Recent Odds & Ends From The Bts*

BoeingBoy

Veteran
Nov 9, 2003
16,512
5,865
Just a few odds and ends released recently from the BTS.....

Fuel:

Through April the major, national, & large regional airlines combined used slightly over half as much fuel as in all of 2004 - 9.57 Billion gallons vs 18.56 Billion gallons. The total cost of fuel for the 1st 4 months of 2005 was nearly 2/3 of 2004's total cost - $13.476 Billion vs $21.10 Billion. It goes without saying that the average cost per gallon was up - $1.41 vs $1.14 per gallon.

BTS Table

Number of employees:

Not surprisingly, employment by the same carriers was down 2.4% in April vs April 2004. Also not surprisingly, the network carriers shed the most employees (down 6.1%) while the low cost carriers remained almost even (down 0.5%) and the regional carriers added employees (up 12.1%). Still less surprising is that US Airways has shed the largest percentage of employees since 2001 - nearly 50%.

BTS April Employment Data

March traffic:

Not new news but a recent release by the BTS is March domestic only traffic data. Overall, the number of passengers was up 7.2% while RPM's were up 7.6% (both YOY). Ranked by domestic enplanements, US Airways stayed #6 and Southwest continues to be #1. ATL continues to be the busiest airport, again measured by enplanements.

BTS March Traffic Data

1Q05 Financials:

Finally, the independently calculated financials for 1Q05 were released by the BTS, all based only on domestic results. Not surprisingly, they report that no network carrier had an operating profit - US Airways came out second worst with a -13.9% operating profit margin.

Somewhat more surprising is that of the 3 low cost carriers that had an operating profit, Southwest was 3rd (though they were tightly bunched).

The large regional carriers, not surprisingly, had operating profits (except Atlantic Southeast) and thus positive operating profit margins. Interestingly, Mesa had a 13.2% profit margin - nearly the exact reverse of US Airways. Who says you can't make a large fortune operating an airline - you just have to have someone guarantee a profit.

US Airways had the 3rd highest domestic unit revenue - 13.0 cents - behind CAL & NWA. Mesa has unit revenues of 12.2 cents, by the way.

Us Airways also had the 3rd highest domestic unit cost - 14.8 cents - again behind CAL & NWA. Mesa continues to be the lowest cost large regional with domestic unit costs of 10.6 cents.

1Q05 Airline Financial Data

Jim
 
BoeingBoy said:
Just a few odds and ends released recently from the BTS.....

Fuel:

Through April the major, national, & large regional airlines combined used slightly over half as much fuel as in all of 2004 - 9.57 Billion gallons vs 18.56 Billion gallons.
[post="278140"][/post]​
Interesting stats Jim, thanks for posting. How is fuel usage up so much this year? Is there a corresponding increase in ASMs to reflect this? What happened to all those fuel saving iniatives (less reserve, etc)?
 
whlinder,

Purely guesses, since the BTS doesn't correlate all that data in one easy to access form......

The fuel saving initiatives give results around the margin - nothing wrong with that but you're not going to save 10% or 20%. On the opposite end, there are a lot more airplanes flying around - WN, B6, & FL have added a good number in the last year, US is about the only airline to park many, and then there's all those RJ's that have been delivered. All burning fuel.

Jim

[addition]

ps - sometimes, fuel cost savings initiatives result in higher fuel usage. I tanker fuel a lot more than I land with minimum reserve, for example - burns more gallons but is supposed to save money.
 
Interesting indeed.

You did not mention that HP was #2 in margin, ahead (slightly) of Southwest. HP's RASM inprovement was very good as well... Over 2 cents.
 
funguy,

mweiss might have to revise his theory than a LCC couldn't break the 10 cent RASM barrier - though I'm not sure that he considers HP a LCC.

Jim
 
funguy2 said:
You did not mention that HP was #2 in margin, ahead (slightly) of Southwest. HP's RASM inprovement was very good as well... Over 2 cents.

Unfortunately, that margin number for HP is a bit misleading because of the way they accounted for hedge gains in the first quarter. AWA counted its gains on future hedge positions as a credit against operating expenses of $49 million. Unless they restate earnings for the first quarter, they won't be able to count those to offset fuel expenses in future quarters.

If you pull out that gain (and I really can't fathom how hedges for future quarters can be applied to operating expenses in a current quarter), AWA had operating income of $1.13 million, for a margin of 0.16%.

Oh, and it doesn't seem to me that America West is any more of an "LCC" than Delta post-SimpliFares.
 
sfb,

I'm the last one that should question your accounting knowledge, but just a question.

As I recall, AWA's quarterly report said that they "marked to market" their hedges (or something like that). My feeble brain interprets that as showing a paper gain, and if the value goes up again this quarter (from end 1Q05 value) they can claim another paper gain. Of course, if the value drops (relative to 1Q05 value) they'll have a paper loss.

Jim
 
BoeingBoy said:
As I recall, AWA's quarterly report said that they "marked to market" their hedges (or something like that). My feeble brain interprets that as showing a paper gain, and if the value goes up again this quarter (from end 1Q05 value) they can claim another paper gain. Of course, if the value drops (relative to 1Q05 value) they'll have a paper loss.

Jim-

You are absolutely correct about being able to show a gain if the value of the hedges continue to increase (until such time as they are sold). The difference is that they won't be able to claim the full "savings" afforded by the hedge unless they engage in some accounting trickery; i.e. posting some sort of non-operating loss as an offset.

If you look at Southwest's financials (using them since they have the most extensive hedges), they seem to put their mark-to-market gains and losses into their non-operating income/expense. If I'm not mistaken, they record charges against those gains and credits on the operating side when the hedges come due. (Someone, please correct me if I am incorrect.) It seems a bit weird but it gives the "intuitive" result since the hedges are intended to offset fuel prices in a specific quarter. The accounting rules say that the company has to show the paper gains when the hedges appreciate in value, even though no actual gain is realized until they are sold.
 
sfb said:
Unfortunately, that margin number for HP is a bit misleading because of the way they accounted for hedge gains in the first quarter.

Ahh yes, I recall now...

From their Q105:

Excluding special items, which include the $48.9 million unrealized gain, the first quarter 2005 net loss would have been $10.8 million or $0.30 per diluted share.
 
Thanks, guys. I'd like to say I took an accounting course once, but the truth is that the accounting course took me.....

Jim