Quote: WASHINGTON, Oct 22 (Reuters) - Alaska Air Group Inc (ALK.N), the parent of low-cost carrier Alaska Airlines, reported what it called its best quarterly results in years on Thursday, with the help of sharply lower fuel prices.
Alaska said net income was $87.6 million, or $2.46 per share, compared with a net loss of $86.5 million, or $2.40 per share in the comparable period last year.
Excluding special items, net income was $83 million, or $2.33 per share, compared with $39.9 million, or $1.10 per share, in 2008.
Analysts on average had expected $2.26 per share, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.
Chief Executive Bill Ayer, in a statement, called the third quarter results "our best quarterly financial performance in many years."
Though I'm no employee (yet?), I can certainly agree with the first part of that. Great job AS/QX! Hopefully we'll continue to see aircraft allocated towards new and profitable ventures, and maybe, just maybe (hopefully), we'll see a leveling off in cutbacks, provided it makes good business sense.
I'd love to see more QX at BOI anyway, if nothing else than to improve my chances of them opening up a job so I could work for the company I've grown up around and love more than any other airline. (wink wink, nudge nudge)
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13603 posts, RR: 61
Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2640 times:
Great job by all my co-workers! This is outstanding news.
Quoting Airport (Reply 3): I'd love to see more QX at BOI anyway, if nothing else than to improve my chances of them opening up a job so I could work for the company I've grown up around and love more than any other airline. (wink wink, nudge nudge)
While we're not hiring there right now, AS has a reservations center in BOI as well. Hopefully we'll begin hiring there again once the economy improves.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
While the legacy carriers and their new generation counterparts continue to seem more hybridized, Alaska exhibits some traits that separate it from either group. Time will tell if this varietal model works. For now, it seems to.
It is the only US network carrier that has no intercontinental reach and is the only US major that remains predominantly regional;
But like many of the LCCs, Alaska has a substantial reach into cross-border markets;
It is the only network carrier with no formal Alliance affiliation, although bilateral codeshares exist;
Despite absorbing some Alaskan carriers and one regional start-up (Jet America), Alaska's growth has been far more organic than the other network players, all of whom have swallowed a big fish or two in their history;
It operates from a hub which it dominates. But the hub is at the periphery of the national grid and, and while it has strength at other airports, Portland for instance, the vast majority of its flights begins or ends in Seattle;
The carrier is far more akin to the new entrants in terms of customer satisfaction than it is to its legacy peers;
Alaska has not been immune to the financial ups and downs that characterize almost all industry players. However, unlike many others, it is expected to show some profitability in 2009, quite a feat in the current environment;
A quick overview of various fares revealed that Alaska prices in line with competition, even if that competitor is Southwest, though by imposing bag charges that are absent from Southwest, the trip cost for passengers will be higher for those with checked bags. Interestingly, in a search for nonstops between New York and Seattle, Alaska's fares were identical to Delta and American, all having the lowest, but this group undercut Continental by $20 and JetBlue by nearly $100. Making any definitive, all-inclusive statement about pricing is folly, but in the examples researched, Alaska always had some services priced equal to the lowest available fare. In no case was it the lowest.
So if the industry is moving towards hybrid business models, the Alaska Group demonstrates some ways in which that might come to pass. It seems to hold its own against varied competitors, please its customers, and has opted out of the “nationwide” model as well as alliances. Now if only Alaska could consistently be profitable.
Hatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2317 times:
Quoting Rw717 (Reply 10): Just out of curiosity....Does anybody know the financials for AS and QX seperately. I was wondering which one was the bigger contributor.
Well actually looking at the financial statements it looks like AS had operating income of $124.8 million and QX had operating income of $19.1 million before taxes. Both of those numbers are after slight markups to account for gains on fuel hedging.
So when all is said and done after taxes it was roughly AS - $75 million and QX - $11.5 million. My numbers aren't horribly exact because there are other things in there but that is roughly what it is.
It's hard to put a value on QX though because of the feed they provide. Without QX, AS's number would surely be lower because of much less connecting traffic.
Wedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5910 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2147 times:
Let's just hope that AS remains consistently profitable for the foreseeable future. Afterall, profit usually means more airplanes, more destinations, additional frequencies to existing destinations and additional city-pairs.
Fly in to SNA . It is one airport that AS schedules the 73G into on a regular basis. That also means SNA gets more than its fair share of WiFi flights. Any chance the might use some of the $1.2 billion is cash to expand WiFi anytime soon?