perfect storm, page-14

Surfrat2230,

I am not going to let you off the hook by moving this discussion away from the miss-information you have expressed in this forum. The pros and cons of current management is a topic for another day. Instead lets drill down into your latest snake oil post.

You said "If they did not spend the money on 777's, they spent it on other purchases such as the A380".

SNAP - so if they spent the money on the A380 , which is arguably more fuel efficient than the 777 then there is NO FUEL SAVING because they already spent the available capital on a more efficient airplane and your $450m is a MIRAGE.

Of course they could spend more capital to get more planes. But they have to pay the cost of the capital expenditure.

You have said "This issue of capital expenditure is separate to the issue of fuel costs to an airline." That is completely incorrect. The issue of capital expenditure and fuels costs have never been more emphatically entwined in the industry.

I repeat that it is not mathematically possible for the 777 to reduce the total Qantas fuel bill by 10% through replacing the 25 747's.

We are going around in circles here. If you dont understand this by now then you are never going to understand and I am not going to waste any more time on this. I will continue to correct you from time to time in this forum as you undoubtedly continue to spread your miss-information and your union sourced propaganda.