you're just now figuring that out?? 😀
J.P. Morgan Initial Report on US Airways
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
EyeInTheSky
Veteran
Yeah, and remember what the first four letters in cockpit spell and that might shed some light on you know who. 😛
Eye
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 37
I don't particularly care what Doug Parker said. Where is the 90 million hit going to come from next quarter?
And the JP Morgan analyst just said that non-fuel costs are increasing more than anticipated.
[quote[Clue, would it not be better to admit you're wrong (again)?[/quote]I have no intention of going down that road, until such time as you admit for the "bong hits for a 777 seat" saga. And the ICT/UCT. And the letter to the observer in the first bankruptcy. And AA buying NW (Remember that gem)?
As it stands, I claimed that US would have higher than anticipated "other" costs, and that's right on. I'll even toss in the hedge--US, absent the gift from Airbus, loses 30 million or so in the quarter.
But tell us, O Swami, what is going to happen to those spectacular RASM growth when the contracting airline routine finally comes to an end?
Here's a hint: it's going to keep contracting. Look for that reserve seat in LGA in '07, all in the name of Parker's almighty RASM gains.
I think that if one shrinks capacity that revenue per available seat mile should climb, much like I believe in gravity. If it does not, one might wonder.
I also think that I'll be laughing myself silly when you are pulling gear for a 10 year HP airbus captain on reserve out of LGA. Who do you think is going to suffer as a result of mainline metal reductions--you don't really think it's going to be the HP pilot group, do you?
The nasty little secret about all of this is it assumes that once the fleet stops shrinking that the revenue can be maintained at those levels. It also ignores the fact that no group has a merged contract, there is no common reservation system, and the majority of the RASM gains come from the express carriers.
Much as I've said before--I made money shorting the old US, and there is no doubt that the opportunity will present itself again.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
ClueByFour:
Are we getting a little frustrated? Do you need to use peoples names or try to make it seem as if there position is deteriorating?
It's tough looking wrong because you have to admit you're wrong. Most people cannot do it, but you know that too, right?
I know it's tough for a person like you to see US Airways having success. After all it's better to have an "ax to grind", right?
Here's another interesting report for you to digest. Click here for the report.
Speaking of reports...I'll post more for you to digest tomorrow. 😀
I agree this is getting amusing... 🙂
I will say this, at least you do not have a message board split personality like others, which is deceptive and lacks character.
Good night my friend.
Best regards,
USA320Pilot
,
Are we getting a little frustrated? Do you need to use peoples names or try to make it seem as if there position is deteriorating?
It's tough looking wrong because you have to admit you're wrong. Most people cannot do it, but you know that too, right?
I know it's tough for a person like you to see US Airways having success. After all it's better to have an "ax to grind", right?
Here's another interesting report for you to digest. Click here for the report.
Speaking of reports...I'll post more for you to digest tomorrow. 😀
I agree this is getting amusing... 🙂
I will say this, at least you do not have a message board split personality like others, which is deceptive and lacks character.
Good night my friend.
Best regards,
USA320Pilot
,
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Read the below out of Tempe:
TEMPE, Ariz., May 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The new US Airways Group, Inc. (NYSE: LCC - News) today reported a first quarter 2006 profit before the cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle of $64 million or $0.75 per diluted share. This compares to a profit before the cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle of $28 million or $1.29 per diluted share for the same period last year. Results for the new US Airways Group's first quarter 2006 are being compared to America West's standalone results for first quarter 2005 due to the former US Airways Group and America West Holdings Corporation merger on Sept. 27, 2005. Although the merger was structured so that America West became a wholly owned subsidiary of the new US Airways Group, America West was treated as the acquiring company for accounting purposes under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 141 "Business Combinations."
Can someone explain to me what " before the accumulative effect of a change in accounting principle" means?
Is that some kind of a creative accounting equation"?
TEMPE, Ariz., May 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The new US Airways Group, Inc. (NYSE: LCC - News) today reported a first quarter 2006 profit before the cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle of $64 million or $0.75 per diluted share. This compares to a profit before the cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle of $28 million or $1.29 per diluted share for the same period last year. Results for the new US Airways Group's first quarter 2006 are being compared to America West's standalone results for first quarter 2005 due to the former US Airways Group and America West Holdings Corporation merger on Sept. 27, 2005. Although the merger was structured so that America West became a wholly owned subsidiary of the new US Airways Group, America West was treated as the acquiring company for accounting purposes under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 141 "Business Combinations."
Can someone explain to me what " before the accumulative effect of a change in accounting principle" means?
Is that some kind of a creative accounting equation"?
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
ClueByFour:
ClueByFour said: "Great. What's the unqualified EPS slated to look like? Smells like a negative number. Again. Return on equity? On assets? *crickets* Again, only airline people think like this. And day traders."
Lehman Brohters Investment Report:
Lehman Brothers: LCC SOLID QTR/YR OUTLOOK; RAISE TARGET AGAIN
The risk-reward in LCC shares remains favorable. Strong revenue trends continue to drive performance. Still see relative upside potential, but recent gains relative to the group are narrowing that opportunity somewhat. Maintain 1-Overweight.
* Reports profitable 1Q of $0.05 vs. our ($0.05) and consensus of ($0.16). While profits in 1Q always impressive, results more or less in line from our perspective.
* Revenue performance stellar (we think consolidated +24% and mainline +19%) and likely to continue, though likely not quite as good in subsequent quarters.
* Cost guidance rises a touch, but nothing to worry about, especially given the magnitude of RASM gains LCC is experiencing.
* Share price gains and sharp upward revisions to consensus leave less relative upside, but we expect outperformance to continue.
* Raise estimates slightly, 2006 to $5.00 and 2007 to $4.50. Decline in 2007 on application of book tax rate (2007 tax rate assumed previously also), no impact on valuation. Comparable number to 2006 (untaxed) is $6.95. Raise target to $55.
ClueByFour continued: So, when is the unqualified EPS of LCC going to be a positive number? Airline stock analysts are by definition day traders (since with one notable exception, none of the stocks currently appreciate in price due to any kind of connection with fiscal health). Being second best of the worst (or, first of the worst if you give LUV the benefit of the doubt since they've made money for 32 years) is nothing to get excited about.
S&P said:
S&P Upgrades US Airways to Buy
Analyst Jim Corridore expects the airline's strong revenues and passenger traffic to continue.
Click here for story.
Best regards,
USA320Pilot
P.S. USA320Pilot comments: With all due respect, would it not be better for you to change your USAviation.com user name to "ClueLessByTen"?
ClueByFour said: "Great. What's the unqualified EPS slated to look like? Smells like a negative number. Again. Return on equity? On assets? *crickets* Again, only airline people think like this. And day traders."
Lehman Brohters Investment Report:
Lehman Brothers: LCC SOLID QTR/YR OUTLOOK; RAISE TARGET AGAIN
The risk-reward in LCC shares remains favorable. Strong revenue trends continue to drive performance. Still see relative upside potential, but recent gains relative to the group are narrowing that opportunity somewhat. Maintain 1-Overweight.
* Reports profitable 1Q of $0.05 vs. our ($0.05) and consensus of ($0.16). While profits in 1Q always impressive, results more or less in line from our perspective.
* Revenue performance stellar (we think consolidated +24% and mainline +19%) and likely to continue, though likely not quite as good in subsequent quarters.
* Cost guidance rises a touch, but nothing to worry about, especially given the magnitude of RASM gains LCC is experiencing.
* Share price gains and sharp upward revisions to consensus leave less relative upside, but we expect outperformance to continue.
* Raise estimates slightly, 2006 to $5.00 and 2007 to $4.50. Decline in 2007 on application of book tax rate (2007 tax rate assumed previously also), no impact on valuation. Comparable number to 2006 (untaxed) is $6.95. Raise target to $55.
ClueByFour continued: So, when is the unqualified EPS of LCC going to be a positive number? Airline stock analysts are by definition day traders (since with one notable exception, none of the stocks currently appreciate in price due to any kind of connection with fiscal health). Being second best of the worst (or, first of the worst if you give LUV the benefit of the doubt since they've made money for 32 years) is nothing to get excited about.
S&P said:
S&P Upgrades US Airways to Buy
Analyst Jim Corridore expects the airline's strong revenues and passenger traffic to continue.
Click here for story.
Best regards,
USA320Pilot
P.S. USA320Pilot comments: With all due respect, would it not be better for you to change your USAviation.com user name to "ClueLessByTen"?
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
Pilot:
Pilot said: "Buy all the stock you can 320. The analyst's are seldom wrong. It's a sure thing. Margin baby. Margin. Use the leverage."
USA320Pilot comments: I already did. Now it's just a matter of timing on when I sell and lock in signficant profits! By the way, who needs to use margin when you can write a covered call or purchase a straddle? 🙂
Furthermore, the ALPA RC4 look even "more stupid" by lowering ALPA's stock amount from 19.33% of the company to a very low number, right? I remember listending to Negotiating Committee Chairman Doug Mowrey say that the pilots did not need the equity because it would be worth nothing.
According to ALPA Investment Banker Michael Glanzer, ALPA E&FA, and MEC Vice-Chairman Kim Snider indicated the equity loss did not need to happen. Did you see Kim's letter? Also noteworthy, at today's stock price that decision by the RC4 and Doug cost every active pilot plus other pilot's about $120,000.
Pilot, would you like to have the extra equity now? Of course you would because recent security price action indicates the RC4 were wrong, again. How could that be?
Best regards,
USA320Pilot
Pilot said: "Buy all the stock you can 320. The analyst's are seldom wrong. It's a sure thing. Margin baby. Margin. Use the leverage."
USA320Pilot comments: I already did. Now it's just a matter of timing on when I sell and lock in signficant profits! By the way, who needs to use margin when you can write a covered call or purchase a straddle? 🙂
Furthermore, the ALPA RC4 look even "more stupid" by lowering ALPA's stock amount from 19.33% of the company to a very low number, right? I remember listending to Negotiating Committee Chairman Doug Mowrey say that the pilots did not need the equity because it would be worth nothing.
According to ALPA Investment Banker Michael Glanzer, ALPA E&FA, and MEC Vice-Chairman Kim Snider indicated the equity loss did not need to happen. Did you see Kim's letter? Also noteworthy, at today's stock price that decision by the RC4 and Doug cost every active pilot plus other pilot's about $120,000.
Pilot, would you like to have the extra equity now? Of course you would because recent security price action indicates the RC4 were wrong, again. How could that be?
Best regards,
USA320Pilot
Walmartgreeter
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,430
- Reaction score
- 1,143
" Furthermore, the ALPA RC4 look even "more stupid" by lowering ALPA's stock amount from 19.33% of the company to a very low number, right? I remember listending to Negotiating Committee Chairman Doug Mowrey say that the pilots did not need the equity because it would be worth nothing." USA320
I know you are still upset about LOSING your bid to elected office at your base...I guess that is why you are still using words like "more stupid" in your posts. In case you have not noticed, the currently elected pilot reps at U have moved on to join hands and elect a new MEC Chair...one they ALL support.
The rest of the united (don't wet your pants..that's not what I mean) pilots at U know that stock and options will not help the lifestyles of the bottom 50% of the pilot group..they want pay that puts them above 1988 levels and work rules that keep them safe and efficient. The stock be damned, it has nothing to do with our day to day careers. That said,I am elated at our company's performance...I look forward to SHARING in said rewards, despite the efforts of economic cowards the likes of you. Greeter (Stupid is as stupid does)
I know you are still upset about LOSING your bid to elected office at your base...I guess that is why you are still using words like "more stupid" in your posts. In case you have not noticed, the currently elected pilot reps at U have moved on to join hands and elect a new MEC Chair...one they ALL support.
The rest of the united (don't wet your pants..that's not what I mean) pilots at U know that stock and options will not help the lifestyles of the bottom 50% of the pilot group..they want pay that puts them above 1988 levels and work rules that keep them safe and efficient. The stock be damned, it has nothing to do with our day to day careers. That said,I am elated at our company's performance...I look forward to SHARING in said rewards, despite the efforts of economic cowards the likes of you. Greeter (Stupid is as stupid does)
TheLarkAscending
Veteran
Aw, thanks for the compliment! I've been rather busy, of late. I do check in occasionally, although when I do, the one thing I've noticed is that absolutely nothing, i.e., :wacko: has changed...and it is such a waste of my valuable time attempting to engage in an intelligent dialogue with :wacko: when it is blatantly obvious that only one of us :blush: is actually in possession of our intellect ... yes, boys and girls, those laughs just keep on coming!
Good for you Jack!. Those RC4 guys really hosed us. It becomes more clear as each day passes. Damn those guys. That extra equity would be a Godsend now. Damn those RC4.
You got it right again! Nice job.
Take care and God Bless
pilot
usair_begins_with_u
Veteran
- Joined
- May 9, 2004
- Messages
- 623
- Reaction score
- 0
Pitbull:
"before the cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle"
The accounting principal change is that now LCC accounts for its stock option grants as expenses at their fair value in the period they were granted.
Before fiscal 2006, US companies including LCC had the choice to either expense options when granted and take the ensuing hit on earnings, or just to footnote the cost of the options granted in their financial statements and report (off the income statement) what income and EPS "would have been" had they expensed the options at their fair value. Prior to 2006, LCC footnoted the costs to keep them off the income statement, along with 90% of other public firms.
In the past, most companies did not report stock option grants as expenses in their income statement because 1)they had the choice not to, and 2)doing so reduces reported earnings.
Under the new accounting rule, all public firms have to roll the fair value of all granted stock options into current years expenses. The fair value of an option is determined by using standard option pricing models like "black schoels" or the binomial mode, but I digress....
At the end of the day, this accounting principal change is not an earnings management move by LCC, they are just following GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles )requirements.
"before the cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle"
The accounting principal change is that now LCC accounts for its stock option grants as expenses at their fair value in the period they were granted.
Before fiscal 2006, US companies including LCC had the choice to either expense options when granted and take the ensuing hit on earnings, or just to footnote the cost of the options granted in their financial statements and report (off the income statement) what income and EPS "would have been" had they expensed the options at their fair value. Prior to 2006, LCC footnoted the costs to keep them off the income statement, along with 90% of other public firms.
In the past, most companies did not report stock option grants as expenses in their income statement because 1)they had the choice not to, and 2)doing so reduces reported earnings.
Under the new accounting rule, all public firms have to roll the fair value of all granted stock options into current years expenses. The fair value of an option is determined by using standard option pricing models like "black schoels" or the binomial mode, but I digress....
At the end of the day, this accounting principal change is not an earnings management move by LCC, they are just following GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles )requirements.
