NW loss Widens

700UW

Corn Field
Nov 11, 2003
37,637
19,488
NC
CHICAGO, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Bankrupt Northwest Airlines Corp. (NWACQ.PK: Quote, Profile, Research) on Monday said its quarterly loss widened because of expenses related to its reorganization.

The carrier, which filed for bankruptcy protection in September, said its quarterly net loss amounted to $285 million, or $3.27 per share, compared with $234 million or $2.69 per share a year earlier.

Excluding items related to its reorganization, Northwest said it earned $179 million.



Northwest Airlines Reports Second Quarter 2006 Results
Monday August 7, 8:30 am ET


EAGAN, Minn., Aug. 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Northwest Airlines Corporation (OTC: NWACQ - News) today reported a net loss of $285 million during the second quarter of 2006. This compares to a second quarter 2005 net loss of $234 million. Excluding reorganization items, Northwest reported a 2006 second quarter net profit of $179 million. This compares to a second quarter net loss of $288 million, excluding unusual items, last year.

Doug Steenland, president and chief executive officer, said, "Our second quarter results demonstrate that we are making steady progress on our restructuring goals, which is reflected in our year-over-year cost and revenue performance improvements."

"During the past week, we have reached two significant milestones which will further advance our restructuring goals: first, we have reached our targeted labor cost savings and second, through an enormous collaborative effort with Northwest Airlines employees, the Congress passed pension legislation which, when signed by the President into law, will enable Northwest to preserve its frozen defined benefit pension plans."

Steenland continued, "Notwithstanding these accomplishments, we still have work ahead of us to ensure that the airline is positioned for long-term success. For the first six months of this year we reported a profit, excluding restructuring charges, of $50 million on revenues of more than $6 billion. Going forward, with fuel costs forecasted to remain at record levels, we must maintain our relentless focus on all elements of our plan."

"While we continue our focus on restructuring, we are pleased by the great service that we are providing customers by delivering passengers and their bags to their final destination in an efficient and timely manner as evidenced by Department of Transportation statistics for the first six months of 2006. Our employees are doing an outstanding job of providing good customer service and I thank them for their hard work."

Operating revenues in the second quarter increased 3 percent versus the second quarter of 2005 to $3.3 billion. System passenger revenue increased 3.3 percent to more than $2.4 billion on 9.3 percent fewer mainline available seat miles (ASMs), resulting in a 13.9 percent improvement in unit revenue. Regional carrier revenues increased 15.1 percent on 16.3 percent lower capacity.

Operating expenses in the quarter decreased 11.5 percent year-over-year to $3.0 billion, while mainline unit costs, excluding fuel and unusual items, decreased by 11 percent on 9.3 percent fewer ASMs. Salaries, wages and benefits decreased 30.3 percent, primarily due to interim wage reductions which became effective in November 2005, mechanic pay and headcount reductions and the reduced level of flying. Aircraft maintenance materials and repairs expense increased 22.8 percent, largely due to the shift to third party maintenance vendors versus internally completed maintenance work. Aircraft rental expense decreased 47.6 percent, primarily due to restructured and rejected aircraft leases.

During the second quarter, fuel averaged $2.10 per gallon, excluding taxes, up 27.6 percent versus the second quarter of last year. Increased fuel prices were partially offset by 11.6 percent fewer gallons consumed as a result of the company's capacity reductions and the retirement or replacement of older, less fuel-efficient aircraft.

Neal Cohen, executive vice president and chief financial officer, said, "We are pleased to have made progress in both revenues and costs during the quarter as evidenced by double digit improvements in both RASM and CASM, excluding fuel, which marks the first such time during the company's restructuring that this has been achieved. We must also continue to realize additional restructuring milestones in order to achieve sustainable long-term profitability, particularly in the face of $75 per barrel oil prices."

Northwest's quarter-ending unrestricted cash and short-term investments balance was $1.58 billion.

Commenting on the company's labor cost savings efforts, Steenland said, "With the August 1 implementation of permanent labor cost reductions with all of our contract employees, we have realized $1.4 billion of the $2.5 billion in annual business improvements that we have targeted to achieve through the restructuring process. We sincerely appreciate the significant personal sacrifice that each of our employees is continuing to make to help position Northwest for future success."
 
And what about what is posted on AMFA 33? (source Yahoo Finance)

"Salaries, wages and benefits decreased 30.3 percent, primarily due to interim wage reductions which became effective in November 2005, mechanic pay and headcount reductions and the reduced level of flying. Aircraft maintenance materials and repairs expense increased 22.8 percent, largely due to the shift to third party maintenance vendors versus internally completed maintenance work."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you add the 1st quarter 2006 maintenance costs increase of 31 percent, that brings the total for the last two quarters to 53.8 percent increase in maintenance costs since the mechanics were forced to strike in August of 2005. Clearly NWA's interest was to break a union rather than employ sound economic principals.
 
Personally, one of my favorite financial "statements" of the past few years is

"If it weren't for the expenses related to the bankruptcy we would have made a profit of (fill in the blank)."
(And, if my aunt were a man, she'd be my uncle.)


Now, I'm an English major so correct me if I'm wrong. "Excluding reorganization costs", NW made a $179 million profit. So, if the loss was $285 million, as I understand it, the reorganization costs were $464 million!!!! (Enough to totally wipe out the profit and pull the loss down to $285 million. Right?)

Man, those bankruptcy lawyers are expensive.
 
And what about what is posted on AMFA 33? (source Yahoo Finance)

If you add the 1st quarter 2006 maintenance costs increase of 31 percent, that brings the total for the last two quarters to 53.8 percent increase in maintenance costs since the mechanics were forced to strike in August of 2005. Clearly NWA's interest was to break a union rather than employ sound economic principals.

Someone's math challenged (not you - whomever at AMFA posted what you quoted).

Percentages don't work that way.

Jim: You got it correct - reorg expenses were almost half a billion. But most of that was write-downs of the equity in aircraft leases and other non-cash writedowns. Professional fees were only $11 million for the quarter. There's a complete breakdown of these expenses in note © the release:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060807/nym053.html?.v=61
 
And what about what is posted on AMFA 33? (source Yahoo Finance)

"Salaries, wages and benefits decreased 30.3 percent, primarily due to interim wage reductions which became effective in November 2005, mechanic pay and headcount reductions and the reduced level of flying. Aircraft maintenance materials and repairs expense increased 22.8 percent, largely due to the shift to third party maintenance vendors versus internally completed maintenance work."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you add the 1st quarter 2006 maintenance costs increase of 31 percent, that brings the total for the last two quarters to 53.8 percent increase in maintenance costs since the mechanics were forced to strike in August of 2005. Clearly NWA's interest was to break a union rather than employ sound economic principals.

Let me lay this out for you. This is some pretty basic mathematics, but the media doesn't do a good job of representing this stuff, so I guess it's no surpise that those without a basic understanding of mathematics would misread the information.

1) As FWAAA states, adding the percentages together is a meaningless number. With the information provided, the most accurate figure one could use to estimate the Q1+Q2 total percent increase in maintenance costs is to take an average of the two quarterly increases, which as about 27% ((31 + 24)/2). Applying the same logic to the labor savings, the total labor savings YTD is about 30% (30% Q1 savings and 30% Q2 savings). I don't remember the Q1 savings, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it was the same as Q2.

Conclusion: Labor costs decreased 30% and vendor costs increased 27%

2) The article does not give the baseline costs of each cost category. As such, one is led to believe that the two costs were the same in the baseline. If they were the same, then the above conclusion would be the end of the story, and it would appear that NWA had very little savings from outsourcing.

Now, let's assume that the baseline labor costs for Q1&Q2 (2005 actual expenses) were $400M, and the baseline vendor costs for the same period were $100M. This may be a higher ratio of vendor costs vs labor costs than actually existed in 2005, but for the sake of conservatism, let's go with this assumption. With this information, let's calculate the real savings to NWA in percentage terms for the first half of 2006.

Baseline Labor - $400M
2006 Labor - $279M ($400M * (1-30%))

Baseline Vendor - $100M
2006 Vendor - $127M ($100M * (1+27%))

Baseline Total - $500M
2006 Total - $406M
Total Savings - $94M
% Savings - 18.8%

Now, you can play with the inputs if you believe they do not represent a fair ratio of labor to vendor in the baseline. As a sensitivity, here is the savings if we assume vendor was equal to half of the labor in the 2005 baseline.

Baseline Labor - $400M
2006 Labor - $279M ($400M * (1-30%))

Baseline Vendor - $200M
2006 Vendor - $254M ($200M * (1+27%))

Baseline Total - $600M
2006 Total - $533M
Total Savings - $67M
% Savings - 11.2%

Now, I don't have exposure to the actual breakout of labor costs vs. vendor costs in the 2005 financials. If someone has those figures, then we can arrive at a more accurate savings figure. With this information, at least you'll be aware that using the percentages from a news article is not enough information to make any assesments about the true net cost/savings being realized from giving AMFA the boot.
 
So it was that "pesky" $464 million dollar one-time BK costs, or adjustments, that are causing all of the loss. Thats until next Q rolls around and another $400M in one-time costs is realized. Sure, only $11M in lawyer costs but that will increase in the fall when all of the 06 boats come on the market to make way for the new 07 models and the lawyers have to buy new ones. Those little incidentals can kill ya'. Seriously, I'm glad nwa is doing so well...oh wait a minute, I forgot to add in the fuel costs...shucks, there goes the $178M operating revenue! I think I'll just wait to get my copy of passages to find out the real truth about the losses :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Someone's math challenged (not you - whomever at AMFA posted what you quoted).

Percentages don't work that way.


http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060807/nym053.html?.v=61
I know..... I've pointed out something that was posted here the last time (but not on this site)

Let me lay this out for you. This is some pretty basic mathematics, but the media doesn't do a good job of representing this stuff, so I guess it's no surpise that those without a basic understanding of mathematics would misread the information.

1) As FWAAA states, adding the percentages together is a meaningless number. With the information provided, the most accurate figure one could use to estimate the Q1+Q2 total percent increase in maintenance costs is to take an average of the two quarterly increases, which as about 27% ((31 + 24)/2). Applying the same logic to the labor savings, the total labor savings YTD is about 30% (30% Q1 savings and 30% Q2 savings). I don't remember the Q1 savings, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it was the same as Q2.

Conclusion: Labor costs decreased 30% and vendor costs increased 27%

2) The article does not give the baseline costs of each cost category. As such, one is led to believe that the two costs were the same in the baseline. If they were the same, then the above conclusion would be the end of the story, and it would appear that NWA had very little savings from outsourcing.

Now, let's assume that the baseline labor costs for Q1&Q2 (2005 actual expenses) were $400M, and the baseline vendor costs for the same period were $100M. This may be a higher ratio of vendor costs vs labor costs than actually existed in 2005, but for the sake of conservatism, let's go with this assumption. With this information, let's calculate the real savings to NWA in percentage terms for the first half of 2006.

Baseline Labor - $400M
2006 Labor - $279M ($400M * (1-30%))

Baseline Vendor - $100M
2006 Vendor - $127M ($100M * (1+27%))

Baseline Total - $500M
2006 Total - $406M
Total Savings - $94M
% Savings - 18.8%

Now, you can play with the inputs if you believe they do not represent a fair ratio of labor to vendor in the baseline. As a sensitivity, here is the savings if we assume vendor was equal to half of the labor in the 2005 baseline.

Baseline Labor - $400M
2006 Labor - $279M ($400M * (1-30%))

Baseline Vendor - $200M
2006 Vendor - $254M ($200M * (1+27%))

Baseline Total - $600M
2006 Total - $533M
Total Savings - $67M
% Savings - 11.2%

Now, I don't have exposure to the actual breakout of labor costs vs. vendor costs in the 2005 financials. If someone has those figures, then we can arrive at a more accurate savings figure. With this information, at least you'll be aware that using the percentages from a news article is not enough information to make any assesments about the true net cost/savings being realized from giving AMFA the boot.
Thank you for taking your time to explain that. I know that it takes a while to post something like this. It's not "basic" mathematics. Basic mathematics HAS been used thus the wrong numbers. It's logic. But of course, then again there's that theory of people fudging numbers to get nice bonuses and all that at, ect. ect. ect. ect.
 
Someone's math challenged (not you - whomever at AMFA posted what you quoted).

Percentages don't work that way.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060807/nym053.html?.v=61[/url]
I ageee with you that the percentage is off, but I do wonder if the maintenance costs for 2005 includes the $100+ million in pre-strike scab training and other pre-strike activities. If it does, the percentage increase would be much higher as normally those type of costs don't exist.
 
Another source on NW's 2006 Q2 loss of $285M...

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S18082.html?cat=1

EAGAN, Minn. (AP) - Northwest Airlines Corp., which has been operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, on Monday posted a wider second-quarter loss as restructuring costs mount.

After paying dividends on preferred stock, losses totaled $285 million, or $3.27 per share, for the three months ended June 30 compared with $234 million, or $2.69 per share, in the prior-year quarter.

Excluding the cost of restructuring and other onetime items, Northwest said it earned $179 million versus a loss of $288 million last year.

Revenue edged higher to $3.29 billion from $3.2 billion in the prior-year period. Operating expenses fell 12 percent to $3 billion.

The airline industry has been suffering the effect of higher fuel costs. Northwest said its fuel averaged $2.10 per gallon, excluding taxes - up 28 percent year over year.

The company offset higher fuel prices by cutting capacity, reducing the number of gallons consumed by 12 percent.


This line got my attention - "After paying dividends on preferred stock...". Does that mean that NW will be finally be paying back the union employees who still hold preferred shares from the 1993 round of concessions? :up:
Or are these preferred shares owned by Checchi, Wilson, et al? :down:
 
This line got my attention - "After paying dividends on preferred stock...". Does that mean that NW will be finally be paying back the union employees who still hold preferred shares from the 1993 round of concessions? :up:
Or are these preferred shares owned by Checchi, Wilson, et al? :down:
I could be mistaken, but I'm assuming these are the same dividends that have been paid on the employee preferred stock since the stock buy-back date passed. I believe all holders of this stock were entitled to a 12% annual dividend on the value of their preferred stock. I guess any current holder of the preferred stock could verify this.
 
Conclusion: Labor costs decreased 30% and vendor costs increased 27%


Now, I don't have exposure to the actual breakout of labor costs vs. vendor costs in the 2005 financials. If someone has those figures, then we can arrive at a more accurate savings figure. With this information, at least you'll be aware that using the percentages from a news article is not enough information to make any assesments about the true net cost/savings being realized from giving AMFA the boot.

Oh I think your seeing the cost on a predictable almost weekly routine, and the cost will be amplified with the elapse of time. ;)
 
I ageee with you that the percentage is off, but I do wonder if the maintenance costs for 2005 includes the $100+ million in pre-strike scab training and other pre-strike activities. If it does, the percentage increase would be much higher as normally those type of costs don't exist.

The $100M in union busting money was spent before the bankruptcy. I doubt if its included. Remember the hotel that didn't get paid? How many other countless vendors had to take it on the chin when nwa went into BK? I think the balance of the union busting cash went into Dougie's pocket. You know...for a little walkin' around money.