SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  23
Télécharger pour lire hors ligne
Growth Airline Economic
Analysis
Oliver Wyman – January 2010
Bob Hazel, Aaron Taylor, Andrew Watterson



Introduction
Among the changes affecting growth airlines since last year,
three stand out:



       First, the CASM gap between value carriers and network
       carriers is the smallest we have seen over a six-year
       period. However, when adjusted for stage-length and
       aircraft type, value carriers still have a substantial cost
       advantage.

       Second, while nearly all carriers have reduced costs as a
       result of fuel cost declines, CASMs ex-fuel have increased
       for both network and value carriers from Q3 2008 to
       Q3 2009.

       Third, AirTran has solidified its cost leadership among
       value carriers, while United has made the greatest
       progress in reducing domestic costs among the network
       carriers.




                                                                     1
In this report, we cover the following topics:


                                              A) Domestic unit cost and revenue comparisons for value versus
                                              network carriers. Also, value and network carrier cost trends are
                                              shown over time, providing insight into whether network
                                              carriers are reducing their cost gap with value carriers, or
                                              whether the gap is widening.


                                              B) Cost comparisons for similar aircraft operated by different
                                              carriers, including stage-length adjustments.


                                              C) Latest developments in system-wide and spot fuel prices.


                                              D) Cost comparisons between the smaller and larger
                                              narrowbodies operated by selected value carriers.


                                              E) Ranking of regional aircraft in terms of unit cost.


                                              F) Cost comparisons between selected international carriers
                                              showing differences between value and network carriers.


                                              G) Ancillary revenue trends among network and value carriers


                                              H) The changing composition of the U.S. market in terms of the
                                              type of carriers providing air service, the fleet types used, and the
                                              domestic versus international mix.


                                              1. Carriers Included and Methodology

                                              Five of the largest value carriers 1 are included in this analysis, as
                                              are the seven largest U.S. network carriers.
                                              Our data sample—Value carriers (low-cost):
                                              1. AirTran
                                              2. Allegiant
                                              3. JetBlue




1 Frontier requested confidential treatment in its 3Q 2009 filing; therefore it is not included in this year’s report which relies heavily on 3Q 2009 data.

                                                                                                                                                              2
4. Southwest
                                           5. Spirit


                                           Our data sample—Network carriers:
                                           1. Alaska
                                           2. American
                                           3. Continental
                                           4. Delta
                                           5. Northwest
                                           6. United
                                           7. US Airways 2


                                           Most of the analysis is based on 3rd quarter 2009 data, which is
                                           the most recent US DOT (Form 41) data available. DOT data was
                                           used instead of SEC filings to permit comparisons of specific
                                           equipment types and ensure that non-airline-related costs did
                                           not dilute the specific focus on airline costs. Because unit costs
                                           are rapidly changing, we have used data from a single quarter,
                                           rather than a twelve-month period, supplemented with
                                           additional historical perspective. For carriers outside the U.S., we
                                           have used the most recent reporting period available on a
                                           comparative basis.


                                           Unless indicated otherwise, the costs provided are for mainline
                                           domestic operations only. We have carefully removed the costs
                                           associated with the carriers’ regional affiliates by correcting for
                                           their transport-related costs; although, it is impossible to do so
                                           with absolute precision.


                                           2. Value versus Network Carrier RASM/CASM Comparison

                                           Figure 1 shows the RASM and CASM comparison for network
                                           versus value carriers for the third quarters of 2008 and 2009.




2 In making year-over-year comparisons for US Airways, the numbers presented for 2008 are based on the consolidated entity of US Airways and America West.



                                                                                                                                                             3
Figure 1. Comparison of RASM and CASM for Q3 2009/2008
                (Excluding regional affiliates)


                16
                                                            14.6
                14           13.5
                                                     12.5
                     12.0                                                        12.0
                12                           11.4
                                     10.9                                 11.1           10.9   10.9
                                                                                                        10.4     10.1




Cents per ASM
                10

                 8

                 6

                 4

                 2

                 0
                     RASM   CASM    RASM    CASM    RASM    CASM      RASM       CASM    RASM   CASM    RASM    CASM
                         2008            2009          2008                  2009           2008            2009

                      Our airline sample overall     Average for network carriers          Average for value carriers
                                                          (American, Delta,               (AirTran, Allegiant, JetBlue,
                                                       Continental, Northwest,                 Southwest, Spirit)
                                                         United, US Airways)

                                                    Labor          Fuel          Other




                In the third quarter of 2009, the average CASM of our sample
                airlines was 11.4¢, which was nearly 16 percent better than the
                third quarter of 2008. For network carriers, the average CASM was
                12.0¢, which was 19% better than the prior period. For value
                carriers, the average CASM was 10.1¢, which was 7% better. From
                Q3 2008 to Q3 2009, the network carrier CASM disadvantage to
                the value carriers declined from 35% to 19%.


                The airline groups also experienced RASM declines during this
                period—although those declines were less than the declines in
                CASM. The average RASM of our sample airlines was 10.9¢ in Q3
                2009, which was 9.5% worse than in Q3 2008. For network
                carriers, the average RASM was 11.1¢, which was 11% worse than
                the prior period. For value carriers, the average RASM was 10.4¢,
                which was 5% worse. From Q3 2008 to Q3 2009, the network
                carrier RASM premium over the value carriers declined from 15%
                to 7%.




                                                                                                           4
Viewing the RASM and CASM changes together, we see that over
the one-year period the network carriers performed significantly
“less badly,” while the value carriers performed “somewhat
better.” For network carriers, this meant that the negative
margin between RASM and CASM narrowed from 14.5% to 7.3%.
For value carriers, the RASM/CASM margin increased from
breakeven to 2.7%.


Figure 2 shows the RASM/CASM margin for both groups over a
nearly 20-year period. From the earlier discussion around Figure
1, we know that the RASM/CASM gap between network and value
carriers narrowed significantly from Q3 2008 to Q3 2009. This
narrowing, however, may not be a long-term phenomenon.
Despite occasionally compressing near the peaks and valleys of
the airline business cycle, the gap does not appear to be
diminishing.


Figure 2. Historical RASM/CASM gap for all Network and Value carriers,
1991–Q3 2009
(Excluding regional affiliates)


  15%


  10%


   5%


   0%


   -5%


  -10%


  -15%


  -20%
         1991    1993     1995     1997     1999       2001   2003     2005     2007    Q109     Q309

                                                   Network    Value



Note: Carrier set differs from the 12 carriers in our study—for each year of the series, it includes all
value and network carriers reporting under DOT Form 41.




                                                                                                           5
3. Value versus Network Carrier CASM Comparison,
Excluding Fuel

Given the volatility of fuel prices over the past several years, it is
important to look more closely at CASM changes excluding fuel
for the two carrier groups. Figure 3 shows network carrier CASM
with and without fuel since Q1 2007. CASM ex-fuel for the
network carriers increased 1.4% from Q3 2008 to Q3 2009 and has
been declining since a slight peak in Q4 2008. For the longer
period from Q1 2007 to Q3 2009, the average network carrier
CASM ex-fuel increased by less than 4% from 8.4¢ to 8.7¢.


Figure 3. Quarterly CASM and fuel CASM growth—sample Network carriers
(Excluding regional affiliates)


                       16

                       14

                       12
Cost per ASM (cents)




                       10

                       8

                       6

                       4

                       2

                       0
                            Q1   Q2      Q3   Q4     Q1      Q2          Q3       Q4      Q1     Q2       Q3

                                      2007                        2008                         2009

                                              CASM–Excluding Fuel             Fuel CASM




For the value carriers, the corresponding CASM information is
shown in Figure 4. CASM ex-fuel for the value carriers has
increased by 7.8% from Q3 2008 to Q3 2009. This increase
accounts for a portion of the RASM/CASM gap reduction between
network and value carriers. For the longer period from Q1 2007 to
Q3 2009, the average value carrier CASM ex-fuel increased by 12%
from 6.3¢ to 7.0¢.




                                                                                                      6
Figure 4. Quarterly CASM and fuel CASM growth—sample Value carriers
(Excluding regional affiliates)

                       16

                       14

                       12




Cost per ASM (cents)
                       10

                        8

                        6

                        4

                        2

                        0
                            Q1                 Q2              Q3              Q4                 Q1               Q2                  Q3             Q4                Q1                 Q2               Q3

                                                       2007                                                               2008                                                    2009

                                                                               CASM–Excluding Fuel                                          Fuel CASM




4. Long-term CASM Trends

Figure 5 shows the CASM differential between network and value
carriers broken into labor, fuel, and other for the 3rd quarter of
each year from 2003 through 2009.


Figure 5. Comparison of CASM between Network and Value carriers
over time


                       16
                                                                                                                                                    14.6
                       14
                                                                                                                    11.8                                                3.7     12.0
Cost per ASM (cents)




                       12                                                              11.4                                                         38%
                                                            11.0                                                                                               10.9
                             10.4                                                                                                                                                          10.1     1.8
                                                                                                           2.6                              2.9
                       10                                                                         8.8                             8.9
                                                                               2.9                                  41%                                                         44%
                                                    2.9                                41%                                                                     34%
                                           7.6              43%        8.0
                       8     43%                                                                                                                                                           39%
                                                                                                  38%                             38%
                                                                       40%                                                                          40%
                       6                   43%
                             19%                                                       31%                          30%                                        40%              26%
                                                            27%                                                                                                                            31%
                       4                                               25%                        30%                             31%
                                           20%

                       2     38%                                                                                    29%                                                         30%
                                           37%              30%        35%             28%        32%                             31%               22%        26%                         31%

                       0
                                                    Diff.




                                                                               Diff.




                                                                                                           Diff.




                                                                                                                                            Diff.




                                                                                                                                                                        Diff.




                                                                                                                                                                                                    Diff.
                                 Network

                                           Value




                                                             Network

                                                                       Value




                                                                                        Network

                                                                                                   Value




                                                                                                                        Network

                                                                                                                                   Value




                                                                                                                                                     Network

                                                                                                                                                                Value




                                                                                                                                                                                 Network

                                                                                                                                                                                            Value




                                       2004 Q3                     2005 Q3                    2006 Q3                         2007 Q3                     2008 Q3                      2009 Q3


                                                                               Labor                   Fuel                       Other                   ∆




*Frontier not included in 2008 and 2009 results; Allegiant and Spirit not included in results prior to
2008. Neither omission materially changes results.

                                                                                                                                                                                                       7
Over the six-year period, the value carrier CASM has averaged
approximately 24% lower than that of the network carriers. As a
percentage, the cost gap has remained within a range of 22-27%
during five of the six measurement periods (Q3 of each year),
except for the most recent year when the cost gap declined to
16%. In other words, the network/value cost gap narrowed
considerably over the period Q3 2008/2009.


5. Individual Carrier CASMs and Recent Changes

Individual carrier results show significant CASM differences
between carriers, especially within the value carrier group.
Figure 6 shows the CASM for each value carrier in our sample for
Q3 2009 compared with Q3 2008. Of particular interest is the lack
of change in Southwest’s CASM over the period due in large part
to the loss of its fuel hedge benefit. Southwest’s large size means
that its results unfavorably impact the average value carrier
result. At the other extreme, Spirit’s CASM declined fully by
one-third over the period.


As measured by Q3 2009 CASM, Spirit ranks first with a CASM of
7.7¢, followed by Allegiant with a CASM of 8.3¢, AirTran with a
CASM of 9.1¢, JetBlue with a CASM of 10.0¢, and Southwest with a
CASM of 10.6¢. Note that Southwest’s position in the value carrier
rankings in Q3 2009 is the reverse of its position in Q2 2008, when
it had the lowest CASM. However, these are not stage-length
adjusted CASMs, and that adjustment will change the rankings.




                                                                    8
Figure 6. Q3 2009/2008 CASM breakdown by airline—Value carriers
                       (Excluding regional affiliates)


                        15



                              11.6                   11.5               11.6
                                                                                               10.8                   10.6     10.6
                                                                                                               10.0




Cost per ASM (cents)
                        10                                                            9.1
                                                                8.3
                                              7.7




                         5




                         0
                                     Spirit             Allegiant          AirTran                   JetBlue            Southwest
                              2008            2009   2008       2009    2008          2009    2008         2009       2008     2009


                                                                Labor          Fuel          Other


                       Note: Allegiant 2008 Form 41 Data not available. Cost data derived from SEC 10Q report.




                       Most of the network carriers have substantially reduced their
                       CASM since Q3 2008. According to the Form 41 data, for example,
                       United, which reduced its CASM by 24 percent by lowering its
                       aircraft ownership and fuel costs, now has the second lowest
                       CASM for its domestic operation among the network carriers.
                       CASM reductions by the other network carriers range from 8% for
                       Delta (not combined with Northwest) to 30% for US Airways.
                       Figure 7 shows the CASM for each network airline in our sample
                       for the third quarter of 2009 compared with the third quarter of
                       2008.




                                                                                                                                      9
Figure 7. Q3 2009/2008 CASM breakdown by airline—Network carriers
                       (Excluding regional affiliates)

                        18
                                                                                                                   16.9
                                                         16.5
                        16
                                           14.6                          14.4
                                                                                                     14.0                 13.8
                        14                                                             13.1
                             12.7                                                                           12.5




Cost per ASM (cents)
                                                                                              12.0
                        12                                        11.5          11.6
                                                  11.1
                                    10.6
                        10


                        8


                        6


                        4


                        2


                        0
                                Alaska       United      US Airways      Continental     Delta        American     Northwest
                             2008 2009     2008 2009     2008    2009    2008 2009     2008 2009     2008 2009     2008 2009


                                                                Labor       Fuel         Other




                       6. Comparing CASM for Similar Aircraft Operated by
                       Different Airlines

                       As the focus of this report is value carriers, we selected an
                       aircraft roughly comparable to Southwest’s most efficient
                       aircraft, the 737-700, for CASM analysis among different carriers.
                       For carriers that operate several aircraft types similar to the 737-
                       700, we chose the one closest in capacity to, but larger than,
                       Southwest’s. For example, United brackets Southwest’s 137-seat
                       737-700s with 120-seat A319s and 147-seat A320s. We chose the
                       A320.


                       In Figure 8, we set out the average stage-length for each of our
                       airline/aircraft combinations and their CASM at that stage-length.
                       Remember, these are costs for specific aircraft types and not for
                       the carriers’ total operations. A glance at the table shows that
                       AirTran’s 737-700 has the lowest unit costs, 23% lower than
                       JetBlue’s A320 despite JetBlue’s longer stage-length. The chart
                       also highlights the decline in CASM since Q3 2008 for many
                       carriers, with United having declined the most and Southwest
                       and JetBlue the least.
                                                                                                                            10
Figure 8. CASM per airlines for selected aircraft type at actual average
stage-length Q3 2009 and Q3 2008
(Excluding regional affiliates)


                        16

                        14
                                                                                                                                                    12.2




 Cost per ASM (cents)
                        12                                                                                                               11.5

                                                                                             9.7        9.8         9.8        9.9
                        10                                                         9.3
                                                                         8.8
                                                  8.3        8.4
                                       7.7
                        8
                              6.5
                        6

                        4

                        2

                        0
                             AirTran   Spirit   Allegiant   JetBlue   Southwest   United   American Continental    Delta    US Airways Northwest   Alaska
                             737-                                      737-                                                                        737-
 Aircraft                              A319      MD80       A320                  A320     737-800    737-800     737-800     A320       A320
                             700/LR                                    700/LR                                                                      700/LR
  Stage
                             1,057     946        856       1,247       691        967      1,116      1,302       1,243      1,215     1,057       842
 length


                                                                                  3Q 2008 CASM
                                                                                  3Q 2009 CASM




7. Adjusting for Stage-length

Since length of flight strongly affects unit costs—the longer the
flight, the lower the unit costs—it makes little sense to compare
unit costs without relating them to average stage-length.


As shown in Figure 9, Southwest has the highest CASM among
value carriers operating comparable aircraft, but it also has a
significantly shorter average stage-length (691 miles) than any of
the other carriers. AirTran’s average 737-700 stage-length is 53%
longer than Southwest’s, while JetBlue’s is 80% longer.


To help visualize the cost and stage-length differences among the
carriers, in Figure 9 we have plotted unit costs (Y axis) on a chart
against average stage-length (X axis) for our group of
carrier/aircraft combinations. To facilitate comparisons, we show
a distance-related cost curve for Southwest, and another one for
American. By visualizing additional curves drawn above and
below the Southwest and American curves, it is apparent that
Southwest’s CASM turns out to be very much in line with
Allegiant's and Spirit's. AirTran has lower costs, while JetBlue and
the network carriers have much higher costs. It is also apparent


                                                                                                                                        11
that the value carriers, with the exception of JetBlue, generally
                       operate these narrowbody aircraft at shorter average stage-
                       lengths than the network carriers. Turning to the network
                       carriers, all have higher CASM than the value airlines when
                       adjusted for stage-length, except United which falls below the
                       other network carriers and on the same cost curve as JetBlue.


                       Figure 9. CASM per airlines for selected aircraft type plotted against
                       average stage-length
                       Q3 2009


                          13

                                                Alaska 737-700/LR
                          12
                                                                    Northwest A320
Cost per ASM (cents)




                          11

                                                                    American
                                                                    737-800      US Airways A320
                          10
                                                                                             Continental 737-800
                                                           United                     Delta 737-800
                                   Southwest
                           9       737-700/LR              A320

                                                 Allegiant MD80                         JetBlue A320
                           8
                                                       Spirit
                           7                           A319
                                                                      AirTran
                                                                    737-700/LR
                           6
                            600          800              1000                 1200              1400              1600   1800

                                                                    Stage Length (miles)




                       Using an accepted stage-length adjustment method, we
                       recomputed the 2009 Q3 CASM for each carrier operating the
                       comparable aircraft based on a standardized stage-length of 1,000
                       miles. Figure 10 shows the results, which are useful in
                       understanding which carrier runs a more efficient operation.




                                                                                                                            12
Figure 10. Q3 2009 CASM at 1,000-mile stage-length for selected aircraft


                                                                                                                                      11.5       11.7
                       12
                                                                                                     10.5      10.6        10.6
                                                                                           10.1
                       10                                                         9.2
                                                                        9.0




Cost per ASM (cents)
                                                 7.8         7.9
                        8             7.6
                             6.6

                        6


                        4


                        2


                        0
                            AirTran   Spirit   Southwest   Allegiant   JetBlue   United   American   Delta   US Airways Continental   Alaska   Northwest




                       As you can see in Figure 10, AirTran (6.6¢/ASM) is the low-cost
                       leader at stage-lengths of 1,000 miles. Spirit (7.6¢) is in second
                       place, closely followed by Southwest (7.8¢) and Allegiant (7.9¢).
                       JetBlue (9.0¢) has the highest CASM of the value carriers, 36%
                       higher than AirTran and only 2 percent below United. The carrier
                       with the highest CASM is Northwest at 11.7¢, which is 77% higher
                       than AirTran. Other network carriers American, Delta, US
                       Airways, and Continental are in line with each other and have
                       CASM differentials of no more than 5%.


                       Although the full cost benefits of the Delta/Northwest merger will
                       not be realized for quite some time, we can check on progress
                       based on Q3 2009 data. For that period, Delta’s stage-length
                       adjusted CASM of 10.5¢ is 35% higher than Southwest (and also
                       59% higher than AirTran). Therefore, even assuming that the
                       combined carrier is able to reduce the separately reported
                       Northwest A320 CASM of 11.7¢ (50% higher than Southwest), a
                       large cost gap remains between Delta’s CASM and Southwest
                       when the two carriers are viewed on an apples-to-apples basis.




                                                                                                                                               13
8. Fuel Prices and Costs

Since the peak in July 2008 of approximately $3.80 per gallon, fuel
prices have fallen dramatically. Figure 11 shows the decline in
average fuel prices for our carrier/aircraft combinations between
Q3 2008 and Q3 2009. The declines range from 47-59% for most
carriers except for: Southwest, which experienced the smallest
decline in fuel prices of 17%; Delta, which experienced a 33%
decline; and JetBlue, which experienced a 40% decline.


Last year, we observed that it was unlikely that Southwest, or any
other carrier, could sustain a substantial advantage in fuel cost
over the long term. The table shows that the year-over-year fuel
price decline for each of our carriers. Southwest's fuel cost
declined by only 17 percent, the least of any carrier listed. As a
result, Southwest's historic fuel cost advantage has been
completely eliminated. In Q3 2008, for example, Southwest
enjoyed a fuel cost advantage of $1.04 per gallon over AirTran,
while in Q3 2009, AirTran has a fuel cost advantage of $.21 over
Southwest.


Figure 11. Average fuel price per gallon
Q3 2009 vs. Q3 2008 & Q3 2007
                                                            Increase
Airline       Aircraft     Q3 2007   Q3 2008   Q3 2009   2009 over 2008

Delta         737-800      $2.26     $3.50      $2.34        -33%
Southwest     737-700/LR   $1.70     $2.61      $2.16        -17%
JetBlue       A320         $2.13     $3.42      $2.07        -40%
United        A320         $2.19     $4.19      $2.03        -51%
Spirit        A319         $2.19     $4.02      $1.98        -51%
AirTran       737-700/LR   $2.14     $3.65      $1.95        -47%
Northwest     A320         $2.10     $4.69      $1.94        -59%
Continental   737-800      $2.13     $3.67      $1.89        -49%
Alaska        737-800      $2.20     $3.71      $1.88        -49%
Allegiant     MD80         $2.32     $3.44      $1.87        -46%
US Airways    A320         $2.17     $3.63      $1.80        -51%
American      737-800      $2.12     $3.46      $1.79        -48%




                                                                          14
Apart from the dramatic decline in fuel prices, one other
important change from last year is the drop in fuel price
volatility. As depicted in the following figure, the system average
fuel price has been reasonably flat for the past seven months,
and as a result, the spot price is now tracking the system average
price.


Figure 12. System average fuel price (U.S. carriers) and fuel spot price
January 2001 through December 2009


                   450

                   400                 System average fuel price       Carriers benefit
                                                                                                    Carriers penalized
                                                                      from future buys.
                                       Fuel spot price                                               by future buys.
                   350
Cents per Gallon




                   300

                   250                                                                                      Price Stabilization

                   200

                   150

                   100

                   50

                    0
                          Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
                         '01 '01 '02 '02 '03 '03 '04 '04 '05 '05 '06 '06 '07 '07 '08 '08 '08 '08 '08 '08 '09 '09 '09 '09 '09 '09
                          2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007                              2008                    2009

Source: Air Transport Association.



9. CASMs for Smaller Aircraft

In our airline sample, numerous carriers operate smaller aircraft.
Two value carriers in our sample, AirTran and JetBlue, buck the
conventional wisdom for value carriers and operate two different
narrowbody aircraft. Figure 13 illustrates how the smaller aircraft
compare in efficiency with the larger aircraft.


AirTran’s 737-700 is the champion of our overall study and of this
comparison with the lowest unit costs; its smaller 717 has the
second lowest costs. JetBlue’s much larger 150-seat A320 ranks
third on a unit basis. Last year, JetBlue’s A320 costs just about
matched AirTran’s 117-seat 717, but a gap has developed
between the two. Not surprisingly, JetBlue’s ERJ-190 has higher
costs than the A320, given its smaller seat count.




                                                                                                                          15
Figure 13. CASM plotted against average stage-length by aircraft type,
             actual fuel prices
             Q3 2009


                                        14

                                        13

                                        12




                 Cost per ASM (cents)
                                        11

                                        10

                                            9

                                            8

                                            7

                                            6

                                            5
                                                       400                600             800             1,000           1,200              1,400           1,600             1,800

                                                                                                      Stage length in miles

                                                                          B6 A320                     B6 ERJ 190                    FL 717-200                     FL 737-700




             The smaller jets operated by the regional carriers, ranging in size
             from EMB 135s to ERJ 190s, sometimes complement and
             sometimes compete with other aircraft operated by network and
             value airlines. How do those aircraft compare in terms of unit
             costs? Figure 14 depicts the CASMs for specific aircraft operated
             by specific airlines.


             Figure 14. Regional Carrier CASM plotted against average stage-length
             using actual fuel prices
             Q3 2009

                                   30                                                                                                                                                      27.7
                                                          Direct CASM2          Indirect CASM
                                                          Ownership CASM3       Fuel CASM
                                   25
Cost per ASM (cents)




                                                                                                                                                                                           10.0
                                   20
                                                                                                                                                 17.2
                                                                                                                                                            15.2
                                   15                      13.0                                                                                   4.8                                       5.9
                                                                                            12.0
                                                                                                       10.6                                                 5.2       10.9       11.0
                                                                                                                   9.8
                                                            4.0                                                                                                                   0.0
                                                                                                                                                                                  1.1
                                   10                                    7.5     7.4         4.0
                                                                                                                                                  6.3
                                                                                                                                                                       1.7                  3.2
                                                                                                       3.3                 6.8         6.6
                                                                                                                   3.8                                      4.0        2.0        3.6
                                                4.6                      1.4     1.4         3.5                           0.1        0.2
                                                            5.8                                        3.4                 1.9                                         2.4
                                        5                                2.0     1.6                               2.5                2.1         1.7       1.4
                                                0.1                                                                        1.2        0.3                                                   8.6
                                                1.9                      1.7     1.8         1.6       0.9                                                                        6.3
                                                            1.1                                                                                   4.5       4.6        4.8
                                                1.3                              2.7         2.9       3.0         3.6     3.6        4.0
                                                1.3         2.2          2.4
                                        0
                                            SkyWest Comair SkyWest              GoJet     JetBlue AAEagle Pinnacle         ASA      ExpressJet Comair AAEagle SkyWest Republic Comair

 Aircraft                                       CRJ 900    CRJ 900   CRJ700     CRJ 700     ERJ 190   CRJ 700   CRJ 200   CRJ 700    EMB 145     CRJ 700   EMB 145   CRJ 200    ERJ 170   CRJ 200

    Stage
                                                 834         692         697        592      681        490        387     535         557        577        423      487        540       431
   Length



             1
               Fuel cost allocation may differ significantly between individual airlines based on contractual setup
             with parent company/network carrier
             2
               Includes direct costs except Aircraft Ownership and Fuel & Oil costs
             3
               Includes Rent and Aircraft Depreciation & Amortization

                                                                                                                                                                               16
Because regional carriers have different expense payment
arrangements in their Capacity Purchase Agreements with their
mainline partners, a more nuanced view of CASM is needed to
compare performance. In Figure 14 we have grouped the costs
into four buckets: Indirect costs, Fuel, Aircraft Ownership, and
Direct Costs (ex Fuel and Aircraft Ownership). The last bucket
includes cost items which are universally paid by the regional
airline and therefore represent the best measure of comparison.
Using that measure, the low-cost champion is the Skywest CRJ
900 with a Direct CASM of 1.3¢ per ASM, while its competitor
Comair reported a Direct CASM of 2.2¢ for the same aircraft (but
shorter stage-length). JetBlue’s slightly larger capacity ERJ-190 has
a Direct CASM of 2.9¢, 30% higher than the Comair aircraft. Notice
also the range of Direct CASMs for the four operators of the
CRJ700: Skywest 2.4¢, GoJet 2.7¢, AAEagle 3.0¢, ASA 3.6¢ and
Comair 4.5¢. Republic’s similarly sized ERJ 170 has a Direct CASM
of 6.3¢, 40% higher than the highest-cost CRJ 700. For the smaller
RJs (EMB 145 and CRJ 200) the efficiency of the Embraer or
Bombardier model depends on the operator. For the large RJs, the
more spacious Embraer models have universally higher operating
costs.


10. Europe, Asia, and South America Value Versus Network
Carrier CASK Comparison

In Figure 15, CASKs (kilometers instead of miles) are provided on a
stage-length adjusted basis for selected European, Asian, and
South American carriers. Because of differences in time period
(e.g., fiscal years that end on different months) and other factors,
this CASK information is not directly comparable to that provided
for U.S. carriers. The cost comparison (expressed in U.S. Dollars),
however, is useful in showing the relative differences in CASK
between the carriers, especially since the results have been stage-
length adjusted. Full fiscal year 2008 data is used for all but two
of the carriers listed because of data issues with other-than
annual cost reports. The two exceptions are Ryanair and easyJet,


                                                                      17
where we have used cost data for the six-month period ending
                March 31, 2009 to make the comparison as close to “apples-to-
                apples” as possible for these two competitors.


                Despite the data limitations, we can see that the phenomenon of
                value carriers having lower unit costs than their network carrier
                rivals is global. CASM gap differences across regions reflect the
                same variability that we see with U.S. carriers.


                Figure 15. International carriers stage-length adjusted cost per ASK FY 2007
                Cents per ASK, stage-length adjusted to 1,069 km (1,000 miles)

                  25.00
                                                                                                    22.0


                  20.00
                                                                                                                                             17.4
Cents per ASK




                                                                                         15.7
                  15.00
                                                 11.8
                                                                                                                                      10.6
                  10.00                   8.8                                 9.3
                                                                                                                         8.2
                          7.4     7.6
                                                                   6.3
                                                          5.3
                   5.00                                                                                        4.1




                   0.00
                          Gol    Copa    TAM     Lan    Ryanair   easyJet   airberlin   British   Lufthansa   Airasia   Virgin   Malaysian Singapore
                                                                                        Airways                          Blue               Airlines

                                 Latin America                              Europe                                             Asia




                Note: RyanAir and easyJet figures are from 10/1/2008 through 3/31/2009. Average exchange rates for
                this period: 1.31347 USD / Euro, 1.54958 USD / GBP.




                11. Baggage and Cancellation Fees

                Over the past several years, airlines have captured increasing
                amounts of revenue for non-ticket charges such as baggage, buy-
                on-board meals, in-flight entertainment, reservations, and
                change fees; some of which are not included in DOT-reported
                average airfares or passenger RASM. Figure 16 focuses on two of
                these categories—baggage fees and cancellation fees—to show
                the dramatic growth in both categories as well as the basic
                differences in approach by the two carrier groups. Since Q3 2006,
                the much publicized increase in baggage fees by the network




                                                                                                                                      18
carriers is evident. Value carriers waited longer to apply those
                                     fees, however, and with Southwest and JetBlue still not charging
                                     for the first checked bag, they are collecting less revenue on
                                     average. 3


                                     With regard to cancellation fees, the chart tells a different story
                                     as the network carriers have continued to increase this revenue
                                     source, while the value carriers have shunned it, viewing it as a
                                     key product differentiator. As both network and value carriers are
                                     putting more emphasis on creating and expanding their ancillary
                                     offerings, the non-ticket revenue category is likely to continue to
                                     grow.


                                     Figure 16. Baggage and cancellation fees as a percentage of total operating
                                     revenue—Sample value and network carriers
                                     (Excluding regional affiliates)

                                       3.5%

                                       3.0%


                                       2.5%

                                       2.0%


                                       1.5%

                                       1.0%

                                       0.5%


                                       0.0%
                                                 Q3      Q4       Q1      Q2          Q3   Q4      Q1       Q2          Q3       Q4      Q1       Q2       Q3
                                                      2006                     2007                              2008                            2009
                                                              Excess Baggage - Value                                         Cancellation Fees - Value
                                                              Excess Baggage - Network                                       Cancellation Fees - Network




                                     12. Changing Composition of the U.S. Market

                                     During much of this decade, value carriers and regional carriers
                                     experienced strong growth. Even as network carriers reduced
                                     their mainline operations, regional carriers filled in. In last year’s
                                     report we noted that network carriers had reduced domestic
                                     capacity in 2008, while value and regional carriers kept their
                                     capacity flat or had a slight increase.


3
 The increase in excess baggage fees from the value carriers is the result of a DOT directive issued in 1Q 2009 clarifying the categorization of fee
revenue.
                                                                                                                                                        19
What has happened more recently? As shown in Figure 17, since
January 2008 network carriers have continued to shrink domestic
capacity, while regional airlines and value carriers have
experienced more modest reductions. During 2009, domestic
network mainline ASMs declined by 9.2 percent, regional ASMs
by 5.5 percent, and value airline ASMs by 3.9 percent. Because
value airlines reduced capacity less than the mainline carriers,
they continued to gain capacity share even during these difficult
times.


Figure 17. Change in scheduled domestic U.S. ASMs
Billions of seat miles

 40
                                   - 7.5% yoy                                          - 9.2% yoy
 35

 30

 25

 20
                                   - 0.1% yoy                                          - 3.9% yoy
 15
                                   2.5% yoy                                            - 5.5% yoy
 10

  5

  0
      Jan   Mar   May      Jul   Sep     Nov     Jan       Mar    May      Jul   Sep       Nov       Jan

                        2008                                             2009                       2010

                                 Network        Regional         Value




Another perspective on the changing composition of the U.S.
market is provided by the changing size and mix of the active
commercial airline fleet. Figure 18 shows that the number of
active aircraft used in domestic service shrank by 3.7 percent.
The only aircraft category which grew between Q3 2008 and Q3
2009 is the large regional jet, with a 21.1% increase in units during
the period. Looking back to Q3 2007, it is still the only category to
show unit growth except for the turboprop category. The number
of widebodies, narrowbodies, and small regional jets used in
domestic service all declined.




                                                                                                    20
Figure 18. Distribution of U.S. carriers' domestic aircraft service 2007–2009
Aircraft operated during period

                                                                       % change
                                                                       2008-2009
5,000          4,822                  4,849                   4,670      -3.7%
                138                    126
                                                               103
                                                                        -18.3%

4,000


               2,987                  2,957                   2,796
3,000                                                                    -5.4%



2,000

                373                    418                     506       21.1%
1,000
               1,101                  1,052                   1,023
                                                                         -2.8%

                223                    296                     242      -18.2%
   0
               Q3 07                  Q3 08                   Q3 09

                         Turbo        Large RJ     Widebody
                         Small RJ     Narrowbody




While Figure 17 shows a decline of 5.5% year-over-year in
domestic ASM’s flown by regional jets, Figure 18 shows no
decline in the overall number of regional jets, but a change in mix
to a larger average gauge. This shows the changing needs of
network carriers and hints at the stress being placing on regional
carriers as they fly fewer seat miles per aircraft, thereby reducing
utilization, which is an important profit driver in Capacity
Purchase Agreements.


13. International versus Domestic Portion of U.S. Market

U.S. mainline carriers have continued to look overseas for
revenue opportunities, with their domestic operations
contributing less and less to their system revenue. As shown in
Figure 19, the long-term network carrier shift towards
international service is clear as the share of system revenue
contributed by domestic operations dropped by 13 points, from
72% to 59% between 2003 and 2009. At this rate, U.S. network
carriers will be generating more than half their revenue from
international markets in less than 5 years.



                                                                             21
Figure 19. Source of all network carrier revenue operating revenue,
mainline only

100%
 90%
 80%
 70%
 60%
 50%
 40%
 30%
 20%
 10%
  0%
       Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
           2003       2004          2005           2006         2007   2008     2009
                             Domestic   Atlantic    Latin   Pacific




With overseas markets, especially the Atlantic suffering from
overcapacity and declining yields, network carriers have
rediscovered the benefits of the domestic markets in the short
term. But there is little reason to believe that this represents a
real break from the longer-term trend in which network carriers
continue to cede an increasing portion of the domestic market to
the value airlines.




                                                                                   22
Oliver Wyman's global Aviation, Aerospace & Defense practice
                                  helps passenger and cargo carriers, OEM and parts
                                  manufacturers, aerospace/defense companies, airports, and MRO
                                  and other service providers develop value growth strategies,
                                  improve operations, and maximize organizational effectiveness.
                                  Our deep industry expertise and our specialized capabilities make
                                  us a leader in serving the needs of the industry. Also, Oliver
                                  Wyman offers a powerful suite of industry data and analytical
                                  tools to drive key business insights through www.planestats.com.


                                  For more information on Oliver Wyman, please visit
                                  www.oliverwyman.com.


                                  For more information on this report, please contact:

                                  Robert Hazel
                                  Bob.hazel@oliverwyman.com
                                  +1 703 773 3105

                                  Aaron Taylor
                                  aaron.taylor@oliverwyman.com
                                  +1 631 745 6875

                                  Andrew Watterson
                                  andrew.watterson@oliverwyman.com
                                  +1 214 758 1874




www.oliverwyman.com




Copyright © Oliver Wyman All rights reserved




                                                                                                   23

Contenu connexe

Similaire à 2010 Growth Airline Economic Analysis Final 1 10

Global Airport Airside Services Industry
Global Airport Airside Services IndustryGlobal Airport Airside Services Industry
Global Airport Airside Services IndustryReportLinker.com
 
Comparison of routing protocols with performance parameters for different num...
Comparison of routing protocols with performance parameters for different num...Comparison of routing protocols with performance parameters for different num...
Comparison of routing protocols with performance parameters for different num...ijctet
 
Logistics Survival Guide
Logistics Survival GuideLogistics Survival Guide
Logistics Survival GuideGrtegruford
 
World Bank Generic Data Collection Equipment Spec - 07 01 09 Road Data Collec...
World Bank Generic Data Collection Equipment Spec - 07 01 09 Road Data Collec...World Bank Generic Data Collection Equipment Spec - 07 01 09 Road Data Collec...
World Bank Generic Data Collection Equipment Spec - 07 01 09 Road Data Collec...Richard Fox-Ivey
 
Collaborative Decision Making in Aviation
Collaborative Decision Making in AviationCollaborative Decision Making in Aviation
Collaborative Decision Making in AviationCapgemini
 
Regressions allow development of compressor cost estimation models print th...
Regressions allow development of compressor cost estimation models   print th...Regressions allow development of compressor cost estimation models   print th...
Regressions allow development of compressor cost estimation models print th...zhenhuarui
 
Ryanair’s competitive strategy review (2013, UK)
Ryanair’s competitive strategy review (2013, UK) Ryanair’s competitive strategy review (2013, UK)
Ryanair’s competitive strategy review (2013, UK) Yuri KIRPICHNIKOV
 
Evan Armstrong from Armstrong & Associates on ‘Examining the State of Third P...
Evan Armstrong from Armstrong & Associates on ‘Examining the State of Third P...Evan Armstrong from Armstrong & Associates on ‘Examining the State of Third P...
Evan Armstrong from Armstrong & Associates on ‘Examining the State of Third P...eyefortransport
 
Using genetic algorithms to optimize material and construction variables for ...
Using genetic algorithms to optimize material and construction variables for ...Using genetic algorithms to optimize material and construction variables for ...
Using genetic algorithms to optimize material and construction variables for ...IRJET Journal
 
SIMON, Karl, Director Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transpor...
SIMON, Karl, Director Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transpor...SIMON, Karl, Director Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transpor...
SIMON, Karl, Director Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transpor...CALSTART
 
Skywest and the Regional Airline Industry in 2009
Skywest and the Regional Airline Industry in 2009Skywest and the Regional Airline Industry in 2009
Skywest and the Regional Airline Industry in 2009Matthew Tyler Harman, MBA.
 
Verification process for DER modeling in interconnection-wide base case creation
Verification process for DER modeling in interconnection-wide base case creationVerification process for DER modeling in interconnection-wide base case creation
Verification process for DER modeling in interconnection-wide base case creationPower System Operation
 
Route Profitability - SAH-BAH-SAH
Route Profitability - SAH-BAH-SAHRoute Profitability - SAH-BAH-SAH
Route Profitability - SAH-BAH-SAHMohammed Hadi
 
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AODV AND DSR WITH VARYING VEHICLE MOBILITY AND DENSI...
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AODV AND DSR WITH VARYING VEHICLE MOBILITY AND DENSI...EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AODV AND DSR WITH VARYING VEHICLE MOBILITY AND DENSI...
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AODV AND DSR WITH VARYING VEHICLE MOBILITY AND DENSI...IJNSA Journal
 
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AODV AND DSR WITH VARYING VEHICLE MOBILITY AND DENSI...
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AODV AND DSR WITH VARYING VEHICLE MOBILITY AND DENSI...EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AODV AND DSR WITH VARYING VEHICLE MOBILITY AND DENSI...
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AODV AND DSR WITH VARYING VEHICLE MOBILITY AND DENSI...IJNSA Journal
 
Airfare Analysis of Domestic Airlines in U.S.
Airfare Analysis of Domestic Airlines in U.S.Airfare Analysis of Domestic Airlines in U.S.
Airfare Analysis of Domestic Airlines in U.S.ABHISHEKDAHALE
 
masFlight October 2012 Monthly Performance Report
masFlight October 2012 Monthly Performance ReportmasFlight October 2012 Monthly Performance Report
masFlight October 2012 Monthly Performance ReportJoshua Marks
 

Similaire à 2010 Growth Airline Economic Analysis Final 1 10 (20)

Global Airport Airside Services Industry
Global Airport Airside Services IndustryGlobal Airport Airside Services Industry
Global Airport Airside Services Industry
 
Comparison of routing protocols with performance parameters for different num...
Comparison of routing protocols with performance parameters for different num...Comparison of routing protocols with performance parameters for different num...
Comparison of routing protocols with performance parameters for different num...
 
Logistics Survival Guide
Logistics Survival GuideLogistics Survival Guide
Logistics Survival Guide
 
World Bank Generic Data Collection Equipment Spec - 07 01 09 Road Data Collec...
World Bank Generic Data Collection Equipment Spec - 07 01 09 Road Data Collec...World Bank Generic Data Collection Equipment Spec - 07 01 09 Road Data Collec...
World Bank Generic Data Collection Equipment Spec - 07 01 09 Road Data Collec...
 
Collaborative Decision Making in Aviation
Collaborative Decision Making in AviationCollaborative Decision Making in Aviation
Collaborative Decision Making in Aviation
 
Regressions allow development of compressor cost estimation models print th...
Regressions allow development of compressor cost estimation models   print th...Regressions allow development of compressor cost estimation models   print th...
Regressions allow development of compressor cost estimation models print th...
 
Ryanair’s competitive strategy review (2013, UK)
Ryanair’s competitive strategy review (2013, UK) Ryanair’s competitive strategy review (2013, UK)
Ryanair’s competitive strategy review (2013, UK)
 
Evan Armstrong from Armstrong & Associates on ‘Examining the State of Third P...
Evan Armstrong from Armstrong & Associates on ‘Examining the State of Third P...Evan Armstrong from Armstrong & Associates on ‘Examining the State of Third P...
Evan Armstrong from Armstrong & Associates on ‘Examining the State of Third P...
 
Using genetic algorithms to optimize material and construction variables for ...
Using genetic algorithms to optimize material and construction variables for ...Using genetic algorithms to optimize material and construction variables for ...
Using genetic algorithms to optimize material and construction variables for ...
 
SIMON, Karl, Director Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transpor...
SIMON, Karl, Director Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transpor...SIMON, Karl, Director Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transpor...
SIMON, Karl, Director Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transpor...
 
Skywest and the Regional Airline Industry in 2009
Skywest and the Regional Airline Industry in 2009Skywest and the Regional Airline Industry in 2009
Skywest and the Regional Airline Industry in 2009
 
The Whole Picture: Where America’s Broadband Networks Really Stand
The Whole Picture: Where America’s Broadband Networks Really StandThe Whole Picture: Where America’s Broadband Networks Really Stand
The Whole Picture: Where America’s Broadband Networks Really Stand
 
Verification process for DER modeling in interconnection-wide base case creation
Verification process for DER modeling in interconnection-wide base case creationVerification process for DER modeling in interconnection-wide base case creation
Verification process for DER modeling in interconnection-wide base case creation
 
Route Profitability - SAH-BAH-SAH
Route Profitability - SAH-BAH-SAHRoute Profitability - SAH-BAH-SAH
Route Profitability - SAH-BAH-SAH
 
Break even analysis
Break even analysisBreak even analysis
Break even analysis
 
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AODV AND DSR WITH VARYING VEHICLE MOBILITY AND DENSI...
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AODV AND DSR WITH VARYING VEHICLE MOBILITY AND DENSI...EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AODV AND DSR WITH VARYING VEHICLE MOBILITY AND DENSI...
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AODV AND DSR WITH VARYING VEHICLE MOBILITY AND DENSI...
 
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AODV AND DSR WITH VARYING VEHICLE MOBILITY AND DENSI...
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AODV AND DSR WITH VARYING VEHICLE MOBILITY AND DENSI...EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AODV AND DSR WITH VARYING VEHICLE MOBILITY AND DENSI...
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AODV AND DSR WITH VARYING VEHICLE MOBILITY AND DENSI...
 
Airfare Analysis of Domestic Airlines in U.S.
Airfare Analysis of Domestic Airlines in U.S.Airfare Analysis of Domestic Airlines in U.S.
Airfare Analysis of Domestic Airlines in U.S.
 
17 20
17 2017 20
17 20
 
masFlight October 2012 Monthly Performance Report
masFlight October 2012 Monthly Performance ReportmasFlight October 2012 Monthly Performance Report
masFlight October 2012 Monthly Performance Report
 

2010 Growth Airline Economic Analysis Final 1 10

  • 1. Growth Airline Economic Analysis Oliver Wyman – January 2010 Bob Hazel, Aaron Taylor, Andrew Watterson Introduction Among the changes affecting growth airlines since last year, three stand out: First, the CASM gap between value carriers and network carriers is the smallest we have seen over a six-year period. However, when adjusted for stage-length and aircraft type, value carriers still have a substantial cost advantage. Second, while nearly all carriers have reduced costs as a result of fuel cost declines, CASMs ex-fuel have increased for both network and value carriers from Q3 2008 to Q3 2009. Third, AirTran has solidified its cost leadership among value carriers, while United has made the greatest progress in reducing domestic costs among the network carriers. 1
  • 2. In this report, we cover the following topics: A) Domestic unit cost and revenue comparisons for value versus network carriers. Also, value and network carrier cost trends are shown over time, providing insight into whether network carriers are reducing their cost gap with value carriers, or whether the gap is widening. B) Cost comparisons for similar aircraft operated by different carriers, including stage-length adjustments. C) Latest developments in system-wide and spot fuel prices. D) Cost comparisons between the smaller and larger narrowbodies operated by selected value carriers. E) Ranking of regional aircraft in terms of unit cost. F) Cost comparisons between selected international carriers showing differences between value and network carriers. G) Ancillary revenue trends among network and value carriers H) The changing composition of the U.S. market in terms of the type of carriers providing air service, the fleet types used, and the domestic versus international mix. 1. Carriers Included and Methodology Five of the largest value carriers 1 are included in this analysis, as are the seven largest U.S. network carriers. Our data sample—Value carriers (low-cost): 1. AirTran 2. Allegiant 3. JetBlue 1 Frontier requested confidential treatment in its 3Q 2009 filing; therefore it is not included in this year’s report which relies heavily on 3Q 2009 data. 2
  • 3. 4. Southwest 5. Spirit Our data sample—Network carriers: 1. Alaska 2. American 3. Continental 4. Delta 5. Northwest 6. United 7. US Airways 2 Most of the analysis is based on 3rd quarter 2009 data, which is the most recent US DOT (Form 41) data available. DOT data was used instead of SEC filings to permit comparisons of specific equipment types and ensure that non-airline-related costs did not dilute the specific focus on airline costs. Because unit costs are rapidly changing, we have used data from a single quarter, rather than a twelve-month period, supplemented with additional historical perspective. For carriers outside the U.S., we have used the most recent reporting period available on a comparative basis. Unless indicated otherwise, the costs provided are for mainline domestic operations only. We have carefully removed the costs associated with the carriers’ regional affiliates by correcting for their transport-related costs; although, it is impossible to do so with absolute precision. 2. Value versus Network Carrier RASM/CASM Comparison Figure 1 shows the RASM and CASM comparison for network versus value carriers for the third quarters of 2008 and 2009. 2 In making year-over-year comparisons for US Airways, the numbers presented for 2008 are based on the consolidated entity of US Airways and America West. 3
  • 4. Figure 1. Comparison of RASM and CASM for Q3 2009/2008 (Excluding regional affiliates) 16 14.6 14 13.5 12.5 12.0 12.0 12 11.4 10.9 11.1 10.9 10.9 10.4 10.1 Cents per ASM 10 8 6 4 2 0 RASM CASM RASM CASM RASM CASM RASM CASM RASM CASM RASM CASM 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 Our airline sample overall Average for network carriers Average for value carriers (American, Delta, (AirTran, Allegiant, JetBlue, Continental, Northwest, Southwest, Spirit) United, US Airways) Labor Fuel Other In the third quarter of 2009, the average CASM of our sample airlines was 11.4¢, which was nearly 16 percent better than the third quarter of 2008. For network carriers, the average CASM was 12.0¢, which was 19% better than the prior period. For value carriers, the average CASM was 10.1¢, which was 7% better. From Q3 2008 to Q3 2009, the network carrier CASM disadvantage to the value carriers declined from 35% to 19%. The airline groups also experienced RASM declines during this period—although those declines were less than the declines in CASM. The average RASM of our sample airlines was 10.9¢ in Q3 2009, which was 9.5% worse than in Q3 2008. For network carriers, the average RASM was 11.1¢, which was 11% worse than the prior period. For value carriers, the average RASM was 10.4¢, which was 5% worse. From Q3 2008 to Q3 2009, the network carrier RASM premium over the value carriers declined from 15% to 7%. 4
  • 5. Viewing the RASM and CASM changes together, we see that over the one-year period the network carriers performed significantly “less badly,” while the value carriers performed “somewhat better.” For network carriers, this meant that the negative margin between RASM and CASM narrowed from 14.5% to 7.3%. For value carriers, the RASM/CASM margin increased from breakeven to 2.7%. Figure 2 shows the RASM/CASM margin for both groups over a nearly 20-year period. From the earlier discussion around Figure 1, we know that the RASM/CASM gap between network and value carriers narrowed significantly from Q3 2008 to Q3 2009. This narrowing, however, may not be a long-term phenomenon. Despite occasionally compressing near the peaks and valleys of the airline business cycle, the gap does not appear to be diminishing. Figure 2. Historical RASM/CASM gap for all Network and Value carriers, 1991–Q3 2009 (Excluding regional affiliates) 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% -20% 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 Q109 Q309 Network Value Note: Carrier set differs from the 12 carriers in our study—for each year of the series, it includes all value and network carriers reporting under DOT Form 41. 5
  • 6. 3. Value versus Network Carrier CASM Comparison, Excluding Fuel Given the volatility of fuel prices over the past several years, it is important to look more closely at CASM changes excluding fuel for the two carrier groups. Figure 3 shows network carrier CASM with and without fuel since Q1 2007. CASM ex-fuel for the network carriers increased 1.4% from Q3 2008 to Q3 2009 and has been declining since a slight peak in Q4 2008. For the longer period from Q1 2007 to Q3 2009, the average network carrier CASM ex-fuel increased by less than 4% from 8.4¢ to 8.7¢. Figure 3. Quarterly CASM and fuel CASM growth—sample Network carriers (Excluding regional affiliates) 16 14 12 Cost per ASM (cents) 10 8 6 4 2 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 2007 2008 2009 CASM–Excluding Fuel Fuel CASM For the value carriers, the corresponding CASM information is shown in Figure 4. CASM ex-fuel for the value carriers has increased by 7.8% from Q3 2008 to Q3 2009. This increase accounts for a portion of the RASM/CASM gap reduction between network and value carriers. For the longer period from Q1 2007 to Q3 2009, the average value carrier CASM ex-fuel increased by 12% from 6.3¢ to 7.0¢. 6
  • 7. Figure 4. Quarterly CASM and fuel CASM growth—sample Value carriers (Excluding regional affiliates) 16 14 12 Cost per ASM (cents) 10 8 6 4 2 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 2007 2008 2009 CASM–Excluding Fuel Fuel CASM 4. Long-term CASM Trends Figure 5 shows the CASM differential between network and value carriers broken into labor, fuel, and other for the 3rd quarter of each year from 2003 through 2009. Figure 5. Comparison of CASM between Network and Value carriers over time 16 14.6 14 11.8 3.7 12.0 Cost per ASM (cents) 12 11.4 38% 11.0 10.9 10.4 10.1 1.8 2.6 2.9 10 8.8 8.9 2.9 41% 44% 2.9 41% 34% 7.6 43% 8.0 8 43% 39% 38% 38% 40% 40% 6 43% 19% 31% 30% 40% 26% 27% 31% 4 25% 30% 31% 20% 2 38% 29% 30% 37% 30% 35% 28% 32% 31% 22% 26% 31% 0 Diff. Diff. Diff. Diff. Diff. Diff. Network Value Network Value Network Value Network Value Network Value Network Value 2004 Q3 2005 Q3 2006 Q3 2007 Q3 2008 Q3 2009 Q3 Labor Fuel Other ∆ *Frontier not included in 2008 and 2009 results; Allegiant and Spirit not included in results prior to 2008. Neither omission materially changes results. 7
  • 8. Over the six-year period, the value carrier CASM has averaged approximately 24% lower than that of the network carriers. As a percentage, the cost gap has remained within a range of 22-27% during five of the six measurement periods (Q3 of each year), except for the most recent year when the cost gap declined to 16%. In other words, the network/value cost gap narrowed considerably over the period Q3 2008/2009. 5. Individual Carrier CASMs and Recent Changes Individual carrier results show significant CASM differences between carriers, especially within the value carrier group. Figure 6 shows the CASM for each value carrier in our sample for Q3 2009 compared with Q3 2008. Of particular interest is the lack of change in Southwest’s CASM over the period due in large part to the loss of its fuel hedge benefit. Southwest’s large size means that its results unfavorably impact the average value carrier result. At the other extreme, Spirit’s CASM declined fully by one-third over the period. As measured by Q3 2009 CASM, Spirit ranks first with a CASM of 7.7¢, followed by Allegiant with a CASM of 8.3¢, AirTran with a CASM of 9.1¢, JetBlue with a CASM of 10.0¢, and Southwest with a CASM of 10.6¢. Note that Southwest’s position in the value carrier rankings in Q3 2009 is the reverse of its position in Q2 2008, when it had the lowest CASM. However, these are not stage-length adjusted CASMs, and that adjustment will change the rankings. 8
  • 9. Figure 6. Q3 2009/2008 CASM breakdown by airline—Value carriers (Excluding regional affiliates) 15 11.6 11.5 11.6 10.8 10.6 10.6 10.0 Cost per ASM (cents) 10 9.1 8.3 7.7 5 0 Spirit Allegiant AirTran JetBlue Southwest 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 Labor Fuel Other Note: Allegiant 2008 Form 41 Data not available. Cost data derived from SEC 10Q report. Most of the network carriers have substantially reduced their CASM since Q3 2008. According to the Form 41 data, for example, United, which reduced its CASM by 24 percent by lowering its aircraft ownership and fuel costs, now has the second lowest CASM for its domestic operation among the network carriers. CASM reductions by the other network carriers range from 8% for Delta (not combined with Northwest) to 30% for US Airways. Figure 7 shows the CASM for each network airline in our sample for the third quarter of 2009 compared with the third quarter of 2008. 9
  • 10. Figure 7. Q3 2009/2008 CASM breakdown by airline—Network carriers (Excluding regional affiliates) 18 16.9 16.5 16 14.6 14.4 14.0 13.8 14 13.1 12.7 12.5 Cost per ASM (cents) 12.0 12 11.5 11.6 11.1 10.6 10 8 6 4 2 0 Alaska United US Airways Continental Delta American Northwest 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 Labor Fuel Other 6. Comparing CASM for Similar Aircraft Operated by Different Airlines As the focus of this report is value carriers, we selected an aircraft roughly comparable to Southwest’s most efficient aircraft, the 737-700, for CASM analysis among different carriers. For carriers that operate several aircraft types similar to the 737- 700, we chose the one closest in capacity to, but larger than, Southwest’s. For example, United brackets Southwest’s 137-seat 737-700s with 120-seat A319s and 147-seat A320s. We chose the A320. In Figure 8, we set out the average stage-length for each of our airline/aircraft combinations and their CASM at that stage-length. Remember, these are costs for specific aircraft types and not for the carriers’ total operations. A glance at the table shows that AirTran’s 737-700 has the lowest unit costs, 23% lower than JetBlue’s A320 despite JetBlue’s longer stage-length. The chart also highlights the decline in CASM since Q3 2008 for many carriers, with United having declined the most and Southwest and JetBlue the least. 10
  • 11. Figure 8. CASM per airlines for selected aircraft type at actual average stage-length Q3 2009 and Q3 2008 (Excluding regional affiliates) 16 14 12.2 Cost per ASM (cents) 12 11.5 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 10 9.3 8.8 8.3 8.4 7.7 8 6.5 6 4 2 0 AirTran Spirit Allegiant JetBlue Southwest United American Continental Delta US Airways Northwest Alaska 737- 737- 737- Aircraft A319 MD80 A320 A320 737-800 737-800 737-800 A320 A320 700/LR 700/LR 700/LR Stage 1,057 946 856 1,247 691 967 1,116 1,302 1,243 1,215 1,057 842 length 3Q 2008 CASM 3Q 2009 CASM 7. Adjusting for Stage-length Since length of flight strongly affects unit costs—the longer the flight, the lower the unit costs—it makes little sense to compare unit costs without relating them to average stage-length. As shown in Figure 9, Southwest has the highest CASM among value carriers operating comparable aircraft, but it also has a significantly shorter average stage-length (691 miles) than any of the other carriers. AirTran’s average 737-700 stage-length is 53% longer than Southwest’s, while JetBlue’s is 80% longer. To help visualize the cost and stage-length differences among the carriers, in Figure 9 we have plotted unit costs (Y axis) on a chart against average stage-length (X axis) for our group of carrier/aircraft combinations. To facilitate comparisons, we show a distance-related cost curve for Southwest, and another one for American. By visualizing additional curves drawn above and below the Southwest and American curves, it is apparent that Southwest’s CASM turns out to be very much in line with Allegiant's and Spirit's. AirTran has lower costs, while JetBlue and the network carriers have much higher costs. It is also apparent 11
  • 12. that the value carriers, with the exception of JetBlue, generally operate these narrowbody aircraft at shorter average stage- lengths than the network carriers. Turning to the network carriers, all have higher CASM than the value airlines when adjusted for stage-length, except United which falls below the other network carriers and on the same cost curve as JetBlue. Figure 9. CASM per airlines for selected aircraft type plotted against average stage-length Q3 2009 13 Alaska 737-700/LR 12 Northwest A320 Cost per ASM (cents) 11 American 737-800 US Airways A320 10 Continental 737-800 United Delta 737-800 Southwest 9 737-700/LR A320 Allegiant MD80 JetBlue A320 8 Spirit 7 A319 AirTran 737-700/LR 6 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Stage Length (miles) Using an accepted stage-length adjustment method, we recomputed the 2009 Q3 CASM for each carrier operating the comparable aircraft based on a standardized stage-length of 1,000 miles. Figure 10 shows the results, which are useful in understanding which carrier runs a more efficient operation. 12
  • 13. Figure 10. Q3 2009 CASM at 1,000-mile stage-length for selected aircraft 11.5 11.7 12 10.5 10.6 10.6 10.1 10 9.2 9.0 Cost per ASM (cents) 7.8 7.9 8 7.6 6.6 6 4 2 0 AirTran Spirit Southwest Allegiant JetBlue United American Delta US Airways Continental Alaska Northwest As you can see in Figure 10, AirTran (6.6¢/ASM) is the low-cost leader at stage-lengths of 1,000 miles. Spirit (7.6¢) is in second place, closely followed by Southwest (7.8¢) and Allegiant (7.9¢). JetBlue (9.0¢) has the highest CASM of the value carriers, 36% higher than AirTran and only 2 percent below United. The carrier with the highest CASM is Northwest at 11.7¢, which is 77% higher than AirTran. Other network carriers American, Delta, US Airways, and Continental are in line with each other and have CASM differentials of no more than 5%. Although the full cost benefits of the Delta/Northwest merger will not be realized for quite some time, we can check on progress based on Q3 2009 data. For that period, Delta’s stage-length adjusted CASM of 10.5¢ is 35% higher than Southwest (and also 59% higher than AirTran). Therefore, even assuming that the combined carrier is able to reduce the separately reported Northwest A320 CASM of 11.7¢ (50% higher than Southwest), a large cost gap remains between Delta’s CASM and Southwest when the two carriers are viewed on an apples-to-apples basis. 13
  • 14. 8. Fuel Prices and Costs Since the peak in July 2008 of approximately $3.80 per gallon, fuel prices have fallen dramatically. Figure 11 shows the decline in average fuel prices for our carrier/aircraft combinations between Q3 2008 and Q3 2009. The declines range from 47-59% for most carriers except for: Southwest, which experienced the smallest decline in fuel prices of 17%; Delta, which experienced a 33% decline; and JetBlue, which experienced a 40% decline. Last year, we observed that it was unlikely that Southwest, or any other carrier, could sustain a substantial advantage in fuel cost over the long term. The table shows that the year-over-year fuel price decline for each of our carriers. Southwest's fuel cost declined by only 17 percent, the least of any carrier listed. As a result, Southwest's historic fuel cost advantage has been completely eliminated. In Q3 2008, for example, Southwest enjoyed a fuel cost advantage of $1.04 per gallon over AirTran, while in Q3 2009, AirTran has a fuel cost advantage of $.21 over Southwest. Figure 11. Average fuel price per gallon Q3 2009 vs. Q3 2008 & Q3 2007 Increase Airline Aircraft Q3 2007 Q3 2008 Q3 2009 2009 over 2008 Delta 737-800 $2.26 $3.50 $2.34 -33% Southwest 737-700/LR $1.70 $2.61 $2.16 -17% JetBlue A320 $2.13 $3.42 $2.07 -40% United A320 $2.19 $4.19 $2.03 -51% Spirit A319 $2.19 $4.02 $1.98 -51% AirTran 737-700/LR $2.14 $3.65 $1.95 -47% Northwest A320 $2.10 $4.69 $1.94 -59% Continental 737-800 $2.13 $3.67 $1.89 -49% Alaska 737-800 $2.20 $3.71 $1.88 -49% Allegiant MD80 $2.32 $3.44 $1.87 -46% US Airways A320 $2.17 $3.63 $1.80 -51% American 737-800 $2.12 $3.46 $1.79 -48% 14
  • 15. Apart from the dramatic decline in fuel prices, one other important change from last year is the drop in fuel price volatility. As depicted in the following figure, the system average fuel price has been reasonably flat for the past seven months, and as a result, the spot price is now tracking the system average price. Figure 12. System average fuel price (U.S. carriers) and fuel spot price January 2001 through December 2009 450 400 System average fuel price Carriers benefit Carriers penalized from future buys. Fuel spot price by future buys. 350 Cents per Gallon 300 250 Price Stabilization 200 150 100 50 0 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov '01 '01 '02 '02 '03 '03 '04 '04 '05 '05 '06 '06 '07 '07 '08 '08 '08 '08 '08 '08 '09 '09 '09 '09 '09 '09 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: Air Transport Association. 9. CASMs for Smaller Aircraft In our airline sample, numerous carriers operate smaller aircraft. Two value carriers in our sample, AirTran and JetBlue, buck the conventional wisdom for value carriers and operate two different narrowbody aircraft. Figure 13 illustrates how the smaller aircraft compare in efficiency with the larger aircraft. AirTran’s 737-700 is the champion of our overall study and of this comparison with the lowest unit costs; its smaller 717 has the second lowest costs. JetBlue’s much larger 150-seat A320 ranks third on a unit basis. Last year, JetBlue’s A320 costs just about matched AirTran’s 117-seat 717, but a gap has developed between the two. Not surprisingly, JetBlue’s ERJ-190 has higher costs than the A320, given its smaller seat count. 15
  • 16. Figure 13. CASM plotted against average stage-length by aircraft type, actual fuel prices Q3 2009 14 13 12 Cost per ASM (cents) 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 Stage length in miles B6 A320 B6 ERJ 190 FL 717-200 FL 737-700 The smaller jets operated by the regional carriers, ranging in size from EMB 135s to ERJ 190s, sometimes complement and sometimes compete with other aircraft operated by network and value airlines. How do those aircraft compare in terms of unit costs? Figure 14 depicts the CASMs for specific aircraft operated by specific airlines. Figure 14. Regional Carrier CASM plotted against average stage-length using actual fuel prices Q3 2009 30 27.7 Direct CASM2 Indirect CASM Ownership CASM3 Fuel CASM 25 Cost per ASM (cents) 10.0 20 17.2 15.2 15 13.0 4.8 5.9 12.0 10.6 5.2 10.9 11.0 9.8 4.0 0.0 1.1 10 7.5 7.4 4.0 6.3 1.7 3.2 3.3 6.8 6.6 3.8 4.0 2.0 3.6 4.6 1.4 1.4 3.5 0.1 0.2 5.8 3.4 1.9 2.4 5 2.0 1.6 2.5 2.1 1.7 1.4 0.1 1.2 0.3 8.6 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.6 0.9 6.3 1.1 4.5 4.6 4.8 1.3 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.6 3.6 4.0 1.3 2.2 2.4 0 SkyWest Comair SkyWest GoJet JetBlue AAEagle Pinnacle ASA ExpressJet Comair AAEagle SkyWest Republic Comair Aircraft CRJ 900 CRJ 900 CRJ700 CRJ 700 ERJ 190 CRJ 700 CRJ 200 CRJ 700 EMB 145 CRJ 700 EMB 145 CRJ 200 ERJ 170 CRJ 200 Stage 834 692 697 592 681 490 387 535 557 577 423 487 540 431 Length 1 Fuel cost allocation may differ significantly between individual airlines based on contractual setup with parent company/network carrier 2 Includes direct costs except Aircraft Ownership and Fuel & Oil costs 3 Includes Rent and Aircraft Depreciation & Amortization 16
  • 17. Because regional carriers have different expense payment arrangements in their Capacity Purchase Agreements with their mainline partners, a more nuanced view of CASM is needed to compare performance. In Figure 14 we have grouped the costs into four buckets: Indirect costs, Fuel, Aircraft Ownership, and Direct Costs (ex Fuel and Aircraft Ownership). The last bucket includes cost items which are universally paid by the regional airline and therefore represent the best measure of comparison. Using that measure, the low-cost champion is the Skywest CRJ 900 with a Direct CASM of 1.3¢ per ASM, while its competitor Comair reported a Direct CASM of 2.2¢ for the same aircraft (but shorter stage-length). JetBlue’s slightly larger capacity ERJ-190 has a Direct CASM of 2.9¢, 30% higher than the Comair aircraft. Notice also the range of Direct CASMs for the four operators of the CRJ700: Skywest 2.4¢, GoJet 2.7¢, AAEagle 3.0¢, ASA 3.6¢ and Comair 4.5¢. Republic’s similarly sized ERJ 170 has a Direct CASM of 6.3¢, 40% higher than the highest-cost CRJ 700. For the smaller RJs (EMB 145 and CRJ 200) the efficiency of the Embraer or Bombardier model depends on the operator. For the large RJs, the more spacious Embraer models have universally higher operating costs. 10. Europe, Asia, and South America Value Versus Network Carrier CASK Comparison In Figure 15, CASKs (kilometers instead of miles) are provided on a stage-length adjusted basis for selected European, Asian, and South American carriers. Because of differences in time period (e.g., fiscal years that end on different months) and other factors, this CASK information is not directly comparable to that provided for U.S. carriers. The cost comparison (expressed in U.S. Dollars), however, is useful in showing the relative differences in CASK between the carriers, especially since the results have been stage- length adjusted. Full fiscal year 2008 data is used for all but two of the carriers listed because of data issues with other-than annual cost reports. The two exceptions are Ryanair and easyJet, 17
  • 18. where we have used cost data for the six-month period ending March 31, 2009 to make the comparison as close to “apples-to- apples” as possible for these two competitors. Despite the data limitations, we can see that the phenomenon of value carriers having lower unit costs than their network carrier rivals is global. CASM gap differences across regions reflect the same variability that we see with U.S. carriers. Figure 15. International carriers stage-length adjusted cost per ASK FY 2007 Cents per ASK, stage-length adjusted to 1,069 km (1,000 miles) 25.00 22.0 20.00 17.4 Cents per ASK 15.7 15.00 11.8 10.6 10.00 8.8 9.3 8.2 7.4 7.6 6.3 5.3 5.00 4.1 0.00 Gol Copa TAM Lan Ryanair easyJet airberlin British Lufthansa Airasia Virgin Malaysian Singapore Airways Blue Airlines Latin America Europe Asia Note: RyanAir and easyJet figures are from 10/1/2008 through 3/31/2009. Average exchange rates for this period: 1.31347 USD / Euro, 1.54958 USD / GBP. 11. Baggage and Cancellation Fees Over the past several years, airlines have captured increasing amounts of revenue for non-ticket charges such as baggage, buy- on-board meals, in-flight entertainment, reservations, and change fees; some of which are not included in DOT-reported average airfares or passenger RASM. Figure 16 focuses on two of these categories—baggage fees and cancellation fees—to show the dramatic growth in both categories as well as the basic differences in approach by the two carrier groups. Since Q3 2006, the much publicized increase in baggage fees by the network 18
  • 19. carriers is evident. Value carriers waited longer to apply those fees, however, and with Southwest and JetBlue still not charging for the first checked bag, they are collecting less revenue on average. 3 With regard to cancellation fees, the chart tells a different story as the network carriers have continued to increase this revenue source, while the value carriers have shunned it, viewing it as a key product differentiator. As both network and value carriers are putting more emphasis on creating and expanding their ancillary offerings, the non-ticket revenue category is likely to continue to grow. Figure 16. Baggage and cancellation fees as a percentage of total operating revenue—Sample value and network carriers (Excluding regional affiliates) 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 2006 2007 2008 2009 Excess Baggage - Value Cancellation Fees - Value Excess Baggage - Network Cancellation Fees - Network 12. Changing Composition of the U.S. Market During much of this decade, value carriers and regional carriers experienced strong growth. Even as network carriers reduced their mainline operations, regional carriers filled in. In last year’s report we noted that network carriers had reduced domestic capacity in 2008, while value and regional carriers kept their capacity flat or had a slight increase. 3 The increase in excess baggage fees from the value carriers is the result of a DOT directive issued in 1Q 2009 clarifying the categorization of fee revenue. 19
  • 20. What has happened more recently? As shown in Figure 17, since January 2008 network carriers have continued to shrink domestic capacity, while regional airlines and value carriers have experienced more modest reductions. During 2009, domestic network mainline ASMs declined by 9.2 percent, regional ASMs by 5.5 percent, and value airline ASMs by 3.9 percent. Because value airlines reduced capacity less than the mainline carriers, they continued to gain capacity share even during these difficult times. Figure 17. Change in scheduled domestic U.S. ASMs Billions of seat miles 40 - 7.5% yoy - 9.2% yoy 35 30 25 20 - 0.1% yoy - 3.9% yoy 15 2.5% yoy - 5.5% yoy 10 5 0 Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan 2008 2009 2010 Network Regional Value Another perspective on the changing composition of the U.S. market is provided by the changing size and mix of the active commercial airline fleet. Figure 18 shows that the number of active aircraft used in domestic service shrank by 3.7 percent. The only aircraft category which grew between Q3 2008 and Q3 2009 is the large regional jet, with a 21.1% increase in units during the period. Looking back to Q3 2007, it is still the only category to show unit growth except for the turboprop category. The number of widebodies, narrowbodies, and small regional jets used in domestic service all declined. 20
  • 21. Figure 18. Distribution of U.S. carriers' domestic aircraft service 2007–2009 Aircraft operated during period % change 2008-2009 5,000 4,822 4,849 4,670 -3.7% 138 126 103 -18.3% 4,000 2,987 2,957 2,796 3,000 -5.4% 2,000 373 418 506 21.1% 1,000 1,101 1,052 1,023 -2.8% 223 296 242 -18.2% 0 Q3 07 Q3 08 Q3 09 Turbo Large RJ Widebody Small RJ Narrowbody While Figure 17 shows a decline of 5.5% year-over-year in domestic ASM’s flown by regional jets, Figure 18 shows no decline in the overall number of regional jets, but a change in mix to a larger average gauge. This shows the changing needs of network carriers and hints at the stress being placing on regional carriers as they fly fewer seat miles per aircraft, thereby reducing utilization, which is an important profit driver in Capacity Purchase Agreements. 13. International versus Domestic Portion of U.S. Market U.S. mainline carriers have continued to look overseas for revenue opportunities, with their domestic operations contributing less and less to their system revenue. As shown in Figure 19, the long-term network carrier shift towards international service is clear as the share of system revenue contributed by domestic operations dropped by 13 points, from 72% to 59% between 2003 and 2009. At this rate, U.S. network carriers will be generating more than half their revenue from international markets in less than 5 years. 21
  • 22. Figure 19. Source of all network carrier revenue operating revenue, mainline only 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Domestic Atlantic Latin Pacific With overseas markets, especially the Atlantic suffering from overcapacity and declining yields, network carriers have rediscovered the benefits of the domestic markets in the short term. But there is little reason to believe that this represents a real break from the longer-term trend in which network carriers continue to cede an increasing portion of the domestic market to the value airlines. 22
  • 23. Oliver Wyman's global Aviation, Aerospace & Defense practice helps passenger and cargo carriers, OEM and parts manufacturers, aerospace/defense companies, airports, and MRO and other service providers develop value growth strategies, improve operations, and maximize organizational effectiveness. Our deep industry expertise and our specialized capabilities make us a leader in serving the needs of the industry. Also, Oliver Wyman offers a powerful suite of industry data and analytical tools to drive key business insights through www.planestats.com. For more information on Oliver Wyman, please visit www.oliverwyman.com. For more information on this report, please contact: Robert Hazel Bob.hazel@oliverwyman.com +1 703 773 3105 Aaron Taylor aaron.taylor@oliverwyman.com +1 631 745 6875 Andrew Watterson andrew.watterson@oliverwyman.com +1 214 758 1874 www.oliverwyman.com Copyright © Oliver Wyman All rights reserved 23