Airline Fleet/Management in a crisis

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not surprised to see that move by American.

Of the big airlines (DL, AA, UA, SWA) - American was in the weakest financial position going into this, and they had the worst operation. A "hot mess" in the words of one airline CEO.

This announcement represents a commitment to being much smaller coming out of the crisis. Shedding fleet types and streamlining the operation was needed more at AA than other airlines. They need to cut costs more, and improve their operation more.

This is not good news if you're an AA employee, however, and I take no pleasure in stating the above. The likelihood is that AA will have pretty significant furloughs in the fall. The CARES act requires that Airlines accessing the government support have no layoffs or furloughs through September 30. I would anticipate furloughs at many airlines, effective 01 October.

Airlines will have to shrink to the new passenger demand. Some will not survive. Some will need the help of the courts to abrogate their employee contracts (not that I condone this) and slash jobs. Some will take modest cuts.

There have already been some failures. Trans-States for example, and Compass, in the US. A few others globally. SWA has always been able to avoid any involuntary layoffs in previous downturns. I will be interested to see if they can manage that this time.
 
Originally Posted by Astro14
Airlines will have to shrink to the new passenger demand.


If all the airlines go to some kind of empty seat "social distancing" methodology in the future (which would cut the max passenger load way down), I'd hate to see what ticket costs would be for the airlines to operate like that. It would be pretty hard for them to survive if each plane load was only 30%-50% of max, and I doubt people would pay for hugely expensive tickets to fly.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Astro14
Airlines will have to shrink to the new passenger demand.


If all the airlines go to some kind of empty seat "social distancing" methodology in the future (which would cut the max passenger load way down), I'd hate to see what ticket costs would be for the airlines to operate like that. It would be pretty hard for them to survive if each plane load was only 30%-50% of max, and I doubt people would pay for hugely expensive tickets to fly.

It is wishful thinking.
Thing is everyone is trying to find economic solution to public health issue. That does not exist. We as a society, especially first world and many developing countries, forgot that pandemics exist. Rapid development of medicine erased cultural and institutional memories of pandemics. Today's economy cannot function alongside pandemic. And this will happen more often as countries that are "exporters" of exotic viruses are more integrated in the world.
Empty middle seat is not solution. This will be idling until effective vaccine is developed and 70% of world population develops some kind of immunity through vaccine or naturally. That is reality. Everything else is wishful thinking. Because, unless that happens, you can sell tickets for $20 to Germany, but empty middle seat will not convince someone to fly.
 
If passenger traffic doesn't return to previous levels, airlines won't fly as many flights. Airlines have to operate at about 80% load factor to make a profit.

If the traffic isn't there, then they have to cut flights, reduce service, until they get to that load factor. That's why I think that many airlines will be smaller coming out of this, post 30 September. The bookings won't be there.

If the middle seat is removed from service, by legislation or lack of bookings, that will be a major disruptor. The the airlines will cut service until they can charge enough on the remaining seats to cover the cost of operating that flight. It's simple economics. Tickets prices will skyrocket as capacity is cut. Service to many smaller cities will cease. It's not good for anyone. Delta and Jet Blue have already sought to stop their obligated/subsidized service to many smaller cities because the planes are empty.

If you're wishing that the airlines re-organize, or take a cut financially, that's an emotional, because it's going to be realized as greatly reduced service and much higher prices as capacity leaves the market. Some airlines are already gone. They are regionals, with low costs, and served small cities. Those cities will suffer a loss of service. It's already clear that some long haul airlines, like Norwegian, will have to leave markets, and that will reduce capacity on those routes. The remaining seats are going to be priced higher up the yield curve....

Take even more seats out, and the airlines will simply be pricing fewer seats and each one will be much more expensive.

You can't pay the lease on a $300 million 777, and pay for the gas, gate lease, employees, and landing fees unless you make a certain amount of revenue with that airplane. Lower capacity will be the response to lower consumer demand. And you'll have higher prices. Bankruptcy can't squeeze the operating cost to zero.
 
Last edited:
Do you think some that were daily long haul flights will not be daily in the future? If so, we will schedule our business abroad based on that. Of course hotels need to open up too … that's my home away from home.
 
I have had customers go bankrupt and default on bills totaling thousands. With a small company, it hurts, it hurts a lot.

We have never had to, and do not want to. There is a situation brewing, if customer a goes bankrupt, we may have to follow.

They are paying on their bill slowly so we can sell them more parts. As long as the total owed goes down each time, maybe it will be OK.

Rod
 
Originally Posted by 4WD
Do you think some that were daily long haul flights will not be daily in the future? If so, we will schedule our business abroad based on that. Of course hotels need to open up too … that's my home away from home.


Depends on demand as well as what happens with fleets.

If, for example, United parks the 757, we won't have an airplane that can fly EWR-EDI direct at a volume/load factor that is sustainable. So, that service won't continue.

If, for example, United keeps the 757, but the traffic is off by 40% with no predicted rise in the near term, than that route no longer makes any sense for us to fly.

We used to have 7 flights/day EWR-LHR. Using everything from 757 to 777-300.

I suspect that frequency will go down.

In the meantime, the hotels are open and would LOVE have you stay. I was at the EWR Marriott a month ago. It was a ghost town. But the staff was delighted to see me.
 
Another side of the coin are the airports. Seattle-Tacoma is in the middle of a major remodel and extension of their international terminal which was spurred by increased traffic. They are just one example.


I really worry about the traffic to the small and mid sized cities that were served by turboprops or Embraer jets.
 
Yeah, I flew to Austin on Republic E175 and probably no more.

I think another round of grants next year will be absolutely necessary.
 
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
Yeah, I flew to Austin on Republic E175 and probably no more.

I think another round of grants next year will be absolutely necessary.




How many passengers were on board?
 
The current carriers may have too much liability overall to survive in anything close to their pre-crisis form.
As many perfectly serviceable aircraft are sent to the desert and many type rated crews are shown the door, what then prevents new entrants from buying these now available airplanes and hiring these now redundant crews? The aircraft that had been intended for years of continued service just a few months back will be cheap as chips while the now unemployed crew will be happy to find a flying job albeit at lower wages than they'd grown accustomed to.
There's always the potential for start-ups to exploit the economic landscape.
Suddenly it's 1980 all over again.
 
Originally Posted by Astro14
If passenger traffic doesn't return to previous levels, airlines won't fly as many flights. Airlines have to operate at about 80% load factor to make a profit.

If the traffic isn't there, then they have to cut flights, reduce service, until they get to that load factor. That's why I think that many airlines will be smaller coming out of this, post 30 September. The bookings won't be there.

If the middle seat is removed from service, by legislation or lack of bookings, that will be a major disruptor. The the airlines will cut service until they can charge enough on the remaining seats to cover the cost of operating that flight. It's simple economics. Tickets prices will skyrocket as capacity is cut. Service to many smaller cities will cease. It's not good for anyone. Delta and Jet Blue have already sought to stop their obligated/subsidized service to many smaller cities because the planes are empty.

If you're wishing that the airlines re-organize, or take a cut financially, that's an emotional, because it's going to be realized as greatly reduced service and much higher prices as capacity leaves the market. Some airlines are already gone. They are regionals, with low costs, and served small cities. Those cities will suffer a loss of service. It's already clear that some long haul airlines, like Norwegian, will have to leave markets, and that will reduce capacity on those routes. The remaining seats are going to be priced higher up the yield curve....

Take even more seats out, and the airlines will simply be pricing fewer seats and each one will be much more expensive.

You can't pay the lease on a $300 million 777, and pay for the gas, gate lease, employees, and landing fees unless you make a certain amount of revenue with that airplane. Lower capacity will be the response to lower consumer demand. And you'll have higher prices. Bankruptcy can't squeeze the operating cost to zero.


All what you said it is fine, and it will happen. Middle seat solution is just garbage idea. Management, policy makers etc. do not know what to do, so they are throwing these wild ideas. According to latest poll wast majority of Americans are not in favor of reopening country at this point. That means they are tuned in, and fallow facts. If this thing is still around, or second wave comes in, again, airlines can sell seats for $20 to Frankfurt, it ain't gonna sell.
Now, there s so much pressure on states to open that we might have majority of population with antibodies , and we might kill bunch of people in the meantime, but comes fall, it might be different.
As for financial situations at airlines, they should be saved, but with strings attached primarily when it comes to work force and and moratorium on stock buybacks.
 
PimTac,

About 90% but that was back in the beginning of March.



edyvw,

Yes, the government will help the airlines and expect a 2 way street with them to have skin in the game. Unless airlines want to end up like Pan Am (once the flagship of aviation).... they will have no other choice than to take the necessary actions and emerge as smaller airlines. Pay cuts, permanent lay offs, retire older aircraft, trim less profitable routes, reorganize from top to bottom, get rid of some unnecessary corporate staffing, work with all the unions to help save the airline, renegotiate debt, etc... etc...

Bankruptcy is not a taboo word.

My dad was an A&P mechanic for National and Pan Am and enjoyed his job but didn't like the uncertainty of the industry. I still have memorabilia from both airlines.
 
Yeah, I had posted about this about six hours ago in the 737MAX thread.
The markets apparently have a lot more confidence in Boeing than do many here, bearing in mind that this is unsecured subordinate general obligation debt.
$25B in debentures ain't chump change and Boeing could have squeezed out more juice had they been so inclined since this offering was hugely oversubscribed.
 
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
PimTac,

About 90% but that was back in the beginning of March.



edyvw,

Yes, the government will help the airlines and expect a 2 way street with them to have skin in the game. Unless airlines want to end up like Pan Am (once the flagship of aviation).... they will have no other choice than to take the necessary actions and emerge as smaller airlines. Pay cuts, permanent lay offs, retire older aircraft, trim less profitable routes, reorganize from top to bottom, get rid of some unnecessary corporate staffing, work with all the unions to help save the airline, renegotiate debt, etc... etc...

Bankruptcy is not a taboo word.

My dad was an A&P mechanic for National and Pan Am and enjoyed his job but didn't like the uncertainty of the industry. I still have memorabilia from both airlines.


Bankruptcy is option when there is absolutely no other way around. However, bankruptcy is being used too many times to get rid of debt in which workers are short ended.
 
edyvw,

That might be their only option at this point.
Five years from now the government will still be helping the major airlines stay solvent.

Folks leaving the industry might have to make a career change if they lack the seniority to stay.
 
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
edyvw,

That might be their only option at this point.
Five years from now the government will still be helping the major airlines stay solvent.

Folks leaving the industry might have to make a career change if they lack the seniority to stay.



I've said before that Chapter 11 reorganization may be the only option for most US carriers.
This means that the existing shareholders get robbed and all of the lenders including the lessors get a crew cut.
The employee's terms and conditions cease to have any meaning as do any agreements to serve any airport or lease gate space at any airport.
Chapter 11 is the nuclear option and not one that any corporation enters into lightly.
That some companies are forced to the wall is the result of the financial leverage most companies feel compelled to employ.
Would you believe that there was a time in modern memory, at least for those of us who've been around to remember it, when blue chip publicly held companies had no long term debt at all?
Not GE, not GM, not IBM, not a one when these were blue chip stocks.
Maybe we'd be ahead if we changed policies to encourage equity finance and discourage debt?
Shareholders have no choice but to be more patient than creditors and Chapter 11 would cease to be a valuable business tool.
Yeah, year on year growth in returns on equity would be muted in a growing economy, but financial leverage works the other way too so the huge declines in earnings and even losses during an economic contraction would be muted as well and companies might be better able to manage through things like the current crisis.
 
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
edyvw,

That might be their only option at this point.
Five years from now the government will still be helping the major airlines stay solvent.

Folks leaving the industry might have to make a career change if they lack the seniority to stay.


The problem is not just an airline. This is not result of bad management (well AA maybe). These companies entered crisis healthy and reason is beyond them. Going to Ch.11 undermines what government is trying to do. Why not then Ch.11 with everything else? Why not GM, Ford? Why not hospitals? Why not people?
When things get settle down, when traffic goes back to some healthy routine, then Ch.11 could be an option to struggling airline.
I agree, five years from now, yeah, that might be an option, but now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom