Replies to post #249310 on Biotech Values

[Whalatane]

You see the forest but apparently are unable to see the trees ...the trees in this case being the individual indications such as slowing decline of kidney function .
Kiwi

[Biowatch]

LOL. Actually, it takes more fuel to carry heavier loads, so even if the crash was more of a center of gravity issue that the pilots couldn’t recover from, flying lighter loads is cheaper.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/10/09/ozempic-weight-loss-drugs-impact/

I think the airlines would face a lot of blowback if they requested that heftier passengers sit towards the front to help maintain the center of gravity in a safer realm and reduce the chance of a difficult to control situation.

Perhaps that’s why they impose fees for extra baggage. It reduces the total weight if people pack less. (Although it is probably just a way to increase revenue.) Just a thought…

[DewDiligence]

The latest bullish sequela from the Ozempic craze: airline stocks! …You heard it here first folks.

Actually, the Jefferies analyst beat iHub to the punch; from jbog’s post (#msg-173026327):

In late September, Jefferies put out a note stating that United Airlines (UAL) could save $80M annually assuming the average passenger sheds 10 pounds. This is based on the assumption that each United flight would be ~1.8K pounds less and save 27.6M gallons of fuel per year, according to analyst Sheila Kahyaoglu. “This benefit should be recognized similarly across airlines,” Kahyaoglu wrote.

During its Q3 earnings call on Oct. 12, Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian, responding to a question, indicated the he doesn't see the meds having an impact on fuel projections.

Ha! The CEO of Delta refused to take the bait by endorsing the Jefferies analyst’s fantasy. Even if Jefferies’ $80M number were accurate, it would amount to 0.7% of UAL’s annual expenditures on fuel, i.e. roundoff error.