Consolidation; the National Mediation Board; APFA; Republic Holdings and Captain Prater
Last week, Reuters held its Travel and Leisure Summit in New York. A number of airline CFOs participated, including Kathryn Mikells of United, Tom Horton of American, Derek Kerr of US Airways and Laura Wright of Southwest. It was, overall, a really good group of voices who spoke pretty much in concert about the challenges facing the airline industry. Then came the sour note, from another invitee, Captain John Prater, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, whose. comments nearly caused me to choke on Cheerios. But more on that later.
Consolidation was the big storyline in the coverage. Southwest continues to not rule out the possibility of a merger, although Wright made it clear that organic growth is its preferred route. Mikells talked more broadly about consolidation and did not limit herself to discussing consolidation within sovereign borders. Kerr, too, spoke favorably about consolidation but suggested that merger activity would have a more positive effect on the industry’s fundamentals if it involved a carrier with a US domestic presence.
"It's five major carriers, it's too fragmented," Kerr said of the U.S. airline industry. "You have too many hubs, all chasing the same passengers trying to connect through the country. We believe that it needs to be consolidated."
One issue that puzzles me though is that the consolidation discussion focuses only on the five legacy carriers. I think the most interesting sector for consolidation is the regional sector (on which, as it turns out, Prater appears to agree with me.) But why are names like Alaska, jetBlue and AirTran not part of the discussion? What about Air Canada? Is consolidation limited to just two carriers? What if United, or American, or US Airways, wanted to sell part of their domestic operation to one carrier and another part to a third carrier? That concept is not so different than the slot swap deal that Delta and US Airways negotiated only to have the government make such dramatic changes to the terms of the deal that it now makes no sense.
Now back to Prater. In his remarks, Prater said that ALPA is for what he called the “right: consolidation – one that “actually protects and enhances jobs and creates a profitable carrier." Just to be sure, I read it twice. Yep, those were the words of the same pilot leader who has done little to nothing for his membership for the past three years. Then I remembered that it is an election year at ALPA. Maybe that is why Prater’s words and tone have changed to better mirror what Captain Moak said and carried out at Delta during its largely successful merger with Northwest.
Where was Prater when the US Airways and America West guys needed leadership? If my memory serves, I believe he was flexing his muscles after winning election on a “we will take it back” campaign. Of course, there is still little evidence to suggest that United is any better positioned than any other legacy carrier to return to the days of the bloated and inefficient labor contracts that helped tipped the carrier into bankruptcy. So Prater might be testing out a new campaign platform to convince UAL pilots that he deserves a second term.
From the management perspective, the CFOs wholeheartedly agreed that capacity discipline is the key for the industry to become and possibly remain profitable. They also agreed that alliances are here to stay as the industry’s answer to mergers across borders that are forbidden by rules and regulations.
"What you will see United and other industry participants doing, is basically within the regulatory framework that we have today, trying to get some merger-like benefits without merging," United's Mikells said. The discussion that followed focused on the big three alliances and their efforts to find cost synergies as well as the revenue synergies already in place.
And that’s where airline labor comes in. In the past, many unions have been cool to any merger that might threaten the union’s stranglehold on flying for its own members, even when that flying comes at a high price. Prater’s ALPA, for example, is a loud opponent of global mergers, even when the alliances in place today support so many pilot jobs in the US. Surely he does not think that each of the five legacy carriers would be as big as they are even today if they were not carrying alliance partner traffic? So the “consolidation that actually protects and enhances jobs” he talks about actually occurs every day when that United flight leaves Washington Dulles for Frankfurt with 60 percent of its passengers bound for points beyond Frankfurt on STAR partner Lufthansa. Just like the American Airlines flight leaving Washington Dulles for Los Angeles that is carrying a cabin full of passengers connecting with Qantas to Sydney and beyond?
Republic Is Confusing, Confounding
What the Hell Is Republic Doing? I get notes from really smart people in the industry asking me this question. After all, I was really jazzed over the prospects for Republic’s purchase of Frontier and wrote a lot about the possibilities here on swelblog. Now I am confused. First, I have not understood the level of management energy spent on the presumption that Midwest can be reborn. TPG had already destroyed the carrier literally and figuratively. I can see the possibilities of keeping in place some of Midwest’s best flying. But messing with Frontier’s brand to right-size Milwaukee makes absolutely no sense.
Ann Schrader of the Denver Post wrote about Republic’s “bumpy integration” in her February 21 story Merger muddles Republic Airways' branding. I appreciate that piecing together an airline is much easier said than done. But every day Republic seems to further confuse the confusion. And if serious industry watchers are confused, then just imagine how former loyalists to Midwest and Frontier must feel. It is those loyalists that are the brand – or maybe were the brand? I am a Daniel Shurz fan and I have every confidence that he can get the right aircraft in the right place at the right time. But there is much more to this delicate exercise than moving airplanes and picking markets.
I will buy the decision to dismantle Lynx (Frontier’s regional operation) given that it would have taken many more aircraft in the Q400 fleet to realize scale economics. Now Republic has placed an order for Bombardier’s C-Series airplane. On paper the aircraft is interesting – but why have orders been so hard to come by – unless someone needed to trade out of an aircraft type? Then Republic puts an unproven engine on a not yet embraced airframe. Confused.
A big part of the Frontier and Midwest brands was the people. This is about as bad a job of managing work forces as I have witnessed. Given the new representation rules likely coming this week from the National Mediation Board, Bedford’s Republic promises to be a ripe target for union organizers. Surely this is not Bedford making these calls? I have gone so far to say that Republic will play in tomorrow’s US domestic market in a meaningful way. Now I am not so sure. And I am simply confounded by any decision to upset the work force at Frontier.
The way this seems to be playing out is that under Republic, both the Frontier and Midwest names will disappear. So why then buy Frontier, an acquisition clever because Republic was buying a great brand. The deal in fact gave Republic an actual airline – something Republic is not. The purchase also bought Republic a management team that knew how to run an airline and an IT infrastructure that made the deal really interesting. But now it seems that Republic’s management team thinks you can feed a cookie (Midwest) to Grizwald or Montana (Frontier) and out comes Herman the Duck (Republic). Remember that brand?
The National Mediation Board
This is a week to pay attention to the National Mediation Board. Jennifer Michaels at Aviation Week reports that the Board’s “cram down” representation rule change will be published in the Federal Register on Friday. I believe that there will have to be some comment time or at least that is the way things used to work in Washington prior to this administration. Unfortunately this issue is playing out the way the health care debate is playing out – along party lines.
The other story playing at the NMB this week involves American Airlines’ which is again in “lock down” negotiations with its flight attendant union, APFA. The APFA already has threatened to request a release from the NMB if the two sides fail to reach a deal by the end of this round of talks. Whether the NMB will do so is questionable given what I see as the administration’s reluctance to risk a strike in the midst of a fragile recovery. Moreover, we typically do not see releases during the busy travel season – particularly when economic recovery is at stake. And rarely do we see releases when, by all reports, the parties are still pretty far apart based on what the union is demanding and the company believes it can afford.
The APFA, in all that I have read, does not seem willing to embrace any productivity in return for increased income for its members. American has been transparent in communicating its proposals, including on a public website. So what might the NMB do with the parties if a deal is not reached? Grant the APFA a release? No. Grant the APFA its release with the full intention of creating a Presidential Emergency Board? Maybe. Put the negotiations on ice? Maybe. Set new dates for the parties to resume negotiations? I think not.
Will the Board be proactive in trying to close a deal? That is the question. It is what watchers of this incredibly difficult round are trying to discern. How will this NMB deal? So far, with only a few airline labor negotiations cases closed, the NMB has not yet been pushed to the brink. But there are still 82 open cases. The AA – flight attendant deal might be the first big test.
Europe and Strikes
Speaking of the APFA and its loose-lipped talk of strikes, last week was most interesting in Europe. The Lufthansa pilots. The BA flight attendants. The French air traffic controllers. And of course, all things Greece
Europe is undergoing today what the US airline industry has been experiencing for the past 20+ years: the need to continually transform business models with relatively high cost structures in the face of declining revenues. Unbridled competition in the US domestic market was its catalyst to reduce costs, particularly labor costs. The decline in premium class revenue and the blurring of borders that used to protect individual flag carriers will serve as the catalyst for the European carriers to also reduce their labor costs.
The labor instability in the European airline industry demonstrates an expected collision of socialist policies promoting entitlement with an industry forced to adapt to market forces. I expect that there will be more weeks like this one as the European unions come to grips with market realities that could make any number of flag carriers irrelevant in tomorrow’s global airline industry. Unless, that is, those unions instead choose to adapt to the industry’s evolution . . . a story that has played out in the US in the names of Pan Am, TWA and Eastern Airlines to name a few.
It’s not just Europe. Look at what is happening in Japan where JAL, another legacy carrier with outsized costs relative to revenue, is in bankruptcy. Following 9/11, more than half of the US airline industry was in bankruptcy at one time. European airlines – and their respective unions - are not immune to the same market forces. And there are certainly lessons that can be learned from the US experience.