View Single Post
  #156  
Old August 25th, 2008, 02:23 AM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
Hatunen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,483
Default Opinions on trains and planes.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 03:13:48 GMT, Stefan Patric
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 08:55:59 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 05:28:55 GMT, Stefan Patric
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:27:01 -0500, Mark Brader wrote:

Stefan Patric writes:
Was the Concord ever profitable at all?

The Concorde earned back its operating costs once it went into
transatlantic service, but its development costs were mostly eaten by
the British and French governments.

So, the answer is "no."


Depending on how you define "profitable". It appears to have been
profitable for the operating consortium.


What you're talking about is income, not profit. There's a BIG
difference between the two. At least, that's what the Internal Revenue
Service keeps telling me. ;-)


not what I'm talking about.

It's not uncommon for large ventures like eurotunnel to split
into two companies, one to be the one who built the tunnel,
thereby assuming all the construction costs and constituting the
real owner, and the other to actually operate a system using,
e.g., the tunnel; the latter carries none of the original debt
but would pay agreed "rental" of the facility, which may not be
enough to cover the original debt. Thus, the opeating company can
make a profit.

It is also possible for the owner company to declare bankruptcy
under the laws of the applicable nation, therby shedding some of
the original debt, and/or restructuring that debt, but still
functioning at a loss. YMMV on al this, of course, depending on
the creativity of yoru accountants.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *