Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CO Posts Disastrous March 2009 Revenue Figures  
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6709 posts, RR: 32
Posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 13057 times:

I'm surprised no one else has picked this up, but Continental posted their March 2009 traffic numbers today:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....-newsArticle&ID=1272362&highlight=

The February numbers were bad for RASM, but these are horrible:

Quote:
For March 2009, consolidated passenger revenue per available seat mile (RASM) is estimated to have decreased between 19.5 and 20.5 percent compared to March 2008, while mainline passenger RASM is estimated to have decreased between 18.5 and 19.5 percent compared to March 2008.

This is on top of the airline already having reduced capacity by 6.4% (7.0% mainline); traffic fell even faster and yields must have declined by double digits to cause consolidated RASM to fall by 20%.

What's even more troubling is that Continental is one of the better-run U.S. carriers. They are considered to be a bellwether of industry performance since they do report RASM in their monthly traffic reports. The only consolation is that fuel is down dramatically year-over-year.

101 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2745 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12974 times:

Certainly not impressive numbers, but I wonder if the YOY comparisons would have looked more like the February results if Easter had been in March like it was last year.


It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 12790 times:



Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 1):
Certainly not impressive numbers, but I wonder if the YOY comparisons would have looked more like the February results if Easter had been in March like it was last year.

Good point. Does anyone know how much traffic, in percentage term, does Easter add?


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 12616 times:

Not to rain on anybody's glimmer of hope, but in this economy, I seriously doubt that Easter is going to be a cash crop.

I do, however, notice that LOAD FACTOR is only down 2.7 percent, which isn't a horrible decrease. So, people are still flying (when you take into account the reduced capacity, anyway), it's just that they're paying lower fares, I presume.

Hopefully, that can be mitigated by the more reasonable fuel cost. And, hopefully, fares can come up just a touch to balance things out????
I don't know- it's just plain ugly any way you look at it.


User currently offlineFUN2FLY From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1024 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 12363 times:

RASM on high end tickets has been aweful for all carriers. The real question for airlines is: RASM drop of 20% minus jet fuel decrease = net impact to the bottom line. Obviously fuel costs were down, not sure how much on a % basis. I would suspect that it would still be a substantial loss for CO.

User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 12141 times:

I have been tracking and posting traffic and RASM results for all US airlines since the beginning of the year.

CO is continuing the trend that has been very evident throughout the US industry for several months and is not likely to be corrected until well after the summer: business travel is very weak while leisure travel is holding up only during the most peak periods.

Easter absolutely is a key determinant of profitability for airlines in the first quarter and the later Easter this year will affect revenue for all airlines. Whether Easter is in March or April can add or subtract 3-5 RASM points to an airline's results.

The traffic numbers also indicate that international is still the weakest part of CO's network and that is true for other airlines as well. CO is the most int'l US airline as a percent of their total revenue and thus are feeling the impact on a greater scale. Further, CO's transatlantic network is almost entirely western Europe focused while its Asian network is heavily focused on NE Asia, regions that are being harder hit than some of the developing economies while other carriers have more presence in other regions of the world that are not being as heavily impacted.

Fuel is down significantly even with the bad hedges that everyone is carrying which is allowing the cost decreases to offset much of the revenue losses. CO is doing a pretty good job of continuing to get costs out despite reducing capacity but several analysts believe CO needs to be more aggressive, esp. given that the outlook beyond the summer is still weak, which explains why some carriers have already indicated they are going to be cutting capacity going into the fall. A strong summer will help stop the erosion of cash during the fall and winter but there is no need to fly current capacity levels for 9 more months after summer given that yields are still weak and LFs are down

CO's cash is adequate for now but they can't allow cash to erode going into the fall and it is likely that oil prices will begin to rise as the economy shows signs of recovery. Hopefully, CO and other carriers have aggressively hedged at these very low oil prices.


User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7036 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11953 times:



Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 2):
Good point. Does anyone know how much traffic, in percentage term, does Easter add?

Easter isn't more than 5 or 6 points of the loss.


User currently offlineTOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3288 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11866 times:

As a former CO Platinum Elite, I can tell you why. CO is expensive. CO was very good at yield management. They were using a system of stars on the manifest above and beyond the FF status, so the crew knew who were the pax bringing the most revenue. I was flying a lot, but LAS was a market I went to a lot. So I wasn't a high yielding Plat, although I spent a lot of money on CO. But not enough. When coach was sold out on a flight I needed to get on, I called the Plat Line to use the guaranteed seat policy. I was told that I'd have to buy an F seat, turning a $1000 ticket that I would have immediately been upgraded to F on into a $1300 ticket. I stopped flying CO immediately, only time I have flown them since 2002 was when I was using miles.

So CO had planes full of people who were willing to pay a premium for their product. Now that the economy has tanked, people are being more cautious on spending. And paying more for CO isn't a good value right now. That revenue premium kept food in Y. I expect to see CO join the rest of the legacies and charge for food in coach very soon.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16817 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11855 times:



Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 7):
That revenue premium kept food in Y. I expect to see CO join the rest of the legacies and charge for food in coach very soon.

CO's different from the other airlines in that they still own their own catering company, that's the reason they still offer complimentary meals in economy on domestic flights.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11775 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 8):
CO's different from the other airlines in that they still own their own catering company, that's the reason they still offer complimentary meals in economy on domestic flights.

We keep hearing that argument but it is still true that unless CO can produce a product lower than other caterers, they have no cost advantage. If CO has better costs through Chelsea, then CO's stockholders should be demanding that CO cater to other airlines and increase revenues.

Whether Chelsea is wholly owned doesn't affect the decisions CO should be making about which flights to cater. If Chelsea's costs are really lower than other caterers, then CO should be getting revenue from other airlines - but I doubt if their costs really are lower. If Chelsea's costs are the same or higher than competing caterers, then CO is simply making a decision that food is a key element of its product and they are willing to pay that price in order to gain what has been prime revenue. I tend to think this latter reason is the primary driver.

You shouldn't get real comfortable that CO will hold onto Chelsea either. As cash is drawn down, it is very possible that CO will be trying to sell Chelsea and have been unable to do so up to now only because of the tight credit market. By slashing catering now, CO would be diminishing the value of Chelsea in a future sale.

I suspect you will see CO maintain current catering for the near future in order to preserve the value of Chelsea, sell the unit, and then reduce their catering to competitive - instead of supercompetitive - levels after the sale. As LOLTommy says, food is not a purchase driver that will cause people to spend more money. Other carriers are more aggressively adding other amenities such as Wifi that are more valuable to passengers.


User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7036 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11745 times:



Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 7):
As a former CO Platinum Elite, I can tell you why. CO is expensive. CO was very good at yield management. They were using a system of stars on the manifest above and beyond the FF status, so the crew knew who were the pax bringing the most revenue.

I don't disagree, but another factor may be related to Texas. Texas was really buoyed by oil last year (as was Alaska). The wheels may have finally come off in Texas, but a little later than the rest of the country. If CO turns out to be worse than UA or DL, then I'm going to say Texas has a lot to do with it. Over the last year of RASM reports, CO routinely has beaten the industry. People forget that regional concentration has a lot to do with that. It could also be NYC related, but I bet it is Texas.

CO should be a bit worse than AA because IAH is more oil dependent than DFW, plus AA is more regionally diversified than CO.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11709 times:

CO stock, as of now, is up about 11%; the overall market is up about 4%. Looks like the market is not spooked by the large drop in RASM numbers.

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16817 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11680 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 9):
We keep hearing that argument but it is still true that unless CO can produce a product lower than other caterers, they have no cost advantage. If CO has better costs through Chelsea, then CO's stockholders should be demanding that CO cater to other airlines and increase revenues.

Obviously they are providing the catering services to CO for one price and to other carriers for another, obviously carriers like DL cannot get catering for anywhere near the price CO is able to enjoy from Chelsea otherwise DL wouldn't be hocking twizzlers for $3 in place of a hot sandwich at meal times.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11529 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 12):
Obviously they are providing the catering services to CO for one price and to other carriers for another

Chelsea either has to have lower costs than competitors which means they have a competitive advantage as a caterer which CO should be unlocking as shareholder value or else CO is eating the catering costs as part of its product. I believe it is the latter unless you can show me that Chelsea really does have lower costs and that CO chooses not to use those lower costs to its advantage. Chelsea cannot charge lower prices to CO unless those costs are justified or else CO is absorbing Chelsea's costs in order to buoy its product. What Chelsea charges to other carriers is immaterial in CO's use of Chelsea because Chelsea has to compete with other caterers on Chelsea's own merits.

Quoting Enilria (Reply 10):
Over the last year of RASM reports, CO routinely has beaten the industry. People forget that regional concentration has a lot to do with that. It could also be NYC related, but I bet it is Texas.

NYC and the premium revenue markets have been harder hit than Texas as a whole. Houston is probably worse off than N. Texas but I'm not sure by how much.


User currently offlineT5towbar From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 542 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11432 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 12):
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 9):
We keep hearing that argument but it is still true that unless CO can produce a product lower than other caterers, they have no cost advantage. If CO has better costs through Chelsea, then CO's stockholders should be demanding that CO cater to other airlines and increase revenues.

Chelsea's not going anywhere anytime soon.
I think that they will catering for UA too, once the working agreement is in place. I know that they cater for other airlines, but I don't know who. Chelsea has plenty of value to CO.



A comment from an Ex CON: Work Hard.....Fly Standby!
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16817 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11433 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 13):
CO's use of Chelsea because Chelsea has to compete with other caterers on Chelsea's own merits.

No they don't, Chelsea is a division of CO. There are natural cost savings enjoyed in house vs outside contractors, also CO subsidizes their inflight catering by Chelsea's other contracts. For example CO has Chelsea flight kitchens in Cleveland, Denver, Honolulu, Houston, Los Angeles and Newark, the Denver flight kitchen provides services for non airline companies like Starbucks. CO's Denver Chelsea flight kitchen provides food services for Starbucks in Colorado, there are other examples all of which help subsidize their main operation of providing inflight catering services for CO.

With UA joining up with CO I would imagine Chelsea picking up UA's catering at LAX, HNL and Denver which are all huge operations/hubs.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16817 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11409 times:



Quoting T5towbar (Reply 14):
I know that they cater for other airlines, but I don't know who

Chelsea caters DL in some cities, obviously DL is paying more than CO for those services.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineReadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3177 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11330 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 8):
CO's different from the other airlines in that they still own their own catering company, that's the reason they still offer complimentary meals in economy on domestic flights.

Didn't know that, how many other US airlines still cook for themselves?



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7495 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11311 times:



Quoting Enilria (Reply 10):
I don't disagree, but another factor may be related to Texas. Texas was really buoyed by oil last year (as was Alaska). The wheels may have finally come off in Texas, but a little later than the rest of the country. If CO turns out to be worse than UA or DL, then I'm going to say Texas has a lot to do with it. Over the last year of RASM reports, CO routinely has beaten the industry. People forget that regional concentration has a lot to do with that. It could also be NYC related, but I bet it is Texas.

CO should be a bit worse than AA because IAH is more oil dependent than DFW, plus AA is more regionally diversified than CO.

Both the Houston and DFW economies have good and bad things going for them:

Houston's economy is:

More International
Almost entirely dependant on only a few things

DFW's economy is:

More domestic
More diversified

But that aside from that CO is fareing better than AA right now and it has nothing to do with Dallas or Houston. AA's costs are super high and theres a good chance it will end them up in CH. 11 (which from an FF's stand point isnt a bad thing so they can come out stronger).
Not to mention AA's Unions bite them in the heels every chance they get. CO has had the chance to restructure, something AA never has.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineMauiman31 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 450 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11206 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We are pretty loyal AA'ers for leisure travel but - have wanted to try CO for some leisure travel the past couple years because of their reputation for excellent service, especially with the BusinessFirst product. A Netters consistantly give them great reviews. But when we start doing some vacation pricing, CO always has come up with a significantly higher fare for when and where we want to go. Mostly Hawaii, but we have priced some other destinations also.

User currently offlineTVNWZ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 2354 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11160 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 15):
Chelsea is a division of CO. There are natural cost savings enjoyed in house vs outside contractors,

What would those be? What cost savings would CO get that they could not get elsewhere?


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16817 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 11078 times:



Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 20):
What cost savings would CO get that they could not get elsewhere?

Obviously CO can provide managerial and other services for Chelsea that allows Chelsea to focus on the operational side, CO handles human resources, purchasing, IT, Managerial, legal services etc for Chelsea which provides savings for Chelsea. Obviously if Chelsea were a stand alone company they would either need to do more of these things themselves or contract with outside companies to provide these services.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineTommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 10639 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 12):
Obviously they are providing the catering services to CO for one price and to other carriers for another, obviously carriers like DL cannot get catering for anywhere near the price CO is able to enjoy from Chelsea otherwise DL wouldn't be hocking twizzlers for $3 in place of a hot sandwich at meal times.



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 13):
Chelsea either has to have lower costs than competitors which means they have a competitive advantage as a caterer which CO should be unlocking as shareholder value or else CO is eating the catering costs as part of its product. I believe it is the latter unless you can show me that Chelsea really does have lower costs and that CO chooses not to use those lower costs to its advantage. Chelsea cannot charge lower prices to CO unless those costs are justified or else CO is absorbing Chelsea's costs in order to buoy its product. What Chelsea charges to other carriers is immaterial in CO's use of Chelsea because Chelsea has to compete with other caterers on Chelsea's own merits.

What I could really see happening is not chelsea being sold off, but CO charging for the same meal product that they hand out in Y for a price. Say the typical "Breakfast snack" in Y for maybe 5-6 bucks. Granted many CO flyers would certainly notice this.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 15):
CO's Denver Chelsea flight kitchen provides food services for Starbucks in Colorado, there are other examples all of which help subsidize their main operation of providing inflight catering services for CO.

This is interesting. Does chelsea do this with starbucks at EWR or IAH or other restaurants?



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 10541 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 15):
There are natural cost savings enjoyed in house vs outside contractors, also CO subsidizes their inflight catering by Chelsea's other contracts

Catering is a very different business than everything else CO does. CO can spread the overhead for Chelsea over CO's own business but Chelsea could obtain that from other companies that provide similar services; other caterers don't need to be a part of a huge company in order to obtain similar costs because other companies provide those same services, pooling multiple companies and providing the same service in order to keep costs low.

Despite what you argue, there is no real evidence that Chelsea has a cost advantage or that CO is able to provide something that CO couldn't get from other caterers or Chelsea can't get lower costs from other vendors.

There are indeed real benefits to CO in leveraging some of its size to lower costs for its regional carriers because the two provide similar services. Catering is a different line of business that is largely not controlled by US carriers for a reason - because there are few if any advantages to doing so. There are good reasons why every other US carrier sold off its catering operations years ago. CO will do the same in short order.


User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1294 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 10522 times:

As ABC news just noted during a two day stay in Houston for their nightly newscasts. The Houston economy is one of the best in the US right now with 6.5% unemployment and along with San Antonio and Austin one of only three cities to add jobs, and GDP last year.

And oil which is less than 50% of the greater Houston economy is over 50$ a barrel which is not "bad". It doesn't mean gold is rolling in the streets but it also doesn't mean massive layoffs.

Houston should not be that "draining" on CO (nor WN at Hobby) right now.

The offshore tech conf. for energy is coming the first week of May which should help give CO better numbers for the 2nd quarter. (and Singapore, emirates, and qatar)



Ciao Windjet mi manchi
25 TVNWZ : Chelsea would have to be charged by CO for those services, even if it is internal bookeeping. There may be shared services/executives, but GAAP would
26 Post contains links STT757 : On the contrary there is real solid evidence that CO receives a significant cost advantage, 1.) CO uses Chelsea 2.) CO is the only airline to offer c
27 AirNz : By the same token, could you then demonstrate on what specific basis you are choosing to put that opinion forward, or are you merely guessing/hoping?
28 FrmrCAPCADET : If in a given city an in-house catering system has enough business to be viable there is a certain value just in being able to judge costs, quality, a
29 TVNWZ : 1) Only shows that they have some reason to do that, not necessarily "significant cost advantage." It could be cost neutral. It could be a little mor
30 CODC10 : With Chelsea as CO's in-house caterer, food services offered on board are delivered at-cost, or very close to, without the margin that would be assoc
31 Flighty : CO's fuel bills are much lower this year, so that is not unrelated to the lower prices of tickets.
32 Toltommy : Chelsea could be retooled to create buy-on-board meals. Yes and no. Heavy reliance on NYC, and the finance related industries have had their wings cl
33 LAXdude1023 : Its Texas in general. Texas is fareing extremely well compared to the rest of the country. The uneployment rates are as follows (figures in Metro Are
34 STT757 : But why would they when they have a competitive advantage, my Wife and I flew NWA HNL-MSP back in August and got nothing for a 7.5 hour flight. In co
35 Drerx7 : This is definitely true. Houston and Dallas are doing pretty well right now considering - Houston more so than Dallas by a small margin WorldTraveller
36 LAXdude1023 : A true statement. The reason being is that Dallas' economy is more tied to Finance and Finance is hurting right now. Oil is hurting a bit, but not to
37 TVNWZ : To make more money.
38 Tpaewr : Exactly! I work for CO and know this to be true, we go to extra effort to AVOID outside catering when-ever we can *as a cost savings*. If someone sti
39 Falcon84 : In certain markets, Chelsea DOES cater to other airlines, and it does mean increased reveneue for Chelsea and CO.
40 WorldTraveler : There is STILLl no evidence that Chelsea's costs are any lower than any other caterer; CO simply has a preferred relationship but that isn't any diffe
41 Enilria : It's all relative. Houston and Alaska were economically hot last year with all the oil revenue. They can drop to a normal level and still be much bet
42 WorldTraveler : Then that should be reflected in the capacity that was put out there. I'm not arguing that Texas is in the dumps; there is plenty of evidence that it
43 Sxf24 : The better service offers no financial advantage to CO. If it did, they'd be outperforming other carriers.
44 LAXDESI : Here's some back of envelope worst case scenario calculations, assuming CO does not reduce capacity beyond 1st qtr reduction of 7.2%) and RASM drop of
45 STT757 : Service wise CO is at the top, which is all that matters to customers. DL might have better revenues but what good does that do their customers if it
46 BillReid : So did anyone miss the financial crisis?? Didn't the Gov take over the financial industry in NYC since the new administration, and as the industry is
47 Sxf24 : Well, better revenues help you stay in business.
48 STT757 : And revenues come from customers, and CO has the best customer service.
49 Aviators99 : I would like to see a cost reduction in F fares in order to increase revenues. Right now, for my travel (SEA-FLL), I am paying around the same as I di
50 Antoniemey : It's only a good place to start if the excess capacity is on their short to medium international runs. CO does not have a large number of widebodies,
51 MasseyBrown : Putting numbers to this comment, in Q1 '08 CO paid $2.80 a gallon for jet A; their projected cost (as of the financial release of 3/17/09) for Q1 '09
52 Alias1024 : Fuel expenses should be even lower due to the year over year capacity reductions.
53 MasseyBrown : Almost all expenses should be lower because of capacity reductions. I tried only to demonstrate the isolated effect of the fuel price decline relativ
54 LAXDESI : 34% reduction in fuel cost, everything else being equal, yields $356 million(1,048 X 0.34) in lower fuel cost which amounts to a reduction in CASM of
55 Alias1024 : Cool. Those are some encouraging numbers, showing that the airlines just might be able to weather this storm.
56 Panamair : Which doesn't mean one tiny bit if that 'best customer service' does not translate into decent revenue premium or better profit margin compared to pe
57 WorldTraveler : Customers are just one of several stakeholders in a company; the owners (shareholders) and employees would like to keep the needs of all stakeholders
58 MasseyBrown : Except, as LAXDESI pointed out, I was incorrect. Sorry.
59 LAXDESI : 20% drop in RASM was for March 2009; the drop in RASM for the quarter is about 14%, which is not as dismal relative to the drop in CASM of about 12%
60 MaverickM11 : So far they're pretty much in line with what they and the analysts were expecting in terms of RASM drop. In terms of LF, AA and US have posted simila
61 WorldTraveler : AA's LF drop for March was much greater than other US network carriers at nearly a 5 pt decline. BA's LF drop of over 6 pts gives a hint as to where s
62 ScottB : Just to add a bit more context from the rest of the industry: US Airways reported their load factor and RASM numbers for March today; their mainline l
63 XJETFlyer : Houston is more than just oil! We have many different businesses in Houston and in Texas! I think companies in general are cutting back on flights. Th
64 WorldTraveler : Since almsot every carrier has some sort of significant source of non-transportation revenue (bag fees, BOB, res related fees), there isn't any reaso
65 CODC10 : Fortunately, this is one area where CO has a distinct advantage over its competitors, in the large fleet of ETOPS-equipped 757-200s for transatlantic
66 STT757 : Using my recent experience with BOB, I don't think it's anywhere near the revenue generator your implying. For instance it's not as vital as checking
67 EXAAUADL : TX isnt as dependent on oil as it was in 1986-87. Also oil at $50 still makes most gulf projects profitable. Oil wasnt $150 for very long. It wasnt e
68 LAXdude1023 : While thats a true statement, Oil is what drives a very large chunk of Houston's high yielding international O&D. Oil is the reason airlines like EK
69 DeltaL1011man : ....good for them? So you (if you were a CEO) would rather have better service than revenues........Maybe you should stay away from jobs like that eh
70 STT757 : Good for CO passengers, DL passengers get to pay $3.00 for twizzlers.
71 WorldTraveler : That should be reflective in the RASM numbers but CO's RASM is still down. If CO's RASM decrease is greater than other carriers, then it pretty well
72 STT757 : Can you prove this? CO was profitable and offering complimentary meals when DL, US, UA were in bankruptcy throwing pillows, blankets and food out the
73 Commavia : As to the question of Continental's yields being hurt by Houston and the declining oil prices, I generally agree with what others have said. Oil price
74 Drerx7 : Amen to that...
75 COflyerBOS : People are lazy when they speak of Houston as just an oil driven economy. I can't help but think that most Americans picture something straight out of
76 LAXdude1023 : I really dont think people think of Houston like that. Its not the only thing Houston has going, but I would argue that its the driver of the Houston
77 Alitalia744 : The revenue DL obtains from BOB signifcantly offsets any cost they have to stock the food.
78 EXAAUADL : Both DFW and IAH have unemployment rates under 6%. ATL by contract, another sunbelt city, is approaching 10%
79 Tommy767 : No thats not DL. Thats more AA -- charging for crap snacks. DL at least gives out some free snacks like biscoff cookies and peanuts. AA gives you S*i
80 CODC10 : We haven't seen any other carrier's RASM results for 2009, so it's difficult to get a read on CO's performance relative to the rest of the industry.
81 ABQopsHP : We had a station meeting about 2 months ago, where we had been advised that CO was reviewing the schedule in the CRP-IAH market. Advance bookings were
82 STT757 : If they do so well why only offer it on flights over 2 1/2 hours, that Turkey sandwich DL will charge you $8 for is only available on flights of more
83 CODC10 : Speaking of which, the Golden Share discussion came to a much simpler resolution than the convoluted schemes that certain 'expert' users on this site
84 Malaysia : The Chelsea Kitchen Capacity is too small outside the CO hub locations to really support other airline contracts, it would be a tight fit. And on the
85 LAXdude1023 : At least they still serve complementary meals which is more than can be said for any other carrier.
86 T5towbar : "It's the economy, stupid" We all are in a world of hurt financially. Let's just hope that we can get out of this, and everybody can make some money.
87 Tommy767 : Yeah but its fast food in the air. Actually, carls jr. has a better burger presentation than CO's cross country meals. It's nice but for me its not a
88 Panamair : There is an abbreviated EATS program on DL for the shorter flights, basically selling snacks for $2 -$3 (e.g., Trail Mix), but not the sandwiches/sal
89 EXAAUADL : DL use to lose money on BOB, but maybe not anymore. I doubt any airline makes significant money off it.
90 MaverickM11 : I think it's fair to say that if it was as clearly lucrative as things like bag fees, every carrier would be doing it. Same goes for IFE, whether it'
91 STT757 : If your so down on CO offering hot food such as barbecue chicken sandwiches or philly cheese steaks for free, you must really despise airlines like D
92 LAXdude1023 : I think the average American Consumer barely even looks at quality or service. Its more about direct routings and price for most. I fly AA not becaus
93 Coalways : CO is the only US carrier that offers PTVs on all there Transatlantic and Pacific Flights and they already adding LiveTv on there Domestic flights an
94 AznMadSci : for the Jenny-O turkey footballs!!!!!
95 CODC10 : This is true. 100% of the CO longhaul fleet is PTV- and power-equipped (has been for several years). Furthermore, 70% of its longhaul seats have AVOD
96 AznMadSci : I believe wi-fi is not a sure thing yet, and if so it will be only for checking email on PDAs and iPhones. They would love to offer wi-fi, but from a
97 Post contains links MaverickM11 : Speaking of disastrous: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Delta-...Reports-March-prnews-14860231.html International 77.4% 85.1% (7.7) pts Latin America 77
98 Post contains links LAXDESI : Check out the thread on CO possibly receiving approval by May end for TATL ventures from US. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eneral_aviation/re
99 FlyPNS1 : CO's heavier concentration in Western Europe didn't seem to hurt it compared to DL who has more diversity, but still got slammed. Here's a comparison
100 MaverickM11 : Yeesh...between DL and AA, CO suddenly doesn't look half bad.
101 MasseyBrown : UA (total RPMs down 13.6%; int'l down 20%) approximates DL's performance.
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...
United 747 SFO-ORD March 2009 posted Mon Mar 9 2009 20:49:29 by Adools
Entebbe, Uganda Plane Crash March 8, 2009 posted Sun Mar 8 2009 23:02:05 by JoKeR
AZ/AP Registration Request - 7th March 2009 posted Sun Mar 8 2009 10:10:23 by EIDAA
Delta Livery List - March 2009 posted Thu Mar 5 2009 08:45:25 by EIDAA
Scottish Aviation Thread - March 2009 posted Sun Mar 1 2009 03:57:36 by Gkirk
Turkish Aviation March 2009 posted Sat Feb 28 2009 15:43:01 by TK787
Taca Starting Lima - Havana March 2009 posted Sun Jan 11 2009 07:52:32 by SPIM2EDDN
Iceland Halts All Glasgow Flights until March 2009 posted Mon Oct 27 2008 10:17:48 by Bochora
Lufthansa Posts Record Profit And Revenue In 2006 posted Thu Mar 8 2007 16:13:04 by LHStarAlliance
CO To Get More Postal Revenue? posted Mon Jun 26 2006 18:04:08 by CLE757