United Airlines said it lost $8.16 per share, worse than the $7.63 expected by Zacks. Revenue fell 78% to $2.489 billion, below estimates for $2.57 billion.

United said it cut operating costs by 59%, and cut its average daily cash burn from the second quarter to $21 million. The carrier's flight capacity fell 70% during the quarter.

https://www.investors.com/news/airline- ... src=A00220

Don't know why IBD has the results, but the United Investor web page does not. Thus, full financials are not yet available.

United's newsroom has it: https://hub.united.com/2020-10-14-as-q3 ... 10545.html

Great quarter from UA. Biggest takeaway:

United expects that third-quarter revenue performance will be the best, even in a historically difficult environment, among our large network competitors - once they have all reported their quarterly results. By almost any revenue measure, the company expects on a year-over-year basis, with our total unit revenue of down 26 percent, passenger unit revenue of down 47 percent, cargo revenue of up 50 percent and loyalty revenue of down 45 percent to be stronger results than those that will be achieved by each of our legacy competitors.

Rdh3e wrote:

Great quarter from UA. Biggest takeaway:

United expects that third-quarter revenue performance will be the best, even in a historically difficult environment, among our large network competitors - once they have all reported their quarterly results. By almost any revenue measure, the company expects on a year-over-year basis, with our total unit revenue of down 26 percent, passenger unit revenue of down 47 percent, cargo revenue of up 50 percent and loyalty revenue of down 45 percent to be stronger results than those that will be achieved by each of our legacy competitors.

And yet Delta reported:

" Per-share loss of $3.30 on revenue of $3.06 billion. Daily cash burn average of $18 million for the month of September. That's down from Q2's average burn rate of $43 million. At the end of Q3, the company had $21.6 billion in liquidity, up from $15.7 billion at the end of Q2."

All of those measures are better than United's

MIflyer12 wrote:

Great quarter? Wage expense alone exceeded total passenger revenue - by a lot.

Although UA tried to reduce employees hours, everyone knows in the end UA had to back down unlike Delta which got away with it, but we won't talk about that.

But instead of trying to bring UA down why not focus on the positive which is daily cash burn for the entire quarter reduced to $21 million dollars which beat UA's estimated in Q2 of $25 million dollars.
Net loss of: $1.8 Billion dollars
Adjusted Net loss of: $2.4 billion dollars.
Cargo revenue up: 49.6%
Load Factor: September 61.7% and for then entire quarter 47.8%

You can focus on the negative if you want but in spite of UA's heavily unionized workforce and in spite of the fact that UA could not reduce employees hours, UA still had a great 3rd quarter all things considered.

Like it or not Scott Kirby is figuring out how to keep UA afloat during the worst crisis to hit that has ever hit this industry.

As much as people on this site do not like Kirby, I think hiring Kirby is probably the best move Munoz ever made and I think Kirby is the right person to navigate UA through this crisis. I've said this multiple times if Smisek were still CEO UA would be ****.

bob75013 wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

Great quarter from UA. Biggest takeaway:

United expects that third-quarter revenue performance will be the best, even in a historically difficult environment, among our large network competitors - once they have all reported their quarterly results. By almost any revenue measure, the company expects on a year-over-year basis, with our total unit revenue of down 26 percent, passenger unit revenue of down 47 percent, cargo revenue of up 50 percent and loyalty revenue of down 45 percent to be stronger results than those that will be achieved by each of our legacy competitors.

And yet Delta reported:

" Per-share loss of $3.30 on revenue of $3.06 billion. Daily cash burn average of $18 million for the month of September. That's down from Q2's average burn rate of $43 million. At the end of Q3, the company had $21.6 billion in liquidity, up from $15.7 billion at the end of Q2."

All of those measures are better than United's

I had to read it about five times to understand what they said as it is so poorly expressed, but I am fairly certain they are referring to the drop in revenue being less than their competitors.

usflyer msp wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

Great quarter from UA. Biggest takeaway:

United expects that third-quarter revenue performance will be the best, even in a historically difficult environment, among our large network competitors - once they have all reported their quarterly results. By almost any revenue measure, the company expects on a year-over-year basis, with our total unit revenue of down 26 percent, passenger unit revenue of down 47 percent, cargo revenue of up 50 percent and loyalty revenue of down 45 percent to be stronger results than those that will be achieved by each of our legacy competitors.

They are delusional...

Really of the US3, United Airlines already beat Delta Airlines Q3 numbers.

The only large network competitor left to report Q3 numbers is AA

We will wait and see if AA can do better.

Still no major aircraft retirements?

bob75013 wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

Great quarter from UA. Biggest takeaway:

United expects that third-quarter revenue performance will be the best, even in a historically difficult environment, among our large network competitors - once they have all reported their quarterly results. By almost any revenue measure, the company expects on a year-over-year basis, with our total unit revenue of down 26 percent, passenger unit revenue of down 47 percent, cargo revenue of up 50 percent and loyalty revenue of down 45 percent to be stronger results than those that will be achieved by each of our legacy competitors.

And yet Delta reported:

" Per-share loss of $3.30 on revenue of $3.06 billion. Daily cash burn average of $18 million for the month of September. That's down from Q2's average burn rate of $43 million. At the end of Q3, the company had $21.6 billion in liquidity, up from $15.7 billion at the end of Q2."

All of those measures are better than United's

It's not really fair to compare DL's Sep cash burn vs UA's Q3 cash burn. DL's Q3 daily cash burn was $24 million. September bookings were quite a bit better than other 2 months.

Also, UA's cash burn including debt and severance payment was $25 million per day. What was DL's daily cash burn when including these additional items?

bob75013 wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

Great quarter from UA. Biggest takeaway:

United expects that third-quarter revenue performance will be the best, even in a historically difficult environment, among our large network competitors - once they have all reported their quarterly results. By almost any revenue measure, the company expects on a year-over-year basis, with our total unit revenue of down 26 percent, passenger unit revenue of down 47 percent, cargo revenue of up 50 percent and loyalty revenue of down 45 percent to be stronger results than those that will be achieved by each of our legacy competitors.

And yet Delta reported:

" Per-share loss of $3.30 on revenue of $3.06 billion. Daily cash burn average of $18 million for the month of September. That's down from Q2's average burn rate of $43 million. At the end of Q3, the company had $21.6 billion in liquidity, up from $15.7 billion at the end of Q2."

All of those measures are better than United's

You are trying to compare apples to oranges on cash burn and bring in other metrics that UA wasn't saying were better (or worse for that matter.)

UAs average cash burn over Q3 was 21 million per day. We don't know what UAs September cash burn rate was it very easily could have been lower than 18 million. DLs cash burn rate on average for Q3 was 24 million per day. UAs cash burn was lower than DLs which is not a surprise as UAs was lower in Q2 as well.

UA specifically called out that by almost any REVENUE measure they are outperforming their peers. They named a few metrics, like cargo for instance, where UA is kicking butt on. UA generated $422 million in cargo revenue in Q2 which is up 49.6% year over year despite operating far fewer flights than Q32019. DL generated $142 million in cargo which is down $45 million from the same period a year earlier.

None of the US airlines did well this quarter but there are a few bright spots and it's important to keep those in mind vs the usual bashing that occurs on here.

bob75013 wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

Great quarter from UA. Biggest takeaway:

United expects that third-quarter revenue performance will be the best, even in a historically difficult environment, among our large network competitors - once they have all reported their quarterly results. By almost any revenue measure, the company expects on a year-over-year basis, with our total unit revenue of down 26 percent, passenger unit revenue of down 47 percent, cargo revenue of up 50 percent and loyalty revenue of down 45 percent to be stronger results than those that will be achieved by each of our legacy competitors.

And yet Delta reported:

" Per-share loss of $3.30 on revenue of $3.06 billion. Daily cash burn average of $18 million for the month of September. That's down from Q2's average burn rate of $43 million. At the end of Q3, the company had $21.6 billion in liquidity, up from $15.7 billion at the end of Q2."

All of those measures are better than United's

What was Delta's NET loss before adjustments for Q3?

What was Delta's Q3 total cash burn rate?

You simply want to focus on September's burn rate which UA does not report individual monthly burn rates. But if we compare the entire quarter DL's burn rate was $24 million while UA was able to get down to $21 million for the entire quarter. UA's load factor for the month of September was slightly higher than DL's so it is possible that UA either matched DL's September cash burn rate or perhaps exceeded DL's $18 million dollar per day other wise how did UA get our burn rate for the entire quarter down to $21 million dollars a cool $3 million dollars lower than Delta?

