Us Airways Strategic Analysis

USA320Pilot

Veteran
May 18, 2003
8,175
1,539
Last Friday US Airways posted disappointing second quarter results when it announced a $62 million net loss for what is typically its strongest quarter of the year. According to Air Transport World "Although it has shed billions in costs during its second restructuring, US Airways’ net loss for the second quarter ended June 30, which included $26 million in one-time charges consisting of $19 million in professional fees, $6 million in damage and deficiency claims on rejected aircraft and $4 million of severance that was offset slightly by $3 million in interest on accumulated cash. This compares to a net income of $34 million in the year-ago period. Excluding one-time items, net loss for the 2005 second quarter totaled $36 million."

Some interesting points include:

-- The company had an operating profit of $41 million.

-- Labor costs fell $225 million or a 36 percent drop.

-- Average jet-fuel costs soared 57 percent to $1.68 a gallon and the company paid $182 million more for fuel year-over-year.

-- Fuel aside, overall costs per seat mile fell 16.7 percent to 7.83 cents, primarily due to $1.1 billion in worker concessions.

-- The $26 million in charges for various reorganization items, which tend to cloud the carrier's performance. Without these expenses the company would have shown a $36 million net loss.

According to new reports, in his weekly recorded message, US Airways’ CEO Bruce Lakefield said costs had "declined substantially" and that more operating savings would come from "synergies" of the merger. For instance, the corporate headquarters will be relocated from Arlington to Tempe starting in October and the move should be completed by the end of the first quarter resulting in about a $30 million annual savings. Last Friday, the airline closed its Pittsburgh reservations center, leaving Winston-Salem as the company's only in-house call center. Of about 800 workers based in Pittsburgh, only 47 are moving to Winston-Salem and most of the rest took buyouts or retired.

Looking forward, US Airways said it expects system capacity growth to slow from just under 5% in May and June to less than 1% in the third quarter. It also said it is seeing positive yield trends and as a consequence expects positive system passenger RASM performance year-over-year in the third quarter.

The only major airline that posts monthly RASM figures is Continental. According to Lehman Brothers, they expect the following July results:

-- Continental’s July RASM should increase 4 to 6%, thus there should be strong revenue gains.

-- The brokerage firm said, "We continue to expect very strong revenue comparisons during the summer months as we expect current revenue trends to continue against easy comparisons in the prior year period (especially August and September).

-- "We believe the ATA composite will see double digit RASM gains for the quarter," airline analyst Gary Chase said.

The Continental and ATA revenue projections seem to echo comments made by US Airways in its earnings press release and should provide additional revenue with crude oil prices trading at about $62 per barrel.

Meanwhile, in an interview with the Charlotte Observer published yesterday, America West’s executive vice president of sales and marketing and merger integration team leader Scott Kirby was asked a series of questions. In regard to merger economics I believe there were two questions and answers of paticular interest:

Q. Where do you see the industry heading in the next few years?

A. If oil stays high, there's going to continue to be a lot of stress on the industry. If fuel prices stay high, you will see less capacity in the domestic industry one way or another, which will help raise revenues. That can happen one of three ways: bankruptcies, consolidation or a number of airlines shrinking. I really don't know how that will happen.

Q. If all these other airlines are getting their costs down through bankruptcies and labor negotiations, how do you stay ahead of the pack?

A. US Airways will now have labor costs that are below certainly all of the legacy carriers still, and below even where they're targeting, frankly. In addition, America West historically has had nonlabor, nonfuel expenses that are well below the rest of the industry, and we expect that to continue.

Other airlines that have already been through a restructuring, like American and United, still have costs that are significantly higher than America West. Our cost advantage may not be quite as large if other carriers restructure, but we still expect to maintain a significant cost advantage vs. the legacy carriers.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
the labor costs had fallen probably due to the iam allowing usair to outsource many cities and get rid of as many workers as they could.
would you agree with that USA320?
 
robbedagain said:
the labor costs had fallen probably due to the iam allowing usair to outsource many cities and get rid of as many workers as they could.
would you agree with that USA320?
[post="285180"][/post]​


Why are you so infatuated with A320?
 
I am curious where the 61 million dollar operating profit came from?

I did not read that in the SEC filing.. Earnings report did not show an operating profit.

So where did US Airways have an operating profit of 61 million?

I read the 8K as filed with the SEC.. It shows a profit for the month of June of 8 mil. That is of course before you get raped by the lawyers!!

May there was an operating loss of 39 mil. So you have a long way to go to get to an operating profit of 61 mil in the Qtr.

If you could provide a link to show us how US made 61 mil operating profit in the Qtr I would like to see it.

Thanks
 
justaumechanic said:
I am curious where the 61 million dollar operating profit came from?
[post="285203"][/post]​

There was indeed an operating profit reported for the 2Q05, except it was $41 million. Operating income was $1,945 million & operating expenses were $1.904 million. Net expense of $105 million in the "Other" catagory minus $2 million in income tax benefit resulted in a net loss of $62 million.

2Q05 Report

Jim
 
I guess I find the operating profits at both US and UA a little dubious -- how much of "Other Expense" is made up of items which can fall into either operating expenses or non-operating expense?
 
PineyBob said:
Ever hear of SOX? Or Sarbanes-Oxley? Means that "Creative Accounting" is much more difficult now.
[post="285254"][/post]​
Read the USA Today (8/1/05) money section. the Sarbanes-Oxley you refer to is only as good as the employees that are willing to lose their job by blowing the whistle. The law is their to get the whistle blower their job back, but of the cases since the law when into effect (2002) only 2 people have goten their jobs back. The rest are still spending big dollars to fight their previous employers for the right to go back to work. Bottom line is "Creative Accounting" still exists, maybe not as much but it's still there.
 
robbedagain said:
i', not but why are you?
[post="285211"][/post]​

Oh sir, your devastating witty response has left me reeling!

USAir' sad situation can be attributed to one reason -- cost.

Cost for overpriced bagthrowers in Nowheresville PA and top-heavy mgmt residing in a premium office market becomes unbearable when you lose the select customer-choking fares in select traffic lanes.

You can have silly amounts of revenue but if your costs are also silly then you're going down.

GM much?
 
Former ModerAAtor said:
I guess I find the operating profits at both US and UA a little dubious -- how much of "Other Expense" is made up of items which can fall into either operating expenses or non-operating expense?
[post="285235"][/post]​


But AMR would never dream of doing something like you suggest UAL and US are doing? ;)

DC
 
UALDC737 said:
But AMR would never dream of doing something like you suggest UAL and US are doing? ;)

DC
[post="285322"][/post]​


Whoa! A Texas based company doing something dubiuos, Dubya? :lol:
 
whatkindoffreshhell said:
Oh sir, your devastating witty response has left me reeling!

USAir' sad situation can be attributed to one reason -- cost.

Cost for overpriced bagthrowers in Nowheresville PA and top-heavy mgmt residing in a premium office market becomes unbearable when you lose the select customer-choking fares in select traffic lanes.

You can have silly amounts of revenue but if your costs are also silly then you're going down.

GM much?
[post="285317"][/post]​
ok now the question is since usair has brought the costs down more than any other carrier, can you explain why the loss was roughly 62mill i am aware that the oil is 60 plus a barrel but what are the other tributes to it ?
 
5 managers running a hanger that is operating at 60% of capacity? I still get a chuckle out of the fact in Pit they closed 2 hangers cut the manpower yet still created positions and retained all of the managers? This is just one area in one department, I'm sure many other area of waste in all departments!!!
 
Companies being merged no longer have to prove anything to Wall Street touts. The last quarter and the current one will be full of write-offs US was reluctant to take when appearances mattered (pre-merger).

Notice that on the pro-forma balance sheet for the new company, US's $2.5 billion in good will vanishes. That will appear as a loss in the final US statement. The good will should have vanished years ago when it became apparent that the system would not produce a profit. That would have looked bad for past managements and ruined bonus plans, however; so, the write-downs were never taken.
 
What are you talking about? They needed to keep those valuable highly skilled supervisors and managers in the hangars.. Had to.. All the planners to. Get rid of 4 tracks of maintenance but not one planner and only 3 supervisors.. Amazing!

The awesome ability of Gary, John, Louie and of course the ever great Paul are needed to keep that place running like a swiss watch. I mean where else in the industry could you put together a brain trust such as that?

Presto is a genius. Absolote genius. He got the IAM to agree to a contract that he hand crafted with Super Al and it contained no mention of management at all. None. Nothing like "Well if we get rid of 1/2 of you then we will get rid of 1/2 of management".. Nope, nothing like that. We will get rid of 2/3 of you and keep ever single planner and manager and supervisor we have and give them all a raise to.

The best part about the planners.. They got a nice fat raise before all this went down then they took a little tiny paycut.. No wonder they are all smiles when you go into work every single day. They sit and do nothing and they get paid mechanic wages... What a deal. I mean not that they don't deserve the money. Look at how they handle FACTS and SINEX.. The skills.. Absolutely amazing. My favorite though is "Hey, whats going on in this area of the aircraft"? I don't know, I am a planner. "Hey, do you have this EO"? NO, I am a planner, I don't even know what an EO is. So what is your job. "I am here to make sure that this seat has a warm body in it and at the end of every check I make sure the box is put in the corner of the office".. Awesome job.

My quote for the day. "I'd rather give up all the planners for 10 utility on every shift."

AP Tech said:
5 managers running a hanger that is operating at 60% of capacity? I still get a chuckle out of the fact in Pit they closed 2 hangers cut the manpower yet still created positions and retained all of the managers? This is just one area in one department, I'm sure many other area of waste in all departments!!!
[post="285343"][/post]​
 

Latest posts

Back
Top