DL loses $2.2B for the Q

[Steveair]

Delta sets industry record for worst year ever

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6847476/

 

[General Lee]

Steveair,


Yes, there is no doubt that this last year was our worst ever. But, a large chunk of that huge loss was a "paper" loss. There were many one time charges that had no affect on our cash flow. Regardless though, the year $ucked. Selling the fuel hedges really hit us hard......



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[sweptback]

][/color]
DL's fare structure is intended to draw businessaway from the LCC customers that have been driving to other airports tosecure lower fares. While it worked well in CVG due to the lack of LCCcompetition, it remains to be seen whether it will work in the ATLspider web where there is plenty of LCC competition.

If you believe there's no LCC competition at CVG, you're crazy. Maybe not at the airport, but expand your horizons a little. Hint: think Southwest effect.

 

[MedFlyer]

You don't think it will play well against Airtran in the ATL market? I do. Airtran has been taking a lot of our local passengers, and that will be changing soon. Our best corporate accounts in ATL told our people that they would come back if the fares were more fair. And, you may be correct about the E class airplanes.


Bye Bye---General Lee

DL has been matching Airtran's fares for years including the last minute walk-up fares. I don't think this will have a huge impact in the ATL market.

Where it might have a bigger impact is in smaller markets like CHA and MGM. Many people in those markets have abandoned DL and drive to other airports (ATL and BHM respectively) looking for lower fares on LCC's. DL's Simplifares may bring them back to their home airports and keep them away from the LCC's.

 

[dlredline]

Song has already targeted Jetblue, and is providing a thorn in their rear.

Can you prove this?

 

[sleepy]

Is CRJDog drunk? Somebody get a medic. MEDIC!!! Thorozine, stat! He needs thorozine!



A lot of corporations in ATL were tired of those high prices---and they were making their people fly Airtran because their walkups were around $500. Well, now we should be able to attract a lot of those people back, and our FF program is 20 times better and has more rewards.

Bye Bye--General Lee

Congrads General,

You figured it out. Our corporation switched to AirTran and we are all better for it. We get a Business Class seat on AirTran for the cost of a DAL Coach ticket (almost all of our flying is a last minute thing). Even if you match the AirTran fares, we won't get Business Class on DAL, so we will want to fly on Airtran. I hope we never have to fly on DAL again.

The AirTran people are friendly. Their FF program is better (because they actually let you use you points), not like DAL with all of the restrictions and black-outs). If I want to fly to Europe or any other place that Airtran doesn't fly, then I will just buy a ticket. They are really cheap, and don't look to be getting any more expensive any time soon (and then I won't have to be annoyed by talking to one of your customer service people in India that doesn't understand what I am trying to do and is just going to tell me that the flight I want is "blacked-out" anyway).

Sorry General, DAL has screwed the citizens of Atlanta for too long with some of the highest fares in the nation. Thanks to Airtran your monolopy is falling apart.

 

[Blue Dude]

Can you prove this?

He won't be able to. As far as Song is concerned, all financial data isconveniently buried in Mama Delta's numbers. But if by a "thorn in therear" he means "pain in the a$$", I think it's a fair statement. It's only a pain in the a$$ though, not a dagger in the back.

More than that, I'd be willing to bet that this particular "thorn" iscosting Delta far more than it will ever cost JetBlue. Ineffect,they're spending $3 for every $1 reduction in our revenue. Maybethat makes sense from a strategic standpoint, but just take a look attheir losses for the year. Holy cow! If that's success, what doesfailure look like?

Aside: what is up with this software? My spaces keep disappearing!

 

[dlredline]

He won't be able to.

Dude,

Thanks for the response. The question, however, was some what rhetorical since there's absolutely no way for the General to back this statement up. Can you imagine how bad the quarter was for DAL mainline if Sung . . oops, sorry, Song, was profitable? My guess (which is just as good as GL's) is that Song lost $$ for the entire year and helped contribute to a $5 billion 2004 loss.

Some thorn.

Red

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

...I believe this whole fare structure may be a way of bringing all the other legacy's into Chapt 11 at the same time. It's a way of leveling the playing field in a hurry. DL would have a great advantage at that point, as the difficult negotiations are behind them, and they would find it much easier to get exit financing ahead of the others (who still will face difficult negotiations securing more payroll givebacks).

IMHO, this last quarters' dismal performance is not about SWA or DAL trying to take advantage of the situation with a grand strategy of domination. It was about trying to keep revenue up by guessing how low to set fares in order to fill seats. Lower load factors would have made the quarter worse.

The huge losses by legacies are not killing them off but are, instead, forcing them to reduce costs. IMHO, SWA (and DAL)would rather see its competitors operate with higher costs with a small profit to keep cost cutting out of the picture. That would assure SWA of even higher profit with slow, steady growth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what SWA has made history doing the last 20 years? If SWA has changed their strategy then so be it. In hindsight it may look brilliant, or not. But my sense is the strategy has remained the same and market forces are challenging even SWA's successful formula.

One fact--It's easy to park an aircraft, but reducing the overhead and work force takes time. The CASM will actually go up until all the pieces of the puzzle are put together. Shrinking is so much more complicated and expensive than growing your way to lower costs.

Reducing capacity in an orderly manner will take time. It must be accompanied by more demoralizing and expensive reductions in overhead. Delta has a plan to continue doing so in '05. USair is well along that path. UAL and AA, I'm not sure.

What's even worse---SWA, as a LCC bellweather, is not charging what it needs to stay healthy. Cash is being burned on capitol expenditures as fuel hedges are barely keeping us out of the red. This period of expansion should see higher profit. Everyone made a bad call on increasing capacity. If we had to replay 2004, I think capacity would be lower today.

Everyone is scrambling. The playing field will not be leveled as nearly everyone enters Ch 11, just permanently lowered to a place where snowballs have no chance. But this is not a plan (of SWA at least), just what is in store for the industry if crazy low fares continue.

Note SWA's conference call on expansion. No more than the 29 in 2005. The rumors were for more. And only 3 options converted to firm orders in 2006 for 26 total.

 

[lowecur]

The huge losses by legacies are not killing them off but are, instead, forcing them to reduce costs. IMHO, SWA (and DAL)would rather see its competitors operate with higher costs with a small profit to keep cost cutting out of the picture. That would assure SWA of even higher profit with slow, steady growth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what SWA has made history doing the last 20 years? If SWA has changed their strategy then so be it. In hindsight it may look brilliant, or not. But my sense is the strategy has remained the same and market forces are challenging even SWA's successful formula.

One fact--It's easy to park an aircraft, but reducing the overhead and work force takes time. The CASM will actually go up until all the pieces of the puzzle are put together. Shrinking is so much more complicated and expensive than growing your way to lower costs.

My reply was strictly based on my thoughts for DAL.

DAL has given itself two chances here. If the fare structure works, great then they have moved evolution ahead by a few years for all the legacys. This would mean that they have succeeded in gaining mkt share back from some of the LCCs. If not, then I believe Grinstein wants to make sure that AMR, CAL, and NWA are not able to sit back in the comfort of smaller losses and watch DAL slowly go down the tubes, while they sit back like vultures waiting to pick the carcas.

It is a brilliant strategy.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

My reply was strictly based on my thoughts for DAL.

DAL has given itself two chances here. If the fare structure works, great then they have moved evolution ahead by a few years for all the legacys. This would mean that they have succeeded in gaining mkt share back from some of the LCCs. If not, then I believe Grinstein wants to make sure that AMR, CAL, and NWA are not able to sit back in the comfort of smaller losses and watch DAL slowly go down the tubes, while they sit back like vultures waiting to pick the carcas.

It is a brilliant strategy.

Yeah, I know you meant only DAL. My thoughts immediately turned to SWA and the other LCCs as well. Since DAL has the highest cost it seems strange that they would be the engine for forcing AA and UAL into evolution. I would have expected it the other way around.

The need to fill seats and prevent further downsizing, or downsizing too quickly, produces seemingly strange decisions.

 

[Flying Freddie]

It is a brilliant strategy.

Yeah, Should we jump off the building or slit our wrists!

 

[lowecur]

Yeah, Should we jump off the building or slit our wrists!

What seems like the race to the bottom is actually an orchestrated transformation of an industry. Welcome to the predatory world of the Harvard MBA. Grinstein and DLs move may be brilliant, but it could end up as a conflagration if there is another terrorist attack on an airline.

Deregulation is wonderful, but the BK laws of perpetual survival make it just about a sure thing that companies are able to morph themselves over a period of time. GE and AMEX deferring payments and loaning these carriers money allows them over a period of years to find other buyers/leasees for these a/c. Flooding the market with hundreds of a/c for sale or lease at one time is a sure way to lose billions. This way they can pluck 50 or so a/c per year from these hurting carriers, and move them overseas to be sold or leased. We all know someone is going to fold in the next few years, we just aren't sure if that is going to be a few legacy's or weaker LCCs.

 

[On Your Six]

Dude,

Thanks for the response. The question, however, was some what rhetorical since there's absolutely no way for the General to back this statement up. Can you imagine how bad the quarter was for DAL mainline if Sung . . oops, sorry, Song, was profitable? My guess (which is just as good as GL's) is that Song lost $$ for the entire year and helped contribute to a $5 billion 2004 loss.

Some thorn.

Red

Red,

The truth of the matter is that Grinstein stated publically (on the record) that Song was profitable in Q3 (not sure about Q4). Given that public statement, the new Sarbanes-Oxley regulations (post Enron regulations) would severely penalize a corporate officer for making an incorrect or misleading statement. The fact that Q3 is typically slower than Q4 could lead you to assume that Q4 results "could" be stronger - but we can't know this because they don't blow out the figures.

Everyone loves to focus on the the total loss figure. Well guess what - most of it is a paper loss given the goodwill writedown. The "actual" $750 million loss is not good, but it reflects a lot of the problems that the legacy carriers have experienced - high fuel costs, poor weather and, in Delta's case, a Christmas debacle involving Comair. The huge pilot salary cut was not really reflected because it was just enacted in December and pension changes may be coming that will boost the bottom line at some point. Delta's situation, while not great, is not soooooooo bad as some would have you believe. The operational cost cuts will help but they need a little time to demonstrate impact - a $1 billion wage cut for the pilots will definitely help the bottom line - no question about that...

Having flown both Song and Jetblue as a pax, I can say without reservation that I like the Song product better - much better. The IFE is better, the food is better (you can only eat so many blue M&Ms and blue chips), and the leather seats are more comfortable. I would be nervous as a Jetblue employee if Delta incorporated more of these features into all of their domestic flights. The product and customer acceptance would be far better - and add to that more affordable fares and good international connections and you would have a very competitive product. However, if I were Jetblue, I would be less concerned with Delta and more concerned about the even lower-cost LCCs like Virgin America, Mesa's potential 737-300 operation and Indy Air if it survives.

 

[skykid]

The truth of the matter is that Grinstein stated publically (on the record) that Song was profitable in Q3 (not sure about Q4). Given that public statement, the new Sarbanes-Oxley regulations (post Enron regulations) would severely penalize a corporate officer for making an incorrect or misleading statement. The fact that Q3 is typically slower than Q4 could lead you to assume that Q4 results "could" be stronger - but we can't know this because they don't blow out the figures.


Agreed, and why should they show the Song figures separately, whether they are making money or not with Song? Just to make you people who want Song to fail happy? I wouldn't give out any more info than necessary. Delta's operation is a little more complicated than just flying one type of aircraft around North America, let them report it however they want as long as its legal. Its fairly obvious the entire industry is in the crapper with Delta, however I see Delta making up some ground against the LCC competition with the new fare structure. Very few people have been buying the $1200 walk up tickets anyway.

$2.2 billion in losses, and end the qtr with that much cash on hand - hats off to the Delta accountants.

 

[lowecur]

Having flown both Song and Jetblue as a pax, I can say without reservation that I like the Song product better - much better. The IFE is better, the food is better (you can only eat so many blue M&Ms and blue chips), and the leather seats are more comfortable. I would be nervous as a Jetblue employee if Delta incorporated more of these features into all of their domestic flights. The product and customer acceptance would be far better - and add to that more affordable fares and good international connections and you would have a very competitive product. However, if I were Jetblue, I would be less concerned with Delta and more concerned about the even lower-cost LCCs like Virgin America, Mesa's potential 737-300 operation and Indy Air if it survives.

I've flown both, and the only part of Song that is better is the IFE. The 320s are just as comfortable, and I find the B6 employees to be much nicer. I don't care about food, cause I usually either bring my own or eat before I fly. The name brand marketing hands down goes to JBLU. Like it or not the media and Wall St. luv them.

Comparing the cost to operating a 752 as opposed to a 320. I would say if crew costs are equal, BELF would be tougher to achieve due to the size of the 752. It's just not a good a/c to compete against B6. It's like ATA competing against WN with 738s and 753s. If Song bought a few 190/195's, then they might do some damage.

 

[MedFlyer]

Red,

The truth of the matter is that Grinstein stated publically (on the record) that Song was profitable in Q3 (not sure about Q4). Given that public statement, the new Sarbanes-Oxley regulations (post Enron regulations) would severely penalize a corporate officer for making an incorrect or misleading statement. The fact that Q3 is typically slower than Q4 could lead you to assume that Q4 results "could" be stronger - but we can't know this because they don't blow out the figures.

Grinstein never said Song was profitable in the third quarter. He said Song has been profitable for periods of time. However, we have no idea how long these periods are? Two weeks? Two months?

Q3 is not slower than Q4. Q3 is by far a stronger quarter particularly for Delta.

And while I hate to agree with lowecur, he's right on with the comparison of ATA vs WN and Song vs JBLU. The Song 752's are too big for many of the routes they are flying. ATA made the same mistake against WN and look where they are today. National tried the same thing with 752's out of LAS...look where they are.

No matter where Song goes, it will always struggle to deliver consistent profits. Song may deliver profits at peak times, but during the down times it will lose all of those profits because there will be too many seats in the market.

 

[dlredline]

. . .The truth of the matter is that Grinstein stated publically (on the record) that Song was profitable in Q3 (not sure about Q4). Given that public statement, the new Sarbanes-Oxley regulations (post Enron regulations) would severely penalize a corporate officer for making an incorrect or misleading statement. .

Six,

I'm not exactly sure the Delta CEO actually has said that Song was profitable over an entire quarter, 3rd 2004 or otherwise, and he certainly hasn't released data to support it. Irregardless, I researched the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation (SOX 404) that was passed in July 2002. The closest item I could find related to your comment was Section 302 and 401(b) which basically restricts any company officer from knowingly releasing untrue financial data for outside audits per SEC requirements. Since Delta incorporates Song's financials within their mainline operation, there's no way to know if it makes money seperate from mainline. Delta corporate can claim anything they desire as it relates to Song and not be in violation of SOX 404 requirements.

Unless Song is audited seperately in the future, there's no way to claim accurately it's quarterly profit/loss. Any claim otherwise, particularly their financial claims vs. JetBlue, is disingenuous at best.

Red

 

[HowlinMadMurdoc]

Uh oh Red, now you've done it! The General, flightinfo's resident Sarbanes-Oxley expert , will be along shortly to remind you GG said Song was profitable despite your use of FACT:

"..was Section 302 and 401(b) which basically restricts any company officer from knowingly releasing untrue financial data for outside audits per SEC requirements. Since Delta incorporates Song's financials within their mainline operation, there's no way to know if it makes money seperate from mainline. Delta corporate can claim anything they desire as it relates to Song and not be in violation of SOX 404 requirements."

Just be prepared with your steel helmet and underwear when the General reads this and takes aim at you!

Or better yet, the General will remind everyone again (for the 3000th time) that he has donated money to this site, and by gawd as he pounds on his keyboard, he's entitled to his spout off his "expert" opinion however incorrect it may be... LOL

GL, if I made your money, I'd contribute too...but I'm just a low-paid regional guy...

You haven't forgotten those days, have you???

HMM

 

[aridairbus]

Well at least they've lowered ticket prices to help get the ship turned around!

The price drop is to fill the coffers with whatever money they can get prior to filing Chapter 11.