http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060307/20060307005319.html?.v=1

WestJet's load factor for February 2006 was 80.8% compared with 72.9% in February 2005, featuring a 7.9% percentage-point increase. During the first two months of 2006, the company's load factor increased 6.8 percentage points to 78.0% compared with 71.2% during the same period in 2005.

That's pretty impressive. And there haven't been as many bargain basement sales either.

Don't these figures include charter activities which may not have been operating last year at this time. So it's hard to really compare sked numbers year after year, or load factors with those for other airlines purely sked services. Since charter numbers are booked at 100% LF, this can have a considerable skewing influence on the overall numbers, and overstate what LFs actually are on sked services. Or am I incorrect in suggesting charter numbers are included with sked service numbers?

Don't these figures include charter activities which may not have been operating last year at this time. So it's hard to really compare sked numbers year after year, or load factors with those for other airlines purely sked services. Since charter numbers are booked at 100% LF, this can have a considerable skewing influence on the overall numbers, and overstate what LFs actually are on sked services. Or am I incorrect in suggesting charter numbers are included with sked service numbers?

It doesn't really matter what's included and what isn't included.

Load factor really means Richard, if you get my drift.

Flying full 767's from YVR-HNL for $254 walkup isn't going help the bottom line with 17 cent + casm, but it'll keep load factors up.

At the end of the day, the casm and rasm boils down to a system average break-even load factor. WJA's is about 72% these days, ACE's is about 79% these days.

At 78.2% for the system in Feb, ACE is losing money operating the airline, and 80.8%, WJ is printing cash. In fact, WJ's Feb margins will likely be higher than ACE's margin during the 3rd quarter of 2005.

Everyone knows it doesn't get any better than the 3rd quarter, similarly, if you can print money in Feb, what happens in July when demand is just that much stronger?

That is the only information an investor really needs to know. ;)

Don't these figures include charter activities which may not have been operating last year at this time. So it's hard to really compare sked numbers year after year, or load factors with those for other airlines purely sked services. Since charter numbers are booked at 100% LF, this can have a considerable skewing influence on the overall numbers, and overstate what LFs actually are on sked services. Or am I incorrect in suggesting charter numbers are included with sked service numbers?

My reading of the quarterly financials indicates that charter numbers are rolled into all the operating revenue/cost/seat/mile calc's. Only proper accounting, I suppose, because those charter seats are all paid for whether the charterer fills them with real people or not. Charter accounted for about 14% of Westjet revenues last year. Makes comparison of sked a bit indirect though.

It doesn't really matter what's included and what isn't included.

...

That is the only information an investor really needs to know. ;)

Well, it may matter. If every airline included their charter flights as 100% load factor (regardless of actual loads), then everyone is on the same comparison level and that's fine (ie. it doesn't matter).

If not, then it does matter as you're not comparing oranges with oranges.

If not, then it does matter as you're not comparing oranges with oranges.

How dare you challenge the asm, casm and PMS champ with facts :D

Wasn't WS also flying charters last winter as well? Which would make the year to year comparison reasonable? (Unless the number of charters has increased significantly.)

I think they increased their Air Transat charters significantly this year.

if you can print money in Feb, what happens in July

"Hmm, this money doesn't seem to buy much. Let's print more and hand it out to the people so that they have more money to spend."

Or is it counterfeiting that's being suggested?

FewMiles..

Wasn't WS also flying charters last winter as well? Which would make the year to year comparison reasonable? (Unless the number of charters has increased significantly.)
Maybe.

But the point is that you can't compare two airlines' load factors if they aren't calculated in the same way.

[QUOTE]It doesn't really matter what's included and what isn't included.

Load factor really means Richard, if you get my drift.

Flying full 767's from YVR-HNL for $254 walkup isn't going help the bottom line with 17 cent + casm, but it'll keep load factors up.

Possibly not if we totally believe you............BUT you also refuse to understand that ACE has a different business model than the one trick pony. They have different business not totally dependent on AC and have diffferent parts of that model not yet launched. The corporation will make money and eventually when their fleet is rejuvenated, as Clive as claimed for Wetjet, they will make money from operating efficiencies.


At the end of the day, the casm and rasm boils down to a system average break-even load factor. WJA's is about 72% these days, ACE's is about 79% these days.

What if one combined the P&L of the ACE subs to the break even load factor revenue wise. Wouldn't their per seat revenue go up? After all almost all their business, right now in any event, is made form servicing AC.


At 78.2% for the system in Feb, ACE is losing money operating the airline, and 80.8%, WJ is printing cash. In fact, WJ's Feb margins will likely be higher than ACE's margin during the 3rd quarter of 2005.

Overall Wetjet made no more money than ACE per revenue dollar last year. When will you ever understand that the business models are different now. Your methods are way behind the times and you haven't figured it out yet.


Everyone knows it doesn't get any better than the 3rd quarter, similarly, if you can print money in Feb, what happens in July when demand is just that much stronger?

Keep showing us snapshots with the ugly parts cut off :rolleyes:


That is the only information an investor really needs to know. ;)

Now you're a stock analyst to boot. wow.

Here's the Westjet charter revenue as a % of overall revenue for 2003, 4, 5 years:

2003: 7.5%
2004: 11.3%
2005: 13.0%

And for the quarter comparisons:

4th qtr 2004: 11.8%
4th qtr 2005: 10.3%

The rest of overall revenue is almost all "guest services" other than a small interest income, so these reflect quite accurately on %charter vs % scheduled.

So, I think it is safe to say that the difference in charters as a % between 2004/2005 on a yearly basis and for the 4th qtrs of each year would have a minimal skew on the yield calculation for comparitive purposes.

Comparing airlines in Canada is a bit of a problem because I believe Westjet, ACE and Transat are the only significant publicly traded airlines. And each of them have very different business models. AC doesn't fly much in the way of real charters (AC Vacations just buys seats on regularly scheduled flights, right?, then there is Jetz, which isn't a vacation charter). Transat is all charters but breaks out their business in a totally different way based upon sales through their subsidiary and affiliated travel companies, even thought they count "travellers" they aren't necessarily all on Air Transat planes.

Canjet and HMY are privately held (Skyservice too?), so only insiders have the facts on them. And the rest are relatively small players, so no matter what, I don't think an apples-to-apples comparison is truly possible. Only a review of the individual Westjet and ACE financials for internal comparison serves to show whether their respective business are growing, stagnant or shrinking.

But the point is that you can't compare two airlines' load factors if they aren't calculated in the same way.

Air Canada buys seats on Jazz, Transat buys seats on Westjet.

Sounds pretty similar to me.

Air Canada buys seats on Jazz, Transat buys seats on Westjet.

Sounds pretty similar to me.

Sounds similar, but it isn't. The accounting treatment is very different.

This may change for future reporting now that Jazz will have to report separately as an Income Trust, but up to the end of 2005 the intercompany transactions between AC and Jazz are washed-out of the consolidated ACE statements so revenues per seat, yield, etc, calculations should reflect actual butts in the chair (other than I don't know how they account for actual charter flights). I suspect Jetz and other true charters by AC are accounted for in the same way as Westjet, but I can't prove it, and they aren't broken out.

Westjet shows their Regular (guest) revenue and charter revenue separately but only has 1 consolidated set of RPM, etc calculations. Which, when you multiply things out, show that they are based upon the combined scheduled/charter revenue. Nothing wrong with that, reflects the reality of their respective businesses.