(no subject)

[Edward H. Lybarger]

The entire air traffic control system continues to be funded publicly, while
the industry itself was subsidized with mail revenue in the '30s and '40s.
The local service carriers (Allegheny, Ozark, Mohawk, Piedmont, Frontier,
etc.) existed solely because of subsidy.  Terminal costs, while ultimately
recovered in large measure from the users through landing fees and rentals,
are fronted with bond issues (I own some that pay a higher-than-market rate
for a LONG time), thus relieving the carriers of huge amounts of debt
financing.

Published income statements do not tell the whole story.  Nor,
unfortunately, are salaries and bonuses tied to performance.

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
[mailto:owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org]On Behalf Of Edward G
Skuchas
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 4:40 PM
To: 'pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org'
Subject: RE: (no subject)


Your last comment makes me ask the question of why not?  Would you explain
why the airlines are not making any money if all of the costs are fully
allocated yet the presidents and CEO's are raking in huge salaries & bonuses
based on the airlines making money?  Need to get a better perspective on the
economics.
Thank you,
ED

-----Original Message-----
From: Edward H. Lybarger
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 4:25 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: RE: (no subject)


I don't think anyone has EVER made money hauling passengers, when the costs
are fully allocated.  This especially includes airlines.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
[mailto:owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org]On Behalf Of Fred W.
Schneider III
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 1:44 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org; Scott R. Becker; Sondra Furedy;
BILL VIGRASS1; bbente at transport.bombardier.com
Subject: (no subject)


An example follows of the lunacy of investors in trolley lines:

Found a note early in a January 1901 Lancaster New Era yesterday that
might be of interest.  Of 96 electric railway companies in the state of
Pennsylvania in 1900, 20 made enough money to pay dividends to the stock
holders.  Three-quarters of the companies were over-built,
over-extended, over-capitalized, or whatever, and simply could not make
money.

Was 1900 a particularly bad year?  Not at all.  Prosperity in 1900-1901
was almost without precedent. The economy was roughly on par with
1993-2000.  In fact, the economy was so good that unions were being
formed right and left as the working man tried to get some of the money
that the investors were "stealing from the little man."  US Steel had
net earnings of $55.0 million dollars between April and September 1901.
But the worker might have gotten $1.50 to $2.00 a day.  Strikes were
happening everywhere.  Remember Homestead?  Steel workers and machinists
as well as coal miners were particularly prone to walk out.  Trolley
companies in Reading, Scranton, Albany come to mind was being hit by
strikers ... Scranton got it twice in two years.

I think what we are seeing is proof that no one could make money hauling
passengers.  Public transportation simply is not essential, in the
consumer's mind, like housing, food, medicine, toilet paper, a
tombstone, and your own chariot.

With Carrie Nation and her henchwomen (is that a word?) running around
smashing saloons, maybe all those people who put money in trolley lines
should have instead invested in oak bars and bar mirrors.

Or perhaps we should have accepted much earlier that public transit was
a failure and just let government run it in 1900 instead of 1965.   We
could also have turned all the canals into public service / public
employment projects.