4Q Net Loss $541 Million
- Thread starter BoeingBoy
- Start date
28L_or_10R?
Veteran
- Apr 11, 2008
- 619
- 216
At 9:40 am the price per share has dropped a very small percentage and seems to be moving back up. This loss must not be a surprise to anyone.
28L_or_10R?
Veteran
- Apr 11, 2008
- 619
- 216
It actually beat estimates. It is now up over 2%. If we would have bought at the open, we would have made a little money. Crude oil prices dropping drastically this morning didn't hurt, either.
In no sense of the word is US performing "better" than DL or UA.
For at least the eight consecutive quarter, US again trails the industry in unit revenue improvement. Yields actually fell in the fourth quarter and rose only 1.7% for the year. PRASM was up 1.6% for the quarter and 2.9% for the whole year. Every other legacy airline (plus WN and B6) outperformed US on those metrics.
vantheman63
Senior
And that will continue to happen...deterioration of the yields...since US has more or less kicked high yield and VFFers to the curb...and just taken the product to such lows, no one would actually "pay" top dollar for it...
I still love the idea of having to pony up $1,000 for a transcon, sit in the back and pay for your coffee and/or water.
For the love of God...how someone in Tempe doesn't see that disconnect will be like writing Chinese...soemthing I'll never be able to understand...
Harry Callahan
Veteran
If these idiots in Tempe would just wake up & see how much high dollar business they are driving away with this stupid crap instead of the $2.00 per drink they make & that's if they even sell one.
Kind of disturbing that total revenue was down that much while bringing in more that 100 m in revenue from added charges.
Looks like the people that kept us in business during the other downturns(like Art and Bob) have left us with the priceline crowd. Going to get those F/As out there and sell, sell, sell!
Pacemaker
Senior
- Sep 3, 2002
- 475
- 0
Yields may be deteriorating but we still lead the industry in unit costs.....starting to sound familiar isn't it?
I'm still waiting for Parker or Kirby to have a frank, honest discussion about how, despite merging with a carrier with some of the lowest operating costs in the industry, US Airways somehow managed to inherit the wests' yield structure but none of their cost advantage.
I'm still waiting for Parker or Kirby to have a frank, honest discussion about how, despite merging with a carrier with some of the lowest operating costs in the industry, US Airways somehow managed to inherit the wests' yield structure but none of their cost advantage.
jimntx
Veteran
I suppose that would be true if you just looked at total dollars in the loss column. However, that is a fallacious comparison. AMR, DL, and UAL are much larger than LCC.
Also, you have to look at net losses vs. gross.
AMR had a gross loss of $340 million, but that included $103 million in one time charges related to unexpectedly high pilot retirements. Excluding all special items, the loss was only $214 million.
DL, did in fact have a gross loss of $1.4 billion. However, $900,000,000 of that was a one-time charge related to "employee equity distributions." I'm guessing stock options/distributions. In any case, their net loss was about $340 million.
UAL had $1.3 billion, but excluding special items (in their case, mostly being upside down in fuel hedges), their loss was $547 million.
Take those losses and divide by the number of available seats for sale on all their routes--i.e., loss per available seat mile--and I think all 3 would compare more than favorably with LCC's results. Or, as the financial analysts do, show the loss as dollars per share. The othere still come out pretty good.
When you relate the net profit or loss to total revenue generated, we beat only UA and Air Tran. This per the presentation at the webcast this morning.
Our RASM underperformed the industry, mainly due to our lack of international flying. This is projected to reverse in 2009 due to projections that domestic will outperform international this year as an industry wide standard.
Our RASM underperformed the industry, mainly due to our lack of international flying. This is projected to reverse in 2009 due to projections that domestic will outperform international this year as an industry wide standard.
OP
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #14
Yet WN, with no international flying, saw PRASM increase 11.4%. They managed a yield of 15.19 cents vs 13.36 cents for US.
The moral of the story - an all domestic airline beat US and airlines with greater international exposure beat US, so maybe it's just US and not where it flies.
Jim
Nonsense.
To compare, AA's domestic yield increased 6.2% in the fourth quarter. International yield was up 10.6. US' systemwide mainline yield was down. US is simply unable to charge more for what it does. Other airlines raised yields on domestic and international.
AA's mainline domestic RASM increased 4.8% and international increased 6.3% in the fourth quarter. Other airlines have reported similar results.
The problem facing US isn't a lack of international flying; it's a failure of leadership to figure out how to raise fares on the flying it currently does. Other airlines have increased yields and RASM. US has failed.
