Alaska Posts 4Q Profit
01-28-2010, 09:41 PM
#11
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Bob Marley on the tail
Posts: 36
Staffing levels depend on total number of block hours flown by the fleet. If block hours go up then a greater number of pilots will be needed. If not, then status quo. Ultimately this could be a case of a reshuffled staff deck from one base to another.
Another point to consider is seat capacity per airplane. Rumor has it that Alaska management plans to replace smaller -400's with larger -800's. Zero additional pilots will be needed on a one-to-one basis if true. Alaska seat miles grow without the added cost of hiring and upgrades, producing zero demand for pilots; staff stagnation.
Hopefully a hybrid growth strategy will seize new opportunities that leads to an increase in total block hours leading to the return of furloughees.
01-29-2010, 08:58 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: On the aluminum Arctic snow sled
Posts: 127
01-29-2010, 04:08 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: 737 Left
Posts: 1,827
Alaska still working in the red
Seems to me that if Alaska Air Group had a full-year 2009 net income of $121.6 million and a net loss of $135.9 million in 2008, then they are still potentially 14.3 million in the red. I don't know the rest of the numbers, but one profitable period in time does not necessarily make a company strong enough to recall. We, as an industry, need Alaska to be a strong company so that when those pilots do go back to work, they don't have to endure furlough again!
01-29-2010, 04:11 PM
#14
Need More Callouts
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Posts: 2,143
You're right about that. It is Alaska's niche. No doubt they would fly between these city pairs if money could be made with present ETOPS fleet. Unfortunately they can't do it profitably in a 737-800, the only ETOPS qualified variant in the fleet. I forget the number of blocked seats, but it's quite large due to the short runway at SNA.
How's Continental doing it? Is it with an ETOPS -700? I'd be surprised if it was any other type of 737.
How's Continental doing it? Is it with an ETOPS -700? I'd be surprised if it was any other type of 737.
Be interesting to see if it works.
01-29-2010, 05:46 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 162
Seems to me that if Alaska Air Group had a full-year 2009 net income of $121.6 million and a net loss of $135.9 million in 2008, then they are still potentially 14.3 million in the red. I don't know the rest of the numbers, but one profitable period in time does not necessarily make a company strong enough to recall.
"The group on Thursday reported fourth-quarter profit of $24.1 million, or 67 cents a share, compared with a year-earlier loss of $75.2 million, or $2.08 a share. Revenue rose 2.3% to $846.1 million. Last year was the sixth in a row in which the company produced a profit when items such as hedging gains and restructuring costs were stripped out.
The group has one of the industry's strongest cash-balance positions, which helped it mount a successful fuel-hedging program and is allowing the switch to a single type of aircraft for Alaska Airlines and Horizon, improving efficiency and lowering costs.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ArcticDog
Major
8
12-26-2008 09:08 AM
