(06-18-2018 09:27 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 08:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 03:47 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 03:44 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 03:42 PM)Antarius Wrote:  It struck me as the classic Rice mistaking motion for action. Instead of addressing core issues, you make a slew of noise on non-core issues to buy you time. The Roost was never a problem.. so even in the original designs or thoughts, it wasn't action - it was motion.

Not different from Air India - Revenue per Seat Mile is falling, Cost is rising, overall fleet utilization is one of the lowest in the world.... so solution is lets order 100+ new aircraft. never mind that the cost savings due to more efficient aircraft are DWARFED by the lease payments and gain you near zero when your aircraft sit on the ground for 18 hours a day.

But, the roost much like the EZF and much like Air India's order - bought the powers that be more time. And that seems to have been the goal.

Here you go attacking the EZF again... I’m sure you’d really enjoy taking daily showers in cold water and spending time in a moldy building. The EZF was required. Stop beating that dead horse, it’s not even close to the Roost situation.

It also bought time, which was more my point. I never said don't build it. I said don't use its construction to make other poor decisions. We chose the latter and that is a huge problem. It was touted as a solution. it was NEVER going to be one. Still isn't.

Locker room renovations could have been done for much less if that was the only driving force here. it wasn't.

I think it is granted that it is not 'the' solution. But, having a facility such as the EZF seems to be a intrinsic part and step of 'a' solution. It is an intrinsic cost in the necessary goal to 'keep up'.

To use your omni-present airline analogies ---

The rest of the D1 world is typically upgrading to 757's and its Airbus equivalent in facility terms. The old Rice facility was a 707. No one is going to buy a ticket in the present day for long hauls on an airliner that flies *only* 707's.

Going beyond the 707 is a necessary step in keeping in the game, but in no instance is moving beyond the 707 a panacea, nor a predictor of success. All it does is keep you in the game.

Unless you want to cash in the chips, the continued raving on the EZF as 'not the solution' misses the crucial point that it keeps Rice at the table and in the game.

Edited to add:

I know zero (zilch) about airlines, airliners, and the industry. My analogy is probably bolloxed all to hell and back; hopefully it is enough to make the point --

But we didn't keep up. The pride and joy, the Patterson facility is a at best average D1 facility. We aren't even on the same plane as UCF, let alone the P5 people we need to compete with for financial viability.

To your point on airlines, not necessarily. Allegiant has done remarkably well flying ancient MD80s long past when most would fly them. Now that they are reaching EOL and Allegiant plans on growing, they are replacing them with newer birds. IF your business model is premium traffic and high yields, then yes you need to replace your 707s with newer aircraft (see: Emirates). If you are a low cost leisure/cruise traffic carrier, you fly the cheapest thing you can. If you are a state run carrier like Alitalia where the state will keep bailing you out indefinitely, why bother? To the last point, the EZF doesn't keep us in the game any more than not having one did. We are no closer to financial viability with it. Whether Air Zimbabwe buys a brand new 777X or flies a ancient a330 - that isn't changing that Air Zimbabwe isn't a viable carrier that no one flies.

Its the limiting reagent theory all over again. When the 707 becomes a problem, it needs to be changed. The EZF is a smaller example of bulldozing HRS to build a 100k stadium. That isn't going to fix the attendance issues. I lay a lot of fault on the EZF because it came with a couple years of disastrous baggage. It bought time for people who didn't deserve it, cost Rice more millions as a result of wasted time (while the TV contract completely fell apart) and achieved nothing. If we built it, made sweeping changes, then it makes sense. Not too different from a post bankruptcy change in management and a large fleet order.

The rest of the world is ordering 787s and we moved from a DC-3 to a DC-8 without changing much of why we were still flying DC-3s. Thats why I consider it a waste of money.

Going for GreAAt sounds like a slogan straight out of the Rice marketing department..