Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ordbosewr
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:30 pm

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:14 pm

Without inside information to prove something 100% right or wrong, don't we need to take them at their word?!?!
Otherwise, we are accusing them of not telling the truth and they are putting that into a legal document that the CFO and CEO need to sign under the penalty of perjury. That makes me wonder.
That also doesn't mean that they have taken a smaller factor and made it part of the central narrative.
Again, I don't know what the real story is here, but the only people that know the real answer are those that have the data (which is none of us).
 
jayunited
Posts: 2853
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:28 pm

usdcaguy wrote:
It's always convenient for airline execs to blame things on events outside their control, but frankly, there is likely still too much capacity in Transpacific markets. I know that UA wants to maintain its edge to Asia in terms of its network offering, but they really need to decide how much flying they want to do and at what cost. DL's strategy of relying on partners like KE to do some of the heavy lifting means that they get to minimize their costs while flying only the most profitable routes. Cherry-picking, if you will. You have to wonder if UA is getting the most it can out of NH in this regard.


DL's strategy of relying more on KE isn't working either their Pacific revenue YoY was down 4.6%, unit revenue for DL in the Pacific was down 7.6%, their Pacific yield was down 7.2% while their capacity was up 3.3%.
UA's Pacific revenue YoY was down 1.1%, unit revenue was down 3.4%, and our Pacific yield was down 4.0%, Q3 Pacific capacity was up 2.3%.

Both airlines added capacity in Q3, and both airlines suffered losses in the Pacific in Q3.

The numbers speak for themselves and neither UA or DL are doing particularly well in the Pacific so DL's strategy of relying on KE as you said for some of the heavy lifting isn't the answer either. Having said that I will also say that for now I don't see either DL or UA cutting a ton of capacity across the Pacific, however that could all change if the U.S. economy begins to tank.
 
LHUSA
Posts: 828
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:15 am

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:34 pm

jayunited wrote:
usdcaguy wrote:
It's always convenient for airline execs to blame things on events outside their control, but frankly, there is likely still too much capacity in Transpacific markets. I know that UA wants to maintain its edge to Asia in terms of its network offering, but they really need to decide how much flying they want to do and at what cost. DL's strategy of relying on partners like KE to do some of the heavy lifting means that they get to minimize their costs while flying only the most profitable routes. Cherry-picking, if you will. You have to wonder if UA is getting the most it can out of NH in this regard.


DL's strategy of relying more on KE isn't working either their Pacific revenue YoY was down 4.6%, unit revenue for DL in the Pacific was down 7.6%, their Pacific yield was down 7.2% while their capacity was up 3.3%.
UA's Pacific revenue YoY was down 1.1%, unit revenue was down 3.4%, and our Pacific yield was down 4.0%, Q3 Pacific capacity was up 2.3%.

Both airlines added capacity in Q3, and both airlines suffered losses in the Pacific in Q3.

The numbers speak for themselves and neither UA or DL are doing particularly well in the Pacific so DL's strategy of relying on KE as you said for some of the heavy lifting isn't the answer either. Having said that I will also say that for now I don't see either DL or UA cutting a ton of capacity across the Pacific, however that could all change if the U.S. economy begins to tank.


Thanks for the insightful synopsis jayunited. Will be interesting to see AA's APAC numbers when they report Q3.
 
N649DL
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Thu Oct 17, 2019 8:13 pm

jayunited wrote:
usdcaguy wrote:
It's always convenient for airline execs to blame things on events outside their control, but frankly, there is likely still too much capacity in Transpacific markets. I know that UA wants to maintain its edge to Asia in terms of its network offering, but they really need to decide how much flying they want to do and at what cost. DL's strategy of relying on partners like KE to do some of the heavy lifting means that they get to minimize their costs while flying only the most profitable routes. Cherry-picking, if you will. You have to wonder if UA is getting the most it can out of NH in this regard.


DL's strategy of relying more on KE isn't working either their Pacific revenue YoY was down 4.6%, unit revenue for DL in the Pacific was down 7.6%, their Pacific yield was down 7.2% while their capacity was up 3.3%.
UA's Pacific revenue YoY was down 1.1%, unit revenue was down 3.4%, and our Pacific yield was down 4.0%, Q3 Pacific capacity was up 2.3%.

Both airlines added capacity in Q3, and both airlines suffered losses in the Pacific in Q3.

The numbers speak for themselves and neither UA or DL are doing particularly well in the Pacific so DL's strategy of relying on KE as you said for some of the heavy lifting isn't the answer either. Having said that I will also say that for now I don't see either DL or UA cutting a ton of capacity across the Pacific, however that could all change if the U.S. economy begins to tank.


Is there just too much fighting for Pacific Traffic on DL at SEA vs. UA at SFO? Or is this another NRT / HND thing again?
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2281
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:25 pm

N649DL wrote:
jayunited wrote:
usdcaguy wrote:
It's always convenient for airline execs to blame things on events outside their control, but frankly, there is likely still too much capacity in Transpacific markets. I know that UA wants to maintain its edge to Asia in terms of its network offering, but they really need to decide how much flying they want to do and at what cost. DL's strategy of relying on partners like KE to do some of the heavy lifting means that they get to minimize their costs while flying only the most profitable routes. Cherry-picking, if you will. You have to wonder if UA is getting the most it can out of NH in this regard.


DL's strategy of relying more on KE isn't working either their Pacific revenue YoY was down 4.6%, unit revenue for DL in the Pacific was down 7.6%, their Pacific yield was down 7.2% while their capacity was up 3.3%.
UA's Pacific revenue YoY was down 1.1%, unit revenue was down 3.4%, and our Pacific yield was down 4.0%, Q3 Pacific capacity was up 2.3%.

Both airlines added capacity in Q3, and both airlines suffered losses in the Pacific in Q3.

The numbers speak for themselves and neither UA or DL are doing particularly well in the Pacific so DL's strategy of relying on KE as you said for some of the heavy lifting isn't the answer either. Having said that I will also say that for now I don't see either DL or UA cutting a ton of capacity across the Pacific, however that could all change if the U.S. economy begins to tank.


Is there just too much fighting for Pacific Traffic on DL at SEA vs. UA at SFO? Or is this another NRT / HND thing again?


There is just too much capacity being dumped at low prices by the Chinese carriers.
 
United1
Posts: 4164
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:47 pm

LHUSA wrote:
jayunited wrote:
usdcaguy wrote:
It's always convenient for airline execs to blame things on events outside their control, but frankly, there is likely still too much capacity in Transpacific markets. I know that UA wants to maintain its edge to Asia in terms of its network offering, but they really need to decide how much flying they want to do and at what cost. DL's strategy of relying on partners like KE to do some of the heavy lifting means that they get to minimize their costs while flying only the most profitable routes. Cherry-picking, if you will. You have to wonder if UA is getting the most it can out of NH in this regard.


DL's strategy of relying more on KE isn't working either their Pacific revenue YoY was down 4.6%, unit revenue for DL in the Pacific was down 7.6%, their Pacific yield was down 7.2% while their capacity was up 3.3%.
UA's Pacific revenue YoY was down 1.1%, unit revenue was down 3.4%, and our Pacific yield was down 4.0%, Q3 Pacific capacity was up 2.3%.

Both airlines added capacity in Q3, and both airlines suffered losses in the Pacific in Q3.

The numbers speak for themselves and neither UA or DL are doing particularly well in the Pacific so DL's strategy of relying on KE as you said for some of the heavy lifting isn't the answer either. Having said that I will also say that for now I don't see either DL or UA cutting a ton of capacity across the Pacific, however that could all change if the U.S. economy begins to tank.


Thanks for the insightful synopsis jayunited. Will be interesting to see AA's APAC numbers when they report Q3.


Will be interesting to see AAs TPAC numbers but overall AAs numbers are shaping up to be a bit underwhelming. $623 million in profit on 11.95 billion in revenue. AA is much less exposed across the Pacific than UA or DL is but I am sure their numbers are not going to look all that great.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:58 pm

jayunited wrote:
Both airlines added capacity in Q3, and both airlines suffered losses in the Pacific in Q3.



All US Carriers in Pacific in Q2 of 2019

Net Income ---- Operating Revenue - inc/rev
  $68,068   Delta      $745,153   9.13%
  $14,612   United     $1,306,504   1.12%
    -$604   Hawaiian   $180,328   -0.33%
 -$93,341   American   $497,414   -18.77%
     -$98   Polar      $257,062   -0.04%
  $12,432   UPS        $289,641   4.29%
-$276,899   Fedex      $1,118,098   -24.77%
-$275,830   USAtotal   $4,394,200   -6.28%


Hawaiian barely broke even , and Fedex was off the chart.

