Strategic Analysis:

USA320Pilot

Veteran
May 18, 2003
8,175
1,539
Strategic Analysis: US Airways Q4 earnings review and TP update

US Airways’ losses widened in the fourth quarter, as cost cuts and traffic gains couldn't make up for higher fuel prices and dwindling revenue.

For the period ended December 31, the carrier posted a loss of $236 million, which included $24 million in reorganization items and a $30 million gain on the sale of the company's stake in Hotwire, compared with loss of $98 million a year-ago, Excluding unusual items, the pre-tax net loss for the 2004 fourth quarter was $214 million compared to $129 million in 2003. For the full year, US Airways reported a loss of $578 million on $7.07 billion in revenue, which is in line with management estimates during bankruptcy court S.1113 proceedings. In the previous fiscal year, it lost $174 million on $5.31 billion in revenue.

The fourth results were slightly better than a consensus of Wall Street airline analysts who predicted the airline would lose about $256 million ($4.68 per share), according to a survey by Thomson First Call.

Here are some key points:

-- Revenue fell nearly 6 percent to $1.66 billion as intense competition and fare wars hurt traffic. US Airways' fourth quarter yield dropped 11.4 percent to 11.90 cents.

-- The Q4 average price of a gallon of jet fuel rose 49 percent to $1.31. Fuel hedging helped results by $47 million or 22 cents per gallon. The company spent $322 million on fuel compared with $205 million in the fourth quarter of 2003, an increase of $117 million year-over-year. The loss of $214 (excluding one-time items) would have been $97 million if fuel prices had been the same as last year, reflecting the industry trend of falling ticket prices on profits.

-- The company cut Q4 mainline costs by 14 percent to 8.79 cents per available seat mile, excluding fuel. That amount is still not low enough to compete with Southwest, AirTran and JetBlue yet, but it’s still a sharp improvement from the airline’s previous industry-high level.

-- Labor cost cuts were not fully realized in the quarter, but fell 22 percent from $662 million to $518 million, which is $144 million lower year-over year. On an annualized basis the reduction would equal about $576 million or about half of the $1.17 billion in annual labor concessions obtained by management. It will take time for the company to implement labor savings negotiated from the different unions such as facility closure, headcount reductions, vendor work, and other planed savings. Meanwhile, it is important to note that if the new labor savings had been in place for the full year, US Airways would have probably broken even for the year and had earnings similar to jetBlue and AirTran Airways.

-- The airline ended the year with total cash of $1.36 billion and $738 million in cash collateral.

-- US Airways plans to take delivery of 12 new regional jets by the end of February. The company has not disclosed the product mix, but 6 RJs including 3 EMB-170s and 3 and CRJ-700s were delivered during the past two weeks. The revised delivery schedule will provide about 2 new aircraft to the fleet per week from January 15 through February 28.

--Transformation Plan schedule changes commence this Sunday, February 6, which will increase aircraft utilization, boost revenue, and average down unit costs by about one cent per ASM. The February schedule will see increased utilization that will create 224 additional departures and 22 new routes. This is the equivalent of adding 25 aircraft to the network without writing a check, with mainline utilization increasing from 10.5 to 11.5 hours per aircraft per day.

2004 Major Airline and Large LCC Fourth quarter Cost Per Available Seat Mile (CASM)

Airline (Mainline only)/CASM (cents)/CASM ex-fuel (cents)

Northwest/11.36/8.87
US Airways/10.96/8.79
Alaska/10.79/7.83
United/10.68/8.34
Delta/10.40/NA
American/10.25/NA
Continental/9.98/7.82
AirTran/8.32/6.00
America West/7.98/6.00
Southwest/7.59/6.22
JetBlue/6.32/4.74

Source: Company reports

US Airways $1.17 billion in total labor cost cuts represents approximately 15 percent of total costs. For discussion purposes and everything else being equal, costs could be cut another 15% as labor cuts begin to more fully take effect. This would reduce the company’s CASM to about 9.31 cents and 7.47cents CASM ex-fuel. The labor cuts alone will make US Airways the lowest cost legacy carrier and within 15 percent of the LCC's (Note - Delta’s pilot cuts and further labor cuts at Continental and United will lower their CASM going forward).

Following release of the company’s fourth quarter report, the company filed its December 2004 monthly operating report with the bankruptcy court. The operating loss was $58.7 million, which included the Christmas holiday “operational meltdownâ€.

See Story

The company endured a public-relations disaster over Christmas after a worker shortage led to the cancellation of hundreds of flights and lost luggage. This obviously cost the company millions of dollars, but the long-term effect is probably negligible. Customer memories seem very short and consumer confidence remains strong at an important time for the company. The recent fare sales generated record revenue both with E-commerce and traditional ticket sales. Executive Vice President of Marketing and Planning Bruce Ashby said in a statement, “we have been pleased with the strong response to the marketing initiatives of the past few weeks and the enthusiasm demonstrated by our customers, corporate accounts and travel partners."

Management business plan changes such as the Fort Lauderdale international gateway, more European flights, increased aircraft utilization, new point-to-point service, money losing Pittsburgh flying pulled down, facility consolidation, and other structural changes will be aggregate to earnings in the first quarter.

The table below illustrates how US Airways performed in the fourth quarter and the full year in relation to the 11 largest U.S. airlines, listed from best to worst.

Airline Industry Fourth Quarter and Full Year Earnings

Airline/Fourth Quarter/Full Year 2004

Southwest/$56.0 million/$313.0 million
jetBlue/$2.4 million/$47.5 million
AirTran/$1.1 million/$12.3 million
Alaska/($44.9) million/($15.9) million
America West/($49.7) million/($89.9) million
Continental/($206) million/($363) million
US Airways/($236) million/($611) million
American/($387) million/($761) million
Northwest/($420) million/($878) million
United/($664) million/($1.6) billion
Delta/($2.2) billion/($5.2) billion

Source: Company reports

The fourth quarter report is proof positive that US Airways’ management is making “meaningful†strides in transforming the airline (especially on the cost side) and the company is coming close to being positioned for long-term success. US Airways chairman David Bronner told the Decatur Daily in a recent interview that with all of the Transformation Plan cost cuts that “we'll have lower costs than Southwest.†There is no question the corporate changes were necessary and Bronner noted, "You have to understand that we're trying to do something that has never been done in the history of airlines, to take a legacy carrier to a low-cost carrier status," Bronner said.

See Bronner interview

According to Aviation Week and Space Technology, “by one analyst’s estimate, US Airways leads the pack in cutting costs.†Mike Lowry of AirWatch Report provided the following analysis that was published in the magazines January 24 edition.

Estimated Cost Savings Required to Compete with LCC’s

Airline/Estimated Cost Savings Required to Compete with LCC’s/Estimated Percent of Savings Identified

US Airways/$1.0 billion/110%
Delta Air Lines/$2.6 billion/104%
United Airlines/$4.1 billion/70%
Continental Airlines/$1.4 billion/60%
American Airlines/$3.7 billion/44%
Northwest Airlines/$2.1 billion/14%

Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

US Airways Estimated Savings in Fiscal 2005

New labor Contracts - $480 million
Non-Labor Productivity Improvements, which includes more efficient aircraft utilization - $286 million
Pension Plan Terminations - $250 million
Reduced Aircraft Leasing/Maintenance Costs - $80 million
Total - $1.095 billion

Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

Two key issues remain: record high energy prices and Delta’s Simplifares, which is no doubt designed to “run US Airways out of cash†before the cost cuts can be fully implemented.

According to the Daily Bronner said it is hard to predict when the airline may become profitable again, partly because of fluctuating oil prices. "If oil went down $10 a barrel, we'd be floating in money," he said. "Assuming that it doesn't go down, the whole airline industry will probably show losses for the whole year in '05. It's all relative to the price of oil."

According to a report released by the IATA, air travel rebounded in 2004, but cost efficiency and productivity is the challenge for every airline largely because of high fuel prices and stiff pricing competition.

See Story

In fact, Giovanni Bisignani, IATA's director general said, The challenge for 2005 is to turn traffic growth into profitability with improved cost efficiency."

See Story

Separately, US Airways continues to make progress in aircraft lease restructurings and made a couple of S.1110 filings with the bankruptcy court this week:

US Airways S.1110 EMB-170 bankruptcy court filing – January 31, 2005

See Story

US Airways S.1110 GE agreement update - Snecma Aircraft will "buy out" GE's interest in 5 B737-400s preserving aircraft in US Airways’ fleet

See Story

US Airways S.1110 GE – CRJ agreement

See Story

In addition, US Airways asked the bankruptcy court for approval to sell the 30 Philadelphia jetways on concourses B andC concourses to the city who will then lease them back to the airline. The proceeds will go into a fund to be credited toward the lease payments due the city. The agreement stipulates Philadelphia will pay 50% of the cost of promoting new US Airways service to both Barcelona and Venice in 2005 and 2006 up to an annual cap of $250,000. The city also agreed to seek airline approval for an expansion of the B/C security checkpoint.

See Story

In commenting on US Airways’ progress to AW&ST, US Airways senior vice president of corporate communications Chris Chiames said, There are some pretty disappointed airline executives at our competitors, referring to (previous) widespread media reports predicting the airline’s imminent shutdown. Clearly, management's plans to transform the airline are taking shape and US Airways' future appears much brighter.

The company plans to file its plan of reorganization by February 15 and exit bankruptcy by June 30 to be in compliance with the recent GE agreement. In addition, the airline must still find $250 million in exit financing, which it is expected to obtained in the not-so-distant future.

Finally, there is reason to believe that US Airways will fully integrate MDA into the mainline in 2005 and could be involved in a corporate transaction, possibly with United Airlines, later in the year.

Best regards,

USA320Pilot
 
USA320Pilot said:
could be involved in a corporate transaction, possibly with United Airlines, later in the year.
Best regards,
USA320Pilot
[post="244534"][/post]​
Here we go again folks, the fabled UCT/ICT with UAL.

How many times can you beat the horse before it dies?
 
if usair does engage in a corporate transaction, who would be the truly surviving entity? and is it possible it might be someone else rather than ual? just trying to find out that is all.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #4
There is reason to believe a venture capitalist would fund the transaction and US Airways could be the surviving business enterprise, which could be why the Bush Administration, the ATSB, and US Airways' financial partners are supporting the new business plan.

Remember the name J.P. Morgan, if a deal proceeds.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
ok i can this as a possible reason for ual: they have been in ch11 for something along the lines of 2 1/2 yrs but havent gotten what they needed versus usair and what they have achieved. is it possible that JP Morgan could be an investor of usair or even Texas Pacific Group?
 
USA320Pilot said:
--Transformation Plan schedule changes commence this Sunday, February 6, which will increase aircraft utilization, boost revenue, and average down unit costs by about one cent per ASM. The February schedule will see increased utilization that will create 224 additional departures and 22 new routes. This is the equivalent of adding 25 aircraft to the network without writing a check, with mainline utilization increasing from 10.5 to 11.5 hours per aircraft per day.

What goes unsaid here is that utilization goes up adding "25 aircraft" worth of flying. But US Airways agreed to return 25 aircraft... Thus ASM's will remain about flat on less costs. Not necessarily bad, but it seems a little misleading to mention 25 airplanes worth of flying without noting the 25 aircraft departing the fleet. It implies ASM growth, which is not exactly accurate. I guess there will be a short term increase in ASMs as the 25 aircraft are not retired immediately, but long term, ASMs will be flat, according to this plan. By the way, I see those numbers both being 25 aircraft as no coincident.

What you did not mention, in your regurgitation of the facts already presented in other threads, is expected future revenue performance. Now that would truly be interesting, since we know RASM will face increased pressure due to DAL's fare restructure and LUV's entrance to PIT and continued and expanding influence on fares and pricing at PHL.

According to my "too high" numbers, US Airways could at best break even with RASM and fuel costs flat. Since we know RASM is likely to be even more impacted, even if my CASM number is too high, RASM will decline and breakeven is likely to still be US Airways best-case outcome in the coming quarters.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #7
Funguy2:

A couple of points:

I agree RASM is an issue. That should improve as more RJs are added to the network and with Bruce Ashby now in charge of marketing. I like Ben Baldanza, but under his tenure the carrier had a revenue problem. Ashby is bright, he understands the business, and I believe he will upgrade the marketing department.

Baldnaza likely left the company because he knew he would not become the CEO and president and he wanted to run an airline.

By the way, speaking about RJs, expect an EMB-190 and CRJ-900 announcement relatively soon.

Separately, the 25 aircraft issue will not equal becuase of the orderly phase out of A319 and B737 aircraft over a 3-year period. On Sunday the increased aircraft utilization will occur as the first A319 leaves the property.

One A319 will be returned to GE from February through September, three in October, and 15 B737s in 2006 and 2007. During the orderly transfer 3-year time span, US Airways will have the benefit of increased utilization to boost revenue and average down unit costs.

Meanwhile, it's my understanding US Airways senior vice president of planning Andre Norcella is hunting for used B737-300s to replace the one's returning to GE. The company is looking for cost-effective B737 leases, but the used aircraft market is tight.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
I agree RASM is an issue. That should improve as more RJs are added to the network and with Bruce Ashby now in charge of marketing.

Riddle me this, Batman:

How do you really think RJs will improve RASM?

If anything, RJs are going to negatively impact your CASM....more RJs on the premises wipe out some of the gains extracted from the employees. gee, that's really neat.....eviscerate the livelihood of your employees to buy management a bunch of Barbie dream jets to play with. Sheesh.

But back to my question: If you are using RJs to replace turboprops and think that can get you a premium.....I'd suggest that you don't have that much turboprop flying left and what you do have is not enough for any fare premium (in RJ vs turboprop) to do anything significant to yield.

If you are thinking that you can take RJs and throw them at routes where you have WN or other low fare competition, you are sadly mistaken. For all the Art_at_ISPs and PineyBobs addicted to you dividend miles, you have a while bunch more folks out there who won't pay the same price to ride a RJ over a WN737 or FL 717, much less pay any sort of premium.

In fact, a cogent argument can be made that passengers are tired of RJs and really miss their full sized jets where they can walk down the aisle comfortably and reasonably expect to be accompanied on the same plane and at the same time by their luggage.

That about sums it up...marketing genius or not.......a VP with nothing to sell but boatloads of RJs has his or her work cut out for them.
 
I just don't see a profit in the near future...it could 2 years plus and then its only a possiblity because its to cloudy to predict the circumstances.... PRASM is dropping faster than CASM. I wonder what the company has predicted for a target CASM and PRASM. With the new contracts in place, and the TP unfolding, a good estimate of CASM for each of the upcoming quarters should be avialable. Leaving the cost of oil and PRASM up in the air...but we all know PRASM isn't going up with Go Fares and more fire sales on the internet. And Oil is probably going to stay around 50 for the foreseeable future. The company/industry can't hang its hat on the cost of oil....that's ridiculus.

For once, I hope Airline Executives around the world find a better excuse for losing money than High Oil prices and pressure from low fares. Its been the same BS for years now. Deal with it, high oil prices and low fares are here to stay and they been with the industry for a while. Every quarter when losses are posted, its like a big surprise.

Bottom line: The only way for US Airways to stay around is to have PRASM higher than CASM. And its a race to the bottom for both numbers...
 
I've been playing with the monthly financial reports and the quarterly report, mainly because I see some problems with comparing 4Q03 with 4Q04 numbers. While that comparison negates seasonal differences in revenue, it may miss "micro" changes by averaging over a quarter. On the expense side, some of the costs show bigger changes when compared over a year than they do when looking within a quarter. A perfect example is personnal costs, which have been declining quarter to quarter for some time.

So here's some numbers for Oct, Nov, and Dec. All numbers are in thousands, as reported on the monthly filings.

Passenger Revenue:
Oct 514,829
Nov 494,724
Dec 460,447
[Passenger revenue declined pretty significantly from month to month - somewhat surprising considering the heavy travel periods in Nov & Dec]

Operating Revenue:
Oct 578,050
Nov 555,744
Dec 526,206
[Roughly tracked declines in passenger revenue]

Personnel Expenses:
Oct 188,910
Nov 167,569
Dec 161,521
[As one would expect, declines as the interim cuts kicked in]

Fuel Expense:
Oct 115,074
Nov 108,105
Dec 98,821
[Fuel spiked in Sep then eased off through the end of the year. However, it now back to approximately Sep levels]

Express Capacity Purchases:
Oct 72,009
Nov 62,322
Dec 69,669
[No idea what happened in Nov - anyone have a clue?]

Aircraft Rent:
Remained relatively constant

Other Rent & Landing Fees:
Remained relatively constant

Selling Expenses:
Oct 32,046
Nov 28,484
Dec 23,470
[Those web-site only sales maybe?]

Aircraft Maintenance:
Oct 23,960
Nov 30,429
Dec 35,611
[Again, I have no idea why the increases - more airplanes in maintenance?]

Depreciation & Amortization:
Oct 20,304
Nov 18,411
Dec 23,285
[???]

Other:
Oct 107,865
Nov 95,641
Dec 99,494
[???]

Total Operating Expenses:
Oct 633,946
Nov 583,133
Dec 584,921
[After the initial drop with the interim cuts, it stayed basically flat despite the month to month drop in personnal, fuel, and selling costs - not good]


Operating Profit:
Oct (55,896)
Nov (27,389)
Dec (58,715)
[The big drop in operating expenses - remember those interim cuts plus fuel & selling costs - made a big difference between Oct & Nov. But in Dec the declining revenue translated almost directly to the bottom line]

Jim
 
BoeingBoy said:
Passenger revenue declined pretty significantly from month to month - somewhat surprising considering the heavy travel periods in Nov & Dec
[post="244692"][/post]​
Not surprising at all. Revenue gets booked when the ticket is purchased. At the same time, a liability is booked representing the transportation owed to the ticketholder. The liability is cancelled when the ticket is lifted.

Travel in the holiday season is often booked in October, since people want to get the lower fares and they generally already know their schedule. One would expect December's revenue to be lowest, because by that time pretty much all leisure travel (which makes a hefty chunk of December load) has already been purchased.

Aircraft Maintenance:
[Again, I have no idea why the increases - more airplanes in maintenance?]
I would think that deicing would come out of this bucket, and certainly there's more deicing to do in December than in October, as a rule.

Depreciation & Amortization:
[???]
The fluctuation coincides with changes in the amount of capital assets purchased in any given month, coupled with whatever schedule the IRS says you use for them. Don't read too much into this one.

Total Operating Expenses:
[After the initial drop with the interim cuts, it stayed basically flat despite the month to month drop in personnal, fuel, and selling costs - not good]
But not necessarily bad. There are elements, such as the deicing, that increase winter costs. This is one of the reasons you need to consider seasonal effects.

So, in short, three months do not necessarily a trend make.
 
Thanks, Michael.

Only 1-1/2 points....

Supposedly the company recognizes the revenue when the transportation is provided (it's mentioned in the annual reports). Don't know if that same standard applies in the financial filings with the court, but assume it does.

You could be right about the deicing being included as a maintenance expense - I hadn't thought of that since it's not "maintenance" to me. In that light, however, I wonder how much de-icing is contracted out (I know PIT, but where else). You'd think in-house deicing would be expensed 1) as the de-icing fluids are purchased, not used, and 2) that the employee pay component would be included in personnel expenses.

Jim
 
BoeingBoy said:
Supposedly the company recognizes the revenue when the transportation is provided (it's mentioned in the annual reports). Don't know if that same standard applies in the financial filings with the court, but assume it does.
[post="244757"][/post]​

To be sure my memory wasn't faulty, I looked it up...

Passenger Revenue Recognition
The Company recognizes passenger transportation revenue and related commission expense when transportation is rendered. Passenger ticket sales collected prior to the transportation taking place are reflected in Traffic balances payable and unused tickets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Due to various factors including refunds, exchanges, unused tickets and transactions involving other carriers, certain amounts are recorded based on estimates. These estimates are based upon historical experience and have been consistently applied to record revenue. The Company routinely performs evaluations of the liability that may result in adjustments which are recognized as a component of Passenger transportation revenue. Actual refund, exchange and expiration activity may vary from estimated amounts. The Company has experienced changes in customer travel patterns resulting from various factors, including new airport security measures, concerns about further terrorist attacks and an uncertain economy, resulting in more forfeited tickets and fewer refunds. Therefore, during the fourth quarter of 2003, a $34 million favorable adjustment was made to Passenger transportation revenue to reflect an increase in expired tickets.
 
Airlines get to choose which method they use, as long as they use it consistently. I just figured they used the other method, but it looks like they don't. Well, so much for that explanation. Don't know how else to explain the dropoff in revenue, except that you may well be right about declining yields.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top