Eagle Sale Still Being Considered

AAviator

Veteran
Nov 12, 2002
1,385
633
The Dallas Morning News
March 2, 2004



AMR Corp.’s improving outlook has Wall Street very interested in buying its bonds and other debt, a senior executive said Tuesday.


Last month, the parent of American Airlines Inc. completed a $323 million offering of convertible securities and a $180 million debt offering backed with spare airplane parts, James Beer, AMR’s chief financial officer, said at an investor conference in New York.


“That has been a surprising source of possible opportunity, and a very welcome one,†he said.


The moves have bolstered AMR’s cash reserves to $3.1 billion, including $500 million in funds that are restricted because they’re tied to workers’ compensation and other corporate needs.


That’s far better than last year at this time, when AMR saw its available cash dip to near $1 billion.


AMR’s results rebound from last year’s brush with bankruptcy, and the carrier has grown more confident that it will be able to finance debt and its capital expenses this year.


However, AMR has very little left to collateralize. It’s already mortgaged its headquarters buildings in Fort Worth, and has only two aircraft from its fleet of more than 700 that could be used to secure more debt.


American’s operating cash flow has improved, Mr. Beer said, though it needs to improve further. Analysts are concerned American’s margin improvement won’t be enough to cover its substantial debt burden.


AMR continues to think about options for its American Eagle subsidiary, the industry’s largest regional carrier, which many analysts say may be spun off. Mr. Beer said no decision has been made.

Other carriers such as Continental Airlines Inc. and Northwest Airlines Inc. have sold off their regional carriers to raise cash.


“I think there is good reason for cautious optimism about the road ahead,†Mr. Beer said.


Investors sold off airline shares Tuesday as they reacted to a negative revenue report from Continental. Continental shares dropped more than 7 percent.


Analysts called Continental’s results “disappointing†Tuesday and said that the industry’s rush to return capacity could hamstring its revenue recovery.


“Our forecast had already assumed weakness for Continental, arising from its exposure to the hyper-competitive transcontinental markets,†Jim Higgins of Credit Suisse First Boston said in a note to investors. “However, the capacity addbacks, much more than we expected, appear to have exacerbated unit revenue weakness.â€


Mr. Beer said American has seen stiff competition on its transcontinental routes from the Northeast, but he declined to specify how much revenue had dropped as JetBlue Airways Corp. and others have added capacity. American will do everything it can to defend those routes, he said.


AMR shares closed down 42 cents to $15.36.


While I think there are some benefits of keeping it under the AMR umbrella, There are a good number of reasons to cut it loose.
 
Reasons why I don't think it will happen:
1. Can you imagine AMR giving up control? Could they stomach the idea that they couldn't control where AE flies, or how often, or what a/c to use?
2. AE is a major source of current operating cash--that cash used to pay bills.
3. When AMR wanted to move mainline flying to AE, what if AE didn't want it, and had the independence to refuse it?

Concerns if it did happen:
1. What happens to the recall rights of the furloughed AA flight attendants currently working at AE? Would an independent AE require them to give up their recall rights?
2. Could an independent AE find financing to buy the larger RJ's that are currently prohibited under the SCOPE clause? How would this affect mainline service? A 100-seat ERJ could serve a lot of mainline markets as well or better than a 129 seat S80 or 737.
2a. Could AA "sell" S80s and 737s to an independent AE and eliminate a big portion of mainline domestic service?
3. Would an independent AE be able to contract with competing mainliners to provide feeder service? (I know that they already do this to a limited extent, but I think it is in "non-compete" markets.)

Thoughts for a Saturday morning.
 
While I think there are a few benefits to spinning it off, I don't think it will happen because Eagle is fast becoming the domestic carrier for AMR while AA handles hub-to-hub, transcons, and international flying.
 
AE replacement of AA flying, while present isn't what everyone thinks it is. True, as the F100's go away, something has to pick up that flying. The growth at AE is substantial, but for the most part, new service, in new markets. This is a good thing for AA. Having said that, there is no reason the same couldn't be accomplished with CHQ, or TSA doing the flying.

jimntx, to comment on your assessment, I'd have to say you're correct in the context of AMR being control obsessed, however, going forward, I think Arpey is the kind of guy who will look at AE from a nuts and bolts view. Both NW, and CO spun off their commuter affiliates with good results. Why not at AA?

If AA wants to do more regional flying, theres nothing to prevent them from contracting with Mesa, skywest, or any other RJ operator to do the flying. just like CHQ is doing now. Don't forget, every 30+million dollar RJ AE flys, come out of AMR's coffers.

As far as recall rights, is doesn't matter if the furloughed F/A's are working at AE or Burger King. When their number comes up, they come back.

AE would be free to buy whatever the new owners wanted to buy. They could even become another Independence Air. They'd be an upstart with a passenger base that belongs to the AA code. No walk in the park.

What could AMR get for Eagle? Anyone remember what Delta paid for Comair?
 
AMR would never "sell" Eagle. They might "transfer" majority share to another company (which would operate as a puppet to the company). This is what they were contemplating when they came close to selling the Executive operation (SJU and MIA) last year.
I think it all depends on what they get from APA pertaining to growth. Too much resistance and a "sale" could occur to bypass contract issues.
Eagle is the only entity making money right now. It'd be silly to sell it for short term gains unless things really are "that" bad.
 
It makes sense to me to sell assets that, in the long term, have less of a chance of being a revenue source for the company. You sell them when their value is high, but you know that down the road, their importance to your company will be reduced. Skychefs, Sabre, and TSR come to mind. I believe Eagle is a large part of AMR's equation, not only in the short term but long term as well.

It's true that much of it will depend on the APA, but I think if management has a choice, they'll keep Eagle. At least I hope so anyway.
 
AAviator said:
As far as recall rights, is doesn't matter if the furloughed F/A's are working at AE or Burger King. When their number comes up, they come back.
I'm not so sure. Much was made of the agreement between AA, AE, and APFA that furloughed AA flight attendants would be given preference in hiring at AE, and that they would not have to relinquish their recall rights at AA.

AE, like AA, requires flight attendants furloughed from another airline to sign a letter of resignation from their former employer in order to attend training. After a sale, AA could be defined as "another airline", and AE could require flight attendants to resign from AA in order to remain employed at AE.
 
I NEVER, EVER thought I'd see Sabre sold, but once it was, I knew that ANYTHING was/is possible with AMR. Including A/E.
I'm betting they DON'T sell Eagle, but from a mgnt. standpoint, It's a "ballsy" move, to throw the "perception" out there for APA to "chew on" :unsure: :unsure:

NH/BB's
 
Well the truth is AMR could spin off Eagle and still retain control. Basically AA would get the money from Eagle's IPO. The trade off would be that any success at Eagle would only transfer so much benefit to AMR's balance sheet depending on how much control AA retains. AMR would still control much of Eagle does. Eagle has turned into a profitable part of AMR with those nifty RJ's operating in so many high-yield or rip-off markets and they only have enough seats to sell to those who are paying big bucks. For years, Eagle was a drain as those ATR's lost money filling up seats on the Silver Birds. But that has change with Eagle becoming a national carrier. I have never understood why AMR didn't try to get more synergy from operating two carriers. For every department at AA, there is the same department at Eagle. I know Eagle staff are paid less - but I imagine that at least in the support/HDQ departments - the cost would be lower with only one operation.

Well if selling Eagle boosts AA's success I am all for it.
 
jimntx said:
AAviator said:
As far as recall rights, is doesn't matter if the furloughed F/A's are working at AE or Burger King. When their number comes up, they come back.
I'm not so sure. Much was made of the agreement between AA, AE, and APFA that furloughed AA flight attendants would be given preference in hiring at AE, and that they would not have to relinquish their recall rights at AA.

AE, like AA, requires flight attendants furloughed from another airline to sign a letter of resignation from their former employer in order to attend training. After a sale, AA could be defined as "another airline", and AE could require flight attendants to resign from AA in order to remain employed at AE.
Jim, Burger King is not an airline. So what is your point?
 
chisprings said:
jimntx said:
AAviator said:
As far as recall rights, is doesn't matter if the furloughed F/A's are working at AE or Burger King. When their number comes up, they come back.
I'm not so sure. Much was made of the agreement between AA, AE, and APFA that furloughed AA flight attendants would be given preference in hiring at AE, and that they would not have to relinquish their recall rights at AA.

AE, like AA, requires flight attendants furloughed from another airline to sign a letter of resignation from their former employer in order to attend training. After a sale, AA could be defined as "another airline", and AE could require flight attendants to resign from AA in order to remain employed at AE.
Jim, Burger King is not an airline. So what is your point?
I could care less about Burger King. That wasn't the point of my post. Read it again.

I am concerned about furloughed flight attendants who are currently working at AE.
Their recall rights at AA are currently protected by an agreement between AA, AE, and APFA. If AE is no longer part of AMR, or AMR is only a minority stockholder, can AE be held to that agreement? It's not part of anyone's contract. It's a side letter.
 
jimntx...i am sorry..i made the mistake of not reading the rest of your post.

however, if Eagle is sold...I don't see it being an issue for those furloughed AA f/a's now at Eagle.

Not every airline requires furloughs to resign recall rights. So Eagle does not have to jump on the bandwagon. There are so many AA f/a's at Eagle now that I don't see Eagle management putting people in a postition where they could lose hundreds of f/a's at once. Plus, AMR will still be calling the shots for the most part. I don't think the furloughed f/a's at Eagle have anything to worry about. Don't let a scare tactic rumor like this run rampant.

Plus from day 1 - I have thought the celebration of losing F/A's to Eagle is a mistake. APFA should have done something better to protect all our furloughees. I am confident that next week will prove that the majority of us will not reWard the disaster of the past four years. The fact that almost 6000 of our members are out on furlough with 5 years of recall ticking away should be a priority with our union - not an afterthought.
 
chisprings said:
Not every airline requires furloughs to resign recall rights. So Eagle does not have to jump on the bandwagon.

Eagle is already on the bandwagon. If you were a furloughed NWA flight attendant, they would require you to sign a letter of resignation to NWA your first day of training--just as AA did to 3 people in my class. And, like I said, the protection of their recall rights is protected as a side letter. AE also knows that in this economy, there are a lot of flight attendants who when faced with refusing to sign a resignation letter in the hope that maybe they would be recalled to AA as opposed to having a job at AE would sign.

APFA should have done something better to protect all our furloughees.

You'll get no argument from me there, McGee.

I am confident that next week will prove that the majority of us will not reWard the disaster of the past four years. The fact that almost 6000 of our members are out on furlough with 5 years of recall ticking away should be a priority with our union - not an afterthought.

I wish I were as confident as you. I was on two AA flights last week and both crews going and coming told me they voted for Wardo because "he will make sure that the TWA flight attendants don't get my seniority." If a court rules otherwise I don't know how he gonna do that, but they were all true believers. I have come to realize that there is no point in trying to confuse an AA flight attendant with facts once he/she has their mind made up.
 
<_< jimntx-----I don't want to confuse the issue, but isn't the TWA lawsuit about all about Money, not Senority? Or am we talking about the same Lawsuit? They win, you still keep your Senority, but Bankrupt your Union!!! If that happens, your vote won't matter much anyway!