Book your Flight

Choose a departure date and a date of refund.

Choose a departure date and a date of refund. Choose a starting date. Date of arrival must not be later than date of departure. Illegal date form. A date after today must be selected. Choose a departure date and a date of refund. Date of arrival must not be later than date of departure.

Illegal date form. A date after today must be selected.

Interested in booking your flight through Amazon? - Amazons.com, Inc. NASDAQ: NAMZN.

Amazon's (NASDAQ:AMZN) possible extension into the on-line ticketing industry would be a very real and rewarding undertaking for the firm given the present stage architecture, traffic/volume, liquidity available for investments and the apparent opening of the on-line ticketing industry to new competitors. "Amazon-Expedia " Amazon has been active in the general community for years as a supplier and retail dealer for general consumption goods.

Morgan Stanley (MS)'s recent intriguing forecast that Amazon could soon become a giant for on-line holiday reservations seems odd at first, but with Amazon's other recent additions, almost no possibility seems too far-fetched for the group. Morgan Stanley's Morgan Stanley reports that Amazon, on the basis of the $480 billion US dollar tourism industry, would be able to make $600 million a year in gains from on-line reservations alone if it grew to about half the present Expedia (EXPE) scale, with Morgan Stanley expecting it to be able to generate up to $1.5 billion in net income annually.

Years ago, Amazon tried to get into the Amazon Destinations on-line reservation service, which opened in April 2015 and was quickly switched off in October 2015 amidst apparently low option levels, low visitor numbers and Amazon hunting to many different extensions at that point. However, this period may be different as both Amazon and the holiday reservation industry have seen major changes.

The Amazon is now much larger, has spread to many more industries, and can encourage Amazon users to use the Amazon Consumer Experience much more frequently for many different goods and related products and related activities. Amazon's actual operational revenues are still relatively small relative to revenues due to the mere scale of its retailing operations, with $4.106 billion in net revenues and $177.866 billion in net revenues for 2017, equivalent to $4.106 billion in total revenues.

Most of the operational result, which is still high in comparison to previous years, and the forecast forthcoming economic expansion comes from Amazon Web Services, Amazon's core business of cluster computation and web-hosteling. Since Amazon a historical $20. It is clear that the firm could without any problems make an investment in the creation of a reservation system if it so wishes and if it has the chance.

Expedia itself has recently faced some problems due to an apparent reorganisation, as noted in its results Q4 2017, which were below expectation and with forecast rises in costs this year due to operational modernisation and possible competition with Airbnb (AIRB) in the short-term rental business.

Furthermore, in its recently published 10-K 2017, Expedia explicitly states that it considers that a threat to its businesses currently involves potentially competitive risks, especially as changing browser algorithm and changing accessibility methodologies (apps, mobiles, etc.) changes. However, this turmoil in the markets and the interruption of the markets may be sufficient for Amazon to enter the online reservation game.

What would it take Amazon to set up its own travel agency now? Obviously, setting up a huge booking site for hotel and flight reservations on-line is simpler said than done and it would probably take some getting Amazon up and running. What's more, it would take some getting Amazon up and running to now. Concluding delivery deals with hotel and airline companies is a demanding and time-consuming business especially at the outset when these suppliers may already be happy or even limited by their ongoing deals with Expedia and other suppliers.

However, Amazon has a big edge when it comes to penetrating the ticketing industry that Expedia and other sites don't have, which is already a solid, trustworthy and navigationable selling area. Considering the mere revenue volumes already flowed through Amazon for a wide range of different Amazon destinations following the huge diversity of Amazon in recent years since 2015 and Amazon Destinations, it is unlikely that the inclusion of a reservation facility will be seen as too uncommon a complement to the Amazon destination offering.

Wherever Amazon would formally introduce such a feature, there would no doubt be high levels of visitor numbers and revenue immediately, just as Facebook's (FB's) Facebook Watch video stream edged up to high levels of capacity due to its integration into Facebook's billion-dollar consumer ecosystem. Amazon's on-line reservation services would also be far less uncommon than its health surveys, which can take much longer to complete due to the different types of businesses that Amazon has already experienced difficulty in obtaining its state-owned drugstore licences.

In addition, Amazon reports had reports of having established beneficial relations with the few trademarks it has signed in the initial uterus of Amazon Destinations. According to reports, hoteliers are now becoming more interested in incorporating their brand with the consumer, and so it may be much more attractive now to choose a Amazon as your destination than it will be in 2015.

Whilst the booking industry also has its own particularities, Amazon, with its capacity to already adjust to so many consumer-oriented industries, could quickly make effective use of them. When we look at the real expenses, we see in Expedias 2017 10-K that Expedia achieved $625 million in net profit from revenues of $10.059 billion and $9.117 billion in manufacturing expenses from revenues of $10.059 billion and $9.117 billion, respectively.

Looking more closely at Expedia's actual cost of doing Business, the Amazon case becomes even better. Most of the cost of Expedia, about 58. It is clear from this perspective that Amazon will have the easy means to quickly build a powerful on-line ticketing solution in the face of over $20. With Amazon's internal capabilities in providing services for cluster environments and hosted services, Amazon would no doubt cut much of the cost of cluster and datacenter technologies that led to Expedia's declining margins, as the fourth quarter results show.

In addition, Amazon already has a big promotional advantage, which would bring him enormous savings in spending on it. Expedia, as an independent plattform, must of course promote in order to maintain its services circulation. Amazon, however, already has a huge volume of visitors, valued at over 300 million per year, that could potentially be transferred via e-mail campaigns or website placements.

In essence, all of this means that Amazon could probably see much lower than Expedia's implementation and execution charges. Although it may take some getting there to earn money, as hotel and airline companies are on board and generate bookings, it's easy to imagine that Amazon could run such a deal for at least 80% of Expedia's cost-to-revenue, considering all of these considerations, and thereby achieve a much higher profit than Expedia's present profit of about 16.5%.

Whilst Amazon may not be able to start a company as large as Expedia's if it were to set up enough in the first year to grow 10% of Expedia's actual operations, namely $1,005 billion in sales, at 80% of Expedia's costs, that would be $728,4 million in costs for an operational result of $276,6 million.

Half of Expedia's actual $10,059 billion in revenues, 80% of Expedia's expenses, we achieve $5,0295 billion in revenues, $3,645 billion in operational expenses, $1,385 billion in operational profits, at Morgan Stanley's bullish end. There is no doubt that the estimate that Amazon can demand an initial 20% cut in manufacturing expenses over Expedia is positive, but not inscrutable, given Amazon's competitive advantage in terms of file sharing and processing, as well as in terms of advertising and sales.

While there may also be start-up expenses that demand declining expenses before correspondingly increasing revenues are recorded, it is likely that these expenses would only be a few hundred million, which is within Amazon's present possibilities and, given the rapid income generated by the bookings side, would soon lead to a return.

Amazonia is already an unbelievable giant with a $760 billion share capital. The price-earnings ratios have been high for a long time and are still above 340, giving cause for concern as to when net profit and operational profit will eventually arrive. Amazon's capacity to maintain such a high level of capitalisation and price-to-earnings ratios depends on how it has prevailed in the retailing industry without the existence of clear competitive conditions that could seem to call it into question.

Furthermore, the capacity to continuously grow into new industries shows that new income streams continue to emerge and are likely to emerge in the market. Nevertheless, despite the high valuations currently available, it is likely that Amazon's expansion strategy into the on-line holiday bookings market could lead to a surge in revenues in the near to long run, which would also open up the possibility of stronger long-term momentum.

Whilst it is still unclear when and if Amazon will be returning to the on-line ticketing industry, the success of Amazon's diverse portfolio in recent years shows that Amazon is able to quickly pick up, adjust and expand into apparently unexpected industries. Since Amazon has already gained some experiences with the on-line holiday reservation industry and the site naturally fits in with Amazon's offering, it seems almost obvious that it could very well be one of Amazon's next enhancements and, given Amazon's previous tests, the deal is likely to be quite lucrative.

There is no relation to a corporation whose shares are referred to in this paper.