meazza Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 You're ignoring the corporate overhead and other shared costs of the entire railroad operation to get to the profitability of TGV. Said another way, if TGV was a totally new railroad company that didn't get to use any of SNCF's assets, it would not be profitable because the fixed cost infrastructure of a railroad is staggering. The only reason TGV is "profitable" is due to accounting treatments, not because it would make money on its own. Would you like me to translate it into a language he'll understand
GG Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 Would you like me to translate it into a language he'll understand I guess the best analogy is that a ten year old makes money because the parents give him a $5 allowance.
Jauronimo Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 I guess the best analogy is that a ten year old makes money because the parents give him a $5 allowance. Maybe under IFRS. But when you factor in the accrued amortization from depleted "Nurture", foreign currency translation, taxes, and impairment charges after "Love" is permanently written down, the child has actually lost $3.
GG Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 Maybe under IFRS. But when you factor in the accrued amortization from depleted "Nurture", foreign currency translation, taxes, and impairment charges after "Love" is permanently written down, the child has actually lost $3. In other words, the child's name is TGV
meazza Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 I guess the best analogy is that a ten year old makes money because the parents give him a $5 allowance. I meant to french
GG Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 I meant to french That's easy: C'est la faute de l'Amérique
Jauronimo Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 That's easy: C'est la faute de le cochon Américain I think that's more accurate.
olivier in france Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) You're ignoring the corporate overhead and other shared costs of the entire railroad operation to get to the profitability of TGV. Said another way, if TGV was a totally new railroad company that didn't get to use any of SNCF's assets, it would not be profitable because the fixed cost infrastructure of a railroad is staggering. The only reason TGV is "profitable" is due to accounting treatments, not because it would make money on its own. ok GG i don't know what to say... other than: THE TGV OPERATION IS PROFITABLE ALL COSTS INVOLVED COUNTED FROM INFRASTRUCTURES TO TRACKS TO TRAINS TO EVERYTHING ELSE!!! Do you have an issue with english? do i have to write it in french? The rest of the SNCF business is basically living on TGV money for 20 years. If i use your parents and child metaphor, the parents are in a retirement house and the child is paying the bill! as we say nobody is more deaf than the want who does not want to hear!! Edited October 27, 2011 by olivier in france
GG Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 ok GG i don't know what to say... other than: THE TGV OPERATION IS PROFITABLE ALL COSTS INVOLVED COUNTED FROM INFRASTRUCTURES TO TRACKS TO TRAINS TO EVERYTHING ELSE!!! Do you have an issue with english? do i have to write it in french? The rest of the SNCF business is basically living on TGV money for 20 years. If i use your parents and child metaphor, the parents are in a retirement house and the child is paying the bill! as we say nobody is more deaf than the want who does not want to hear!! Just out of curiosity, what are you basing your statements on? I'm basing mine after looking at SNCF's financial statements, which certainly do not show Voyages showing a profit, and even if it did, that division does not generate nearly enough revenue to subsidize the local operations. Read the financial statements, and then respond.
olivier in france Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) that division does not generate nearly enough revenue to subsidize the local operations. . i wrote about that in post number 70 of that thread... "it does not cover all the losses of the rest of the train network but without them it'd be catastrophic" the TGV lines generate money but not enough to make the whole SNCF profitable .... Thanks for finally agreeing with me about something! BTW the "voyages" division of the SNCF includes more than the TGV, you'll find there the "national lines" like "corail" trains (i think they are called Lunea and Theoz trains now) , classical long distance trains that are losing tons and tons of money. Edited October 27, 2011 by olivier in france
GG Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) i wrote about that in post number 70 of that thread... "it does not cover all the losses of the rest of the train network but without them it'd be catastrophic" the TGV lines generate money but not enough to make the whole SNCF profitable .... Thanks for finally agreeing with me about something! BTW the "voyages" division of the SNCF includes more than the TGV, you'll find there the "national lines" like "corail" train, classical long distance trains that are losing tons and tons of money. Here's a suggestion, if you're going to wade into an argument about financial statements, please be learned about them. Generating revenue is not the same as generating money. PS - do you want to cherry pick any other operations to exclude to prove your point that TGV is profitable? Maybe pick the one train that operates at peak time that has maximum ridership where people buy more stuff on board. So if we exclude 99% of the stuff that loses money, TGV is immensely profitable. Edited October 27, 2011 by GG
olivier in france Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 Here's a suggestion, if you're going to wade into an argument about financial statements, please be learned about them. Generating revenue is not the same as generating money. PS - do you want to cherry pick any other operations to exclude to prove your point that TGV is profitable? Maybe pick the one train that operates at peak time that has maximum ridership where people buy more stuff on board. So if we exclude 99% of the stuff that loses money, TGV is immensely profitable. OK generating revenue if you want to play the technical financial god!! A TGV is a TGV ... at the end it's a small part of the SNCF business the only real TGV lines are the Paris-Lyon, Paris Marseille, Paris Montpellier, Paris Tours, Paris Bordeaux, Paris Lille, Paris Nantes and Paris Strasbourg lines while the division of the SNCF (just one out of 4 or 5 divisions, and the only one winning money most of the years) that includes those TGV lines has dozens of classic long distance lines (about all province to province connections) and the international lines (we all know the Chunnel will never be profitable)... so it's true about 80% of the SNCF business loses money. It's a little like Europe ... Europe loses tons of money. Germany wins some. Germany tries to save the whole Europe... and probably will fail to do it.
meazza Posted October 27, 2011 Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) It's a little like Europe ... Europe loses tons of money. Germany wins some. Germany tries to save the whole Europe... and probably will fail to do it. Europe is built on old money. In Italy for example, it is nearly impossible to start from scratch and be successful. At least from what I saw when I was there. Edited October 27, 2011 by meazza
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_19236454
/dev/null Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_19236454 what's wrong? Don't you want people to have jobs?
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 We can't build high speed rail, that's for advanced countries in Europe,or Japan and China. Those nuts in China plan to invest $451 to $602 billion in its high-speed rail network between 2011 to 2015, don't those fools know money like that should only be spent for wars. I'm sure the hundreds of billions we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan will provide a much better payback than a stupid high speed rail system. Shhhhh... As long as we can sell Pepsi and Tide to the Afghans and Iraqis that's all that matters!
Alaska Darin Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Shhhhh... As long as we can sell Pepsi and Tide to the Afghans and Iraqis that's all that matters! Your blissful ignorance is always so refreshing. Two posts above yours is a link to California's attempt. Already 300% over cost and woefully behind schedule. Read the article. Pay close attention to the politician's comments.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Your blissful ignorance is always so refreshing. Two posts above yours is a link to California's attempt. Already 300% over cost and woefully behind schedule. Read the article. Pay close attention to the politician's comments. You nitwit, my comment was in response to spending the money on the wars OR going into other projects. Of course it is ill advised right now BECAUSE of the wars. You really do think the wars are a better investment. You dirty girl, your slip is showing.
Taro T Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 You nitwit, my comment was in response to spending the money on the wars OR going into other projects. Of course it is ill advised right now BECAUSE of the wars. You really do think the wars are a better investment. You dirty girl, your slip is showing. It's ill advised because it's unfeasible in any reasonably self-sustaining form in well over 95% of this country as has been pointed out many times previously. If it could be profitable, it would make sense to issue bonds to get it built. High speed rail has very few places in the US where it could be anything but a boondoggle.
Alaska Darin Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 You nitwit, my comment was in response to spending the money on the wars OR going into other projects. Which makes sense to you, because you're the Riddler. Of course it is ill advised right now BECAUSE of the wars. It is ill advised because it is a guaranteed money loser. The current political and economic status have nothing to do with this. They could have started "High Speed Rail" during the Clinton "Bust Out" and it would still be a ridiculous idea, only it would be losing even more money we don't have RIGHT NOW. You really do think the wars are a better investment. Your delusions have never been more off target. It's actually fascinating to watch you play in your own excrement in public. You dirty girl, your slip is showing.
Recommended Posts