Each airline did great but don't pretend like Delta is running away with this, in certain areas United beat Delta and in other areas Delta beat United.

tphuang wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

Great quarter from UA. Biggest takeaway:

And yet Delta reported:

" Per-share loss of $3.30 on revenue of $3.06 billion. Daily cash burn average of $18 million for the month of September. That's down from Q2's average burn rate of $43 million. At the end of Q3, the company had $21.6 billion in liquidity, up from $15.7 billion at the end of Q2."

All of those measures are better than United's

It's not really fair to compare DL's Sep cash burn vs UA's Q3 cash burn. DL's Q3 daily cash burn was $24 million. September bookings were quite a bit better than other 2 months.

Also, UA's cash burn including debt and severance payment was $25 million per day. What was DL's daily cash burn when including these additional items?

I would have to do some digging to find out Dls debt payments but severance alone was $813 million Q3...that adds 8.8 million a day to DLs cash burn rate.

jayunited wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Great quarter? Wage expense alone exceeded total passenger revenue - by a lot.

Although UA tried to reduce employees hours, everyone knows in the end UA had to back down unlike Delta which got away with it, but we won't talk about that.

But instead of trying to bring UA down why not focus on the positive which is daily cash burn for the entire quarter reduced to $21 million dollars which beat UA's estimated in Q2 of $25 million dollars.
Net loss of: $1.8 Billion dollars
Adjusted Net loss of: $2.4 billion dollars.
Cargo revenue up: 49.6%
Load Factor: September 61.7% and for then entire quarter 47.8%

You can focus on the negative if you want but in spite of UA's heavily unionized workforce and in spite of the fact that UA could not reduce employees hours, UA still had a great 3rd quarter all things considered.

Like it or not Scott Kirby is figuring out how to keep UA afloat during the worst crisis to hit that has ever hit this industry.

As much as people on this site do not like Kirby, I think hiring Kirby is probably the best move Munoz ever made and I think Kirby is the right person to navigate UA through this crisis. I've said this multiple times if Smisek were still CEO UA would be ****.

Thank you Jay - It is truly remarkable what UA has done and continues to do. Lots of folks on here don't want to see UA as good as it is, so they want to focus on negatives.

Way to go Kirby and the hard working UNITED team around the globe.

Amwest2United wrote:

jayunited wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Great quarter? Wage expense alone exceeded total passenger revenue - by a lot.

Although UA tried to reduce employees hours, everyone knows in the end UA had to back down unlike Delta which got away with it, but we won't talk about that.

But instead of trying to bring UA down why not focus on the positive which is daily cash burn for the entire quarter reduced to $21 million dollars which beat UA's estimated in Q2 of $25 million dollars.
Net loss of: $1.8 Billion dollars
Adjusted Net loss of: $2.4 billion dollars.
Cargo revenue up: 49.6%
Load Factor: September 61.7% and for then entire quarter 47.8%

You can focus on the negative if you want but in spite of UA's heavily unionized workforce and in spite of the fact that UA could not reduce employees hours, UA still had a great 3rd quarter all things considered.

Like it or not Scott Kirby is figuring out how to keep UA afloat during the worst crisis to hit that has ever hit this industry.

As much as people on this site do not like Kirby, I think hiring Kirby is probably the best move Munoz ever made and I think Kirby is the right person to navigate UA through this crisis. I've said this multiple times if Smisek were still CEO UA would be ****.

Thank you Jay - It is truly remarkable what UA has done and continues to do. Lots of folks on here don't want to see UA as good as it is, so they want to focus on negatives.

Way to go Kirby and the hard working UNITED team around the globe.

Agreed. It's pretty impressive with what United has been able to pull off considering these unusual times. And they are still provide a better service on their aircraft than Delta. You can still get a Coke on a crj-200 where Delta will only give you water on a transcon.

jbs2886 wrote:

Still no major aircraft retirements?

No and there are no immediate plans with the exception of scheduled retirements. In fact, some airplanes that weren’t flying because of needed heavy checks are now coming back and having those HMVs scheduled. Most notably on the 777 fleet. Not to say that fleet retirements won’t happen, but up to now there aren’t any plans. That’s one advantage of our older fleet that’s predominantly paid off. Parking planes for the medium term isn’t as big of a deal. The planes that do have payments (737 and 787) are the ones out flying a bunch and the 787 especially is a (relative) cash cow. More airplanes are being pulled from storage nearly every week which is good news as well.

MIflyer12 wrote:

The SEC filing is now up as an 8-K (not a 10-Q). https://ir.united.com/financial-performance/sec-filings

Loss of $2.4 billion, lots and lots of wiggle words to get to that punch line.

Better than DL, I'd bet better than AA too.

Oh, this earning's season is not a happy time.

Lightsaber

Looks like UA bested DL this quarter with a smaller loss and other higher revenue streams from areas like cargo. I think looking at wage costs across the US3, while not immaterial or irrelevant, is heavily skewed by Cares Act money. As for aircraft retirements, my prediction is that UA will axe the 767-400ER (none of them have been Polaris'd and the costs far outweigh the benefits right now). The 764's likely will not come back on line at all, with the 763s, remaining 757s (except for maybe the -300s) retired by 2023 and once the MAX is recertified to fly, look for them to replace 1:1 a good many 738s, starting with the oldest ones in the fleet. The 772s will also be drawn down starting with the As.

jayunited wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

Great quarter from UA. Biggest takeaway:

They are delusional...

Really of the US3, United Airlines already beat Delta Airlines Q3 numbers.

The only large network competitor left to report Q3 numbers is AA

We will wait and see if AA can do better.

I mean in some ways sure, but it is impossible not to caveat that in mentioning that Delta is in much, much better shape on the debt front, which is by no means irrelevant these days.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Agreed. It's pretty impressive with what United has been able to pull off considering these unusual times. And they are still provide a better service on their aircraft than Delta. You can still get a Coke on a crj-200 where Delta will only give you water on a transcon.

I'm sorry but no. United can keep their coke. If I'm flying in the age of COVID I sure as hell don't want to sit next to anyone - ever. On Delta I never will between now and January, whereas on United or American I don't have that guarantee. End of story on the service front as far as I'm concerned.

lightsaber wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

The SEC filing is now up as an 8-K (not a 10-Q). https://ir.united.com/financial-performance/sec-filings

Loss of $2.4 billion, lots and lots of wiggle words to get to that punch line.

Better than DL, I'd bet better than AA too.

Oh, this earning's season is not a happy time.

Lightsaber

I don't think you can characterize UA's results as better than DL. Excluding DL's restructuring charges of over 5B, DL had a 1,041M operating loss compared to UA's operating loss of 1,615M. UA also had higher non-operating losses. I'd also add that 3B of DL's charges are for buyouts, UA did substantial furloughs. I'm not saying DL's results are good - they aren't - but headline numbers aren't what they appear.

jayunited wrote:

Really of the US3, United Airlines already beat Delta Airlines Q3 numbers.

Some measures yes (Avg daily cash burn rate); some measures no (non-GAAP adjusted pre-tax and net margins)

Q3 daily average cash burn:

UA: $21m
DL: $24m

Q3 Operating Revenues (adjusted)
DL: $2.6B
UA: $2.5 B

Q3 Pre-Tax Loss (Adjusted)
DL: $2.6B
UA: $3.0B

Q3 Pre-Tax Margin (Adjusted)
DL: -98%
UA: -121%

Q3 Net Loss (Adjusted)
DL: $2.1B
UA: $2.4B

Q3 Net Margin (Adjusted)
DL: -79%
UA: -95%

Cointrin330 wrote:

Looks like UA bested DL this quarter with a smaller loss and other higher revenue streams from areas like cargo. I think looking at wage costs across the US3, while not immaterial or irrelevant, is heavily skewed by Cares Act money. As for aircraft retirements, my prediction is that UA will axe the 767-400ER (none of them have been Polaris'd and the costs far outweigh the benefits right now). The 764's likely will not come back on line at all, with the 763s, remaining 757s (except for maybe the -300s) retired by 2023 and once the MAX is recertified to fly, look for them to replace 1:1 a good many 738s, starting with the oldest ones in the fleet. The 772s will also be drawn down starting with the As.

