1st Quarter Earnings Calls: Unbungling; Unbundling But Not Unshackled

Three legacy carrier earnings calls down, two to go. Southwest and Allegiant have reported. So has SkyWest. But the clear takeaways are difficult to discern. Everyone wants to know if the industry has reached a bottom. But there are no clear answers while we are still in the middle of an economic tsunami. For all those who have said the domestic market is stabilizing (me among them) the only hard evidence on our side right now is that the environment is not getting worse.

Every carrier is supremely focused on unbungling their operations. Yes, unbungling. Because we all know that operations at many carriers have been a mess, with many factors to blame. And, as painful as the process has been, many carriers are making progress getting their operations and costs in order. US Airways led an amazing turnaround focused on its once-troubled Philadelphia hub. Many very good reforms are underway at United. And all things operational are improving at American, albeit at a slower pace than at some of their legacy peers.

Moreover, virtually every carrier – except for Southwest – remains committed to continuing the unbundling process and to maximizing secondary revenue sources. Today, Delta went so far as to announce a fee for the second checked bag on international flights -- becoming the first in the industry to do so. The industry is unequivocal that the fees will stay and that where opportunities are present to do more, they will. Further, a heartening storyline has emerged regarding distribution, where carriers increasingly see opportunities to move away from paying intermediaries to sell their tickets and to turn that model on its head so that airlines get a fee from the middle man for the right to sell their product.

The United Call

I do not have the transcript of this call in front of me, but this was a most interesting listen. My favorite part was when Morgan Stanley’s Bill Greene posed a very fundamental question that went something like this: With planned capital expenditures less than depreciation, how are we supposed to think about United, or the industry, on a going forward basis from an investment point of view?

Or, as Helane Becker of Jessup and Lamont put it: Should UAL have public equity at all, or instead raise only debt capital from the public markets? Then there was Ted Reed of TheStreet.com, who was blunt in asking whether, just maybe, United had “shrunk too much.”

Good questions. Unfortunately, they are ones that the current environment makes very difficult to answer with conviction.

In my last post, I questioned the airline industry’s access to capital given fragile economic fundamentals in an industry that, over its long history, has failed to produce so much as a dime in retained earnings. In my view, the industry is at a tipping point in which smart investors should question the structural integrity of some carriers and networks during what amounts to a market stress test . . . one that just might reveal which airlines have few moves left to shed uneconomic capacity.

This is the “new and irreversible development” I referred to, a trajectory that might change only through serious effort to remove the many regulatory shackles around this industry. Some necessary changes might not be politically popular -- increased foreign ownership of US airlines comes to mind – but the industry’s options are narrowing when you consider that revenue trends do not hold out much immediate promise.

Looking ahead, with credit tight, where will capital – affordable capital – be found unless it is from another participant in the same industry? If companies are struggling to realize any return on invested capital today, then what happens as interest rates continue to increase in lockstep with capital scarcity? As standalone companies, there is just not enough room for individual carriers to maneuver around an income statement that holds little promise of further significant reductions in the short-term. Based on Greene’s point, even United seems reluctant to reinvest much of its own, and limited, capital into a business that does not hold promise of a reasonable return.

This is not just about United. This is an industry issue. And not just a US industry issue . . . it is fast becoming a global industry issue.

In North America, Air Canada has long been the poster child of an airline that needs an influx of foreign capital necessary to keep the company relevant in the global market place. Air Canada faces some unique challenges: namely that nearly two-thirds of Canada’s air travel demand is found in just eight markets.

Meanwhile, the Delta/Northwest merger is fast proving that the combined entity is far less vulnerable than either of the two carriers would have been had they not merged. Just think about the vulnerability of each Delta’s and Northwest’s respective hubs to the economies in the interior of the US footprint.

With US Airways the exception among the legacy carriers as to international market exposure, we as a nation should at very least acknowledge the reality that globally-oriented airlines need to be just that. I’m not talking about domestic airlines with global extensions -- we tried that, in a way, with TWA, Eastern and Pan Am . But absent any real alliances that left each of them dependent only on US-origin traffic, those carriers suffered a common fate -- shut down in sagging economies as capital became tight.

Concluding Thoughts

Following an industry life cycle of value destruction, US legacy carriers now face a dilemma: whether to invest in their core businesses or not?

As the US airline industry is now six full years into a major restructuring, the tendency to legislative and regulatory gridlock did not get restructured. An inflexible labor construct did not get restructured. Policies promoting the fragmentation of the US domestic market did not get restructured – until the airlines themselves took on this task through capacity reductions in redundant markets out of necessity. The infrastructure, whether it be ATC or the airport system, did not get restructured. And the historic mindset that capital will be forever recycled among manufacturers, vendors, labor and government imposed actions did not get restructured.

In truth, the US market should not fear individual carrier failures or consolidation. Indeed, this market has demonstrated time and time again that where competition is vulnerable, a new entrant will exploit that vulnerability. Where there are market opportunities, there will be a carrier to leverage that opportunity. Where there is insufficient capacity, capacity will be sure to find the insufficiency.

At a minimum, government should take a very serious look at where this industry sits. The US airline industry is not asking for government handouts. Rather it is my view that this industry seeks nothing more than the same rights to operate as virtually every other successful US industry selling to the global marketplace is permitted.

Few shackles unless consumer harm can be proven. Going backward will result in significantly more dislocation for virtually every stakeholder remaining in the industry today as it begins with an industry even smaller than today’s.  It would be a shame to waste six years of some very good work.

Liquidity, Labor and Legislation

Earnings season is upon us and we all anxiously await guidance from airline executives on a forward looking basis. On the eve of past earning seasons, cues from industry executives have mostly used words starting with “C.” This time around, I want to hear commentary on topics starting with “L” namely:

Liquidity

I believe that we are nearing the final chapters for one carrier, possibly two. I do not know which they might be, only that there are not enough rabbits left in the hat for every airline to survive in this market.

Why?

- Because labor will not be the internal source of capital that it has been in the past;
- Fuel costs are uncontrollable;
- Maintenance repair and overhaul will not offer hundreds of millions of dollars in savings in the future as most airlines already have outsourced as much of that business as they can;
- Distribution costs already have been wrung out of the system at every airline;
- Airport costs ebb and flow with the level of traffic;
- Aircraft rentals and other vendor contracts are largely fixed;
- Commitments made to feed providers are contractual;
- Interest obligations are known.

In other words, there just is not much room on the income statement for airlines to maneuver.

In the U.S. airline industry, we could be fast approaching the tipping point– the critical juncture in an evolving situation that leads to a new and irreversible development. With credit tight, would you put money into an industry that has historically destroyed capital? Would you bankroll an industry that has few opportunities to reduce costs in a weak economy? Would you lend money to companies facing labor strife? To get to the bottom line, would you invest in a company in an industry that has never made a dime? In this economy, there may not be many takers.

The airline industry is not special. Like other industries, it needs a plan to earn at least its cost of capital and compete for a limited pool of funding. And those who hold the capital will likely look first toward companies and industries that reward their capital providers more than once or twice every two decades.

I share the belief of some others that the domestic market may be stabilizing, but think this recovery will be an uneven one. The real driver may be the international market and the global economy’s interdependencies that I do not pretend to fully grasp. So I have concerns about American, Continental, Delta and United. Asia has been troubled in certain spots for nearly a decade now. Europe was a strong performer while the US industry faltered, but now shows signs of weakness across the continent. And Latin America’s economy appears to be similarly troubled.

Beginning today, when American leads the first quarter’s earnings parade, I will be all ears. Because what I see for some is troubling. Others will benefit from the weakness.

Labor

The recalcitrant unions at American remain the lead story as outlined in Mike Esterl’s piece in an April 14 Wall Street Journal entitled: Labor Negotiations Cloud Outlook for American Airlines Parent. American is being joined by United which opens negotiations with all of its major unions this month. Between the two, there will be plenty to read and write about as union leaders at each airline continue to promise outcomes to their members that could not be met even in the best of times. Real leadership would instead recognize that no airline can long survive overpriced labor contracts that put them at a competitive disadvantage in the industry.

I read somewhere this week that the United Airlines flight attendants union is promising its members a new contract that will give them industry-leading pay rates. The American pilots union is taking an old page out of the Continental pilots’ playbook that “the loan is due” to gain back pay levels the industry no longer supports. The problem is that concessions granted or forced in past years were a necessary correction of market costs that had risen above the industry’s ability to absorb those costs. Those concessions were never a “loan” and there isn’t a labor contract in the industry that includes terms on rates or principal that would make them so.

American has a first – at least in my recollection – in having all of its negotiations in mediation at the same time. United could be in the same place as date certain contractual understandings are in place to file for mediation in the event no agreement is reached. As for US Airways and the labor unions that have not been able to complete an agreement following the airline’s merger with America West, I have given up trying to apply logic to that situation. The damage done to employees is done and that was the work of the unions involved.

OhhhhhhBama – Release Me (And Let Me Love Again)

The Allied Pilots Association, which represents American pilots, has been on an ill-conceived, death-march strategy that the leadership somehow believes will get them closer to a release from mediation. Negotiations began in September 2006 -- a long haul by any perspective – but the clock was reset when a new union president, Lloyd Hill, was elected in June 2007. I don’t pretend to know the union’s strategy in these negotiations beyond what plays out publicly, but I do know that the Hill administration has made contract demands that are so far removed from reality that I question whether he is really representing the best interests of AA pilots.

With each union that files for mediation, my guess is the American pilots move yet another group down the pecking order for a release and thus the ability to engage in Self Help. The APA should be taking a clue from the Obama administration and its dealings with the UAW. The UAW’s Gettelfinger demonstrated a real understanding of that industry in balancing the interests of his members with the economic reality, in part by working to preserve wages and benefits of current employees by negotiating lower rates for new employees. But even that didn’t change the reality that, as the economy continues to collapse; the UAW is still not close to having moved far enough from work rules and wage rates that put the Big Three at a huge cost disadvantage in the global auto industry.

Finally, to the pilot leadership, I can’t imagine what possible benefit you would gain through strikes or other work actions that few airlines could survive. First, there is little chance the White House would allow a union at a carrier the size of American or United or Continental to actually go on strike and potentially threaten the economy’s ability to recover. No matter how labor friendly the new administration is, I believe that any union will need to make a pretty powerful case to the White House as to why a strike is more important than the recovery of the United States economy. Any union that can make a case that restoration of inflation-adjusted wages can be easily paid for by the airlines may have a chance, but that’s going to be a tough case to make.

I refer to the American pilots union in this example, but it applies to any large airline. Too much stimulus is potentially threatened by a strike in an industry as crucial to commerce as the airline industry.

Here’s my bet on where pilot contract negotiations will end up at the legacy airlines: With the Delta deal done under the leadership of ALPA’s Captain Lee Moak, the remaining negotiations will be completed in the following order: 2) Continental; 3) United (following the lead taken in the CO negotiations); 4) US Airways (assuming a final resolution to the seniority issues scheduled for the end of April); and 5) American (and perhaps only after a “leadership” change takes place.)

Congrats to Southwest for having put to bed their negotiation with multiple groups at reasonable rate increases.  With little management distraction, the airline can focus on finding needed revenue.

Legislation

Finally, there are legislative issues important to this industry that deserves color in the upcoming earnings calls. First and foremost is a reauthorization bill that will fund the FAA’s activities. A committed industry must find a way to fund enhancements to the air traffic control system. Everyone in the industry recognizes the need to make changes. Now we’re just fighting over who will pay for them. It’s time to move forward and for the various factions to present a united front on "who will pay what".

Second on the legislative front is Oberstar’s bill to evaluate airline alliances every three years -- a clear attempt to make the formation of these alliances increasingly difficult. Never did I think I would write that former AMR Chairman Bob Crandall and Minnesota Congressman Jim Oberstar are on the same page regarding a controversial commercial issue, but I am - and I am even writing it in the same sentence.

In an interview with the National Journal’s Lisa Caruso, Crandall actually says: “In my view, an objective observer would have to look very hard to find a way in which alliances have benefited consumers.” His remarks point to the “dominance” of slots at Frankfurt and Paris by the aligned carriers. Is this any different than the structure "Crandall built" in the US domestic market where carriers were reluctant to offer service between the hubs of a competitor? Absolutely not. Instead, the competition offered a menu of one-stop competing services that presented the consumer a choice.

Are we not to acknowledge that the air travel consumer in Toledo benefited significantly from the Northwest – KLM alliance that offered seamless connecting service to Amsterdam and points beyond? Wasn’t it Crandall that coveted a partner in Brussels to partake in these very same traffic flows? Does Crandall really believe that Detroit and Minneapolis would have multiple non-stop services to Amsterdam if not for the alliance? Does Oberstar really believe that Minneapolis would have the international service to Europe it does without the network of KLM and now Air France on the other end?

Crandall even makes the point that the foreign carriers have been the beneficiaries at the expense of US carrier interests. Crandall is the one that brought the concept of time-of-day departures to the networks of the nation’s carriers. This alone has contributed to a significant amount of the uneconomic capacity that pervades the industry today. Do we really think that all of the departures that “Bob built” were good for anyone? If we did not have alliances to begin filling all of the ill-conceived capacity deployed in Crandall’s domestic network, then we would have even fewer US carrier domestic departures than we do today – even after all of the cuts.

For a guy I admired, Crandall’s comments leave me perplexed, confused and confounded. Some of his fixes are on point, like a changed labor structure. But Crandall should accept some of the blame for an industry struggling today as his pit bull instinct toward competition became a blueprint to build an industry too big. Or maybe he should explain to airline employees that his blueprint caused an industry to hire too many people that now believe they are entitled to wages higher than the industry can pay.

More to come on this one.

Empathy for Ron Gettelfinger

What, Swelbar showing empathy for a labor leader? Yes. In fact, my feelings are not dissimilar to the emotion I felt for airline labor leaders a few years back, when the solvency of so many carriers was in question and some of the biggest went on to file bankruptcy. Trust me, no one wanted to be a labor leader in the airline industry following 9/11. Today, I’d bet that there is no human being that wants to sit in for Ron Gettelfinger, the damned-if-you do, damned-if-you-don’t President of the United Auto Workers (UAW).

On Tuesday, Fox.com posted a piece entitled: With GM's Wagoner Ousted, Should Union Head Have Met the Same Fate? In my view, absolutely not. In the early days of Swelblog.com I wrote a piece entitled Self Help in which I praised the negotiating strategy of the UAW. This was on October 11, 2007, long before the spike in oil prices, the freeze in credit markets and the downturn in the economy that has left consumers with little to no confidence in the future and contributed to a decline in consumer spending.

The contracts Gettelfinger negotiated at GM 18 months ago attempted to address many of the competitive disadvantages the US auto industry faced. Those negotiations resulted in, among other items: 1) freezing base pay for 4 years; 2) shifting a significant share of the burden of retiree health care from GM to the union; 3) creating a two-tier compensation structure in return for job protections for the current workforce.

Think about these terms. Unpopular? Anti-worker? Unsuccessful? Yes to all. But the new contract made significant ground in bringing about some of the necessary changes to a collective bargaining agreement born of decades of negotiation between the UAW and the Big Three carmakers and costs that had spiraled out of control. These were well-intended fixes to contractual language written when times were different – but the fixes allowed some historical language to remain. This was well-intended language that would only produce real benefit if the industry grew.

It is like pilot scope clauses: there is only value in the language when it happens. Some might argue this point – don’t scope clauses restrict airlines from even considering new routes/planes/partners when it would potentially violate scope – even when company growth presents itself? Only growth is not in the cards for U.S. auto industry, - or the US airline industry - at least not unless, and until, there is real change.

Just like the automakers, the legacy airlines continue to negotiate from outdated language. Most of these contracts were written when technological changes facilitated productivity improvements that could offset pay increases, and when targeted capacity growth would build airline markets where there was no evidence that the market could support new air service. At the time, collective bargaining agreements did more to ensure that labor would take advantage of technology change rather than to adjust work rules and expectations to account for the advantages new technology brought.

Unfortunately for the airline industry, there is no techological change on the horizon that will increase the speed of the aircraft in a meaningful way.

I have written many times here that the auto industry cannot make the necessary changes without a court-assisted restructuring. The same was true for the airline industry. The problem is that, even in bankruptcy, the airline industry still left decades-old and largely irrelevant language in their collective bargaining agreements. Bankruptcy was effective in dealing with the low-hanging fruit, but did not do enough to position the airlines for long-term success.  Simply, the flexibility to match the work force to the demand environment was not negotiated.

So here we sit with significant negotiations to be done at United, American, US Airways, Continental and AirTran. No labor leader at any of these carriers has stepped up the way Gettelfinger did 18 months ago when he was willing to challenge decade’s worth of old-labor ideas and ideals in return for better positioning GM in tomorrow’s world.

Lee Moak, the head of the pilots’ union at Delta, came closer than any other union leader in acknowledging that change was inevitable as the Delta-Northwest merger moved forward. Moak did what any first-mover in a merger world would do and negotiated the best deal for his members. The problem is that Moak did too good of a job given the state of international markets. I only hope he can hang on to what he negotiated.

We have new contracts getting done across the industry. Interesting and different mindsets at Alaska and Hawaiian have produced some very different agreements. Southwest ground workers have ratified a deal. Southwest has announced a tentative agreement with its flight attendants.

And Southwest this week revealed details of an agreement with its pilots that in my view will prove to be a mistake – with the company caving to the union and giving pilots too much specificity in scope. Southwest did show amazing restraint in agreeing to wage increases, but I had expected it to come without “handcuffs” on code sharing. With this contract, we can see quite clearly how Southwest is aging and facing many of the very same labor struggles that have long dogged the legacy carriers.

I feel for those employees that have “given back,” whether through concessionary contracts or at the demand of a bankruptcy court. But that doesn’t change the fact that the give back was from a level that was unsustainable and would have occurred, eventually, come hell or high water.

This current negotiating period is important to both management and labor. Hopefully, the airline industry will produce leaders like Gettelfinger that recognize that tomorrow has different challenges than yesterday, and that labor leaders have a crucial role in negotiating contracts that protect the workers who helped build the industry, while at the same time ensuring that US aviation can be competitive in the future.

Some call this approach “eating their young”. I call it smart. Because there is nothing that Gettelfinger and the UAW can do today to fix what was done 20 years ago. But labor leaders in the airline industry should do everything in their power to avoid the situation automobile labor now faces. Labor leaders who succeed in the long term will be those who set realistic expectations for their members, resist the urge to overpromise and, like Gettelfinger, recognize that change is inevitable and that labor can and should be a key player in making it work.

More to come.

In Dallas/Ft. Worth: Compare and Contrast; Contrast and Compare

This blog has made no bones about its fascination with airlines in Texas generally and those in the Dallas Metroplex specifically. This past weekend’s post on Southwest Airlines ranks among the most widely read posts ever on Swelblog.com. Despite recording it 36th consecutive year of profitability, many are writing opinions on Southwest that are very different from those we have historically come to know.

I have been traveling or otherwise less connected this week and I am behind on my reading.

But I was glad I was sitting down when I read a Sunday column from Mitchell Schnurman of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram on Southwest’s cross-town competitor, American Airlines. The title of Schnurman’s piece: Things are looking up at AMR. Schnurman takes a look back at the numerous management actions undertaken by the legacy carrier’s management absolutely necessary to position the high cost airline for a better tomorrow. For what seems like a very long time, there have not been many positive stories written about American, its prospects or its management.

Schnurman is correct that there has been a lot done at American. And there remains a lot more to do. If AA had not taken the actions it has since its 2003 restructuring, Schnurman would have written a very different story. A story that might have been reminiscing rather than thinking that tomorrow will be better.

The compare and contrast as we begin 2009 is very interesting. Particularly in the Dallas Metroplex where at least one or two of 2009's most impacting aviation stories will likely be written.

“South by Southwest”: A Theme of Mistaken Identity; Deception; or the Airline’s New Reality?

Hitchcock’s “North by Northwest” title offered no clue about the movie’s content either. It has even been said that it is an “anomaly and a clue to the absurd, confused plot where no one is who they appear to be.” “South by Southwest” is an anomaly at least from the growth story that has defined its corporate life. But a confused plot – no. It is nothing more than the reality this blogger has been writing and talking about for years. There are simply few profitable route opportunities even for those with very low unit costs. And nobody really wants to acknowledge it.

Three airline earnings calls down. More to go. The general consensus is that the fourth quarter of 2008 would result in deep losses as would the first quarter of 2009 largely due to “hedges gone bad,” as well as the fact that the two quarters define the shoulder season for this industry and the fact that demand in this new world is not fully understood. Jamie Baker, airline analyst with J.P Morgan, went as far as to say to a reporter: "Out of respect for our clients and managements, we do intend to show up for work during earnings season, in the event anything interesting should occur." Baker went on to say, "Our suspicion is that nothing will."

I have agreed with Mr. Baker on many points over the years. But I do not agree that this quarter’s calls are lacking in storylines. Items of interest have emerged from this week’s calls with United, American and Southwest that will prove important as 2009 unfolds. In fact, they may prove to be among the most important stories -- ones that dictate the evolution of the North American marketplace as we know it.

Cost per Available Seat Mile (ex-Fuel)

This year, non-fuel unit costs in a time of decreasing capacity will test management at all airlines. Managing unit costs of any kind, in any network industry, in a shrinking capacity environment challenges the best managers even in the most favorable economic conditions. Between United and American, we heard two very different stories.

United demonstrated excellent non-fuel CASM performance during the quarter, reporting that it will be able to manage 2009 costs at something less than a 3 percent increase. On the other hand, American pointed to sharply higher non-fuel CASM performance as its capacity shrinks further and underperforming pension assets add to the carrier’s numerator. For 2009, its non-fuel CASM is expected to increase more than 7.5 percent.

Yep, it is one thing to talk about managing unit costs at American and United – two carriers that have been forced to rethink many old operating practices as options for cost cutting dwindle. Yet, it is an entirely different thing to think about Southwest sans growth. I’m talking about the “G” word. Growth is the bedrock strategy that arguably has been the single most important component of the company’s ability to build – and maintain – its enviable culture and low unit operating costs. Growth does many things: moves a pilot from the right seat to the left seat; allows a flight attendant to have weekends off; and even masks cost mistakes in the short term.

A Redrawing of the Competitive Landscape?

A Southwest in capacity retreat – albeit only 4 percent worth – is a very different story than the one written between 2002 and 2006 when the carrier grew at the expense of the crippled network carriers. And it is a very different story than the one that sets Southwest apart from the industry’s competitors: its low unit costs, ex labor, ex fuel. Yes, its "hedges gone good" made Southwest nothing more than a "flying trading desk" since 2004, a carrier setting profitability records while on the Airline Growth Hormone (AGH). Now it is time for the airline to be something very different.

I admire Southwest CEO Gary Kelly. I, and others, acknowledge that there is no harder CEO Job in the global industry today because the storybook company must now remake itself just as the network carriers were forced to do. Southwest must undergo surgery as capacity shrinks. And it cannot do cosmetic surgery; it must do invasive surgery.

The Revenue Line

Southwest anticipated that it would have to begin a process of weaning itself off of AGH. Kelly has done what any good CEO would do in fully anticipating that cosmetic surgery was not an option. He and his team focused on the revenue line - and they have delivered good results. Despite Southwest’s dominance in frequency in the markets it serves though, the airline was still pricing itself more than 40 percent less than competitors in common origin-destination markets as early as 2000.

Since that time, Southwest has worked hard to increase fares as its cost advantage was eroded by the restructuring network carriers undertook – a restructuring forced in part by Southwest’s competitive challenge. I predict that Southwest will still be pricing fares well below its competition across its network for years to come. And therein lies the rub.

For a carrier that is so reliant on low unit costs to offset its historic pricing strategy (read: low non-labor unit costs,) a shrinking of capacity only makes the carrier’s job harder. As I have written and lectured, the carrier’s costs will only increase due to structural issues that define the few remaining markets without Southwest or low-cost carrier competition.

Tables Turning?

Much is being written about fares on the decline. While I am not happy to hear this, the economic headwinds and the need to manage revenue in the shoulder season probably drive pricing actions – even with significantly less capacity. So, let’s think about this from a different point of view.

For the past 15 years, Southwest has largely dictated pricing actions in the US domestic market. Yes, up until the late 1990s, the actions were mostly predicated on the carrier’s limited geographic presence. But today it can be said that Southwest is at least virtually present (including highway access) in US markets that comprise 95+ percent of domestic demand.

Southwest absolutely needs to raise fares – or find other revenue. The carrier can now be said to have a cost disadvantage - particularly its labor costs. The other carriers in Southwest markets can cross-subsidize their base fares with ancillary fees -- fees that Southwest has said it will not charge. My guess is that the network carriers are now setting the base fare price and are more than happy to decrease base fares to keep a non-hedged Southwest in detox as it gets treatment for AGH and the fact that it is no longer a flying trading desk.

Just Another Airline?

Of course, Southwest is anything but just another airline. But it is about to have to deal for the first time with issues that other airlines have struggled with for two decades, in many cases contributing to the undoing of their respective cultures. This is particularly true of carriers that had weaned themselves off of AGH in the late 1980’s, even when AMR’s-revered CEO Bob Crandall was preaching “time of day” service was the only answer to tomorrow’s success.

How does Southwest tell its workers that it cannot afford increases in its union contracts? Can it generate enough revenue to close its historic pricing gap? Can it even consider pulling out of markets that are economically challenging given its long track record of staying? Can Southwest be a US domestic player alone? Can it be only a US provider for international revenue sources? Can it actually reduce costs and restructure its operations without layoffs or other changes that threaten the culture it has built?

Concluding Thoughts

I have been on the other side of Southwest issues for years. So with all due respect to Mr. Baker, I think there is a hell of a story to come from the earnings announcements. A shrinking Southwest is a big part of that story– one that has the potential to reset the many arguments that have been used to demonstrate US domestic competition. In fact, it potentially resets many myths surrounding the US’s most luved carrier.

Finally, maybe finally, the story will read that the network carriers are responsible for driving down fares and promoting competition as capacity goes “South by Southwest”. How do you think Jim “Hell No”berstar and the Fear Mongers will feel about that?

Much more to come.

PRASM, TRASM and now FRASM? Oh My

We routinely discuss PRASM, or Passenger Revenue per Available Seat Mile. We also refer to TRASM, or Total Revenue per Available Seat Mile. I am now thinking that we will begin to talk about FRASM, or Fee Revenue per Available Seat Mile. PRASM, FRASM and TRASM – Oh My.

Click to read more ...

Airline Labor Relations’ Eyes on Southwest

I wake up in Honolulu this morning to CNBC discussing the auto industry and the fact that General Motors’ market capitalization is roughly the equivalent to what it was in 1943. Talk of a pre-packaged bankruptcy filing is spewing. But can that really fix anything?...

Click to read more ...

02. It’s Airline Deregulation Bday Week: Triangulating Southwest to the Point of Indifference

Second in a series on Deregulation

There cannot be a discussion on the morphing of the US airline industry over the past 30 years without a few words on Southwest Airlines. The presence of this one airline, and its unique model in the US market, has influenced everything from network development; to labor costs; to non-labor costs; to the fostering of an environment that screams “I luv my job,” – rare in the US airline industry.

As I said in Monday’s post, I believe the industry’s discussion of commercial aviation’s economic impact is backward, I am indifferent about the role of Southwest and the Low Cost Carriers sector in general. But I believe that Southwest has had profound influence on the industry, both good and bad.

Network Triangulation

In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, the Dallas-based carrier was increasingly recognized as a potential force. In May of 1993, the US Department of Transportation published what is now a highly recognized piece analyzing that force: The Airline Deregulation Evolution Continues: The Southwest Effect. Many know Southwest’s storied beginnings, beginning with a napkin on which the initial route network was drawn: Houston – Dallas – San Antonio. As the name implies, much of its network was confined to west of the Mississippi River until 1995.

In addition to the obvious airport market attributes Southwest looks for before it enters a new city, the carrier employed a fairly rigid network strategy as well. One day, I sat down at a table and mapped out Southwest’s growth city by city over its history. Lo and behold, when the initial nonstop segments were announced from a new airport market, you could bet that new triangles were formed. For example, from Indianapolis, Southwest might announce Orlando and Kansas City service. Southwest made sure before announcing any two new segments from a new city that there was existing service between the two points, just as there was in the case of Orlando-Kansas City when Southwest began service in Indianapolis.

Airline observers often refer to the hubs of the network legacy carriers as “fortress hubs.” Southwest built its own fortresses of sorts through the use of its network triangle strategy, protecting its own flows no matter how small. Over time, the carrier took small hub airports and made them medium hubs – or nodes -- which like fortress hubs serve to protect Southwest’s primacy and discourage competition.

Southwest’s construction of its nodal network provides it with both the flexibility of being a point-to-point carrier as well as a carrier that connects traffic across its system at super nodes like Baltimore, Nashville, Phoenix and Las Vegas. While it serves only 64 of the nation’s 340+ commercial airports within the contiguous United States, Southwest impacts more than 90 percent of nation’s domestic origin and destination traffic.

This calculation is tedious but its methodology is simple. Draw a circle of two hours driving distance around each of Southwest’s 64 points – a clear visual of their strategy that aims to expand the catchment area, or reach, of the airport markets it chooses. Then, envelope multiple airports within the catchment area; each of them becomes a source of demand for the carrier’s lower fares. Southwest service has demonstrated clearly that the highway is an acceptable entry point to access the US air transportation system, but it also has had a negative and profound effect on small airports.

[Editorial question for policymakers: why is access to the air transportation system via the highway acceptable when Southwest is involved and not acceptable if a network legacy needs to close a market because it is not economic to serve a particular airport market?]

Earlier this month, Southwest announced it would start service to Minneapolis/St. Paul making the Twin Cities its 65th node. To give you an idea of the power of the carrier’s "no-connect network", it advertises that modest service between the Twin Cities and Chicago-Midway will provide access to more than two-thirds of Southwest’s entire network.

Great to be a Southwest Employee, Not so great for other airline employees

In recent years, Southwest employees have fared significantly better than their network legacy carrier peers in winning wage and benefit improvements. Today, Southwest workers are, on average, the highest compensated employees among the top dozen carriers. Their secret in providing industry-high average wages is simple. Their model incorporates and employs high productivity across a network of shorter stage lengths and smaller aircraft that should, by definition, make this achievement most difficult. And all of this is made possible through their unique network.

Keep in mind however, that Southwest did not enter the competitive fray burdened by labor contracts with provisions held over from before the advent of jet airplanes. It didn’t have a senior workforce or the labor costs bloated by seniority pay. And it didn’t have a network like those of its competitors that entered the market well before deregulation – in other words one designed by regulators who determined which cities, from which carrier, would get commercial air service with little regard for efficiency. Instead, Southwest got to draw its own lines and routes that define the company today. And they did so with an evangelical approach to labor and employee relations that many believe give the airline an edge in customer service and reliability as well.

Productivity is the Southwest mantra – whether it is labor, aircraft or facilities. Southwest’s non-labor costs have always been a competitive advantage. Many observers believe that unit labor costs are the airline’s most effective weapon, but I argue that is not the case. Instead, it is the relationship of productivity and pay that has provided Southwest with flexibility to pay relatively high wages as it negotiates with its highly-unionized work force.

This is the concept that the unionized work forces of the network legacy carriers struggle to comprehend. Traditional hub and spoke carriers with vast operations cannot achieve Southwest’s level of productivity. But there is a relationship, or an equilibrium, that can be found at each and every carrier. If the will to ”find it” could only be found.

Now, 30 years after the deregulation experiment began, Southwest has grown to be the largest domestic carrier in the US, with low costs and network scope that will continue to pose a significant competitive challenge to other airlines. Southwest may well be the best managed airline in the business, as most industry observers agree. But its success was also helped by the fact that Southwest did not enter the fray with a legacy noose around its neck. Instead, Southwest succeeded because it was small, nimble and could easily adapt and exploit opportunities as the competitive landscape evolved.

Triangulating Labor, Network, and Southwest

In an ideal world, an airline’s network would drive the labor and staffing decisions to achieve the best possible efficiency and productivity for the respective airline. In the real world, the legacy network carriers are often forced to create a network around the labor contracts that have put strict limits on productivity and constraints on how best to serve markets in its system.

Low cost carriers are most often cited as the primary driver of consumer benefits because low fares have opened the skies to the masses. But are they? Have they been? No. Consider that Southwest serves only 20 percent of the commercial airports in the contiguous United States. So how can they, and their low cost carrier peers, be considered the shining light(s) of deregulation? Yes they drove prices down in the larger markets – the only markets the low cost sector serves with few exceptions - and in some small markets indirectly, but the effect was to kill off many small airports in their wake.

Through its efficient and methodical approach to building a company, Southwest puts pressure on incumbents to be just as efficient. We see this most recently as network legacy carriers have reduced wages and increased productivity. But the process has been supremely painful and, in some cases, required a trip or two through the bankruptcy courts, in part because neither management nor labor leaders had the will to make changes necessary to adapt to new competition.

Today, Southwest’s network touches virtually every geographic market of size in the US. As the domestic market is now contested at each and every point, the network legacy carriers are left with two choices: 1) attrit and possibly exit the domestic space; or 2) negotiate a new labor construct that can cohabitate with the likes of Southwest. Neither choice is ideal. But one choice is better than the other.

Concluding Thoughts

Throughout my career, I’ve been engaged in some battles involving Southwest – but only on the other side. I can attest that they are a hard-nosed competitor. But I am a professed network carrier guy that fervently believes the low cost sector receives entirely too much credit for bringing the benefits this industry drives each and every day.

Southwest is often first to cry foul with claims of being competitively disadvantaged when it tries to enter new markets or protests paying for what it believes is its fair share of the air traffic system. But that so-called “disadvantage” has done quite well for Southwest’s leaders, employees and shareholders.

I applaud and admire the airline’s culture and competitive success. But before we give all of the awards, I ask that small communities and legacy carrier labor ask what good Southwest has done them? In fact, it is the network legacy carriers that deserve awards for keeping many small communities alive by continuing air service, even when some of these routes can’t be flown profitably. It is also true that ticket prices have been contained or even reduced by the hub competition that exists in the US domestic market today.

In the future, look to the horizon for the new competitive battleground. It will be more about Auckland than Amarillo. It really will.

More to come.

Aviation News Just Breeds Itself in the Dallas Metroplex

Air Romo breaks his finger on the first play of overtime and is grounded for four weeks. American Airlines reports a profit for the third quarter of 2008; but only after accounting for the sale of American Beacon Advisors. Southwest Airlines posts its first quarterly loss in 17 years; but only after accounting for losses on certain hedge contracts. Had it not been for accounting issues, the news might have been much the same as American would have posted a loss and Southwest would have posted yet another profitable quarter.

But earnings are not “the” story for 2008’s third quarter given the volatility of jet fuel that occurred during a period when the passengers carried largely bought their tickets months ago. The story from the earnings announcements is more about the landscape on a going forward basis. Like many data points we assess and refer to, the Southwest loss deserves an asterisk.

The most interesting news thus far has been American Airlines announcing an order for 100 787-900 aircraft as part of its third quarter discussion. 42 of the aircraft are firm orders and are scheduled for delivery beginning in 2012. As the news came across the wire, I was preparing to give a lecture on networks. It was quite the buzz in the room as many of the students are like you and me and have jet fuel running through their veins.

There are many aspects of this announcement that I find encouraging. First, and simply, a US carrier announced a significant order for new technology as India's airlines consider cancelling orders. Second, and unlike many of the world’s carriers with orders for new aircraft, a US carrier is not ordering at the top of the cycle only to take delivery as the cycle turns down as will prove true with many carriers in Europe and Asia. Third, American did what it should do and make the delivery schedule contingent on a negotiated deal with the Allied Pilots Association.

Terry Maxon of the Dallas Morning News blogs on the APA’s reaction to American’s announcement that it is spending billions on new aircraft that will permit it to connect multiple dots on tomorrow’s global map. Of course the pilots are pleased that the company is investing in new equipment. Of course their reaction comes with the caveat that reinvestment in aircraft is only part of the necessary reinvestment in the airline. As the APA reminds us daily, restoring pay rates to some historical level in their current contract is also a necessary action.

I don’t know about you, but I am tired of the refrain of pay restoration. I am tired of the suggestion that these negotiations began in 2006. They did not. The negotiations began when the new rockers in the Metroplex, “Captain Lloyd and the No Planet Airmen”, took office and made a comprehensive proposal to management that was ultimately priced out at $3 billion dollars.

I have written here often of the need to change existing collective bargaining agreements as language just does not work. Well the APA rightfully points to a glaring reason why we need to rethink the entire labor construct. Pay rates have historically been based on the weight of the aircraft among other inputs. Well the weight of the 787 will be less as it made of composite materials. So now that does not work for the APA and there will have to be another approach.

I have been traveling and speaking again this week, so I missed Trebor Banstetter’s article on Tuesday in the Ft. Worth Star Telegram discussing the status of American's negotiations with its pilots. The APA seems to suggest that the NMB is partially to blame. Remember, as I have written here before: you have to clear the underbrush before a meaningful negotiation can take place on the economics otherwise - just put it on ice. The APA strategy to call for mediation still numbs this observer. I hope that they did not pay anyone for that advice.

But the real piece of information that I find most interesting as I catch up on my reading is a Banstetter blog post suggesting that there is a move on to rein in the national officers at APA. Lloyd and his band have become one song wonders and the membership needs more.

American has positioned itself to take a new narrowbody aircraft every 10 days beginning next year and to begin a growth and replacement strategy with the 787 beginning in 2012 all in managing the company for the long term. Hopefully the APA might begin to take notice from visionary pilot groups at Delta and Northwest that tomorrow really is different.

As always, this one is fun to watch. I wanted to post a piece I have been working on about autos and airlines again, but news here is so hard to resist.

Olympic, Alitalia, American and the Wings Club

And we thought the last 10 days of news regarding financial institutions was interesting. In this industry we have legacy flag carriers dying on many continents. We have continued, and even aggressive, consolidation activity in Europe. In the US we have Delta and Northwest pointing to a date before year end to complete their deal. All that remains a constant, it seems, is the Allied Pilots Association creating press releases that ignore the realities of the world to virtually everyone except Lou Dobbs. But before we go there………

Today, Greece finally announced that it would shut down Olympic Airlines and start anew. The Greek flag carrier has only been going through gyrations of Olympic-sized restructuring efforts since I began to study the industry. Nearly 30 years later, its legacy carcass is finally put to rest.

All the while, the investor group that has been assembled in Italy to rescue Alitalia has given certain unions that have not signed on to their business plan until Thursday to do so. Today, a small union caused the carrier to cancel flights as it struck. The bankruptcy laws in Europe are different than in the US and honestly, they are the kind that should be adopted here. If the investor group were to walk away, there is a high probability that Alitalia could be liquidated. Not that Rome is burning, but maybe a “Flying Pig" Roast is in the offing.

Whereas saving Alitalia has become a front-burner issue for newly elected Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, Rome will not burn; Milan will not burn; and all other markets in Italy will not burn if flag carrier Alitalia does liquidate. The world really will not miss Alitalia. Just like the hub closures that have occurred in the US over the years, replacement capacity will be sure to find the market opportunities that are presented. Lufthansa and Air France and others have already identified markets where they will deploy capacity to address the void left by Alitalia should it exit the space.

So, two more carriers in Europe, each once proud flag carriers, are close to succumbing to the high cost of jet fuel, a slowing economy, a strengthening of the dollar, hyper-competition for traffic flows over European hubs/gateways and high intrinsic cost structures that simply cannot be supported.

Now we turn our attention to the US. Similar pressures are forcing its carriers to engage in gut-wrenching decisions of resizing networks in order to adapt to the new economic order. Leave it to the Allied Pilots Association to cause most interested observers of this industry to scratch our heads yet again. Not only did APA’s President write to the CEO’s of British Airways, Iberia, Finnair and Royal Jordanian advising them not to enter into an immunized alliance structure with American Airlines, they also wrote to the US Government urging them to postpone their review of the application.

When all other carriers, including Southwest, are actively seeking new revenue sources that can only work to bolster the bottom line, the APA continues to act in the most destructive of ways. The revenue sources its company is seeking to participate in are those carried by American’s competitors today. To ignore them only initiates American's walk down the path of Olympic, Alitalia, Sabena, and the many US carriers that have ultimately succumbed to the same fate.

But only APA’s membership can decide if they are being led for the better or ultimately to their detriment. I cannot answer that.

Finally, James Hogan, the Chief Executive of Ethiad, spoke to the Wings Club in New York about a 'New Wave' in Global Aviation. If anyone does not believe for a minute that this “new wave” coming from Dubai, Doha and Abu Dhabi will challenge the European partners of the US carriers in a big way, then you are just not reading the tea leaves.

There are traffic flows that are critical for American and British Airways to participate in that require competitive strength. There are possibilities for Iberia that do not exist today. Today, each of the carriers have a strong position in some markets. Absent a relationship similar to that of STAR and SkyTeam, oneworld’s global market position will only continue to erode and will result in less and less flying for US pilots working under the American Airlines’ seniority list.

Just look at the loss of legacy carrier employment in the US today. American has not suffered the half of what United, US Airways and others have suffered. There is no growth at home and that is precisely why APA’s actions of today just simply ignore the evolution of the global industry and the forces of a global economy. Tomorrow’s world is not about Abilene, it is about Asia. It is not about narrowbodies to Eugene, it is about widebodies to Europe. And it sure as hell is not about Midland/Odessa, it is about the Middle East.

It is also not about 12,000 American pilots that Captain Hill states he represents, it is about the other 65,000+ proud employees of American Airlines.

Thank god for Lee Moak and his counterparts at Northwest. At least they recognized that changes were needed to compete in tomorrow's marketplace.

STEEEEEE….rike 1

It is September and pennant races are in full stride. The “wild cards” are up for grabs too as Major League Baseball works its way toward the playoffs.

In what is starting to be a rather ho-hum event in the aerospace/defense world: the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) have decided to strike the Boeing Company for the second time in three years. Is this a “yawn moment” or a precursor of things to come as the airline industry begins in earnest the renegotiation of concessionary contracts?

I am thinking this a precursor of things to come. Not quite sure if it is a yawn just yet. Whereas the aerospace/defense industry is quite different than the airline industry, there are similarities. The similarities begin with the simple fact that the manufacturers are a most important stakeholder in the virtuous circle of airline industry success; or failure as they represent an important cost element to the industry. For certain airline class and crafts of employees, a Boeing contract represents a trend.

Boeing is outsourcing. The airline industry is outsourcing. The world is outsourcing.

As J. Lynn Lunsford reports in this morning’s Wall Street Journal: “Resentment over outsourcing has been festering since the mid-1990s, when Boeing began a sweeping campaign to modernize its factories. The company has relied increasingly on contractors across the world to build larger and larger sections of its airplanes. By adopting many of the methods pioneered by the automobile industry, Boeing has been able to reduce the time it takes to build some of its jets by 50%.”

Resentment over Outsourcing - Airlines Too

Beginning in the mid 1990s, US airline industry labor has been festering over outsourcing too. First it was pilots and scope clause restrictions (1995 – 2001) that govern who could fly the first regional jets (50 seats and under for the most part). Those airlines with the fewest limitations placed large numbers of the small jets into service and garnered a “first-mover” advantage to be sure. There should be no mistake as to why US Airways was among the first to file for bankruptcy protection as the carrier had the most restrictive scope clause language and their network was attacked by those with freedom to overfly it. Finally, by 2001, relaxation of the scope limitations, allowing this size jet to fly, had largely been won in return for unaffordable fixed price contracts. Some mainline pilot agreements permitted the flying of 70-seat jets; others did not.

During the restructuring round of negotiations, scope clause limitations on the flying of 70-seat jets by regional partners were significantly relaxed. During that same period, the industry turned to outsourcing more of its heavy maintenance work as carriers looked to find ways to trim costs ala Southwest Airlines that has historically outsourced its heavy maintenance. Well here we go again. I see a pattern. And I do not like what I see because it just simply ignores fundamental issues.

Whereas the Boeing business/economic climate has been quite good and has produced significant profits of late, let’s not forget that the order book is full. Some say until 2017 and some say 2020. Whatever it is, profits can be forecast as the revenue stream can be calculated with some measure of certainty. Adjustments will need to be made to account for pre-strike delivery problems. And there may be some adjustments to be made for strike-related delays. But if the supply chain has been the issue, doesn’t a strike possibly allow certain suppliers to “catch up”? No matter, with the revenue stream reasonably certain it becomes a cost issue just like it did for the airline industry beginning in 2001.

Labor Arbitrage

This is what is at play for each Boeing and the US airline industry, isn’t it? As I turned to the financial dictionary online for a definition of labor arbitrage, this is what I found. Outsourcing: A practice used by different companies to reduce costs by transferring portions of work to outside suppliers rather than completing it internally.

Notes:
Outsourcing is an effective cost-saving strategy when used properly. It is sometimes more affordable to purchase a good from companies with comparative advantages than it is to produce the good internally. An example of a manufacturing company outsourcing would be Dell buying some of its computer components from another manufacturer in order to save on production costs. Alternatively, businesses may decide to outsource book-keeping duties to independent accounting firms, as it may be cheaper than retaining an in-house accountant.

Damn, that outsourcing word again.

Where is the Crux of the Problem? Or Begin to Really Think About It

This is what few want to explore it seems. This round of negotiations simply needs to be a continuation of the transition/transformation period for the US airline industry and the contractual relationships with its labor force. I am not going to perfume the pig here. This is about a different set of wages and rules for the new workers that will comprise tomorrow’s industry that will be increasingly impacted by the ebbs and flows of global trade. The airline and aerospace industries can do better than the automobile and steel industries who acted much too late to protect the many good-paying jobs that remain.

And yes, there does need to be something in it for those that make up the industry today as well. The crux of the problem for labor as I see it is a lack of appreciation of the delicate balance between pay and productivity. Boeing is looking to balance an economic offer with flexibility if the business cycle requires it. Without recognition that balancing the formula is critical, the industry, and individual carriers, will continue what has become known as the "September Swoon" and miss the playoffs altogether. The “spiral down” - read job loss - will continue, strike or no strike. Markets will continue to be successful in finding the most efficient provider - they always are.

The simple question: why are job losses among the legacy US carriers approaching 200,000?

Or maybe the real crux of the problem is the seniority system. Ever wonder if tomorrow’s workers will really want such a system because it stands in the way an individual’s right to participate in the free market?

So I do think we will see strike 2. And probably a high, hard one that produces a swing and a miss that will cost someone the opportunity to continue on in the chase for the title of World Champion.

We are going to be bringing up many issues over the next couple of months.

More to come.

Grab a Big ‘Ol Cup of Jo, and Let’s Talk Airline Service Cuts

Starbucks, Airlines and Air Service Cutbacks

This morning’s headline in the Wall Street Journal on B1 reads: Starbucks to Shut 500 More Stores, Cut Jobs. The story by Janet Adamy offers many insights as to what is plaguing the airline industry, at least from this observer’s perspective. The announced shutdowns will occur throughout the remainder of 2008 and will continue into early 2009. The 500 store closures announced yesterday are in addition to the 100 the coffee proprietor announced earlier this year. I will highlight some of the points made by Adamy in her story:

· “The pullback is a sign that the Seattle-based coffee giant is continuing to see weak sales as high gas prices and other pressures on consumer spending prompt Americans to cut back on extras.”

· “It also shows how badly the specialty-coffee business is struggling just as mainstream companies, such as fast-food giant McDonald’s Corp., are beginning to invest in it.”

· “Starbucks didn’t disclose which of its about 11,000 stores U.S. stores it will shut, but said the affected stores are spread across all major U.S. markets. About 70% of them have opened since the Fall of 2005, it said”.

· “The purpose of its rapid expansion (2,500 stores globally during the last fiscal year) was to boost sales growth and siphon traffic away from some of its stores where long lines were driving away customers. Also fueling the push was company research that showed people sometimes weren’t willing to cross the street to buy a cup of coffee.”

· Last year, as Starbuck’s sales began to soften, it became clear that the company’s expansion was cannibalizing its sales in a way that was threatening the chain’s success, as well as causing the quality at its existing locations to slip”.

The Ubiquitous Airline Industry

Adamy mentions ubiquity in her story and it absolutely applies to the US airline industry as well. You know: the seeming need to be present everywhere. As we have written here many times: presence everywhere and pricing power nowhere. Ubiquity is synonymous with fragmentation. Fragmentation best describes the US airline industry’s domestic market. [In fact, IATA suggests that fragmentation describes the construct of the global industry’s marketplace.] The US airline industry’s domestic market lies at the heart of the US airline industry’s woes. Hyper-competition has led/contributed to the non-economic prices that persist. So if fragmentation is present and structurally undermining your performance, consolidate around your strengths – right?

Based on the story about Starbucks closing stores let’s talk about the US airline industry and the planned capacity cuts that are known and those that might not be known. We have heard about some airlines either discontinuing service altogether or reducing frequencies to large markets like Ft. Lauderdale and Oakland. Will Ft. Lauderdale and Oakland passengers suffer as a result? My answer is NO as they will have other options available like Miami or on other carriers, mainly those with the outdated low cost carrier moniker, continuing to serve the market. Will Oakland customers suffer? My answer is NO as they will have access to remaining service at OAK and will have a menu of offerings available at alternatives like San Jose and San Francisco. So customers will continue to have options, and options with low cost carrier presence, just as they have before.

Just like Starbucks realizes it cannibalizes traffic with certain store openings, the US airline industry cannibalizes itself with nearly every new service in some way it seems. My numbers may be off a bit here, but hear me out. At one point I was looking at the Greenville-Spartanburg, SC (GSP) to Los Angeles market. At that time there were 100 passengers per day each way (PDEWs) in that market. Those 100 passengers had a choice of 24 nonstop flights to access the air transportation system over 15 different hubs.

So I have 24 nonstops competing for four passengers per flight. As oil skyrockets, how can I possibly raise fares enough to cover the cost with that many consumer choices in the market? Simply, you cannot. Another question should be: how many choices is too many choices for a mid-size market like GSP?

To make matters worse, it can actually be said that carriers competing in that market actually compete with themselves. Delta carries traffic in this market over each its Atlanta and Cincinnati hubs. There are a multitude of examples just like this one where consumer choices to get from A to B are much more than the market can economically support. Unfortunately, it has taken the price of oil to demonstrate that the choices provided air travel consumers over the years cannot be economically sustained in many instances. So just like Starbucks, the US airline industry will pare back choices and consolidate that demand around markets that are, or can be made, economic by consolidating traffic.

So as the Business Travel Coalition paints the landscape with scare tactics, their back of the envelope analysis tells us very little. The BTC fails to mention that in the vast majority of service reduction announcements thus far, passengers demanding service to a particular destination will still be accommodated albeit by fewer frequencies or over fewer hubs – and few will be disenfranchised from the air transportation system.

Another Question I Have: Why Is It OK for Southwest and No One Else?

You know the story. Everything Southwest does is somehow the best and always in the best interest of the consumer. Southwest, circa 1995, enters a market. Fares go down and significantly in some cases. Traffic at that airport market is stimulated. Southwest’s success in entering a market had much to do with expanding the catchment area of that airport market. So while the carrier still only serves less than 65 airport markets in the US, if one were to draw a circle equivalent to a 2-hour drive to that airport, the carrier impacts more than 90% of US domestic air travel demand.

But the question should be: how much of that demand is/was created because air travel was made affordable to some new segment of the population and how much is/was diverted from airport market(s) located within that 2-hour catchment area? It is some combination of the two. Is that stimulation or diversion? The answer is diversion.

There are many examples of airport markets that have suffered as the Southwest’s, jetBlue’s and AirTran’s and other “bottom fishers” entered markets across the US. Their lower costs at the time allowed them the “freedom” to price aggressively while exploiting the bloated cost structures at the legacy carriers that existed. The low fares worked to stimulate new demand all the while diverting traffic from smaller airports with higher prices enveloped by the catchment area. It is the sum of the two - not one or the other.

But why is it OK for Southwest to offer service at an airport and rely on the highway system to be the first leg of access to the air transportation system – all in the name of low fares?

Why is it not OK for the remainder of the industry to cutback frequencies that may result in the highway system being the first leg of access for some – in the name of preserving as much of the network architecture that has been built and can be made economically viable?

The existing network architecture has provided more than sufficient choice for air travel customers in cities of all sizes, not just the largest metro areas that have secondary airports that are the backbone of Southwest, and its LCC brethern, service.

There Is a Lesson Found In Starbucks’ Decisions That Apply

At some point Congress, BTC and others may actually realize that the industry has grossly overbuilt through the over exuberance in the use of regional jets. For many markets it means you will still not have to walk across the street to get a cup – or access in airline vernacular. For others, it will mean having to walk three blocks for a cup. But in any case, you will pay the “all in” cost of that cup. Like Starbucks, you will go for that first or even second cup. The trick for the US airline industry will be the demand for that third cup or the iced cup that lies the heart of the demand equation and the ultimate decision on how much capacity to cut is right.

More to come.