5 ms·

That is clearly not true. See, for example: [Industry publication] A clarification: I meant that if you would show a net loss if you summed the net income of e

That is clearly not true. See, for example: [Industry publication] A clarification: I meant that if you would show a net loss if you summed the net income of each airline in the industry since inception. To be fair, while it definitely isn't clearly not true, my statement certainly is not clearly true... ;) Some non-industry pubs backing my not-clearly-true statement: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenste/download/AERPP11AirProfits.pdf http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenste/download/AERPP11Ai... http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/031714/why-airlines-arent-profitable-dal-ual-aal-luv-jblu.aspx http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/031714/why-airlin... https://priceonomics.com/can-airlines-make-money/ https://priceonomics.com/can-airlines-make-money/

vannevar 10y ago
Maybe so, since it would include a lot of government-owned and government-controlled airlines whose fares were subsidized by tax money in the interest of the public good. In that sense, they're a bit like Uber, which is subsidized by its investors in the interest of...well, attracting even more investors and keeping the whole pyramid scheme going.
- ghaff 10y ago
  Even if you leave out the government-owned and government-controlled airlines, there have been a lot of massive bankruptcies associated with the airlines even if you just limit the field to the US. Indeed, large bankruptcies were almost the norm. Even relatively recently, the statement that commercial aviation had posted net losses through its entire history was indisputably true. It may or may not be true given recent consolidation and considerable profitability. I doubt the same "never made money" statements could be made about most industries.
EpicEng 10y ago
OK... Using that approach I would assume that software has also lost money over the entirety of its existence. Perhaps not completely "untrue", but a silly way of looking at it and not what anyone would assume you were talking about.
- CoffeeDregs 10y ago
  Why would you assume that software-as-a-whole has lost money? The industry is full of un-subsidized, non-cyclical, high profit companies... Microsoft, Apple, Google, Oracle, Autodesk, IBM, EMC, CA Technologies, Saleforce.com, etc. Not sure why it's a silly way of looking at an industry's long term performance. It shows that, while occasional profits are made, the industry is prone to brutal, un-differentiated price competition... So you're saying you believe the Delta CEO when he says "Industry May Never Again Lose Money"? [1] Considering the above, I'd be skeptical they're experiencing more than temporary, cyclical profitability. [1] https://skift.com/2016/06/14/american-airlines-ceo-says-industry-may-never-again-lose-money/ https://skift.com/2016/06/14/american-airlines-ceo-says-indu...
  - EpicEng 10y ago
    How much VC money has been pumped into failed business? It's all rather irrelevant. I don't know if software has actually been a net loss, but I know that looking at failed airlines and extrapolating out to the successful ones is silly.
1_2__3 10y ago
That is a very unfairly misleading metric, then.

vannevar 10y ago

Maybe so, since it would include a lot of government-owned and government-controlled airlines whose fares were subsidized by tax money in the interest of the public good. In that sense, they're a bit like Uber, which is subsidized by its investors in the interest of...well, attracting even more investors and keeping the whole pyramid scheme going.

ghaff 10y ago
Even if you leave out the government-owned and government-controlled airlines, there have been a lot of massive bankruptcies associated with the airlines even if you just limit the field to the US. Indeed, large bankruptcies were almost the norm. Even relatively recently, the statement that commercial aviation had posted net losses through its entire history was indisputably true. It may or may not be true given recent consolidation and considerable profitability. I doubt the same "never made money" statements could be made about most industries.

EpicEng 10y ago

OK... Using that approach I would assume that software has also lost money over the entirety of its existence. Perhaps not completely "untrue", but a silly way of looking at it and not what anyone would assume you were talking about.

CoffeeDregs 10y ago
Why would you assume that software-as-a-whole has lost money? The industry is full of un-subsidized, non-cyclical, high profit companies... Microsoft, Apple, Google, Oracle, Autodesk, IBM, EMC, CA Technologies, Saleforce.com, etc. Not sure why it's a silly way of looking at an industry's long term performance. It shows that, while occasional profits are made, the industry is prone to brutal, un-differentiated price competition... So you're saying you believe the Delta CEO when he says "Industry May Never Again Lose Money"? [1] Considering the above, I'd be skeptical they're experiencing more than temporary, cyclical profitability. [1] https://skift.com/2016/06/14/american-airlines-ceo-says-industry-may-never-again-lose-money/ https://skift.com/2016/06/14/american-airlines-ceo-says-indu...
- EpicEng 10y ago
  How much VC money has been pumped into failed business? It's all rather irrelevant. I don't know if software has actually been a net loss, but I know that looking at failed airlines and extrapolating out to the successful ones is silly.

1_2__3 10y ago

That is a very unfairly misleading metric, then.