Shouldn't the large quantity of 20-27 year old A320's also be a priority for replacement when the MAX's come back?

lightsaber wrote:

I don't think you can characterize UA's results as better than DL. Excluding DL's restructuring charges of over 5B, DL had a 1,041M operating loss compared to UA's operating loss of 1,615M. UA also had higher non-operating losses. I'd also add that 3B of DL's charges are for buyouts, UA did substantial furloughs. I'm not saying DL's results are good - they aren't - but headline numbers aren't what they appear.

Bingo. Nothing else to be said.

I hope no one is trying to use any airline’s numbers for bragging rights for their preferred airline. All of these numbers truly suck, it’s just the logo on the cover sheet that changes.

Prost wrote:

I hope no one is trying to use any airline’s numbers for bragging rights for their preferred airline. All of these numbers truly suck, it’s just the logo on the cover sheet that changes.

Very true...but it is important to point out there are bright spots at every airline. The situation is far from hopeless and things will improve with time. It’s also important to not bash each other right now as all of us are in the same boat.

I for one am celebrating UA getting its cash burn down. There is lots of work ahead to right the ship but UA has a significant amount of runway to do it.

Prost wrote:

I hope no one is trying to use any airline’s numbers for bragging rights for their preferred airline. All of these numbers truly suck, it’s just the logo on the cover sheet that changes.

Absolutely. It is unbelievable how partizan people can get, even on quarterly earnings?

majano wrote:

Prost wrote:

I hope no one is trying to use any airline’s numbers for bragging rights for their preferred airline. All of these numbers truly suck, it’s just the logo on the cover sheet that changes.

Absolutely. It is unbelievable how partizan people can get, even on quarterly earnings?

Actually, United management is the one that is probably most 'guilty' lately of this. I don't know if it's Kirby (who is known to be extremely competitive) being in charge now, but UA's most recent earnings releases have been more aggressive than usual in comparing themselves to their peers:

Q2 2020 Earnings Release:

https://hub.united.com/2020-07-21-unite ... 47006.html

"....United believes it did the best job of matching actual capacity to demand among its largest network peers. The company also expects to finish the quarter with the lowest average daily cash burn among large network carriers..."

Q3 2020 Earnings Release:

"....Achieving these objectives has supported the airline's ability to manage the crisis as well as or better than its competitors and positions United to lead the industry when demand for air travel returns.

In addition, United expects that third-quarter revenue performance will be the best, even in a historically difficult environment, among our large network competitors - once they have all reported their quarterly results. By almost any revenue measure, the company expects on a year-over-year basis, with our total unit revenue of down 26 percent, passenger unit revenue of down 47 percent, cargo revenue of up 50 percent and loyalty revenue of down 45 percent to be stronger results than those that will be achieved by each of our legacy competitors...."

However United management wants to spin, the sadness of portraying itself a huge success because it lost fewer billions of dollars is just too much for anyone. Why not simply say that United and its legacy competitors are in this together and will work together to make travel experience better and to push a sustainable growth for future? It is not a time for United management to boast its inability to make money and to make noise all about Me Me Me Me, but to admit it is a time that all airlines need to come together to find a solution in order for the travel coming back towards normal step by step.

chonetsao wrote:

However United management wants to spin, the sadness of portraying itself a huge success because it lost fewer billions of dollars is just too much for anyone. Why not simply say that United and its legacy competitors are in this together and will work together to make travel experience better and to push a sustainable growth for future? It is not a time for United management to boast its inability to make money and to make noise all about Me Me Me Me, but to admit it is a time that all airlines need to come together to find a solution in order for the travel coming back towards normal step by step.

Why? Because UAL was presenting their Q and forward looking guidance to the investors and analysts, not the armchair airline CEO’s with zero airline experience here on anet. This is where a company tells the markets how and why it is a better investment than its competitors. It helps you get people to invest in your company. During this time showing that you are not losing money at a rate that is a high as your competition is a great thing to highlight. It shows your team is doing the things necessary to sustain their investment in your company. An earnings call is exactly where you want to say “me, me me” when you are outpacing the herd.

jbs2886 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

The SEC filing is now up as an 8-K (not a 10-Q). https://ir.united.com/financial-performance/sec-filings

Loss of $2.4 billion, lots and lots of wiggle words to get to that punch line.

Better than DL, I'd bet better than AA too.

Oh, this earning's season is not a happy time.

