Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

AirTran tacks on add'l $140M to cash

  • Thread starter Thread starter lowecur
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 30

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
As for the original topic, AAI was very smart to raise capital when they did. I doubt that they could get their hands on that much money in the current environment. And companies are going to want to have as much cash on hand as they can going forward.
I was at the Fornaro's townhall meeting with employees back about 6 months ago. He said he was raising cash then because Airtran wanted to be one of the first to get the cash because there wouldn't be much cash to go around towards the end of the cycle.

While our management has made some moves that make you shake your head and wonder, they have been around for a while and generally have a pretty good idea on what is going on economically.

I feel pretty comfortable with Airtran's position going into 2009 with sub $2/gallon Jet A. Airtran's business model is less impacted by overall economic environment than by fuel prices (just look at Airtran's 2002/2003 performance) and oil demand doesn't look to be rising significantly anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
I was at the Fornaro's townhall meeting with employees back about 6 months ago. He said he was raising cash then because Airtran wanted to be one of the first to get the cash because there wouldn't be much cash to go around towards the end of the cycle.

While our management has made some moves that make you shake your head and wonder, they have been around for a while and generally have a pretty good idea on what is going on economically.

I feel pretty comfortable with Airtran's position going into 2009 with sub $2/gallon Jet A. Airtran's business model is less impacted by overall economic environment than by fuel prices (just look at Airtran's 2002/2003 performance) and oil demand doesn't look to be rising significantly anytime soon.
AirTran's business model over the last 7 years has been to take advantage of others misfortune i.e. Metrojet, US Airways, Independance Air, and ATA. Now that there are no east coast carriers in bankruptcy and the playing field is about even, what will be their plan? That is what wallstreet wants to see and me as well. I don't think you can sell airplanes to profitablity. What is the strategic long term objective? In this current environment, beware if your CEO can't state one!
 
Do you have any good book reccomendations on investing/finance? I have been putting in the maximum and then some for the company match but its all in the TRowePrice 2050 retirement fund.

So you see oil in the $20s another 30-50% drop in the market? Are we looking at another 10% capacity cut (or more) in the ailrine sector in 09?

I used to recommend 'The Intelligent Investor' by Benjamin Graham. But that was in 'normal' times. Instead of a book, I recommend a message board, www.tickerforum.org. There's a diverse crowd of people who are very financially savvy.

The India and China are falling apart, which is killing demand for oil. Prior to the Olympics, China was very aggressive in building a strategic petroleum reserve. They stopped after the olympics and that alone has had a big impact on oil prices. I read a couple of weeks ago that 36,000 Chinese factories have closed since the Olympics. That's huge demand destruction. And just imagine how much less gasoline is consumed by every person who loses their job - it's no longer necessary for them to drive to/from work.

For the airline industry, business hasn't fallen off a cliff yet; capacity cuts have matched a drop in the number of people flying. I think that after the holiday season, the airports will be a bigger ghost town than we've seen in a long time. Christmas is going to be terrible for retailers.
 
I think a 4,000/400 DOW/S&P is a bit drastic.

I wouldn't be surprised to see them drop into the 6,000/700 range, and bounce around a bit like they have been, but the only thing that will drive them into the range Andy is talking about is the collapse of an automaker or two, or the crumbling of another financial giant.

Possible, but unlikely. What we'll probably see with the auto industry is exactly what happened to the airline industry post-911. Ch. 11 filings and the attempt at gutting the employee compensation packages. Big question here is, under a Demo. regime, will they be allowed to cut as deeply as the airlines did?

2nd big question is, if they aren't allowed to gut pensions, etc, how big will the lashback be from the airline professionals in the form of discriminatory practice lawsuits against the federal government and, possibly, FINALLY, some kind of tort reform?

Interesting times, indeed.

SOME debt is helpful. A home loan with the interest write-off in a payment range you can afford is always a smart investment, especially if you can buy now with some equity in the purchase.

I also don't see oil dropping below $40 anytime soon. Then again, I am shocked to see it below $50. I posted a while back exactly what oil would do... and it did... on the same, exact timeline I said. However, I think it will bobble in the 40's-50's for the next year, again, barring some unforeseen financial meltdown in another sector.

Depression? I still don't see it... yet... but it's not inconceivable.

I base 400 S&P on $40 in forward earnings on the S&P. Analysts haven't pulled down numbers far enough yet and the PE ratio historically goes to single digits in a recession.

The auto industry can't be salvaged in its present form. Demand for vehicles is going south of 10 million on an annual basis. With that as a backdrop, they either need to get small quickly or one has to go out of business. I don't know how much the govt is going to try to prop them up, but without structural reforms, the auto industry is a money pit.

Homes are NOT an investment. Shelter is a necessity, but right now houses are a lousy investment. Even with the tax breaks. And the housing industry is nowhere near recovery; there's a huge excess supply of homes that will continue to drive down home prices along with a ton of negative amortization loans that will be recast through 2012. Housing prices will likely keep falling through 2014 at a minimum. I am renting and will continue to rent for the next five years at a minimum. Rent prices are dropping, so I am seeing my housing costs decrease annually.
 
I base 400 S&P on $40 in forward earnings on the S&P. Analysts haven't pulled down numbers far enough yet and the PE ratio historically goes to single digits in a recession.
Yes, the PE ratio does historically go to single digits, but single-digit PE ratios don't automatically drive a 80+% decrease in stock prices. Again, it will take some type of crisis to drive prices down significantly from the levels we're at right now.

The auto industry can't be salvaged in its present form. Demand for vehicles is going south of 10 million on an annual basis. With that as a backdrop, they either need to get small quickly or one has to go out of business. I don't know how much the govt is going to try to prop them up, but without structural reforms, the auto industry is a money pit.
Agreed, and that's my concern. There have been huge plant closures, layoffs, and we're nowhere NEAR where we need to be with the big 4. Just like the majors, the healthiest thing would be to lose one (probably Chrysler) and have the others restructure and retool. There's a reason so many companies are writing these companies off as a TOTAL loss before those companies have even discussed a filing or a shutdown.

If we don't get that and we have also get a huge bailout package, it WILL drive another market dive, and that could tip us over the edge from recession into depression.

Homes are NOT an investment. Shelter is a necessity, but right now houses are a lousy investment. Even with the tax breaks.
For many years, people have been programmed to think of a house as an investment. You are correct in that it's really not a traditional investment, but the assertions made in Rich Dad, Poor Dad, that a home is only an investment if it generates revenue, is flawed on many, basic levels, for these reasons:

1. You have to pay for a place to live, anyway. If you are going to pay LESS in rent than your monthly house payment minus your year-end tax deduction for the interest payment, then, maybe, you can look at the house as a bad investment, but most people (unless they buy a McMansion), will be within that limit easily. A 3-bedroom apartment is anywhere from $900-1,100 a month. A 3-bedroom house is anywhere from $1,000-1,300 a month. Easy math.

2. Right now is a great time to buy. Yes, the market still has some drop left to it, but we'll see it happen in the next year. More importantly, because of the risk that Obama will make changes to the tax code, these banks are dumping a lot of NICE homes they were previously hanging onto.

3. FHA programs and others are about to dramatically change, Dec 31st. Down payments will increase, "gift" portions of your down payment (which can account for up to 50% of your down payment) will disappear. Credit will get even tighter. If you don't get into a house now, you may not be able to for a long time to come.

Case in point, there was a foreclosure on the market for $248,000 a 2,700 sq ft home in a lakefront community. 6 year old home, under home warranty for 4 more years, great schools, fastest-growing area in the city, the last appraisal was at $265,000... I snagged it last week for $198,000, 30 year FHA Fixed at 5.78%. Because it's so far under appraisal, I have no PMI, my payments are about $1,300, and a 3 bedroom house for rent (unless it was a dump) would run me $1,100-1,200 a month anyway. I save money every month and, when the housing market recovers (2 years estimated if we don't have another big hit in the economy and get pushed into a 4-7 year depression), I'll sell it, take the equity, pay off my student loan, and use the rest as a down-payment on another home.

Houses CAN be invesments, you have to have housing anyway, and just because it's not going to make you money every month doesn't mean it's debt you need to avoid. Everyone needs to have a house... purchase smartly and you'll always be better off than renting.

Rent prices are dropping, so I am seeing my housing costs decrease annually.
Maybe in your area... not here. The people who have decent homes for rent are quickly realizing that the people who are getting evicted from ARM mortgages have NO interest in renting an apartment, have the income to support a $1,200-$1,400 a month payment (what it was before the ARM adjusted) and aren't lowering their rent prices AT ALL.

Not for decent homes in nice neighborhoods, anyway. Apartment rent may be falling, but not decent homes. We're not in a depression yet, and people are still buying the basics.
 
