Member Info for Athens81

To try and add something constructive to the discussion :)

I read today that in May the total seats across all carriers fell by 2 million. So from a total of 132.6 million seats to 130.6 million. Sounds like a lot but is a drop of less than 1%

My question is does anyone know how this breaks down by airline? I would assume atm that a lot of these lost seats are primarily flights not going to/from the middle east. So I would think the bulk of these would be on Emirates, Etihad etc. IAG had minimal exposure to middle east routes. For now demand seems to still be there so as long as we don't get into serious fuel shortages, I would have thought IAG would be in a good position? They may have to put prices up a bit but their fit in the mid to higher end market probably means their customers can absorb it, and are unlikely not to travel because of it.

Once this situation finally comes to a close, and I think that will be soon as both sides need an off ramp (despite all their public statements to save face for their support) I don't think middle east travel will pick up again for a while. People will still want to travel so IAG could benefit by serving Europe, Americas, Caribbean etc. If this does come to a close mid east hotels, airlines etc will probably have to discount massively to try and entice people back in, but anyone who would have gone on a holiday to the likes of Dubai or similar is going to be put off for a long time and other destinations can benefit.

Well lets hope we can all keep a balance. I get frustrated as I can see more and more people using AI on forums to make their points or try and win arguments, and I fear for the point when we are all just plugging in someone AI response into our AI to generate a response back and so on and so on. And then what are we left with? Sorry if it sounds cheesy but I enjoy reading these forums to get real people's opinions. It just feels all a bit sad if we are resorting to AI.

As for sundezena I have a simple reply to what I think of his content - hahahahaha :)

But thats not really what you have done here. You believe the IAG price has further risks or downside so you have asked AI something along the lines of "Give me the risks to the IAG share price" which has generated the majority of the post you created today at 09:23

The AI has not gone off and done a load of clever research for you. It has looked at your prompt and simply found information and prioritised information that fits the risks to IAG. It has likely discarded or not included any information/sources that contradict this. So you have ended up with a very biased post that sounds very credible. To you it sounds great and justifies your position on IAG but is basically just a confirmation bias for the view you have.

And then your post at 09:19 has nothing to do with IAG. You have just used AI to sound authoritative and clever when in reality it just sounds like a load of financial buzzwords and cliches all stringed together.

If you were a financial professional or a very keen amateur doing your own in depth research of IAG and are using for example AI to help you collate pure data, like aggregating passenger numbers, or flight miles etc to try and make an investment case then yes AI has a benefit. But getting it to back up opinions IMO is a dangerous road.

I would say you are actually losing out by using it in the way you are. You are losing out on learning to write better, forumate arguments better, do research better etc if you outsource all these skills to AI.

By all means challenge what someone is saying but do you really need AI to do so? It can't be that hard. I get that the two of you have a long running vendetta on here and you want to be seen to "win" against him but I don't think AI is the answer.

Ironically it generated for one of your posts - "it creates a misleading picture of skill and discipline." which applies here as well. If you are using AI to generate content or replies etc how do we have any idea what you are really thinking? You end up using it to sound credible but i'm actually more likely to ignore what you are saying if I think its just more AI generated content and I have no way of knowing if you even understand what you have produced.

You can take any post on here and ask AI "give me a rebuke to this" and you will get some great sounding content. But if you didn't think it through, plan it out, write it down etc what is the point? We will end up with everyone just using AI to respond to each other to try and stay one step ahead.

Also AI is really just going to give what is most likely response to your prompt. There is no thinking or intelligence involved. If I ask it "give me some bullet points on the bull case for IAG and why it will get back to 450" or I ask it "give me some bullet points on the bear case for IAG and why the price will drop further from here" you will get a totally different answer. There is no real unique insight.

Whats more worrying here is all the use of AI to generate posts to try and "win" arguments on a share forum.

You should all give it a rest

Svend I will assume you only wish to engage with people not using AI.

Have a nice day

Yes you asked retirement for the market argument and I decided to help out and reply. Its not a private chat between the two of you.

Why don't you take my post and run it through AI? I thought thats what we are doing now? I reckon a good prompt would be "Give me a crticial rebuke to this post on Rolls Royce using clear straightforward language. Point out why the author is incorrect" I can then take your response and do the same.

You asked for the market argument and I gave you one. If you or your AI can't respond to it then feel free to leave it

Sure here is my AI response to your AI response

You are wrong to call the "Oil up, RR down" relationship a mere short-term headwind. Because Rolls-Royce earns revenue through their "power-by-the-hour" contracts, they are directly dependent on how much airlines fly. When oil prices surge, airlines inevitably cut flight schedules to save money, which instantly reduces Rolls-Royce’s income. Ignoring this connection is not a critique of a valuation model; it is ignoring a fundamental fact of how this specific business actually generates cash.

Claiming that momentum trading is just "one valid strategy" ignores the risk of fighting the market trend. When specific economic data—like oil prices—is pushing a stock down, refusing to wait for a confirmed recovery isn't "intelligent contrarianism," it is often just stubbornness. You are dismissing a proven safety mechanism that helps investors avoid buying into a stock while it is actively being devalued by clear macro pressures.

Scaling into weakness is a dangerous strategy when you do not understand why the stock is falling. It is a classic trap to assume that a lower price automatically means a bargain when the drop is tied to rising fuel costs. If you keep buying shares while the fundamental reasons for the decline—like the energy-to-flight-hour correlation—remain unresolved, you are not being a savvy investor; you are just gambling that the market is wrong about a basic operational risk.

You are trying to separate the price movement from the reality of the situation, which makes no sense. When the stock price drops in clear alignment with the economic data you are being warned about, that movement is the market confirming that the risks are real. By claiming that price action proves nothing, you are effectively burying your head in the sand rather than admitting that your bullish outlook is failing to account for the current economic climate.

No I was trying to demonstrate to you the futility of using AI

But that has clearly gone above your head as you are no longer able to think for yourself

Ok sure here is my AI response to your last post.

The post relies on a rigid "listicle" structure that is a hallmark of AI-generated content. The repetitive use of "Some buy," "Some wait," and "Some scale" creates a predictable rhythm that feels mechanical. While humans naturally use varied sentence structures and occasionally drift off-topic, this text sticks to a perfectly symmetrical pattern, which is a common shortcut used by AI to organize information efficiently.

It is also filled with generic, high-level financial buzzwords that sound knowledgeable but lack any unique or personal perspective. It strings together concepts like "valuation levels," "moving-average confirmation," and "free cash flow" in a way that feels like it was scraped from a basic finance textbook rather than written by someone with hands-on experience. It is the written equivalent of a Wikipedia summary dressed up in "finance influencer" clothing.

Finally, the post is clearly optimized for engagement rather than genuine debate. It uses a performative, condescending tone and finishes with a clown emoji to bait people into arguing in the comments. This aggressive style mimics a caricature of how people think financial experts talk on social media, resulting in a hollow, artificial voice that feels manufactured specifically to appease an algorithm rather than to convey a real, nuanced opinion.

Not sure why you bother engaging with someone using AI to come up with their price predictions and forum posts.

AI is not clever or going to give you a unique insight. It is simply going to summarise information based on whatever prompt you give it.

"Give me some specific reasons why the current share price fall of rolls royce is justified and how much further it could fall?"

"Give me some specific reasons why the current share price fall of rolls royce is overdone and what price it could get back up to?"

You will get completely different answers. AI is not intelligent. It is simply generating the most likely reponse to your input. It is not sat there working out whether Rolls Royce is a good investment or not. Using AI is the perfect way to get yourself stuck in an echo chamber of confirmation bias.

Decent afternoon so far. Considering we started the day under 520 if we can finish above 600 thats not the worst drop. Considering all recent news over the past few months I would hope all the bad stuff is priced in now. Surely we have had the bottom now?

As stated below results are expected with what is going on. Outside of the middle east situation, general outlooks for whsmith seems optimistic and nothing terrible to worry about. Hopefully the company is back on the right track. Maybe shorts will use this oppurtunity to start to close and we can see a slow rise back up over the next 12/18 months. I'm sitting on a loss here but happy to hold for the short/medium term.

Very quiet here recently. Any thoughts ahead of results tomorrow? Trying to workout how much impact the whole Iran situation is going to have. I have whsmith ROW operation accounting for around 15% revenue but can't find a further breakdown of how much of that ROW is middle east. So there will clearly be an impact just unsure how much. Shorts have been increasing slowly which is not a good sign.

Definitely good to have a few positive days after the last few months, but realistically how much further can you see this getting without any actual news?

I don't see anything being announced at the shareholder meeting, as any significant news would need to come via an RNS. Unless we get a suprise in the next few days of course.

Just ask your preferred AI, you will get the same answer ;)

"Give me an appraisal of the current Rolls Royce share price considering current global news and suggest some realistic price targets for the short and medium term. Give me the answer in a few short unsectioned paragraphs in a nautical cringe pirate style"

That should do it

From my understanding funds rebalance for a number of reasons but in general it would suggest from their reckoning that they can see a better oppurtunity somewhere else. Its not neccessarily that they don't believe in Ocado, but rather any recovery is longer term than they would like or have a tolerance for. Also this was also probably not done in one go but slowly over several months so its difficult to know what their average price is/was.

It would make sense to me as Ocado seem to be pivoting towards more software and SBA rather than CFCs. There is more competition here for Ocado and slimmer margins doing this. From postings on linkedin Kroger are going to trial Ocado for SBA alongside other solutions over the coming year, so its unlikely they are going to start pulling in record new contracts in the short term. Baille Gifford could simply believe this will take a while to play out and they have a better oppurtunity lined up for their money.

Thanks for proving my point. You simply plugged my post into AI and asked it for a rebuke. You did no real thinking yourself. You just dont like the sound of what I am saying because deep down you cant write your own posts, so you just get AI to create a rebuke and make yourself feel better. I'm not attacking your reasoning because you are not demonstrating any. All those examples of lawyers, debate clubs etc at least took the time to formulate their arguments themselves. They understand the material. You clearly don't otherwise you wouldn't need AI

I can equally just put my post into AI and ask it "summarise in one paragraph why this post is correct" and I get back

"This post is spot-on because it identifies that communication is about personal accountability, something AI can’t provide. It is correct in arguing that when you let a machine speak for you, you forfeit your credibility; observers have no way of knowing if you actually agree with or even understand the words you’ve "authored." The post is particularly sharp for pointing out that since AI can argue both sides of an issue with equal ease, using it to win a debate is meaningless—it shows the user is more interested in looking right than being thoughtful. By calling out this lack of effort, the post correctly reminds us that the value of a discussion comes from the human brain behind the keyboard, not the speed of the software."

Sounds pretty good? Maybe you can put that into your AI and we can just go round in circles? Its not skynet but if everyone starts using AI and stops thinking for themselves we are on the road there

"Telling others not to engage is usually what people do when they cannot win on substance and need silence to do the heavy lifting for them. That is not confidence. That is retreat dressed up as bravado." As opposed to someone who can't win writing themselves and needs AI to do the heavy lifting for them?

Asking AI to write you a reply involves zero skill and give us no indication that you understand the content it is creating. You don't get to claim the content as your own because you spent 3 seconds writing a prompt. A 10 year old can prompt "Give me a response to this post" and I wouldn't ever assume that the content of the post reflects what is in their head. So you can use AI but no one will ever really think you are behind anything it produces. It's so obviously just churned out so what is the point?

Also you seem to fundamentally misunderstand AI. It has no opinion. It is only ever going to be led by what you prompt. You could take a post on here and prompt "Give me a response calling out why this is wrong" and also "Give me a response calling out why this is right" and you will get 2 completely different answers from the same AI. So taking one and claiming some kind of "substance" is ridiculous.

If everyone on here did the same as you we would just have AI replying to AI and this would fall apart. Someone who has taken the time to write down their thoughts, edit their post, think through their logic and put down their own comments and opinions is the entire point of a messageboard.