Lightsaber

I don't think you can characterize UA's results as better than DL. Excluding DL's restructuring charges of over 5B, DL had a 1,041M operating loss compared to UA's operating loss of 1,615M. UA also had higher non-operating losses. I'd also add that 3B of DL's charges are for buyouts, UA did substantial furloughs. I'm not saying DL's results are good - they aren't - but headline numbers aren't what they appear.

UAL had substantial buyout packages also to employee groups.

mcdu wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

However United management wants to spin, the sadness of portraying itself a huge success because it lost fewer billions of dollars is just too much for anyone. Why not simply say that United and its legacy competitors are in this together and will work together to make travel experience better and to push a sustainable growth for future? It is not a time for United management to boast its inability to make money and to make noise all about Me Me Me Me, but to admit it is a time that all airlines need to come together to find a solution in order for the travel coming back towards normal step by step.

Why? Because UAL was presenting their Q and forward looking guidance to the investors and analysts, not the armchair airline CEO’s with zero airline experience here on anet. This is where a company tells the markets how and why it is a better investment than its competitors. It helps you get people to invest in your company. During this time showing that you are not losing money at a rate that is a high as your competition is a great thing to highlight. It shows your team is doing the things necessary to sustain their investment in your company. An earnings call is exactly where you want to say “me, me me” when you are outpacing the herd.

Spot on. When investors are growing impatient with your sector, it is the best time to highlight why you deserve more patience and your competitors don't. If the shoe were on the other foot Delta would be boasting loud and proud, as they always do. They wouldn't be preaching a message of unity with their competition.

jetmatt777 wrote:

mcdu wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

However United management wants to spin, the sadness of portraying itself a huge success because it lost fewer billions of dollars is just too much for anyone. Why not simply say that United and its legacy competitors are in this together and will work together to make travel experience better and to push a sustainable growth for future? It is not a time for United management to boast its inability to make money and to make noise all about Me Me Me Me, but to admit it is a time that all airlines need to come together to find a solution in order for the travel coming back towards normal step by step.

Why? Because UAL was presenting their Q and forward looking guidance to the investors and analysts, not the armchair airline CEO’s with zero airline experience here on anet. This is where a company tells the markets how and why it is a better investment than its competitors. It helps you get people to invest in your company. During this time showing that you are not losing money at a rate that is a high as your competition is a great thing to highlight. It shows your team is doing the things necessary to sustain their investment in your company. An earnings call is exactly where you want to say “me, me me” when you are outpacing the herd.

Spot on. When investors are growing impatient with your sector, it is the best time to highlight why you deserve more patience and your competitors don't. If the shoe were on the other foot Delta would be boasting loud and proud, as they always do. They wouldn't be preaching a message of unity with their competition.

As an investor, I can assure you I don't look for that. I want positivity and great outlook, not constantly bragging. If you have been in this field for long (I have about 13 years experience in travel industry investing), you would know all investors in airline sector are the same funds and same investment firms. One firm holds Delta is likely to hold UAL or AAL in the same time. This sector is dominated by index tracking funds. In fact, when one company bragging how well it is doing compare to peers while the sector is bleeding because it had less loss, it is a warning sign: the management has an altitude and priority problem.

After all, investors read the numbers, a dog wagging its tail for attention while in water with other dogs (which is akin what UA management effectively did) is always a sign of trouble ahead. The dog should work with other dogs to swim ashore rather than bragging about it is half an inch closer to shore than other dogs.

chonetsao wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

mcdu wrote:

Why? Because UAL was presenting their Q and forward looking guidance to the investors and analysts, not the armchair airline CEO’s with zero airline experience here on anet. This is where a company tells the markets how and why it is a better investment than its competitors. It helps you get people to invest in your company. During this time showing that you are not losing money at a rate that is a high as your competition is a great thing to highlight. It shows your team is doing the things necessary to sustain their investment in your company. An earnings call is exactly where you want to say “me, me me” when you are outpacing the herd.

Spot on. When investors are growing impatient with your sector, it is the best time to highlight why you deserve more patience and your competitors don't. If the shoe were on the other foot Delta would be boasting loud and proud, as they always do. They wouldn't be preaching a message of unity with their competition.

As an investor, I can assure you I don't look for that. I want positivity and great outlook, not constantly bragging. If you have been in this field for long (I have about 13 years experience in travel industry investing), you would know all investors in airline sector are the same funds and same investment firms. One firm holds Delta is likely to hold UAL or AAL in the same time. This sector is dominated by index tracking funds. In fact, when one company bragging how well it is doing compare to peers while the sector is bleeding because it had less loss, it is a warning sign: the management has an altitude and priority problem.

After all, investors read the numbers, a dog wagging its tail for attention while in water with other dogs (which is akin what UA management effectively did) is always a sign of trouble ahead. The dog should work with other dogs to swim ashore rather than bragging about it is half an inch closer to shore than other dogs.

As an investor you would know that the SEC and DOJ take a dim view about collusion.

panamair wrote:

Q3 Operating Revenues (adjusted)
DL: $2.6B
UA: $2.5 B

The starkest contrast is that UA put up equal revenue to DL while flying ~20% less capacity.

jayunited wrote:

As much as people on this site do not like Kirby, I think hiring Kirby is probably the best move Munoz ever made and I think Kirby is the right person to navigate UA through this crisis. I've said this multiple times if Smisek were still CEO UA would be ****.

I don't think it's fair to say people do not like him. But I sometimes wonder if his reputation in any way matches anything he is actually done. What are his accomplishments? One of the negatives I see with him historically is an almost old school like obsession with marketshare. Those kind of things have been very bad the last 50 years.

micstatic wrote:

jayunited wrote:

As much as people on this site do not like Kirby, I think hiring Kirby is probably the best move Munoz ever made and I think Kirby is the right person to navigate UA through this crisis. I've said this multiple times if Smisek were still CEO UA would be ****.

I don't think it's fair to say people do not like him. But I sometimes wonder if his reputation in any way matches anything he is actually done. What are his accomplishments? One of the negatives I see with him historically is an almost old school like obsession with marketshare. Those kind of things have been very bad the last 50 years.

What has Kirby done? For a start, he was the brains behind Parker for over a decade. US Airways was (despite the naysayers) a well run airline in the years leading up to the merger, and AA were doing OK for the first couple of years after the merger. Some of the changes weren't popular, but AA were making plenty of money and looked like they had a plan. However, Parker has looked way out of his depth ever since Kirby left.

Kirby doesn't have an obsession with market share per se, he just said that United should get back to the level of market share thar UA+CO had at the time of the merger, before Smisek tried to "shrink to profitability". Pre-Covid at least, there is no reason United should have been as small as they were domestically, with hubs in large O&D markets like EWR, ORD and SFO plus large East-West connecting hubs in DEN, ORD and IAH. Kirby didn't say that United needed to have a North-South hub to rival ATL and CLT, just get back to where they were before with their existing hubs.

Rdh3e wrote:

panamair wrote:

Q3 Operating Revenues (adjusted)
DL: $2.6B
UA: $2.5 B

The starkest contrast is that UA put up equal revenue to DL while flying ~20% less capacity.

I would note that DL isn't flying lots of cargo-only flights, UA is flying a substantial amount, so you can't look at seat capacity as that metric. UA's significant cargo-only operation is generating a lot of revenue, UA's cargo revenue over doubled. DL's decreased surprisingly.

To move us past this slap fight, have there been any interesting developments from the earnings call this morning? I am unable to listen to it today unfortunately.

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

Looks like UA bested DL this quarter with a smaller loss and other higher revenue streams from areas like cargo. I think looking at wage costs across the US3, while not immaterial or irrelevant, is heavily skewed by Cares Act money. As for aircraft retirements, my prediction is that UA will axe the 767-400ER (none of them have been Polaris'd and the costs far outweigh the benefits right now). The 764's likely will not come back on line at all, with the 763s, remaining 757s (except for maybe the -300s) retired by 2023 and once the MAX is recertified to fly, look for them to replace 1:1 a good many 738s, starting with the oldest ones in the fleet. The 772s will also be drawn down starting with the As.

Shouldn't the large quantity of 20-27 year old A320's also be a priority for replacement when the MAX's come back?

I imagine you;re right about that. Any older narrowbody bird that can be replaced by a Max will be,
That'd save the airlines $$$ right now on heavy check costs

WN and AA have already said they intend to do this

jbs2886 wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

panamair wrote:

Q3 Operating Revenues (adjusted)
DL: $2.6B
UA: $2.5 B

The starkest contrast is that UA put up equal revenue to DL while flying ~20% less capacity.

I would note that DL isn't flying lots of cargo-only flights, UA is flying a substantial amount, so you can't look at seat capacity as that metric. UA's significant cargo-only operation is generating a lot of revenue, UA's cargo revenue over doubled. DL's decreased surprisingly.

If you want to do it that way, UA still outperformed.

DL PRASM 6.85 - (down 55% YOY)
UA PRASM 7.42 - (down 47% YOY)

Rdh3e wrote:

panamair wrote:

Q3 Operating Revenues (adjusted)
DL: $2.6B
UA: $2.5 B

The starkest contrast is that UA put up equal revenue to DL while flying ~20% less capacity.

20% less capacity measured how? DL has load factor caps that I don't think you're accounting for there - UA does not.

Also, cargo.

Remember UA is the MOST GLOBAL US airline with DL 2nd and AA 3rd. UA has pre-covid strategy of flying to all the TATL/TPAC/LatAm markets demanded by their corporate customers and is the most innovative. They will soon be in the 6 continent club with DL with their recent high yield Africa expansion (JNB, CPT, LOS, ACC). They have massive alliance partnerships both TATL and TPAC with the MOST destinations. DL for example has retreated and only mostly serves JV hubs in terms of frequency (LHR, CDG, AMS, ICN), likewise with AA (LHR, HND, NRT, HKG).

jayunited wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Great quarter? Wage expense alone exceeded total passenger revenue - by a lot.

Although UA tried to reduce employees hours, everyone knows in the end UA had to back down unlike Delta which got away with it, but we won't talk about that. ****.

United did cut hours for all M&A employees...my pay was cut 20%. Correct that group employees did not keep hour reductions but false to say they backed down when they did not for all groups.

Any updates or transcripts of the call released?

All I can find are some (mostly) crap articles parroting a series of tweets repeating what everyone's been saying for a while (no full recovery until 2024).

winginit wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

panamair wrote:

Q3 Operating Revenues (adjusted)
DL: $2.6B
UA: $2.5 B

The starkest contrast is that UA put up equal revenue to DL while flying ~20% less capacity.

20% less capacity measured how? DL has load factor caps that I don't think you're accounting for there - UA does not.

Also, cargo.

So blocking of middle seats do not count against ASM? I find that very interesting, but unlikely.

So, the fact that DL is blocking seats they should be able to sell the seats they do at a higher premium and hence make up for the cheaper seats UA can sell because nobody wants to buy them.

This fanboy defending of both airlines is stupid...... both of the results stink from an investor perspective.

gonnagetbumpy wrote:

jayunited wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Great quarter? Wage expense alone exceeded total passenger revenue - by a lot.

Although UA tried to reduce employees hours, everyone knows in the end UA had to back down unlike Delta which got away with it, but we won't talk about that. ****.

United did cut hours for all M&A employees...my pay was cut 20%. Correct that group employees did not keep hour reductions but false to say they backed down when they did not for all groups.

I know that I'm in management and my pay was cut as well.

But you have to keep in mind the CARES act never covered management employees nor was it intended to cover management employees. United tried to reduce hours for all ground staff (to follow in Delta footsteps) but had to back down when the unions got involved and when Doug Parker called UA out. If you look at all the hubs and line stations staffed with actual UA employees (there are still a lot of line station staffed with UA employees) your probably looking at 25,000 - 30,000 employees easily. If UA had been successful in reducing all ground staff to a maximum of 30 hours a week that would have translated into millions of dollars being saved.

DoctorVenkman wrote:

To move us past this slap fight, have there been any interesting developments from the earnings call this morning? I am unable to listen to it today unfortunately.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/437928 ... art=single

I am just sitting down to read the transcript myself...

A few things from the call:
Resuming retrofitting Polaris and Premium Plus on the 787 fleet.
UA is expecting operating cash flow in the fourth quarter to be around $15-20 million a day. An additional $10 million or so a day in cash flow for debt/severance payments. in the quarter.
Expecting to be the first network carrier to return to positive cash flow.
Expanding at airport rapid Covid testing beyond just SFO.
Kirby is "reasonably confident" UA will return to JFK with TCON service and perhaps service to UAs hubs.