AA/US continuation of good trend

[signals]

LMAO!! Was this "tidbit" galley or jumpseat generated?? Maybe the Mayberry employee bus strategy bunker?? You know you'll need a source because a certain ICT/UCT pilot likes to quote everything he finds on the internet!!

You know, anywhere an AA would need to go to see anything U related could be done on AA metal.. But, of course there may be that need to observe LCC's customer experience..

TP, you can do better.. Tell us it was on your flight, not somebody's sister who worked in RES, that has an ex husband that sat next to one of them.... (good stuff BTW)!!

Don't know what the heck is going on, so it must be airline chatter B)

TP72 says that your pilots eat bucket chicken and wear Thom Mcann(?) loafers

 

[AAviator]

And yet more proof a merger is in the works!
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/American-US-Air-add-rb-3237291141.html?x=0

Any coincidence they skipped mentioning other carriers in the headline?????

I think not!!!!!!!

 

[ebwgs]

And yet more proof a merger is in the works!
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/American-US-Air-add-rb-3237291141.html?x=0

Any coincidence they skipped mentioning other carriers in the headline?????

I think not!!!!!!!

No not really. Was there a reason for posting this post?

 

[Travelpro72]

No not really. Was there a reason for posting this post?

Yes there was actually and I'm glad Astro did it. I posted factual information from a friend of mine but because YOU didn't see it it's a lie. What G'damn reason would I have to post a jackass rumor. Whatever. And oh btw I see many a f/a commute on the shuttle between LGA and BOS. All I have to say is PLEEEEEEEEEEEASE! ! ! ! I don't like, no I HATE ignorant people. Moving along. Astro....take it away.

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

In 2000 there wasn't a peep anywhere about AA/TWA, no one knew a thing until the Washington Post story broke on a Sunday night.

I think now, in today's near real time social media environment something somewhere would have gotten out into the world.

As for AA types traveling in civvies on "Company Business", it wouldn't surprise me to find they were on personal vacation.AA managers and the like have a long history of using the "Business" tag for personal travel.


Now with that being said, I still expect something to happen.Not going to speculate but the simple fact is Mass is needed to compete with UAL and DAL.Organic growth is a nice idea but it will do nothing more than allow your competition to continue to hand your ass to you.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Jim
no one is saying that US should generate the same AMOUNT of revenue with US hubs compared to other carriers that have much larger hubs but the expectation is that US should be able to generate hubs with comparable revenues - on a unit basis.
We have been through the concept of unit indicators - RASM vs CASM - vs system/total/regional indicators (revenue/expenses) but you either don't understand the concept or try to argue points using one or the other that don't make sense.
US mgmt has said and their data does support that US does not generate the QUALITY of unit revenue that their larger competitors obtain - in part because larger carriers have greater access to corporate revenue, immunized alliances, and hubs in larger markets.
But US had many of these things including 25% of all the slots at LGA but couldn't figure out how to make them work, has walked away from multiple hubs AND the local markets allowing other carriers to pick up the local revenue which really matters (only AA has done a worse job of defending the local market in its former hubs), and US has been spurned multiple times by larger carriers when US has attempted to deepen relationships. US is on the periphery of the network industry - not the LCC it said it would be when it emerged from BK but not able to generate revenue comparable to what the other big 3 (or big 5 before) network carriers generated.
There is no reason to think AA will want to merge w/ a company that can't use the assets US has right now to generate revenues comparable to the network carriers with which US competes - and on which US' costs are based.
.
The article cited about ETS related surcharges did in fact mention other carriers - there was a clear choice to filter the information to read what he/she wanted to see.... faulty data in/faulty decisions out.
.
as for those who would like me to stop posting here, I have received feedback from people who appreciate my insights and input and who aren't afraid to admit that things in their own camp (some are US employees) are not as great as the masses would like to believe. My comments are not personal, I wish each of you the best, but I also don't and won't sugar coat what has to be said.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim
no one is saying that US should generate the same AMOUNT of revenue with US hubs compared to other carriers that have much larger hubs but the expectation is that US should be able to generate hubs with comparable revenues - on a unit basis.

Maybe you should say unit revenue if you mean unit revenue...

"Given that US and HP haven't generated the revenue they promised and in fact have revenue shortfalls to the industry,"
"Parker has repeatedly said that US revenue underperforms the industry"

Only two quotes of your words. I don't see unit revenue mentioned in either...if you're going to be sloppy with your use of terms don't be surprised if others don't have a clue what you're trying to say. As I said, I'm not surprised that Parker talks about revenue - he has the task of convincing the employees that they should be resigned to making less than their peers, without seeming to be the Grinch. So he picks his numbers carefully, choosing those which best support his mission. So you won't hear him say "US has lower revenue but also fewer employees, so we could pay you the same as our peers and still have lower employee expense than our peers."

But talking about RASM, who has among the highest RASM among the legacy carriers? The following is PRASM since all carriers report that but not all report RASM, but with US collecting as much or more in ancilliary fees per passenger than it's peers the relationship should hold:

3rd Quarter 2011
AA 12.06 cents (mainline only)
DL 13.54 (consolidated)
US 13.56 (consolidated)
UA 13.75 (UA only consolidated)

Hmmm...second highest. Where's that unit revenue shortfall?
UA 13.75 (consolidated)

Jim

 

[diamondcutter]

Maybe you should say unit revenue if you mean unit revenue...

"Given that US and HP haven't generated the revenue they promised and in fact have revenue shortfalls to the industry,"
"Parker has repeatedly said that US revenue underperforms the industry"

Only two quotes of your words. I don't see unit revenue mentioned in either...if you're going to be sloppy with your use of terms don't be surprised if others don't have a clue what you're trying to say. As I said, I'm not surprised that Parker talks about revenue - he has the task of convincing the employees that they should be resigned to making less than their peers, without seeming to be the Grinch. So he picks his numbers carefully, choosing those which best support his mission. So you won't hear him say "US has lower revenue but also fewer employees, so we could pay you the same as our peers and still have lower employee expense than our peers."

But talking about RASM, who has among the highest RASM among the legacy carriers? The following is PRASM since all carriers report that but not all report RASM, but with US collecting as much or more in ancilliary fees per passenger than it's peers the relationship should

3rd Quarter 2011
AA 12.06 cents (mainline only)
DL 13.54 (consolidated)
US 13.56 (consolidated)
UA 13.75 (UA only consolidated)

Hmmm...second highest. Where's that unit revenue shortfall?
UA 13.75 (consolidated)

Jim



Great post Jim. I can't wait to see the lengthy spin WT puts on this one.

 

[FWAAA]

3rd Quarter 2011
AA 12.06 cents (mainline only)
DL 13.54 (consolidated)
US 13.56 (consolidated)
UA 13.75 (UA only consolidated)

Hmmm...second highest. Where's that unit revenue shortfall?
UA 13.75 (consolidated)

Jim

I was curious about AMR's consolidated numbers so I got out the calculator. AMR consolidated 3rd Quarter PRASM was 12.78 cents. Eagle's PRASM was 21 cents but Eagle is a much smaller operation as a percentage of mainline than at the competition, reducing its influence on consolidated PRASM.

With the growing importance of various ancillary revenue sources, PRASM isn't as revealing to me as total revenue per ASM, but I'm too lazy to compute consolidated RASM numbers for the industry.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I was curious about AMR's consolidated numbers so I got out the calculator. AMR consolidated 3rd Quarter PRASM was 12.78 cents. Eagle's PRASM was 21 cents but Eagle is a much smaller operation as a percentage of mainline than at the competition, reducing its influence on consolidated PRASM.

With the growing importance of various ancillary revenue sources, PRASM isn't as revealing to me as total revenue per ASM, but I'm too lazy to compute consolidated RASM numbers for the industry.

You're right on both points - express ops and ancilliary revenue can have enough of an effect to make a difference and the effects are different than what one might expect (especially for ancilliary revenue).

