Blended Winglets prove the Superiority of Free Market Capitalism over a Managed Economy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 15th, 2014

Week in Review

Too many people still feel that government knows better than market forces.  As if the lessons of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the People’s Republic of China, North Korea, Cuba, the Obama administration, etc., have never been learned.  A managed economy produces inferior results compared to one left to free market capitalism.  Even in achieving the goal of an activist, interventionist government (see Airlines embrace winglets as fashionable fuel savers by Gregory Karp, Chicago Tribune, posted 3/10/2014 on The Seattle Times).

Boeing calls the odd-looking, upturned wingtips on aircraft “blended winglets.” Airbus calls them “sharklets.” And Southwest Airlines, in ads, simply calls them “little doohickeys.”

Whatever the name, these wingtip extensions have become prevalent in aviation, saving airlines billions of dollars in fuel costs…

While winglets could cost $1 million or more per aircraft to install and add several hundred pounds to a plane, they pay for themselves in a few years through fuel savings — about 4 percent savings for the blended winglet and an additional 2 percent savings for the split scimitar…

United expects the new and older wingtip designs on its 737, 757 and 767 fleets to annually save it 65 million gallons of fuel, $200 million worth, and the equivalent of 645,000 metric tons of carbon-dioxide emissions.

That’s not government doing this.  This is the free market.  A design comes along that offers to save airlines money by reducing fuel consumption and the airlines spend money to add it to their fleets.  Thus reducing 645,000 metric tons of carbon-dioxide emissions.  And they do this voluntarily.  This is how free market capitalism works.

Fuel is the greatest cost of airlines.  So there is an incentive for airlines to spend money to reduce fuel consumption.  This one-time investment will reduce fuel consumption in the years to follow.  Making it a very good investment.  Because it is they spend their own money to make this investment.  Unlike solar and wind power.  These are very poor investments.  For the only way anyone builds solar arrays and wind farms is with taxpayer subsidies.  Because the return on investment is so poor they will not spend their own money to build these things.

Good things happen with free market capitalism.  While bad things happen (the Solyndra bankruptcy, for example) when the government interferes with free market capitalism.  Which is why the government should not interfere in the market place.  As blended winglets demonstrate.  Which have reduced far more carbon-dioxide emissions than Solyndra ever did.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Allegiant Air the most Profitable Airline despite being the least Fuel-Efficient

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 21st, 2013

Week in Review

When people fly on vacation they’re about to spend a lot of money.  And a big cost is airfare.  Which they will try to book in advance to lock in some low prices.  This is what people think about when they are about to fly on vacation.  Not carbon emissions (see America’s greenest airlines by N.B. posted 9/17/2013 on The Economist).

IN THEORY, fuel efficiency should be a win-win proposition for airlines. Burning less fuel is better for the environment and the carriers’ bottom lines—fuel is generally their biggest single cost. That’s why one finding from a recent fuel-efficiency study is so surprising. In a new report (pdf), the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) found that Allegiant Air, the most profitable airline on domestic American routes between 2009 and 2011, was also the least fuel-efficient airline during 2010.

…The upshot is obvious: according to the researchers, the financial benefits of fuel efficiency have not been enough to force convergence—”Fuel prices alone may not be a sufficient driver of in-service efficiency across all airlines…. Fixed equipment costs, maintenance costs, labour agreements, and network structure can all sometimes exert countervailing pressures against the tendency for high fuel prices to drive efficiency improvements.”

So if the bottom line cannot force airlines to be more fuel efficient, what can? The researchers suggest that airlines can start by making more data available to the public…Cars come with fuel-efficiency ratings, and appliances come with energy-efficiency stickers. Maybe flights should include that kind of data, too, so that concerned passengers can make an informed choice.

Allegiant Air is a low-cost no-frills airline that caters to people going on vacation.  And when you’re on vacation you are taking a break from worrying.  About the bills.  The job.  Even the environment.  You may drive a Prius back at home.  But for two 4-hour flights a year (to and from your vacation spot) you’re just not going to worry about carbon emissions.  Because you’re on vacation.

