Some background: When AA filed for bankruptcy protection on November 29, 2011, analysts like Jamie Baker and others predicted (incorrectly) that AA would shrink by 10% or more while in Ch 11 and that the other airlines would pick up the share (and revenue). There were even some analysts predicting 15% or more shrinkage at AA.
Jamie Baker's 10% prediction: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/30/us-americanairlines-idUSTRE7AT2OD20111130
Turns out that the analysts' predictions were wrong and management did not take their advice, as AA shrank a percent or two during its bankruptcy yet increased its unit revenues ($$ per seat mile) and its total overall revenues ($$) substantially prior to the merger with US.
In the months leading up to the merger, the analysts (who really wanted the merger to happen) were practically unanimous in their view that AA was too small to survive on its own against the much larger merged UA-CO and DL-NW, and thus, AA's only hope was the merger with US. Prior AA management had a plan to grow AA independently, which would have forced other airlines to eventually reduce capacity (or lose tons of money). The analyst community was again unanimously opposed to the AA plan because that would have hurt UA-CO and DL-NW and US as lower-cost (post-bankruptcy) AA would have grown and the others (being higher cost) would have had to shrink. That would have hurt the stock prices of the others, and the analysts didn't want that.
So now that AA has emerged from bankruptcy in a shotgun marriage to US, and is now substantially larger than UA and slightly larger than DL, the analysts have once again begun beating the "AA has to shrink for the good of all" drum:
Sure, the industry would benefit if AA were to shrink. Why stop at 5%? Why not call for a 25% or 50% reduction in AA capacity? That would help the industry (UA, DL, WN and the rest) a lot more than if AA shrank just 5%.
The quoted analyst-doofuses omitted to mention that AA did nothing but shrink between 2001 and 2011, having reduced the mainline fleet by about 350 planes, and it shed tens of thousands of employees. Sure, the mega-mergers of the other airlines resulted in capacity reductions, but AA reduced capacity multiple times by huge amounts despite not being in bankruptcy, all while fuel costs skyrocketed. AA's reductions were backfilled, of course, by lower-cost airlines like B6, WN, VX and even post-merger DL.
In 2012-14, while AA was improving its yield, unit revenue and overall revenues, UA was melting down, and began to shrink. In 2012-13, AA prospered at UA's expense. The reasons for UA's troubles included the disastrous switch to Shares from Sabre and the resulting operational meltdowns that followed.
Low-cost airlines tend to grow, and that growth further lowers their unit costs (spread over more seat-miles). Higher cost airlines ten to shrink, ending up in a vicious circle of shrinking and higher costs, resulting, eventually, in bankruptcy. AA has a short window of lower costs courtesy of its Ch 11 filing. Even after the merger, AA has to grow to fill the holes in the network that US didn't bring to the table (Asia, Latin America, LAX, etc).
WN has announced plans to grow by about 8% this year and next year, far above the GDP growth. DL is growing. And yet, here are the two-faced analysts who once again think that it's AA's time to take one for the team and shrink, so "other airlines" could benefit. In 2011, they incorrectly predicted that AA would shrink. They got that one wrong. In 2013, they said that AA was "too small" to survive on its own and only a merger with US could save AA. They got their wish. And now, with very low fuel prices, AA has to surrender to DL and WN, which are both growing rapidly. Uh-huh. Stock-pushing whores.
Obviously, all mergers do result in excess capacity being withdrawn, eventually. But 2015 is very different from any of the years since 2001, and that's the fact that fuel prices have collapsed, and thanks to Parker's fear of (and prior incompetence at) fuel hedging, AA has by far the lowest fuel costs this year. DL, UA and WN all have some money-losing hedges that absorb some of their savings from lower fuel prices, but AA's advantage will be short-lived, as those other airlines are unwinding the losing hedges and pre-paying to get out from under them. By the end of the year, all airlines will have the same fuel costs.
As posted elsewhere, Parker promised the various Attorneys General in the affected states that their state's hubs would not see drastic service reductions for at least three years. That period ends on December 9, 2016. After that, more hub rationalization could occur, but for now, change has to be slow and incremental.
In a period of very low fuel prices (compared to the previous 10 years), AA should be the one taking one for the team and shrinking? I expect the chorus of securities "analysts" to keep singing from this page in the coming days and weeks.
Jamie Baker's 10% prediction: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/30/us-americanairlines-idUSTRE7AT2OD20111130
Turns out that the analysts' predictions were wrong and management did not take their advice, as AA shrank a percent or two during its bankruptcy yet increased its unit revenues ($$ per seat mile) and its total overall revenues ($$) substantially prior to the merger with US.
In the months leading up to the merger, the analysts (who really wanted the merger to happen) were practically unanimous in their view that AA was too small to survive on its own against the much larger merged UA-CO and DL-NW, and thus, AA's only hope was the merger with US. Prior AA management had a plan to grow AA independently, which would have forced other airlines to eventually reduce capacity (or lose tons of money). The analyst community was again unanimously opposed to the AA plan because that would have hurt UA-CO and DL-NW and US as lower-cost (post-bankruptcy) AA would have grown and the others (being higher cost) would have had to shrink. That would have hurt the stock prices of the others, and the analysts didn't want that.
So now that AA has emerged from bankruptcy in a shotgun marriage to US, and is now substantially larger than UA and slightly larger than DL, the analysts have once again begun beating the "AA has to shrink for the good of all" drum:
http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2015/05/21/american-airlines-what-did-you-expect-them-to-say/?mod=yahoobarrons&ru=yahooOf all the legacy carriers, we think American Airlines is under the most pressure to cut domestic capacity, and has the biggest opportunity to do so. Major airline mergers have typically resulted in a ~10% capacity cut relative to industry including US Air with America West announced in 2005 (-11%), Delta with Northwest in 2008 (-6%), United with Continental in 2010 (-19%) and Southwest (LUV) with Airtran in 2010 (-5%). Lower capacity has generally corresponded with unit revenue outperformance, but AAL has not taken much capacity out of its network since its merger (-1%). We think American Airlines and the other airlines would benefit from a ~5% domestic capacity cut at American Airlines.
Sure, the industry would benefit if AA were to shrink. Why stop at 5%? Why not call for a 25% or 50% reduction in AA capacity? That would help the industry (UA, DL, WN and the rest) a lot more than if AA shrank just 5%.
The quoted analyst-doofuses omitted to mention that AA did nothing but shrink between 2001 and 2011, having reduced the mainline fleet by about 350 planes, and it shed tens of thousands of employees. Sure, the mega-mergers of the other airlines resulted in capacity reductions, but AA reduced capacity multiple times by huge amounts despite not being in bankruptcy, all while fuel costs skyrocketed. AA's reductions were backfilled, of course, by lower-cost airlines like B6, WN, VX and even post-merger DL.
In 2012-14, while AA was improving its yield, unit revenue and overall revenues, UA was melting down, and began to shrink. In 2012-13, AA prospered at UA's expense. The reasons for UA's troubles included the disastrous switch to Shares from Sabre and the resulting operational meltdowns that followed.
Low-cost airlines tend to grow, and that growth further lowers their unit costs (spread over more seat-miles). Higher cost airlines ten to shrink, ending up in a vicious circle of shrinking and higher costs, resulting, eventually, in bankruptcy. AA has a short window of lower costs courtesy of its Ch 11 filing. Even after the merger, AA has to grow to fill the holes in the network that US didn't bring to the table (Asia, Latin America, LAX, etc).
WN has announced plans to grow by about 8% this year and next year, far above the GDP growth. DL is growing. And yet, here are the two-faced analysts who once again think that it's AA's time to take one for the team and shrink, so "other airlines" could benefit. In 2011, they incorrectly predicted that AA would shrink. They got that one wrong. In 2013, they said that AA was "too small" to survive on its own and only a merger with US could save AA. They got their wish. And now, with very low fuel prices, AA has to surrender to DL and WN, which are both growing rapidly. Uh-huh. Stock-pushing whores.
Obviously, all mergers do result in excess capacity being withdrawn, eventually. But 2015 is very different from any of the years since 2001, and that's the fact that fuel prices have collapsed, and thanks to Parker's fear of (and prior incompetence at) fuel hedging, AA has by far the lowest fuel costs this year. DL, UA and WN all have some money-losing hedges that absorb some of their savings from lower fuel prices, but AA's advantage will be short-lived, as those other airlines are unwinding the losing hedges and pre-paying to get out from under them. By the end of the year, all airlines will have the same fuel costs.
As posted elsewhere, Parker promised the various Attorneys General in the affected states that their state's hubs would not see drastic service reductions for at least three years. That period ends on December 9, 2016. After that, more hub rationalization could occur, but for now, change has to be slow and incremental.
In a period of very low fuel prices (compared to the previous 10 years), AA should be the one taking one for the team and shrinking? I expect the chorus of securities "analysts" to keep singing from this page in the coming days and weeks.