Amercans Business Plan

Buck

Veteran
Contributor
Aug 20, 2002
7,322
1,576
www.fairtax.org
You know, Wall Street really doesn't like the American Airlines business plan

American Airlines executives have said the carrier plans to increase departures from its five cornerstone cities by 20 percent over the next five years.

Some ailrine analysts don't like this idea, if the words "cancerous," "destabilize" and "toxic" would indicate such. The reason, simply, is that anything that adds capacity to the industry could hurt pricing and profits.

"We view AMR's restructuring plan, founded on the idea of 'growth and renewal,' as unlikely to succeed and worse yet, potentially a cancerous presence to an industry that has reformed itself to respectability on the premise of one key theme: capacity control," airline analyst Hunter Keay of Wolfe Trahan wrote in a report Friday.

In a March 6 report that pondered a possible US Airways-AMR merger, airline analyst Daniel McKenzie of Rodman & Renshaw had unkind words about AMR's plans.

"Naturally, we haven't seen AMR's complete restructuring plan, but based on what we have seen, we're concluding AMR's growth of 20% over 5 years is enough to destabilize industry pricing (e.g. capacity drives pricing; and growth + highly unstable & presumably higher fuel prices = toxic combination)," McKenzie wrote.

The 20 percent number came out Feb. 1 when American Airlines outlined all the changes it wants to reorganize its affairs.

Another new factoid emerged in passing on March 16 when AMR/American chairman and CEO Tom Horton spoke on the pilots' hotline. In talking about American's airplane orders, Horton mentioned AMR's order for 16 Boeing 777-300ERs.

Sixteen? The last public disclosure in AMR's 2011 10-K, released Feb. 15, was that American had ordered 10 of those aircraft, not 16.

When those airplanes begin arriving in late 2012, they'll be the biggest aircraft in American's fleet.

Hunter Keay also caught that update on the 777-300s. He followed up his above comment about the importance of capacity control for airlines with this:

"AMR's plan flies in the face of this basic principle, and stubborn adherence to it represents a serious threat to slowly improving industry fundamentals, in our view.

"Despite rising fuel prices AMR is now increasing its capital commitments even further (note AMR is taking its first B777-300ER this year, and we believe AMR does not have financing in place).

"Though airlines have historically been susceptible to non-free market forces (too many people willing to give airlines money), the U.S. airline industry is still a deregulated one. Without a rational business plan in place, suboptimal business plans will still fail.

"But we fear what might happen in the interim while AMR fights an uphill battle and claws for market share."
 
That horton doesn't have his plan completely thought out is no surprise to anyone. I guess that's the consultants job.
As for AA's BK effects on the industry. What does he care? Get the costs as low as possible and make the other carriers match it. Why else would he be hacking so deep.
Matching the other carrier's costs for the survival of the industry doesnt seem to be the goal.
 
Here's the link to the published article posted in the first post:

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/03/you-know-wall-street-really-do.html

Who cares what others think about AA's plan.

While the industry was reeling in the wake of September 11, 2001, CO used its bankrtupcy-lowered wages to its advantage, taking delivery of dozens of growth airplanes while other airlines struggled with bankruptcy.

Except for the bankruptcies, same story at WN. Same story at B6. Same story at FL. Same story at NK. Same story at F9.

It's an old story. Low-cost providers expand. High-cost providers contract.

Of course the Wall St "analysts" don't like Horton's plan; AA's plan to expand (once it becomes a lower-cost provider) threatens to cheapen (or destroy) the investments in higher-cost providers. Boo frickin hoo.

About this tidbit:

Another new factoid emerged in passing on March 16 when AMR/American chairman and CEO Tom Horton spoke on the pilots' hotline. In talking about American's airplane orders, Horton mentioned AMR's order for 16 Boeing 777-300ERs.

Sixteen? The last public disclosure in AMR's 2011 10-K, released Feb. 15, was that American had ordered 10 of those aircraft, not 16.
Either Horton mis-spoke or AA has converted its six remaining orders for 777-223ERs to -323ERs in the past several weeks.

Only problem with that is that AA hasn't asked the bankruptcy court for approval to do that - leading me to think that Horton mis-spoke (and was talking about the 10 77Ws on order plus the six remaining 77Es on order (for delivery 2013-16).
 
