Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 182

Thread: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
    And yet, there isn't one tiny shred of evidence any Government run entity in history has been profitable.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Damn facts why you always got to get in the way of TD's thinking?

    JAL, JAS Expect Group Net Profit At $188Million

    Ever hear of a thing called the "US Mint?"
    You have got to be kidding me right; you think that JAL is owned by the Government?

    I have to laugh at your nonsensical attempts to argue in a vacuum of reality or facts and your trite condescension that I am the one lacking in facts.

    Here you go:

    After over three decades of service and expansion, the airline was fully privatized on November 18, 1987. In 2002, Japan Airlines merged with Japan Air System, Japan's third-largest airline and became the sixth largest airline in the world by passengers carried.

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_airlines]Japan Airlines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    In addition, this airline even as a private entity is bleeding cash and desperately seeking a Government bailout; which if the lessons have been learned, will not be forthcoming from the Japanese Government as they are in trouble themselves.

    I am fascinated how you think that article makes your case or suggests that I am the one lacking facts.

    JAL, which lost more than one billion US dollars in the April-June quarter, has asked for another public bailout to boost its capital base, its president Haruka Nishimatsu told reporters after talks with the transport minister.

    Japan Airlines requests government bailout

    JAL lost about $1 billion last quarter and has been scrambling to put together a revival plan this month to submit to the transport ministry, which is supervising its restructuring after the state backed a 100 billion yen ($1.1 billion) loan.

    JAL's Lenders Seek to Carve Out Profitable Operations - Japan * Asia * News * Story - CNBC.com
    Last edited by Truth Detector; 10-28-09 at 06:11 PM.

  2. #82
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    This is not breaking news.

    Amtrak's been operating at a loss for years.

    And the analogy to health care is a false one.

    Amtrak provides cost effective and convenient transportation. How is that comparable to health care--the lives of children, families...

    Stop being stupid.

  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Clearly, you didn't do your research. Several portions of the US rail system are more congested then the Acela line which made profit. There is clearly enough demand to sustain a train system. And as the high speed system proved, it is profitable. What isn't profitable are the low speed trains.
    You are such a laughable charicature of the uninformed; the rail system as a whole LOSES money. I am not sure what part of that simple fact you cannot get your tiny little mind around or why you even desperately attempt to argue the obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    You clearly did not even bother to read the posted summary. This is how I know you don't have a finance degree of anything resembling a business education.
    Considering the fact that you think JAL is a Government entity, the irony of such empty headed remarks probably escapes you.

    The fact that you apparently haven't graduated from High School perhaps makes you envious of my degree. I guess I will have to scan it to make my case that you are nothing more than a whiney highly emotional little talking head that is more inclined to come to clueless conclusions based rather than anything credibly coherent.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    I see you changed your statement from your earlier absolute. I can think of several government agencies, including several companies that have been profitable. JAL has been profitable in many years and is essentially an arm of the Japanese government.
    I have to keep laughing that you think JAL is a Government owned airline.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Do you actually have the prices or are you just making it up as you go along which would be the usual?
    I have no idea what this clueless rant is about.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    The funny thing is, you haven't learned a single lesson, yet you try to lecture without researching anything.
    This coming from the person who thinks JAL is a Government entity because it has "Japan" in its title.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Try look up JR group in Japan. Huh. Imagine that. A government run train system that makes money.
    How funny, I guess you forgot to look them up yourself:

    Japan Railway companies were born in 1987, when Japanese National Railways was privatized, and then divided into 6 regional companies and Japan Freight Railway Company

    JAPAN RAILWAYS GROUP - WHAT IS JR?

    I cannot find any financial data on them for now, but I am betting they aren't making money even in a small island country like Japan with very heavy population concentrations and a small geographic area.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    The thing is TD, I don't actually disagree with most of your views. You are just so abrasive it is hard to go along with you.
    So you go out of your way to look like a fool? How profound donít you think OC? Frankly, I donít come to DP to seek your or anyone elseís approval, I come her to debate FACTS; something that you still apparently find elusive.

    Carry on.


  4. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    This is not breaking news.

