Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Q1 2005 Breakeven Loadfactors:  
User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 17
Posted (9 years 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1501 times:

American Trans Air 217.2%
Independence 123.1%
Continental 106.2%
Northwest 94.2%
Alaska 90.8%
Midwest 89.2%
Delta 88.9%
United 86.9%
US Airways 84.2%
Hawaiian 82.5%
Spirit 81.9%
American 80.4%
jetBlue 79.6%
Frontier 79.5%
Aloha 76.8%
Horizon 76.3%
Air Wisconsin 74.2%
America West 72.7%
airTran 72.6%
Atlantic Southeast 70.3%
Skywest 66.5%
Continental Micronesia 63.3%
Comair 63.2%
ExpressJet 63.0%
Mesaba 62.9%
Southwest 60.4%
Trans States 59.1%
Mesa 58.9%
Executive 56.5%
American Eagle 55.8%
North American 47.6%

Note: all numbers taken verbatim from DOT documents...


Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineVegasplanes From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 778 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1475 times:

Looks like ATA will have to start selling tickets for "seats" in the baggage hold. Wink

User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3526 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1455 times:

wow, i can't believe american's is so low, and United has the 3rd lowest of the legacies...


Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1433 times:

Continental 106.2% is not an accurate figure at all. The official numbers for Q1 for Continental were:

January - 87%
February - 89%
March - 84%

2Q - Continental far exceeded the breakeven load factor by almost 10%, and seem to be a trend continuing this Q too.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1432 times:

So I guess Continental must have done something to bring down breakeven in Q2 otherwise I don't see them making that profit.


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1421 times:

artsyman-I got that figure DIRECTLY from DOT documents, verbatim...

http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/finance/fin20051.pdf

http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/finance/nat0503p.pdf

The top one is for carriers that made more than $1,000,000,000 in revenue, and the bottom is for carriers that made between $100,000,000 and $999,999,999 in revenue.



Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1412 times:

But yes, that 106.2% breakeven loadfactor doesn't stand up to my own auditing skills, much like North American's -15.1%...83.5% is the number I calculated out, and is a more likely breakeven loadfactor for Continental.


Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1388 times:

I am sure there must be some merit to the DOT numbers, but they are not an accurate reflection at all of what is happening on the ground. If they were, then you'd have seen UAL make money, and CO lose a ridiculously large amount, yet almost the opposite happened in reality.

Maybe it is based on domestic only or something like that.

J


User currently offlineBjones From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1375 times:

Those numbers in the report can be a bit misleading. For instance look at ATA's numbers for other quarters and you will see they are drastically different. Look further and why are the expenses for the quarter almost double the same quarter in the previos year. The answer is found in their SEC filing for the quarter which shows a reorganization expense of $318,483,000 for the quarter. That will throw numbers way off for the quarter.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airline Punctuality In UK For Q1 2005 posted Fri Jul 1 2005 18:17:27 by Rick767
Breakeven Loadfactors-Q4 2004 posted Thu May 26 2005 10:13:05 by SHUPirate1
United Reports Q1 2005 Results posted Wed May 11 2005 19:54:52 by JMC1975
Ntsb Report On Feb-2-2005 TEB Biz Jet Crash posted Wed Nov 1 2006 02:40:44 by LTBEWR
Boeing 2006 Sales Ahead Of 2005 Total posted Fri Oct 13 2006 22:40:01 by AirMailer
Fresno Pax Counts Up 12.4% In Aug 2006 Vs Aug 2005 posted Sat Sep 23 2006 01:00:41 by FATFlyer
QR To Newark From Q1 2007 posted Tue Sep 19 2006 16:06:34 by QatarA340
"Hot Rod Hornet" At Salinas Airshow 2005 posted Mon Sep 18 2006 05:44:45 by SJC-Alien
World’s Top 25 Airlines By Profit(2005): posted Mon Aug 28 2006 20:08:41 by AirbusCanada
Indian Dom Market To Triple In Size 2005-2010 posted Sun Aug 20 2006 19:37:26 by Art