Fare Hikes Take Their Toll Again in July

eolesen

Veteran
Jul 23, 2003
15,988
9,428
AA
  • July traffic fell 3.5% to 12.46 billion revenue passenger miles
  • Capacity down 1.2% to 14.52 billion available seat miles
  • Load factor down 2% to 85.8%

American Eagle
  • Traffic fell 9.1% to 761.7 million revenue passenger miles
  • Capacity fell 0.9% to 1.04 billion available seat miles.
  • Load factor down 6.5 percentage points to 73.1%

And this is all before the schedule cuts....
 
AA
  • July traffic fell 3.5% to 12.46 billion revenue passenger miles
  • Capacity down 1.2% to 14.52 billion available seat miles
  • Load factor down 2% to 85.8%

American Eagle
  • Traffic fell 9.1% to 761.7 million revenue passenger miles
  • Capacity fell 0.9% to 1.04 billion available seat miles.
  • Load factor down 6.5 percentage points to 73.1%

And this is all before the schedule cuts....

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

E,

An "ol' sage" on these boards CORRECTLY said, that Commercial Aviation was NOT a BIRTH RIGHT of every US Citizen.

In other words, there are other options, for getting from point A...to point B.

Ex;

Walking
Auto/Taxi Cab/Bus
Amtrak

E,............guess who said that ??


Y O U........................ !!
 
what was the old saying? a 10% increase in air fares leads to a 10% decrease in pax.
 
These results show exactly why simply "raising fares" is not the only answer to the industry's problems. As a percentage of costs, fuel is the primary culprit, and fare increases and fees have not been able to keep pace with the increases in the cost of gas the fly the birds.

For those of you more economically-inclined the phrase is elasticity of demand.

So yes, AA must look everywhere it can to reduce costs in order to offset higher fuel prices. Not saying it's fair or right, but that's the reality, and that's why they are looking to labor once again.
 
Well if your numbers are what they say they are; Then why doesn't reality dictate something different?...I realize I am just a number at this company, and I only work on the "Actual" flights, but I have yet to find an empty seat..Not to mention, non rev isn't even an option..I guess thats just a perception since I work on the front lines instead of punching numbers on a calculator behind a desk...BTW.... Does your office have air conditioning?
 
The numbers came directly from AA's July traffic press release, so if they're wrong it's AA's mistake.

FWIW, Eagle's numbers were worse - traffic down 9.1% on only 0.9% less capacity translated to a 6.5 point drop in LF.

AA won't be alone in seeing numbers like that - UA is the only other carrier that's reported so far and they had a 4.0% drop in traffic with only a 1.4% drop in capacity for a 2.3 point drop in LF.

Jim
 
I don't see how this is a definate bad sign. As we hear time and again...full airplanes don't mean profits. Good yields mean profits..just look at 2 markets we are pulling out of...SJU-MCO and ORD-PDX. Both markets were jammed packed yet we pulled out of them. Another point...look at Southwest. They have consistantly had less loads than AA yet have been consistanly profitable. I will put more stock into revenue and costs numbers rather than load and traffic numbers.
 
I don't see how this is a definate bad sign. As we hear time and again...full airplanes don't mean profits.
By itself, it doesn't really mean that much but it's all we've got on a month to month basis. So comparing the airlines' traffic results offers the only glimpse at how each is doing monthly.

Good yields mean profits
Not necessarily. You could have a yield of $10.00 and still lose money if only one of each 100 seats was filled. It's the combination of yield and load factor that produce RASM, and that value relative to CASM determines profit or loss on an operating basis (plus the incidentals of cargo and "other").

Jim
 
Well if your numbers are what they say they are; Then why doesn't reality dictate something different?...

Ah, yes. AMR is cooking the books again to make their passenger loads look artificially lower than they really are. Brilliant strategy, I might add. Shareholders love to see the company they've invested in under-performing....

Reality is that demand is going down faster than the supply is.

I realize I am just a number at this company, and I only work on the "Actual" flights, but I have yet to find an empty seat..Not to mention, non rev isn't even an option..I guess thats just a perception since I work on the front lines instead of punching numbers on a calculator behind a desk...BTW.... Does your office have air conditioning?

I'm sure you flew more than I did in July, but of the six flights I've taken in the past six weeks, I had an empty middle seat next to me on five of them, and they weren't the only empty seats. There was even space to upgrade at the gate on one of my DFW-ORD flights.

And yes, as a matter of fact, my offices do have air conditioning. One also has 4WD, an iPod jack and gets 24 mpg in town... Thanks for being so concerned.
 
The few flights I have been on, have had plenty of open seats. Even MAD has gone out with plenty of open seats.

That can't be. Flyboy4u said all the flights he was on were full so you must be mistaken. Please report back when your answer conforms to his small little world.
 
The few flights I have been on, have had plenty of open seats. Even MAD has gone out with plenty of open seats.

I have been working the
MIA LHR
MIA PARIS
MIA MAD
for the last month and see
Plenty of seats in first and business
If you are non reving these flights are wide open
but who can afford to pay for anything in euro's
:shock:
 
Fare hikes take their toll?

So I guess if they discount the price of pet rocks or the Commodore 64 sales will take off?
 

Latest posts