AA March int'l traffic shrinks due to currency headwinds

[WorldTraveler]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/american-airlines-group-reports-march-120000319.html


AA's int'l traffic took a hit in March including an 8.4% reduction in Latin traffic. Atlantic was down 6.4%.


AA's domestic traffic was flat while Pacific traffic grew.

AA says its RASM will be down for the quarter from 1-3% which means AA's revenues will shrink based on lower traffic and RASM.

also

"The Company expects its first quarter 2015 consolidated passenger revenue per available seat mile (PRASM) to be down approximately one to three percent. The recent strengthening of the dollar resulted in higher than anticipated foreign exchange losses"

 

[700UW]

Funny how you leave out this part:
 

American Airlines Group's total revenue passenger miles (RPMs) for the month were 18.4 billion, down 0.6 percent versus March 2014. Total capacity was 22.4 billion available seat miles (ASMs), down 0.9 percent versus March 2014. Total passenger load factor was 82.1 percent for the month of March, up 0.3 percentage points versus March 2014.
 

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

When the goal is to focus on something negative and to sell a certain narrative, well you can't be expected to post the Whole Truth.

 

[1AA]

You two guys need to get a hotel room and settle your differences. You just keep stalking each other on every thread.

 

[eolesen]

Quoting RPMs without ASMs is like quoting a reduction in market cap without also including shares issued and the stock price.

Looks like AA planned correctly -- everywhere they changed capacity, the ASM change was lower than RPM change (which is how it's supposed to work)

UA's results were similar to AA -- larger reduction in ASMs than RPMs, resulting in higher LF's.

DL added a lot of capacity it simply couldn't fill.

 

[FWAAA]

In addition to the drawdown of Venezuela flights, don't forget that AA's capacity and traffic to Latin America were down substantially in the first quarter due to the former US flights to GIG and GRU that flew during last year's first quarter but, of course, not this year. Those flights made no economic sense and thus were terminated shortly after the merger. Same thing later this year when not all of the seasonal CLT-Europe flights will return - traffic and capacity will be down, and that will be a good thing (profit-wise).

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, AA did not plan correctly. their RASM was down as much if not more than DL's.

RASM reflects the total amount of capacity in the market.

DL added capacity and still came out with the same or better RASM.

and DL DID gain market share in the process.

and no UA's results weren't even close to AA's. AA had the largest reduction in capacity in any global region on both an absolute and percent basis - over 5% - and AA did it in both Latin America and the Atlantic.

DL did in fact add traffic in every global region, including domestic, where it added it. DL did not add capacity to the Pacific.

the only thing that is becoming apparent is exactly what I said would happen all along - the combination of AA and US' network would simply not be sustainable and that is exactly what is happening.

AA is pulling capacity out of its system and its RASM is still at the bottom or no better off than other carriers which are adding capacity.

AA's network is shrinking and so are its revenues because AA's RASM growth is negative.

and the toll on AA because of the currency crisis is indeed larger than they predicted and is still taking a big chunk out of AA's Latin America system while DL and UA's Latin systems continue to grow.

When this whole Latin crisis is over, AA will have a much smaller share of the Latin market

AA has also cut its pretax guidance

http://news.investors.com/041015-747281-american-airlines-march-traffic-q1-margin-prasm-outlook.htm?ven=yahoocp&src=aurlled&ven=yahoo

and they still have $650 million in impaired currency in Venezuela.

 

[CMH_GSE]

Quoting RPMs without ASMs is like quoting a reduction in market cap without also including shares issued and the stock price.Looks like AA planned correctly -- everywhere they changed capacity, the ASM change was lower than RPM change (which is how it's supposed to work)UA's results were similar to AA -- larger reduction in ASMs than RPMs, resulting in higher LF's.DL added a lot of capacity it simply couldn't fill.

E, you have to know,
DL totally planned it that way.
Any day now DL will be taking over MIA, just ask WT.

 

[WorldTraveler]

regarding the part about DL adding capacity where AA pulled it, yes that was absolutely a DL strategy. DL has done it in JFK to multiple markets and is doing it in MIA-LAX.

again, DL said its RASM for the quarter was flat on increased capacity while AA's was down on reduced capacity.

DL grew revenue for the quarter while AA shrank.

We don't have UA's RASM number yet to know what they did but their traffic for the quarter was flat, an improvement from the 0.7% reduction for March

not sure DL has a takeover of MIA on the agenda but a nearly 6% reduction in traffic in AA's largest global region, Latin America, has a fairly significant impact on AA's financials. and not just for this quarter.

in fact, killing CLT-GIG and CLT-GRU accounted for less than 1/3 of AA's total capacity cuts in Latin America but AA's own MIA-EZE cuts resulted in larger ASM cuts than both CLT flights and AA deployed all of the capacity cuts from MIA-EZE and more to VCP (Campinas, Brazil, home of Azul) which is clearly doing poorly based on AA's cuts there.

 

[dfw gen]

go away......

 

[FWAAA]

again, DL said its RASM for the quarter was flat on increased capacity while AA's was down on reduced capacity.

No, the bolded portion is false. DL's PRASM shrank by 1.5% for the quarter. Yet another falsehood written by the WorldFabricator. You probably posted this gem in half a dozen posts today. No worries, because the bolded portion is still false.

