Us Relies On "transformation"

BoeingBoy

Veteran
Nov 9, 2003
16,512
5,865
Air Transport
US Airways Relies on 'Transformation' in Battle for Low-Fare Business
Aviation Week & Space Technology
05/03/2004, page 44

David Bond
Washington

Having failed to beat its low-fare competition, the No. 7 U.S. carrier will try--again--to join them

US Airways 'Transforms'

US Airways, still running in the red, is turning to yet another long-term solution to an increasingly near-term problem, exemplified by what many in aviation see as its ultimate confrontation--the launch of Philadelphia service May 9 by low-fare rival Southwest Airlines.

The solution is "transformation," described only sketchily on Sept. 27 as the company announced another set of poor financial results, these for the first-quarter 2004. The initiative still is being shaped by talks between the new CEO, Bruce Lakefield, and US Airways' unions, creditors, suppliers and other stakeholders.

Transformation absorbs US Airways' continuing attempts to reduce costs beyond what it achieved through its eight-month Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, which ended a year ago. Even though yields have collapsed throughout the industry during the past three years, the carrier still has unit revenues that would produce profits at almost any other airline, even its big network competitors (see table). At US Airways, however, high costs created a $143-million operating loss and a $177-million net loss during the quarter that ended Mar. 31.

BUT TRANSFORMATION has a revenue component, too--finding ways to bolster US Airways' share of a growing low-fare market. "Customers increasingly have more options for low, simplified fares, resulting in strong traffic at lower yields," Ben Baldanza, senior vice president for marketing and planning, said in a conference call with securities analysts. "Our transformation plan will capitalize on this market trend by allowing us to profitably offer consistently low fares to our customers."

Baldanza described a few revenue-side implications of a lower-fare, higher-traffic future, touching on their application at Philadelphia:

*Capacity increases in low-fare markets. Assuming Southwest's entry at Philadelphia will increase origin-and-destination traffic there, US Airways scheduling and marketing teams have developed plans to replace Airbus narrowbodies at the Charlotte and Pittsburgh hubs with newly delivered 70-seat regional jets, moving the mainline aircraft to Philadelphia. Replacing turboprops with RJs has been in the carrier's plans for years, and in the long run, 70-seat RJs will get increased emphasis over 50-seaters. Over time, US Airways will try to boost aircraft utilization beyond 10 hr. per day.

*More emphasis on nonstop service. US Airways is "overreliant" today on moving passengers through hubs on one-stop itineraries, and much of its added service in Philadelphia will be for point-to-point customers, like Southwest's. As lower fares stimulate traffic increases throughout the day, US Airways will de-peak its Philadelphia arrival and departure banks.

"Volume does not seem to be a problem in the industry," Baldanza summarized. "It's yields that are under pressure, and so that's why the transformation plan is built around rebuilding the airline to carry more passengers at lower average yield."

Depeaking hub operations offers significant cost reductions and has been applied that way elsewhere, by American in Dallas/Fort Worth and Chicago, for example, Delta in Atlanta and Continental in Newark. Similarly, increasing aircraft size usually reduces unit costs--the trip cost of a larger aircraft doesn't usually increase by the same percentage as the number of seats. Delta relied on this last year when it replaced its old Express operation's 737s with Song's 757s. But in each case, US Airways is aiming at a better Philadelphia product as well as lower costs.

It also seems to have abandoned the airline-within-an-airline, in use today by United's Ted as well as Delta's Song. US Airways tried that approach and failed badly with it after Southwest moved into the eastern U.S. at what used to be a US Airways stronghold, Baltimore, in 1993. Today, Southwest is No. 1 at Baltimore.

THERE IS A DANGER in increasing capacity under current conditions, however. Unit revenue equals fare yield times the load factor, and if yields are low, increasing revenue and covering costs will depend on flying the larger aircraft even fuller than the smaller ones.

One of US Airways' key accomplishments in Chapter 11 was winning agreement from its Air Line Pilots Assn. unit on a scope clause allowing much greater use of RJs by regional subsidiaries and affiliates. The carrier quickly ordered RJs from both Embraer and Bombardier. It had 123 RJs on Mar. 31, 13 of them new during the first quarter. Its RJ capacity was 47% higher in first-quarter 2004 than it was a year earlier.

Big Seven Airlines' Unit Revenues and Costs
First Quarter 2004

[Sorry folks, the numbers aren't lining up making it hard to read. The numbers after each airline are RASM/Operating CASM/Operating Profit (Loss)]

Revenue per Operating Cost per Operating
Available Seat Mile Available Seat Mile Profit (Loss)
(cents) (cents) ($ millions)
American 8.64 9.49 42
(mainline)
United 8.40 10.18 (211)
Delta 8.88 10.71 (388)
Northwest 8.99 10.23 (108)
Continental 8.55 9.76 (135)
Southwest 8.07 7.82 46
US Airways 10.62 11.68 (143)
(mainline)

Source: Company reports
 
the sad part about this article is the table at the end...HOW CAN US AIRWAYS COSTS STILL BE 11.68 cents per mile!!!!
That is only a drop of 1 cent over the course of all of the cuts and a bankrupcty!!! Even with united's casm we would of made a profit!!!!!
 
jack mama said:
the sad part about this article is the table at the end...HOW CAN US AIRWAYS COSTS STILL BE 11.68 cents per mile!!!!
That is only a drop of 1 cent over the course of all of the cuts and a bankrupcty!!! Even with united's casm we would of made a profit!!!!!
We aren't reporting a profit because we are spending money on RJs. They are not all financed 100% just for FYI. Rapid growth on MAA is creating a debt hole for USAirways, Group. And if not for the RJs, with all the cost reductions given thus far, U would have reported a profit last quarter.
 
PITbull said:
We aren't reporting a profit because we are spending money on RJs. They are not all financed 100% just for FYI. Rapid growth on MAA is creating a debt hole for USAirways, Group. And if not for the RJs, with all the cost reductions given thus far, U would have reported a profit last quarter.
Do you have a source on this? This would be contrary to most generally accepted accounting rules. Generally speaking, a cash outlay doesn't mean an full expense today... The P/L is not the same as cash flow.
 
I am interested in seeing that analysis as well. Namely, that US would have been profitable if not for the MAA RJs.
 
The information is in the 10K, US spent $533 million on RJs is what we were told.
 
purchase of rj's for MDA and PSA, the capacity purchases are not listed.
 
700UW said:
The information is in the 10K, US spent $533 million on RJs is what we were told.
Well... here is what I saw on the 10K:

For 2003, net cash used for investing activities was $511 million. Investing activities included cash outflows of $215 million related to capital expenditures, including $174 million for purchase deposits on future regional jet aircraft deliveries and payments made in connection with the delivery of two regional jets with the balance related to rotables, ground equipment and miscellaneous assets.

However, purchase deposits are not necessarily expenses. The are cash outflows, yes. But they are not necessarily expensed completely. This, you cannot say that the $174mil loss = $174mil in aircraft deposits.
 
It doesn't break it down in this quote, but here's 2004 A/C purchase committments:

(a) Commitments to purchase flight equipment

As of December 31, 2003, US Airways Group has 19 A320-family aircraft on firm order scheduled for delivery in the years 2007 through 2009. US Airways Group also has 10 A330-200 aircraft on firm order scheduled for delivery in the years 2007 through 2009. In addition, US Airways Group has firm orders for 53 CRJ Series 200, 50-seat single-class aircraft and 25 CRJ 701, 70-seat single-class aircraft. All firm-order CRJ aircraft are scheduled to be delivered by April 2005. US Airways Group also has firm orders for 85 Embraer ERJ-170, 72-seat aircraft, with the first delivery scheduled for March 2004. US Airways Group has the option to convert the ERJ-170s to ERJ-175s with 76 seats. All ERJ-170 deliveries are scheduled to be received by September 2006. As of December 31, 2003, the minimum determinable payments associated with these acquisition agreements for all firm-order aircraft (including progress payments, payments at delivery, spares, capitalized interest, penalty payments, cancellation fees and/or nonrefundable deposits) were estimated to be $1.93 billion in 2004, $854 million in 2005, $414 million in 2006, $31 million in 2007 and $2 million in 2008. As a result of the recent regional jet aircraft orders, the Company believes it is probable it will not take delivery of certain previously ordered narrow-body aircraft and recorded an accrual of $35 million for related penalties during the three months ended June 30, 2003.

That's 29 mainline (A320's & A330's) and 148 RJ's for a $1.93 Billion cost this year.

Jim
 
What about the $250 million that the company paid down on the government loan? Does that count towards our "shortfall" of making a profit. Would we not have been $73 million to the good if not for the loan payment?

Working for this company is like living an episode of The Twilight Zone. Let's face it, the workers of this company and the flying public have lost all faith in this company. Everyone is just watching and waiting for the scam to end. It is quite evident that there have been and continue to be sinister plans and people in place at the upper management levels. Our management team blows big ones!!
 
NYPD said:
What about the $250 million that the company paid down on the government loan? Does that count towards our "shortfall" of making a profit. Would we not have been $73 million to the good if not for the loan payment?

Working for this company is like living an episode of The Twilight Zone. Let's face it, the workers of this company and the flying public have lost all faith in this company. Everyone is just watching and waiting for the scam to end. It is quite evident that there have been and continue to be sinister plans and people in place at the upper management levels. Our management team blows big ones!!
No... the $250 prepayment is a cashflow item, but has no effect on P/L, except that the reduced loan amount should decrease interest expense.
 
So PITBULL, do you think that the investment in RJs is not worth it? Would you rather show a profit? They could of spent that money on Mesa flying instead of at MAA....

I for one think the E170s are going to be a great addition to the fleet, and I hope that they keep them flying at MAA.
 
jack mama said:
So PITBULL, do you think that the investment in RJs is not worth it? Would you rather show a profit? They could of spent that money on Mesa flying instead of at MAA....

I for one think the E170s are going to be a great addition to the fleet, and I hope that they keep them flying at MAA.

Jack,

Do you, in your own finances, consider purchasing a home way beyond your means and then furnish it with all the bells and whistles the moment it is built, whereby increasing your debt load and increasing your financial risk exposure, and then tell your family enjoy the house and the funiture, but no one is permitted to eat every day, that the grocery bill and utility bills have to be cut to the bare minimum?

Answer to your question: No. I would have slowed down the purchase of RJ a/c and waited to have cash to work with with and acquiring LESS debt....so we don't just go and fall off a cliff.

However, there is always another prepackaged BK to keep the BOD happy and fat.
And there is always Labor to come in and throw themselves under the bus in order to save "shareholder value".

With your thinking, no wonder we are going out of business. :down:
 
How ironic, because I feel the same about your thinking...

you see, this is a business designed to make money, not a family, not my home....if the cash was available to buy the RJs to try and transform the company into a profit generating machine, then I would of done the same thing.

What makes you think those RJs are way beyond our means...we were cash neutral though the 1st qtr...we generate billions in revenue...the cash flow is there....

The structural cost (not the labor costs) have to come down and then we will reap the rewards. Employee concessions from the wallet will not lower the CASM significantly, as seen over the last 4-5 yrs (our casm only dropped 1 cent) and hopefully someone will figure that soon!!!
 

Latest posts