It's an old story. Low-cost providers expand. High-cost providers contract.

Of course the Wall St "analysts" don't like Horton's plan; AA's plan to expand (once it becomes a lower-cost provider) threatens to cheapen (or destroy) the investments in higher-cost providers. Boo frickin hoo.

That is the failure in the plan to begin with! In this industry the Big (Expanded) does not have any long lived advantage over anyone, the end result is just further destruction of jobs and invesments.

Nobody is getting a lower cost advantage in this industry.

There is no limit to the number of trips to Bankruptcy Court available for the "high-cost provider" to quickly match the "low-cost provider" changes. And another merger or two in the industry creates Big and Expanded easier and faster than this plan does. Just because some arrogant fool wants to once again challenge this law of averages to save the company name or save face, does not make it sound business.

That in it's self is the problem and I doubt that any consultant or business leader with a college degree has ever been given the required training/education on how to succeed in such a business environment. The analysts seem to know that arrogant fools with their pride ranking more important than sound reason in this industry is not a plan likely to succeed.

You don't agree that MERGE would be an easier and softer way to bigger, but AA is too arrogant to admit they are the one's lacking in judgement and ability in this industry?

AA simply wants to lower cost and then merge into the lower cost. Wont work, employees will kill the bird first. I believe the alternative plan will be the sound plan.
 
What is your position on foreign ownership?

Can IAG, the owner of BA buy in, I think at 25% and create a expanded carrier?

I also saw a reference to a carrier displayed as JL, would that be JAL?
 
Of course the Wall St "analysts" don't like Horton's plan; AA's plan to expand (once it becomes a lower-cost provider) threatens to cheapen (or destroy) the investments in higher-cost providers. Boo frickin hoo.

About this tidbit:
The reason why analysts don't like the plan is not only because it would destroy industry revenue but because it would destroy AA's revenue... we wouldn't be talking about AA in BK if they had pulled capacity out a couple years ago - but they didn't because they couldn't get the costs out. That is why AA's revenue performance has trailed the industry for several years. Analysts are understandably concerned if AA adds capacity back into the industry that cannot be used to provide acceptable revenues.
.
And of course the whole notion that AA is going to get costs down to levels significantly below its competitors.... AA's labor cost cuts as I have noted before will get AA's costs down at best on par with DL and WN who are the lowest cost large airline producers in the US. But since both have engaged in their own cost cutting moves, the likelihood that AA will surpass those carriers in cost cuts is highly unlikely.
Which means that the analysts indeed have a right to be concerned that AA is building its business case around adding capacity that cannot be priced to meet costs significantly below its competitors - which means it will not only depress AA's revenues but the rest of the industry as well.
.
And even if that weren't the case, the industry is pretty tightly financed by a few large entities, Boeing and Airbus included. Expecting A and B to provide financing for 450 new AA jets and then use them to destroy their competition is not the answer the creditor's committee want to hear.
It's one thing for WN with the benefit of its own fuel hedging plans to have cut fares significantly and had a couple year run at growth but it is quite another to expect creditors of a BK company to sign onto the same plan when they are taking it on the chin to get AA back on its feet.

Buck,
the issue is not 25% or not.. the issue is that anyone that invests money in AA with the expectation of growing the airline is going to find resistance from the creditors - who will provide the up or down on AMR's emergence.
Look to any other BK case and you will see that no other airline has ever emerged by acquiring more assets to grow its way out of BK.
The closest example of an airline that grew its way in BK and coming out was DL - and they grew because the REALLOCATED existing assets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Q: Your reorganization plan envisions $2 billion in cost saving and $1 billion in extra revenue every year. Some analysts are skeptical about the $1 billion in new revenue. Is it real?


Mr. Horton :


A: I think it's very real. It's really about being able to tailor what airplanes we're flying to what markets and there's a lot of revenue there. We are also going to fully capitalize on the joint business agreements that we've put in place over the last couple of years (with British Airways and Japan Airlines and a pending deal with Qantas). And then of course we would foresee more flexibility to code-share (work together and share revenue with other U.S. airlines). All those things taken together add up to a lot of revenue.
 