Allegiant Air flies predominantly MD-80s that sit about 166 people.  An MD-80 is basically a stretched out DC-9.  These have two tail-mounted turbojet engines.  The least fuel-efficient engines on planes.  But these turbojet engines are small and can attach to the fuselage at the tail.  Allowing it to use shorter landing gear.  These planes sit lower to the ground and can be serviced with the smaller jet-ways you see at smaller airports.  Where Allegiant Air flies out of nonstop to their vacation destinations.  People like not having to make a connecting flight.  And will gladly dump a few extra tons of carbon into the atmosphere for this convenience.

The Allegiant Air business model includes other things to help keep costs down.  They are nonunion.  They also fly only a few flights a week at each airport.  Allowing a smaller crew to service and maintain their fleet.  These labor savings greatly offset the poorer fuel efficiency of their engines.  The airlines that have unions (pilots, flight attendants, maintenance, etc.) all share something in common.  Recurring bankruptcies.  Which Allegiant Air doesn’t have.  Despite their higher fuel costs.

Fuel costs are an airlines greatest cost.  Especially for the long-haul routes.  Which burn a lot more fuel per flight than the typical Allegiant Air flight.  Which is why the fuel-efficient Boeing 787 is so attractive to them.  As they need to squeeze every dime out of their fuel costs as they can.  To offset their high union labor costs.  Those very costs that return a lot of airlines to bankruptcy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Passenger Airline charging by the Passenger’s Weight may offer new Funding Idea for Obamacare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 7th, 2013

Week in Review

When the price of oil soars it doesn’t affect the railroads that much.  Because fuel costs are not their greatest cost.  Maintaining that massive infrastructure is.  For wherever a train travels there has to be track.  It’s different for the airlines.  The only infrastructure they have is at the airports.  And the traffic control centers that keep order in the sky.  Once a plane is off the ground it doesn’t need anything but fuel in its tanks to go somewhere.  And because the flying infrastructure is so much less than the railroad infrastructure fuel costs are a much larger cost.  In fact, it’s their greatest cost of flying.  So when fuel costs rise ticket prices rise along with them.  And they start charging more bag fees.  As well as any other fee they can charge you to offset these soaring fuel costs.

Boeing made their 787, the Dreamliner, exceptionally light.  To reduce flying costs.  They used a lot of composite materials.  Two large engines because they’re lighter than 4 smaller engines.  They even used a new lithium-ion battery system to start up their auxiliary power unit.  And made it fly-by-wire to eliminate the hydraulic system that normally operates the control surfaces.  They did all of these things to fight the biggest enemy they have in flying.  Weight.  For the greater the weight the more fuel they burn.  And the less profitable they are.

Freight airlines charge their customers by the weight of the freight they wish to ship.  Because there is a direct correlation between the weight of their freight and the amount of fuel they have to burn to carry that freight.  In fact, all shippers charge by the weight.  Because in transportation weight is everything.  But there is one mode of transportation that we don’t charge by the weight.  Passenger air travel.  Until now, that is (see A tax on overweight airline passengers: a brutal airline policy by Robin Abcarian posted 4/3/2013 on the Los Angeles Times).

When teensy-weensy Samoa Airlines debuted its pay-by-the-kilo policy in January, I doubt it expected to set off an international controversy about fat discrimination.

But that’s what happened when news seeped out this week after the airline’s chief executive, Chris Langton, told ABC News radio in Australia that the system is not only fair but destined to catch on.

“Doesn’t matter whether you’re carrying freight or people,” explained Langton. “We’ve amalgamated the two and worked out a figure per kilo.”

Samoa Air, he added, has always weighed the human and non-human cargo it carries. “As any airline operator knows, they don’t run on seats, they run on weight,” said Langton. “There’s no doubt in my mind this is the concept of the future because anybody who travels has felt they’ve paid for half the passenger that’s sitting next to them…”

“Samoa Air, Introducing a world first: ‘Pay only for what you weigh’! We at Samoa Air are keeping airfares fair, by charging our passengers only for what they weigh. You are the master of your Air’fair’, you decide how much (or little) your ticket will cost. No more exorbitant excess baggage fees, or being charged for baggage you may not carry. Your weight plus your baggage items, is what you pay for. Simple. The Sky’s the Limit..!”

One bright note to this policy: Families with small children, who often feel persecuted when they travel, stand to benefit most from this policy. Since Samoa no longer charges by the seat, it will cost them a lot less to fly than it did before.