I think it's still the case that US has the largest express-type capacity measured as a percentage of total or mainline, partly because scope allows larger RJ's in express ops. For comparison, US has roughly the same number of planes in it's express fleet as AA, but nearly three times as many CRJ-700/E170 and larger types. DL is second to US in percent of capacity provided by express, which because of the difference in mainline size means DL has considerably more absolute express capacity plus again more ~70 seat and up capacity than AA.

DL collects more ancilliary revenue than any other network carrier and not necessarily because of it's size since UA/CO (#2 in ancilliary revenue) collects less than half as much. AA is #3, closer to UA/CO than it's size would suggest, while US is #4. The interesting thing is that AA, UA/CO, and US are relatively close together at between $254 and $327 million. DL is the outlier with $691 million - more than double UA/CO.

Like you, I'm too lazy to calculate system RASM for all the legacy carriers so use the BTS numbers. Granted that they're not GAAP calculations but serve as a guide. Unfortunately that runs a couple of quarters behind - 2Q2011 is the latest out although 3Q2011 should be out soon (all the above numbers are for 2Q2011). Obviously the 2nd quarter is a good revenue quarter, but their ranking is:

US 18.8 cents
UA 18.2
DL 17.6
CO 16.6
AA 15.6

There has been one thing that needs to be considered when making comparisons for the last 9-10 years, and that is bankruptcy. The various network carriers have been in bankruptcy at various times and that can skew the numbers. Passengers do book away from a carrier in bankruptcy to some degree, expenses are artificially altered, and exit accounting can make a big difference.

Jim

 

[damajagua]

What happened to the merger announcement on January 9th?

 

[nevergiveup]

What happened to the merger announcement on January 9th?

2013

 

[FWAAA]

DL collects more ancilliary revenue than any other network carrier and not necessarily because of it's size since UA/CO (#2 in ancilliary revenue) collects less than half as much. AA is #3, closer to UA/CO than it's size would suggest, while US is #4. The interesting thing is that AA, UA/CO, and US are relatively close together at between $254 and $327 million. DL is the outlier with $691 million - more than double UA/CO.

I argued with WT about that recently - for some reason, neither AA nor UA appear to report frequent flyer mileage sales to the DOT in their ancillary revenue numbers. Both AA and UA are much closer to DL than the BTS numbers suggest. On its financials, AMR reported $659 million in ancillary revenues in the second quarter, more than DL on a relative basis (if my math is correct).

Like you, I'm too lazy to calculate system RASM for all the legacy carriers so use the BTS numbers. Granted that they're not GAAP calculations but serve as a guide. Unfortunately that runs a couple of quarters behind - 2Q2011 is the latest out although 3Q2011 should be out soon (all the above numbers are for 2Q2011). Obviously the 2nd quarter is a good revenue quarter, but their ranking is:

US 18.8 cents
UA 18.2
DL 17.6
CO 16.6
AA 15.6

There has been one think that needs to be considered when making comparisons for the last 9-10 years, and that is bankruptcy. The various network carriers have been in bankruptcy at various times and that can skew the numbers. Passengers do book away from a carrier in bankruptcy to some degree, expenses are artificially altered, and exit accounting can make a big difference.

Jim

You're right that those BTS numbers are certainly different than the GAAP numbers. US actually reports the consolidated RASM in its quarterly results (good for the lazy like me) and for the second quarter it was 15.36 cents against consolidaated CASM of 14.59 cents (or 14.56 cents excluding special items).

 

[signals]

What happened to the merger announcement on January 9th?

It's a merger-wolf rumor, just like the pipedream US keeps hoping for

 

[BoeingBoy]

US actually reports the consolidated RASM in its quarterly results (good for the lazy like me) and for the second quarter it was 15.36 cents against consolidaated CASM of 14.59 cents (or 14.56 cents excluding special items).

You just have to be careful with what US includes in "consolidated". In the monthly traffic filings it only includes PSA and PDT. In the quarterly statistics section it includes all Express.

Jim