44 replies to this topic

[Hake.]

1: When you point out grammar mistakes and honest typos as your main point, it really goes to show how weak and childish your argument as a whole is. 

 

2: I'm not asking for cheaper gates, I am asking for airport services priced by seat, not a universal dollar amount. 

 

3: No it is not. Not at all. Did you think using caps lock and emojis somehow makes your argument more valid? it doesn't. Landing fees would be based on the seat count of the plane landing. Add the variable amounts, based on your planes flown, and add it up to put it in the route finance page. Not hard. The exact same thing could be done for the gate pricing. It does not have to be a fixed dollar amount. Gates at airports in America have varying dollar amounts based on the gate. Do you really think a regional plane sized gate and a widebody, 3 people mover, A380 ready gate cost the same?

 

4: Let me quote you: "Your is probably mismanaged as I didn't need Scam IFS". Not only did you lean on simple, honest grammar mistake in this point, but you mocked it in a sentence that it's usage makes the sentence syntax and meaning completely incorrect. As for your completely unfounded claim about Metros/LHR argument... 

 

• That argument is a complete strawman. Just because it may be possible to do with Metros at LHR w/o scam IFS does not in any way make it possible for it to be done with ATR-400s from JFK. That is a total strawman argument. 
• Here, I just screenshotted my financial statements from that world. See below:

 

 

• In the last month, I had a net income of $74M. However, I had a scam IFS revenue stream of $96M. Without ScamIFS, I would have run a net income of ($22M). Granted I have now begun expanding to ATL, ORD and LAX.
• However in the months where I just had JFK(all of 1990), my margins were even smaller as you can see in the financial statements. For instance, in 1990, I made a Net Income of $55M for the entire year of which I had a ScamIFS revenue of $333M. Without scam IFS I would have a net income of ($278M)
• That strawman argument has been completely debunked

5: No, you should really learn to read. You claimed that setting up a regional airline is "piss easy". No let me quote you directly 

• You said: "regional airlines are piss easy (which they are)"
• I responded by saying that regional airlines are no easier to set up as a user than a transcon or international airline, as a user. They all require pressing the same buttons. My specific words were: "In AE a regional and a transcon or intl airline are all equally easy. They all require the same buttons to create routes and lease gates or buy planes..... So saying they're "piss easy" is dumbfounding and just a really, really, REALLY dumb argument. " I was CLEARLY talking in regards to the effort to set them up, from a user perspective. I went on to say calling them "piss easy" is Really, really dumb. 
• How is that saying "and now you're saying its piss easy?"?
• I mean literally I said "Calling them 'piss easy' is really, REALLY dumb." and you read that and took away "you're calling them piss easy?". Please, learn to read before you reply again. This is just embarrassing for you, this whole post
• From a FINANCIAL perspective, which is what allows sustainability and growth, a regional airline in AE is significantly more difficult than a international or transcon airline. 

Please, learn reading and comprehension before you reply again. Complete ignorance coupled with logical fallacies and immaturity is not a good look on anyone, including you.

Immaturity . Anyhow, due to your inability to handle me as the strong independent black woman that I am, I'll keep this short. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing immature about believing it is possible for a regional airline to profit, which it is. You may also like to take a look at Ejet, an airline of mine with a couple of hundred million in the bank. Ejet is living evidence that not only is it possible to fly regional from JFK with an extremely awkward fleet, but it is also possible to profit on them. I never stated that one can make the same profit margins as a FCC, as this is simply untrue. They are piss easy to make money on, but not piss easy to make billions on. One can simply not expect to make the same money off one of your spamlines as a small regional carrier. Now, let's just finish off with 2 quotes from none other than yourself.

 

 

"In AE a regional and a transcon or intl airline are all equally easy.

Since any fool can make massive money off a transcontinental airline, by that logic it is simple to make a regional airline.

 

 

There is no way under the current AE that a regional airline can work. 

Contradiction

 

PS. About my use of grammar and emojis, I must clear a few things up. 

1. "Humour or is the tendency of particular cognitive experiences to provoke laughter and provide amusement."

They're called emotes, not emojis and secondly, have you considered the fact that I left out a word in a sentence as possible another koalaty gibe from The Saw Doctor?

[PC Will]

Why are you comparing this to the real world? AE is not real world. Real world is not relevant to this conversation.

 

In AE, 30-40% is average or good. 

 

5% is bad. 

 

EDIT: And if you want to compare it to the real world, in the real world A380s and ATRs/CRJs are not charged anywhere near the same landing costs, yet they are in AE. 

 

Lovely argument, too bad it holds no water when you actually look at what you wrote. 

 

5% profit margin is not bad at all, compared to the real world... and why am I comparing that to the real world... quite simply, you see, because that's what AE is based upon? 

 

For instance, the game uses real life aircraft, includes real life charges, taxes, fees, etc, includes real life restrictions.... I mean sure there's point that AE misses that the real world airlines do have to adhere to, but you can't expect a game to have it all... especially not one that is free to play.

 

30-40% profit margin in AE is good.. yes, by sure it's good, however  a 30-40% profit margin is massively unrealistic, name 1 single real world airline that has a consistent 30-40% profit margin?

 

I'll be surprised if you can find one within a week....

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"EDIT: And if you want to compare it to the real world, in the real world A380s and ATRs/CRJs are not charged anywhere near the same landing costs, yet they are in AE. "

 

Again, clearly you can't read.... I did state this before, but alas I shall state it again.

 

There are many variables involved in determining landing costs, to factor these into AE 3.x (whatever the current version is) frankly I find pointless, due to the research, time, and development required for this when this could be better spent developing AE4 which from what I hear is a better representation of an Airline Simulator. This may even be taken into consideration for AE4..... who knows.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"Lovely argument, too bad it holds no water when you actually look at what you wrote. "

 

Holds no water...... ? I've been over why it holds plenty of water... AE is based around the principle of real life airline simulation, again, sure there are missing factors and variables, but again, you can't expect it to be a perfect representation of a real life airline environment....

 

 

TO ADD: Reading above, calling hake "weak and childish" because he is correcting the spelling you clearly can't work out for yourself.... I find somewhat funny.... I'd personally say it was "Weak and Childish" to write a whole long post about your poor little fictional airline struggling to make a decent profit, when it's already making a good profit compared to realistic airline profits..... furthermore this is a game, if you're taking things this seriously and not factoring in the reason that AE doesn't implement the "CORRECT".... landing fees based on the aircraft type and other factors then I think personally you can't really complain.

 

You have a sole developer who has his own real life, working his ass off to try and get AE4 finished, you have *******s who constantly make a mockery and say "AE4 is a myth, it will never be released".... 

 

Try balancing your own working life, family life, and then spend your own time and to some extent your own money making something better than AE, once you've done this then you can come back and complain.

 

Also, with a username of "Channy_thegreat", to me somewhat seems to suggest what i'd call your very large ego, and attitude of "I want it my way as my way is the only correct way, I don't care how much work, time, and effort is required".... 

[SirMoo]

Would you take your mindless arguing into a PM as this is getting you know where.

 

You both look worst off than when you started out here.

 

Get back to actually discussing the topic at hand that was started which is modification of fees, and not this back and forth over stupid crap.

[PC Will]

1: When you point out grammar mistakes and honest typos as your main point, it really goes to show how weak and childish your argument as a whole is. 

 

2: I'm not asking for cheaper gates, I am asking for airport services priced by seat, not a universal dollar amount. 

 

3: No it is not. Not at all. Did you think using caps lock and emojis somehow makes your argument more valid? it doesn't. Landing fees would be based on the seat count of the plane landing. Add the variable amounts, based on your planes flown, and add it up to put it in the route finance page. Not hard. The exact same thing could be done for the gate pricing. It does not have to be a fixed dollar amount. Gates at airports in America have varying dollar amounts based on the gate. Do you really think a regional plane sized gate and a widebody, 3 people mover, A380 ready gate cost the same?

 

4: Let me quote you: "Your is probably mismanaged as I didn't need Scam IFS". Not only did you lean on simple, honest grammar mistake in this point, but you mocked it in a sentence that it's usage makes the sentence syntax and meaning completely incorrect. As for your completely unfounded claim about Metros/LHR argument... 

 

• That argument is a complete strawman. Just because it may be possible to do with Metros at LHR w/o scam IFS does not in any way make it possible for it to be done with ATR-400s from JFK. That is a total strawman argument. 
• Here, I just screenshotted my financial statements from that world. See below:

 

 

• In the last month, I had a net income of $74M. However, I had a scam IFS revenue stream of $96M. Without ScamIFS, I would have run a net income of ($22M). Granted I have now begun expanding to ATL, ORD and LAX.
• However in the months where I just had JFK(all of 1990), my margins were even smaller as you can see in the financial statements. For instance, in 1990, I made a Net Income of $55M for the entire year of which I had a ScamIFS revenue of $333M. Without scam IFS I would have a net income of ($278M)
• That strawman argument has been completely debunked

5: No, you should really learn to read. You claimed that setting up a regional airline is "piss easy". No let me quote you directly 

• You said: "regional airlines are piss easy (which they are)"
• I responded by saying that regional airlines are no easier to set up as a user than a transcon or international airline, as a user. They all require pressing the same buttons. My specific words were: "In AE a regional and a transcon or intl airline are all equally easy. They all require the same buttons to create routes and lease gates or buy planes..... So saying they're "piss easy" is dumbfounding and just a really, really, REALLY dumb argument. " I was CLEARLY talking in regards to the effort to set them up, from a user perspective. I went on to say calling them "piss easy" is Really, really dumb. 
• How is that saying "and now you're saying its piss easy?"?
• I mean literally I said "Calling them 'piss easy' is really, REALLY dumb." and you read that and took away "you're calling them piss easy?". Please, learn to read before you reply again. This is just embarrassing for you, this whole post
• From a FINANCIAL perspective, which is what allows sustainability and growth, a regional airline in AE is significantly more difficult than a international or transcon airline. 

Please, learn reading and comprehension before you reply again. Complete ignorance coupled with logical fallacies and immaturity is not a good look on anyone, including you.

 

 

"However in the months where I just had JFK(all of 1990), my margins were even smaller as you can see in the financial statements. For instance, in 1990, I made a Net Income of $55M for the entire year of which I had a ScamIFS revenue of $333M. Without scam IFS I would have a net income of ($278M)"

 

No... you clearly can't do maths.

 

The NET PROFIT is the TOTAL amount of PROFIT after ALL EXPENSES... if you had a $55 million dollar profit, WITH a $333 million dollar income for Scam IFS.... then WITHOUT the $333 million dollar SCAM IFS income you'd have made a $278 million odd LOSS, NOT A PROFIT.....

 

Also, to be fair, it's not "Net Income/Loss" as it says in the graph, this is bad wording on Yuxi's part.... (presumably Yuxi).

 

INCOME is essentially REVENUE, which is  the total amount of money going into the business, NOT the profit as it seems to be used here.

 

For example, a $55 million INCOME IS NOT the same as a $55 million PROFIT.

 

Quite simple really.....

[channy_thegreat]

5% profit margin is not bad at all, compared to the real world... and why am I comparing that to the real world... quite simply, you see, because that's what AE is based upon? 

 

For instance, the game uses real life aircraft, includes real life charges, taxes, fees, etc, includes real life restrictions.... I mean sure there's point that AE misses that the real world airlines do have to adhere to, but you can't expect a game to have it all... especially not one that is free to play.

 

30-40% profit margin in AE is good.. yes, by sure it's good, however  a 30-40% profit margin is massively unrealistic, name 1 single real world airline that has a consistent 30-40% profit margin?

 

I'll be surprised if you can find one within a week....

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"EDIT: And if you want to compare it to the real world, in the real world A380s and ATRs/CRJs are not charged anywhere near the same landing costs, yet they are in AE. "

 

Again, clearly you can't read.... I did state this before, but alas I shall state it again.

 

There are many variables involved in determining landing costs, to factor these into AE 3.x (whatever the current version is) frankly I find pointless, due to the research, time, and development required for this when this could be better spent developing AE4 which from what I hear is a better representation of an Airline Simulator. This may even be taken into consideration for AE4..... who knows.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"Lovely argument, too bad it holds no water when you actually look at what you wrote. "

 

Holds no water...... ? I've been over why it holds plenty of water... AE is based around the principle of real life airline simulation, again, sure there are missing factors and variables, but again, you can't expect it to be a perfect representation of a real life airline environment....

 

 

TO ADD: Reading above, calling hake "weak and childish" because he is correcting the spelling you clearly can't work out for yourself.... I find somewhat funny.... I'd personally say it was "Weak and Childish" to write a whole long post about your poor little fictional airline struggling to make a decent profit, when it's already making a good profit compared to realistic airline profits..... furthermore this is a game, if you're taking things this seriously and not factoring in the reason that AE doesn't implement the "CORRECT".... landing fees based on the aircraft type and other factors then I think personally you can't really complain.

 

You have a sole developer who has his own real life, working his ass off to try and get AE4 finished, you have *******s who constantly make a mockery and say "AE4 is a myth, it will never be released".... 

 

Try balancing your own working life, family life, and then spend your own time and to some extent your own money making something better than AE, once you've done this then you can come back and complain.

 

Also, with a username of "Channy_thegreat", to me somewhat seems to suggest what i'd call your very large ego, and attitude of "I want it my way as my way is the only correct way, I don't care how much work, time, and effort is required"..

 

You're really dumb. Yes 5% is good in the real world. Well, actually it's not, RoR for the legacies in America is above 10% in real life.

 

HOWEVER, I am making 1/6-1/8th of what a "normal" airline in AE makes. 

 

Until you become intelligent enough to understand that, and how the real world argument is fallacy, I'm done wasting my time on you. You're 13, at best, and are arguing points that have no relevance to the topic at hand. Additionally, you cite real life calling my returns "great" but reject the idea of variable fee structures, despite their existence in real life. 

 

To boot, and this is just icing on the ignorance cake, you are telling me to suggest this for an AE4 feature, in the section of the forums devoted to new development ideas..... for AE4. That sheer dumbfounding stupidity sums up your incredibly stupid, fallacy filled retorts.

 

Hurry up back to math class, pay attention and do your homework little boy. I'm far too busy watching paint dry to waste my time replying to your incredibly dumb replies again. Literally, it's more exciting than explaining how each of your replies is founded upon logic that is misguided, inaccurate and just really, really dumb.

[Hake.]

I'M NEARLY CRYING  #TopNotchJokesM8

(Just a tl;dr for channy_thespammy's post): I'm spewing s***e to make myself sound better

[PC Will]

You're really dumb. Yes 5% is good in the real world. Well, actually it's not, RoR for the legacies in America is above 10% in real life.

 

HOWEVER, I am making 1/6-1/8th of what a "normal" airline in AE makes. 

 

Until you become intelligent enough to understand that, and how the real world argument is fallacy, I'm done wasting my time on you. You're 13, at best, and are arguing points that have no relevance to the topic at hand. Additionally, you cite real life calling my returns "great" but reject the idea of variable fee structures, despite their existence in real life. 

 

To boot, and this is just icing on the ignorance cake, you are telling me to suggest this for an AE4 feature, in the section of the forums devoted to new development ideas..... for AE4. That sheer dumbfounding stupidity sums up your incredibly stupid, fallacy filled retorts.

 

Hurry up back to math class, pay attention and do your homework little boy. I'm far too busy watching paint dry to waste my time replying to your incredibly dumb replies again. Literally, it's more exciting than explaining how each of your replies is founded upon logic that is misguided, inaccurate and just really, really dumb.

 

 

Back to maths class?

 

1) Coming from the person who can't work out when he's making a profit and a loss when looking at his airline's balance sheet, I'd say that's incredibly ironic......

2) I'm 19, not 13.. suck it up mummy's boy....

3) "I'm making 1/6th to 1/8th of what a normal airline makes".... Yes?... because you're massively restricting yourself because you're running a "Regional" airline as opposed to an "International" airline, thus limiting your routes and therefore profit potential (Not that you even know what profit is... )

4) "You are telling me to suggest this for AE4"... No, not at all, if you actually get the gist of what I was saying, my implication is that this MAY be better modeled to better reflect the real life model in AE4.... but who knows.

5) "I'm far too busy watching paint dry" ... Well at least you can paint, presumably (maybe someone painted the walls for you?)..... at least that's something, still not going to help your maths skills much though.

 

Adios, amigo...

[PC Will]

"However in the months where I just had JFK(all of 1990), my margins were even smaller as you can see in the financial statements. For instance, in 1990, I made a Net Income of $55M for the entire year of which I had a ScamIFS revenue of $333M. Without scam IFS I would have a net income of ($278M)"

 

No... you clearly can't do maths.

 

The NET PROFIT is the TOTAL amount of PROFIT after ALL EXPENSES... if you had a $55 million dollar profit, WITH a $333 million dollar income for Scam IFS.... then WITHOUT the $333 million dollar SCAM IFS income you'd have made a $278 million odd LOSS, NOT A PROFIT..... (But of course, that's not really possible....)

 

Also, to be fair, it's not "Net Income/Loss" as it says in the graph, this is bad wording on Yuxi's part.... (presumably Yuxi).

 

INCOME is essentially REVENUE, which is  the total amount of money going into the business, NOT the profit as it seems to be used here.

 

For example, a $55 million INCOME IS NOT the same as a $55 million PROFIT.

 

Quite simple really.....

[KJS607]

Income is revenue. Revenue is simply the value of your sales.

 

Profit is Revenue - Total Cost.

 

Willy is correct, and if you dare argue it, your probably just going to look like an ever bigger t*** than you already are, darling

[channy_thegreat]

SC WILL:

 

> No... you clearly can't do maths.

 

Okay then.... LETS DO THE MATH.... 

 

With Scam IFS:

 

Ticket Sales Revenues: $495M

Scam IFS Revenues:     $333M

 

Gross Income: $828m

 

Total Expenses: $773m

 

Net Income: $55M

*************************************************************

Without Scam IFS:

Ticket Sales Revenues: $495M

Scam IFS Revenues:    **$0**

 

Gross Income: $495m

 

Total Expenses: $753(773m-20M cost of IFS)

 

Net Income: ($258M)

 

 

I was right, without a scam IFS I would be losing ~250M per month. I forgot to subtract the expenses from IFS, my mistake. However, that error is not something you caught AND I would still be losing hundreds of millions without IFS, despite my small error.

 

I was right. 

 

Next point: "The NET PROFIT is the TOTAL amount of PROFIT after ALL EXPENSES... if you had a $55 million dollar profit, WITH a $333 million dollar income for Scam IFS.... then WITHOUT the $333 million dollar SCAM IFS income you'd have made a $278 million odd LOSS, NOT A PROFIT.....:

 

 

Nope. Wrong. I am an accountant in the real world. Net Incomes are indeed negative numbers. The terminology does not switch to Net Loss when the number is negative. 

 

Here, I will provide you with some links to literature on the topic. Please, please, please educate yourself. Ignorance is not a good look.

 

http://wiki.fool.com/Net_income

 

Let me quote that article: "After all the expenses have been taken out, net income is what remains. Sometimes, the expenses are more than revenue, so net income is negative"

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/J._C._Penney

 

JC Penny had a net income of (985m) this year. 

 

http://en.wikipedia...._for_net_income

 

Wiki cites the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation (IFRS) definition as: "IFRS Foundation defines net income as synonymous with profit and loss.^[3]"

 

^{Strike 2! Continuing on....}

 

^> Also, to be fair, it's not "Net Income/Loss" as it says in the graph, this is bad wording on Yuxi's part.... (presumably Yuxi).

 

 

Nope, he's factually correct. It is income either way. Net loss is an acceptable term to use in conversation but you will always see public companies call it Net Profit in their reportings, and never soley "net loss".

 

 

> INCOME is essentially REVENUE, which is  the total amount of money going into the business, NOT the profit as it seems to be used here.

 

OH MY GOD THAT'S SO WRONG.  Total Revenue - Total Expenses = Net Income

 

Here let me provide you with a sample income statement. 

 

http://imgur.com/JMe7ypo

 

• GROSS REVENUES: All revenues. Comprised of Operational and Non-Operational Revenues sub-categories.
• TOTAL EXPENSES: All expenses. Comprised of Operational and Cost of Goods Sold sub-categories.
• Gross Profit: Total Revenues-Cost of goods sold
•  
• NET INCOME: Gross Profit - Operational expenses, taxes, depreciation, amortization and interest.

It's NOT essentially revenues

 

 

> For example, a $55 million INCOME IS NOT the same as a $55 million PROFIT.

 

Yes, yes it is. They're synonyms. http://www.investope...n/netincome.asp 

 

Let me quote that link for you: " A company's total earnings (or profit). Net income is calculated by taking revenues and adjusting for the cost of doing business, depreciation, interest, taxes and other expenses"

 

That's strike three. 

 

LITERALLY EVERYTHING IN YOUR REPLY WAS DEAD WRONG. EVERYTHING. 

 

Why reply and assert things as fact, when you clearly have no knowledge on the subject. Ignorance is bliss. 

 

 

 

[channy_thegreat]

Income is revenue. Revenue is simply the value of your sales.

 

Profit is Revenue - Total Cost.

 

Willy is correct, and if you dare argue it, your probably just going to look like an ever bigger t*** than you already are, darling

No he is not. Read my post. 

 

Income is revenue. NET INCOME IS NOT net revenues. Net income is an alternative term to profits. You're 13, and I am literally a financial analyst in real life. 

 

I linked my last page to death showing will, and now you, just how little you know. Stop looking stupid.

[KJS607]

SC WILL:

 

> No... you clearly can't do maths.

 

Okay then.... LETS DO THE MATH.... 

 

With Scam IFS:

 

Ticket Sales Revenues: $495M

Scam IFS Revenues:     $333M

 

Gross Income: $828m

 

Total Expenses: $773m

 

Net Income: $55M

*************************************************************

Without Scam IFS:

Ticket Sales Revenues: $495M

Scam IFS Revenues:    **$0**

 

Gross Income: $495m

 

Total Expenses: $753(773m-20M cost of IFS)

 

Net Income: ($258M)

495 - 753 = -258 = loss of $258M

[KJS607]

You're 13, and I am literally a financial analyst in real life. 

 

Don't get personal babe, I'm 16, soon to be 17 with an A in Mathematics, A in Further Mathematics, B in Business and Studying A Level Business and Mathematics and covered cash flow formulas last week

[channy_thegreat]

 

 

3) "I'm making 1/6th to 1/8th of what a normal airline makes".... Yes?... because you're massively restricting yourself because you're running a "Regional" airline as opposed to an "International" airline, thus limiting your routes and therefore profit potential (Not that you even know what profit is... )

.

 

Adios, amigo...

 

 

Yikes, You should really check my post on financial lingo, since you three are now all dead wrong. 

 

If you're saying SC Will is right along with the other respondent, you're in the camp that says "net income" is total revenues......

 

Even if you don't look at my post on the topic, which you should, you should be able to debunk that by yourself. 

 

Open up your airlines fiancial statements.... See the line that says net income at the bottom? See that number in that line? Do you really believe that is your "total revenues", even though literally two lines above you have a row labeled "total revenues" with a totall different number. 

 

I mean c'mon guys, you have a formula at the bottom of your fiancial page...

 

It has

 

• Total revenues - Total Expenses (Including depreciation, taxes and interest) and then sums it up and calls it Net Income....

But you're all arguing that Net Income means net revenues.....

 

You all can't be that stupid, can you?

[channy_thegreat]

495 - 753 = -258 = loss of $258M

Yes and called a Net Income ($258)

 

I linked many informational links above. Yes, it is sometimes (rarely in actual practice) called net loss, but when it comes to any official reporting or financial statements, you will always see it called Net Income, regardless of a positive or negative number.

[Royen]

Y'all have to much time on your hands to be arguing about this  

[PC Will]

No he is not. Read my post. 

 

Income is revenue. NET INCOME IS NOT net revenues. Net income is an alternative term to profits. You're 13, and I am literally a financial analyst in real life. 

 

I linked my last page to death showing will, and now you, just how little you know. Stop looking stupid.

 

Yes I bloody well am you fool.... anyone with a ****ing brain can see that.

 

Without using Scam IFS, you are making a loss of $258 million... how the **** you think you're making a profit of $258 million i don't know....

 

You said "I (you) was right" when you just pointed out you'd be losing $258 million, which is NOT what you said in the first place, thus you weren't right?.... 

[PC Will]

No he is not. Read my post. 

 

Income is revenue. NET INCOME IS NOT net revenues. Net income is an alternative term to profits. You're 13, and I am literally a financial analyst in real life. 

 

I linked my last page to death showing will, and now you, just how little you know. Stop looking stupid.

 

Yes I bloody well am you fool.... anyone with a ****ing brain can see that.

 

 

 

No he is not. Read my post. 

 

Income is revenue. NET INCOME IS NOT net revenues. Net income is an alternative term to profits. You're 13, and I am literally a financial analyst in real life. 

 

I linked my last page to death showing will, and now you, just how little you know. Stop looking stupid.

 

"Net incomes are a negative number"... wrong.

 

Let's suppose you have a s***ty year of trading, and you don't sell anything, your income is zero... (0)... it can't possibly become a negative number as an INCOME... it's not possible. Income is all money GENERATED IN SALES, the absolute worst you can do is make no sales.. therefore making 0 income? Where you're getting a negative number as "net income" from..... **** knows.

 

If you make no sales, and you're running at a loss, because you have wages, overheads etc to pay, that is recorded as a NET LOSS, not a NET LOSS of INCOME....

 

If you're an accountant in the real world, frankly I hope potential clients avoid you like the plague....

 

I think the issue here, is that you are using the term "NET INCOME" as sales, which is slightly misleading since income is normally used to describe MONEY GOING IN (REVENUE), not PROFIT... 

 

I've yet to EVER see "NET INCOME" being used as an alternative to "PROFIT"...

 

I'm assuming you're american here, us europeans would (I very highly doubt) never use the word "NET INCOME" if we meant "PROFIT"... to us they're two completely different things, obviously not to you...

[channy_thegreat]

Will, before you read any of this, just take a deep breath and relax. Now do it again. Please, please, please, read this slowly and try to understand what I am saying. Above all, open that imgur link and read it. 

 

Yes I bloody well am you fool.... anyone with a ****ing brain can see that.

 

>> Wrong. Please, dude, just listen to me. I am trying to teach you something here. Stop being immature for 2 seconds and just listen to what i have to say.

 

 

 

"Net incomes are a negative number"... wrong.

 

>>No, it can be. I linked you multiple sites. Read them, please. 

 

>>If not, link me something that says net income cannot be negative

 

Let's suppose you have a s***ty year of trading, and you don't sell anything, your income is zero... (0)... it can't possibly become a negative number as an INCOME... it's not possible. Income is all money GENERATED IN SALES, the absolute worst you can do is make no sales.. therefore making 0 income? Where you're getting a negative number as "net income" from..... **** knows.

 

>>Will, man, sales is revenue(or income). Net Income=Revenue - Expenses.

 

>>What you are describing is gross income. 

 

>> For an example, go look at your in game financial statements. Look at the bottom of a month, it has 3 catagories: Total Revenues, Total Expenses and then Net Income. The net income catagory is a math problem of the two rows above it, Revenues-Expenses.

 

>> If Income was all your generated money care to explain how your AE income statement has your airlines making far more money than it's listed "net income".?

 

>> If you don't believe me, please prove me wrong by linking a website that says net income is all the money you bring into the business

 

 

If you make no sales, and you're running at a loss, because you have wages, overheads etc to pay, that is recorded as a NET LOSS, not a NET LOSS of INCOME....

 

>> Yes, you have a net loss. However, it can be a negative number and still be called a net income. That's completely acceptable. Look at my link of the wiki JCPenny, wiki calls it a net income, despite it being negative

 

>> Again, if you do not believe me, find me a link to a website that says otherwise. 

 

 

If you're an accountant in the real world, frankly I hope potential clients avoid you like the plague....

 

>> Okay, I have a bachelors, working on my MBA and taking Certified Public Accountant(CPA) test prep classes. I know what i am talking about, Will. Seriously, dude, please, if you do not believe me, go do some research. I provided you ample examples of what I was saying, you should do the same. 

 

I think the issue here, is that you are using the term "NET INCOME" as sales, which is slightly misleading since income is normally used to describe MONEY GOING IN (REVENUE), not PROFIT... 

 

 

>> No, Will, I am calling Net Income: Total Revenue - Total Expenses. You are calling it "total sales". Also, total sales and Revenue are the same term (Unless you have other income like interest income in which case total sales figure would not include interest income, but total revenue would include interest and sales. 

 

I've yet to EVER see "NET INCOME" being used as an alternative to "PROFIT"...

 

>> Look at the last line of your AE financial statement. It's your profit, yet it's called "Net Income"

 

I'm assuming you're american here, us europeans would (I very highly doubt) never use the word "NET INCOME" if we meant "PROFIT"... to us they're two completely different things, obviously not to you...

 

>>Yes, I am American. However, we both define them the same way. Net Income and Profit are the same thing. 

 

>>Will, I think here is where you are getting mixed up. Revenues can be called income. 

 

>> Here lets looks at a simple example: XZY is the company name.

 

Revenues for XZY: $100 ---This is all my money I brought into the business for the year. It's also called revenues and can also be called income.

 

Expenses:

Cost of Goods Sold: $45 --- These are the costs for the materials needed to make what I sold. 

Operational Expenses: $30 --- These are expenses like salaries, rent, utilities, etc. Anything not directly tied to making the product.

 

Total Expenses: $75

 

Net Income: $25 --- Trust me, Will. I am not lying, and I am not ignorant on this topic. Net Income = Revenues - Expenses.

 

Seriously, man. Lets look at a AE income statement. I'll post mine. PLEASE LOOK AT IT.

 

Here it is: http://imgur.com/IUBWF3k

 

Please look at it and take a second to understand what I did to help walk you through it. Net Income on the AE financial statement is clearly revenues-expenses. 

 

Again, Income and be a replacement term for revenues. Net income is the NET of what you made. Its the net (your take) from your revenues. 

 

Think of it like this: You have 3 watermelons. You use them to take their seeds and plant them to grow 20 watermelons. 

 

Your revnue, your income is 20 watermelons but your net, what you gained, income is 17 watermelons because you spent 3 watermelons to make 20, netting 17.

[Hake.]

Well done with all that economics bulls**t! 32/ 69 for effort . It's a pity is has absolutely nothing to do with gate leasing costs? Remember, the ones which you avoided my questions on. Yeah, that topic. Now get back under your bridge, as I'd rather repeatedly bang my head against a wall than listen to your nonsensical mumbo jumbo. You sir (or madam) are the newest member of my blocked club ! Give yourself a pat on the back!