UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20549
FORM 10-K
T | ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012
OR
£ | TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to
Commission File Number 1-8957
ALASKA AIR GROUP, INC.
Delaware | 91-1292054 | |
(State of Incorporation) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) | |
19300 International Boulevard, Seattle, Washington 98188 |
Telephone: (206) 392-5040 |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock, $1.00 Par Value | New York Stock Exchange |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes T No £
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes £ No T
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes T No £
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes T No £
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. £
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer”, "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act:
Large accelerated filer T Accelerated filer £ Non-accelerated filer £ Smaller reporting company £
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.): Yes £ No T
As of January 31, 2013, shares of common stock outstanding totaled 70,341,799. The aggregate market value of the shares of common stock of Alaska Air Group, Inc. held by nonaffiliates on June 30, 2012, was approximately $2.5 billion (based on the closing price of $35.90 per share on the New York Stock Exchange on that date).
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of Definitive Proxy Statement relating to 2013 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III.
ALASKA AIR GROUP, INC.
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
As used in this Form 10-K, the terms “Air Group,” the "Company," “our,” “we” and "us," refer to Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries, unless the context indicates otherwise. Alaska Airlines, Inc. and Horizon Air Industries, Inc. are referred to as “Alaska” and “Horizon,” respectively, and together as our “airlines.”
2
CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
In addition to historical information, this Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are those that predict or describe future events or trends and that do not relate solely to historical matters. You can generally identify forward-looking statements as statements containing the words “believe,” “expect,” “will,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “estimate,” “project,” “assume” or other similar expressions, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from historical experience or the Company’s present expectations.
You should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements because the matters they describe are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other unpredictable factors, many of which are beyond our control.
Our forward-looking statements are based on the information currently available to us and speak only as of the date on which this report was filed with the SEC. We expressly disclaim any obligation to issue any updates or revisions to our forward-looking statements, even if subsequent events cause our expectations to change regarding the matters discussed in those statements. Over time, our actual results, performance or achievements will likely differ from the anticipated results, performance or achievements that are expressed or implied by our forward-looking statements, and such differences might be significant and materially adverse to our shareholders. For a discussion of these and other risk factors in this Form 10-K, see “Item 1A: Risk Factors.” Please consider our forward-looking statements in light of those risks as you read this report.
3
PART I
ITEM 1. OUR BUSINESS |
Alaska Air Group operates Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air, which together with its partner regional airlines, serve 95 cities through an expansive network in Alaska, the Lower 48, Hawaii, Canada and Mexico. During 2012, we carried 26 million passengers while earning record full-year adjusted earnings of $339 million.
Our objective is to be one of the most respected domestic airlines by our customers, employees, and shareholders. We believe our success depends on our ability to provide safe air transportation, develop relationships with customers by providing exceptional customer service, and maintain a competitive cost structure to increase our profitability, provide low fares and grow our network. Over the past decade, we have worked to transform our company to achieve these objectives. In 2012, Alaska Airlines ranked “Highest in Customer Satisfaction among Traditional Network Carriers” by J.D. Power and Associates for the fifth year in a row. For the ninth consecutive year, we have reported an adjusted annual profit, allowing us to strengthen our balance sheet and achieve an after-tax return on invested capital of 13% in 2012, surpassing our 10% goal for the third year in a row. In addition, over the past decade, we have diversified our network to better respond to the seasonality in our business and provide more destinations for our customers. As we look to the future, we will build on the success of the past few years by executing our strategic plan — the Five Focus Areas:
Safety and Compliance
We have an unwavering commitment to run a safe and compliant operation, and we will not compromise this commitment in the pursuit of other initiatives. Alaska and Horizon, in coordination with the FAA, began implementing a Safety Management System to better identify and manage risk. Both airlines achieved Level One certification in 2012 and plan to achieve Level Two certification in 2013.
People Focus
While aircraft and technology enable us to provide air transportation, we recognize this is fundamentally a people business and our success depends on our employees. Strengthening our "small company feel" will allow our employees to execute as a united team on the frontlines and behind the scenes. All Air Group employees have attended or will soon attend our Flight Path program, a one-day workshop to share the future vision for our company. In addition, all employees participate in the Performance-Based Pay (PBP) and Operational Performance Rewards (OPR) programs, which encourage employees to work together to achieve metrics related to safety, profitability, low costs and customer satisfaction. Over the last four years, our incentive programs have paid out over $325 million.
Hassle-Free Customer Experience
We want to be the easiest airline to fly, which we will do by improving each step of the customer's journey from booking a ticket to our in-flight experience. During 2012, we launched a new mobile website, m.alaskaair.com, which provides customers quick and easy access to important travel information from any handheld mobile device or tablet, including the ability to purchase tickets, track flight details, check-in, get mobile boarding passes, and view optional upgrades. After the successful launch of booking on our mobile website, we upgraded our Android app in December 2012 and iPhone app in January 2013 to allow our customers to book tickets using our apps. We introduced self-bag tagging to four locations in 2012, which allows customers to print and attach their own luggage tags from a self-service kiosk in the airport lobby or, as part of a pilot program, at home during web check-in. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) launched their Pre-Check Program in 17 of our locations, which allows eligible customers to opt-in for reduced screening requirements. As passengers take more control of their travel experience, we are able to reduce the time it takes a customer to move from the airport curb to the aircraft.
We have also made improvements to our airport gate areas. At Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Alaska moved to a newly renovated Terminal 6, which includes our Airport of the Future design, new common use systems, additional gates, and convenient connections with international flights. At Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac), the Port of Seattle Commission gave final design authorization to renovate the North Satellite to better serve passengers and consolidate our operations. The project will include modernizing facilities, enhanced traveler amenities, adding three gates, and building a new roof-top Boardroom. We also enhanced the customer experience by adding more power outlets to gate areas at six airport locations. We expect construction on this project to commence in late 2013.
We continued to improve our in-flight experience by taking delivery of our first B737 aircraft with the Boeing Sky Interior. The interior includes variable ambient cabin lighting, larger window recesses, and overhead bins which provide more headroom, all designed to offer a greater sense of space. All future B737 aircraft deliveries will include the Boeing Sky Interior.
4
Energetic and Compelling Brand
We are fortunate to have high brand awareness and customer loyalty in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. For us to keep growing in new markets like California, Hawaii and cities in the mid-continental and eastern U.S., we believe we must better understand what is important to our new customers, and position our brand appropriately to help differentiate us from the competition. We use our brand and technology to develop more direct relationships with our customers through more personalized marketing. Our website, alaskaair.com, is tailored to each customer based on their location and viewing history. In 2012, approximately 54% of our ticket sales were made through alaskaair.com and our goal is 60% in 2013. Similarly, our email marketing is highly targeted and personalized by allowing customers to choose which types of messages they want to receive, such as fare sale, new markets, offers from partner airlines and monthly Mileage Plan activity. As a result, we increase ticket sales and reduce our ticket distribution costs by providing the right marketing messages to the right people at the right time.
We use social platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, to give customers a new way to connect with our brand and provide exceptional customer service throughout their journey. In 2012, our Facebook fans grew by 47% and our Twitter followers increased 38%. And as we expand our network, we are dedicated to becoming part of the communities we serve. In 2012, employees participated in over 235 community events, including the "Spirit of the Islands" paint-the-plane contest with the winning artwork adorning one of our B737-800 aircraft. We also sponsor a number of local teams in the cities we serve, such as the Seattle Mariners and Portland Timbers.
Low Fares, Low Costs and Network Growth
In order to profitably provide low fares to our customers while returning value to our shareholders, we believe we must maintain a competitive cost structure. In 2012, we lowered our unit costs, excluding fuel, by 0.8% on a consolidated basis, representing the 10th such annual reduction out of the past 11 years. We achieved this through a continued focus on productivity. In 2012, we increased employee productivity by 3.5% and will continue to focus on that metric through several tools as we leverage growth. We also continue to reduce fuel costs by flying fuel-efficient aircraft, which have reduced our fuel burn as measured by available seat miles flown per gallon by 13.4% over the last five years, and by decreasing our exposure to the volatility of jet fuel prices through our fuel hedge program. Looking forward, we have committed to purchasing 34 737-900ER and 37 737 MAX aircraft, with deliveries in 2013 to 2022, to position us for growth and ensure we will continue to operate the quietest and most fuel-efficient aircraft available for the foreseeable future.
In 2012, we added 21 new markets to our network and exited six as we continued to better match supply with demand. We diversified our network further to offer more utility to our customers by adding flights to Hawaii and expanding to cities in the mid-continental and eastern U.S., such as Kansas City, San Antonio, and Philadelphia. We will also add new routes from Seattle to Salt Lake City and San Diego to Boston and Lihue in 2013.
AIR GROUP
Alaska Air Group is a Delaware corporation incorporated in 1985 and the holding company of Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air. Although Alaska and Horizon both operate as airlines, their business plans, competition, and economic risks differ substantially. Alaska Airlines is an Alaska corporation that was organized in 1932 and incorporated in 1937. Horizon Air Industries is a Washington corporation that first began service and was incorporated in 1981. Horizon was acquired by Air Group in 1986. Alaska operates a fleet of passenger jets (mainline) and contracts with Horizon, SkyWest Airlines, Inc. (SkyWest) and Peninsula Airways, Inc. (PenAir) for regional capacity under which Alaska receives all passenger revenue from those flights. Horizon operates a fleet of turboprop aircraft and sells all of its capacity to Alaska pursuant to a capacity purchase arrangement.
We attempt to deploy aircraft into the network in a way that best optimizes our revenues and profitability, reduces our seasonality, and takes advantage of demand in areas where other carriers have either exited or don't have the ability to serve.
5
The percentage of our capacity by market is as follows:
2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | ||||||||||
West Coast | 35 | % | 37 | % | 41 | % | 45 | % | 48 | % | ||||
Alaska | 17 | % | 18 | % | 19 | % | 20 | % | 20 | % | ||||
Transcon/midcon | 19 | % | 19 | % | 19 | % | 17 | % | 18 | % | ||||
Hawaii | 20 | % | 16 | % | 11 | % | 7 | % | 4 | % | ||||
Mexico | 7 | % | 9 | % | 8 | % | 8 | % | 7 | % | ||||
Canada | 2 | % | 1 | % | 2 | % | 3 | % | 3 | % | ||||
Total | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % | ||||
MAINLINE
We offer extensive north/south service within the western U.S., Canada and Mexico, and passenger and dedicated cargo services to and within the state of Alaska. We also provide long-haul east/west service to Hawaii and 17 cities in the mid-continental and eastern U.S., primarily from Seattle, where we have our largest concentration of departures; although we do offer long-haul departures from other cities as well.
In 2012, we carried 19 million revenue passengers in our mainline operations, and we carry more passengers between Alaska and the U.S. mainland than any other airline. Based on the number of passengers carried in 2012, Alaska’s leading airports are Seattle, Los Angeles, Anchorage and Portland. Based on 2012 revenues, the leading nonstop routes are Seattle-Anchorage, Seattle-Los Angeles, Seattle-Las Vegas, and Seattle-San Diego. At December 31, 2012, Alaska’s operating fleet consisted of 124 Boeing 737 jet aircraft, compared to 117 aircraft as of December 31, 2011.
