Shannon Airport (Feb 2012 - Jan 2014)

Jamie2k9

Brennans Row wrote: »

What numbers would you define as demand?

Interestingly the numbers from Donegal are pretty much the same as Shannon.

Glasgow - Donegal

May (677)
June (758)
July (1269)
August (1234)
September (712)
October (657)
November (686)

Glasgow – Shannon

May (739)
June (749)
July (1041)
August (1307)
September (988)
October (749)
November (743)

Glasgow-Donegal is not done for commercial reasons, its a route that positions aircraft and crew over to operate the Dublin PSO service, its needed purely for this. Also the Donegal route is done with aircraft half the size of SNN service so loads look quit good also.

Brennans Row

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Glasgow-Donegal is not done for commercial reasons, its a route that positions aircraft and crew over to operate the Dublin PSO service, its needed purely for this. Also the Donegal route is done with aircraft half the size of SNN service so loads look quit good also.

I'm aware of the fact that Donegal has a strong emigration link with Glasgow and because of its remoteness with the rest of the republic it understandably receives regional support to maintain an air service to Dublin & Glasgow.

The emigration link to Glasgow from the Mid-West would not be as strong as Donegal's but nevertheless it still has attracted similar passenger numbers to its start-up phase.

To develop a routes full potential does not happen overnight and like all business enterprises it needs a bit of nurturing.

The Scottish service operates five times per week with an additional saturday flight during the summer months. Flybe operated by Loganair is the current carrier on both these routes and provides an excellent service. Flights operated by Loganair’s 34-seat Saab 340B aircraft under its franchise agreement with Flybe (Donegal Airport)

notharrypotter

Donegal to Dublin is a PSO contract.

Glasgow-Donegal is not done for commercial reasons, its a route that positions aircraft and crew over to operate the Dublin PSO service, its needed purely for this

The Scottish service operates five times per week with an additional saturday flight during the summer months. Flybe operated by Loganair is the current carrier on both these routes and provides an excellent service. Flights operated by Loganair’s 34-seat Saab 340B aircraft under its franchise agreement with Flybe (Donegal Airport)

From reading this I wonder would the Donegal - Glasgow service actually exist or be remotely viable without the Dublin - Donegal leg?.

Jamie2k9

notharrypotter wrote: »

Donegal to Dublin is a PSO contract.



From reading this I wonder would the Donegal - Glasgow service actually exist or be remotely viable without the Dublin - Donegal leg?.

Those loads look good on it. Aer Arann operated it before Flybe took it over so it worked out for them but it was larger aircraft and 3 weekly instead. As its cheaper to run than setting up a crew base for Flybe in Donegal the passengers has benefited but not sure if Flybe would of kept it if they set up a crew base in Donegal at the time. I guess we will know by year end if the route stays. PSO is renewed and if Flybe go again or Aer Arann return.

highlydebased

Here's the numbers from when Ryanair flew SNN-Prestwick from 2004 to when it ended in 2010. AFAIK it was a daily service until it was cut back in 2008 and 09 and dropped in 2010

PIK
2004 - 72,841
2005 - 95,560
2006 - 88,542
2007 - 82,022
2008 - 73,194 (reduction)
2009 - 56,429 (reduction)
2010 - 10,250 (route ended)

EI Regional started Glasgow daily March 2010 AFAIK and ended it a year or so later.
2010 9,989
2011 11,404

So there is at least some demand at least for an ATR42. I suspect part of flybe's problem at SNN is it's not a household name- for the average Joe if Ryanair or Aer Lingus don't operate it they assume it doesn't exist so they look to Dublin etc..,

Claregirl

highlydebased wrote: »

So there is at least some demand at least for an ATR42. I suspect part of flybe's problem at SNN is it's not a household name- for the average Joe if Ryanair or Aer Lingus don't operate it they assume it doesn't exist so they look to Dublin etc..,

Anyone flying to Glasgow on a regular basis would have been aware of Flybe and used it - Aer Lingus style customer service - booked seats no queuing - Ryan Air prices.

I think you're right though for the casual customer wanting a short break most people wouldn't think of Glasgow even though it's a fantastic City (shopping / bars / restaurants) for week-end breaks and there are strong ties with Ireland to tempt the Scottish tourist. For it to have any chance of success it would need to be served by a budget airline, I wouldn't have much faith in it's success with the fares charged by Aer Lingus.

Brennans Row

@highlydebased

I wonder were those buoyant numbers between 2004 - 2009 due to the Dell manufacturing plant in Limerick, as I believe they employed workers from the Glasgow region?

Cosmo Kramer

All this talk of passenger numbers completely dismisses the concept of yield - you can fill a plane and lose a fortune at the same time if you haven't charged your customers enough for the seats. Comparing Shannon's numbers to Donegal in this case totally ignores the yield on the routes - which we do not have access to of course, the costs of operating a larger aircraft and also, as has been pointed out, the link between the Donegal service and the PSO contract to Dublin.

A more appropriate comparison might be with the flybe Knock to Edinburgh route. Numbers on this route consistently outperformed Shannon, the flight was a shorter distance and (from my experience) the yield appeared to be considerably higher judging by seat cost due to the greater demand. That route didn't survive the cull so to continue to suggest that Shannon to Glasgow was somehow profitable and hard done by is quite frankly absurd.

Brennans Row wrote: »

@highlydebased

I wonder were those buoyant numbers between 2004 - 2009 due to the Dell manufacturing plant in Limerick, as I believe they employed workers from the Glasgow region?

I think it was mostly it was because you could book up to a week before and bag a return flight for under £20. In my time using that route I, on more than one occasion, sat next to people who (a) didn't know where they were going and (b) only booked the flight for their break because it was the cheapest one available from any airport in central Scotland. It was one of the many Ryanair routes in their last expansion at Shannon that cost the company dear. The numbers were great for tourism in the mid-west at the time - but hopelessly unsustainable.

Claregirl wrote: »

Anyone flying to Glasgow on a regular basis would have been aware of Flybe and used it - Aer Lingus style customer service - booked seats no queuing - Ryan Air prices.

Flybe do not, in normal circumstances, charge Ryanair prices, Their fares are generally similar to Aer Lingus Regional. The reason you found their fares to be such good value was because they had to slash their seat prices on this particular routes to even half fill their planes - similar to Ryanair's previous experience the losses resulting from this strategy were never going to be sustainable, hence their pulling out of Shannon.

Brennans Row

@Cosmo Kramer

So your subjective experience on the Shannon-Glasgow route was that Ryanair were charging €20 for a return flight and then after 7 years they realise that they were making unsustainable losses?

That does not add up, not with Michael O’Leary.

Your general sweeping post that the demand just isn't there, does not make sense especially when you look at the numbers highlydebased posted above.

None of us here are privy to the commercial terms agreed between Shannon and Flybe.

However it would be interesting to know what level of demand, by what type of aircraft and at what fare would guarantee a sustainable service.

Could you please tell me that?

Cosmo Kramer

Brennans Row wrote: »

@Cosmo Kramer

So your subjective experience on the Shannon-Glasgow route was that Ryanair were charging €20 for a return flight and then after 7 years they realise that they were making unsustainable losses?

That does not add up, not with Michael O’Leary.

The route ran for that length of time based on the deal between Ryanair and Shannon to base up to six aircraft at the airport. In return for the overly generous terms offered by Shannon Ryanair were required to supply a specified number of passengers at the facility. As a result, non-profitable routes continued to operate from the facility during this time. As soon as the deal ran out and Ryanair failed to successfully re-negotiate on terms that would make at least some of their routes profitable (you may remember Ryanair effectively wanted Shannon to pay a sum of money for each passenger rather than be paid as would normally be the case) Ryanair pulled most of their routes and the Prestwick route ceased to operate.

In the greater context of this piece of Irish aviation history the Prestwick route is only the tip of the iceberg. As many as 35 different routes attempted by Ryanair from Shannon failed and were pulled either during or at the end of the deal. MOL has himself admitted that the Shannon deal was a significant loss maker for the company and as we all know, it would have been hugely costly to Shannon Airport also had they not been effectively bailed out by the Irish taxpayer in terms of these and other losses two years later.

Incidentally, the recently announced expansion sees a few of the 35 failed routes being given another chance. Prestwick is not one of the routes to be revived. This suggests to me that it wasn't even one of the failed routes that was close to generating a profit for Ryanair.

Brennans Row wrote: »

Your general sweeping post that the demand just isn't there, does not make sense especially when you look at the numbers highlydebased posted above.

You can fill a plane to virtually anywhere if the price per seat offered to passengers is low enough. Filling it at a price that proves to be profitable and sustainable is something else entirely and it has not been demonstrated that this can be achieved on the Shannon to Glasgow route as three separate airlines pulling of this route would indicate.

Brennans Row wrote: »

None of us here are privy to the commercial terms agreed between Shannon and Flybe.

However it would be interesting to know what level of demand, by what type of aircraft and at what fare would guarantee a sustainable service.

Could you please tell me that?

[/QUOTE]

Of course I can't, can you - we don't have the information available to determine these issues in such detail? We can, however, draw conclusions based on the information available to us. We know that three different airlines thought that operating a route from Shannon to Glasgow was worth a shot. One was a LCC operating a low fare, sell em cheap pile em high approach, the other two were niche regional turbo-prop efforts. None of these carriers operate the route today. This, to me, suggests that the route is not viable.

dr.fuzzenstein

Brennans Row wrote: »

@Cosmo Kramer

So your subjective experience on the Shannon-Glasgow route was that Ryanair were charging €20 for a return flight and then after 7 years they realise that they were making unsustainable losses?

That does not add up, not with Michael O’Leary.

Your general sweeping post that the demand just isn't there, does not make sense especially when you look at the numbers highlydebased posted above.

None of us here are privy to the commercial terms agreed between Shannon and Flybe.

However it would be interesting to know what level of demand, by what type of aircraft and at what fare would guarantee a sustainable service.

Could you please tell me that?

Forget it, he either has a blind agenda against Shannon for reasons I cannot possibly imagine (may he is the director of the DAA) or he is just posting sh*t to wind people up. Just a thought...

notharrypotter

Cosmo Kramer
Registered User


Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Castlebar 45m asl/Glasgow 30m asl

I would doubt if he is an active member of the "love Shannon airport" fan club.

notharrypotter

For anyone interested there is an explanation of Airline Revenue Management which I have found informative.

Cosmo Kramer

@Dr Fuzzenstein:

So much for 'attack the post and not the poster'.

If my opinions differ from others on this forum it is not because I intend to 'wind people up' or post 'sh*t'. I am entitled to my opinions just as you are. I suspect that, outside of the Midwest, my opinions would be closer to the norm than many opinions displayed on here. As for agendas I find your post hugely ironic as it often feels like I am the only poster on this thread without one.

imurdaddy

Im afraid cosmo has a big chip on his shoulder over shannon! Not to mention plenty of home brew "facts" with no figures to back them. Maybe we should post in the knock airport thread?

imurdaddy

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

@Dr Fuzzenstein:

So much for 'attack the post and not the poster'.

If my opinions differ from others on this forum it is not because I intend to 'wind people up' or post 'sh*t'. I am entitled to my opinions just as you are. I suspect that, outside of the Midwest, my opinions would be closer to the norm than many opinions displayed on here. As for agendas I find your post hugely ironic as it often feels like I am the only poster on this thread without one.

These opinions you speak are the same ones you try ram across as facts?

Jamie2k9

I can't believe people don't understand the facts, SNN management won't be able to fill SNN-GLA with an airline, they have tried the two regional carriers of Europe and Ryanair operated it before and are on record of saying there whole SNN operation wasn't profitable a few years ago. They are starting PIK from NOC but its only running for around 12 weeks, clearly they don't see demand for it either but they have to bring in extra passengers in 2014 to keep the tax gone.

imurdaddy

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I can't believe people don't understand the facts, SNN management won't be able to fill SNN-GLA with an airline, they have tried the two regional carriers of Europe and Ryanair operated it before and are on record of saying there whole SNN operation wasn't profitable a few years ago. They are starting PIK from NOC but its only running for around 12 weeks, clearly they don't see demand for it either but they have to bring in extra passengers in 2014 to keep the tax gone.

Can you link the sources saying SNN wasn't profitable? You realise statments like that without a source are worthless?

Jamie2k9

imurdaddy wrote: »

Can you link the sources saying SNN wasn't profitable? You realise statments like that without a source are worthless?

I will have a look but it was 2008/9 do a google search and you might find it before me.

Edit:
Its was in loads of papers, some of the links are dead as updated IT has stopped them being active

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/business/business-news/ryanair-wanted-to-pay-shannon-airport-just-1-per-passenger-1-3651576

http://airobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/640/

Ryanair declared that its “Shannon operation had lost money in each of the five years of the current agreement”.

dr.fuzzenstein

So, Ryanair is knowingly embarking on an operation that hasn't worked before (during the boom), has consistently lost them money and was shut down because it hasn't worked, can't work and never will work.
While this is the type of thing the Irish government loves to do over and over and over again and then rape us for more taxes to pay for their stupidity and incompetence, I do have a little more faith in Ryanair. But then again I wouldn't trust any Irish government to open a can of dogfood with a pull-tab that was already open.
There has to be a reason they're doing it and it's not love of Shannon or wanting to provide me with a convenient flight home. There has to be money in it, or at least Ryanair believes there's money in it.
So, if any poster here has information that Ryanair has not seen yet, or maybe knows more that the Shannon Airport authority and Ryanair, maybe you should do the decent thing and get on to them and show them the error of their ways and how they can improve things by a magnitude of 10. Please cc us on that conversation.

Cosmo Kramer

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So, Ryanair is knowingly embarking on an operation that hasn't worked before (during the boom), has consistently lost them money and was shut down because it hasn't worked, can't work and never will work.
While this is the type of thing the Irish government loves to do over and over and over again and then rape us for more taxes to pay for their stupidity and incompetence, I do have a little more faith in Ryanair. But then again I wouldn't trust any Irish government to open a can of dogfood with a pull-tab that was already open.
There has to be a reason they're doing it and it's not love of Shannon or wanting to provide me with a convenient flight home. There has to be money in it, or at least Ryanair believes there's money in it.
So, if any poster here has information that Ryanair has not seen yet, or maybe knows more that the Shannon Airport authority and Ryanair, maybe you should do the decent thing and get on to them and show them the error of their ways and how they can improve things by a magnitude of 10. Please cc us on that conversation.

You haven't made it entirely clear but I am taking it that this (somewhat sarcastic sounding) post is in relation to the forthcoming expansion by Ryanair at Shannon. For starters, this is nothing like the operation that didn't work before. You can rest assured that Ryanair have far more information to hand than us on what is and is not likely to be a success from Shannon given their history of operations from the facility.

Why are they expanding from Shannon? Firstly, because they promised significant expansion from Ireland in return for the abolition of the travel tax. The tax has been abolished so they need to keep their end of the bargain. As a result they have promised a million extra passengers and this is to be split between Dublin, Shannon and Knock. Secondly, outside of Dublin, they have gone for Shannon and Knock in particular because they are both separate from the DAA - an organisation that Ryanair are in no way fond of and wish to see broken up. At Dublin they must deal with them but thanks to the changes at Shannon their reliance on them in Munster has diminished and this is a chance for them to get at the DAA and maybe even force independence at Cork - for now at least Cork will suffer in this regard.

In terms of the expansion itself it should be noted that this is in no way comparable to the last Shannon deal around 2005/2006 and with good reason. Ryanair went massively over capacity with six based aircraft last time around, this time it will be just two, up from one at the present time. Anyone who thinks that this is the first step towards a return to the passenger numbers of five to ten years ago at Shannon (3 million +) is going to be disappointed.

Next, the routes themselves. Numbers to the UK from Shannon have been in decline all year and before that so they have stayed away from these routes. Faro is a direct attack on a route that has proved successful for Aer Lingus - they will hope to force EI off this route rather than generate long term additional capacity.

Krakow and Warsaw have just been switched over from Cork. A nice safe bet for Ryanair here, no need to source many new passengers - and they get to give the DAA a good kicking at the same time. Fuerteventura will operate just once a week, it's a low risk bucket and spade route.

I'm not 100% on Nice but certainly Beauvais, Berlin and Rome have all been operated from Shannon by Ryanair before - so they have the figures in hand to decide whether they're workable or not. I suspect that, of the 35 or so routes they operated and subsequently pulled last time, these were among the nearest to being profitable. They also offer the prospect of inbound tourism and with the Ireland brand being marketed heavily in mainland Europe now, any extra traffic generated could prove the difference that makes them viable this time around. They have also been clever in not offering any of the new routes with frequencies of more than three a week. This minimises the risk and allows them to proclaim eight new routes but with less additional capacity than eight new routes would otherwise generate.

So, in summary, this is a fairly low risk strategy from Ryanair. I doubt Shannon had much say in the choice of routes - they will likely just have happily taken whatever is going. If there is to be further expansion at Shannon by Ryanair I could see it in the form of more European routes being shifted from Cork. Shannon might need to beware of the repercussions of this though because, if it results in Cork gaining independence from the DAA, the shoe might suddenly be on the other foot and a lot of these routes might be headed back down to the south coast.

Brennans Row

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

Of course I can't, can you - we don't have the information available to determine these issues in such detail? We can, however, draw conclusions based on the information available to us.

No, that's why I'm asked you.

However since you don't have the information available to determine these issues in such detail yourself, then you are jumping to false conclusions when you say that Flybe dropped Shannon because the route was contributing to their financial problems and that the demand just isn't there.

If you would read this newspaper article, you will see that this embattled airline is in financial difficulties and despite the fact that the new Glasgow service is understood to have performed particularly well during the summer, it is been cancelled along with 29 other routes.

In other words Flybe is not in a position to develop the Shannon-Glasgow at this time.


@Jamie2k9

Thanks for the very informative links to the Limerick Leader and to Air Observer above.

But do read the Air Observer article again as I think you missed his analysis on the “when and why” Michael O'Leary declared: that the Shannon operation supposedly had lost money in each of the five years during that agreement.

imurdaddy

Cosmo should start an airline seen as you in dept knowledge of every other airlines and airports margins and costs!..........oh ya no proper sources to back anything up so just more guessing speculation and fiction.

Im finding your posts very amusing now for the cring factor as you try put some meat on the fiction bones.when you are given facts & figures to back up statments you ignore them!

Sweeping statments and opinions are worthless without something to back them, or would you like us to just swallow hook line & sinker
im sure you feel by posting this stuff here you are striking a blow for good old knock? I dont see the big problem knock fanboys have with shannon its like comparing night and day, two airports serving two diffrent markets knock is a regional airport, shannon a international with double the pax numbers of knock with at least 300,000 seats added this year.

now dont get me wrong I have nothing against knock or any othe airport but I dont see why certain posters are so keen to sling muck at shannon? Whats the gain for you or knock?
If you have links to back your posts please share them, im open to finding out more as are other posters im sure.

Cosmo Kramer

Brennans Row wrote: »

No, that's why I'm asked you.

However since you don't have the information available to determine these issues in such detail yourself, then you are jumping to false conclusions when you say that Flybe dropped Shannon because the route was contributing to their financial problems and that the demand just isn't there.

If you would read this newspaper article, you will see that this embattled airline is in financial difficulties and despite the fact that the new Glasgow service is understood to have performed particularly well during the summer, it is been cancelled along with 29 other routes.

Sorry BR but it is becoming abundantly clear that, while your hopes and intentions for Shannon are obviously well meaning, your obvious bias prevents you from assessing issues relating to the airport with even the slightest degree of objectivity. If you don't get that a route is not viable when it has been dropped by three different carriers in the space of five years then there is clearly not much else that either I, Jamie or anyone else can say to convince you otherwise.

As for the link you provided, what is it that makes the opinion of a journalist at 'de paper' any more legitimate than anything I have to say other than that it states an opinion you want to hear.

"Flybe’s Shannon to Glasgow service is understood to have performed particularly well during the summer"

Understood by who? Backed up by what statistics? Because the passenger numbers posted on both the CSO and CAA websites in relation to the route were dreadful. And the fares were consistently in Ryanair territory, while carrying only a fraction of the passengers - so the yields can't have been up to scratch either.

Brennans Row wrote: »

In other words Flybe is not in a position to develop the Shannon-Glasgow at this time.

These are your own words and are not contained anywhere in the article. There is also nothing in the article which demonstrates that this was the case.

angelfire9

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

So, in summary, this is a fairly low risk strategy from Ryanair. I doubt Shannon had much say in the choice of routes - they will likely just have happily taken whatever is going. If there is to be further expansion at Shannon by Ryanair I could see it in the form of more European routes being shifted from Cork. Shannon might need to beware of the repercussions of this though because, if it results in Cork gaining independence from the DAA, the shoe might suddenly be on the other foot and a lot of these routes might be headed back down to the south coast.

I would think that even with an independent Cork if CORK and SNN offered Ryanair identical cost base that SNN would win out
Better location in that you are more likely to have people from Sligo/Roscommon/Westmeath that would drive to Shannon for flights but no necessarily down to the far end of the country
The motorway network won't change the perception that Clare is only down the road and Cork is far away

Second, the airport, Shannon has better capacity in terms of car parks and ancillary facilities, built and expanded in a time when it was far busier that capacity exists and SNN won't need to build an extra terminal anytime soon

Last but not least SNN has certainly better runways, you never hear of SNN being closed due to fog!

Cosmo Kramer

imurdaddy wrote: »

Cosmo should start an airline seen as you in dept knowledge of every other airlines and airports margins and costs!..........oh ya no proper sources to back anything up so just more guessing speculation and fiction.

Im finding your posts very amusing now for the cring factor as you try put some meat on the fiction bones.when you are given facts & figures to back up statments you ignore them!

Sweeping statments and opinions are worthless without something to back them, or would you like us to just swallow hook line & sinker.

im sure you feel by posting this stuff here you are striking a blow for good old knock? I dont see the big problem knock fanboys have with shannon its like comparing night and day, tow airports serving two diffrent markets knock is a regional airport, shannon a international with double the pax numbers of knock with at least 300,000 seats added this year.

now dont get me wrong I have nothing against knock or any othe airport but I dont see why certain posters are so keen to sling muck at shannon? Whats the gain for you or knock?
If you have links to back your posts please share them, im open to finding out more as are other posters im sure.

Again, the spelling, Jesus H...but anyway...

I'll happily debate, and have debated, any facts and figures you wish to provide but sadly your posts don't seem to have contributed anything to this thread that I can see other than poorly constructed wisecracks and what was effectively an opinion piece from the Irish Examiner containing only one fact - that the route had been axed. You asked for a source on the unprofitability of the last Shannon expansion and it was given to you, you commented (in a sense) on the comparison with the Donegal route and this was explained to you - but all you have come back with is talk of fanboys and chips on shoulders. If you have nothing of value to add - or you simply don't understand the topics being debated - as your posts would suggest to be the case, then may I suggest that you would be better served steering clear of this thread?

imurdaddy

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

Again, the spelling, Jesus H...but anyway...

I'll happily debate, and have debated, any facts and figures you wish to provide but your posts don't seem to have contributed anything to this thread that I can see other than poorly constructed wisecracks and what was effectively an opinion piece from the Irish Examiner containing only one fact - that the route had been axed. You asked for a source on the unprofitability of the last Shannon expansion and it was given to you, you commented (in a sense) on the comparison with the Donegal route and this was explained to you - but all you have come back with is talk of fanboys and chips on shoulders. If you have nothing of value to add - or simply don't understand the topics being debated - as your posts would suggest to be the case, then may I suggest that you would be better served steering clear of this thread.

You dont have facts or figures do you? Well bar made up ones.

Lol.....steer clear of the thread! That says it all.

Cosmo Kramer

angelfire9 wrote: »

I would think that even with an independent Cork if CORK and SNN offered Ryanair identical cost base that SNN would win out
Better location in that you are more likely to have people from Sligo/Roscommon/Westmeath that would drive to Shannon for flights but no necessarily down to the far end of the country
The motorway network won't change the perception that Clare is only down the road and Cork is far away

Second, the airport, Shannon has better capacity in terms of car parks and ancillary facilities, built and expanded in a time when it was far busier that capacity exists and SNN won't need to build an extra terminal anytime soon

Last but not least SNN has certainly better runways, you never hear of SNN being closed due to fog!

On the other hand, despite the advantages given to Shannon in terms of pre-clearance and US services, Cork has catered for more passengers than Shannon in five of the last six years.

angelfire9

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

On the other hand, despite the advantages given to Shannon in terms of pre-clearance and US services, Cork has catered for more passengers than Shannon in five of the last six years.

Yep and we can thank the DAA for that

But not anymore thank God
Now, with a bit if luck and a lot of work you and all the other naysayers will see what Shannon can do

Cosmo Kramer

imurdaddy wrote: »

You dont have facts or figures do you? Well bar made up ones.

Lol.....steer clear of the thread! That says it all.

Your posts are making no sense. There are others on this thread who seem to share your viewpoints but I don't think you are doing them any favours with your continued rambling and ignoring of the topic at hand. Anyway, this will be my last interaction with you.