Because Of Ted?

Fly

Veteran
Mar 7, 2003
2,644
2
Visit site
No wonder they don't want us to get the loan.


Frontier on course for $5.4M loss
High fuel prices, weak sales could end profitable string

By David Kesmodel, Rocky Mountain News
May 27, 2004

Frontier Airlines is expected today to end a string of three profitable quarters by posting a loss that one analyst said might top $5 million and disappoint Wall Street.

Citing high fuel prices and weaker-than-expected sales, analysts on average have been projecting a net loss of about $1 million, or 3 cents a share, for the three months ended March 31.

J.P. Morgan analyst Jamie Baker said Wednesday he expects Frontier to record a net loss of $5.4 million after reviewing financial results the Denver- based discounter filed recently with the U.S. Department of Transportation.

In the filing, dated May 12, Frontier said its net loss in its fiscal fourth quarter was $5.4 million, or about 14 cents a share.

Baker said "Form 41" Transportation Department filings can differ from results reported under generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, by excluding one- time gains or charges. But he said he didn't expect any one-time items in the results Frontier will post today.

"We believe Frontier's net loss will reach $5.4 million," he said in a report to investors.

Frontier's filings with the Transportation Department have matched results reported under GAAP in seven of the previous eight quarters, he said.

Frontier spokesman Joe Hodas stressed that the numbers submitted to the Transportation Department are "preliminary and unaudited." He wouldn't comment further.

Baker had been projecting that Frontier would break even in the January-March quarter.

A year earlier, the airline recorded a company-record loss of $13 million as it suffered from Denver's worst blizzard in years.

A loss in the latest period would be the fifth in the past nine quarters for Frontier, which ranks second after UAL Corp.'s United Airlines in the number of passengers served at Denver International Airport.

"For a low-cost carrier, Frontier's grasp on profits is elusive at best," Baker said in his report.

Baker said Frontier's results since 2002 compare favorably with those of big hub carriers such as American. But other discounters have done better, with AirTran reporting only one quarterly loss since the beginning of 2002 and JetBlue and Southwest reporting none, he said.

"In the post-9/11 revenue environment, Frontier therefore appears capable of profit only when oil prices are low and/or UAL mismanagement is high," he said.

His comments followed a negative report Friday by Raymond James & Associates analyst Jim Parker.

Parker, who owns Frontier shares, cut his earnings estimates for each quarter of fiscal 2005, which began April 1. For the April-June quarter, he cut projected profits to 5 cents a share from 11 cents.

He said he made the cuts primarily because of the recent rise in crude oil prices to about $41 a barrel. Frontier hedged only 7 percent of its fuel needs for the first six months of 2004.

In addition to high fuel prices, analysts are concerned about Frontier's tough pricing competition and the possibility that United's new budget carrier, Ted, will wrest cost-conscious fliers from Frontier at DIA.

Frontier shares fell 10 cents, or 1 percent, to $9.55, Wednesday and are down 33 percent this year
 
Some of the loss could be attributed to TED, but I believe a larger part is the fuel cost, and Frontier's inability to hedge for the future. Paying a $1.20 a gallon in So. Cal for gas has got to hurt everyone. Just my thoughts.......
 
Frontier reports a quarterly net loss of $5.8 million v. UAL's April net loss of $109 million (EXCLUDING Reorganization expenses of $28 million). UAL's excuse for its loss? High fuel prices. Logical explanation for Frontier's loss (which was very similar in relative size to UAL's loss)? Probably high fuel prices.
 
coolflyingfool said:
Some of the loss could be attributed to TED, but I believe a larger part is the fuel cost, and Frontier's inability to hedge for the future.
Cool,
I agree generally, but it is not that FRNT can't hedge fuel, rather, at $41 a barrel who would want to jump into the oil futures.

Fly,
They don't want the ATSB guarantee for only one reason. Because UA has demonstrated irresponsible pricing of their product while under the protection of BK. Can you imagine how they would set fares with a fresh $2,000,000,000.00 in the bank. Remember this is ultimately a game of attrition. As much as you pray for Ted to run Frontier out of business, I doubt it will happen. The routes that they compete on were, on balance, unchanged.

FWAAA,
Good post. I haven't read the reports yet, but just looking at UA and F-9 through the first 4 calander months of '04, UA has lost $600,000,000.00+ and F-9 is about "break-even" (excluding costs for the Jet Express start-up, and write-downs for Boeing parts). With nearly 200 MM in the bank with relatively low debt, they are positioned well for the future.
 
I don't want to run Frontier out of business, quite the contrary. Where do you believe that United has "demonstrated irresponsible pricing of their product while under the protection of BK"?
 
If an airline is fortunate enough to maintain nearly 90% load factors, it should certainly be making money... lots of money. That is not the case with UA. They are pricing their product below profitability in order to maintain marketshare. And as we all know, marketshare means squat when yields are negative. I think that it is irresponsible from a revenue and pricing standpoint. I would certainly trade some marketshare for profitability if I wanted to stay in business for the long-term.
 
So, is that your example of "irresponsible pricing"? LOL omg, then ALL the REAL airlines should just close shop and go home. Glad you aren't running the show, we'd be out of business (but something tells me thats what you want anyway)
 
"If an airline is fortunate enough to maintain nearly 90% load factors, it should certainly be making money... lots of money. That is not the case with UA. They are pricing their product below profitability in order to maintain marketshare. And as we all know, marketshare means squat when yields are negative. I think that it is irresponsible from a revenue and pricing standpoint. I would certainly trade some marketshare for profitability if I wanted to stay in business for the long-term."

So I checked.....

This weekend
DEN-LGA UAL is $250 more than FRNT
DEN-LAX UAL is $250 more than FRNT
DEN-IAD UAL is $45 more than FRNT
DEN-SFO UAL is $300 more than FRNT

In my quick informal study, the only places that UA appeared to be lower were on the profitable TED routes, and even then only by a small margin $10. FWIW DAL and Airtrash were SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper for the walkup fare to MCO.

Now lets look at traffic trends
In March and April of this year, UAL flew roughly the same number of ASM's. UAL's LF in March was 80.1% and in April, it was 79.9% for a drop of .2%

Meanwhile at FRNT, March LF was 74.9%, while April's was 69.1% That's a 5.8% drop. But surely FRNT enjoyed a revenue bump....right.....? Not hardly. In March, PaxRASM at FRNT was 8.27 cents (7.65 for the entire money losing Q4[jan-mar]) How about April? 7.06 That's a 15% drop from March and a 8% drop from the MONEY LOSING Q4!!!!! That is an incredible drop, especially when you consider the increased costs of fuel in April.

Yes Virginia, there is an airline adding capacity at fares lower than it's costs in DEN, but it ain't the big blue U.
 
Busdrvr said:
Meanwhile at FRNT, March LF was 74.9%, while April's was 69.1% That's a 5.8% drop.
Is that more a result of the new LAX minihub markets F9 launched recently?
LAX-STL/MSP/MCI?
Maybe the loads aren't so hot, driving down the overall LF?
 
Airtrash?

Oh yeah, they are the airline making money, something that UA and Frontier (to a much lesser extent) don't quite understand.

Mock Airtran at your peril, UA is a brontosaurus caught in a tar pool, yeah, its big, but it sure ain't going anywhere, but down.
 
GuppyPup said:
Is that more a result of the new LAX minihub markets F9 launched recently?
LAX-STL/MSP/MCI?
Maybe the loads aren't so hot, driving down the overall LF?
Although that could be part of the fall in LF, the LAX operation would have to be over 1/20th of the operation, AND all the flights would have to go out completely empty. I've heard that the LAX operation was doing "ok". In any case, I think FRNT would be wise to quietly shift it's expansion to other markets (MSP, PIT, MEM).
 
Pretty sad when AAI hires tons of scabs and convinces them to prostitute themselves further by working for obscene wages, and then they're considered one of the "darlings" of the airline industry. Thanks, but I'd rather keep my dignity.
 
Pretty sad when AAI hires tons of scabs and convinces them to prostitute themselves further by working for obscene wages, and then they're considered one of the "darlings" of the airline industry. Thanks, but I'd rather keep my dignity

DITTO

cheers

bigsky
 
Good info Busdriver, however, C54Capt does leave still an open question....why still the huge losses? Now that the pilots have taken huge pay cuts and very different work rules for the narrow body guys coupled with the fact that UA has done a considerable amount of lease restructuring and financing, it seems that losses although anticipated, shouldn't still be so overwhelming. Yes, I know they have cut their losses in half, but 600 mil for 2004 is still a hefty chunk of change. All I can come with is 41 dollars/per barrel of oil, and low yields in many of the leisure markets where UA competes against the LCCs all contributing to the losses. Perhaps I answered my own question but is there anything more significant that UA is doing as a company to return to profibility besides waiting for OPEC to start up the production machine? I am certain that you'll have some good insight.

cheers

bigsky