The percentage of mainline passenger traffic by market and average stage length is presented below:
2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | ||||||||||
West Coast | 29 | % | 31 | % | 33 | % | 36 | % | 40 | % | ||||
Within Alaska and between Alaska and the U.S. mainland | 16 | % | 17 | % | 19 | % | 21 | % | 21 | % | ||||
Transcon/midcon | 22 | % | 22 | % | 24 | % | 23 | % | 22 | % | ||||
Hawaii | 23 | % | 19 | % | 14 | % | 9 | % | 5 | % | ||||
Mexico | 8 | % | 9 | % | 8 | % | 9 | % | 9 | % | ||||
Canada | 2 | % | 2 | % | 2 | % | 2 | % | 3 | % | ||||
Total | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % | ||||
Average Stage Length | 1,161 | 1,114 | 1,085 | 1,034 | 979 | |||||||||
REGIONAL
Our regional operations consists of flights operated by Horizon, SkyWest and Penair. In 2012, our regional operations carried approximately 7 million revenue passengers, primarily in the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California. Horizon is the largest regional airline in the Pacific Northwest and represented over 90% of Air Group's regional revenue passengers during 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively.
Based on 2012 passenger enplanements on regional aircraft, our leading airports are Seattle and Portland. Based on revenues in 2012, our leading nonstop routes are Seattle-Portland, Seattle-Spokane, and Seattle-Boise. At December 31, 2012, Horizon’s operating fleet consisted of 48 Bombardier Q400 turboprop aircraft. Horizon flights are listed under Alaska's designator code in airline reservation systems, and in all customer-facing locations.
6
The percentage of regional passenger traffic by market and average stage length is presented below:
2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | ||||||||||
West Coast | 69 | % | 67 | % | 70 | % | 70 | % | 72 | % | ||||
Pacific Northwest | 20 | % | 21 | % | 19 | % | 20 | % | 18 | % | ||||
Canada | 8 | % | 8 | % | 8 | % | 7 | % | 8 | % | ||||
Within Alaska | 2 | % | 2 | % | 2 | % | 2 | % | 2 | % | ||||
Mexico | 1 | % | 2 | % | 1 | % | 1 | % | — | % | ||||
Total | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % | ||||
Average Stage Length | 294 | 309 | 333 | 327 | 322 | |||||||||
INDUSTRY CONDITIONS, COMPETITION, AND ALLIANCES
GENERAL
The airline industry is highly competitive, subject to various uncertainties, and has historically been characterized by low profit margins. Uncertainties include general economic conditions, volatile fuel prices, industry instability, new competition, a largely unionized work force, the need to finance large capital expenditures and the related availability of capital, government regulation, and potential aircraft incidents. Airlines have high fixed costs, primarily for wages, aircraft fuel, aircraft ownership, and facilities rents. Because expenses of a flight do not vary significantly based on the number of passengers carried, a relatively small change in the number of passengers or in pricing has a disproportionate effect on an airline’s operating and financial results. In other words, a minor shortfall in expected revenue levels could cause a disproportionately negative impact on our operating and financial results. Passenger demand and ticket prices are, to a large measure, influenced by the general state of the economy, current global economic and political events, and total available airline seat capacity.
In 2012, the industry continued to exercise capacity discipline due to economic uncertainty and volatile fuel prices. This allowed the industry to report stronger adjusted pretax profit margins compared to 2011.
FUEL
Our business and financial results are highly affected by the price and, potentially, the availability of aircraft fuel. The cost of aircraft fuel is volatile and outside of our control, and it can have a significant and immediate impact on our operating results. Over the past five years, aircraft fuel expense ranged from 21% to 36% of operating expenses. Fuel prices are impacted by changes in both the price of crude oil and refining margins, and can vary by region in the U.S.
The price of crude oil spiked in 2008 with a high of nearly $150 per barrel in July 2008 and dropped significantly to an average of $62 per barrel in 2009. We saw upward pressure on fuel prices again with an average crude oil price of just over $80 per barrel in 2010, $95 per barrel in 2011 and $94 per barrel in 2012. For us, a $1 per barrel increase in the price of oil equates to approximately $10 million of additional fuel cost annually. Said another way, a one-cent change in our fuel price per gallon will impact our expected annual fuel cost by approximately $4 million per year.
Refining margins, which represent the price of refining crude oil into aircraft fuel, are a smaller portion of the overall price of jet fuel, but also contributed to the overall price volatility in recent years. Refining margin prices reached a high of $45 per barrel in May 2008, before they dropped to an average price of $10 per barrel in 2009 and $14 a barrel in 2010. Refining margin prices more than doubled to $33 a barrel in 2011 and increased again to $36 a barrel in 2012.
Generally, West Coast aircraft fuel prices are somewhat higher and more volatile than prices in the Gulf Coast or on the East Coast, putting our mainline operation at a slight competitive disadvantage. Our average raw fuel cost per gallon increased 2% in 2012, 36% in 2011, and 27% in 2010.
7
The percentage of our aircraft fuel expense by crude and refining margins, as well as the percentage of our aircraft fuel expense of operating expenses:
2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | ||||||||||
Crude oil | 65 | % | 70 | % | 79 | % | 82 | % | 68 | % | ||||
Refining margins | 25 | % | 24 | % | 14 | % | 13 | % | 16 | % | ||||
Other(a) | 10 | % | 6 | % | 7 | % | 5 | % | 16 | % | ||||
Total | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % | ||||
Aircraft fuel expense | 35 | % | 34 | % | 27 | % | 21 | % | 36 | % | ||||
(a) | Other includes gains and losses on settled fuel hedges, unrealized mark-to-market fuel hedge gains or losses, taxes and other into-plane costs. |
We use crude oil call options and jet fuel refining margin swap contracts as hedges to decrease our exposure to the volatility of jet fuel prices. Both call options and swaps effectively cap our pricing for the crude oil and refining margin components, limiting our exposure to increasing fuel prices for about half of our planned fuel consumption. With the call option contracts, we still benefit from the decline in crude oil prices, as there is no future cash exposure above the premiums we pay to enter into the contracts. The swap contracts do not require an upfront premium, but do expose us to future cash outlays in the event actual prices are below the swap price during the hedge period.
We believe that operating fuel-efficient aircraft is the best hedge against high fuel prices. Alaska operates an all-Boeing 737 fleet and Horizon operates an all-Q400 turboprop fleet. Alaska’s fuel burn expressed in available seat miles flown per gallon (ASMs/g) improved from 72.6 ASMs/g in 2008 to 76.6 ASMs/g in 2012. These reductions have not only reduced our fuel cost, but also the amount of greenhouse gases and other pollutants that our operations emit.
COMPETITION
Competition in the airline industry is intense. We believe the principal competitive factors in the industry that are important to customers are:
• | safety record and reputation, |
• | fares, |
• | non-ticket fees, |
• | flight schedules, |
• | customer service, |
• | routes served, |
• | frequent flier programs, |
• | on-time arrivals, |
• | baggage handling, |
• | on-board amenities, |
• | type of aircraft, and |
• | codesharing relationships. |
We compete with one or more domestic or foreign airlines on most of our routes, including both major legacy carriers and low-cost carriers. Due to its short-haul markets, our regional operations occasionally compete with ground transportation in many markets. Both carriers, to some extent, also compete with technology such as video conferencing and internet-based meeting tools that have changed the need for, or frequency of face-to-face business meetings.
8
ALLIANCES WITH OTHER AIRLINES
We have marketing alliances with a number of airlines that provide reciprocal frequent flyer mileage credit and redemption privileges as well as codesharing on certain flights as shown in the table below. Alliances are an important part of our strategy and enhance our revenues by:
• | offering our customers more travel destinations and better mileage credit/redemption opportunities; |
• | giving our Mileage Plan program a competitive advantage because of our partnership with carriers from two of the three major global alliances (Oneworld and Skyteam); |
• | giving us access to more connecting traffic from other airlines; and |
• | providing members of our alliance partners’ frequent flyer programs an opportunity to travel on Alaska and its regional affiliates while earning mileage credit in our partners’ programs. |
Most of our codeshare relationships are free-sell codeshares, where the marketing carrier sells seats on the operating carrier’s flights from the operating carrier’s inventory, but takes no inventory risk. Our marketing agreements have various termination dates, and at any time, one or more may be in the process of renegotiation. American Airlines and Delta Air Lines are our primary codeshare partners. They participate in two of the three major global alliances.
Our marketing alliances with other airlines are as follows:
Frequent Flyer Agreement | Codeshare — Alaska Flight # on Flights Operated by Other Airline | Codeshare — Other Airline Flight # on Flights Operated by Alaska / Horizon / SkyWest | |||
Major U.S. or International Airlines | |||||
Aeromexico(a) | Yes | No | Yes | ||
American Airlines/American Eagle | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
Air France | Yes | No | Yes | ||
British Airways | Yes | No | No | ||
Cathay Pacific Airways | Yes | No | Yes | ||
Delta Air Lines(b) | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
Emirates | Yes | No | No | ||
Icelandair | Yes | No | Yes | ||
KLM | Yes | No | Yes | ||
Korean Air | Yes | No | Yes | ||
Lan S.A. | Yes | No | Yes | ||
Air Pacific(c) | Yes | No | Yes | ||
Qantas | Yes | No | Yes | ||
Regional Airlines | |||||
SkyWest(c) | Yes | Yes | No | ||
Era Alaska | Yes | Yes | No | ||
PenAir(c) | Yes | Yes | No | ||
Kenmore Air(c) | Yes | No | No | ||
(a) | Alaska and Aeromexico launched a new codeshare partnership in December 2012, and plan to commence a reciprocal frequent flyer partnership by March 31, 2013. |
(b) | Alaska has codeshare agreements with the Delta Connection carriers SkyWest, ExpressJet, Pinnacle, and Compass as part of its agreement with Delta. |
(c) | These airlines do not have their own frequent flyer program. However, Alaska’s Mileage Plan members can earn and redeem miles on these airlines’ route systems. |
9
TICKET DISTRIBUTION
Airline tickets are distributed through three primary channels:
• | Alaskaair.com: It is less expensive for us to sell through this direct channel and, as a result, we continue to take steps to drive more business to our website. In addition, we believe this channel is preferable from a branding and customer-relationship standpoint in that we can establish ongoing communication with the customer and tailor offers accordingly. |
• | Traditional and online travel agencies: Both traditional and online travel agencies typically use Global Distribution Systems (GDS), such as Sabre, to obtain their fare and inventory data from airlines. Bookings made through these agencies result in a fee that is charged to the airline. Many of our large corporate customers require us to use these agencies. Some of our competitors do not use this distribution channel and, as a result, have lower ticket distribution costs. |
• | Reservation call centers: These call centers are located in Phoenix, AZ, Kent, WA, and Boise, ID. We generally charge a $15 fee for booking reservations through these call centers. |
Our sales by channel are as follows:
2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | ||||||||||
Alaskaair.com | 54 | % | 51 | % | 48 | % | 45 | % | 48 | % | ||||
Traditional agencies | 27 | % | 28 | % | 28 | % | 32 | % | 28 | % | ||||
Online travel agencies | 13 | % | 13 | % | 15 | % | 11 | % | 14 | % | ||||
Reservation call centers | 6 | % | 8 | % | 9 | % | 12 | % | 10 | % | ||||
Total | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % | ||||
SEASONALITY AND OTHER FACTORS
Our results of operations for any interim period are not necessarily indicative of those for the entire year because our business is subject to seasonal fluctuations. Our profitability is generally lowest during the first and fourth quarters due principally to lower traffic. Profitability typically increases in the second quarter and then reaches its highest level during the third quarter as a result of vacation travel, including increased activity in the state of Alaska. However, we have taken steps over the past few years to better respond to the seasonality of our operations by adding flights to leisure destinations, like Hawaii, and expanding to cities in the mid-continental and eastern U.S.
