The best proxy for American revenue is the sales from that market
This is an airline service, with potential revenue from both
sides of the route - the relevant market is more than just American revenue.
I'm assuming there is no immediate breakdown of actual geographic market performance, though I'll dig around more later to see. So your assertion that the sales to Australians and Kiwis are for North American services is guesswork for now.
According to CAPA (in September 2017), the latest data on the Australia - United States corridor is for 2011 - 2014 (NZ grew from a 5.2% to a 5.7% market share), so we have to look for sources of information other than pure statistics. In this respect, my posts are backed up by statements of senior executives of a listed organisation, in its annual reporting (which are subject to strict disclosure requirements). As per NZ's '2017 Annual Results Analyst Presentation,' "The "Better Way to Fly" campaign continues to gain traction to grow North and South America via Auckland."
Earlier this year, Christopher Luxon also said that NZ's push for Australia - United States traffic had been "much more successful than we anticipated."
This is no "assertion" or "guesswork" - it is NZ's insight.
I would further point out the following statements from key players at NZ:
- Christopher Luxon has said that "new routes to the United States and Latin America seemed to be performing well."
- Cam Wallace has said, regarding IAH, that "it's fantastic to see strong demand from both ends of the route."
- Liz Frazer has said that, regarding HNL and YVR, capacity increases are "illustrating the demand for travel."
- https://centreforaviation.com/insights/ ... -jv-369166
- http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... lf-profit/
- https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-r ... n-services
- http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/2 ... d-Campaign
And I wouldn't rely on supermarket disclosure requirements to give confidence that you're getting the whole story. Airlines are notorious for coughing negative results in bollacky language and getting away with it.
I do not know what "notorious" airlines you are talking about, but they are likely irrelevant comparisons, either being un-listed, or being listed on a different stock exchange. In New Zealand, we have strict disclosure obligations for listed companies, with strict penalties for non-compliance. Our regulatory environment is only getting stricter, with the the NZX Corporate Governance Code 2017 giving a big push to non-financial disclosure too. IMHO, to write off NZ's statements on its performance as being "coughing" or "bollacky" is naive. If this was really NZ's end-game, then why bother to single out Asia as a negative performer, when the decline in revenue from Asia was less than that from America? If NZ did not care about disclosure rules, it could have put a "bollacky" spin on Asia too.
Yes I understand currency impacts. But that doesn't negate the decline in revenues. For whatever reason - currency, competition - it's substantial and any company would be concerned by that
You cannot equate competition with currency - NZ can far more easily control competition, like by improving its product to exceed that of a competitor.
Further, currency can
account for performance - a decline in revenue can be attributable to NZ's revenue being worth less in NZD, in any given year.