U Has Record Lf For Jan

[BoeingBoy]

The airlines started reporting Jan traffic numbers. Comparisons are to Jan 2004. Here's what I've seen so far....

American
RPM's up 8.1% on 1.7% more ASM's, LF up 4.4 points to 73.3%

America West
RPM's up 8.6% on 0.8% less ASM's, LF up 6.5 points to 74.4%

AirTran
RPM's up 28.1% on 23.0% more ASM's, LF up 2.6 points to 65.1%

Southwest
RPM's up 15.9% on 10.9% more ASM's, LF up 2.6 points to 58.8%

Continental
RPM's up 10.1% on 3.2% more ASM's, LF up 4.7 points to 76.1%
Estimated RASM up 3.5 - 4.5%

Jim

 

[ringmaruf]

Just one thing to make clear to everyone--Continental's increase in RASM is due entirely to their increase in load factor. It looks like their yield was down 2-3%.

 

[a320av8r]

US AIRWAYS REPORTS JANUARY TRAFFIC

ARLINGTON, Va., Feb. 3, 2005 -- US Airways reported its January 2005 passenger traffic today.

Mainline revenue passenger miles for January 2005 increased 3.9 percent on a 2.0 percent decrease in available seat miles compared to January 2004. The 68.3 percent passenger load factor, which was the highest for any January in the company’s history, is a 3.9 percentage point increase compared to January 2004.

The two wholly owned subsidiaries of US Airways Group, Inc., Piedmont Airlines, Inc. and PSA, Inc., and MidAtlantic Airways, reported a 139.1 percent increase in revenue passenger miles for January 2005, on 98.6 percent more capacity, compared to January 2004. The passenger load factor was 53.5 percent, a 9.1 percentage point increase compared to January 2004.

Mainline system passenger unit revenue for January 2005 is expected to decrease between 6.0 percent and 7.0 percent compared to January 2004.

US Airways ended the month of January 2005 completing 95.8 percent of its scheduled departures compared to 98.5 percent in January 2004, mostly due to severe winter weather in the East.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Thanks. FWIW, I'll add it to my list in another thread.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

[Edited list above to include US - these are all mainline, by the way]

American
RPM's up 8.1% on 1.7% more ASM's, LF up 4.4 points to 73.3%

America West
RPM's up 8.6% on 0.8% less ASM's, LF up 6.5 points to 74.4%

AirTran
RPM's up 28.1% on 23.0% more ASM's, LF up 2.6 points to 65.1%

Southwest
RPM's up 15.9% on 10.9% more ASM's, LF up 2.6 points to 58.8%

Continental
RPM's up 10.1% on 3.2% more ASM's, LF up 4.7 points to 76.1%
Estimated RASM up 3.5 - 4.5%

US Airways
RPM's up 3.9% on 2% less ASM's, LF up 3.9 points to 68.3%
Estimated RASM down 6 - 7%

Jim

 

[FWAAA]

Mainline system passenger unit revenue for January 2005 is expected to decrease between 6.0 percent and 7.0 percent compared to January 2004.

[post="245152"][/post]​

This one sentence tells us a lot. Not a good trend.

 

[funguy2]

Yeah... more people, each one at a larger loss, is not necessarily a good thing.

 

[mweiss]

This translates into approximately 0.16% less mainline revenue generated in January, 2005 than in January, 2004.

Mainline costs have decreased by a larger number (albeit pretty much entirely through concessions), so the profitability profile should be improved.

 

[a320av8r]

Yeah... more people, each one at a larger loss, is not necessarily a good thing.

[post="245160"][/post]​

I guess if we went empty we could really make some money.
You gotta get 'em on board first. <_<

 

[mweiss]

av8r's right...these additional people are at a smaller loss, because they are replacing empty seats. Now, if the unadditional people (i.e., those who would have flown anyway) are paying less than before, then it can be a more significant issue. These numbers are not complete enough to give us the barest hint of the answer to that question, however.

 

[USAirUnited]

US Air still has that pesky problem of making money even with great loads.

 

[FWAAA]

Call me dense, but this ain't good news.

Either yield or RASM (press release is not clear, but it doesn't really change the conclusion) drops between 6% and 7% year over year and in exchange, 4 more seats were occupied on each 100 seat aircraft, on average. That isn't a recipe for success.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Whether the costs dropped enough to more than offset the drop in revenue (either yield or PRASM), the fact that CAL estimated an increase of between 3.4 and 4.5% while we estimated the decrease we did can't be good news. That's a 10 point difference.

Jim

 

[Rico]

Excuse me,

But would it not make sense that if we are supposed to become a low cost carrier, selling seats at low cost, that the passenger unit revenue is supposed to go down a few precentage points...?

It is obvious that with the lower fares we chose to do with GoFares, response to SWA in PHL, and the response to DAL's new pricing war that our RASM would decrease.

It seems like so many love to see the half empty glass on here...

I instead would like to note that our highest JAN load factor occurred during all the fun and games around leading up to and in Jan, with daily predictions of our demise, or some strike, or price war, or balh blah blah...

The cup is not full yet, but IMO, it is half full, not half empty

 

[BoeingBoy]

Well, when we actually become a low cost carrier, low RASM (as long as it's above CASM) will not be bad.

However, while we're in BK, losing money, and fighting to survive, having RASM below CASM isn't good.

Jim