posted by winner69
When you guys do your averages do you include dividends
Just curious
No, have never added divs to my av prices. Dividends are the icing on the cake.
-
12-09-2016, 09:56 AM
#8680
Moderated user
I don't mind SP staying at these low levels for another week or so... more bang-4-bucks with dividend reinvestment<img title="Smile_2" id="vB_Editor_001_smilie_17" alt="" src="http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/images/smilies/001_smile.gif" border="0"> Even better if AIR kept the DRP.
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