In addition to passenger loads, factors that could cause our quarterly operating results to vary include:
• | general economic conditions and resulting changes in passenger demand, |
• pricing initiatives by us or our competitors,
• | changes in fuel costs, |
• | the timing and amount of maintenance expenditures (both planned and unplanned), |
• | increases or decreases in passenger and volume-driven variable costs, and |
• | labor actions. |
Many of the markets we serve experience inclement weather conditions in the winter, causing increased costs associated with deicing aircraft, canceling flights, and reaccommodate displaced passengers. Due to our geographic area of operations, we can be more susceptible to adverse weather conditions, particularly in the state of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, than some of our competitors, who may be better able to spread weather-related risks over larger route systems.
No material part of our business or that of our subsidiaries is dependent upon a single customer, or upon a few high-volume customers.
10
11
EMPLOYEES
Our business is labor intensive. As of December 31, 2012, we employed 12,932 (9,954 at Alaska and 2,978 at Horizon) active full-time and part-time employees. Wages and benefits, including variable incentive pay, represented approximately 42% and 41% of our total non-fuel operating expenses in 2012 and 2011, respectively.
Most major airlines, including ours, have employee groups that are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Airlines with unionized work forces have higher labor costs than carriers without unionized work forces, and they may not have the ability to adjust labor costs downward quickly enough to respond to new competition. New entrants into the U.S. airline industry generally do not have unionized work forces, and often have lower costs and more liberal work rules. At December 31, 2012, labor unions represented 83% of Alaska’s and 49% of Horizon’s employees. Our relations with our U.S. labor organizations are governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Under this act, collective bargaining agreements do not expire but instead become amendable as of a stated date. If either party wishes to modify the terms of any such agreement, it must notify the other party in the manner prescribed by the RLA and/or described in the agreement. After receipt of such notice, the parties must meet for direct negotiations, and if no agreement is reached, either party may request the National Mediation Board (NMB) to initiate a process including mediation, arbitration, and a potential “cooling off” period that must be followed before either party may engage in self-help.
Alaska’s union contracts at December 31, 2012 were as follows:
Union | Employee Group | Number of Active Employees | Contract Status | ||||
Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA) | Pilots | 1,452 | Amendable 4/1/2013 | ||||
Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) | Flight attendants | 2,987 | In Negotiations | ||||
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) | Ramp service and stock clerks | 573 | Amendable 7/19/2018 | ||||
IAM | Clerical, office and passenger service | 2,496 | Amendable 1/1/2014 | ||||
Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) | Mechanics, inspectors and cleaners | 624 | Amendable 10/17/2016 | ||||
Mexico Workers Association of Air Transport | Mexico airport personnel | 83 | Amendable 9/1/2013 | ||||
Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) | Dispatchers | 39 | Amendable 3/24/2015 | ||||
Horizon’s union contracts at December 31, 2012 were as follows:
Union | Employee Group | Number of Active Employees | Contract Status | ||||
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) | Pilots | 550 | Amendable 12/11/2018 | ||||
AFA | Flight attendants | 505 | In Negotiations | ||||
IBT | Mechanics and related classifications | 298 | Amendable 12/16/2014 | ||||
TWU | Dispatchers | 18 | Amendable 8/26/2014 | ||||
National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers | Station personnel in Vancouver and Victoria, BC, Canada | 46 | Amendable 2/14/2016 | ||||
IAM | Maintenance Stores | 34 | In Negotiations | ||||
12
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
The executive officers of Alaska Air Group, Inc. and executive officers of Alaska and Horizon who have significant decision-making responsibilities, their positions and their respective ages are as follows:
Name | Position | Age | Air Group or Subsidiary Officer Since | |||
Bradley Tilden | President and Chief Executive Officer of Alaska Air Group, Inc. and Alaska Airlines, Inc. and Chief Executive Officer of Horizon Air Industries, Inc. | 52 | 1994 | |||
Glenn Johnson | Executive Vice President of Alaska Air Group, Inc. and President of Horizon Air Industries, Inc. | 54 | 1991 | |||
Keith Loveless | Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Alaska Air Group, Inc. and Alaska Airlines, Inc. | 56 | 1996 | |||
Benito Minicucci | Executive Vice President/Operations and Chief Operating Officer of Alaska Airlines, Inc. | 46 | 2004 | |||
Brandon Pedersen | Vice President/Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Alaska Air Group, Inc. and Alaska Airlines, Inc. | 46 | 2003 | |||
Mr. Tilden joined Alaska Airlines in 1991, became Controller of Alaska Air Group and Alaska Airlines in 1994, Chief Financial Officer in February 2000, Executive Vice President/Finance and Chief Financial Officer in January 2002, Executive Vice President/Finance and Planning in 2007, and President of Alaska Airlines in December 2008. He is a member of Air Group’s Management Executive Committee and was elected to the Air Group Board in 2010. He was elected Chief Executive Officer of Alaska Air Group, Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air Industries in May 2012.
Mr. Johnson joined Alaska Airlines in 1982, became Vice President/Controller and Treasurer of Horizon Air Industries in 1991 and Vice President/Customer Services in 2002. He returned to Alaska Airlines in 2003 where he has served in several roles, including Vice President/Finance and Controller and Vice President/Finance and Treasurer. He served as Senior Vice President/Customer Service – Airports from January 2006 through April 2007 and in April 2007, he was elected Executive Vice President/Airports and Maintenance and Engineering. He was elected Executive Vice President/Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Alaska Air Group and Alaska Airlines in December 2008. He was elected President of Horizon Air Industries in June 2010. He was elected Executive Vice President Alaska Air Group in November 2012. He is a member of Air Group’s Management Executive Committee.
Mr. Loveless became Corporate Secretary and Assistant General Counsel of Alaska Air Group and Alaska Airlines in 1996. In 1999, he was named Vice President/Legal and Corporate Affairs, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Alaska Air Group and Alaska Airlines. He was elected Executive Vice President Alaska Air Group in November 2012. He is a member of Air Group’s Management Executive Committee.
Mr. Minicucci joined Alaska Airlines in 2004 as Staff Vice President of Maintenance and Engineering and was promoted to Vice President of Seattle Operations in June 2008. He was elected Executive Vice President/Operations and Chief Operating Officer of Alaska Airlines in December 2008. He is a member of Air Group’s Management Executive Committee.
Mr. Pedersen joined Alaska Airlines in 2003 as Staff Vice President/Finance and Controller of Alaska Air Group and Alaska Airlines and was elected Vice President/Finance and Controller for both entities in 2006. He was elected Vice President/Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Alaska Air Group and Alaska Airlines in June 2010. He is a member of Air Group's Management Executive Committee.
13
REGULATION
GENERAL
The airline industry is highly regulated. The Department of Transportation (DOT), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) exercise significant regulatory authority over air carriers.
• | DOT: In order to provide passenger and cargo air transportation in the U.S., a domestic airline is required to hold a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the DOT. Subject to certain individual airport capacity, noise and other restrictions, this certificate permits an air carrier to operate between any two points in the U.S. Certificates do not expire, but may be revoked for failure to comply with federal aviation statutes, regulations, orders or the terms of the certificates. While airlines are permitted to establish their own fares without governmental regulation, the DOT has jurisdiction over the approval of international codeshare agreements, marketing alliance agreements between major domestic carriers, international and some domestic route authorities, Essential Air Service market subsidies, carrier liability for personal or property damage, and certain airport rates and charges disputes. International treaties may also contain restrictions or requirements for flying outside of the U.S. and impose different carrier liability limits than those applicable to domestic flights. The DOT has recently been active in implementing a variety of “passenger protection” regulations, covering subjects such as advertising, passenger communications, denied boarding compensation and tarmac delay response. Beginning January 2012, we began adhering to the DOT's full-fare advertising rule, which requires quoted fares to include all applicable government taxes and fees. International fares and rates are subject to the jurisdiction of the governments of the foreign countries we serve. Beginning in July 2012, DOT rules stipulated that airlines must charge passengers the same checked baggage fee on all legs of a journey covered by a single ticket, even if the passenger's journey involves flights on multiple carriers with different checked baggage fees. |
• | FAA: The FAA, through Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), generally regulates all aspects of airline operations, including establishing personnel, maintenance and flight operation standards. Domestic airlines are required to hold a valid air carrier operating certificate issued by the FAA. Pursuant to these regulations we have established, and the FAA has approved, our operations specifications and a maintenance program for each type of aircraft we operate. The maintenance program provides for the ongoing maintenance of such aircraft, ranging from frequent routine inspections to major overhauls. From time to time the FAA issues airworthiness directives (ADs) that must be incorporated into our aircraft maintenance program and operations. All airlines are subject to enforcement actions that are brought by the FAA from time to time for alleged violations of FARs or ADs. At this time, we are not aware of any enforcement proceedings that could either materially affect our financial position or impact our authority to operate. New FAA rules regarding pilot flight time, duty period and rest came into effect in 2012. The rule limits flight time to eight to nine hours and duty period to nine to 14 hours. In addition, the rule requires 10-hour minimum rest periods prior to the duty period and at least 30 consecutive hours free from duty on a weekly basis. The rule also places 28-day and annual limits on actual flight time. |
• | TSA: Airlines serving the U.S. must operate a TSA-approved Aircraft Operator Standard Security Program (AOSSP), and comply with TSA Security Directives (SDs) and regulations. Airlines are subject to enforcement actions that are brought by the TSA from time to time for alleged violations of the AOSSP, SDs or security regulations. We are not aware of any enforcement proceedings that could either materially affect our financial position or impact our authority to operate. Under TSA authority, we are also required to collect a September 11 Security Fee of $2.50 per enplanement from passengers and remit that sum to the government to fund aviation security measures. Carriers also pay the TSA a security infrastructure fee to cover passenger and property screening costs. These security infrastructure fees amounted to $13 million each year in 2012, 2011 and 2010. |
The Department of Justice and DOT have jurisdiction over airline antitrust matters. The U.S. Postal Service has jurisdiction over certain aspects of the transportation of mail and related services. Labor relations in the air transportation industry are regulated under the Railway Labor Act. To the extent we continue to fly to foreign countries and pursue alliances with international carriers, we may be subject to certain regulations of foreign agencies.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY MATTERS
We are subject to various laws and government regulations concerning environmental matters and employee safety and health in the U.S. and other countries. U.S. federal laws that have a particular effect on us include the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, and the Oil Pollution Control Act. We are also subject to the oversight of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) concerning employee safety and health matters. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, and other federal agencies have been authorized to create and enforce regulations that have an impact on our operations. In addition to these federal activities, various states have been delegated certain authorities under these federal statutes. Many state and local governments have adopted environmental and employee safety and health laws and regulations. We maintain our safety, health and environmental programs in order to meet or exceed these requirements.
We expect there will be legislation in the future to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. Alaska and Horizon have transitioned to more fuel-efficient aircraft fleets, thereby greatly reducing our total emissions.
The Airport Noise and Capacity Act recognizes the rights of airport operators with noise problems to implement local noise abatement programs so long as they do not interfere unreasonably with interstate or foreign commerce or the national air transportation system. Authorities in several cities have established aircraft noise reduction programs, including the imposition of nighttime curfews. We believe we have sufficient scheduling flexibility to accommodate local noise restrictions.
Although we do not currently anticipate that these regulatory matters, individually or collectively, will have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, new regulations or compliance issues that we do not currently anticipate could have the potential to harm our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in future periods.
INSURANCE
We carry Airline Hull, Spares and Comprehensive Legal Liability Insurance in amounts and of the type generally consistent with industry practice to cover damage to aircraft, spare parts and spare engines, as well as bodily injury and property damage to passengers and third parties. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, this insurance program excludes coverage for War and Allied Perils, including hijacking, terrorism, malicious acts, strikes, riots, civil commotion and other identified perils. So, like other airlines, the company has purchased war risk coverage for such events through the U.S. government.
We believe that our emphasis on safety and our state-of-the-art flight deck safety technology help to control the cost of aviation insurance.
WHERE YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION
Our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports are available on our website at www.alaskaair.com, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after the electronic filing of these reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The information contained on our website is not a part of this annual report on Form 10-K.
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS |
If any of the following occurs, our business, financial condition and results of operations could suffer. In such case, the trading price of our common stock could also decline. We operate in a continually changing business environment. In this environment, new risks may emerge and already identified risks may vary significantly in terms of impact and likelihood of occurrence. Management cannot predict such developments, nor can it assess the impact, if any, on our business of such new risk factors or of events described in any forward-looking statements.
We have adopted an enterprise wide Risk Analysis and Oversight Program designed to identify the various risks faced by the organization, assign responsibility for managing those risks to individual executives as well as align these risks with Board oversight. These enterprise-level identified risks have been aligned to the risk factors discussed below.
SAFETY, COMPLIANCE AND OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE
Our reputation and financial results could be harmed in the event of an airline accident or incident.
An accident or incident involving one of our aircraft or an aircraft operated by one of our codeshare partners or CPA carriers could involve a significant loss of life and result in a loss of confidence in our airlines by the flying public and/or aviation authorities. We could experience significant claims from injured passengers, by-standers and surviving relatives, as well as costs for the repair or replacement of a damaged aircraft and its consequential temporary or permanent loss from service. We maintain liability insurance in amounts and of the type generally consistent with industry practice, as do our codeshare partners and CPA carriers. However, the amount of such coverage may not be adequate to fully cover all claims and we may be forced to bear substantial economic losses from an accident. Substantial claims resulting from an accident in excess of our related
14
insurance coverage would harm our business and financial results. Moreover, any aircraft accident or incident, even if fully insured and even if it does not involve one of our aircraft, could cause a public perception that our airlines or the equipment they fly are less safe or reliable than other transportation alternatives, which would harm our business.
Changes in government regulation imposing additional requirements and restrictions on our operations or on the airports at which we operate could increase our operating costs and result in service delays and disruptions.
Airlines are subject to extensive regulatory and legal requirements, both domestically and internationally, that involve significant compliance costs. In the last several years, Congress has passed laws, and the U.S. DOT, the TSA and the FAA have issued regulations that have required significant expenditures relating to the maintenance and operation of airlines and establishment of consumer protections. Similarly, many aspects of an airline’s operations are subject to increasingly stringent federal, state and local laws protecting the environment.
Because of significantly higher security and other costs incurred by airports since September 11, 2001, many airports have increased their rates and charges to air carriers. Additional laws, regulations, taxes, and airport rates and charges have been proposed from time to time that could significantly increase the cost of airline operations or reduce the demand for air travel. Although lawmakers may impose these additional fees and view them as “pass-through” costs, we believe that a higher total ticket price will influence consumer purchase and travel decisions and may result in an overall decline in passenger traffic, which would harm our business.
The airline industry continues to face potential security concerns and related costs.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and their aftermath negatively affected the airline industry, including our company. Additional terrorist attacks, the fear of such attacks or other hostilities involving the U.S. could have a further significant negative effect on the airline industry, including us, and could:
• | significantly reduce passenger traffic and yields as a result of a potentially dramatic drop in demand for air travel; |
• | significantly increase security and insurance costs; |
• | make war risk or other insurance unavailable or extremely expensive; |
• | increase fuel costs and the volatility of fuel prices; |
• | increase costs from airport shutdowns, flight cancellations and delays resulting from security breaches and perceived safety threats; and |
• | result in a grounding of commercial air traffic by the FAA. |
The occurrence of any of these events would harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We rely on third-party vendors for certain critical activities.
We have historically relied on outside vendors for a variety of services and functions critical to our business, including airframe and engine maintenance, ground handling, fueling, computer reservation system hosting, telecommunication systems, and information technology infrastructure and services. As part of our cost-reduction efforts, our reliance on outside vendors has increased and may continue to do so in the future, especially since we rely on timely and effective third-party performance in conjunction with many of our technology-related initiatives. In addition, in recent years, Alaska and Horizon have subcontracted their heavy aircraft maintenance, fleet service, facilities maintenance, and ground handling services at certain airports, including Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, to outside vendors.
Even though we strive to formalize agreements with these vendors that define expected service levels, our use of outside vendors increases our exposure to several risks. In the event that one or more vendors go into bankruptcy, ceases operation or fails to perform as promised, replacement services may not be readily available at competitive rates, or at all. If one of our vendors fails to perform adequately, we may experience increased costs, delays, maintenance issues, safety issues or negative public perception of our airline. Vendor bankruptcies, unionization, regulatory compliance issues or significant changes in the competitive marketplace among suppliers could adversely affect vendor services or force us to renegotiate existing agreements on less favorable terms. These events could result in disruptions in our operations or increases in our cost structure.
15
Our operations are often affected by factors beyond our control, including delays, cancellations, and other conditions, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Like other airlines, our operations often are affected by delays, cancellations and other conditions caused by factors largely beyond our control.
Other conditions that might impact our operations include:
• | air traffic congestion at airports or other air traffic control problems; |
• | adverse weather conditions; |
• | increased security measures or breaches in security; |
• | international or domestic conflicts or terrorist activity; and |
• | other changes in business conditions. |
Due to our concentration of flights in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, we believe a large portion of our operation is more susceptible to adverse weather conditions than that of many of our competitors. A general reduction in airline passenger traffic as a result of any of the above-mentioned factors could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.
STRATEGY
The airline industry is highly competitive. If we cannot successfully compete in the marketplace, our business, financial condition and operating results will be materially adversely affected.
We face significant competition with respect to routes, services, and fares. Some of our competitors have lower costs than we do and compete directly against us in our markets. We continue to strive toward aggressive cost-reduction goals that are an important part of our business strategy of offering the best value to passengers through competitive fares while achieving acceptable profit margins and return on capital. If we are unable to reduce our costs over the long-term and achieve sustained targeted return on invested capital, we will likely not be able to grow our business in the future or weather industry downturns and therefore our financial results may suffer.
We depend on a few key markets to be successful.
Our strategy is to focus on serving a few key markets, including Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Hawaii and Anchorage. A significant portion of our flights occur to and from our Seattle hub. In 2012, passengers to and from Seattle accounted for 61% of our total passengers.
We believe that concentrating our service offerings in this way allows us to maximize our investment in personnel, aircraft, and ground facilities, as well as to gain greater advantage from sales and marketing efforts in those regions. As a result, we remain highly dependent on our key markets. Our business could be harmed by any circumstances causing a reduction in demand for air transportation in our key markets. An increase in competition in our key markets could also cause us to reduce fares or take other competitive measures that could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Economic uncertainty or another recession would likely impact demand for our product and could harm our financial condition and results of operations.
The recent U.S. and global economic recession resulted in a decline in demand for air travel. While some economic indicators are showing signs of growth, unemployment remains high in some of our key markets. Given that the strength of the U.S. and global economies have an impact on the demand for air travel, a long-term economic slump could result in a need to adjust our capacity plans, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We are dependent on a limited number of suppliers for aircraft and parts.
Alaska is dependent on Boeing as its sole supplier for aircraft and many aircraft parts. Horizon is similarly dependent on Bombardier. Additionally, each carrier is dependent on sole suppliers for aircraft engines. As a result, we are more vulnerable to any problems associated with the supply of those aircraft and parts, including design defects, mechanical problems,
16
contractual performance by the manufacturers, or adverse perception by the public that would result in customer avoidance or in actions by the FAA resulting in an inability to operate our aircraft.
We rely on partner airlines for codeshare and frequent flyer marketing arrangements.
Alaska and Horizon are parties to marketing agreements with a number of domestic and international air carriers, or “partners," including, but not limited to, American Airlines and Delta Air Lines. These agreements provide that certain flight segments operated by us are held out as partner “codeshare” flights and that certain partner flights are held out for sale as Alaska codeshare flights. In addition, the agreements generally provide that members of Alaska’s Mileage Plan program can earn miles on or redeem miles for partner flights and vice versa. We receive a significant amount of revenue from flights sold under codeshare arrangements. In addition, we believe that the frequent flyer arrangements are an important part of our Mileage Plan program. The loss of a significant partner or certain partner flights through bankruptcy, consolidation, or otherwise, could have a negative effect on our revenues or the attractiveness of our Mileage Plan, which we believe is a source of competitive advantage.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
We rely heavily on automated systems to operate our business, and a failure to invest in new technology, or a disruption of our current systems or their operators could harm our business.
We depend on automated systems to operate our business, including our airline reservation system, our telecommunication systems, our website, our maintenance systems, our check-in kiosks, and other systems. Substantially all of our tickets are issued to passengers as electronic tickets and the majority of our customers check in using our website or our airport kiosks. We depend on our reservation system to be able to issue, track and accept these electronic tickets. In order for our operations to work efficiently, we must continue to invest in new technology to ensure that our website, reservation system, and check-in systems are able to accommodate a high volume of traffic, maintain secure information, and deliver important flight information. Substantial or repeated website, reservations system or telecommunication systems failures or service disruptions could reduce the attractiveness of our services and cause our customers to do business with another airline. In addition, we rely on other automated systems for crew scheduling, flight dispatch, and other operational needs. Disruptions, untimely recovery, or a breach of these systems could result in the loss of important data, an increase of our expenses, an impact on our operational performance, or a possible temporary cessation of our operations.
If we do not maintain the privacy and security of our information, we could damage our reputation and incur substantial legal and regulatory costs.
We accept, store, and transmit information about our customers, our employees, our business partners and our business. In addition, we frequently rely on third-party hosting sites and data processors, including cloud providers. Our sensitive information relies on secure transmission over public and private networks. A compromise of our systems, the security of our infrastructure, or those of other business partners that result in our information being accessed or stolen by unauthorized persons could adversely affect our operations and our reputation.
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND FINANCIAL MARKETS
Our business, financial condition, and results of operations are substantially exposed to the volatility of jet fuel prices. Increases in jet fuel costs would harm our business.
Fuel costs constitute a significant portion of our total operating expenses, accounting for 35%, 34% and 27% of total operating expenses for the years ended 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Future increases in the price of jet fuel may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations, unless we are able to increase fares or add additional ancillary fees to attempt to recover increasing fuel costs.
The outcome of the resolution process, and any subsequent challenge, through which new lease terms at Sea-Tac will be set cannot be predicted with certainty.
Our lease with the Port of Seattle for terminal space at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport expired on December 31, 2012. Negotiations for a new lease have thus far been unsuccessful. Absent a negotiated lease, federal law requires the Port to set new rates by means of a resolution. The Company and other Sea-Tac carriers may accept the new resolution or ask the DOT to set them aside as unreasonable under federal law. The resolution process and any subsequent challenge by us or other airlines will not interrupt our tenancy at Sea-Tac.
17
Our continuing obligation to fund our traditional defined-benefit pension plans could negatively affect our ability to compete in the marketplace.
Our defined-benefit pension plan assets are subject to market risk. If market returns are poor in the future or if interest rates used to discount our future obligation decrease, any future obligation to make additional cash contributions in accordance with the Pension Protection Act of 2006 could increase and harm our liquidity. Poor market returns or low interest rates could lead to higher pension expense in our consolidated statements of operations. The calculation of pension expense is dependent on many assumptions that are more fully described in “Critical Accounting Estimates” and Note 1 to our consolidated financial statements.
Increases in insurance costs or reductions in insurance coverage would harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Aviation insurers could increase their premiums in the event of additional terrorist attacks, hijackings, airline accidents or other events adversely affecting the airline industry. Furthermore, the full hull and liability war risk insurance provided by the government is currently mandated through December 31, 2013. Although the government may again extend the deadline for providing such coverage, we cannot be certain that any extension will occur, or if it does, for how long the extension will last. It is expected that, should the government stop providing such coverage to the airline industry, the premiums charged by aviation insurers for this coverage will be substantially higher than the premiums currently charged by the government and the coverage will be much more limited, including smaller aggregate limits and shorter cancellation periods. Significant increases in insurance premiums would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
BRAND AND REPUTATION
As we evolve our brand to appeal to a changing demographic and grow into new markets, we will engage in strategic initiatives that may not be favorably received by all Customers .
We continue to focus on strategic initiatives designed to increase our brand appeal to a diverse and evolving demographic of airline travelers. These efforts could include significant improvements to our in-airport and on-board environments, increasing our direct customer relationships through improvements to our purchasing portals (digital and mobile), and optimization of our customer loyalty programs.
If in pursuit of these efforts we may negatively affect our reputation with some of our existing customer base, which could result in an adverse impact on our business and financial results.
LABOR RELATIONS AND LABOR STRATEGY
A significant increase in labor costs, unsuccessful attempts to strengthen our relationships with union employees, or loss of
key personnel could adversely affect our business and results of operations.
Labor costs are a significant component of our total expenses, accounting for approximately 42%, 41% and 43% of our non-fuel operating expenses in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Each of our represented employee groups has a separate collective bargaining agreement, and could make demands that would increase our operating expenses and adversely affect our financial performance if we agree to them.
As of December 31, 2012, labor unions represented approximately 83% of Alaska’s and 49% of Horizon’s employees. Although we have been successful in maturing communications, negotiating approaches, and other strategies to enhance workforce engagement in the Company's long-term vision, future uncertainty around open contracts could be a distraction, affecting employee focus in our business and diverting management’s attention from other projects and issues.
We compete against the major U.S. airlines and other businesses for labor in many highly skilled positions. If we are unable to hire, train and retain qualified employees at a reasonable cost, sustain employee engagement in the Company's strategic vision, or if we are unsuccessful at implementing succession plans for our key staff, we may be unable to grow or sustain our business. In such case, our operating results and business prospects could be harmed.
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS |
None
18
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES |
AIRCRAFT
The following table describes the aircraft we operate and their average age at December 31, 2012:
Aircraft Type | Seats | Owned | Leased | Total | Average Age in Years | ||||||||
B737 Freighters & Combis | 0/72 | 6 | — | 6 | 19.2 | ||||||||
B737-400/700 | 124/144 | 17 | 24 | 41 | 15.1 | ||||||||
B737-800/900/900ER | 157/172/ 181 | 67 | 10 | 77 | 5.4 | ||||||||
B737 Passenger Aircraft | 84 | 34 | 118 | 8.8 | |||||||||
Total Mainline Fleet | 90 | 34 | 124 | 9.3 | |||||||||
Q400 | 76 | 33 | 15 | 48 | 6.6 | ||||||||
Total | 123 | 49 | 172 | 8.5 | |||||||||
“Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" discusses future orders and options for additional aircraft.
Many of our owned aircraft secure long-term debt arrangements or collateralize our revolving credit facility. See further discussion in “Liquidity and Capital Resources."
Alaska’s leased B737 aircraft have lease expiration dates between 2013 and 2021. Horizon’s leased Q400 aircraft have expiration dates in 2018. Horizon also has two owned and 14 leased CRJ-700 aircraft that are subleased to third-party carriers. The head leases on the 14 leased CRJ-700 aircraft have expiration dates between 2018 and 2020. Alaska and Horizon have the option to extend most of the leases for additional periods, or the right to purchase the aircraft at the end of the lease term, usually at the then-fair-market value of the aircraft.
GROUND FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Alaska and Horizon lease ticket counters, gates, cargo and baggage space, office space, and other support areas at the majority of the airports they serve. Alaska also owns terminal buildings in various cities in the state of Alaska.
Alaska owns several buildings located at or near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac) near Seattle, WA. These include a multi-bay hangar and shops complex (used primarily for line maintenance), a flight operations and training center, an air cargo facility, an information technology office and datacenter, and various other commercial office buildings, including its Seattle corporate headquarters complex. Alaska also leases a stores warehouse and additional office space in Kent, WA for its call center functions. Alaska’s major facilities outside of Seattle include a regional headquarters building, an air cargo facility and a hangar/office facility in Anchorage, AK, as well as leased call center facilities in Phoenix, AZ and Boise, ID. Alaska uses its own employees for ground handling services at most of its airports in the state of Alaska. At other airports throughout its system, those services are contracted to various third-party vendors.
Horizon owns its Seattle corporate headquarters building. It leases an operations, training, and aircraft maintenance facility in Portland and Spokane, as well as line maintenance stations in Boise, Bellingham, Eugene, San Jose, Medford, Redmond, Seattle, and Spokane.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
We are a party to routine litigation matters incidental to our business. Management believes the ultimate disposition of these matters is not likely to materially affect our financial position or results of operations. This forward-looking statement is based on management’s current understanding of the relevant law and facts, and it is subject to various contingencies, including the potential costs and risks associated with litigation and the actions of judges and juries.
19
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES |
Not applicable.
PART II
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS, AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES |
As of December 31, 2012, there were 70,376,543 shares of common stock of Alaska Air Group, Inc. issued and outstanding and 2,921 shareholders of record. We have not paid dividends on the common stock since 1992 and have no plans to do so in the immediate future. Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (symbol: ALK). The following table shows the trading range of Alaska Air Group, Inc. common stock on the New York Stock Exchange:
2012 | 2011 | ||||||||||||||
High | Low | High | Low | ||||||||||||
First Quarter | $ | 39.77 | $ | 33.69 | $ | 32.50 | $ | 28.08 | |||||||
Second Quarter | 36.62 | 31.29 | 35.04 | 29.50 | |||||||||||
Third Quarter | 38.46 | 32.69 | 35.31 | 25.90 | |||||||||||
Fourth Quarter | 45.15 | 34.57 | 38.57 | 25.55 | |||||||||||
On February 15, 2012, the board of directors declared a two-for-one split of the Company's common stock by means of a stock distribution. The additional shares were distributed on March 16, 2012, to the shareholders of record on March 2, 2012. The stock split increased the Company's outstanding shares from approximately 36 million shares to about 71 million shares. Our historical outstanding shares were recast upon the distribution.
SALES OF NON-REGISTERED SECURITIES
None
PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES BY THE ISSUER AND AFFILIATED PURCHASERS
Total Number of Shares Purchased | Average Price Paid per Share | Total Number of Shares (or units) Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs | Maximum remaining dollar value of shares that can be purchased under the plan | ||||||||||
October 1, 2012 – October 31, 2012 | 12,000 | $ | 38.03 | 12,000 | |||||||||
November 1, 2012 – November 30, 2012 | 110,510 | 40.78 | 110,510 | ||||||||||
December 1, 2012 – December 31, 2012 | 80,000 | 43.44 | 80,000 | ||||||||||
Total | 202,510 | $ | 41.67 | 202,510 | $ | 242 | |||||||
Purchased pursuant to a $250 million repurchase plan authorized by the Board of Directors in September 2012. The plan has no expiration date, but is expected to be completed in December 2014.
20
PERFORMANCE GRAPH
The following graph compares our cumulative total stockholder return since December 31, 2007 with the S&P 500 Index and the Dow Jones U.S. Airlines Index. The graph assumes that the value of the investment in our common stock and each index (including reinvestment of dividends) was $100 on December 31, 2007.
21
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL AND OPERATING DATA | |||||||||||||||||||
2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | |||||||||||||||
CONSOLIDATED OPERATING RESULTS (audited) | |||||||||||||||||||
Year Ended December 31 (in millions, except per share amounts): | |||||||||||||||||||
Operating Revenues | 4,657 | 4,318 | 3,832 | 3,400 | 3,663 | ||||||||||||||
Operating Expenses | 4,125 | 3,869 | 3,361 | 3,133 | 3,835 | ||||||||||||||
Operating Income (Loss) | 532 | 449 | 471 | 267 | (172 | ) | |||||||||||||
Nonoperating expense, net of interest capitalized(a) | (18 | ) | (55 | ) | (65 | ) | (64 | ) | (41 | ) | |||||||||
Income (loss) before income tax | 514 | 394 | 406 | 203 | (213 | ) | |||||||||||||
Net Income (Loss) | 316 | 245 | 251 | 122 | (136 | ) | |||||||||||||
Average basic shares outstanding | 70.708 | 71.755 | 71.644 | 71.630 | 72.686 | ||||||||||||||
Average diluted shares outstanding | 71.784 | 73.421 | 73.571 | 72.308 | 72.686 | ||||||||||||||
Basic earnings (loss) per share | 4.47 | 3.41 | 3.50 | 1.70 | (1.87 | ) | |||||||||||||
Diluted earnings (loss) per share | 4.40 | 3.33 | 3.41 | 1.69 | (1.87 | ) | |||||||||||||
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL POSITION (audited) | |||||||||||||||||||
At End of Period (in millions): | |||||||||||||||||||
Total assets | 5,505 | 5,167 | 5,017 | 4,996 | 4,836 | ||||||||||||||
Long-term debt, including current portion | 1,032 | 1,307 | 1,534 | 1,855 | 1,841 | ||||||||||||||
Shareholders' equity | 1,421 | 1,174 | 1,106 | 872 | 662 | ||||||||||||||
OPERATING STATISTICS (unaudited) | |||||||||||||||||||
Consolidated:(b) | |||||||||||||||||||
Revenue passengers (000) | 25,896 | 24,790 | 23,334 | 22,320 | 24,199 | ||||||||||||||
Revenue passenger miles (RPM) (000,000) "traffic" | 27,007 | 25,032 | 22,841 | 20,811 | 21,390 | ||||||||||||||
Available seat miles (ASM) (000,000) "capacity" | 31,428 | 29,627 | 27,736 | 26,501 | 27,908 | ||||||||||||||
Load factor | 85.9 | % | 84.5 | % | 82.4 | % | 78.5 | % | 76.6 | % | |||||||||
Yield | 14.92 | ¢ | 14.81 | ¢ | 14.30 | ¢ | 14.16 | ¢ | 15.27 | ¢ | |||||||||
Passenger revenues per ASM (PRASM) | 12.82 | ¢ | 12.51 | ¢ | 11.78 | ¢ | 11.12 | ¢ | 11.70 | ¢ | |||||||||
Operating revenues per ASM (RASM) | 14.82 | ¢ | 14.57 | ¢ | 13.82 | ¢ | 12.83 | ¢ | 13.12 | ¢ | |||||||||
Operating expenses per ASM, excluding fuel and noted items (CASMex)(c) | 8.48 | ¢ | 8.55 | ¢ | 8.82 | ¢ | 9.20 | ¢ | 8.47 | ¢ | |||||||||
Average number of full-time equivalent employees (FTE) | 11,955 | 11,840 | 11,696 | 12,223 | 13,327 | ||||||||||||||
Mainline: | |||||||||||||||||||
Revenue passengers (000) | 18,526 | 17,810 | 16,514 | 15,561 | 16,809 | ||||||||||||||
RPMs (000,000) "traffic" | 24,417 | 22,586 | 20,350 | 18,362 | 18,712 | ||||||||||||||
ASMs (000,000) "capacity" | 28,180 | 26,517 | 24,434 | 23,144 | 24,218 | ||||||||||||||
Load factor | 86.6 | % | 85.2 | % | 83.3 | % | 79.3 | % | 77.3 | % | |||||||||
Yield | 13.45 | ¢ | 13.26 | ¢ | 12.75 | ¢ | 12.60 | ¢ | 13.62 | ¢ | |||||||||
PRASM | 11.65 | ¢ | 11.29 | ¢ | 10.62 | ¢ | 10.00 | ¢ | 10.52 | ¢ | |||||||||
CASMex(c) | 7.56 | ¢ | 7.60 | ¢ | 7.85 | ¢ | 8.26 | ¢ | 7.49 | ¢ | |||||||||
Operating fleet at period-end | 124 | 117 | 114 | 115 | 110 | ||||||||||||||
Regional:(d) | |||||||||||||||||||
Revenue passengers (000) | 7,371 | 6,980 | 6,820 | 6,759 | 7,390 | ||||||||||||||
RPMs (000,000) "traffic" | 2,590 | 2,446 | 2,491 | 2,449 | 2,678 | ||||||||||||||
ASMs (000,000) "capacity" | 3,247 | 3,110 | 3,302 | 3,357 | 3,690 | ||||||||||||||
Load factor | 79.8 | % | 78.6 | % | 75.4 | % | 73.0 | % | 72.6 | % | |||||||||
Yield | 28.81 | ¢ | 29.13 | ¢ | 26.95 | ¢ | 25.88 | ¢ | 26.79 | ¢ | |||||||||
PRASM | 22.98 | ¢ | 22.94 | ¢ | 20.33 | ¢ | 18.88 | ¢ | 19.44 | ¢ | |||||||||
Operating fleet at period-end (Horizon only) | 48 | 48 | 54 | 58 | 59 | ||||||||||||||
(a) | Includes capitalized interest of $18 million, $12 million, $6 million, $8 million, and $23 million for 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively. |
(b) | Includes flights operated by SkyWest beginning in May 2011 and flights operated by PenAir under Capacity Purchase Agreements (CPA). |
(c) | See reconciliation of this measure to the most directly related GAAP measure in the "Results of Operations" section. |
(d) | Data presented includes information related to regional CPAs, except for operating fleet. |
22
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS |
OVERVIEW
The following Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A) is intended to help the reader understand the Company, our operations and our present business environment. MD&A is provided as a supplement to – and should be read in conjunction with – our consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes. All statements in the following discussion that are not statements of historical information or descriptions of current accounting policy are forward-looking statements. Please consider our forward-looking statements in light of the risks referred to in this report’s introductory cautionary note and the risks mentioned in Part I, “Item 1A. Risk Factors.” This overview summarizes the MD&A, which includes the following sections:
• | Year in Review—highlights from 2012 outlining some of the major events that happened during the year and how they affected our financial performance. |
• | Results of Operations—an in-depth analysis of the results of our operations for the three years presented in our consolidated financial statements. We believe this analysis will help the reader better understand our consolidated statements of operations. Financial and statistical data is also included here. This section includes forward-looking statements regarding our view of 2013. |
• | Liquidity and Capital Resources—an analysis of cash flows, sources and uses of cash, contractual obligations, commitments and off-balance sheet arrangements, and an overview of financial position. |
• | Critical Accounting Estimates—a discussion of our accounting estimates that involve significant judgment and uncertainties. |
YEAR IN REVIEW
Our 2012 consolidated pretax income was $514 million compared to $394 million in 2011. The $120 million improvement was primarily due to the $339 million increase in revenues, partially offset by the $161 million increase in aircraft fuel expense and $95 million increase in other operating expenses. Our improvement in revenues was primarily due to a 7.9% increase in traffic and a 0.7% increase in yield. The increase in fuel cost was driven by the 2.2% increase in raw cost per gallon on a 6.0% increase in consumption.
See “Results of Operations” below for further discussion of changes in revenues and operating expenses and our reconciliation of Non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measure.
Accomplishments and Highlights
Accomplishments and highlights from 2012 include:
• | Reported record adjusted earnings for 2012, marking our ninth consecutive year in which we reported an adjusted profit. |
• | Air Group employees earned $88 million in incentive pay, or more than one-month's pay for most employees. Over the last four years, employees have earned more than $325 million in incentive pay, averaging 8% of annual pay for most employees. |
• | Signed an aircraft purchase agreement with The Boeing Company for 50 new 737 aircraft, including 37 of Boeing's |
new 737 MAX aircraft with deliveries expected in 2015 through 2022.
• | Improved employee productivity by 3.5 percent compared to the fourth quarter of 2011. |
• | Carried a record number passengers in 2012 and achieved a record load factor of 85.9 percent, up 1.4 points from the prior year. |
• | Completed renovation of Terminal 6 at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in March, which includes the Airport |
of the Future design, new common use systems, additional gates and convenient connections with international flights.
23
• | Repurchased 1,685,951 shares of common stock for approximately $60 million. Since 2007, Air Group has used $320 million to repurchase 18 million shares. |
• | Lowered adjusted debt-to-total capitalization ratio by 8 points to 54 percent since December 31, 2011 and by 27 points from 81 percent at the end of 2008. |
• | Held $1.3 billion in unrestricted cash and marketable securities as of December 31, 2012. |
• | Achieved trailing twelve-month return on invested capital of 13 percent, surpassing the 10 percent goal for the third year in a row. |
• | Contributed $110 million to the defined-benefit pension plans during 2012, bringing the total over four years to approximately $540 million, despite having no required contribution. |
Awards and Recognitions
Awards and recognitions from 2012 include:
• | For the fifth year in a row, Alaska Airlines ranked “Highest in Customer Satisfaction among Traditional Network Carriers” by J.D. Power and Associates. |
• | Received "2012 Global Vision Award" by Travel + Leisure magazine for Alaska Airlines' sustainability efforts. |
• | Alaska Airlines named "Best Regional Airline in North America" at the 2012 World Airline Awards. |
• | Alaska Airlines earned "Eco-Partnership of the Year Award" by Air Transport World magazine. |
• | Recognized Alaska Air Group as the 2011 Best Company in the Northwest by The Seattle Times. |
• | Alaska Airlines received "2012 Fly Quiet Bravo Award" by the Port of Seattle Commission. |
• | Won the "Platinum" award for Alaska Airlines' excellence in baggage handling from the International Air Transport Association, the first carrier in North America and only the second in the world to earn that title. |
24
New Markets
In 2012, we added non-stop routes to our network as follows:
New Non-Stop Routes Between | Frequency (Weekly) | Start Date | ||
San Jose to Palm Springs | Daily (Seasonal) | 2/17/2012 | ||
Seattle to Kansas City | Daily | 3/12/2012 | ||
Portland to Long Beach | Daily | 3/12/2012 | ||
Oakland to Honolulu | Daily | 4/10/2012 | ||
San Jose to Honolulu | Daily | 4/10/2012 | ||
San Diego to Santa Rosa | Daily | 6/4/2012 | ||
San Diego to Fresno | 2x Daily | 6/4/2012 | ||
San Diego to Monterey | Daily | 6/4/2012 | ||
Reno to San Jose | 2x Daily | 6/4/2012 | ||
Portland to Bellingham | Daily (Seasonal) | 6/4/2012 | ||
Portland to Bozeman | Daily (Seasonal) | 6/4/2012 | ||
Portland to Santa Barbara | Daily (Seasonal) | 6/4/2012 | ||
Seattle to Philadelphia | Daily | 6/11/2012 | ||
Seattle to Fort Lauderdale (replaced Seattle to Miami) | Daily | 7/16/2012 | ||
Portland to Pasco | Daily | 8/27/2012 | ||
Portland to Washington, D.C. | Daily | 8/28/2012 | ||
Seattle to San Antonio | Daily | 9/17/2012 | ||
San Diego to Orlando | 5x Weekly | 10/11/2012 | ||
Portland to Lihue | 4x Weekly (Seasonal) | 11/5/2012 | ||
Bellingham to Kahului | 4x Weekly (Seasonal) | 11/8/2012 | ||
Anchorage to Kona | 1x Weekly (Seasonal) | 11/10/2012 | ||
We will also add new cities and non-stop routes in 2013 as follows:
New Non-Stop Routes Between | Frequency (Weekly) | Start Date | ||
Seattle to Salt Lake City | Twice Daily | 4/4/2013 | ||
San Diego and Boston | Daily | 3/29/2013 | ||
San Diego and Lihue | Daily (Seasonal) | 6/7/2013 | ||
Alliances with Other Airlines
In October 2012, Delta Air Lines announced expanded service to Asia through Seattle. Delta will add a flight between Seattle and Shanghai beginning in June 2013 and is proposing a flight between Seattle and Tokyo-Haneda to begin in March 2013. Through our existing codeshare partnership, Delta is able to connect passengers to more than 50 destinations on the Alaska route network via Seattle. Increasing international flow traffic will help support Alaska's continued capacity expansion in Seattle and beyond.
In December 2012, we announced a new code-sharing and frequent flier agreement with Aeromexico. The new agreement will allow Aeromexico and our customers the ability to connect across 45 cities around Mexico and 11 countries in Central and South America. We also announced enhanced frequent flier awards benefits with Emirates, allowing members to redeem awards for travel on each others' programs in addition to earning miles on a reciprocal basis as established when the partnership began in March 2012.
In February 2013, we announced an expansion of the existing code-share agreement with American Airlines, allowing passengers from both carriers greater access to their combined route networks. New American code on our northern California to Hawaii flights will continue to support our growth in these markets. American passengers will also find greater access to new mid- and trans-continental flights on us, helping build brand awareness and demand in many of our newest destinations. Additionally, we will code-share on 19 more American routes, including 13 new destinations to which our customers will be able to book travel through alaskaair.com.
25
Update on Labor Negotiations
In July 2012, our ramp and stores agents, represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), ratified a six-year contract by a 91% margin before the amendable date. The contract provides for an initial wage increase of 2.5% followed by 1.5% annual increases over the six-year term, and contains important productivity improvements. It also offers both the Company and our employees the certainty that comes with a long-term deal.
In December 2012, we entered into a six-year agreement with Horizon's pilot union, represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), for an extension of their contract through December 2018. The deal is mutually beneficial to both the company and our pilots and calls for a signing bonus, wage step increases and productivity gains over the term of the contract. We also ratified a three-year agreement with Horizon's station personnel in Vancouver and Victoria, represented by the National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers, in January 2013.
We are currently in negotiations with Alaska's and Horizon's flight attendants, represented by the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), whose contracts became amendable in April 2012 and December 2011, respectively. In addition, we are in early discussions with Alaska's pilots, represented by the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), whose contract is amendable in April 2013. We are also in negotiations with Horizon's maintenance store employees, represented by IAM.
Stock Repurchase
In 2012, we repurchased 1,685,951 shares of our common stock for $60 million under the share repurchase plans authorized by our Board of Directors. Since 2007, we have repurchased 18 million shares of common stock under such programs for $320 million for an average price of approximately $17 per share.
Outlook
Our primary focus every year is to run safe, compliant and reliable operations at our airlines. In addition to our primary objective, we will remain focused on providing a hassle-free experience for our customers. Specifically, we plan to enhance mobile features and expand our self-bag tagging capabilities. Additionally, as part of our strategy of enhancing our brand, we are considering ways to enhance the onboard experience, such as seats, cabin layout, seat power, and in-flight entertainment.
Our biggest concerns going forward are increased competition in our markets, particularly low-cost competitors, and our unsigned labor agreements. Our goal is to sign labor agreements prior to the amendable date to to avoid the negative impacts of prolonged negotiations and provide our employees with the long-term stability that helps promote higher customer satisfaction. To combat low-cost competitors, we took delivery of four B737-900ER aircraft in 2012 and will take delivery of an additional nine in 2013, which will provide additional efficiencies in fuel consumption and overall unit cost reductions.
Our advance bookings suggest our load factors will be up 0.5 pts in February and flat in March compared to the same periods in 2012 on an expected 8.5% increase in capacity for the first quarter of 2013.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
2012 COMPARED WITH 2011
Our consolidated net income for 2012 was $316 million, or $4.40 per diluted share, compared to net income of $245 million, or $3.33 per diluted share, in 2011. Significant items impacting the comparability between the periods are as follows:
• | Both periods include adjustments to reflect the timing of net unrealized mark-to-market gains or losses related to our fuel hedge positions. For 2012, we recognized net mark-to-market losses of $38 million ($23 million after tax, or $0.33 per share) compared to losses of $30 million ($18 million after tax, or $0.26 per share) in 2011. |
• | In 2011, we incurred $39 million ($24 million after tax, of $0.33 per share) in expense as part of Horizon's fleet transition to an all Q400 fleet. |
ADJUSTED (NON-GAAP) RESULTS AND PER-SHARE AMOUNTS
We believe disclosure of earnings excluding the impact of these individual charges is useful information to investors because:
• | We believe it is the basis by which we are evaluated by industry analysts; |
26
• | Our results excluding these items are most often used in internal management and board reporting and decision-making; |
• | Our results excluding these adjustments serve as the basis for our various employee incentive plans, thus the information allows investors to better understand the changes in variable incentive pay expense in our consolidated statements of operations; |
• | It is useful to monitor performance without these items as it improves a reader’s ability to compare our results to those of other airlines; and |
• | It is consistent with how we present information in our quarterly earnings press releases. |
Although we are presenting these non-GAAP amounts for the reasons above, investors and other readers should not necessarily conclude that these amounts are non-recurring, infrequent, or unusual in nature.
Excluding the mark-to-market adjustments and other special charges, our adjusted consolidated net income for 2012 was $339 million, or $4.73 per diluted share, compared to an adjusted consolidated net income of $287 million, or $3.92 per share, in 2011.
Years Ended December 31, | |||||||||||||||
2012 | 2011 | ||||||||||||||
(in millions, except per share amounts) | Dollars | Diluted EPS | Dollars | Diluted EPS | |||||||||||
Net income and diluted EPS as reported | $ | 316 | $ | 4.40 | $ | 245 | $ | 3.33 | |||||||
Fleet transition costs, net of tax | — | — | 24 | 0.33 | |||||||||||
Mark-to-market fuel hedge adjustments, net of tax | 23 | 0.33 | 18 | 0.26 | |||||||||||
Non-GAAP adjusted income and per share amounts | $ | 339 | $ | 4.73 | $ | 287 | $ | 3.92 | |||||||
27
OPERATING STATISTICS SUMMARY (unaudited)
Alaska Air Group, Inc.
Below are operating statistics we use to measure operating performance. We often refer to unit revenues and adjusted unit costs, which is a non-GAAP measure.
Twelve Months Ended December 31, | |||||||||||||||||
2012 | 2011 | Change | 2010 | Change | |||||||||||||
Consolidated Operating Statistics:(a) | |||||||||||||||||
Revenue passengers (000) | 25,896 | 24,790 | 4.5 | % | 23,334 | 6.2 | % | ||||||||||
RPMs (000,000) "traffic" | 27,007 | 25,032 | 7.9 | % | 22,841 | 9.6 | % | ||||||||||
ASMs (000,000) "capacity" | 31,428 | 29,627 | 6.1 | % | 27,736 | 6.8 | % | ||||||||||
Load factor | 85.9 | % | 84.5 | % | 1.4 | pts | 82.4 | % | 2.1 | pts | |||||||
Yield | 14.92 | ¢ | 14.81 | ¢ | 0.7 | % | 14.30 | ¢ | 3.6 | % | |||||||
PRASM | 12.82 | ¢ | 12.51 | ¢ | 2.5 | % | 11.78 | ¢ | 6.2 | % | |||||||
CASM excluding fuel and fleet transition costs(a) | 8.48 | ¢ | 8.55 | ¢ | (0.8 | )% | 8.82 | ¢ | (3.1 | )% | |||||||
Economic fuel cost per gallon(b) | $ | 3.37 | $ | 3.18 | 6.0 | % | $ | 2.37 | 34.2 | % | |||||||
Fuel gallons (000,000) | 422 | 398 | 6.0 | % | 377 | 5.6 | % | ||||||||||
Average number of full-time equivalent employees | 11,955 | 11,840 | 1.0 | % | 11,696 | 1.2 | % | ||||||||||
Mainline Operating Statistics: | |||||||||||||||||
Revenue passengers (000) | 18,526 | 17,810 | 4.0 | % | 16,514 | 7.8 | % | ||||||||||
RPMs (000,000) "traffic" | 24,417 | 22,586 | 8.1 | % | 20,350 | 11.0 | % | ||||||||||
ASMs (000,000) "capacity" | 28,180 | 26,517 | 6.3 | % | 24,434 | 8.5 | % | ||||||||||
Load factor | 86.6 | % | 85.2 | % | 1.4 | pts | 83.3 | % | 1.9 | pts | |||||||
Yield | 13.45 | ¢ | 13.26 | ¢ | 1.4 | % | 12.75 | ¢ | 4.0 | % | |||||||
PRASM | 11.65 | ¢ | 11.29 | ¢ | 3.2 | % | 10.62 | ¢ | 6.3 | % | |||||||
CASM excluding fuel(b) | 7.56 | ¢ | 7.60 | ¢ | (0.5 | )% | 7.85 | ¢ | (3.2 | )% | |||||||
Economic fuel cost per gallon(b) | $ | 3.36 | $ | 3.18 | 5.7 | % | $ | 2.37 | 34.2 | % | |||||||
Fuel gallons (000,000) | 368 | 346 | 6.4 | % | 320 | 8.1 | % | ||||||||||
Average number of full-time equivalent employees | 9,178 | 8,916 | 2.9 | % | 8,651 | 3.1 | % | ||||||||||
Aircraft utilization | 10.7 | 10.5 | 1.9 | % | 10.0 | 5.0 | % | ||||||||||
Average aircraft stage length | 1,161 | 1,114 | 4.2 | % | 1,085 | 2.7 | % | ||||||||||
Mainline operating fleet at period-end | 124 | 117 | 7 | a/c | 114 | 3 | a/c | ||||||||||
Regional Operating Statistics:(c) | |||||||||||||||||
Revenue passengers (000) | 7,371 | 6,980 | 5.6 | % | 6,820 | 2.3 | % | ||||||||||
RPMs (000,000) "traffic" | 2,590 | 2,446 | 5.9 | % | 2,491 | (1.8 | )% | ||||||||||
ASMs (000,000) "capacity" | 3,247 | 3,110 | 4.4 | % | 3,302 | (5.8 | )% | ||||||||||
Load factor | 79.8 | % | 78.6 | % | 1.2 | pts | 75.4 | % | 3.2 | pts | |||||||
Yield | 28.81 | ¢ | 29.13 | ¢ | (1.1 | )% | 26.95 | ¢ | 8.1 | % | |||||||
PRASM | 22.98 | ¢ | 22.94 | ¢ | 0.2 | % | 20.33 | ¢ | 12.8 | % | |||||||
(a) | Except for FTEs, data includes information related to regional CPA flying with Horizon, SkyWest and PenAir. |
(b) | See reconciliation of this measure to the most directly related GAAP measure in the "Results of Operations" section. |
(c) | Data presented includes information related to regional CPAs. |
28
OPERATING REVENUES
Total operating revenues increased $339 million, or 8%, during 2012 compared to the same period in 2011. The changes are summarized in the following table:
Year Ended December 31, | |||||||||
(in millions) | 2012 | 2011 | % Change | ||||||
Passenger | |||||||||
Mainline | $ | 3,284 | $ | 2,995 | 10 | ||||
Regional | 746 | 713 | 5 | ||||||
Total passenger revenue | $ | 4,030 | $ | 3,708 | 9 | ||||
Freight and mail | 111 | 109 | 2 | ||||||
Other - net | 516 | 501 | 3 | ||||||
Total operating revenues | $ | 4,657 | $ | 4,318 | 8 | ||||
Passenger Revenue – Mainline
Mainline passenger revenue for 2012 increased by 10% on a 6.3% increase in capacity and a 3.2% increase in PRASM compared to 2011. The increase in capacity was driven by new routes added in 2012, most of which were to and from Hawaii. The increase in PRASM was driven by a 1.4% increase in ticket yield and a 1.4-point increase in load factor compared to the prior year. The increase in yield is due to strong demand throughout the year, while the increase in load factor is due to adding more traffic in our high density markets.
Passenger Revenue – Regional
Regional passenger revenue increased by $33 million, or 5%, compared to 2011 on a 4.4% increase in capacity and flat PRASM compared to 2011. PRASM was affected by a 1.1% decrease in ticket yield, offset by a 1.2-point increase in load factor compared to the prior year. The decrease in yield is due to increased competition in certain markets, while the increase in load factor is due to better matching of supply with demand.
Freight and Mail
Freight and mail revenue increased $2 million, or 2%, primarily due to higher freight volumes and an increase in fuel and security surcharges, which offset a decrease in mail volumes.
Other – Net
Other—net revenue increased $15 million, or 3%, from 2011. This is primarily due to an increase in our Mileage Plan revenues of 7% and buy-on-board sales of 20%. Buy-on-board improved due to an increase in food sales of 24% and beverage sales of 14%. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in bag fees of 2% due to general shifts in customer behavior and our Club 49 program that launched in the fourth quarter of 2011, which waives the checked bag fee for residents in the state of Alaska who have joined the program.
OPERATING EXPENSES
Total operating expenses increased $256 million, or 7%, compared to 2011 mostly as a result of higher fuel costs. We believe it is useful to summarize operating expenses as follows, which is consistent with the way expenses are reported internally and evaluated by management:
Year Ended December 31, | |||||||||
(in millions) | 2012 | 2011 | % Change | ||||||
Fuel expense | $ | 1,459 | $ | 1,298 | 12 | ||||
Non-fuel expenses | 2,666 | 2,571 | 4 | ||||||
Total Operating Expenses | $ | 4,125 | $ | 3,869 | 7 | ||||
Significant operating expense variances from 2011 are more fully described below.
29
Wages and Benefits
Wages and benefits increased during 2012 by $47 million, or 5%, compared to 2011. The primary components of wages and benefits are shown in the following table:
Year Ended December 31, | |||||||||
(in millions) | 2012 | 2011 | % Change | ||||||
Wages | $ | 726 | $ | 703 | 3 | ||||
Pension and defined-contribution retirement benefits | 103 | 88 | 17 | ||||||
Medical benefits | 109 | 108 | 1 | ||||||
Other benefits and payroll taxes | 100 | 92 | 9 | ||||||
Total wages and benefits | $ | 1,038 | $ | 991 | 5 | ||||
Wages increased 3% on a 1% increase in FTEs as a result of increased flying and higher wage rates throughout our different employee groups which have wage step increase in their contracts. The contracts with the different employee groups contain important productivity improvements, which resulted in a 3.5% increase in the number of passengers handled per FTE.
Pension and other retirement-related benefits increased 17% primarily due to a decrease in the discount rate on the future benefit obligation compared to the prior year. The impact of lower rates resulted in an increase in our pension expense.
Medical benefits increased 1% from the prior year primarily due to an increase in employee health-care claims, partially offset by a decline in post-retirement medical expense.
Other benefits and payroll taxes increased 9% from the prior year due to increased workers' compensation expense of $4 million as a result of higher loss rates in more recent claim years and increased stock-based compensation of $4 million.
We expect wages and benefits to be 6% to 7% higher in 2013 compared to 2012 on a 3% to 4% increase in FTEs, as well as inflation in medical benefits of 10%. Pension and other retirement-related benefits is expected to be flat compared to 2012.
Variable Incentive Pay
Variable incentive pay expense increased from $72 million in 2011 to $88 million in 2012. The increase is due to actual results exceeding our target results of financial and operational performance more so than in the prior year.
If we meet targets established under our Performance Based Pay and Operational Performance Rewards programs, we expect variable incentive pay will be approximately $60 million in 2013. If we exceed the targets, variable incentive pay will be higher. If we do not achieve targets, it will be lower.
Aircraft Fuel
Aircraft fuel expense includes both raw fuel expense (as defined below) plus the effect of mark-to-market adjustments to our fuel hedge portfolio included in our consolidated statement of operations as the value of that portfolio increases and decreases. Our aircraft fuel expense is very volatile, even between quarters, because it includes these gains or losses in the value of the underlying instrument as crude oil prices and refining margins increase or decrease. Raw fuel expense is defined as the price that we generally pay at the airport, or the “into-plane” price, including taxes and fees. Raw fuel prices are impacted by world oil prices and refining costs, which can vary by region in the U.S. Raw fuel expense approximates cash paid to suppliers and does not reflect the effect of our fuel hedges.
30
Aircraft fuel expense increased $161 million, or 12% compared to 2011. The elements of the change are illustrated in the following table:
Year Ended December 31, | |||||||||||||||
2012 | 2011 | ||||||||||||||
(in millions, except for per gallon amounts) | Dollars | Cost/Gal | Dollars | Cost/Gal | |||||||||||
Raw or "into-plane" fuel cost | $ | 1,397 | $ | 3.31 | $ | 1,289 | $ | 3.24 | |||||||
(Gains) losses on settled hedges | 24 | 0.06 | (21 | ) | (0.06 | ) | |||||||||
Consolidated economic fuel expense | $ | 1,421 | $ | 3.37 | $ | 1,268 | $ | 3.18 | |||||||
Mark-to-market fuel hedge adjustments | 38 | 0.09 | 30 | 0.08 | |||||||||||
GAAP fuel expense | $ | 1,459 | $ | 3.46 | $ | 1,298 | $ | 3.26 | |||||||
Fuel gallons | 422 | 398 | |||||||||||||
Fuel gallons consumed increased 6.0% in line with the increase in departures and block hours.
The raw fuel price per gallon increased 2.2% as a result of higher West Coast jet fuel prices. West Coast jet fuel prices are impacted by both the price of crude oil, as well as refining margins associated with the conversion of crude oil to jet fuel. The increase in raw fuel price per gallon during 2012 was due to the increase in refining margins of 10.3%, offset by the decrease in crude oil of 1.3%, as compared to the prior year.
We also evaluate economic fuel expense, which we define as raw fuel expense adjusted for the cash we receive from, or pay to, hedge counterparties for hedges that settle during the period, and for the premium expense that we paid for those contracts. A key difference between aircraft fuel expense and economic fuel expense is the timing of gain or loss recognition on our hedge portfolio. When we refer to economic fuel expense, we include gains and losses only when they are realized for those contracts that were settled during the period based on their original contract terms. We believe this is the best measure of the effect that fuel prices are currently having on our business because it most closely approximates the net cash outflow associated with purchasing fuel for our operations. Accordingly, many industry analysts evaluate our results using this measure, and it is the basis for most internal management reporting and incentive pay plans.
Losses recognized for hedges that settled during the year was $24 million in 2012, compared to gains of $21 million in 2011. These amounts represent the cash received net of the premium expense recognized for those hedges.
We currently expect our economic fuel price per gallon to be approximately 3% higher in the first quarter of 2013 than the first quarter of 2012 due to the increased premium costs related to our fuel hedge program. As both oil prices and refining margins are volatile, we are unable to forecast the full-year cost with any certainty.
Aircraft Maintenance
Aircraft maintenance increased by $16 million, or 8%, compared to the prior year, primarily due to a $13 million increase in unscheduled engine removals for our Q400 aircraft and an $8 million increase related to our 737-800 aircraft related to heavier airframe checks, offset by a $12 million decrease due to lighter airframe checks for our 737-400 aircraft.
We expect aircraft maintenance to be approximately 10% higher in 2013 due to an increase in lease return costs and scheduled maintenance events for our B737 aircraft, offset by lower maintenance costs for our Q400 aircraft.
Aircraft Rent
Aircraft rent was flat compared to the prior-year period primarily due to lower rent expense for 13 fewer CRJ 700 aircraft of $3 million and three B737-400 aircraft lease extensions of $2 million, offset by additional rent expense for three B737-700 aircraft which were sold and leased back of $3 million.
We expect aircraft rent to be flat in 2013 as we intend to return six B737 aircraft in the fourth quarter of 2013.
31
Landing Fees and Other Rentals
Landing fees and other rentals increased $5 million, or 2%, primarily due to higher facilities rents of $5 million and increased landing fees of $4 million due to increased departures of 1.8%. These increases were partially offset by lower rents at LAX of $8 million.
We expect landing fees and other rentals to be slightly higher in 2013 due to an expected increase in departures.
Contracted Services
Contracted services increased $15 million, or 8%, primarily due to an increase in passengers of 4.5% and capacity purchase flying of $13 million related to SkyWest, which began in May 2011. Additionally, we experienced higher passenger and ramp handling of $2 million as a result of an increase in the number of flights to airports where outside vendors are used.
We expect contracted services to be higher in 2013 to handle expected growth in the number of passengers.
Selling Expenses
Selling expenses decreased by $7 million, or 4%, compared to 2011 as a result of lower fees related to debit card purchases of $4 million and flat global distribution system (GDS) fees, offset by an increase in advertising and promotional activities of $2 million.
We expect selling expense will be higher in 2013, primarily due to increased advertising and promotional activities and revenue related costs, such as credit card commissions.
Depreciation and Amortization
Depreciation and amortization increased $17 million, or 7%, compared to the prior year. This is primarily due to additional depreciation expense for the annualization of B737 aircraft and Q400 aircraft delivered in 2011, as well as the deliveries of B737 aircraft in 2012. In addition, we incurred depreciation of $6 million since we placed Terminal 6 at LAX into service in March 2012. These increases were offset by a decrease in depreciation expense for the CRJ 700 aircraft removed from the fleet in 2011 and other assets that became fully depreciated or were removed from operation.
We expect depreciation and amortization to be higher in 2013 in line with our nine aircraft deliveries and the annualization of seven aircraft deliveries in 2012.
Food and Beverage Service
Food and beverage costs increased $12 million, or 18%, from the prior year due to an increased number of passengers of 4.5%, increase in sales of buy-on-board products of 20%, the higher cost of some of our premium products served on board, and increased costs associated with food delivery.
We expect food and beverage costs to be higher in 2013 due to an anticipated increase in sales in line with an expected increase in the number of passengers.
Other Operating Expenses
Other operating expenses increased $13 million, or 6%, compared to 2011. The increase is primarily driven by higher IT and professional service costs of $8 million associated with our key initiatives and infrastructure improvements, and higher personnel non-wage costs such as hotels, meals and per diems of $7 million.
We expect other operating expenses to be higher in 2013 due to an expected increase in IT spending of approximately $20 million and higher professional service costs.
Fleet Transition and Restructuring Related Expenses
Fleet transition costs decreased $39 million, as we completed our transition to an all-Q400 fleet at Horizon in 2011.
32
Operating Costs per Available Seat Mile
Our operating costs per ASM (CASM) are summarized below:
Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||
2012 | 2011 | % Change | ||||||||
Consolidated: | ||||||||||
Total operating expenses per ASM (CASM) | 13.12 | ¢ | 13.06 | ¢ | 0.5 | |||||
Less the following components: | ||||||||||
Aircraft fuel, including hedging gains and losses | 4.64 | 4.38 | 5.9 | |||||||
Fleet transition costs | — | 0.13 | NM | |||||||
CASM, excluding fuel and fleet transition costs | 8.48 | ¢ | 8.55 | ¢ | (0.8 | ) | ||||
Mainline: | ||||||||||
Total mainline operating expenses per ASM (CASM) | 12.09 | ¢ | 11.87 | ¢ | 1.9 | |||||
Less the following components: | ||||||||||
Aircraft fuel, including hedging gains and losses | 4.53 | 4.27 | 6.1 | |||||||
CASM, excluding fuel | 7.56 | ¢ | 7.60 | ¢ | (0.5 | ) | ||||
NM - Not Meaningful
We have listed separately in the above table our fuel costs per ASM and our unit costs, excluding fuel and other noted items. These amounts are included in CASM, but for internal purposes we consistently use unit cost metrics that exclude fuel and certain special items to measure our cost-reduction progress. We believe that such analysis may be important to investors and other readers of these financial statements for the following reasons:
• | By eliminating fuel expense and certain special items from our unit cost metrics, we believe that we have better visibility into the results of our non-fuel cost-reduction initiatives. Our industry is highly competitive and is characterized by high fixed costs, so even a small reduction in non-fuel operating costs can result in a significant improvement in operating results. In addition, we believe that all domestic carriers are similarly impacted by changes in jet fuel costs over the long run, so it is important for management (and thus investors) to understand the impact of (and trends in) company-specific cost drivers such as labor rates and productivity, airport costs, maintenance costs, etc., which are more controllable. |
• | CASM excluding fuel and certain special items is one of the most important measures used by management and by the Air Group Board of Directors in assessing quarterly and annual cost performance. |
• | CASM excluding fuel (and other items as specified in our plan documents) is an important metric for the employee incentive plan that covers all employees. |
• | CASM excluding fuel and certain special items is a measure commonly used by industry analysts, and we believe it is the basis by which they compare our airlines to others in the industry. The measure is also the subject of frequent questions from investors. |
• | Disclosure of the individual impact of certain noted items provides investors the ability to measure and monitor performance both with and without these special items. We believe that disclosing the impact of certain items, such as fleet transition costs, is important because it provides information on significant items that are not necessarily indicative of future performance. Industry analysts and investors consistently measure our performance without these items for better comparability between periods and among other airlines. |
• | Although we disclose our passenger unit revenues, we do not (nor are we able to) evaluate unit revenues excluding the impact that changes in fuel costs have had on ticket prices. Fuel expense represents a large percentage of our total operating expenses. Fluctuations in fuel prices often drive changes in unit revenues in the mid-to-long term. Although we believe it is useful to evaluate non-fuel unit costs for the reasons noted above, we would caution readers of these financial statements not to place undue reliance on unit costs excluding fuel as a measure or predictor of future profitability because of the significant impact of fuel costs on our business. |
33
Our current expectations for capacity and operating costs per ASM are summarized below:
Forecast Q1 2013 | Change Y-O-Y | Forecast Full Year 2013 | Change Y-O-Y | ||||
Consolidated: | |||||||
Capacity (ASMs in millions) | 7,950 - 8,000 | ~ 8.5% | 33,600 - 34,100 | ~ 7.5% | |||
Cost per ASM excluding fuel and special items (cents) | 8.79 - 8.84 | flat | 8.35 - 8.40 | ||||