Hawaiian has become more profitable domestic operations in recent years, but not in TransPacific
Year   Q   DOMESTIC   PACIFIC
2019   2   $62,359   -$604
2019   1   $45,133   -$5,051
2018   T   $230,520   $12,744
2018   4   $6,774   $28,449
2018   3   $81,194   $14,158
2018   2   $92,521   -$9,680
2018   1   $50,031   -$20,183
2017   T   $403,716   -$33,939
2017   4   $155,026   $18,171
2017   3   $79,805   -$4,026
2017   2   $100,749   -$18,910
2017   1   $68,137   -$29,174
2016   T   $316,168   -$75,726
2016   4   $30,905   -$27,737
2016   3   $107,114   -$3,596
2016   2   $105,794   -$25,055
2016   1   $72,355   -$19,339
2015   T   $244,009   -$51,142
2015   4   $57,925   -$18,970
2015   3   $78,414   -$7,317
2015   2   $65,355   -$15,193
2015   1   $42,314   -$9,663
2014   T   $149,674   -$69,887
2014   4   $14,419   $568
2014   3   $40,383   -$2,379
2014   2   $62,648   -$32,887
2014   1   $32,223   -$35,189
2013   T   $173,272   -$110,915
2013   4   $61,416   -$42,018
2013   3   $61,025   -$18,247
2013   2   $45,990   -$31,459
2013   1   $4,842   -$19,191
2012   T   $10,435   $55,825
2012   4   -$1,258   $817
2012   3   $19,721   $29,333
2012   2   -$12,474   $19,582
2012   1   $4,446   $6,092
 
jayunited
Posts: 2853
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Thu Oct 17, 2019 11:28 pm

PacoMartin wrote:

All US Carriers in Pacific in Q2 of 2019

Net Income ---- Operating Revenue - inc/rev
  $68,068   Delta   $745,153   9.13%
  $14,612   United   $1,306,504   1.12%
 -$604   Hawaiian   $180,328   -0.33%
 -$93,341   American   $497,414   -18.77%
 -$98   Polar   $257,062   -0.04%
  $12,432   UPS   $289,641   4.29%
-$276,899   Fedex   $1,118,098   -24.77%
-$275,830   US Carrier   $4,394,200   -6.28%

[/code]


Where are you getting your numbers from for Q2? I mean no disrespect, I'm probably not understanding or interpreting your post correctly but if you could please provide a link that might be helpful.

Q2 2019 DL across the Pacific reported revenue of $657 million, YoY up 3.2%, their unit revenue was down 5.9%, their yield was down 3.9% and their capacity was up 9.7%
https://s2.q4cdn.com/181345880/files/do ... Profit.pdf

UA in Q2 of 2019 Pacific revenue as reported was 1,135 million, YoY increase of 2.9%, unit revenue was up 2.8%, yield was down 1.1% with a capacity increase of 0.1%
https://hub.united.com/united-airlines- ... 11870.html

When I look at both DL and UA's Q2 Pacific results the numbers they reported are slightly different than what you have posted. I just trying to figure out how you arrived at those numbers and if you could provide a link to help us understand the differences in the numbers.
 
wxtech
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 3:04 pm

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:12 am

How is IAH doing as a UA hub?
 
avi8
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:36 am

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:20 am

wxtech wrote:
How is IAH doing as a UA hub?



I would assume it's doing very well and that they're comfortable with how it is right now. IAH remains their primary Latin American gateway and also has flights to AMS, FRA, MUN, and LHR in Europe; NRT in Asia and SYD in Australia. 550 +/- flights seems like a very healthy hub in my opinion. I wonder what plans they have for IAH.
avi8
 
User avatar
usdcaguy
Posts: 1522
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:41 pm

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:41 am

jayunited wrote:
usdcaguy wrote:
It's always convenient for airline execs to blame things on events outside their control, but frankly, there is likely still too stiuch capacity in Transpacific markets. I know that UA wants to maintain its edge to Asia in terms of its network offering, but they really need to decide how much flying they want to do and at what cost. DL's strategy of relying on partners like KE to do some of the heavy lifting means that they get to minimize their costs while flying only the most profitable routes. Cherry-picking, if you will. You have to wonder if UA is getting the most it can out of NH in this regard.


DL's strategy of relying more on KE isn't working either their Pacific revenue YoY was down 4.6%, unit revenue for DL in the Pacific was down 7.6%, their Pacific yield was down 7.2% while their capacity was up 3.3%.
UA's Pacific revenue YoY was down 1.1%, unit revenue was down 3.4%, and our Pacific yield was down 4.0%, Q3 Pacific capacity was up 2.3%.

Both airlines added capacity in Q3, and both airlines suffered losses in the Pacific in Q3.

The numbers speak for themselves and neither UA or DL are doing particularly well in the Pacific so DL's strategy of relying on KE as you said for some of the heavy lifting isn't the answer either. Having said that I will also say that for now I don't see either DL or UA cutting a ton of capacity across the Pacific, however that could all change if the U.S. economy begins to tank.


All good points. It's important to note that DL just recently announced the closure of NRT and likely still has legacy costs associated with its hub there. It may be a while before it can get ICN up and running to a point where they are truly getting the cost efficiencies they expect. They may still need to trim some TPAC-China routes from the west coast and send more capacity to ICN instead.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:55 am

jayunited wrote:
Where are you getting your numbers from for Q2? I mean no disrespect, I'm probably not understanding or interpreting your post correctly but if you could please provide a link that might be helpful.

Q2 2019 DL across the Pacific reported revenue of $657 million, YoY up 3.2%, their unit revenue was down 5.9%, their yield was down 3.9% and their capacity was up 9.7%
https://s2.q4cdn.com/181345880/files/do ... Profit.pdf


Source is BTS
https://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elem ... spx?Data=7

The discrepancy is that I am using Total Operating revenue which includes cargo, Loyalty program, Ancillary businesses, refinery , and Miscellaneous. The "other" revenue is obviously more pronounced for trans-oceanic travel than it is for domestic.

$8,986,257 (Dom) + $773,065 (LA) + $2,077,004 (ATL) + $745,153 (PAC) =$12,581,479 (Total Operating revenue)

Passenger $11,368 + Cargo $186 + Other $982 = Total operating revenue $12,536 (from quarterly report).

There is also a 0.36% discrepancy between the BTS total and Quarterly total which could be a minor update or a slight discrepancy in how the accounting is done.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4964
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Fri Oct 18, 2019 5:15 am

jayunited wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
What do you think the revenue miss was from 14 grounded aircraft? How many spares do you think UA schedules in the summer across mainline and UX? The search for excuses is endless.


You do realize UA was scheduled to take delivery of more MAX9 aircraft during Q3, in fact if not for the grounding our current fleet count would be 30-35 MAX9s. During Q3 because of the MAX being grounded UA was forced to take over 5,000 revenue flights off the schedule. Combine Q3 with Q2 schedule reductions and now Q4 by the time we get to January 2020, UA will have removed over 9,500 flights from the schedule in 2019 as a result of the grounding. There is no airline in the US that has enough spares to cover 30-35 grounded jets. However even with the MAX fleet being grounded UA still flew 43 million passengers a record (for UA) in Q3.

I get the point you are attempting to make a swing and a miss is still a swing and a miss. No one is making excuses for UA falling $40 million dollars short of Wall Streets expectations. What people are saying is with all the head wind UA faced in Q3, missing the target by $40 million dollars is good when you consider all the factors. Its not just the MAX, there is also fact that IAH was shut down in September for 24 hours do to major flooding from a thunderstorm that turn into a tropical depression in a matter of hours, or the last minute cancellations and numerous delays UA endured at SFO for 3 weeks during runway construction.

Missing Wall Street expectations by $40 million I think is a testament to UA's strength and how far UA has come in a relativity short period of time under the leadership of Munoz and Kirby, and it is encouraging news to see UA moving in the right direction. I don't think any UA employee is disappointed with these results. So although DL still beat UA by over a billion dollars in Q3, I can't help but wonder if UA would have had the benefit of of all our MAX9s, if we didn't have to remove over 5,000 revenue flights from the schedule because of the grounding in Q3 how much closer would we have been to DL's revenue numbers. I know DL would have still beat us but UA would have most certainly would have closed the gap by at least $250-$350 million dollars.

I'm still not sure why we have to equal or beat Delta's numbers. Delta is doing well and I wish them well as I have family working there. The fact that United is making money hand over fist and weathering obstacles they didn't originate is a testament TO excellent Management and I for one congratulate them..
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24601
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Fri Oct 18, 2019 5:17 am

Don't be drawn in by the regional financial numbers submitted to the DOT.

They are to a large degree subject to huge variability and reporting differences. The DOT does not have clear reporting methodology and airlines are allowed to self allocate both cost and revenue. For example how is revenue allocated across multiple sectors -- for example customer travels DEN-SFO-NRT, what revenue is domestic vs international? Is it based on distance, square root method, internal prorate methodology etc.
Same exactly with cost? And how about things like overhead, how much is assigned to each regional entity. And how about JV revenue and cost??

Simply put, the DOT reported numbers are not the most accurate manner to evaluate an airline and especially to compare carriers between each other. Ultimately airlines are largely free to report as they wish and can assign both revenue and cost as it seems most beneficial to them.

There are many good historical examples where airlines purposely showed regional losses (for example to Latin America), while in reality, a region was a company most profitable region, but due to tax reasons, and collateral holdbacks and pledges it was beneficial to report underperformance in one region versus another.

If you want to see more accurate regional pictures some of Wall Street analysts and also consulting firms have their own modeling which in my experience paint a much better picture and adjust for airline reporting differences.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
majano
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:34 am

strfyr51 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
What do you think the revenue miss was from 14 grounded aircraft? How many spares do you think UA schedules in the summer across mainline and UX? The search for excuses is endless.


You do realize UA was scheduled to take delivery of more MAX9 aircraft during Q3, in fact if not for the grounding our current fleet count would be 30-35 MAX9s. During Q3 because of the MAX being grounded UA was forced to take over 5,000 revenue flights off the schedule. Combine Q3 with Q2 schedule reductions and now Q4 by the time we get to January 2020, UA will have removed over 9,500 flights from the schedule in 2019 as a result of the grounding. There is no airline in the US that has enough spares to cover 30-35 grounded jets. However even with the MAX fleet being grounded UA still flew 43 million passengers a record (for UA) in Q3.

I get the point you are attempting to make a swing and a miss is still a swing and a miss. No one is making excuses for UA falling $40 million dollars short of Wall Streets expectations. What people are saying is with all the head wind UA faced in Q3, missing the target by $40 million dollars is good when you consider all the factors. Its not just the MAX, there is also fact that IAH was shut down in September for 24 hours do to major flooding from a thunderstorm that turn into a tropical depression in a matter of hours, or the last minute cancellations and numerous delays UA endured at SFO for 3 weeks during runway construction.

Missing Wall Street expectations by $40 million I think is a testament to UA's strength and how far UA has come in a relativity short period of time under the leadership of Munoz and Kirby, and it is encouraging news to see UA moving in the right direction. I don't think any UA employee is disappointed with these results. So although DL still beat UA by over a billion dollars in Q3, I can't help but wonder if UA would have had the benefit of of all our MAX9s, if we didn't have to remove over 5,000 revenue flights from the schedule because of the grounding in Q3 how much closer would we have been to DL's revenue numbers. I know DL would have still beat us but UA would have most certainly would have closed the gap by at least $250-$350 million dollars.

I'm still not sure why we have to equal or beat Delta's numbers. Delta is doing well and I wish them well as I have family working there. The fact that United is making money hand over fist and weathering obstacles they didn't originate is a testament TO excellent Management and I for one congratulate them..

I add my support to this comment. Additionally, Delta has higher profit margins, and comparing quarterly numbers is a bit short-termistic. Better to look at full year results for telling trends and momentum.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2853
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:38 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
jayunited wrote:
Where are you getting your numbers from for Q2? I mean no disrespect, I'm probably not understanding or interpreting your post correctly but if you could please provide a link that might be helpful.

Q2 2019 DL across the Pacific reported revenue of $657 million, YoY up 3.2%, their unit revenue was down 5.9%, their yield was down 3.9% and their capacity was up 9.7%
https://s2.q4cdn.com/181345880/files/do ... Profit.pdf


Source is BTS
https://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elem ... spx?Data=7

The discrepancy is that I am using Total Operating revenue which includes cargo, Loyalty program, Ancillary businesses, refinery , and Miscellaneous. The "other" revenue is obviously more pronounced for trans-oceanic travel than it is for domestic.

$8,986,257 (Dom) + $773,065 (LA) + $2,077,004 (ATL) + $745,153 (PAC) =$12,581,479 (Total Operating revenue)

Passenger $11,368 + Cargo $186 + Other $982 = Total operating revenue $12,536 (from quarterly report).

There is also a 0.36% discrepancy between the BTS total and Quarterly total which could be a minor update or a slight discrepancy in how the accounting is done.


Thank you for posting the link that is great information thank you very much.

Great information on this link looking at just basic data UA's Pacific net income peaked in 2012 ever since then there has been a steady decline from that 2012 high. From 2012 through 2018 UA's pacific net income fell but in 2018 the decline in net revenue was reversed but we are still a long way away from our high net income peak point in the Pacific which came in 2012.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:45 am

jayunited wrote:
Thank you for posting the link that is great information thank you very much.

Great information on this link looking at just basic data UA's Pacific net income peaked in 2012 ever since then there has been a steady decline from that 2012 high. From 2012 through 2018 UA's pacific net income fell but in 2018 the decline in net revenue was reversed but we are still a long way away from our high net income peak point in the Pacific which came in 2012.


It is nice because you can look back through 20 years of data quickly.

It mixes passenger and cargo data in some of the cumulative figures, leading to some erroneous conclusions. For instance the 2nd Qtr 2019 in the Pacific shows a big loss, but actually the four passenger airlines didn't collectively lose that much, but FEDEX did horribly.

Net Income - Airline - Total Revenue - Margin
+$68,068 Delta $745,153 9.13%
+$14,612 United $1,306,504 1.12%
-$604 Hawaiian $180,328 -0.33%
-$93,341 American $497,414 -18.77%
-$11,265 Passenger $2,729,399 -0.41%

-$98 Polar $257,062 -0.04%
+$12,432 UPS $289,641 4.29%
-$276,899 Fedex $1,118,098 -24.77%
-$264,565 Cargo $1,664,801 -15.89%

Asia seems almost like a loss leader for American Airlines. In order to keep their frequent flyers happy, they have to serve five major cities, Beijing Shanghai, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Seoul. Plus Sydney in Oceania. However, they have given up on being competitive and any hope of making a profit.

Sometimes you wonder if they would just give up three of those cities to their OneWorld Partner, but they don't have anyone in Korea or china.
Hong Kong Cathay Pacific
Japan Japan Airlines
Australia Qantas
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2086
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:57 am

avi8 wrote:
wxtech wrote:
How is IAH doing as a UA hub?



I would assume it's doing very well and that they're comfortable with how it is right now. IAH remains their primary Latin American gateway and also has flights to AMS, FRA, MUN, and LHR in Europe; NRT in Asia and SYD in Australia. 550 +/- flights seems like a very healthy hub in my opinion. I wonder what plans they have for IAH.


Last I heard was that they're waiting on the new baggage system to be finished before adding anything significant.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
User avatar
BroadwayLimited
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:34 pm

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Sun Oct 20, 2019 8:51 am

PacoMartin wrote:
Net Income - Airline - Total Revenue - Margin
+$68,068 Delta $745,153 9.13%
+$14,612 United $1,306,504 1.12%
-$604 Hawaiian $180,328 -0.33%
-$93,341 American $497,414 -18.77%
-$11,265 Passenger $2,729,399 -0.41%

-$98 Polar $257,062 -0.04%
+$12,432 UPS $289,641 4.29%
-$276,899 Fedex $1,118,098 -24.77%
-$264,565 Cargo $1,664,801 -15.89%


I am confused. Are you saying Delta made the most money (profit) in the 2nd quarter across the Pacific? If so, totally shocked.
Signed up for Delta and Eastern Frequent Flyer Programs August 30, 1981.
 
mcdu
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:41 am

N649DL wrote:
Seriously? 14 narrow body aircraft grounded by the Government killed off earnings potential? I don't buy it at all.


General Lee you don’t have to to buy it. No one cares if you do or not. Facts are facts. The fleet would have been much larger at this point without the grounding. Whether you care to believe that or not, matters to no one.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:49 pm

BroadwayLimited wrote:
I am confused. Are you saying Delta made the most money (profit) in the 2nd quarter across the Pacific? If so, totally shocked.


That is exactly what the numbers state.

Collectively all the US carriers (including cargo) have lost money in the Pacific every quarter for three years now. But Delta has had a negative quarter in the Pacific only once after 2nd Qtr 2012.

Delta has made more profit in the Pacific than United consistently since 3rd QTR of 2015.

American has lost money in the Pacific for 12 quarters in a row (hence my joke that their six Pacific destinations are "loss leaders").

Hawaiian Airlines made money in the Pacific in 2018 breaking a 5 year losing streak. I suspect they are pretty important to the tourist revenue of the state as they bring over 40% of the air passengers from Australia, almost half the passengers from New Zealand, and roughly 25% of the air passengers from Japan and Korea.
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1441
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Sun Oct 20, 2019 3:00 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
BroadwayLimited wrote:
I am confused. Are you saying Delta made the most money (profit) in the 2nd quarter across the Pacific? If so, totally shocked.


That is exactly what the numbers state.

Collectively all the US carriers (including cargo) have lost money in the Pacific every quarter for three years now. But Delta has had a negative quarter in the Pacific only once after 2nd Qtr 2012.

Delta has made more profit in the Pacific than United consistently since 3rd QTR of 2015.

American has lost money in the Pacific for 12 quarters in a row (hence my joke that their six Pacific destinations are "loss leaders").

Hawaiian Airlines made money in the Pacific in 2018 breaking a 5 year losing streak. I suspect they are pretty important to the tourist revenue of the state as they bring over 40% of the air passengers from Australia, almost half the passengers from New Zealand, and roughly 25% of the air passengers from Japan and Korea.


And you've been told repeatedly that you numbers you're using are misleading, and the way airlines report to the government agencies are not standardized across carriers, and are reportedly intentionally in certain ways to maximize opportunity costs.

So the totality of your thesis flawed.
 
majano
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Sun Oct 20, 2019 4:24 pm

airzim wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
BroadwayLimited wrote:
I am confused. Are you saying Delta made the most money (profit) in the 2nd quarter across the Pacific? If so, totally shocked.


That is exactly what the numbers state.

Collectively all the US carriers (including cargo) have lost money in the Pacific every quarter for three years now. But Delta has had a negative quarter in the Pacific only once after 2nd Qtr 2012.

Delta has made more profit in the Pacific than United consistently since 3rd QTR of 2015.

American has lost money in the Pacific for 12 quarters in a row (hence my joke that their six Pacific destinations are "loss leaders").

Hawaiian Airlines made money in the Pacific in 2018 breaking a 5 year losing streak. I suspect they are pretty important to the tourist revenue of the state as they bring over 40% of the air passengers from Australia, almost half the passengers from New Zealand, and roughly 25% of the air passengers from Japan and Korea.


And you've been told repeatedly that you numbers you're using are misleading, and the way airlines report to the government agencies are not standardized across carriers, and are reportedly intentionally in certain ways to maximize opportunity costs.

So the totality of your thesis flawed.

I would hesitate to dismiss figures reported to a regulatory agency so fast. Yes, comparing across airlines may be difficult, but comparing the same airline over time is totally valid IMHO. People on these boards are often willing to accept an unsourced claim just because the "appropriate poster" is making the said claim, but dismiss data reported to a federal agency. How peculiar!
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Sun Oct 20, 2019 4:31 pm

majano wrote:
airzim wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:

That is exactly what the numbers state.

Collectively all the US carriers (including cargo) have lost money in the Pacific every quarter for three years now. But Delta has had a negative quarter in the Pacific only once after 2nd Qtr 2012.

Delta has made more profit in the Pacific than United consistently since 3rd QTR of 2015.

American has lost money in the Pacific for 12 quarters in a row (hence my joke that their six Pacific destinations are "loss leaders").

Hawaiian Airlines made money in the Pacific in 2018 breaking a 5 year losing streak. I suspect they are pretty important to the tourist revenue of the state as they bring over 40% of the air passengers from Australia, almost half the passengers from New Zealand, and roughly 25% of the air passengers from Japan and Korea.


And you've been told repeatedly that you numbers you're using are misleading, and the way airlines report to the government agencies are not standardized across carriers, and are reportedly intentionally in certain ways to maximize opportunity costs.

So the totality of your thesis flawed.

I would hesitate to dismiss figures reported to a regulatory agency so fast. Yes, comparing across airlines may be difficult, but comparing the same airline over time is totally valid IMHO. People on these boards are often willing to accept an unsourced claim just because the "appropriate poster" is making the said claim, but dismiss data reported to a federal agency. How peculiar!


But the poster he is responding to is 100% “comparing across airlines.”
 
majano
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Sun Oct 20, 2019 4:47 pm

SFOtoORD wrote:
majano wrote:
airzim wrote:

And you've been told repeatedly that you numbers you're using are misleading, and the way airlines report to the government agencies are not standardized across carriers, and are reportedly intentionally in certain ways to maximize opportunity costs.

So the totality of your thesis flawed.

I would hesitate to dismiss figures reported to a regulatory agency so fast. Yes, comparing across airlines may be difficult, but comparing the same airline over time is totally valid IMHO. People on these boards are often willing to accept an unsourced claim just because the "appropriate poster" is making the said claim, but dismiss data reported to a federal agency. How peculiar!


But the poster he is responding to is 100% “comparing across airlines.”

I agree that portion is questionable, but it cannot be the "totality of your thesis" wrong. I am personally thankful for this data which I didn't know exist.
 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Sun Oct 20, 2019 6:39 pm

As someone that worked for a major air carrier that saw P&L info in the past, I can assure you the reported numbers to BTS are hardly the full (or even right) picture of how an airline is doing in geography. One way an outsider would know is simply for fact that posted BTS numbers can be contradicted on the carriers earnings call or investor events when management commentary will often describe regional performance which can very well be opposite of what DOT numbers show.

As LAXIntl mentions the allocation of both cost and revenue between geographic areas is largely left up to airlines to decide as they see the best fit for accounting needs, and I can certainly assure you no two carriers allocate in an identical manner.

In order to get the best insight, you really need to dig much deeper which some of the consulting firms do a very good job and help normalize the numbers while also using more specific route MIDT data to build a more complete picture.
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
N649DL
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:23 pm

mcdu wrote:
N649DL wrote:
Seriously? 14 narrow body aircraft grounded by the Government killed off earnings potential? I don't buy it at all.


General Lee you don’t have to to buy it. No one cares if you do or not. Facts are facts. The fleet would have been much larger at this point without the grounding. Whether you care to believe that or not, matters to no one.


Sounds like "Alternative Facts" to me. There should be enough slack in the fleet to account for this and I don't think it's right to blame missed revenue targets on a grounded and otherwise deemed dangerous aircraft. I just saw on the news yesterday that it was leaked that Boeing employees even knew about the MCAS issue but chose not to speak up about it.

And then let's assume the MAX ban is lifted and planes are empty because the public wants to book away from it and loads are empty. Then what will UAL blame it on? Weather disruptions? To me this is all corporate finger pointing.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4290
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:37 pm

N649DL wrote:
mcdu wrote:
N649DL wrote:
Seriously? 14 narrow body aircraft grounded by the Government killed off earnings potential? I don't buy it at all.


General Lee you don’t have to to buy it. No one cares if you do or not. Facts are facts. The fleet would have been much larger at this point without the grounding. Whether you care to believe that or not, matters to no one.


Sounds like "Alternative Facts" to me. There should be enough slack in the fleet to account for this and I don't think it's right to blame missed revenue targets on a grounded and otherwise deemed dangerous aircraft. I just saw on the news yesterday that it was leaked that Boeing employees even knew about the MCAS issue but chose not to speak up about it.

And then let's assume the MAX ban is lifted and planes are empty because the public wants to book away from it and loads are empty. Then what will UAL blame it on? Weather disruptions? To me this is all corporate finger pointing.


If Delta can assign increased revenue to competitors having grounded MAX airplanes; then those airlines are free to assign decreased revenue to the same.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3698
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:37 pm

N649DL wrote:
mcdu wrote:
N649DL wrote:
Seriously? 14 narrow body aircraft grounded by the Government killed off earnings potential? I don't buy it at all.


General Lee you don’t have to to buy it. No one cares if you do or not. Facts are facts. The fleet would have been much larger at this point without the grounding. Whether you care to believe that or not, matters to no one.


Sounds like "Alternative Facts" to me. There should be enough slack in the fleet to account for this and I don't think it's right to blame missed revenue targets on a grounded and otherwise deemed dangerous aircraft. I just saw on the news yesterday that it was leaked that Boeing employees even knew about the MCAS issue but chose not to speak up about it.

And then let's assume the MAX ban is lifted and planes are empty because the public wants to book away from it and loads are empty. Then what will UAL blame it on? Weather disruptions? To me this is all corporate finger pointing.


I think there's some confusion going on. There's three figures in play.

1) UA's approximate total 3Q revenue without the MAX grounding
2) UA's projected total 3Q revenue that UA gives guidance on and analysts estimate.
3) UA's actual 3Q total revenue

UA missed #2 analyst consensus by $40m. I haven't read the earnings call yet, but the MAX could be a part of that revenue miss. I doubt it's all of it though as UA is baking the MAX loss into their projections. We know #3 isn't close to #1 because of the MAX capacity loss, and that's a bit of a separate issue.
 
N649DL
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: United posts Q3 2019 results

Tue Oct 22, 2019 1:44 am

MSPNWA wrote:
N649DL wrote:
mcdu wrote:

General Lee you don’t have to to buy it. No one cares if you do or not. Facts are facts. The fleet would have been much larger at this point without the grounding. Whether you care to believe that or not, matters to no one.


Sounds like "Alternative Facts" to me. There should be enough slack in the fleet to account for this and I don't think it's right to blame missed revenue targets on a grounded and otherwise deemed dangerous aircraft. I just saw on the news yesterday that it was leaked that Boeing employees even knew about the MCAS issue but chose not to speak up about it.

And then let's assume the MAX ban is lifted and planes are empty because the public wants to book away from it and loads are empty. Then what will UAL blame it on? Weather disruptions? To me this is all corporate finger pointing.


I think there's some confusion going on. There's three figures in play.

1) UA's approximate total 3Q revenue without the MAX grounding
2) UA's projected total 3Q revenue that UA gives guidance on and analysts estimate.
3) UA's actual 3Q total revenue

UA missed #2 analyst consensus by $40m. I haven't read the earnings call yet, but the MAX could be a part of that revenue miss. I doubt it's all of it though as UA is baking the MAX loss into their projections. We know #3 isn't close to #1 because of the MAX capacity loss, and that's a bit of a separate issue.


Missing $40 million isn't the end of the world at all though. They still did well, but the devil is probably in the details besides the MAX and I'd love to know what that is.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos