Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 72 Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1357 times:
A war is, by definition, never good for those doing the fighting - the only chance someone has to get some advantage out of it is by winning, leaving others dead or dying along the way to victory...
The only way a fare war could turn out to be good for one (or more) of the airlines would be for one or more airlines to go bankrupt and liquidate, enabling the "survivors" to increase the fares and, in consequence, the yields.
Other than that, I don't see how a fare war could be good for an airline.
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9286 posts, RR: 13 Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1346 times:
Delta's action is not a 'Fare War'. They have just established an entirely new pricing system for themself. In a fare war, airlines undercut eachother for a short period of time and in many cases except a loss, then later return to the old pricing schedule. Besides, I'm fine with it...! A round trip ticket to fly home to see my Mom was $500... now on DAL it's $175.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
VictorTango From India, joined Jan 2005, 500 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1324 times:
It'll be real tough for premium carriers to maintain their profits without cutting down costs. Besides fuel prices have also shot up recently. But it has to be kept in mind that if an airline has decided to cut down prices it could definitely have some sort of logic behind it. No airline will reduce fares if their flights are not gonna bring in money. What really matters is the pricing structure? How much of the capacity are they going to offer at low prices? I know of a couple of premium airlines that offered rock bottom fares (even while they were still making losses) and are today flying profitably. On the other side there are a few who have collapsed. However it's difficult to say if this so called fare-war is good for airlines, but all said and done passengers are the ones who have benefited most.
TACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1284 times:
" Moves by the major airlines to slash prices made headlines over the past week, but a potential fare war is just one of a multitude of pressures facing the industry.
Hefty fuel costs, challenging labor negotiations and mounting pension obligations add up to far bigger worries for airlines, especially the so-called legacy carriers -- Delta Air Lines Inc., UAL Corp.'s United, AMR Corp.'s American, Northwest Airlines Corp., Continental Airlines Inc. and US Airways Group. Financial professionals say it's a risky area to invest in, but if you've got the stomach for it, smaller low-cost carriers are probably the better gamble.
"Unless you are a highly risk tolerant investor, avoid airline stocks," said Brian Hayward, airline analyst at Zacks Investment Research in Chicago. "There will be trading opportunities. If you think you're good enough to trade on where oil is going to go, and you think you're nimble enough to trade on that information, good luck."
Long a cyclical industry, airlines have had trouble making money for decades, but were especially hard hit after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Passenger counts finally climbed back to pre-Sept. 11 levels during the fourth quarter of 2004. But airline stocks have plunged since Jan. 1 amid weak earnings and word that Delta was cutting fares dramatically in an effort to lure back bargain-hunting business fliers.
The losses, as measured by the American Stock Exchange Airline Index (XAL), only deepened as competing carriers rushed to match Delta's price action, which cut the most expensive fares by up to half and eliminated Saturday night stay requirements. In the days following the news, the index sank 14.21 percent.
Delta's pricing action, a direct result of competition from successful low-cost carriers like AirTran, JetBlue Airways Corp. and Southwest Airlines Inc., will likely accelerate industry restructuring, said Smith Barney analyst Daniel McKenzie. When it comes to determining which companies will survive, cash flow will be key, he said.
"It is no coincidence we are seeing simplified pricing. It was inevitable for the industry, given the aggressive growth of low-cost carriers," McKenzie said. "There's probably been no carrier in history that has struck as much terror in the corporate offices of the cyclical majors as JetBlue. That's what Delta has to respond to."
Hub fundamentals combined with cost structure will determine the long-term winners, McKenzie said. But in the short term, a big question for analysts is what impact the price changes will have on airline profits; it has not been factored into earnings estimates yet.
Fuel costs also remain a wild card. If crude oil prices soar back to the $55 range, it would increase bankruptcy risk for all the major airlines, McKenzie said. As it is, American narrowly escaped filing for bankruptcy in 2003 and Delta avoided it late last year, thanks to new financing and fresh labor concessions. Currently in bankruptcy court are United and US Airways, which is just days away from the possible liquidation of its assets unless it receives concessions from its labor unions.
If one of the big carriers did go out of business, it would actually help the remaining airlines survive. Almost everyone agrees the biggest problem facing the industry is excess capacity -- too many seats in the sky.
If, for example, US Airways -- the seventh largest carrier with 6 percent of seating capacity -- is grounded by liquidation, it would create more business for East Coast competitors like Delta and AirTran, and the second-most vulnerable player, Independence Air, which is having trouble making jet lease payments. It also would create an opportunity for an up-and-comer like JetBlue to step into the lucrative Northeast shuttle market.
The problem is, when airlines run into trouble, they never seem to actually stop flying. This is in part because they employ huge numbers of people, which makes their demise political. A more compelling reason, McKenzie and other experts say, is that companies that lease aircraft to the carriers are often lenient when it comes to deferment of debt, because they conclude the planes are worth more in the air than on the ground at a liquidation auction.
"It's impossible. If you like layoffs and the threat of bankruptcy, then be in the airline business," said Hayward, of Zacks. "Until somebody bites the bullet and seats go away, and I mean go away permanently, not to be replaced by someone else, we'll see these problems continue."
For the legacy airlines, although they've won concessions from workers, it's increasingly difficult to compete on cost with growth carriers like JetBlue or Southwest, which has the most consistent record of profitability in the industry. Because of this, analysts say, the low-cost carriers are better positioned to withstand all manner of pressure, whether it comes in the form of a price war or higher fuel costs.
McKenzie sees some buying opportunities for long-term investors who are prepared for a bumpy ride; Alaska Air Group Inc. is his top pick for the sector.
"If you are a bargain hunter, and can tolerate extreme risk or at least diversify it away in your portfolio, there are some airlines I think are long-term winners," McKenzie said. "I wouldn't fault investors with a longer time horizon in finding value in shares of Continental. And I also have a buy on AirTran, concluding that AirTran is a long-term winner in the industry and that it eventually will be valued as such." "