DL grew revenue for the quarter while AA shrank.

That sentence may very well be accurate, despite the earlier inaccuracies. You know what they say about blind squirrels and broken clocks . . .

in fact, killing CLT-GIG and CLT-GRU accounted for less than 1/3 of AA's total capacity cuts in Latin America but AA's own MIA-EZE cuts resulted in larger ASM cuts than both CLT flights and AA deployed all of the capacity cuts from MIA-EZE and more to VCP (Campinas, Brazil, home of Azul) which is clearly doing poorly based on AA's cuts there.

Again, the bolded portions are false. US cancelled two daily 762s to Brazil compared to one daily 772 AA flight to EZE that did not operate this year in the first quarter. And yet you claim that the one 772 amounted to more capacity than both 762s? Your trousers appear to be smoking, and where there's smoke, there's usually fire.

The second bolded part is also false. AA's VCP capacity was not from the cancelled EZE daytime flight - the VCP capacity was drawn from the reduction in GRU capacity - so VCP represents no additional capacity year over year.
Do you fact check anything at all? Doesn't look like it.

Have you looked into creative writing, as fiction appears to be your forté. Facts - not so much.

 

[WorldTraveler]

pull the schedule data yourself. no, I did not say that the MIA-EZE flight generated more ASMs than the two CLT-Brazil flights. I said that MIA-EZE was the source of the biggest loss of ASMs in AA's Latin region.

A 777 from MIA-EZE generates more ASMs than a 767 from CLT

it doesn't matter where the aircraft came from. AA added more capacity to VCP than it cxld from EZE.

And while AA is chasing competitors in a market that is seeing huge fare erosion already, AA's move made even less sense.... which is why AA has pulled back.

How about you major in reading and accepting the reality of what I have noted.... AA is still the 3rd largest US int'l airline, AA's int'l network is shrinking while DL and UA are maintaining or holding their own, and DL and UA have narrowed the gap between AA and themselves in Latin America while AA is far further from DL and UA in their largest regions (Atlantic and Pacific).

And DL and UA are larger in the stated markets where AA said it would grow its int'l network- NYC and ORD - and DL and UA are growing their network faster than AA.

The merger produced a very large domestic airline which AA is not growing while DL and WN are both focusing on domestic growth. DL and UA are focusing on int'l growth with DL the most.

AA's revenue is going down as the reality of the market is sinking in and they have to slash capacity.

and AA's cost advantage because of fuel is being swallowed up by lower revenue and merger related costs. and AA still has $650M worth of impaired currency to deal with even as other carriers are winding down their fuel hedge losses.
those are indeed facts - and ones that I told you months if not years ago that would happen.

 

[FWAAA]

pull the schedule data yourself. no, I did not say that the MIA-EZE flight generated more ASMs than the two CLT-Brazil flights. I said that MIA-EZE was the source of the biggest loss of ASMs in AA's Latin region.

No, that's not what you said. You said "AA's own MIA-EZE cuts resulted in larger ASM cuts than both CLT flights." Now, when called on your fraud, you claim that you meant to say "either," instead of "both."

You wrote "both," and the fact is, the cancellation of the two CLT-Brazil flights caused a larger ASM decline than the one daily MIA-EZE flight.

Learn how to write, and you won't post such stupidity in the future. Product of the Georgia public schools?

A 777 from MIA-EZE generates more ASMs than a 767 from CLT

it doesn't matter where the aircraft came from. AA added more capacity to VCP than it cxld from EZE.

Your reading comprehension is particularly bad today. AA's VCP capacity was matched by an equal drawdown of GRU capacity - AA flew three daily flights from MIA to GRU this winter instead of the usual four.

How about you major in reading and accepting the reality of what I have noted.... AA is still the 3rd largest US int'l airline, AA's int'l network is shrinking while DL and UA are maintaining or holding their own, and DL and UA have narrowed the gap between AA and themselves in Latin America while AA is far further from DL and UA in their largest regions (Atlantic and Pacific).

I don't have time to fact-check all of your daily drivel (in more than 40 posts today so far), and I don't agree with anything you write that I haven't independently verified as factual, given your consistent fabrication of facts that paint your former employer in a favorable light.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Again, you are trying desperately to try to nitpick in an effort to avoid admitting that the big picture I have painted is completely right.

AA's MIA-EZE cuts were the LARGEST reduction in AA's Latin system. CLT-GIG and GRU were next.

AA added VCP capacity that amounted to more than what AA reduced from MIA-EZE.

in your mind, you want to believe that AA reduced GRU capacity so it could add VCP but the amount of capacity - regardless of where it came from most closely correlates with MIA-EZE, not GRU.

AA's capacity to GRU actually fell less because of upgraded equipment.


and while you seem to enjoy arguing details, the big picture remains unchanged. AA shrunk its int'l capacity more than DL and UA and still ended up underperforming DL on RASM. When UA comes out with its RASM, we can make that comparison.

As much as it pains you to admit it, I was dead right that the headwinds in Latin America and with currencies - which AA itself said were more than it expected - are offsetting most if not all of the gains that AA had from not hedging fuel.