If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "tim....." wrote in message ... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "tim....." wrote in message ... The Chunnel surely has surpassed all expectations, hasn't it? In losing money, yes As it happens current traffic levels are pretty much in line with the estimates, the problem is that it ramped up much more slowly than predicted and building and financing costs were much higher. The problem is that those traffic levels were predicted at fares expected to be 4 times those being charged. Thats part of the story, the predicted revenues were based on the fares currently being charged by the ferries. As a result of the competiton Eurotunnel introduced the ferry companies had to radically reduce their own fares to survive. This resulted in a price war which hurt both ferry operators and Eurotunnel P&O lost 23% of its business in the first year that Eurotunnel operated and had to merge with arival company. Other operators such as Sally Lines and Oostende Lines went bust. Entire routes such as those from Folkestone and Ramsgate as well as the hovercraft routes were abandoned completely The Eurotunnel business plan envisaged this (route consolidation) happening anyway, but still expected to charge 300 pounds per car for a round trip. tim |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
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. -- Mark Brader "That's what progress is for. Progress Toronto is for creating new forms of aggravation." -- Keith Jackson |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
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." Stef |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
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. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
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. ;-) Stef Small Business Owner |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
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 * |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
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 |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:45:44 GMT, Stefan Patric
wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:23:57 -0700, Hatunen wrote: 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. Yes, "its first annual net profit, less than a year after the company nearly drowned in debt." And after a debt restructuring deal: "Eurotunnel lurched from one debt crisis to another until it reached a restructuring deal with shareholders last year allowing it to cut its 9.2 billion euros debt to 4.16 billion euros ($14.44 billion to ($6.53 billion) by repaying banks in the form of shares." Which "...halved Eurotunnel's debt and saved it from bankruptcy" and which " ... created a new company, Groupe Eurotunnel SA, and diluted existing shareholders' stake to 13 percent. The vast bulk of the debt was held by financial institutions, but a large number of small shareholders, mostly in France, bought shares when the company was floated in 1987 and they have suffered the most." And notice that Groupe Eurotunnel runs only the tunnel itself, collecting tolls from the train operators, Eurostar and whatever Le Shuttle is called now, and that the original construction debts was never paid off. Although Eurotunel didn't declare bankruptcy, as I suggested above, it did come so close that it scared its creditors into taking less than owed, and basically screwed the small investors. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:17:58 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:45:44 GMT, Stefan Patric wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:23:57 -0700, Hatunen wrote: 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. Yes, "its first annual net profit, less than a year after the company nearly drowned in debt." And after a debt restructuring deal: "Eurotunnel lurched from one debt crisis to another until it reached a restructuring deal with shareholders last year allowing it to cut its 9.2 billion euros debt to 4.16 billion euros ($14.44 billion to ($6.53 billion) by repaying banks in the form of shares." Which "...halved Eurotunnel's debt and saved it from bankruptcy" and which " ... created a new company, Groupe Eurotunnel SA, and diluted existing shareholders' stake to 13 percent. The vast bulk of the debt [snip] Although Eurotunel didn't declare bankruptcy, as I suggested above, it did come so close that it scared its creditors into taking less than owed, and basically screwed the small investors. I'm glad that Prime Minister Thatcher mandated that the British half of the project be privately financed--no public money. (This wasn't a public works project, after all.) Couldn't find any info on whether the French used government funds or not. However, now the question is: Can Eurotunnel be profitable two years in a row? ;-) Stef |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on trains and planes.
Hatunen wrote on Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:00:24 -0700:
Hatunen wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:40:55 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: Tom P wrote: JamesStep wrote: One factor that's often not considered is that around 25% of people consider themselves nervous flyers, according to some surveys. Many of these people would probably prefer train travel if it was comparable to airlines in cost and time. James I commute regularly 250 miles inside Germany, sometimes by plane, sometimes by rail. It is comparable in terms of cost and time - but as time goes by I am getting more nervous travelling by high speed train than by air. Trains are intrinsically less safe than airplanes for many reasons- - an airplane has two engines. If one stops, it carries on flying. A train has dozens of wheels and axles. If just one of these breaks at high speed, you're dead. So how many people have died as a result of a single wheel or axle on a train breaking? 101 on the InterCityExpress near Eschede, Germany in 1998. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterCityExpress You're late--this has already been discussed. Not when I posted it. And I'm one of the ones who discussed it. There is an interesting article in today's Daily Telegraph maintaing that train travel in NW Europe is faster and cheaper than planes: http://tinyurl.com/6k8vyc -- James Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trains or Planes from Barcelona to Florence | MMM | Europe | 2 | October 30th, 2005 04:12 PM |
missing planes !! | [email protected] | Air travel | 0 | October 15th, 2005 11:56 AM |
OT Low Planes | [email protected] | Cruises | 2 | October 5th, 2005 04:58 PM |
Exercise on planes | Frank F. Matthews | Air travel | 0 | September 10th, 2004 02:24 PM |