Us Airways Strategic Analysis

USA320Pilot

Veteran
May 18, 2003
8,175
1,539
www.usaviation.com
Some people are wondering if US Airways can survive and are asking them self questions like how soon must exit financing be in place? Can the company continue to operate in bankruptcy beyond June 30 and does the airline have enough cash on hand to operate beyond June?

Those are all good questions but the situation is so fluid it’s difficult to accurately answer those questions.

The company is required to file its plan of reorganization (POR) by its GECAS agreement by March 15 and by the bankruptcy court by March 31. Those dates can be changed by consent of GECAS and the bankruptcy court. Earlier this year US Airways was required to file its POR by February 15 and GECAS and the court agreed to extend the date to March 15. During last week’s MEC meeting chief executive Bruce Lakefield said that all of US Airways financial partners and the ATSB want to see the company survive and are working with the airline. Thus, it’s reasonable to assume those parties will work with the company again, and if necessary, will extend the date required to file the POR. In fact, the company hinted at that this earlier this week in a column written by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

The newspaper noted US Airways stated on Feb. 14 that it delayed by one month the filing of the plan. But yesterday, spokesman David Castelveter said the airline would "not tie ourselves to when we'll have a plan." He also said the airline might ask the court to extend past March 31 the time it -- and not creditors -- has exclusive right to present a reorganization plan.

See Story

In my opinion, due to the fluid nature of the company’s discussions to further cut costs, increase revenues, and find the best exit financing possible, US Airways may need more time to formulate its business plan.

"I think we're doing a great job in a very competitive environment," said CEO Bruce Lakefield, after updating pilots on the airline's reorganization plans last Thursday, the Tribune-Review reported.

See Story

I believe a financial analysis to figure out the company’s “staying powerâ€￾ without access to confidential information is to difficult because there are too many variables in a very fluid situation. US Airways is in a “race with timeâ€￾ to get its cost cuts fully implemented and revenue increased to deal with current fundamentals, thus it needs more cash to not only improve its balance sheet, but to buy it more time. The problem for management to accurately provide a POR is its finances and projections for energy costs and revenue keep changing.

However, when Lakefield made the comment to ALPA that US Airways could liquidate without additional financing most observers believed it was because US Airways needed more time to fully implement its business plan to realize all of the cost cuts because it needed to deal with the fuel problem. Because the cuts are not coming out all at once and are being phased in, fuel prices are eating away at the unrestricted cash position, thus he needs more cash to provide the company more time to continue its restructuring.

US Airways’ business plan will likely work at $45 to $46 per barrel of oil, but tonight it’s trading at about $54 per barrel. Thus, the company must make up $16 to $18 per month in more cost cuts and/or additional revenue.

To help it come up with on average of $18 million per month in additional revenue and cost cuts the company had two positive revenue developments during the past two weeks when every legacy carrier increased its ticket prices. US Airways is selectively adding them to the network and not revealing the percentage of routes seeing the increase. Thus, without looking at every route and doing a side-by-side comparison, it is difficult to tell how much revenue will be added. Regardless, I believe the revenue improvement will be significant and last Friday’s increase could not have come a more important time.

Meawnhile, Southwest Airlines is increasing its fares too.

See Story

In regard to cash, US Airways is moving forward with its employee “buy outsâ€￾ and continues to spend money on facility and capital improvements. The company is completing the work for flight attendant “buy outsâ€￾ and it closed for CWA personnel on Friday. In addition, it continues to spend money on the Philadelphia terminal B and C remodeling a la Charlotte and has refurbished or replaced about 50 percent of the Philadelphia ground support equipment (GSE). The important point here is that the company can still spend money and meet its obligations, but it’s no secret the Eastshore/Air Wisconsin DIP financing was needed to not violate the ATSB’s February 28 unrestricted cash requirement.

I understand that US Airways reached its low cash point for the year the first week of March and is now cash flow positive. The second and third quarters are the company’s best of the year and the carrier is now entering the heavy travel period. On Friday Lakefield told employees in his weekly message that weekend bookings are over 800,000 people. By comparison last week the airline carried 800,000 people for the entire week.

Meanwhile, the company made other announcements last week, which management believes will lower unit costs

US Airways announced two major job cuts with significant outsourcing, which I understand is more than originally planned. Not only will some of the Pittsburgh RSA jobs outsourced, but maybe about 300 in Winston-Salem could be gone too. US Airways will likely open up a reservation sales center in San Salvador where agent pay will go down from about $17.50 to $2.20 per hour, with no benefits.

Then in its second major outsourcing move last week, US Airways told employees on Friday that it would farm out the work of about 600 FSA’s in 26 cities to outside vendors, starting on April 11.

See Story

These cuts are in addition to the 11 B737-3/400s that are coming out of service in May. These aircraft have monthly lease payments between $80,000 to $90,000 per month and all require expensive heavy maintenance in the not-so-distant future. Speaking of heavy maintenance, Lakefield told ALPA US Airways deferred some of its A320 family aircraft heavy maintenance that is now due this year and will cost the company about $100 million.

Fuel is a huge issue, but the company is taking out extra cuts to deal with the problem, however, it is going to take time to realize all of the labor savings and management cuts, which is why the company must have more financing in place so it can reduce its losses and maintain the operation.

One area the company has indicated is one of its “strongest cardsâ€￾ is to attract additional financing is through its RJ affiliate carrier contracts. US Airways has not yet affirmed its “Fee for Serviceâ€￾ contract with its 3 affiliate RJ partners, Chautauqua, Mesa, and TSA, and using these agreement as leverage to lower unit costs or to obtain equity.

Meanwhile, Raymond James & Associates managing director of investment banking James Parker told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last Saturday Mesa’s interest in propping up US Airways with a new investment reflects the carrier's interest in “self preservationâ€￾ because Mesa relies on US Airways for about one-third of its business. It has a "keen interest in seeing US Airways survive and prosper," said Parker.

Parker believes Mesa would consider an investment based on several conditions that include:

• It wants its feeder contract with US Airways reaffirmed in bankruptcy.
• The company also is interested in operating larger aircraft through US Airways.
• It needs to see a US Airways business plan that "would make this company viable over the long term." In addition, Mesa "would only invest in US Airways if other investors came forward."

Parker’s 3 points are valid. Mesa is the lowest cost RJ affiliate carrier for US Airways and likely wants its current “fee for serviceâ€￾ contract affirmed, it would like to operate more 90-seat RJ aircraft (maybe without the J4J provision) per LOA 93, and would probably like more equity provided from other investors to boost US Airways liquidity position and reduce the Phoenix-based company’s US Airways exposure.

Moreover, if US Airways fails, so could Mesa if it instantly loses one-third of its revenue. The commuter company’s interest in operating 90-seat RJ’s is obvious, but Parker’s comment that Mesa "would only invest in US Airways if other investors came forward" is interesting. With US Airways’ governance contracts with its union’s and MSP obligations, coupled with Air Wisconsin’s pending stake 25%, Mesa and a third equity investor, could prevent Mesa from gaining control of US Airways. In addition, the same governance issue will make it harder for RSA to take the company private.

Lakefield told ALPA that the list of interested investors is "long" and he hinted that GE, all of the affiliate carrier’s, and EDS are interested in helping US Airways. He said these companies want to be partners in US Airways’ transformation and along with RSA and other financial firms, may be interested in providing US Airways with exit financing.

Asked if Mesa could contribute enough to emerge with a controlling interest in US Airways, Parker said, "That's possible. He might do that." But at the same time, "he's not going to do anything to jeopardize and do any harm to Mesa."

In my opinion, the motivation behind Mesa’s interest is deeper than the three points listed above because Bruce Lakefield told the ALPA MEC that if Mesa, Chautauqua and TSA, do not reduce their “fee for serviceâ€￾ contract and/or provide equity to US Airways, then the Arlington-based carrier would (not could) replace an affiliate carrier with Air Wisconsin flying, regardless of the Appleton-based carrier’s flying obligation for United Express.

That is likely why exact details of the Air Wisconsin agreement were redacted from the public record because of the competitive issues surrounding the placement of regional jets within the marketplace.

Meanwhile, a report surfaced on Sunday that it was unclear if Mesa would take a stake in US Airways.

See Story

In conclusion, US Airways is clearly in play, it probably needs more time to restructure, and it could seek to have its exclusive period to file its POR extended, which is likely a “good thingâ€￾ considering the fluid situation and complex negotiations currently taking place.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
bottom line Captain:

You work for an airline that wants to become a complete Express airline.

I predict that the US Airways name will never go away, but the number of mainline employees will go from 25,000 to 0 in a short time.

Farewell to the FSA and RSA folks that are being let go. Amazing, even airlines like B6, FL, etc. all employ their OWN PEOPLE at small stations.
 
Hmmm... US Airways is unable to attract exit financing and unable to come up with a viable business plan.

Sounds like exactly the scenario you inacurately predicted for USAirways' business partner so many times in the past. I guess the shoe is on the other foot now, and you are suddenly singing another tune.
 
USA320Pilot said:
To help it come up with on average of $18 million per month in additional revenue and cost cuts the company had two positive revenue developments during the past two weeks when every legacy carrier increased its ticket prices. US Airways is selectively adding them to the network and not revealing the percentage of routes seeing the increase. Thus, without looking at every route and doing a side-by-side comparison, it is difficult to tell how much revenue will be added. Regardless, I believe the revenue improvement will be significant and last Friday’s increase could not have come a more important time.
[post="255291"][/post]​

Why is US not revealing the percentage of routes that saw fare increases? It is publically available information.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #6
767jetz:

767jetz said: "Hmmm... US Airways is unable to attract exit financing and unable to come up with a viable business plan. Sounds like exactly the scenario you inacurately predicted for USAirways' business partner so many times in the past. I guess the shoe is on the other foot now, and you are suddenly singing another tune.

USA320Pilot comments: Your conclusion is inaccurate and misleading. Market conditions changed, specifically fuel, so the company is adjusting to the new financial picture. US Airways tried to file its POR in 6 months and it will need a month or two more. In regard to UAL, how many times has it asked the bankruptcy court for an extension and how long has the company been operating in bankruptcy? US Airways has attracted 50% of the target exit financing and is using its RJ contracts to obtain more. Guess what UA cannot do that because it is too large for the RJ operators to help.

Part of US Airways' problem is that it has more than one party in complex exit financing negotiations, according to a personal discussion I had with Bruce Lakefield. During last week's ALPA MEC meeting Lakefield told us that he was in discussions with a number of parties interested in providing the company with exit financing. He hinted that GE, the affiliate RJ companies, and EDS were interested in helping US Airways. Moreover, RSA still is another possible bidder and private equity firms like MatlinPatterson have held discussions with US Airways too.

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last Friday Lakefield quickly emphasized that US Airways was still talking with a number of interested parties. "The list is long," he said. 767jetz, did you selectively miss that comment too?

See Story

Earlier this month both AA and DL said that there access to the capital markets has been shut off. That could be the case for UA too, which could create a UA asset sale. 767jetz, I find it interesting that you seem to follow my posts all the time, but I do not follow yours. Why are you so interested in US Airways?

By the way did you see the recent news report on another UA & US merger attempt?

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
The AWAC money is not exit financing, it is a DIP loan, go read the agreement, if US does not pay it back it converts to equity. See if it was true exit financing, US would not have acsess to it until they actually EXIT bankruptcy.

And no one sees RSA, GE, RJ companies nor EDS knocking down US' door to give it money.

US is dying a slow death, get ready to feel some more pain.
 
700UW said:
The AWAC money is not exit financing, it is a DIP loan, go read the agreement, if US does not pay it back it converts to equity. See if it was true exit financing, US would not have acsess to it until they actually EXIT bankruptcy.

And no one sees RSA, GE, RJ companies nor EDS knocking down US' door to give it money.

US is dying a slow death, get ready to feel some more pain.
[post="255365"][/post]​

Nor do we see TPG, other airlines, or even perrenial runner's up in BK proceedings like Marvin Davis, or that Global Airlines thing that tried to "invest" in TWA prior to its demise.
 
Well it would be a little difficult for Davis to invest, he died 9/25/2004.
 
USA320Pilot said:
767jetz, did you selectively miss that comment too?

[post="255362"][/post]​

Not at all. I'm just pointing out to everyone how YOU have selectively twisted things with regard to UA, and now that the shoe is on the other foot you conveniently have changed your tune.

Everytime UA extended our exclusivity and adapted to a changing environment, you were right there claiming that UA will fail, and making misleading and inaccurate statements as to the state of UA's reorganization. How many times did you claim that UA was "unable to attract exit financing and unable to file a viable business plan," when in reality the biggest financial institutions in the world (not loan sharks or equity investors) were behind UA and working with us diligently all along??? Be honest! How many times???? I lost count. I thought you admit when you are wrong.
:down: But we all know the truth. We know that it takes a big person to say, "well, I guess I was wrong." And you are not that big. All you do is say, 'things changed, but I was still right at the time.' What a load of BS. Psychologically speaking, you are as easy to read as a child's pop-up book.

You were told over and over again that UA was using the tools of the court to extract every ounce of benefit from our trip through the courts, as to avoid a second bankruptcy. But of course you were singing the same old song of USAir's dominance over UA and trying to spin every event at UA as negatively as possible.

You were told over and over again that UA is taking a slow methodical approach to a very large reorganization, and were on our own time table. Not yours, USAirs, or anyone else's. But you didn't miss a beat spinning your propaganda. Now... who is the one with the obsession? Time to look in the mirror my friend.

Now that USAir is having to adjust to a changing environment, and is currently unable to obtain exit financing or file a viable business plan, you have suddenly changed your tune. Why is that? I don't disagree that the environment is fluid and as circumstances change, the reorganization process must also change. It is the exact thing we've been telling you about UA all along. But why then don't you spread the same doom and gloom message you targeted UA with everytime we adjusted to a changing environment?

You see... I am just pointing out what a hypocrit you really are. (As if we don't all aready know this.) I know you don't like it. But... Oh well :rolleyes: That's your problem, not mine. Now have a few belts from your favorite bottle and chill out.
 
Here's what Lakefield is reported to have said in the MEC meeting, from people in attendance. Some will seem to be duplicates - they're different people's version of what he said....

On equity

We must find equity investment, "or we liquidate," and we must find this equity "as soon as possible."� There is "not a dime of equity money out there for the airline industry."

Air Wisconsin investment was a good deal, but we will not see any more meteorites like that fall out of the sky.

Without new equity investment, we will liquidate. We have to find money ASAP, there is not a dime of equity out there.

We are in survival mode, chasing equity.

On fuel prices

US Airways planned on $35 a barrel for oil in 2005, will incur $480 million more than planned in fuel costs in 2005 if oil remains at $55 a barrel. US Airways "would be profitable" except for the higher than planned cost of fuel. Fuel is now, for the first time, "our number one expense" item.

Oil is at $55/bbl., original Transformation Plan called for $35/bbl. If oil prices stay this high, fuel will become the single highest expense above labor for the first time in company history, even with reduced labor costs.

This is a different airline at $50 vs. $30, If we can't fly routes at this price, we will make decisions based on that.

Doing what's necessary

He will "do what he has to do" in the short term, making the "decisions that he has to make," in order to keep this company alive.

We need to make the decisions to keep the airline in business, they will be tough decisions, but we will have to do what is necessary.

If it were necessary to park 30 or 50 planes, he would do what was necessary, but he has no plans to do this today. We have a lot of heavy checks due this year, costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

Labor

"We have done our part on the labor side," and "need to do it on the cost side."

"Without labor concessions, we would be out of business.� I think we have a competitive cost structure on the labor side."

There is too much seniority in our workplace. Seniority equals a "sense of entitlement".

(When asked about contract compliance) This is a two-way street. I have a problem with the employee's sense of entitlement. I'm just trying to "save our asses."

Jim
 
Jim,
Two things stand out: Do what is necessary (i.e. park airplanes) and the employees 'sense of entitlement'. Any wonder why morale is at an all time low? I say bail out now, the ship is ready to go under!
 
BoeingBoy said:
Here's what Lakefield is reported to have said in the MEC meeting, from people in attendance. Some will seem to be duplicates - they're different people's version of what he said....

[post="255383"][/post]​

Jim

So this by 320 quote below was complete fabrication?

""During last week's ALPA MEC meeting Lakefield told us that he was in discussions with a number of parties interested in providing the company with exit financing. He hinted that GE, the affiliate RJ companies, and EDS were interested in helping US Airways. Moreover, RSA still is another possible bidder and private equity firms like MatlinPatterson have held discussions with US Airways too.""
 

Latest posts

Back
Top