Q: Your reorganization plan envisions $2 billion in cost saving and $1 billion in extra revenue every year. Some analysts are skeptical about the $1 billion in new revenue. Is it real?


Mr. Horton :


A: I think it's very real. It's really about being able to tailor what airplanes we're flying to what markets and there's a lot of revenue there. We are also going to fully capitalize on the joint business agreements that we've put in place over the last couple of years (with British Airways and Japan Airlines and a pending deal with Qantas). And then of course we would foresee more flexibility to code-share (work together and share revenue with other U.S. airlines). All those things taken together add up to a lot of revenue.


Same tired and worn out song and dance, different day. No wonder Wall St is balking. These guys cannot manage their way out of a paper bag. Note to self: keep actively looking for gainful employment elsewhere.
 
Buck,
the issue is not 25% or not.. the issue is that anyone that invests money in AA with the expectation of growing the airline is going to find resistance from the creditors - who will provide the up or down on AMR's emergence.
Look to any other BK case and you will see that no other airline has ever emerged by acquiring more assets to grow its way out of BK.
The closest example of an airline that grew its way in BK and coming out was DL - and they grew because the REALLOCATED existing assets.

The issue could be as finite as the One World membership. The expansion of the AA/BA code share with India and now into Germany I believe. I guess BA can "rescue" AA and not purchase any portion of them. I am curious if JAL is going to attempt to help AA for AA's gesture in the past.
 
AA and BA obviously want to continue to grow their relationship - they started later and there are proven benefits to joint ventures including to countries like India which was a joint venture destination between KL and NW years ago.
.
You are right that BA could find that there simply is not a financial justification to an investment in AA in order to increase their revenues beyond what they could get in a joint venture with AA - or anyone else. BA is not going to invest in AA unless they believe they will get a decent return on their investment and that ROI will likely come in the form of a larger piece of the TATL market... but they could potentially receive that increased return from someone else without making an investment .
.
Europe and the US are the only two global regions where there are still three relatively comparably sized airlines - and that is the genesis of the 3 alliances. It doesn't mean that every market will have 3 similarly sized players - and in most markets only 2 carriers or alliances at most are of comparable sizes to be competitive.
.
It is also very possible that regulators in both Europe and the US will decide that antitrust immunity and joint ventures are not good for consumers when the industry consolidates into 3 major players on each side of the Atlantic. Europe will lose several airlines this year.. and that will only make the share the big 3 there carry larger. not everyone believes that is a good thing for consumers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
MARCH 28, 2012

About that Wright Amendment....

In its filing describing the competitive pressures that have placed American Airlines in its precarious financial position, the carrier had something to say about the Wright Amendment restrictions which are scheduled to be lifted in 2014.

American said it currently serves 28 non-stop routes out of Dallas/Fort Worth airport that Southwest is unable to serve out of Dallas Love Field because of the Wright Amendment restrictions.

"These are prime candidates for new non-stop service by Southwest when the Wright Amendment restrictions are lifted. In total, these 28 routes accounted for close to $800 million in revenue for American in FYE2011Q3," the filing said.

Rank Destination American FY2011Q3 revenue from DFW (in millions)

1 Orange County, CA $63

2 San Diego, CA $53

3 Philadelphia, PA $50

4 Seattle, WA $49

5 San Jose, CA $42

6 Tampa, FL $41

7 Nashville, TN $39

8 Detroit, MI $34

9 Pittsburgh, PA $32

10 Indianapolis, IN $31

11 Raleigh/Durham, NC $29

12 Columbus, OH $28

13 Portland, OR $27

14 Jacksonville, FL $24

15 Hartford, CT $24

16 Salt Lake City, UT $24

17 Sacramento, CA $24

18 Omaha, NE $23

19 Ontario/San Bernardino, CA $22

20 Cleveland, OH $20

21 Tucson, AZ $17

22 Louisville, KY $17

23 Reno, NV $13

24 West Palm Beach/Palm Beach, FL $12

25 Norfolk, VA $11

26 Ft. Myers, FL $11

27 Greenville/Spartanburg, SC $9

28 Charleston, SC $8

Total $777

-Andrea Ahles

Mar 28, 2012 9:00:00 AM
 

Latest posts