The appeal of this policy depends on your perspective.  If you’re of average weight sitting next to someone spilling over their seat into yours it may bother you knowing that you each paid the same price for a seat and resent the person encroaching on your seat.  But if you paid per the weight you bring onto the airplane then that person paid for the right to spill over into your seat.  Which they no doubt will do without worrying about how you feel.  As they paid more for their ticket than you paid for yours.  So the person who weighs less will get a discount to suffer the encroachment.  While the person who weighs more will have to pay a premium for the privilege to encroach.

Under the current system the people who weigh less subsidize the ticket prices of those who weigh more.  It’s not fair.  But it does save people the embarrassment of getting onto a scale when purchasing a ticket.  So should all airlines charge like all other modes of transportation?  Or should they continue to subsidize the obese?  Should we be fair?  Or should we be kind?

Chances are that government would step in and prevent airlines from charging by the weight.  Calling it a hate crime.  Even while they are waging a war on the obese themselves. Telling us what size soda we can buy.  And regulating many other aspects of our lives.  Especially now with Obamacare.  Because the obese are burdening our health care system with their health problems the government now has the right to regulate our lives.  And they have no problem calling us fat and obese.  But a private airline starts charging by the weight of the passenger?  Just don’t see how the government will allow that.  For it’s one thing for them to bully us.  But they won’t let these private businesses hurt people’s feelings by being fair.  So the people who are not overweight will continue to subsidize the flying cost of those who are overweight.

Until the government determines obese people are causing an unfair burden on society.  The obese have more health issues.  Which will consume more limited health care resources.  Also, flying these heavier people around will burn more fuel.  Putting more carbon emissions into the air.  Causing more breathing problems for everyone else.  As well as killing the planet with more global warming.  So while the airlines may not want to weigh people when selling them a ticket because of the potential backlash, the government won’t have a problem.  To cut the high cost of health care and to save the planet from global warming caused by carbon emissions they may even introduce a ‘fat’ tax.  Like any other sin tax.  To encourage people to choose to be healthier.  And to punish those who choose not to.  If they can force us to buy health insurance what can stop them from accessing a ‘fat’ tax?  Especially when they do have the right to tax us.

This is where national health care can take us.  When they begin paying the bill for health care they will have the right to do almost anything if they can identify it as a heath care issue.  Because it’s in the national interest.  They’ve painted bulls-eyes on the backs of smokers.  And drinkers.  With tobacco and alcohol taxes.  And you know they would love to tax us for being fat.  Perhaps even having our doctors file our weight with the IRS.  So they can bump our tax rates based on how obese we are.  If the tax dollars pay for health care they will say they have that right.  As the obese consume an unfair amount of those limited tax dollars.  Anything is possible with an out of control growing federal government faced with trillion dollar deficits.  Especially when they can call it a health care issue.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The High Cost of Labor Contracts and Environmental Regulations cause Planes to Run Low on Fuel

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 26th, 2012

Week in Review

Here is a lesson in basic economics.  There is a tradeoff between costs and safety in aviation.  You could hire thousands of additional mechanics to give an airplane a complete overhaul after each flight.  And double their pay rate just to make sure they are especially happy workers.  You can have a couple of chase planes follow a passenger airliner on every flight to observe the outside of the aircraft so they can warn the pilot of any problems.  And you can top off every fuel tank on an airplane just to be extra safe.  These things would make flying safer.  But they would also make it very expensive to fly.  So expensive that few people would fly.  Thus reducing the amount of airplanes in the sky.  As well as the number of flight and maintenance crews.  Which illustrates the ultimate cost of generous union contracts.  The more they ask for the more they put themselves out of a job.

But these unions are powerful.  Margins are so thing in aviation that a strike could turn a profitable year into a money losing year.  So to avoid a strike they cut costs where they can.  And the one cost that gives them something to work with is their fuel costs.  Because an airplane only needs enough fuel to fly from point A to point B.  Plus some reserves.  So they are very careful in calculating the fuel requirements to get from point A to point B.  But sometimes weather can enter the picture and add a point C.  And this can sometimes cause a fuel emergency (see Pilots forced to make emergency landings because of fuel shortages by David Millward posted 8/20/2012 on The Telegraph).

Pilots have had to make 28 emergency landings because they were running low on fuel according to figures compiled by the Civil Aviation Authority…

Although the total represents of fuel-related emergency landings is a reduction on 2008-10, when there were 41 such incidents, some pilots have warned the airlines are operating on very narrow margins as they seek to cut operating costs…

One retired pilot told the Exaro website that he and his colleagues were under pressure from airlines because of the industry’s need to keep costs down.

“There is pressure on pilots by airlines to carry minimum fuel because it costs money to carry the extra weight, and that is quite significant over a year…

“The way in which aircraft are being developed in becoming more fuel efficient, there is less need for fuel.

We make jet fuel by refining petroleum oil.  And two things make this an expensive endeavor.  Higher environmental regulations.  And reductions in supply.  Often due to those same environmental regulations.  If they allowed the American oil business to drill, baby, drill, it would be safer to fly.  Because fuel would be less expensive.  And airlines could more easily afford to carry the extra fuel weight.

Airlines don’t have much power over controlling the price of jet fuel.  It is what the market says it is.  They have a little more luck in keeping their capital costs down thanks to the bitter rivalry between Boeing and Airbus.  Who are both eager to sell their airplanes.  Cutting their labor costs is another option they have but it comes with great political costs.  Usually it takes the specter of bankruptcy to get concessions from labor.  So when it comes to cutting their operating costs the least objectionable route to go is to cut fuel costs.  By loading the absolute bare minimum required by regulations.  And for safety.  Airlines want to save money.  But having planes fall out of the sky to save fuel costs will cost more in the long run.  In more ways than one.  (It’s hard to get people to fly on an airline that has a reputation of having their planes fall out of the sky.)

So there are only two practical options to fix this problem of skimping on the fuel load.  Either you drill, baby, drill.  Or you get labor concessions to lower you labor, pension and health care costs.  The very same things that are bankrupting American cities.  So you know the costly union workers are all in favor of drill, baby, drill.  Because the lower the cost of jet fuel the less pressure there is on their pay and benefits.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama orders Military to Go Green and Buy Biofuels from Prominent Democratic Backers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 14th, 2012

Week in Review

And you thought the price at the pump was bad.  At least the E-85 costs less than gasoline.  Even if you have to buy more of it to go as far as a lesser amount of gasoline will take you.  But this is just ridiculous (see U.S. Air Force tests biofuel at $59 per gallon by David Alexander posted 7/15/2012 on Reuters).

The Air Force bought 11,000 gallons of alcohol-to-jet fuel from Gevo Inc, a Colorado biofuels company, at $59 a gallon in a program aimed at proving that new alternative fuels can be used reliably in military aircraft – once, that is, their pricing is competitive with petroleum, which now costs $3.60 a gallon.

The cost of the Air Force demonstration – $639,000 – was far less eye-catching than the $12 million the Navy spent for biofuels to power a carrier strike group on alternative energy for a day.

But it was part of the same Pentagon push, which has escalated under the administration of President Barack Obama, to adopt green solutions to rising fuel costs.

President Obama has directed the military to find green solutions to combat the high cost of fuel.  And one of those green solutions cost 1,538.9% more than the expensive fuel it’s replacing.  So the cheap fuel costs over 15 times what the expensive fuel costs.  I don’t know, something seems wrong here.  This doesn’t make sense.

The Obama administration directed the Navy last year to work with the Agriculture and Energy departments to invest up to $510 million to help private industry partners develop a viable alternative energy market capable of producing cost-competitive marine and jet fuels.

Some companies involved in the push to build a biofuels industry have connections to prominent Democratic backers, further raising Republican skepticism of the effort.

Okay.  Now it makes perfect sense.  It’s just old time politics.  Reward generous contributors.  And screw the people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

High Fuel Costs makes Union Contracts too Costly on Qantas’ International Flights

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 26th, 2012

Week in Review

There is an inverse relation between gas prices and driving distance on your summer vacation.  The higher the gas price the shorter your drive.  When gas is cheap you can travel across the country in a recreational vehicle.  When gas prices are high you may limit your drive to a single day.  Perhaps even a single fill up.  Because driving adds up.  If you fill up twice a day you may pay $150 at the gas pump.  If you drive two days out and two days back that’s $600 in driving costs.  Which you could put towards a nice hotel or some fun.  Or into your gas tank.  Which isn’t really a whole lot of fun.  Especially when you have some bored kids fighting each other in the back seat.

Fuel costs can make the difference between a nice vacation and a bad one.  And between a profitable operation and an unprofitable operation (see Australia’s Qantas to Split Business into Two by Reuters posted 5/22/2012 on CNBC).

Qantas Airways, said it plans to split its loss-making international and profitable domestic businesses, though Australia’s top airline was viewed by analysts as unlikely to spin off or sell the international operations…

The changes are part of a five-year turnaround plan aimed at shrinking costs and getting the international operations into profit…

The airline…is emerging from a bruising industrial dispute with unions…

Weak demand and high fuel prices are taking a toll on airline profits, pushing airlines across the world to cut costs and delay capital expenditure. 

The reason companies go through these bruising disputes with their unions is because of the good times when all other costs aren’t so bad.  When fuel was cheap the airlines were making some decent profits.  And it was affordable to be generous to their unions.  When they had little choice but to be generous.  For a strike during busy times is not good to the bottom line.  So they enter into these agreements that just cripple a company when fuel costs soar.

The international business is losing money because it takes a lot more fuel on those international routes.  And when demand is low it is very difficult to raise ticket prices.  Because even though Qantas is a quality airline there are other quality airlines out there trying to make it in an industry suffering from low demand.  And they are all trying to keep their ticket prices as low as possible to get the few passengers out there still flying.  It’s gotten so bad that some airlines are charging for things they’ve never charged for before. 

Such as carryon bags.  Which helps revenue in two ways.  It helps pay for fuel costs.  And it discourages passengers from carrying on luggage.  Which reduces weight and saves on fuel costs.  For an airline only puts into their fuel tanks the amount they need to fly.  They don’t top them off.  They count everything going onto that airplane and calculate the weight to add to the weight of the airplane and the weight of the fuel they carry.  The less the weight on that plane the less fuel they have to burn.

The short routes tend to be the more profitable ones.  There are more of them (one plane can make 2-3 round trips in a day).  And they burn less fuel.  That adds up to profitability.  Which is why Qantas is profitable on their domestic routes.  But not on their international routes.  And why the domestic business can pay the high union contracts.  While the international business can’t.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GM and Ford pursuing Carbon Fiber to Improve Fuel Efficiency and Increase Profits

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 15th, 2012

Week in Review

Ford and GM following the lead of Airbus and Boeing.  Using composite materials to make their vehicles lighter.  And more fuel efficient.  For as Airbus and Boeing have proven, improved fuel efficiency during times of high fuel costs leads to more unit sales (see Ford, Dow to explore carbon fiber use in vehicles by Deepa Seetharaman posted 4/12/2012 on Reuters).

Ford Motor Co and Dow Chemical Co will work to develop cost-effective ways of using carbon fiber in high-volume cars and trucks as the No.2 U.S. automaker moves to cut vehicle weight to improve overall fuel economy…

Weight reduction is one way for automakers to boost the efficiency of their fleets in anticipation of rising oil prices and stricter fuel economy standards for upcoming model years…

Using carbon fiber in lieu of conventional steel can lower the weight of a vehicle component by up to 50 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Cutting a car’s weight by 10 percent can improve fuel economy by as much as 8 percent.

Carbon fiber, already used in racing cars and products like hockey sticks, is not new to the auto industry. BMW (BMWG.DE), for example, uses the material in its M3 coupe.

Yet carbon fiber’s high cost has blocked its wide-scale use. Industry experts say one way to lower the overall cost of carbon fiber is to find cheaper ways of preparing those materials…

Last month, the Obama administration announced it would provide $14.2 million in funding to spur development of stronger and lighter materials.

Really?  The government needs to fund this with subsidies?  You mean there is no incentive for automakers to make their cars lighter?  I think there is.  If they can make a car lighter without shrinking it down to something slightly larger than a shoe box they will improve fuel economy.  And increase sales.  For what family would not want to buy a fuel efficient car that lets them pack the family in it and take it on vacation?  Letting them take longer trips because the cost of gasoline doesn’t eat up the family vacation budget?  Or let families spend more on their grocery bill rather than on gasoline?  To enjoy more cookouts during their summer vacation?  One thing for certain is that if you can produce a more fuel efficient car that doesn’t trade anything else to get that efficiency (size, range, etc.), people will run to buy it.  And that is what we call incentive.

GM revenue in 2011 was $150.3 billion alone.  So Ford and GM are not doing this to get their hands on that piddling $14.2 million in federal money.  Which was about 0.01% of GM’s total revenue in 2011.  Which is little more than a rounding error.  They’re doing this to increase their market share in an increasingly competitive market.  In 2011 GM, Ford and Chrysler had global market shares of 8%, 8% and 3%, respectively.  If you divide GM’s revenue by 8 that comes to about $18.8 billion in revenue per percentage point.  Which is one heck of an incentive to increase unit sales to get just one more percentage point in market share.  And during times of high fuel costs one way to do that is to make a car cheaper to own by making it more fuel efficient.  That’s why they’re pouring money into carbon fiber technology.  Not because the government is offering what amounts to loose change under the sofa cushions as far as GM is concerned.  Because fuel efficiency equals higher market share when gasoline is expensive.  And market share equals higher revenue.  And profits.

Yes, it’s greed that’s making Ford and GM pursue carbon fiber to increase fuel efficiency.  Which is the best reason.  Because greed requires no government subsidies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

American Airlines to file Bankruptcy to get their Labor and Pension Costs under Control

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 4th, 2011

Week in Review

American Airlines is hurting.  They’ve lost about a billion dollars for each of the last 10 years.  Because of high fuel costs.  And high labor and pension costs (see American Airlines files for bankruptcy protection by DAVID KOENIG, AP, posted 11/29/2011 on Yahoo! News).

The parent company of American Airlines filed for bankruptcy protection Tuesday, seeking relief from crushing debt caused by high fuel prices and expensive labor contracts that its competitors shed years ago…

AMR Corp., which owns American, was one of the last major U.S. airline companies that had avoided bankruptcy. Rivals United and Delta used bankruptcy to shed costly labor contracts, reduce debt, and start making money again. They also grew through mergers.

American — the nation’s third-largest airline and proud of an 80-year history that reaches back to the dawn of passenger travel — was stuck with higher costs that meant it lost money when matching competitors’ lower fares…

AMR, however, wants to push ahead with plans to order 460 new jets from Boeing and Airbus and take delivery of more than 50 others already ordered. New planes would save American money on fuel and maintenance, but the orders will be subject to approval by the bankruptcy court.

The two greatest costs of an airline are fuel and labor.  Which have to be paid for by passengers buying tickets.  Airplanes are expensive but they’re fixed costs amortized over time.  Their other costs are relatively fixed and aren’t volatile.  It’s fuel and labor that will make or break an operation.  During good times unions demand generous pay and benefits packages.  Which airlines can pay during good times.  It’s either that or face a strike.  The problem is the bad times.  And there are always bad times.

Bad times are when people aren’t flying and airlines have to cut ticket prices to encourage them back onto their planes.  And high fuel prices.  Fuel costs are such a large percentage of an airline’s costs that spikes in fuel prices results in marginal routes losing money.  Put the two together and it’s impossible to pay those generous pay and benefits packages any more.

The losers will be American Airlines employees and AMR stockholders.

Shareholders almost certainly will be wiped out. The stock had already lost 79 percent of its value this year on fears of bankruptcy.

AMR has lost more than $12 billion since 2001, and analysts expect it will post more losses through 2012. Speculation about an AMR bankruptcy grew in recent weeks as the company was unable to win union approval for contracts that would reduce labor costs. The company said it was spending $600 million more a year than other airlines because of labor-contract rules — $800 million more including pension obligations.

On Tuesday, Horton said no single factor led to the bankruptcy filing. He said the company needed to cut costs because of the weak global economy, a credit downgrade that raised borrowing costs, and high, volatile fuel prices. The price of jet fuel has risen more than 60 percent in the past five years.

If you’re losing $1 billion a year you’re doing something wrong.  Either you’re not charging enough for tickets.  Or your costs are too great.  Competition sets the price of tickets.  So it’s not that.  Which leaves costs.

Approximately 80% of their losses are due to labor and pension costs.  And math doesn’t lie.  So it’s the labor and pension costs.   But wait a minute, you say.  What about that 60% increase in fuel costs?  Well, that could be a problem.  If it wasn’t for the fact that all the airlines are paying 60% more for fuel.  So you can’t blame the fuel costs.

You see, those other airlines can afford that 60% hike in fuel prices because they already went through a bankruptcy to get their labor and pension costs in order.  Which is what American Airlines needs to do.  If, that is, they want to keep flying airplanes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,