From stuff
http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/7...os-aires-route
Printable View
Double down = dumbing down imo.
Double up on the way - you are then investing in more and more of a good thing.
Rule does not apply to traders.
Using the 787 with its 20% lower cost per seat/km and similar capacity to the 777 will improve profitability. AIR will be pleased with the new Buenos Aires and Houston routes with both being profitable from the start and rapidly having to increase services to keep up with demand.
Whats the bet that the 777-200 services to Houston will soon be upgraded to the 777-300 if the AKL-LAX competition starts to bite into AIRs capacity?
Pretty sure they were talking about that the other day mate. As you suggest, there's a pretty useful handle they can pull in terms of tweaking of capacity with the lower seat count in a 777-200 312 pax v 332 pax in a 777-300.
Good move putting one of the new Dreamliners on the Bounes Aires route because LAN (or whatever they will be called when that merger goes through) are using a 787 on their service..besides that we need to keep Iceman in the luxury and comfort of which he is well deserving on his regular trips over there.
The 772 if full with its extra premium seats, the revenue more than offsets the 787 fuel saving. Plus the 787 is a dog longhaul with freight. 773 hasn't got the range to operate Houston Auckland in a descent headwind, full, I'm told. This reschedule is probably more about utilizing the 772 capacity into a growing market, probably Asia. The PR spin is all about the 787.
Not sure the 787 has the required EDTO cert yet for direct EZE, this is why LANCHILE have to fly the curve to NZ, an hour longer than AIR
^^ Maybe they reconfigure the seating mix for one or two of the new 787's due this year.
Fascinating battle between the bulls and bears. Long term support at $2.35 holding at this stage on massive volume. Technically not looking quite as grim as it was.
I suspect Forsyth Barr client portfolio service is still selling - they probably obtained a big allocation when the government sold down at $1.65 (?) and there's still plenty of profits/gains for clients to book. A change in their recommendation usually triggers such wholesale sell down and/or de-weighting of portfolio.
Appreciate your comment mate. From 4 traders, presently only four analysts providing coverage, (maybe First N.Z.'s coverage presently suspended seeing as they're appointed to act in the VAH sale process), consensus view, all on hold and consensus valuation $2.80, same as Forbarr's assessment. Why would they be selling in the 230's if the house view is its worth $2.80 ? Maybe they were heavily overweight before ? Guess I just answered my own question...
Another from Stuff
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...go-cartel-case