    Amtrak's been operating at a loss for years.

    And the analogy to health care is a false one.

    Amtrak provides cost effective and convenient transportation. How is that comparable to health care--the lives of children, families...

    Stop being stupid.
    The analogy to the fascist usurpation of the health care industry is perfectly valid.

    And yes, it was "breaking news", as defined in the ruuuules.

  5. #85
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    You keep saying this, but offer no proof. *shrug*
    I'm sure you've heard of induced demand? That building another lane on the freeway will not reduce traffic in the long run because you'll get more development and people moving further out because of the new lane. Whatever relief was provided will be quickly wiped out.

    Induced demand is theorized with freeways, and then people assume that it does not occur with rail? Sorry, but you can't assume that all other variables will remain the same. You will get more development around the train and more pedestrian activity. In the end, rail will increase traffic.

    However, rail provides an alternative to auto congestion and is cheaper, so it's why I support building rail over new roads.

    In the end, there's nothing you can do to stop auto congestion besides killing population growth in a city.

    Your studies only show that cities with rail did not grow in auto congestion like the cities without rail. It does not prove that rail is the cause. I can easily make the claim that cities that invested in rail also had the money to invest in new wider roads. If that's the case, then it easily explains why cities with rail did not increase in congestion as quickly.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  6. #86
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    Oops - typo - I meant "shouldn't" not "should"

    But you got the point. . . However, I meant that making money off of people's need for medical coverage is wrong.
    Is making money off of people's need for food, water, and shelter wrong, too?

    I think a minimal margin is sufficient - anything 'vastly profitable' and it's more like stealing rather than providing a service, imho.
    How is it stealing if there is no coercion involved?

  7. #87
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    I hate to break it to you, but the purpose of government has nothing to do with raking in profits.
    It also has nothing to do with providing people with goods and services but that hasn't stopped you from trying to shove a public option down my throat, has it?

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-23-11 @ 10:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,827

    Re: And You Want the Government to Run Health Care?

    I love Amtrak. Great way to travel. I wish there was a more comprehensive system, with more lines, more trains. It would attract ridership and drive prices down.

  9. #89
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    I'm sure you've heard of induced demand? That building another lane on the freeway will not reduce traffic in the long run because you'll get more development and people moving further out because of the new lane. Whatever relief was provided will be quickly wiped out.
    Strawman.

    No one is arguing that traffic congestion won't continue to increase (so long as more people drive than use public transit). However, as the TTI study clearly shows, rail travel options dramatically reduce the growth of auto traffic congestion.

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    In the end, rail will increase traffic.
    So.... no documentation? No studies? Nothing?

  10. #90
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Report: Amtrak loss comes to $32 per passenger

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Strawman.

    No one is arguing that traffic congestion won't continue to increase (so long as more people drive than use public transit). However, as the TTI study clearly shows, rail travel options dramatically reduce the growth of auto traffic congestion.
    No it didn't, and I explained that! You just conveniently chose to ignore that.

    And to expand on that point, rail seems to show no benefit over other traffic reducing measures. Actually, it's a lot less cost effective than other approaches.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/urb...s/bg1721es.cfm

    Quote Originally Posted by Summary
    "In contrast to TTI's contrived policy question, this paper asks the much more relevant question: Would increasing transit's share of travel by some significant amount (e.g., 50 percent) significantly relieve congestion?

    Today, such an increase in market share would require at least tripling transit spending, from less than $35 billion to more than $110 billion per year. Yet, as this paper shows, such an improbable increase in market share would save the average peak-period commuter only 22 seconds each way (44 seconds per day) in lessened traffic. Moreover, the normal growth in traffic in most urban areas would offset that saved 22 seconds in a few months."

    "Except in rare circumstances, transit has little chance of reducing congestion in U.S. urban areas. "
    And I support building rail. However, we have to talk honestly. The point of rail is to give people options in congested areas. I'd rather take a train that can zip past traffic and where I can do something besides drive. Options are good. However, government builds these options too much on the assumption that it will decrease auto traffic.
    Last edited by phattonez; 10-28-09 at 08:54 PM.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •