What's new

2014 Investor Day presentation

LDVAviation said:
If Delta bussed passengers to T1, Delta would have to pay for the bus service itself.  All for one gate?  (AA's bus service is partially subsided by LAWA because AA moved the Eagle ops to accommodate LAWA's capital plans.)
I assume you mean T2 not T1.....but yes. I fail to see your point here.
 
LDVAviation said:
If Delta started using gates at TBIT, it would have no gating priority.  Even for AA, the connector is convenient only because AA is getting gating priority, with almost all of its flight boarding at gates at or near the core.
You have no idea if they would or wouldn't be able to get priority space or not. I know in your dream world LAWA is going to tell Delta to piss off, but if Delta were to pony up they would have the ability to get rights to TBIT gates just as carriers moving over from T2 (for example) have been. Generally they would not get rights for domestic gating at TBIT but Delta has enough flying to Mexico and SYD/HND/NRT that it would free up a little bit of space. 
 
 
LDVAviation said:
Delta would not get similar treatment.  It is a long walk to either end of TBIT West, especially if you are starting out in T5.
And its a long walk from TBIT to T6. That is LAX now. 
 
 
LDVAviation said:
LAWA calculated the distance of the various bus routes.  Yes, the T4 to Eagle route was the longest.  But the T5 to T2 route would be longer.
If it would be it wouldn't be by much. 
 
LDVAviation said:
AS has a lease on T6 until 2022.  It isn't going anywhere.
nothing is ever final. If AA wants to pay and can find a place to put AS for example they will move. Hell AA could get control of T5 if they wanted........
 
The price to pay wouldn't be reasonable but everything is for sale. 
 
LDVAviation said:
Why do you think AA will give up control of the four gates at T6?
because they have to? They don't have a lease with LAWA for those gates. They become open gates once united lease ends on T6. 
 
LDVAviation said:
This was not subject to renegotiation with United as you indicated.  At which point, one of the options was to retire the gates because LAWA needed the gate numbers elsewhere, e.g., MSC.  Putting AA there for the next couple of years is consistent with what LAWA eventually wants to do with the gates and AA's own growth plans.)
United has the right right to renew. It also has provisions in its new lease with LAWA that would extend its leases on T6.  
 
LDVAviation said:
There are NO plans for Terminal 9.  (Those were the plans of a previous regime.)  There are plans for a Terminal 0, next to Terminal 1.  The most likely beneficiary of that terminal is Southwest, not Delta.
I have the plans on my computer. They might be old but there was at one time plans for such. 
 
 
LDVAviation said:
(By the way, in bankruptcy, Delta ceded the master leases to its hangars/toolshops to LAWA.  As a result, Delta does not have any leverage with respect to what happens on land occupied by its hangar complex.)
Delta renegotiated its lease for the GSE shop. They also agreed to lease the Western widebody hangar on a per use bases. 
 
since then Delta/LAWA have reworked the lease giving Delta a little bit more control over the widebody hangar. 
 
The lowbay hangar lease I believe is with United now. 
 
Delta also leases the little tower over by the tent hangars. 
 
Of course it sounds like all of this is about to make a some what big change once United moves over to the CO hangars. (and more importantly Delta runs out of room to park 330s/777s inside the TWA hangar.) 
LDVAviation said:
In the short term, Delta cannot go back to parking at its hangar.  That was only a temporary exemption.  With the NIMBY's snooping around as a result of the Ontario lawsuit, LAWA is likely to play things very close to the vest for a while.
LAWA has given it to them twice. You might be right, but again. You don't know this. Want it? sure Know it? nah. 
 
 
 
Kev3188 said:
I'm not familiar with the ONT lawsuit. What did/does it entail?
 
 
Dream idea to get more money for LAX upgrades that the government took hook line and sinker. (from what I remember LAWA basically said they would try to cap capacity at LAX and move flights out to ONT.) 
 
back at LAX, it is impossible to know what kind of deal DL or any other carrier could negotiate because nothing has been made public.

No one has ever doubted AA will grow at LAX.

What the AA fanbase seems hellbent on pushing is that AA will be able to snag gates that other carriers cannot.

there is no known public efforts by other carriers to acquire more space. Maybe they will, maybe every other carrier besides AA will be comfortable with the size of operation they have.

the much larger point is that nearly every major market in which AA could expand from LAX is already highly competitive. The notion that AA is going to grow its market share by quantum leaps at industry comparable revenue is simply not realistic given the amount of competition that exists at LAX.

Further, all of the initiatives that AA people are counting on are years from reality. What they can do now is run large RJs out of the Eagle's nest and add a few flights elsewhere but they also are accommodating US' flights..

AA might gain a major competitive advantage in size but it is not really likely given other carriers' ability to also grow as well as the highly competitive nature of LAX.
 
at least AA has a fan base unlike the single cheerleader who trashes AA at every turn and writes fantasy statements that they can't remember - like the most recent one that Parker would never give anything to the FA's.
 
you can believe that... but a real fanbase should produce industry leading revenue - but it is DL that does that.
 
let's see  you almost to 15,100 in posts only 9 more to go - you go girl
 
So how long post BK did it take DL to get there?  If I'm not mistaken AA and DL's revenue are just about the same - so not sure there is much difference here - but once again - don't let the actual facts get in the way of fantasy facts
 
Knowing you struggle with math - the difference in revenue is 0.00350121%
 
That would be less than 1% - therefore anyone who actually knows financials would say that is an immaterial difference
 
Tough one isn't
 
DL changed its tax accounting this year - 6 years after BK.

no, the difference in revenue is not that small.

you would do well to actually read and compare financial statements based on what they say, not what you want them to say

if AA was delivering comparable financial results and had a comparable balance sheet to DL, there is no reason why they shouldn't have a market cap as high as DL.

but they aren't and don't.
 
Yes that's right DL has $51b in assets vs $44b in assets for AA so DL - so AA is producing more revenue per assets
 
In case you are struggling again

AA return on assets is 7.59%

DL return on assets is 6.17%

I know you will be unhinged now as thanks to you claiming DL is outperforming AA the stats prove otherwise
 
Bwahahahaha having the Amazing Kreskin of airline industry "analysis" lecture others on how to read a financial statement - that's it, that's today's quotable!
 
here's what AA said about income taxes in its 3rd quarter 2014 SEC filing.

9. Income Taxes
As a result of the Merger, US Airways Group and its subsidiaries are included in the AAG consolidated federal and state income tax returns for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014. The Merger resulted in a statutory "ownership change" on December 9, 2013, as defined in Section 382, which limits the Company's future ability to utilize NOLs generated before the ownership change and certain subsequently recognized "built-in" losses and deductions, if any, existing as of the date of the ownership change. The general limitation rules for a debtor in a bankruptcy case are liberalized where an ownership change occurs upon emergence from bankruptcy. The Company's ability to utilize any new NOLs arising after the ownership change is not affected.
At December 31, 2013, the Company had approximately $10.6 billion of gross NOLs to reduce future federal taxable income, the majority of which are expected to be available for use in 2014, subject to the Section 382 limitation described above. The federal NOLs will expire beginning in 2022 if unused. These NOLs include an unrealized tax benefit of $762 million related to the implementation of share-based compensation accounting guidance that will be recorded in equity when realized. The Company also had approximately $4.7 billion of gross NOLs to reduce future state taxable income at December 31, 2013, which will expire in years 2014 through 2033 if unused. At December 31, 2013, the Company had an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) credit carryforward of approximately $370 million available for federal income tax purposes, which is available for an indefinite period. The Company's net deferred tax assets, which include the NOLs, are subject to a full valuation allowance. At December 31, 2013, the federal and state valuation allowances were $4.6 billion and $415 million, respectively. In accordance with GAAP, utilization of the NOLs after December 9, 2013 will result in a corresponding decrease in the valuation allowance and offset the Company's tax provision dollar for dollar.
The Company provides a valuation allowance for deferred tax assets when it is more likely than not that some portion, or all of its deferred tax assets, will not be realized. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon the generation of future taxable income (primarily reversals of deferred tax liabilities) during the periods in which those temporary differences will become deductible. The Company considers many factors in evaluating the realizability of its deferred tax assets including risks associated with merger integration as well as other factors, which continue to be affected by conditions beyond the Company's control, such as the condition of the economy, the level and volatility of fuel prices and travel demand.
For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company recorded a special $8 million and $22 million, respectively, non-cash deferred income tax provision related to certain indefinite-lived intangible assets. In addition, for the 2014 nine month period, the Company recorded a special $330 million non-cash tax provision related to the settlement of fuel hedges discussed below and $8 million of tax expense principally related to certain states and countries where NOLs were limited or unavailable to be used.
During the second quarter of 2014, the Company sold its portfolio of fuel hedging contracts that were scheduled to settle on or after June 30, 2014. In connection with this sale, the Company recorded a special non-cash tax provision of $330 million in the statement of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 that reverses the non-cash tax provision which was recorded in OCI, a subset of stockholders’ equity, principally in 2009. This provision represents the tax effect associated with gains recorded in OCI principally in 2009 due to a net increase in the fair value of the Company’s fuel hedging contracts. In accordance with GAAP, the Company retained the $330 million tax provision in OCI until the last contract was settled or terminated.

The Company did not record an income tax provision in the 2013 third quarter. For the nine months ended September 30, 2013, the Company recorded an income tax benefit of approximately $22 million as a result of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.


this is what DL said


Income Taxes

We released substantially all of our valuation allowance against our net deferred tax assets on December 31, 2013. We project that our annual effective tax rate for 2014 will be approximately 38%. In certain interim periods, we may have adjustments to our net deferred tax assets as a result of changes in prior year estimates and tax laws enacted during the period, which will impact the effective tax rate for that interim period. At September 30, 2014 , we had over $13 billion of U.S. federal pre-tax net operating loss carryforwards, which do not begin to expire until 2023. Accordingly, we believe we will not pay any cash federal income taxes during the next several years.


DL recorded a $222 million income tax provision for the 3rd quarter and $841 million year to date.

AA said
The Company did not record an income tax provision in the 2013 third quarter
 
wait now we are back to taxes since that claim of revenue performance is now debunked, then the balance sheet performance was debunked
 
got it
 
so now you are saying all this time from DL's exit from BK it was fine for them to use your term "account" for taxes - so let's see it was good for DL to do it for all those years and now you are trashing AA because they are doing it
 
can you say double standard or should we say double standard
 
Let's face it - we now know AA is outperforming on ROA, taxes and they are equal on revenue
 
Thanks for pointing out all these pros of AA
 
There's a simple-minded troll over on Flyertalk who forcefully argues that when comparing results of two companies, the only relevant measure is GAAP net income, and that only mentally-challenged individuals would exclude special items.

In that simpleton's world, the net income at Southwest isn't all that impressive because it pays roughly 35% of its income in taxes, as WN doesn't possess the billions of dollars in loss carryforwards that AA, DL and UA all possess.

That short-bus rider further posts that AA's recent results aren't very impressive because in his sub-standard brain, excluding such things as bankruptcy expenses and one-time writedowns during Ch 11 are merely subterfuges to attempt to sugar-coat AA's lackluster profits in 2013 and 2014 (which far exceed the profits of UA in 2013 and 2014, the airline for which that mental midget has a perpetual hard-on).

Specific to this discussion, Delta didn't pay any tax. Nor did UA or AA. I am not a CPA and have not fully investigated (nor do I understand) why Delta changed its tax accounting at the end of 2013. What I do know is that the entries for federal income taxes on DL's income statements in 2014 are an accounting entry only - they don't represent real expense. Just like the mark-to-market entries for fuel hedges that are currently out of the money but don't actually settle until future periods.

Delta's pre-tax income thus far in 2014, excluding special items, exceeds that of new AA and greatly exceeds that of UA.
 
you tried to debunk the claims of revenue performance - but you failed.

the tax issues are clear from each company's financial statements... you are the one that wants to argue it - all the while worrying about how many post I write.

If AA was outperforming DL across the board, then their market cap would reflect it.

Wall Street DOES NOT view AA as a more valuable company than DL.

well said, FWAAA.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top