Awa Post Strong 2q Profit

Jul 1, 2005
90
0
Visit site
America West posts strong 2Q profit
America West Airlines Thursday posted stronger than expected second-quarter results, with the airline's earnings per share easily exceeding Wall Street expecations despite a 43 percent gain in fuel prices.




Recent Company News
» America West Airlines
» US Airways
Latest News
» Mobile Mini gains on industry growth
» Meritage sets earnings record
» United flight attendants threaten 'chaos'
» Paradise Valley, Mesa stores to close
» Pulte's quarterly revenue jumps 31 percent
More
» Companies in the News
» People in the News





America West (NYSE: AWA) reported net income of $13.9 million, or 29 cents per share, up from net income of $10.7 million, or 20 cents per share, in the second quarter of 2004.

The consensus of Wall Street analysts was for America West to post earnings per share of 13 cents.

Revenue for the quarter was $833 million, up from $694 million in the year-earlier period.

The net income figures included a $2.7 million unrealized loss associated with the airline's fuel hedging transactions and a $4.3 million loss on the sale and leaseback of an aircraft acquired during the quarter. The second quarter 2004 net income included a $7.2 million unrealized gain on fuel hedging transactions. Excluding the one-time items, the airline said, net income would have been $20.9 million, or 41 cents per share, up from $3.5 million, or 7 cents per share, in 2004.

"We are pleased to report an inprovement in year-over-year earnings despite a 43 percent increase in fuel price," said Doug Parker, America West's chairman and chief executive. "We are particularly pleased with our nearly 12 percent improvement in passenger revenue per available seat mile, which we believe will be the greatest improvement by any major carrier."

During the quarter the airline's load factor, or percentage of seats filled, rose to 82.3 percent from 78.3 percent in 2004. Revenue passenger miles were up 8 percent, while the available seat capacity was up only 2.7 percent in the quarter, helping the load factor increase.

The airline's fuel expenses increase was softened by its hedging of 58 percent of its fuel during the second quarter 2005. America West realized gains of $11.4 million to reduce total fuel expense.

"While we are pleased with our revenue performance, these improvements are not enough to offset the ongoing high price of fuel," said Derek Kerr, America West's chief financial officer. "Fuel expense for the quarter was the company's greatest expense item, exceeding even salaries and benefits for only the second time in company history, and we do not see this trend altering itself in the forseeable future."

Parker said that America West's proposed merger with US Airways (OTCBB: UAIRQ), announced in May, is on track and is expected to close in the fall.

Tempe-based America West serves more than 90 destinations in the U.S., Canada, Mexico and Costa Rica.
 
Bear96 said:
A merger with U should get rid of that "profit" issue ...
[post="284689"][/post]​
With all due respect, A little thing called -Fuel Hedging-is the difference between a loss or a profit last quarter...
 
insp89 said:
With all due respect, A little thing called -Fuel Hedging-is the difference between a loss or a profit last quarter...
[post="284754"][/post]​
Sorry, but I'm not following you.

$14M additional in any expenses (or, for that matter, $14M less in revenue) is also the difference between profit and loss last quarter.
 
insp89 said:
Gee, Thanks for your input, Captain Obvious.... :lol:
[post="284771"][/post]​

It's roughly as useful as your constant mantra of "fuel hedging is the only reason XXXX airline made money."

If US had been smart enough to hedge (or, smart enough to stay out of BK where it is difficult to do so), it would have lost less money. Just like any good airline exec wants the best deal on airplanes, the good ones tend to hedge in order to have predictable fuel costs (and maybe even some savings, to boot).

So what if hedging contributed to the profit. Your point is?
 
ClueByFour said:
It's roughly as useful as your constant mantra of "fuel hedging is the only reason XXXX airline made money."

If US had been smart enough to hedge (or, smart enough to stay out of BK where it is difficult to do so), it would have lost less money. Just like any good airline exec wants the best deal on airplanes, the good ones tend to hedge in order to have predictable fuel costs (and maybe even some savings, to boot).

So what if hedging contributed to the profit. Your point is?
[post="284879"][/post]​
The point is, Captain Obvious, The ONLY difference between a profit or a loss the last quarter for many of the airlines was FUEL HEDGING....

It's rather Obvious...Maybe if it's repeated enough, it will eventually sink in... :blink:
 
insp89 said:
The point is, Captain Obvious, The ONLY difference between a profit or a loss the last quarter for many of the airlines was FUEL HEDGING....
[post="284894"][/post]​
How can you say that? Many things go into an airline's revenue and expenses. How can you say any single factor was "the determinative" one?

For those that eked out a small profit, if expenses were a little higher and/or revenues a little lower, there may not have been a profit. Could be from any of a million things. If average fares were a little lower ... if labor costs were a little higher ... if landing fees were a little higher ... if a fare hike didn't stick ... if if if ... any of those could have made the difference between a profit and a loss.

And even if fuel hedging were the end all and be all, what does it matter? Airlines that due to good management were in a position to hedge, did so. Why is that an "unfair advantage" of some sort, as you seem to imply? How is that any less deserving of credit than any other wise management decision?
 
insp89 said:
The point is, Captain Obvious, The ONLY difference between a profit or a loss the last quarter for many of the airlines was FUEL HEDGING....
[post="284894"][/post]​

And your point is what?

It matters not where the profit comes from.
 
airlinedivalish said:
Why be negative? In order to be successful, you have to think success. Thinking negative surely doesn't help. It just drains your energy.
[post="284985"][/post]​
I'm guessing you're refering to me discussing Fuel hedging as being negative ?

As you can read for yourself, Some will take any opportunity to stab ole Usairways in the back, and twist the knife on the way out...

The point is, when you cut thru all the B.S., Usairways has come a long way and will be very competitive by the time the merger takes place...