AirTran's business model over the last 7 years has been to take advantage of others misfortune i.e. Metrojet, US Airways, Independance Air, and ATA. Now that there are no east coast carriers in bankruptcy and the playing field is about even, what will be their plan? That is what wallstreet wants to see and me as well. I don't think you can sell airplanes to profitablity. What is the strategic long term objective? In this current environment, beware if your CEO can't state one!
We didn't sell airplanes this year for proftitablity, we sold airplanes to increase liquidity/preserve cash. Fornaro has stated the plan is to return to profitability (10 analysts predicting an average of $0.60 EPS for 2009), increase our cash reserve to $600-800 million, and then resume growth in 2011 with our 55 737 delivery spots we have between 2011 and 2016.

If something drastic happens in the domestic capacity situation and we thought there was a good opportunity to be had, we can get our hands on 717s pretty cheaply. Boeing already has the option to lease 5 old Midwest 717s in 2009 if they can't find another home for them.

Airtran has the lowest non-fuel CASM in the industry. As fuel prices drop, Airtran's non-fuel CASM advantage becomes a bigger deal as non-fuel CASM becomes a bigger percentage of total CASM. Lower cost airlines have more flexibility and usually do better during economic downturns. I wouldn't stick the fork in Airtran just yet.
 
Last edited:
We didn't sell airplanes this year for proftitablity, we sold airplanes to increase liquidity/preserve cash. Fornaro has stated the plan is to return to profitability (10 analysts predicting an average of $0.60 EPS for 2009), increase our cash reserve to $600-800 million, and then resume growth in 2011 with our 55 737 delivery spots we have between 2011 and 2016.

If something drastic happens in the domestic capacity situation and we thought there was a good opportunity to be had, we can get our hands on 717s pretty cheaply. Boeing already has the option to lease 5 old Midwest 717s in 2009 if they can't find another home for them.
AirTran sold 3 airplanes in the third quarter and made 10 million dollars off the sale of those aircraft. Please note: to sell airplanes for profitablity or to raise cash kind of works hand in hand at this point. With $318 million in unrestricted cash, the airline has a long way to go to raise $600-800 million dollars. Trust me it will not happen in this environment or from the sale of aircraft. With the yield AirTran generates from its tickets, I doubt they will get there that way either. AirTran will need a investor to pump a great deal of cash into them to reach $600-800 million cash in the next two years. Example for a seat on the board, Luftansa injected a large amount of cash into Jetblue along with a international code share. Something like this is the only way AirTran will reach their cash goals. ( by the way, I don't think Southwest wants anything to do with AirTran, so I don't see a code-share with them coming) Again selling airplanes to raise cash is not the answer and 2011 is not a strategic long term plan either!
From your post you say if something drastic happens 717s are available, that is my point. AirTran is a scavenger airline that only makes moves off of others failures. That is not a business plan. If you think that a business plan is to sit back and watch what happens over the next couple of years for something "drastic to occur", we better all start preparing our resumes. Let me give you a hint about what I mean. What do all these airlines have in common: Delta and Northwest, United, US Airways, Continental, Southwest, American, and Jetblue? They all have international code share partners.
 
Last edited:
If the Price of Fuel stays this low Air Tran will be just fine.

I think Iraq Hussein Obomba may tax the hell out of gas though. (Hopefully he will leave aviation related fuels alone). It will be interesting to see if he does this next year.
 
We didn't sell airplanes this year for proftitablity, we sold airplanes to increase liquidity/preserve cash. Fornaro has stated the plan is to return to profitability (10 analysts predicting an average of $0.60 EPS for 2009), increase our cash reserve to $600-800 million, and then resume growth in 2011 with our 55 737 delivery spots we have between 2011 and 2016.

If something drastic happens in the domestic capacity situation and we thought there was a good opportunity to be had, we can get our hands on 717s pretty cheaply. Boeing already has the option to lease 5 old Midwest 717s in 2009 if they can't find another home for them.

Airtran has the lowest non-fuel CASM in the industry. As fuel prices drop, Airtran's non-fuel CASM advantage becomes a bigger deal as non-fuel CASM becomes a bigger percentage of total CASM. Lower cost airlines have more flexibility and usually do better during economic downturns. I wouldn't stick the fork in Airtran just yet.

I disagree with that statement. As of the end of the 3Q Airtrans non-fuel CASM was 6.0. Jetblue was 5.7 and Allegiant was 4.6. Even CASM including fuel Airtran was 11.0 and Southwest was 10.7, Allegiant was 10.0 and Jetblue was 9.8. Sorry charlie! :-)
 
I disagree with that statement. As of the end of the 3Q Airtrans non-fuel CASM was 6.0. Jetblue was 5.7 and Allegiant was 4.6. Even CASM including fuel Airtran was 11.0 and Southwest was 10.7, Allegiant was 10.0 and Jetblue was 9.8. Sorry charlie! :-)
I wasn't considering Allegiant as they really don't compete with anybody since they fly routes to medium cities where they are the only players. I need to qualify my statement about non-fuel CASM, when adjusted to equal stage length (for an apples to apples comparison), Airtran has the lowest non-fuel CASM.

Either way, Jetblue's, Airtran's, and Southwest's business model is for $100-150 average fares to stimulate new demand in markets between large cities. When Jet A is less than $2/gallon, these 3 companies can make alot of money at those average fares. When Jet A was near $4/gallon, this business model doesn't work well unless you have some pricing power. Jetblue probably rode through the high fuel prices the best. They have a really good product that is well liked and well known in their core markets allowing them to raise their average fares this summer to lose less than Airtran.

Jetblue has larger airplanes flying longer distances so their total CASM is going to be lower than Airtran's. Most of Airtran's system is large RJ's (B717's) flying short routes (under 1.5 hrs), in and out of hub airports (ATL and BWI).
 
Last edited:
I wasn't considering Allegiant as they really don't compete with anybody since they fly routes to medium cities where they are the only players. I need to qualify my statement about non-fuel CASM, when adjusted to equal stage length (for an apples to apples comparison), Airtran has the lowest non-fuel CASM.

Either way, Jetblue's, Airtran's, and Southwest's business model is for $100-150 average fares to stimulate new demand in markets between large cities. When Jet A is less than $2/gallon, these 3 companies can make alot of money at those average fares. When Jet A was near $4/gallon, this business model doesn't work well unless you have some pricing power. Jetblue probably rode through the high fuel prices the best. They have a really good product that is well liked and well known in their core markets allowing them to raise their average fares this summer to lose less than Airtran.

Jetblue has larger airplanes flying longer distances so their total CASM is going to be lower than Airtran's. Most of Airtran's system is large RJ's (B717's) flying short routes (under 1.5 hrs), in and out of hub airports (ATL and BWI).

Wise words as always maxblast.....Also I think if you adjust the CASM to average stage length of around 700nm you will find datranny to be the least.
 
Either way, Jetblue's, Airtran's, and Southwest's business model is for $100-150 average fares to stimulate new demand in markets between large cities. When Jet A is less than $2/gallon, these 3 companies can make alot of money at those average fares. When Jet A was near $4/gallon, this business model doesn't work well unless you have some pricing power. Jetblue probably rode through the high fuel prices the best. They have a really good product that is well liked and well known in their core markets allowing them to raise their average fares this summer to lose less than Airtran.
There lays the problem. Go back to before fuel started to really go up. Compared to Southwest and Jetblue, AirTran's profits were always significantly lower for an airline of its size. Bottom line AirTran has a revenue yield problem period. This is a problem that management better learn how to fix and fix it fast. The solution is not the employee compensation either! AirTran management has to find a better way to get better yield from their revenue or being the lowest cost airline doesn't mean a thing.
 
Hopefully PCL's now come around to the idea now that the probability of a depression is increasing rapidly and is being talked about in the mainstream media.

No, a depression is not likely, and I stick to my original prediction: the recession won't last longer than three quarters. You're still nuts.
 
"Go back to before fuel started to really go up. Compared to Southwest and Jetblue, AirTran's profits were always significantly lower for an airline of its size. "

Actually that's not correct. Airtran's net profit margin was 2.40 over the last five years. Jetblue's was 1.60 over the last five years. LUV is actually 5.86 over the last five years. The industry average over the last five years is 1.96. All three carriers were actually more profitable than the industry average. I do agree though they need to do a better job in yield management.
 
No, a depression is not likely, and I stick to my original prediction: the recession won't last longer than three quarters. You're still nuts.
There will be an orchestrated global currency devaluation by Sept is my prediction. What isn't clear is whether Gold will be confiscated as it was during the 30's. Here's an article from a few years back that offers a rather bearish future for gold, but this guy is in the minority. Former Gold bear Jim Rogers, now says he owns gold and will buy more. He's been right too many times, but I wouldn't stake my future on it. I'll stick with treasuries and cash.

:pimp:​

http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_03/droke101003.html
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom