Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

rex Celebrating 20 Years

Old 5th Jan 2023, 10:14
  #401 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: BBN
Posts: 901
Received 12 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Going Nowhere View Post
The Q400 doesnít need screening. Screening requirements are linked to airport passenger numbers, not aircraft size.

There are several ports QLink operate the Q400 to that donít have screening.
So why donít Rex have to screen their passengers at Wagga? QF have to screen.
SHVC is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2023, 16:04
  #402 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Sunny Coast
Posts: 276
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Does it not have something to do with the MTOW, implemented after 9/11 being over or under 25 ton or there about ?
Deano969 is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2023, 18:24
  #403 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Lower North Shore
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by SHVC View Post
So why donít Rex have to screen their passengers at Wagga? QF have to screen.
because QF group policy dictates where screening facilities are available they will be used.
Brakerider is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 11th Jan 2023, 06:38
  #404 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: Syd
Posts: 91
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Another unaudited, before tax, monthly profit result has been released to the market.

According to the release they made "about $2 million" in the previous month. Yes those are the exact words they used. Next release will they use "roughly this"..."close to that"..."nearly this..."
Mr_App is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2023, 07:27
  #405 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Sunny Coast
Posts: 276
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Mr_App View Post
Another unaudited, before tax, monthly profit result has been released to the market.

According to the release they made "about $2 million" in the previous month. Yes those are the exact words they used. Next release will they use "roughly this"..."close to that"..."nearly this..."
Better than a loss, as most on here predicted ...
Deano969 is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2023, 07:35
  #406 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 142
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It seems a US private equity firm, Perea Capital, has acquired in December 2022, a 5.25% stake in REX.
Boe787 is online now  
Old 11th Jan 2023, 09:58
  #407 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 1,985
Received 52 Likes on 33 Posts
Originally Posted by Deano969 View Post
Better than a loss, as most on here predicted ...
So $2 million dollar profit per month 👏

But with the current market a clown could make millions per month in the domestic aviation market with reduced capacity, high prices and high demand. QF is making about $250 million profit per month at the moment. QF group is about 10 times larger than Rex. So comparatively QF is making 12 times the amount of profit that Rex is.

Now over the next year QF will increase capacity and market share and prices will fall. QFís profit will probably go back to around $1 billion, which is roughly what they should be making for a company their size (the current $2 billion plus profit for the 22/23 FY is not sustainable long term) and shouldnít hurt them too much. But increased capacity and lower prices will really hurt Rex, and their measly $2 million profit will not sustain them.
dr dre is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2023, 12:10
  #408 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Deano969 View Post
Better than a loss, as most on here predicted ...
You're missing the point. I made 'about' 15m last month. Trust me, I did.
Ladloy is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 11th Jan 2023, 22:08
  #409 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: BBN
Posts: 901
Received 12 Likes on 8 Posts
Still amateur hr at Rex. They may have around 300 pilots or around 500 CC.
SHVC is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2023, 07:53
  #410 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,185
Likes: 0
Received 54 Likes on 31 Posts
Originally Posted by Boe787 View Post
It seems a US private equity firm, Perea Capital, has acquired in December 2022, a 5.25% stake in REX.
Hmm 5%, somebody taking a peek at the in house books, that means interested parties.
43Inches is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2023, 23:37
  #411 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 857
Received 26 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally Posted by Boe787 View Post
It seems a US private equity firm, Perea Capital, has acquired in December 2022, a 5.25% stake in REX.
Perea Capital Partners acquired the majority of the shares held by hitherto long term significant shareholders, Ming Yew See Toh and Hui Ing Tjoa, on 28 November last year in an only recently disclosed off-market transaction. Perea had made a couple of small on-market share purchases (less than 150,000 shares in total) earlier in the same month.

Perea paid $1.48 a share for that off-market parcel from Ming Yew See Toh and Hui Ing Tjoa. Rex traded between $1.29 - $1.40 through November.
MickG0105 is online now  
Old 27th Jan 2023, 12:57
  #412 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth
Posts: 130
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I see there was a Rex flight from Perth to Albany today and the Saab 340 had to turn around and fly back to Perth. Apparently there was a plastic bag stuck in the turbine is what im reading on facebook.
Saintly is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2023, 13:20
  #413 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth
Posts: 130
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by ebt View Post
Home Affairs changed the regulations in 2020. If an airport handles over 30,000 RPT pax per annum that it needs screening for aircraft operations of 40 seats or more. Seems very convenient that the Saabs continue to fit nicely under that threshold.
I thought the rules were that RPT flights with aircraft with a MTOW of 20,000kg (20 tonnes) or more - the airports where those aircraft flew to, they had to have security screening in place.

Unless things and rules have changed since then?
Saintly is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2023, 23:00
  #414 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth
Posts: 130
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Saintly View Post
I thought the rules were that RPT flights with aircraft with a MTOW of 20,000kg (20 tonnes) or more - the airports where those aircraft flew to, they had to have security screening in place.

Unless things and rules have changed since then?
1.2 Aviation Security
The Australian Government is committed to strengthening Australiaís comprehensive and strong
aviation security system to ensure safe and secure air travel. The evolving nature of terrorism
continues to test and shape Australiaís aviation security standards and regulatory settings. The
disrupted terrorist plot at Sydney Airport in July 2017 highlighted the innovation and determination
of individuals seeking to inflict harm on the travelling public. It also reinforced that aviation remains
a high profile and ongoing target for terrorists.
Through the Department of Home Affairs (Home Affairs), the Government continues to review
security settings in the context of evolving threats and, if required, adjusts security settings
accordingly. In 2018, to keep ahead of the evolving threat environment, the Government
announced that major and regional airports will upgrade their security screening technology.
Once implemented, Home Affairs estimates that 99 per cent, or 80.5 million departing passengers,
will depart from an airport which undertakes security screening with X-ray advanced technology
and body scanners.
Home Affairs applies security settings in the aviation sector based on its assessment of the level of
security risk at each airport, and the aircraft it hosts. Home Affairs works to ensure that security
requirements are commensurate with risk, particularly in regional areas, where security costs are
generally higher. Based on the evolving threat, Home Affairs is amending the security screening
threshold from aircraft over 20,000 kg maximum take-off weight (MTOW) to aircraft with seating capacity of 40 or more and which operate from an airport with more than 30,000 annual departing
passengers. One result of a screening threshold based on aircraft size (weight or seating capacity), is that
airports may have some flights which require screening and some flights which do not require screening. Home Affairs, in consultation with aviation industry stakeholders, is continuing to consider the issues associated with managing the segregation of screened and unscreened passengers. This is a contentious issue for industry stakeholders, with conflicting views on the best regulatory
approach, noting different approaches can cause significant variation in the cost implications for different stakeholders. Some stakeholders suggest spreading fixed costs across a broader passenger base would minimise passenger impacts, while other stakeholders argue additional
costs for operators of smaller aircraft impact the viability of their operations. Costs associated with
managing potential co-mingling of screened and unscreened passengers are also relevant
considerations.
Airports must implement security screening in accordance with regulatory requirements. An airport
may choose to implement security arrangements beyond the regulatory requirement, such as
screening all passengers, even when not required by the regulator. Business decisions like this are
a matter for the airport, although stakeholders presented strong and divergent views on the merits
of this approach.
The challenge is to maintain the integrity of the entire aviation security network while recognising
the differences in risk across international and major domestic aviation operations in comparison to
regional and remote aviation. Maintaining a risk based, proportionate security framework is critical
to ensuring public confidence in aviation and to support a viable and sustainable regional aviation
industry.
It has been a longstanding policy of successive governments that industry is responsible for the
cost of security, including operating costs, although some stakeholders have queried the long term
sustainability of this approach. The majority of regional airports required to upgrade screening
equipment already conduct security screening and are responsible for managing the associated
costs.
The Australian Government has committed $50.1m through the Regional Airport Security
Screening Fund to support the purchase of new screening equipment at eligible regional airports.

Document from 2019 - Reference: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development: Passenger Security Acreening Enhancements - Case Studies on financial impacts at 6 regional airports

Saintly is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2023, 01:53
  #415 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Sunny Coast
Posts: 276
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
KISS
Jet = screened
Prop = no screening
Deano969 is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2023, 23:06
  #416 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Deano969 View Post
KISS
Jet = screened
Prop = no screening
No, not quite!
KRUSTY 34 is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2023, 04:34
  #417 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 435
Received 9 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Deano969 View Post
KISS
Jet = screened
Prop = no screening
Used to be when commonsense prevailed.
On eyre is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2023, 20:15
  #418 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Sunny Coast
Posts: 276
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
MEDIA RELEASE REX ANNOUNCES INCREASING PROFITABILITY IN DECEMBER

Regional Express, Rex, today announces that its unaudited management accounts for December have continued to show profitability for its domestic Boeing 737 jet operations, reporting a Profit Before Tax (PBT) of $4.0 million improving from the $1.9 million in October and $2.8 million in November.
This makes the fourth consecutive month that the domestic jet operations have been overall profitable since the jet operations resumed in February 2022.

The regional Saab 340 operations were still loss-making at a PBT level in December, as Qantas continued its predatory behaviour. However,
EBITDA for the month came in at $1.4 million making it the fourth consecutive month the regional operations have been cash-flow positive since COVID.

The entire Rex Group showed an operational profit for the third consecutive month, with the underlying PBT for December coming in at $3.7 million, the highest since COVID.
PBT for the months of October and November were $0.8 million and $3.1 million respectively.
Deano969 is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2023, 21:29
  #419 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: Syd
Posts: 91
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Deano969 View Post
as Qantas continued its predatory behaviour.
I have never seen a publicly listed company state such childish remarks in stock market announcements continuously. It's embarrassing.
Mr_App is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2023, 06:09
  #420 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Given both the way he provides Rex updates moments after they occur, and the eerily similar tone of language and emotive reactions both he and Rex pump out, one can only presume Deano969 is at least contributing to, if not outright writing, these REX share market updates
TimmyTee is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.