On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:23:57 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

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.

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=153&sid=3034111

Now, we know: Eurotunnel posted its first profitable year in 2007 after
13 years of operation.


Stef