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

Republic 4th,Quarter and Calendar Year 2011.Frontier Airlines reports 11.0% increase

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
70.4 million loss for the year doesn't make them look like they did well.

Of course this would be the line of thinking if you were uninformed or unwitting of the reasons behind the numbers. The Airbus is profitable and in particular, it is profitable in Denver. The regional aircraft (RAH) that were flying under the Frontier brand were largely responsible for the losses reflected in the year-end report. Going forward, only the Airbus flying will be accounted for in the Frontier numbers. This is good for Frontier but not so much for the regional airlines feeding them. Some joker got a LOL regarding whether there was going to be a "buyer" for Frontier. I don't think they are looking for a buyer, rather an investor who will be able to take a profitable stand-alone airline to the next level. As always, the ridiculous fuel prices may foil a lot of plans in this industry for everyone.
 
Of course this would be the line of thinking if you were uninformed or unwitting of the reasons behind the numbers. The Airbus is profitable and in particular, it is profitable in Denver. The regional aircraft (RAH) that were flying under the Frontier brand were largely responsible for the losses reflected in the year-end report. Going forward, only the Airbus flying will be accounted for in the Frontier numbers. This is good for Frontier but not so much for the regional airlines feeding them. Some joker got a LOL regarding whether there was going to be a "buyer" for Frontier. I don't think they are looking for a buyer, rather an investor who will be able to take a profitable stand-alone airline to the next level. As always, the ridiculous fuel prices may foil a lot of plans in this industry for everyone.

Or possibly down a few levels. Chapter 11 to Chapter 7.
 
The numbers speak volumes and they are not easily fudged. Aside from fuel costs, they are all positive and, when considering fuel costs for Q4, they are most likely the best numbers EVER reported by Frontier for a Q4.

Branded revenue up 8.9%

- good

Capacity down 1.9%

- neutral to not good except for:

Load Factor up 5.6%

- good

Total Revenue per ASM (TRASM) up 11.0%

- very good

Pre-tax income (profit) $7.8M (compared to $11.2M loss same quarter last year)

- Good

Branded CASM 7.93¢ (6.80¢ when "integration & fleet transition" expenses of $40.1M are excluded)

- 6.80¢ pretty good, What was the $40.1M for? My guess is it is a reflection of "fleet transition" away from ERJs and E170s.

Fuel costs 27.3% higher than same quarter last year ($35m?)

- Bad.

Imagine what the pre-tax income would have looked like without an extra $35M spent on fuel and "integration & fleet transition" expenses of $40.1M.
 
Now for the other side of the equation:

RAH Fixed-Fee revenues up $2.8%

- Good

RAH Fixed-Fee pre-tax income flat at roughly $22M

- Neutral

RAH Fixed-Fee CASM increased 6.5% to 8.29¢

- Bad

Embraer flying for Frontier branded operation is now done on a "pro-rate' contract and P&L will no longer be included in Frontier financials.

- Good, ERJ/EMB losses (or profits) will not be buried in Frontier financials.

RJETs total cash balance decreased $59.6M

- Bad

RJETs restricted cash increased $12.3M

- Good, although "restricted" is the key word with that $12.3M

RJETs unrestricted cash decreased $71.9M

- Bad

RJET reports 25 aircraft in its "Other" segment

- Bad, because they don't have anywhere to fly them with FFD. They are subleased or flying charters.

RJET incurred $191M charge to reduce carrying costs of "certain assets"

- Bad

11 ERJs were parked during Q4, at a cost of $2.7M

- Bad

11 ERJs are subleased offshore

- Bad, because this reflects fact that they are "extra" aircraft with current place in the FFD business

One E170 and 2 Q400s also parked

- Bad

RJET is attempting to rid themselves of aircraft that are excess to its projected operating needs

- Bad, for growth and I guess good for the bottom line financial performance of FFD side.
 
In this economy, why would someone sell something that is "making money"? I would think they would want to hold on to that?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top