Southwest Airlines Company 10-K 2011
Documents found in this filing:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010
For the transition period from to
Commission File No. 1-7259
Southwest Airlines Co.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Registrants telephone number, including area code: (214) 792-4000
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes þ 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 þ
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 þ No ¨
Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes þ 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 registrants 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. þ
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 the definitions of large accelerated filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer þ 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 Act). Yes ¨ No þ
The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $8,280,035,736 computed by reference to the closing sale price of the common stock on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2010, the last trading day of the registrants most recently completed second fiscal quarter.
Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of the close of business on February 2, 2011: 747,563,467 shares
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the Proxy Statement for the Companys Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held May 18, 2011, are incorporated into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Southwest Airlines Co. (the Company or Southwest) is a major passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in the United States. The Company commenced service on June 18, 1971, with three Boeing 737 aircraft serving three Texas cities: Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. The Company ended 2010 with 548 Boeing 737 aircraft serving 69 cities in 35 states throughout the United States, and has announced its plans to begin service in March 2011 to two new states and three new cities: Charleston, South Carolina; Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina; and Newark, New Jersey. Based on the most recent data available from the U.S. Department of Transportation, as of September 30, 2010, the Company was the largest domestic air carrier in the United States, as measured by the number of originating passengers boarded.
The Company principally provides point-to-point, rather than hub-and-spoke, service. This allows the Company to maximize the use of key assets, including aircraft, gates, and Employees, and also facilitates the Companys ability to provide its markets with frequent, conveniently timed flights and low fares. The Companys point-to-point service is discussed in more detail below under Company Operations Route Structure.
For the 38th consecutive year, the Company was profitable, earning $459 million.
Proposed Acquisition of AirTran
On September 26, 2010, the Company entered into a merger agreement providing for the Companys acquisition of AirTran Holdings, Inc. (AirTran). Closing of the transaction is subject to the approval of AirTran stockholders, receipt of Department of Justice (DOJ) and certain other regulatory clearances, and fulfillment of customary closing conditions. If the merger is completed, each outstanding share of AirTran common stock will be converted into the right to receive 0.321 shares of Southwest common stock and $3.75 in cash, without interest. The number of shares of Southwest common stock and, under some circumstances, the cash consideration to be received is subject to adjustment based on the Companys share price prior to closing. This adjustment mechanism will provide at least $7.25 in value and up to $7.75 in value (based on the Companys share price prior to closing) per share of AirTran common stock. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information regarding the merger, the merger agreement, and the exchange ratio adjustment mechanism.
AirTran will hold a special meeting of its stockholders to vote on the proposal to approve the merger agreement. If the merger agreement is approved and other required clearances are obtained, the Company anticipates closing of the transaction will occur in the second quarter of 2011. As discussed further under Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, the acquisition would allow the Company to immediately and significantly expand and diversify its network and thereby provide a near-term growth opportunity not otherwise available to the Company.
The airline industry is a volatile industry and is subject to various challenges. Among other things, it is cyclical, energy intensive, labor intensive, capital intensive, technology intensive, heavily regulated, heavily taxed, and extremely competitive. It is also particularly susceptible to detrimental events such as acts of terrorism, poor weather, and natural disasters. In recent years, the industry has been particularly negatively affected by high and volatile fuel prices. In addition, during 2008 and most of 2009, the industry was significantly challenged by a worldwide credit crisis and a difficult U.S. economic environment. This led to a tightening of corporate travel policies, which in turn resulted in a reduction in business travel demand and a decrease in the percentage of full-fare purchases. This also led to a decrease in discretionary spending by leisure travelers. The U.S. airline industry generally responded to these challenges by reducing capacity (number of available seats) in 2008 and 2009. Although the U.S. economic environment experienced moderate recovery
during 2010, (i) the economy, as well as consumer behavior patterns, remained uncertain; (ii) fuel prices increased significantly over 2009; and (iii) the U.S. airline industry generally continued to exercise capacity restraint. The resulting leaner flight schedules, along with improving demand and fares, have led to significant improvements in industry load factors (percentage of seats filled by fare-paying passengers).
The Company principally provides point-to-point service, rather than the hub-and-spoke service provided by most major U.S. airlines (often referred to as legacy airlines). The hub-and-spoke system concentrates most of an airlines operations at a limited number of central hub cities and serves most other destinations in the system by providing one-stop or connecting service through a hub. Any issue at a hub, such as bad weather or a security problem, can create delays throughout the system. By not concentrating operations through one or more central transfer points, the Companys point-to-point route structure allows for more direct non-stop routing than hub-and-spoke service and therefore better enables the Company to control delays and total trip time. Approximately 73 percent of the Companys Customers flew non-stop during 2010, and the Companys average aircraft trip stage length in 2010 was 648 miles with an average duration of approximately 1.8 hours. Approximately 76 percent of the Companys Customers flew non-stop during 2009, and the Companys average aircraft trip stage length in 2009 was 639 miles with an average duration of approximately 1.8 hours. The 2010 decrease in percentage of non-stop Customers reflects, in part, the Companys network optimization efforts, which included publishing more itineraries with enhanced connecting opportunities and which as a result contributed to improved load factors. The Companys network optimization is discussed in more detail below under Operating Strategies and Initiatives Network Optimization; Revenue Management.
The Companys point-to-point service also enables it to provide its markets with frequent, conveniently timed flights. Examples of markets offering frequent daily flights are: Dallas Love Field to Houston Hobby, 25 weekday roundtrips; Phoenix to Las Vegas, 14 weekday roundtrips; and Los Angeles International to Oakland, 14 weekday roundtrips. The Company complements these high-frequency short-haul routes with long-haul, nonstop service between markets such as Los Angeles and Nashville, Las Vegas and Orlando, and San Diego and Baltimore. As of December 31, 2010, the Company served 460 non-stop city pairs.
A key component of the Companys business strategy is its low cost structure, which is designed to allow it to profitably charge low fares. Adjusted for stage length, the Company has lower unit costs, on average, than most major carriers. The Companys low cost structure is currently facilitated by the Companys reliance upon a single aircraft type, its operationally efficient point-to-point route structure, and its highly productive Employees. The Companys current use of a single aircraft type, the Boeing 737, enables it to simplify scheduling, maintenance, flight operations, and training activities. The Companys point-to-point route structure includes service to and from many secondary or downtown airports such as Dallas Love Field, Houston Hobby, Chicago Midway, Baltimore-Washington International, Burbank, Manchester, Oakland, San Jose, Providence, Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood, and Long Island Islip airports. These conveniently located airports are typically less congested than other airlines hub airports, which enables the Company to achieve high asset utilization because aircraft can be scheduled to minimize the amount of time they are on the ground. This in turn reduces the number of aircraft and gate facilities that would otherwise be required and allows for high Employee productivity (headcount per aircraft).
Impact of Fuel Costs
For the sixth consecutive year, Fuel and oil expense represented the Companys largest or second largest cost. The table below shows the Companys average cost of jet fuel and oil over the past six years and during each quarter of 2010:
The Company has historically entered into fuel derivative contracts to manage rising fuel costs; however, because energy prices can fluctuate significantly in a relatively short amount of time, the Company must also continually monitor and adjust its fuel hedge portfolio and strategies to address fuel price volatility. For example, during 2008, market spot prices for crude oil peaked at a high of over $147 per barrel and hit a low price of under $35 per barrel both within a period of approximately five months. This led to the Companys decision in late 2008 and early 2009 to significantly reduce its net fuel hedge position in place for 2009 through 2013. As a result of these activities, the Company effectively locked in some hedging-related losses for 2009 through 2013. Since early 2009, the Company has continued to adjust its fuel hedge portfolio in an attempt to economically layer back in some protection in the event of a significant surge in market prices. Fuel costs continued to be volatile during 2010, with market spot prices ranging from a low of $68 per barrel to a high of $91 per barrel. Therefore, the Company continues to actively manage its fuel hedge portfolio to address volatile fuel prices and, in particular, to mitigate the impact of significant increases in energy prices, while maintaining an objective to manage derivative premium costs. The Companys fuel hedging activities are discussed in more detail below under Risk Factors, Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, and Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Operating Strategies and Initiatives
As discussed above under Industry, going into 2010, the Companys operations reflected the impact during 2008 and most of 2009 of a worldwide credit crisis and significant economic recession, which had severely depressed the demand for air travel, especially from higher yield customers. In response, the Company developed short-term and long-term initiatives designed to increase unit revenues, improve the Customer experience, and control costs. During 2010, despite a moderate improvement in the U.S. economic environment, the Company continued to focus on these areas. The Companys actions led to an improvement in its operating results during 2010 despite a significant increase in fuel prices compared to 2009.
Network Optimization; Revenue Management
During 2010, the Company continued to approach route expansion through optimization of its flight schedule. The Companys implementation during 2009 of an enhanced profitability analysis tool has provided the Company with visibility into profitability and network contribution by flight. This has enabled the Company to manage capacity by trimming unprofitable and less popular flights in certain markets and then reallocating the capacity to new markets, as well as existing markets with higher demand. It has also enabled the Company to manage capacity through more seasonal flying in specific markets and to publish additional itineraries with enhanced connecting opportunities. During 2010, network optimization allowed the Company to redeploy capacity, open new cities, and add frequencies in key cities despite an increase in capacity of less than one percent over 2009. The efforts contributed to record annual and monthly load factors for 2010. The Company continues to evaluate opportunities to improve its revenue and pricing technology.
Aggressive Promotion of the Companys Low Fare Brand and Points of Differentiation from its Competitors
During 2010, the Company continued to benefit from, and aggressively market, its points of differentiation from its competitors.
The Companys Fare Structure. The Company employs a relatively simple fare structure, featuring low, unrestricted, unlimited, everyday coach fares, as well as even lower fares available on a restricted basis. The Company bundles fares into three major categories: Wanna Get Away®, AnytimeSM, and Business Select®, with the goal of making it easier for Customers to choose the fare they prefer.
Aggressive Marketing Campaign. The Company is the only major U.S. airline that does not impose additional fees for first or second checked bags. During 2010, through its Bags Fly Free® marketing campaign, the Company continued to aggressively promote this point of differentiation from its competitors. The Company believes its decision not to charge for first and second checked bags, as reinforced by the Companys related marketing campaign, has driven an increase in the Companys market share and a resulting significant increase in revenues.
The Company is also the only major U.S. airline that does not impose a fee for a Customers change in flight plans. In January 2011, the Company introduced a marketing campaign to promote this point of differentiation from its competitors. The campaign highlights the importance to the Company of Customer Service by showing that the Company understands plans can change and therefore does not charge a change fee. While a Customer may pay a difference in airfare, the Customer will not be charged a change fee on top of any difference in airfare.
Also unlike most of its competitors, the Company does not impose additional fees for items such as seat selection, fuel surcharges, snacks, curb-side checkin, and telephone reservations. During 2010, the Company also changed its stroller/car seat policy to allow each ticketed Customer to check one stroller and one car seat free of charge, in addition to the two free checked bags.
Enhancements to Southwest.com
In 2010, the Company completed a comprehensive rebuild of its southwest.com website for the purpose of, among other things, providing more product options, driving better booking rates, and improving ancillary revenues. The 2010 enhancements include improved navigation capabilities that make it easier for Customers to locate what they need. Any part of a trip can now be planned directly from the home page, and the website can now recognize a Customers home airport and provide offers relevant to the Customer. The website can also remember a Customers most recent searches to make it easier for the Customer to shop for flights, cars, and hotels, and includes a shopping cart functionality that allows a customer to purchase air, hotel, and car all at once. Customers can now also book unaccompanied minor travel online. The website also highlights points of differentiation between the Company and other air carriers, as well as the fact that southwest.com is the only place where Customers can purchase Southwest fares online.
During 2010, southwest.com accounted for approximately 79 percent of all Southwest Airlines bookings. In addition, for the year ended December 31, 2010, nearly 84 percent of the Companys Passenger revenues came through its website (including revenues from SWABIZ, the Companys business travel reservation web page).
Increased Targeting of Business Travelers
The Company offers several products that have been designed to attract additional business/full fare travelers.
Business Select. As discussed above, the Companys Business Select product includes perks such as priority boarding, bonus frequent flyer credit, priority security access in select airports, and one complimentary adult beverage. The Companys Business Select program contributed approximately $88 million in revenue premiums during 2010, up from $72 million in revenues during 2009.
Fly By® Priority Lanes. The Company has introduced Fly By Priority Lane access for its Business Select Customers and Rapid Rewards A-List Members at many of its airports. Fly By Priority lanes are priority access lanes located at ticket counters and security checkpoints. The lanes allow Business Select Customers and Rapid Rewards A-List Members direct access to the front of the line at the ticket counter and/or security checkpoint.
Enhanced Rapid Rewards® Frequent Flyer Program. As discussed further below under Rapid Rewards Frequent Flyer Program, the Company has announced enhancements to its frequent flyer program that will better reward the Companys most loyal customers.
SWABIZ®. SWABIZ is the Companys business travel reservation web page. SWABIZ allows business travelers to plan, book, and purchase Ticketless Travel on Southwest Airlines and to efficiently obtain their lowest fares and maximum frequent flyer credit.
In addition, as discussed below under Inflight Internet Connectivity, the Company has begun installing its fleet with equipment to provide WiFi connectivity.
Ancillary Services and Fees
During 2010, the Company experienced revenue benefits from its addition in 2009 of new service offerings such as the Companys EarlyBird Check-in and Pets Are Welcome on Southwest (PAWS) products. EarlyBird Check-in allows Customers to obtain an early boarding position directly behind Business Select and A-List Customers by adding an additional $10 to the price of a one-way fare (priority boarding privileges are already included in the purchase of a Business Select fare and are a benefit of being an A-List frequent flyer see Rapid Rewards Frequent Flyer Program below). The Companys PAWS offering allows Customers to bring small cats
and dogs into the aircraft cabin for a $75 one-way fare. During 2010, the Company also increased its service charge for Customers who travel as an unaccompanied minor from $25 to $50 one-way to address the costs to the Company related to the administrative work and extra care necessary to safely transport these Customers. The Companys 2010 revenues from EarlyBird Check-in, PAWS, and unaccompanied minor services charges were $119 million, an increase of $95 million from 2009.
The Company also expects to benefit from new ancillary revenue opportunities created by its scheduled launch in March 2011 of a new and improved Rapid Rewards frequent flyer program, which is discussed in detail below under Rapid Rewards Frequent Flyer Program.
During 2010, the Company continued its work towards implementing international marketing alliances and codesharing relationships. Although the Company terminated its agreement with WestJet to offer connecting service between the United States and Canada, in November 2010, the Company launched a new service that allows its Customers to book international flights by connecting with Volaris, Mexicos second largest airline. Southwest Customers can book travel from 20 Southwest cities to five Volaris Mexican destinations (Cancun, Guadalajara, Morelia, Toluca/Mexico City, and Zacatecas). The new service connects through Los Angeles International Airport, Oakland International Airport, and San Jose International Airport and currently creates up to 85 additional flight itineraries. Behind the scenes, the Companys international connect portal conducts two separate transactions one with the Companys reservation system and one with Volariss reservation system. Tying the two systems together provides Customers with an easy booking experience, one low fare, allows for thru-checking of luggage, and blends the airlines flight schedules.
Inflight Internet Connectivity
In 2010, the Company entered into an equipment purchase contract with Row 44 to allow for an inflight satellite (broadband) WiFi offering, rather than the air-to-ground service used by several of the Companys competitors. As of January 31, 2011, WiFi connectivity was available on more than 60 aircraft, and the Company expects these installations to continue on its remaining 737-700 fleet. The Companys arrangement with Row 44 enables the Company to control the pricing of the service, which has initially been set at an introductory flat rate of $5.00 per flight for any device or flight length.
Proactive Customer Communications
During 2010, the Company enhanced the capabilities of its Automated Outbound Messaging (AOM) service. The Companys AOM capability, which was originally launched in August 2008, enables it to (i) proactively deliver customized automated telephone messages to Customers when there has been a significant change (or potential disruption) to their flight such as a cancellation, gate change, or flight delay; and (ii) give Customers the option to connect to a Customer Representative in the case of cancelled flights. In 2010, for Customers who book their travel on southwest.com, the Company began providing Customers with the option to receive these alerts via SMS texting. The new SMS strategy is designed to increase proactive Passenger outreach, reduce inbound calls, improve contact center management, and save costs. In addition to providing flight information to Customers using their preferred method, if applicable, the Company also directs Customers to southwest.com/rebook.
Ongoing Revenue Initiatives
In 2010, the Company announced its plans to implement a new reservations system to better enable international operations either via a codeshare arrangement or with the Companys own aircraft. In addition, the
Company announced that it will be introducing the Boeing 737-800 to its fleet in 2012, which would enable the Company to (i) more economically serve longhaul routes, including extended routes over water; (ii) more economically serve capacity constrained airports; and (iii) boost fuel efficiency.
During 2010, the Company continued its efforts to contain costs and preserve its low cost advantage and low-fare brand. The Company has addressed costs through the network optimization discussed above, as well as through other cost reduction and process improvement initiatives such as the following:
In addition, during 2010, the Company took significant steps towards Required Navigation Performance (RNP) operations. RNP is one of the cornerstones of the Federal Aviation Administrations (FAA) strategy to modernize the U.S. Air Traffic Control System by addressing limitations on air transportation capacity and making more efficient use of airspace. RNP combines the capabilities of advanced aircraft avionics, GPS (Global Positioning System) satellite navigation (instead of less-precise ground-based navigation), and new flight procedures to (i) enable aircraft to carry navigation capabilities rather than relying on airports; (ii) improve operational capabilities by opening up many new and more direct approach paths to produce more efficient flight patterns; and (iii) conserve fuel, improve safety, and reduce carbon emissions. The Company began developing GPS approach procedures during the first quarter of 2010, completed RNP training of its nearly 6,000 pilots in November 2010, and commenced RNP procedures in revenue service at 11 airports on January 11, 2011. In the first week of RNP activation, over 600 fuel efficient RNP approaches were safely executed.
Rapid Rewards Frequent Flyer Program
Current Program. The Company offers a frequent flyer program, Rapid Rewards, which currently allows Customers to earn credits towards free flights based on trips flown. Rapid Rewards Members currently can earn a credit for each one-way trip flown or two credits for each roundtrip flown. They can also currently earn credits by using the services of non-airline Preferred Partners, which include, for example, car rental agencies, hotels, restaurants, and retail locations, as well as by using the Southwest Airlines Rapid Rewards Visa Signature Card. As discussed further below under New Program, in March 2011, the Company plans to launch a new Rapid Rewards program.
The Companys current Rapid Rewards frequent flyer program offers three different types of travel awards (Awards): the Standard Award, the Freedom Award, and the Companion Pass. Rapid Rewards Members also have the opportunity to become A-List Customers and receive priority boarding privileges.
Standard Awards. Rapid Rewards Members who accumulate 16 credits within 24 consecutive months automatically receive a Standard Award in their account. Standard Awards are valid for one free roundtrip to any destination available on Southwest Airlines. Standard Awards are valid for 12 months after issuance and are subject to seat restrictions.
Freedom Awards. Rapid Rewards Members who have earned two Standard Awards may convert those Awards into a Freedom Award, which is free of seat restrictions except for a limited number of Black-out dates around major holidays. Freedom Awards are valid for 12 months from the date of the Standard Award with the earliest expiration date (or, for a $50 fee, 12 months from the date the Standard Awards are converted) and are subject to seat restrictions.
Companion Passes. Rapid Rewards Members who earn 100 credits within a consecutive 12-month period automatically receive a Companion Pass, which provides for unlimited free roundtrip travel to any destination available on Southwest Airlines for a designated companion of the qualifying Rapid Rewards Member. The Rapid Rewards Member and designated companion must travel together on the same flight. Companion Passes are valid for 12 months after issuance, but are not subject to seat restrictions or blackout dates.
Priority Boarding Privileges. Rapid Rewards Members who fly at least 32 qualifying one-way flights within a 12-month period receive priority boarding privileges for an entire year. When these Customers purchase travel at least 36 hours prior to flight time, they receive the best boarding pass number available (generally, an A boarding pass). Customers on this A-List are automatically checked in for their flight in advance of departure. These Customers also gain access to Fly By priority check-in and security lanes where available.
The Companys Customers redeemed approximately 3.2 million, 3.0 million, and 2.8 million Awards during 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively. The amount of free travel Award usage as a percentage of total Company revenue passenger miles flown was 7.9 percent in 2010, 7.7 percent in 2009, and 8.3 percent in 2008. The number of fully earned Awards and partially earned Awards outstanding at December 31, 2010, was approximately 13.9 million, of which approximately 79 percent were partially earned Awards. The number of fully earned Awards and partially earned Awards outstanding at December 31, 2009, was approximately 10.3 million, of which approximately 77 percent were partially earned Awards. However, due to the expected expiration of a portion of credits making up partial Awards, not all of them will eventually turn into useable Awards. In addition, not all Awards will be redeemed for future travel. Since the inception of Rapid Rewards in 1987, approximately 17 percent of all fully earned Awards have expired without being used. The number of Companion Passes outstanding at December 31, 2010 and 2009 was approximately 76,000 and 65,000, respectively. The Company currently estimates that an average of three to four trips will be redeemed per outstanding Companion Pass.
The Company currently accounts for its Rapid Rewards program obligations by recording a liability for the estimated incremental cost of the use of flight credits the Company expects to turn into Awards and be redeemed. The estimated incremental cost of these liabilities includes direct Passenger costs such as fuel, food, and other operational costs, but does not include any contribution to overhead or profit. Revenue from the sale of flight credits to business partners and associated with future travel is deferred and recognized when the ultimate free travel Award is flown or the credits expire unused. The liability for free travel Awards earned but not used at December 31, 2010 and 2009, including those sold to business partners, was $246 million and $206 million, respectively.
New Program. The Company has announced that, on March 1, 2011, it will launch a new Rapid Rewards frequent flyer program. Under the new frequent flyer program, members will earn points for every dollar spent instead of credits for flight segments flown. The amount of points earned will be based on the fare and fare class purchased, with higher fare products (e.g., Business Select) earning more points than lower fare products (e.g., Wanna Get Away). Each fare class will be associated with a points earning multiplier, and points for flights will be calculated by multiplying the fare for the flight by the fare class multiplier. Likewise, the amount of points required to be redeemed for a flight will be based on the fare and fare class purchased; however, unlike the current program, under the new program, (i) members will be able to redeem their points for every available seat, every day, on every flight, and with no blackout dates; and (ii) points will not expire so long as the Rapid Rewards Member has points-earning activity during a 24-month time period. In addition, under the new program, rewards will not be automatically issued when a members account reaches a certain threshold. Instead, members will be able to decide when to use their points to purchase travel on any Southwest Airlines flight. As a result, the new program provides its members more flexibility and options for earning and redeeming their rewards. For example, members can earn more points (and/or achieve tiered status such as A-List and Companion Pass faster) by purchasing higher fare tickets. Members also will have more flexibility in redeeming points, such as the
opportunity to book in advance to take advantage of a lower fare (including a fare sale) ticket by redeeming fewer points or by being able to redeem more points and book at the last minute if seats are still available for sale. Rapid Rewards members will also be able to earn points through qualifying purchases with Rapid Rewards Partners. In addition, Rapid Rewards Credit Cardmembers will be able to redeem their points for items other than travel on Southwest Airlines, such as international flights, cruises, hotel stays, rental cars, gift cards, event tickets, and more. In addition to earning points for revenue flights, Rapid Rewards Members will have the ability to purchase points.
The new frequent flyer program also features enhanced A-List and Companion Pass programs for the most active members, and adds a new level of status, A-List Preferred. Both A-List and A-List Preferred Members will enjoy benefits such as priority checkin and security lane and ticket counter access, dedicated phone lines, standby priority, and an earnings bonus on eligible revenue flights (25% for A-List and 100% for A-List Preferred). In addition, A-List Preferred Members will enjoy free Inflight WiFi on equipped flights.
The new program has been designed to drive more revenue by (i) bringing in new Customers; (ii) increasing business from existing Customers; and (iii) strengthening the Companys Rapid Rewards hotel, rental car, credit card, and retail partnerships.
Management Information Systems
The Company has continued its commitment to technology improvements to support its ongoing operations and initiatives. During 2010, the Company completed the integration of a new SAP Enterprise Resource Planning application, which replaced the Companys general ledger, accounts payable, accounts receivable, payroll, benefits, cash management, and fixed asset systems. The conversion was designed to improve the Companys key business processes by implementing an integrated tool to increase efficiency, consistency, data accuracy, and cost effectiveness. In addition, the Company has invested in significant technology necessary to support its new Rapid Rewards frequent flyer program, enhanced southwest.com website, and WiFi implementation. The Company has also made the decision to embark on a project that will result in the replacement of its reservations system over the next several years.
The airline industry is heavily regulated, especially by the federal government. Examples of regulations affecting the Company and/or the industry are discussed below.
Economic and Operational Regulation
The U.S. Department of Transportation. The U.S. Department of Transportation (the DOT) regulates aviation safety, as well as economic, consumer protection, and civil rights matters. The DOT may impose civil penalties on air carriers for violating its regulations.
To provide passenger transportation in the United States, a domestic airline is required to hold a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued by the DOT. A certificate is unlimited in duration, and the Companys certificate generally permits it to operate among any points within the United States and its territories and possessions. Additional DOT authority, in the form of a certificate or exemption from certificate requirements, is required for a U.S. airline to serve foreign destinations either with its own aircraft or via codesharing with another airline. The DOT may revoke a certificate or exemption, in whole or in part, for intentional failure to comply with federal aviation statutes, regulations, orders, or the terms of the certificate itself.
The DOTs consumer protection and enforcement activities relate to areas such as unfair and deceptive practices and unfair competition by air carriers, deceptive airline advertising (e.g., fare, on-time performance, schedule, and codesharing), and violations of rules concerning denied boarding compensation, ticket refunds,
and baggage liability requirements. The DOT is also charged with prohibiting discrimination by airlines and focuses on ensuring that individuals with disabilities obtain nondiscriminatory access to the air transportation system and that the public is not subjected to unlawful discrimination by airlines on the basis of race, religion, national origin, or sex during the course of their air transportation.
Most recently, in 2010, a new DOT consumer protection rule (the Passenger Protection Rule) went into effect to address, among other matters, tarmac delays and chronically delayed flights (i.e., flights that operate at least 10 times a month and arrive more than 30 minutes late more than 50 percent of the time during that month). Under the Passenger Protection Rule, U.S. passenger airlines are required to adopt contingency plans that include the following: (i) the assurance that no domestic flight will remain on the airport tarmac for more than three hours unless the pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related or security-related impediment to deplaning passengers or air traffic control advises the pilot-in-command that returning to the gate or permitting passengers to disembark elsewhere would significantly disrupt airport operations; (ii) the assurance that carriers will provide adequate food and potable drinking water no later than two hours after the aircraft leaves the gate (in the case of departure) or touches down (in the case of arrival) if the aircraft remains on the tarmac, unless the pilot-in-command determines that safety or security considerations preclude such service; and (iii) the assurance of operable lavatories, as well as adequate medical attention, if needed. Air carriers are required to publish their contingency plans on their websites.
The Passenger Protection Rule also subjects airlines to potential DOT enforcement action for unfair and deceptive practices in the event of chronically delayed flights. Airlines are required to (i) display ontime performance on their websites; (ii) adopt customer service plans, publish those plans on their website, and audit their own compliance with their plans; (iii) designate an employee to monitor the performance of their flights; and (iv) provide information to passengers on how to file complaints and respond in a timely and substantive fashion to consumer complaints. Airlines that violate the Passenger Protection Rule are subject to potential fines of up to $27,500 per passenger, the maximum allowed for violating any aviation consumer rule. The DOT has expressed its intent to aggressively investigate alleged violations of the Passenger Protection Rule. In June 2010, the DOT proposed a new rule that would expand the Passenger Protection Rule by, among other things, (i) increasing the maximum denied boarding compensation airlines must pay to passengers bumped from flights from $800 to $1,300; (ii) allowing passengers to make and cancel reservations within 24 hours without penalty; and (iii) strengthening the DOTs enforcement policies concerning air transportation price advertising practices.
Aviation Taxes. The statutory authority for the federal government to collect aviation taxes, which are used, in part, to finance the nations airport and air traffic control systems, and the authority of the FAA to expend those funds must be periodically reauthorized by the U.S. Congress. This authority was originally scheduled to expire on September 30, 2007, but Congress has approved a series of extensions of this authority, with the most recent extension set to expire on March 31, 2011. Congress is currently expected to adopt FAA reauthorization legislation sometime in 2011. Other proposals that could be considered by Congress in connection with the FAA reauthorization legislation include: (i) the imposition of new, or changes to, aviation-specific taxes; (ii) an increase in the amount of airport passenger facility charges; and (iii) the adoption of new unfunded mandates on commercial airlines such as new environmental, consumer, and labor standards, any of which could have an impact on the Companys operations.
The Wright Amendment. Section 29 of the International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979, as amended (commonly known as the Wright Amendment), prohibited the carriage of nonstop and through passengers on commercial flights between Dallas Love Field and all states outside of Texas, with the exception of the following states (the Wright Amendment States): Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. Originally, the Wright Amendment permitted an airline to offer flights between Dallas Love Field and the Wright Amendment States only to the extent the airline did not offer or provide any through service or ticketing with another air carrier at Dallas Love Field and did not market service to or from Dallas Love Field and any point outside of a Wright Amendment State. In other words, a Customer could not purchase a single ticket between Dallas Love Field and any destination other than a
Wright Amendment State. The Wright Amendment did not restrict flights operated with aircraft having 56 or fewer passenger seats, nor did it restrict the Companys intrastate Texas flights or its air service to or from points other than Dallas Love Field. In 2006, the Company entered into an agreement with the City of Dallas, the City of Fort Worth, American Airlines, Inc., and the DFW International Airport Board, pursuant to which the five parties sought enactment of legislation to amend the Wright Amendment. Congress responded by passing the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006, which immediately repealed the original through service and ticketing restrictions by allowing the purchase of a single ticket between Dallas Love Field and any U.S. destination (while still requiring the Customer to make a stop in a Wright Amendment State), and reduced the maximum number of gates available for commercial air service at Dallas Love Field from 32 to 20. The Company currently has access to 16 gates at Dallas Love Field. Pursuant to the Wright Amendment Reform Act and local agreements with the City of Dallas with respect to gates, the Company can expand scheduled service from Dallas Love Field and currently intends to do so. The Wright Amendment Reform Act also provides for substantial repeal of the remainder of the Wright Amendment in 2014.
Operational, Safety and Health Regulation
The Company and its third-party maintenance providers are subject to the jurisdiction of the FAA with respect to the Companys aircraft maintenance and operations, including equipment, ground facilities, dispatch, communications, flight training personnel, and other matters affecting air safety. To ensure compliance with its regulations, the FAA requires airlines to obtain, and the Company has obtained, operating, airworthiness, and other certificates. These certificates are subject to suspension or revocation for cause. In addition, pursuant to FAA regulations, the Company has established, and the FAA has approved, the Companys operations specifications and a maintenance program for the Companys aircraft, ranging from frequent routine inspections to major overhauls. The FAA, acting through its own powers or through the appropriate U.S. Attorney, also has the power to bring proceedings for the imposition and collection of fines for violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
In September 2010, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing certain changes to flight and duty time limitations and rest requirements for pilots. The FAAs proposed amendments would (i) increase to nine hours the minimum opportunity for rest prior to the duty period; (ii) establish a new method for measuring a pilots rest period, so that the pilot would be assured the opportunity to receive at least eight hours of sleep during that rest period; (iii) place weekly and 28-day limits on the amount of time a pilot may be assigned any type of duty; and (iv) require pilots to be given at least 30 consecutive hours free from duty on a weekly basis, a 25 percent increase over the current rules. Moreover, in January 2010, the DOT issued an NPRM with regards to lithium batteries carried on commercial aircraft. If adopted, the DOT proposal could significantly impact the Companys cargo operations.
The Company is subject to various other federal, state, and local laws and regulations relating to occupational safety and health, including Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Food and Drug Administration regulations.
Pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), the Transportation Security Administration (the TSA), a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for certain civil aviation security matters. ATSA and subsequent TSA regulations and procedures implementing ATSA address, among other things, (i) flight deck security; (ii) the use of federal air marshals onboard flights; (iii) airport perimeter access security; (iv) airline crew security training; (v) security screening of passengers, baggage, cargo, mail, employees, and vendors; (vi) training and qualifications of security screening personnel, (vii) provision of passenger data to U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and (viii) background checks. Under ATSA, substantially all security screeners at airports are federal employees, and significant other elements of airline and airport security are overseen and performed by federal employees, including federal security managers, federal law enforcement officers, and federal air marshals. TSA-mandated security procedures can affect the Companys operations, costs, and Customer experience. For example, in 2006, the TSA implemented
security measures regulating the types of liquid items that can be carried onboard aircraft. In 2009, the TSA introduced its Secure Flight program. Secure Flight requires airlines to collect a passengers full name (as it appears on a government-issued ID), date of birth, gender, and Redress Number (if applicable). Airlines must transmit this information to Secure Flight, which uses the information to perform matching against terrorist watch lists. After matching passenger information against the watch lists, Secure Flight transmits the matching results back to airlines. This serves to identify individuals for enhanced security screening and to prevent individuals on watch lists from boarding an aircraft. It also helps prevent the misidentification of passengers who have names similar to individuals on watch lists. In 2010, the TSA also implemented enhanced security procedures as part of its enhanced, multi-layer approach to airport security by employing advanced imaging technology (full body scans), as well as new physical pat down procedures, at security checkpoints. Such enhanced security procedures have raised privacy concerns by some air travelers.
Enhanced security measures have also impacted the Companys business through the imposition of security fees on the Companys Customers and on the Company. Under ATSA, funding for passenger security is provided in part by a $2.50 per enplanement security fee (the 9/11 Fee), subject to a maximum of $5.00 per one-way trip. Congress may consider an increase in the 9/11 Fee, as well as other changes to ATSA, as part of future security-related legislation. ATSA also allows the TSA to assess an Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee (ASIF) on each airline. The Companys ASIF liability was originally set at $26 million per year. Effective for calendar year 2005, the TSA unilaterally increased the amount by an additional $24 million to a total of $50 million annually. The Company and 22 other airlines joined in litigation against the TSA to challenge the agencys increase to their respective ASIF fees. In February 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the increased fees were excessive and remanded the matter to the TSA to determine the amount of the excess. In June 2010, the TSA made a partial refund of $18 million to the Company and reduced its fees going forward by $3.5 million annually. The Company and other airlines have petitioned the Court of Appeals to invalidate the TSAs action and require it to make larger refunds and reductions.
The Company has made significant investments to address the effect of security regulations, including investments in facilities, equipment, and technology to process Customers efficiently and restore the airport experience; however, the Company is not able to predict the ongoing impact, if any, that various security measures will have on Passenger revenues and the Companys costs, both in the short-term and the long-term.
The Company is subject to various federal laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, including 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, as well as state and local laws and regulations. These laws and regulations govern aircraft drinking water and the discharge or disposal of materials such as chemicals, hazardous waste, and aircraft deicing fluid. Additionally, in conjunction with airport authorities, other airlines, and state and local environmental regulatory agencies, the Company, as a normal course of business, undertakes voluntary investigation or remediation of soil or groundwater contamination at several airport sites. The Company does not believe that any environmental liability associated with these airport sites will have a material adverse effect on the Companys operations, costs, or profitability, nor has it experienced any such liability in the past that has had a material adverse effect on its operations, costs, or profitability. Further regulatory developments pertaining to the control of engine exhaust emissions from ground support equipment could increase operating costs in the airline industry. The Company does not believe, however, that pending environmental regulatory developments in this area will have a material effect on the Companys capital expenditures or otherwise materially adversely affect its operations, operating costs, or competitive position.
The federal government, as well as several state and local governments, are considering legislative and regulatory proposals to address climate change by reducing green house gas emissions. At the federal level, the Environmental Protection Agencys Endangerment Finding in January 2010 regarding greenhouse gas emissions set the stage for possible legislative or regulatory action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from various
segments of the economy, including from aviation. The airline industry could be affected directly through new unfunded mandates or indirectly through higher fuel costs as fuel providers pass on any additional costs to fuel consumers. Regardless of the method of regulation, policy changes with regards to climate change are possible, which could significantly increase operating costs in the airline industry and, as a result, adversely affect operations.
The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 gives airport operators the right, under certain circumstances, to implement local noise abatement programs, so long as they do not unreasonably interfere with interstate or foreign commerce or the national air transportation system. Some airports have established airport restrictions to limit noise, including restrictions on aircraft types to be used, and limits on the number of hourly or daily operations or the time of operations. These types of restrictions can cause curtailments in service or increases in operating costs and could limit the ability of the Company to expand its operations at the affected airports.
As part of its commitment to corporate sustainability, the Company has published the Southwest One ReportTM describing the Companys sustainability strategies, which include efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address other environmental matters such as energy and water conservation, waste minimization, and recycling. As discussed above under Operating Strategies and Initiatives - Cost Controls, the Company has also committed significant resources towards implementation of RNP procedures, which are designed to conserve fuel and reduce carbon emissions. In addition, the Companys Green Team targets areas of environmental improvement in all aspects of the Companys business, while at the same time remaining true to the Companys low cost philosophy.
The Company carries insurance of types customary in the airline industry and at amounts deemed adequate to protect the Company and its property and to comply both with federal regulations and certain of the Companys credit and lease agreements. The policies principally provide coverage for public and passenger liability, property damage, cargo and baggage liability, loss or damage to aircraft, engines, and spare parts, and workers compensation.
Through the 2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act (the Wartime Act), the federal government has provided renewable, supplemental, first-party, war-risk insurance coverage to commercial carriers at substantially lower premiums than prevailing commercial rates and for levels of coverage not available in the commercial market. The government-provided supplemental coverage from the Wartime Act is currently set to expire on September 30, 2011. Although another extension beyond this date is expected, if such coverage is not extended by the government, the Company could incur substantially higher insurance costs or unavailability of adequate coverage in future periods.
Competition within the airline industry is intense and highly unpredictable, and the Company currently competes with other airlines on a majority of its routes. Key competitive factors within the domestic airline industry include pricing, routes, scheduling, Customer Service, comfort, and cost structure. The Company also competes for customers with other forms of transportation, as well as alternatives to travel.
Pricing in the airline industry can be driven by a variety of factors. For example, airlines often discount fares to drive traffic in new markets or to stimulate traffic when necessary to improve load factors and cash flow. In addition, some airlines have been able to lower their operating costs (and thereby have been able to reduce fares) as a result of reorganization within and outside of bankruptcy. These factors can reduce the pricing power of the airline industry as a whole. In addition, the increased availability of fare information on the Internet allows travelers to easily compare fares and identify competitor promotions and discounts. The Company believes its low cost operating structure provides it with a significant competitive advantage over other airlines because it
enables the Company to continue to profitably charge competitive fares. In addition, the Company does not tack on additional fees for items such as first and second checked bags, flight changes, seat selection, fuel surcharges, snacks, curb-side checkin, and telephone reservations.
The Company also competes based on markets served, flight schedules, and frequent flyer opportunities. Some major U.S. airlines have more extensive route structures than does the Company, including international routes. In addition, many have entered into significant commercial relationships with other airlines, such as codesharing and capacity purchase agreements, which increase the airlines opportunities to expand the routes they can offer. For example, a codesharing agreement enables an airline to offer flights that are operated by another airline and also allows the airlines customers to book travel that includes segments on different airlines through just one airline. As a result, depending on the nature of the specific codesharing arrangement, a participating airline may be able to (i) offer its customers access to more destinations than it would be able to serve on its own, (ii) gain exposure in markets it does not otherwise serve, or (iii) increase the perceived frequency of its flights on certain routes. Codesharing arrangements not only provide additional route flexibility for participating airlines, they can also allow these airlines to offer their customers more opportunities to earn frequent flyer miles. A capacity purchase agreement enables an airline to expand its route structure by paying another airline (e.g., a regional airline with smaller aircraft) to operate flights on its behalf in markets that it does not, or cannot, serve itself. As discussed above under Operating Strategies and Initiatives, the Company continues to evaluate and implement projects to better enable it to enter into codesharing relationships and offer international itineraries. In November 2010, the Company launched a new service that allows its Customers to book international flights by connecting with Volaris, Mexicos second largest airline. In addition, the Companys anticipated acquisition of AirTran would enable the Company to expand its presence in key markets it already serves, extend its service to many smaller domestic cities that it does not yet serve, and provide access to key near-international markets in the Caribbean and Mexico.
The Company also competes with other airlines in areas of Customer Service such as ontime performance, passenger amenities, equipment type, and comfort. According to statistics published by the DOT, the Company consistently ranks at or near the top for Customer Satisfaction for having the lowest Customer complaint ratio.
The airline industry is subject to varying degrees of competition from surface transportation by automobiles, buses, and trains. Inconveniences and delays associated with air travel security measures can increase such surface competition. In addition, surface competition can be significant during economic downturns when consumers cut back on discretionary spending. Because of the relatively high percentage of shorthaul travel provided by the Company, it is particularly exposed to competition from such surface transportation in these instances. The airline industry is also subject to competition from alternatives to travel such as videoconferencing and the Internet, which can also increase in the event of travel inconveniences and economic downturns. The Company is subject to the risk that air travel inconveniences and economic downturns may, in some cases, result in permanent changes to consumer behavior in favor of surface transportation and electronic communications.
The Companys business is somewhat seasonal. Generally, in most markets the Company serves, demand for air travel is greater during the summer months, and therefore, revenues in the airline industry tend to be stronger in the second (April 1 June 30) and third (July 1 September 30) quarters of the year than in the first (January 1 March 31) and fourth (October 1 December 31) quarters of the year. As a result, in many cases, the Companys results of operations reflect this seasonality. Factors that could alter this seasonality include, among others, the price of fuel, general economic conditions, extreme or severe weather, fears of terrorism or war, or changes in the competitive environment. Therefore, the Companys quarterly operating results are not necessarily indicative of operating results for the entire year and historical operating results in a quarterly or annual period are not necessarily indicative of future operating results.
At December 31, 2010, the Company had 34,901 active fulltime equivalent Employees, consisting of 15,069 flight, 2,464 maintenance, 15,205 ground, Customer, and fleet service, and 2,163 management, accounting, marketing, and clerical personnel.
The Railway Labor Act establishes the right of airline employees to organize and bargain collectively. As of December 31, 2010, approximately 82 percent of the Companys Employees were represented by labor unions, all of which are under ten different collective-bargaining agreements. Under the Railway Labor Act, collective-bargaining agreements between an airline and a labor union generally do not expire, but instead become amendable as of an agreed date. By the amendable date, if either party wishes to modify the terms of the agreement, it must notify the other party in the manner required by the Railway Labor Act and/or described in the agreement. After receipt of the notice, the parties must meet for direct negotiations. If no agreement is reached, either party may request the National Mediation Board to appoint a federal mediator. If no agreement is reached in mediation, the National Mediation Board may determine an impasse exists and offer binding arbitration to the parties. If either party rejects binding arbitration, a 30-day cooling off period begins. At the end of this 30-day period, the parties may engage in self-help, unless a Presidential Emergency Board is established to investigate and report on the dispute. The appointment of a Presidential Emergency Board maintains the status quo for an additional 60 days. If the parties do not reach agreement during this period, the parties may then engage in self-help. Self-help includes, among other things, a strike by the union or the airlines imposition of any or all of its proposed amendments and the hiring of new employees to replace any striking workers. The following table sets forth the Companys Employee groups and status of the collective-bargaining agreements:
Additional Information About the Company
The Company was incorporated in Texas in 1967. The following documents are available free of charge through the Companys website, www.southwest.com: the Companys annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports that are filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pursuant to Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These materials are made available through the Companys website as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC.
DISCLOSURE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
Some statements in this Form 10-K (or otherwise made by the Company or on the Companys behalf from time to time in other reports, filings with the SEC, news releases, conferences, Internet postings, or otherwise) that are not historical facts may be 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 based on, and include statements about, the Companys estimates, expectations, beliefs, intentions, or strategies for the future, and the assumptions underlying these forward-looking statements. Specific forward-looking statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts and include, without limitation, words such as anticipates, believes, estimates, expects, intends, may, will, should, and similar expressions. While management believes these forward-looking statements are reasonable as and when made, forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual results may differ materially from what is expressed in or indicated by the Companys forward-looking statements or from historical experience or the Companys present expectations. Factors that could cause these differences include, but are not limited to, those set forth below under Risk Factors.
Caution should be taken not to place undue reliance on the Companys forward-looking statements, which represent the Companys views only as of the date this report is filed. The Company undertakes no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.
General Company Risk Factors
The Companys business has continued to be significantly impacted by fuel prices, which can be extremely volatile; therefore, the Companys strategic plans and future profitability are likely to be impacted by the Companys ability to effectively address fuel prices.
Fuel price volatility continues to present one of the Companys most significant challenges, as (i) the cost of fuel, which has been at historically high levels over the last few years, is largely unpredictable; and (ii) airlines are inherently dependent upon energy to operate; therefore, even a small change in market fuel prices can significantly affect profitability. Fuel prices are unpredictable, in part, because of many external factors that are beyond the Companys control. For example, fuel prices can be impacted by political and economic factors, such as (i) dependency on foreign imports of crude oil and the potential for hostilities or other conflicts in oil producing areas; (ii) limited refining capacity; (iii) changes in governmental policies on fuel production, transportation, and marketing; and (iv) changes in exchange rates. Likewise, the Companys ability to react to fuel price volatility can be affected by factors outside of its control. For example, the Companys profitability is affected in part by its ability to increase fares in reaction to fuel price increases; however, fare increases are difficult to implement in difficult economic environments when low fares are often used to stimulate traffic. The Companys ability to increase fares can also be limited by factors such as its low fares reputation, the portion of its Customer base that purchases travel for leisure purposes, the competitive nature of the airline industry generally, and the risk that higher fares will drive a decrease in demand.
Jet fuel and oil consumed for 2010 and 2009 represented approximately 33 percent and 30 percent of the Companys operating expenses, respectively, and constituted the second largest expense incurred by the Company in both years. As a result, the price of fuel has impacted, and could continue to impact, the timing and nature of the Companys growth plans and strategic initiatives.
As discussed above under Company Operations Impact of Fuel Costs, the Company has historically entered into fuel derivative contracts to protect against rising fuel costs; however, because energy prices can fluctuate significantly in a relatively short amount of time, the Company must also continually monitor and adjust its fuel hedge portfolio and strategies to address fuel price volatility. These types of adjustments in the Companys overall fuel hedging strategy, as well as the ability of the commodities used in fuel hedging (principally crude oil, heating oil, and unleaded gasoline) to qualify for special hedge accounting, have historically significantly affected, and are likely to continue to affect, the Companys results of operations. There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to continue to cost-effectively hedge against increases in fuel prices. The Companys fuel hedging arrangements and the impact of hedge accounting on the Companys results of operations are discussed in more detail under Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and in Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
The airline industry is particularly sensitive to changes in economic conditions; a return of unfavorable economic conditions or an increase in economic uncertainty could negatively affect the Companys results of operations.
The airline industry is particularly sensitive to changes in economic conditions, which affect Customer travel patterns and related revenues. For example, during 2008 and most of 2009, the Companys results of operations were negatively affected when unfavorable U.S. economic conditions drove changes in travel patterns and resulted in reduced spending for both leisure and business travel. For some consumers, leisure travel was an expendable discretionary expense, and short-haul travelers had the option to replace air travel with surface travel. Businesses were able to forego air travel by using communication alternatives such as videoconferencing and the Internet or were more likely to purchase less expensive tickets to reduce costs, which can result in a decrease in average revenue per seat. Unfavorable economic conditions also hampered the ability of airlines to raise fares to counteract increased fuel, labor, and other costs. Although U.S. economic conditions improved during 2010, some uncertainty has remained. A return to unfavorable economic conditions, or even an increase in economic uncertainty, could again negatively affect the Companys results of operations and could cause the Company to adjust its business strategies.
The Companys low cost structure is one of its primary competitive advantages, and many factors could affect the Companys ability to control its costs.
The Companys low cost structure has historically been one of its primary competitive advantages, as it has enabled the Company to offer low fares, drive traffic volume, and grow market share. The Companys low cost structure has become increasingly important as the Company has controlled capacity growth. While the Company has in the past been able to cover increasing costs through growth, the combination of capacity control and increasing costs has contributed to an increase in the Companys costs per available seat mile. The Company has limited control, however, over increases in many of its costs. For example, the Company has limited control over costs associated with fuel, labor, aircraft airframe and engine repairs, and regulatory compliance. Jet fuel and oil constituted approximately 33 percent of the Companys operating expenses during 2010, and the cost of fuel is subject to the external factors discussed in the first Risk Factor above. Salaries, wages, and benefits constituted approximately 33 percent of the Companys operating expenses during 2010. The Companys ability to control labor costs is limited by the terms of its collective bargaining agreements, and increased labor costs have impacted the Companys low cost competitive position. As discussed further under Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, the Companys unionized workforce, which makes up the majority of its Employees, have had pay scale increases as a result of increased seniority and contractual rate increases. In addition, as discussed under Business-Regulation, the airline industry is heavily regulated, and the Companys regulatory compliance costs are subject to potentially significant increases from time to time based on actions by the regulatory agencies. Furthermore, when other airlines reduce their capacity, airports costs are then allocated among a fewer number of total flights, which has resulted in increased landing fees and other costs for the Company. The Company is also reliant upon third party vendors and service providers, and its low cost advantage is also dependent in part on its ability to obtain and maintain commercially reasonable terms with those parties.
As discussed above under Business-Insurance, the Company carries insurance of types customary in the airline industry and is also provided supplemental, first-party, war-risk insurance coverage by the federal government at substantially lower premiums than prevailing commercial rates. If the supplemental coverage is not extended, the Company could incur substantially higher insurance costs. In addition, in the event of an accident or other incident involving Company aircraft, the Company could be responsible for costs in excess of its related insurance coverage, which costs could be substantial. Any aircraft accident or other incident, even if fully insured, could also have a material adverse effect on the publics perception of the Company.
The Company cannot guarantee it will be able to maintain its current level of low cost advantage. In response to volatile fuel prices and the recent economic downturn, some of the Companys competitors have taken additional efficiency and cost reduction measures, such as capacity cuts and headcount reductions, which have reduced the Companys cost advantage. Prior to the recent economic downturn, some of the Companys competitors took advantage of reorganization in bankruptcy, and even the threat of bankruptcy, to decrease operating costs through renegotiated labor, supply, and financing agreements. In addition, some airlines have consolidated and reported resulting significant expected cost synergies.
The Companys results of operations could be adversely impacted if it is unable to grow or to timely and effectively implement its revenue and other initiatives.
The Company has historically been regarded as a growth airline; however, the combination of a difficult economic environment and growing costs led to the Companys decision to curtail organic growth during 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 and for the indefinite future. In addition, organic growth has become increasingly difficult, because (i) the number of domestic opportunities has declined, (ii) the Company currently does not operate internationally, and (iii) the Company is facing an increased presence of other low cost carriers. As a result, the Company has become increasingly reliant on the success of revenue initiatives to help offset increasing costs and to continue to improve Customer Service. The timely and effective implementation of these initiatives has involved, and will continue to involve, significant investments by the Company of time and money and could be impacted by (i) the Companys ability to timely and effectively implement, transition, and maintain related information technology systems and infrastructure; (ii) the Companys ability to effectively balance its investment of incremental operating expenses and capital expenditures related to its initiatives against the need to effectively control costs; and (iii) the Companys dependence on third parties to assist with implementation of its initiatives. The Company cannot ensure the timing of implementation of certain of its initiatives or that they will be successful or profitable either over the short or long term.
The Company is increasingly dependent on technology to operate its business and continues to implement substantial changes to its information systems; any failure or disruption in the Companys information systems could materially adversely affect the Companys operations.
The Company is increasingly dependent on the use of complex technology and systems to run its ongoing operations, as well as to support its initiatives. As discussed above under Business Operating Strategies and Initiatives Management Information Systems, during 2010, the Company continued its commitment to technology improvements to support its ongoing operations and initiatives. Among other things, the Company completed the implementation of a new SAP Enterprise Resource Planning application, which replaced several of the Companys back office legacy systems such as the general ledger, accounts payable, accounts receivable, payroll, benefits, cash management, and fixed asset systems. The Company has also invested in significant technology changes necessary to support its new Rapid Rewards frequent flyer program, enhanced southwest.com website, and WiFi implementation. In addition, the Company has announced its intent to replace its reservation system. Integration of complex systems and technology presents significant challenges in terms of costs, human resources, and development of effective internal controls. Integration also presents the risk of operational or security inadequacy or interruption, which could materially affect the Companys ability to effectively operate its business. The Company is also reliant upon third party performance for timely and effective completion of many of its technology initiatives.
In the ordinary course of business, the Companys systems will continue to require modification and refinements to address growth and changing business requirements. The Companys operations could be adversely affected if it is unable to timely or effectively modify its systems as necessary.
Instability of credit, capital, and energy markets can result in pressure on the Companys credit ratings and can also negatively impact the Companys ability to obtain financing on acceptable terms and the Companys liquidity generally.
During 2009, the Companys credit ratings were pressured by weak industry revenue and the volatile fuel price environment. While the Companys credit rating is investment grade, factors such as future unfavorable economic conditions, a significant decline in demand for air travel, or instability of the credit and capital markets could result in future pressure on credit ratings, which could negatively impact (i) the Companys ability to obtain financing on acceptable terms, (ii) the Companys liquidity generally, and (iii) the availability and cost of insurance. A credit rating downgrade would subject the Company to credit rating triggers related to its credit card transaction processing agreements, the pricing related to any funds drawn under its revolving credit facility, and some of its hedging counterparty agreements. The potential effect of credit rating downgrades is discussed in more detail under Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
The Company is currently dependent on single aircraft and engine suppliers; therefore, the Company would be materially adversely affected if it were unable to obtain additional equipment or support from either of these suppliers or in the event of a mechanical or regulatory issue associated with their equipment.
The Company is dependent on Boeing as its sole supplier for aircraft and many of its aircraft parts. Although the Company is able to purchase some of these aircraft from parties other than Boeing, most of its purchases are directly from Boeing. Therefore, if the Company were unable to acquire additional aircraft from Boeing, or Boeing were unable or unwilling to provide adequate support for its products, the Companys operations would be materially adversely affected. In addition, the Company would be materially adversely affected in the event of a mechanical or regulatory issue associated with the Boeing 737 aircraft type, whether as a result of downtime for part or all of the Companys fleet or because of a negative perception by the flying public. The Company believes, however, that its years of experience with the Boeing 737 aircraft type, as well as the efficiencies it currently achieves by operating a single fleet type, currently outweigh the risks associated with its single aircraft strategy. The Company is also dependent on a sole supplier for aircraft engines and would therefore also be materially adversely affected in the event of a mechanical or regulatory issue associated with its engines.
The Companys business is labor intensive; therefore, the Company would be adversely affected if it were unable to maintain satisfactory relations with its Employees or its Employees Representatives.
The airline business is labor intensive. Salaries, wages, and benefits represented approximately 33 percent of the Companys operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2010. In addition, as of December 31, 2010, approximately 82 percent of the Companys Employees were represented for collective bargaining purposes by labor unions, making the Company particularly exposed in the event of labor-related job actions. Employment-related issues that may impact the Companys results of operations, some of which are negotiated items, include hiring/retention rates, pay rates, outsourcing costs, work rules, and health care costs. The Company has historically maintained positive relationships with its Employees and its Employees Representatives; however, new labor contracts contribute to the Companys cost pressures. Increasing labor costs, combined with curtailed growth, could negatively impact the Companys competitive position. In addition, if the Company is successful in its efforts to acquire AirTran, Employee integration could be difficult, which could negatively affect the Companys historically positive Employee culture.
The airline industry has faced on-going security concerns and related cost burdens; further threatened or actual terrorist attacks, or other hostilities, could significantly harm the airline industry and the Companys operations.
Terrorist attacks and threatened attacks have from time to time materially impacted the demand for air travel and have also resulted in increased safety and security costs for the Company and the airline industry generally. Safety measures create delays and inconveniences and can, in particular, reduce the Companys competitiveness against surface transportation for short-haul routes. Additional terrorist attacks, even if not made directly on the airline industry, or the fear of such attacks or other hostilities (including elevated national threat warnings or selective cancellation or redirection of flights due to terror threats) would likely have a further significant negative impact on the Company and the airline industry.
Airport capacity constraints and air traffic control inefficiencies could limit the Companys growth; changes in or additional governmental regulation could increase the Companys operating costs or otherwise limit the Companys ability to conduct business.
Almost all commercial service airports are owned and/or operated by units of local or state governments. Airlines are largely dependent on these governmental entities to provide adequate airport facilities and capacity at an affordable cost. Similarly, the federal government singularly controls all U.S. airspace, and airlines are completely dependent on the FAA to operate that airspace in a safe, efficient, and affordable manner. As discussed above under Business Regulation, airlines are also subject to other extensive regulatory requirements. These requirements often impose substantial costs on airlines. The Companys results of operations may be affected by changes in law and future actions taken by governmental agencies having jurisdiction over its operations, including, but not limited to:
Because expenses of a flight do not vary significantly with the number of passengers carried, a relatively small change in the number of passengers can have a disproportionate effect on an airlines operating and financial results. Therefore, any general reduction in airline passenger traffic as a result of any of the factors listed above could adversely affect the Companys results of operations. In addition, when the airline industry shrinks, airport operating costs are essentially unchanged and must be shared by the remaining operating carriers, which can therefore increase the Companys costs.
The airline industry is affected by many conditions that are beyond its control, which can impact the Companys business strategies.
In addition to the unpredictable economic conditions and fuel costs discussed above, the Company, like the airline industry in general, is impacted by conditions that are largely unforeseeable and outside of its control, including, among others:
The airline industry is intensely competitive.
As discussed in more detail above under Business Competition, the airline industry is intensely competitive. The Companys competitors include other major domestic airlines, as well as regional and new entrant airlines, surface transportation, and alternatives to transportation such as videoconferencing and the Internet. The Companys revenues are sensitive to the actions of other carriers with respect to capacity, pricing, routes, scheduling, Customer Service, cost structure, and codesharing and similar activities.
Risk Factors Related to the Companys Proposed Acquisition of AirTran
On September 26, 2010, the Company entered into a merger agreement providing for the Companys acquisition of AirTran. Set forth below are risk factors related to the merger.
The merger is subject to the receipt of consents and clearances from regulatory authorities that may impose conditions that could have an adverse effect on the Company or that could delay or, if not obtained, could prevent completion of the merger.
Before the merger may be completed, applicable waiting periods must expire or terminate under antitrust laws and various approvals, consents or clearances may be required to be obtained from regulatory entities. In deciding whether to grant antitrust or regulatory clearances, the relevant governmental entities will consider the effect of the merger on competition within their relevant jurisdictions. The terms and conditions of the approvals that are granted may impose requirements, limitations or costs or place restrictions on the conduct of the Companys business following the merger. There can be no assurance that regulators will not impose conditions, terms, obligations or restrictions and that such conditions, terms, obligations or restrictions will not have the effect of delaying completion of the merger or imposing additional material costs on or materially limiting the revenues of the Company following the merger. In addition, there can be no assurance that any such conditions, terms, obligations or restrictions will not result in the delay or abandonment of the merger.
Any delay in completing the merger may reduce or eliminate the benefits expected to be achieved thereunder.
In addition to the required regulatory clearances and approval by AirTrans stockholders, the merger is subject to a number of other conditions beyond the Companys and AirTrans control that may prevent, delay or otherwise materially adversely affect its completion. The Company cannot predict whether and when these other conditions will be satisfied. Furthermore, the requirements for obtaining the required clearances and approvals could delay the completion of the merger for a significant period of time or prevent it from occurring. Any delay in completing the merger could cause the Company not to realize some or all of the synergies and other benefits that it expects to achieve if the merger is successfully completed within its expected time frame.
Uncertainties associated with the merger may cause a loss of management personnel and other key employees of AirTran which could adversely affect the future business and operations of the Company following the merger.
The Company and AirTran are dependent on the experience and industry knowledge of their officers and other key employees to execute their business plans. The Companys success after the merger will depend in part
upon its ability to retain key management personnel and other key employees of AirTran. Current and prospective employees of AirTran may experience uncertainty about their roles within the Company following the merger, which may have an adverse effect on the ability of the Company to retain key management and other key personnel. Accordingly, no assurance can be given that the Company will be able to retain key management personnel and other key employees of AirTran.
Several lawsuits have been filed against the Company and AirTran challenging the merger, and one or more adverse rulings may prevent the merger from being completed.
The Company and AirTran, as well as certain officers of AirTran and the members of AirTrans board of directors, were named as defendants in several lawsuits brought by AirTran stockholders challenging the proposed merger and seeking, among other things, injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from completing the merger on the agreed-upon terms. Additional lawsuits may be filed against the Company, AirTran, or the directors and officers of either company in connection with the merger. These lawsuits are discussed in more detail below under Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
One of the conditions to the closing of the merger is that no order issued by a governmental authority of competent jurisdiction or law or other legal restraint or prohibition making the merger illegal or permanently restraining, enjoining, or otherwise prohibiting or preventing the consummation of the merger or the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement be in effect. Consequently, if the plaintiffs secure injunctive or other relief prohibiting, delaying, or otherwise adversely affecting the defendants ability to complete the merger, then such injunctive or other relief may prevent the merger from becoming effective within the expected time frame or at all.
While the Company believes that each of the four currently pending lawsuits is without merit, the parties to two of such suits entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on January 26, 2011 to settle those lawsuits. The settlement provides for the inclusion of additional disclosures with respect to various aspects of the merger in the proxy statement/prospectus to be sent to AirTran stockholders soliciting approval of the merger. In addition, it provides for the payment of plaintiffs attorneys fees and expenses, subject to court approval. The MOU further provides that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement which will provide, among other things, for the conditional certification of a settlement class. The MOU and stipulation of settlement are subject to various conditions, including court approval following notice to AirTran stockholders, completion of certain discovery, and consummation of the merger. If the settlement is finally approved, it will resolve and release on behalf of the entire class of AirTran stockholders, all claims that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, among other claims.
Failure to complete the merger could negatively impact the stock price and the future business and financial results of the Company.
If the merger is not completed, the ongoing business of the Company may be adversely affected, and the Company will be subject to several risks, including the following:
If the merger is not completed, there can be no assurance that these risks will not materialize and will not materially adversely affect the business, financial results and stock price of the Company.
The Company may be unable to integrate AirTrans business successfully and realize the anticipated benefits of the merger.
The merger involves the combination of two companies that currently operate as independent public companies. In addition, as discussed above under Business Company Operations Cost Structure, a key component of the Companys current business strategy is its low cost structure, which is, in part, facilitated by the Companys reliance upon a single aircraft type. The Company will be required to devote significant management attention and resources to integrating the business practices and operations of AirTran. Potential difficulties the Company may encounter as part of the integration process include the following:
In addition, the Company and AirTran have operated and, until the completion of the merger, will continue to operate independently. It is possible that the integration process could result in:
any of which could adversely affect the Companys ability to maintain relationships with customers, suppliers, employees and other constituencies or the Companys ability to achieve the anticipated benefits of the merger or could reduce the Companys earnings or otherwise adversely affect the business and financial results of the Company following the merger.
The need to integrate AirTrans workforce following the merger presents the potential for delay in achieving expected synergies and other benefits, increased labor costs or labor disputes that could adversely affect the Companys operations.
The successful integration of AirTran and achievement of the anticipated benefits of the merger depend significantly on integrating AirTrans employees into the Company and on maintaining productive employee relations. Failure to do so presents the potential for delays in achieving expected synergies and other benefits of integration, increased labor costs and labor disputes that could adversely affect the Companys operations. The Company and AirTran are both highly unionized companies. The process for integrating labor groups in an airline merger is governed by a combination of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), the McCaskill-Bond Act, and where applicable, the existing provisions of each companys collective bargaining agreements and union policies. Under the McCaskill-Bond Act, seniority integration must be accomplished in a fair and equitable manner consistent with the process set forth in Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions.
Such process consists first of direct negotiations between the incumbent unions with the assistance of the companies and second, if integration cannot be achieved through agreement, submitting the seniority integration to binding arbitration by a neutral arbitrator. For employee groups having the same representative at both carriers, the McCaskill-Bond Act provides that seniority integration be accomplished pursuant to the unions internal policies if such policies exist, which may, depending upon the internal policies, require arbitration. Employee dissatisfaction with the results of the seniority integration may lead to litigation or arbitration, which in some cases could delay implementation.
Under the RLA, the National Mediation Board (NMB) has exclusive authority to resolve representation disputes arising out of airline mergers. The disputes that the NMB has authority to resolve include (i) whether the merger has created a single transportation system for representation purposes; (ii) determination of the appropriate craft or class for representational purposes, including a determination of which positions are to be included within a particular craft or class; and (iii) certification of the system-wide representative organization, if any, for each craft or class at the Company following the merger.
Pending operational integration, it will be necessary to maintain a fence between employee groups, during which time the Company and AirTran will keep the employee groups separate, each carrier applying the terms of its own existing collective bargaining agreements, unless other terms have been negotiated. Before full integration of the employee groups, the Company may also seek to negotiate transition agreements with its unions that modify existing collective bargaining agreements to address circumstances unique to the transition process.
Prior to the completion of the merger, there is a risk of litigation or arbitration by unions or individual employees that could result in monetary damages on the basis that the merger either violates a provision of an existing collective bargaining agreement or an obligation under the RLA or other applicable law. The unions or individual employees might also pursue judicial or arbitral claims arising out of changes implemented as a result of the merger.
There is also a possibility that employees or unions could engage in job actions such as slow-downs, work-to-rule campaigns, sick-outs or other actions designed to disrupt the Companys or AirTrans normal operations, whether in opposition to the merger or in an attempt to pressure the companies in collective bargaining negotiations. Although the RLA generally makes such actions unlawful until the parties have been lawfully released by the NMB to pursue self-help, and the Company and AirTran might be able to seek injunctive relief or other remedies against premature self-help, such actions could cause significant harm even if the Company or AirTran were ultimately to be successful.
The Company will assume AirTrans indebtedness upon consummation of the merger, which additional indebtedness may limit the Companys financial and operating flexibility following the merger.
Upon consummation of the merger, the Company will assume or be indirectly responsible for AirTrans outstanding indebtedness and become subject to the operating restrictions under the debt instruments governing such indebtedness. AirTran has significant indebtedness and other commitments including aircraft purchase commitments, significant debt and lease obligations related to existing purchased and leased aircraft, and debt and lease obligations for existing and planned operating facilities. The increased indebtedness of the Company following the merger may:
In addition, covenants in the debt instruments governing this indebtedness may limit how the Company conducts its business following the merger.
The combined companys ability to use AirTrans net operating loss carryforwards to offset future taxable income for U.S. federal income tax purposes may be limited as a result of the merger, or if taxable income does not reach sufficient levels.
As of December 31, 2010, AirTran had federal net operating loss carryforwards (NOLs) of approximately $477 million available to offset future taxable income, which are not currently subject to an annual limitation under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code). The NOLs expire between 2017 and 2030.
The combined companys ability to utilize the AirTran NOLs may be limited if AirTran undergoes an ownership change, as defined in Section 382 of the Code. An ownership change could be triggered by substantial changes in the ownership of the outstanding stock of AirTran. An ownership change would occur if certain stockholders increase their aggregate percentage ownership of AirTran stock by more than 50 percentage points over their lowest percentage ownership at any time during the testing period, which is generally the three-year period preceding any potential ownership change. The merger is currently expected to result in an ownership change of AirTran for purposes of Section 382 of the Code.
Section 382 of the Code imposes an annual limitation on the amount of post-ownership change taxable income that may be offset with pre-ownership change NOLs of the corporation that experiences an ownership change. The limitation imposed by Section 382 of the Code for any post-ownership change year generally would be determined by multiplying the value of such corporations stock immediately before the ownership change by the applicable long-term tax-exempt rate. Any unused annual limitation may, subject to certain limits, be carried over to later years, and the limitation may under certain circumstances be increased by built-in gains or reduced by built-in losses in the assets held by such corporation at the time of the ownership change. The combined companys use of NOLs arising after the date of an ownership change would not be limited unless the combined company were to experience a subsequent ownership change.
The combined companys ability to use the NOLs will also depend on the amount of taxable income generated in future periods. The NOLs may expire before the combined company can generate sufficient taxable income to utilize the NOLs.
The Companys future results will suffer if it does not effectively manage its expanded operations following the merger.
Following the merger, the size of the business of the Company will increase significantly beyond the current size of either the Companys or AirTrans businesses. The Companys future success depends, in part, upon its ability to manage this expanded business, which may pose substantial challenges for management, including challenges related to the management and monitoring of new operations, including new international operations, and associated increased costs and complexity. There can be no assurances that the Company will be successful or that it will realize the expected operating efficiencies, cost savings, revenue enhancements and other benefits currently anticipated from the merger.
The Company is expected to incur substantial expenses related to the merger and the integration of AirTrans business.
The Company is expected to incur substantial expenses in connection with the merger and the integration of AirTrans business. There are a large number of processes, policies, procedures, operations, technologies and systems that must be integrated, including purchasing, accounting and finance, sales, payroll, pricing, revenue management, reservations, frequent flyer, ticketing/distribution, maintenance, flight operations, marketing and benefits. While the Company has assumed that a certain level of expenses would be incurred, there are many factors beyond its control that could affect the total amount or the timing of the integration expenses. Moreover, many of the expenses that would be incurred are, by their nature, difficult to estimate accurately. These expenses could, particularly in the near term, exceed the savings that the Company expects to achieve from the elimination of duplicative expenses and the realization of economies of scale and cost savings. These integration expenses likely will result in the Company taking significant charges against earnings following the completion of the merger, and the amount and timing of such charges are uncertain at present.
Following the merger, the Company will need to launch certain branding or rebranding initiatives that may take a significant amount of time and involve substantial costs and that may not be favorably received by customers.
The Company may incur substantial costs in rebranding AirTrans products and services, and it may not be able to achieve or maintain brand name recognition or status under the Southwest brand that is comparable to the recognition and status previously enjoyed by AirTran in any of AirTrans markets. The failure of any such rebranding initiative could adversely affect the Companys ability to attract and retain customers after the merger, which could cause the Company not to realize some or all of the benefits contemplated to result from the merger.
AirTran is currently subject to pending antitrust litigation, and if judgment were to be rendered against AirTran in the litigation, such judgment could adversely affect the Companys operating results following the merger.
A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta) and AirTran in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009. The complaint alleges, among other things, that AirTran conspired with Delta in imposing bag fees for the first item of checked luggage. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic flights beginning December 5, 2008. Subsequent to the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Oakland, California. All of the cases were consolidated before a single judge in Atlanta. An amended complaint filed in February 2010 in the consolidated action broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran also agreed to cut capacity on competitive routes and raised prices. The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged anticompetitive activities and also seeks attorneys fees. On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed that portion of the plaintiffs claims alleging that AirTran had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; however, the Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the imposition of a first bag fee. In addition, the Las Vegas and Oakland cases have been voluntarily dismissed. While AirTran has denied all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the amended complaint, and has indicated its intention to defend vigorously any and all such allegations, results of legal proceedings such as this one cannot be predicted with certainty. Regardless of its merit, this litigation and any potential future claims against the Company or AirTran may be both time consuming and disruptive to the Companys operations following the merger and cause significant expense and diversion of management attention. Should AirTran and the Company fail to prevail in this or other matters, the Company may be faced with significant monetary damages or injunctive relief that could materially adversely affect its business and might materially affect its financial condition and operating results.
The application of the acquisition method of accounting will likely result in the Company recording a significant amount of goodwill, which could result in significant future impairment charges and negatively affect the Companys financial results.
Applicable acquisition accounting rules require that to the extent the purchase price exceeds the net fair value of AirTrans tangible and intangible assets and liabilities, the Company would record such excess as goodwill on its Consolidated Balance Sheet. Goodwill is not amortized, but is tested for impairment at least annually. Impairment charges could be recorded in the Companys results of operations as a result of, among other items, extreme fuel price volatility, a significant decline in the fair value of certain tangible or intangible assets, unfavorable trends in forecasted results of operations and cash flows and the uncertain economic environment, as well as other uncertainties. The Company can provide no assurance that a significant impairment charge will not occur in one or more future periods. Any such charges may materially negatively affect the Companys financial results.
The Company operated a total of 548 Boeing 737 aircraft as of December 31, 2010, of which 92 and 5 were under operating and capital leases, respectively. The remaining 451 aircraft were owned.
The following table details information on the 548 aircraft in the Companys fleet as of December 31, 2010:
In total, at January 19, 2011, the Company had firm orders, options and purchase rights for the purchase of Boeing 737-700 and 737-800 aircraft as follows:
Firm Orders, Options and Purchase Rights for Boeing 737-700 and 737-800 Aircraft
* The Company is evaluating substituting 737-800s in lieu of 737-700 firm orders currently scheduled for 2013 through 2016.
Ground Facilities and Services
The Company leases terminal passenger service facilities at each of the airports it serves, to which it has made various leasehold improvements. The Company leases the land and structures on a long-term basis for its maintenance centers (located at Dallas Love Field, Houston Hobby, Phoenix Sky Harbor, and Chicago Midway), its flight training center at Dallas Love Field (which houses eight 737 simulators), and its corporate headquarters, also located at Dallas Love Field. During 2008, the City of Dallas approved the Love Field Modernization Program (LFMP), a project to reconstruct Dallas Love Field (Airport) with modern, convenient air travel facilities. Pursuant to a Program Development Agreement (PDA) with the City of Dallas and the Love Field Airport Modernization Corporation (or LFMAC, a Texas non-profit local government corporation established by the City to act on the Citys behalf to facilitate the development of the LFMP), the Company is managing this project. Major construction commenced during 2010, with completion of the project scheduled for the second half of 2014. Although subject to change, at the current time the project is expected to include the renovation of the Airport airline terminals and complete replacement of gate facilities with a new 20-gate facility, including infrastructure, systems and equipment, aircraft parking apron, fueling system, roadways and terminal curbside, baggage handling systems, passenger loading bridges and support systems, and other supporting infrastructure. The LFMP is discussed in more detail below under Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and in Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. As of December 31, 2010, the Company operated six Customer Support and Services centers. The centers located in Chicago, Albuquerque, and Oklahoma City occupy leased space. The Company owns its Houston, Phoenix, and San Antonio centers.
The Company performs substantially all line maintenance on its aircraft and provides ground support services at most of the airports it serves. However, the Company has arrangements with certain aircraft maintenance firms for major component inspections and repairs for its airframes and engines, which comprise the majority of the Companys annual aircraft maintenance costs.
Various purported class action lawsuits have been filed by stockholders of AirTran that challenge the proposed acquisition of AirTran by the Company.
On September 28, 2010, Frederick Leonelli filed a purported class action lawsuit (the Leonelli complaint) on behalf of himself and similarly situated AirTran stockholders in the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Carson City against AirTran, Robert L. Fornaro, AirTrans Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Arne G. Haak, AirTrans Senior Vice President of Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, each member of the AirTran board of directors, the Company, and Guadalupe Holdings Corp. ( Merger Sub). The Leonelli complaint generally alleges that the consideration to be received by AirTrans stockholders in the merger is unfair and inadequate and that the AirTran officers and directors named as defendants (the individual AirTran defendants) breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement through an unfair and flawed process and by approving certain deal protection mechanisms contained in the merger agreement. The Leonelli complaint further alleges that AirTran, the Company, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the individual AirTran defendants in the breach of their fiduciary duties to AirTrans stockholders. The Leonelli complaint seeks injunctive relief: (i) enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger unless AirTran adopts and implements a procedure or process to obtain the highest possible price for AirTrans stockholders and discloses all material information to AirTrans stockholders, (ii) directing the individual AirTran defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of AirTrans stockholders, (iii) rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the merger agreement, including the deal protection devices that may preclude premium competing bids for AirTran, (iv) awarding plaintiffs costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys and experts fees, and (v) granting such other and further equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper. On the same day, Frank Frohman filed a second purported AirTran shareholder class action lawsuit (the Frohman complaint) in the same court and against the same defendants (other than Mr. Haak) as the Leonelli complaint. The allegations in the Frohman complaint, as well as the relief requested, are generally the same as those set forth in the Leonelli complaint. The Frohman complaint was consolidated into the Leonelli complaint on December 9, 2010. On December 14, 2010, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint (the Leonelli consolidated complaint) asserting the same claims and requesting the same relief against the same defendants (other than Mr. Haak). The Leonelli consolidated complaint also included new allegations, as part of its breach of fiduciary duty claim, that the individual AirTran defendants caused the Company to file a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC on November 19, 2010 which omitted or misrepresented material information regarding the merger. AirTran and the individual AirTran defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Leonelli consolidated complaint on January 7, 2011, which was joined by the Company and Merger Sub on the same day.
Four purported AirTran shareholder class action lawsuits have also been filed in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida. Harry Hoffner filed a purported class action lawsuit on September 30, 2010 against the same defendants (other than Mr. Haak and Merger Sub) as in the Leonelli complaint. This was followed by lawsuits filed by Robert Debardelan on October 8, 2010, Thomas A. Rosenberger on October 12, 2010, and Robert Loretitsch on October 15, 2010 against the same defendants plus Merger Sub. The allegations in these actions, as well as the relief requested, are also generally the same as those set forth in the Leonelli complaint. On November 15, 2010, these actions were consolidated into one action styled In re AirTran Shareholder Litigation (the consolidated Florida action). On December 2, 2010, the consolidated Florida action was stayed in its entirety pending resolution of the earlier filed Leonelli complaint.
On October 8, 2010, Douglas Church filed another purported AirTran shareholder class action lawsuit (the Church complaint) in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada for Clark County against the same defendants (other than Mr. Haak) as in the Leonelli complaint. The allegations set forth in the Church complaint, as well as the relief requested, were generally the same as those set forth in the Leonelli complaint with one addition. The Church complaint additionally alleged, as part of its breach of fiduciary duty claim, that the individual AirTran defendants (other than Mr. Haak) received greater benefits under the merger agreement than other AirTran stockholders. Mr. Church voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit on November 30, 2010, but on December 2, 2010, he re-filed a new lawsuit against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the Church federal complaint). The Church federal complaint makes the same claims and seeks the same relief as his original lawsuit, but includes new claims for alleged violations of Sections 14 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly providing misleading and incomplete information in the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the SEC on November 19, 2010. Specifically, the Church federal
complaint alleges that the disclosures contained in the Form S-4 Registration Statement omit or misrepresent material information regarding the process of approving the merger agreement, the merger consideration, and the intrinsic value of AirTran. AirTran and the individual AirTran defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Church federal complaint on December 22, 2010.
On January 18, 2011, William Nesbit filed another purported AirTran shareholder class action lawsuit again in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against the same defendants (other than Mr. Haak) as in the Leonelli complaint. The allegations and claims set forth in the Nesbit lawsuit, as well as the relief requested, were generally the same as those set forth in the Church federal complaint.
While the Company believes that each of the above described lawsuits is without merit, the parties to the Leonelli consolidated complaint and the Church federal complaint entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on January 26, 2011 to settle those lawsuits. The settlement provides for the inclusion of additional disclosures with respect to various aspects of the merger in the proxy statement/prospectus to be sent to AirTran stockholders soliciting approval of the merger. In addition, it provides for the payment of plaintiffs attorneys fees and expenses, subject to court approval. The MOU further provides that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement which will provide, among other things, for the conditional certification of a settlement class. The MOU and stipulation of settlement are subject to various conditions, including court approval following notice to AirTran stockholders, completion of certain discovery, and consummation of the merger. If the settlement is finally approved, it will resolve and release on behalf of the entire class of AirTran stockholders, all claims that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, among other claims.
The Company is from time to time subject to various legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business, including, but not limited to, examinations by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
The Companys management does not expect that the outcome in any of its currently ongoing legal proceedings or the outcome of any proposed adjustments presented to date by the IRS, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on the Companys financial condition, results of operations, or cash flow.
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
The following information regarding the Companys executive officers is as of January 1, 2011.
Set forth below is a description of the background of each of the Companys executive officers.
Gary C. Kelly has served as the Companys Chairman of the Board since May 2008, as its President since July 2008, and as its Chief Executive Officer since July 2004. Mr. Kelly also served as Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer from June 2001 to July 2004 and Vice President Finance & Chief Financial Officer from 1989 to 2001. Mr. Kelly joined the Company in 1986 as its Controller.
Robert E. Jordan has served as the Companys Executive Vice President Strategy & Planning since May 2008. Mr. Jordan also served as Executive Vice President Strategy & Technology from September 2006 to May 2008, Senior Vice President Enterprise Spend Management from August 2004 to September 2006, Vice President Technology from 2002 to 2004, Vice President Purchasing from 2001 to 2002, Controller from 1997 to 2001, Director Revenue Accounting from 1994 to 1997, and Manager Sales Accounting from 1990 to 1994. Mr. Jordan joined the Company in 1988 as a programmer.
Ron Ricks has served as the Companys Executive Vice President Corporate Services & Corporate Secretary since May 2008. Mr. Ricks also served as Executive Vice President Law, Airports, & Public Affairs from September 2006 to May 2008 and Senior Vice President Law, Airports, & Public Affairs from August 2004 until September 2006. Mr. Ricks joined the Company in 1986 as its Vice President Governmental Affairs.
Michael G. Van de Ven has served as the Companys Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer since May 2008. Mr. Van de Ven also served as Chief of Operations from September 2006 to May 2008, Executive Vice President Aircraft Operations from November 2005 through August 2006, Senior Vice President Planning from August 2004 to November 2005, Vice President Financial Planning & Analysis from 2001 to 2004, Senior Director Financial Planning & Analysis from 2000 to 2001, and Director Financial Planning & Analysis from 1997 to 2000. Mr. Van de Ven joined the Company in 1993 as its Director Internal Audit.
Jeff Lamb has served as the Companys Senior Vice President Administration & Chief People Officer since October 2007. Mr. Lamb also served as Vice President People & Leadership Development from February 2006 to October 2007 and as Senior Director People Development from December 2004 until February 2006. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Lamb served in various leadership roles with The Staubach Company, Belo Corporation, and Mesa Petroleum.
Davis S. Ridley has served as the Companys Senior Vice President & Chief Marketing Officer since December 2010. Mr. Ridley also served as Senior Vice President Marketing & Revenue Management from May 2008 to December 2010, Senior Vice President Marketing from November 2007 to May 2008, a consultant to the Company from January 2006 to November 2007, Senior Vice President People & Leadership Development from August 2004 to January 2006, Vice President Ground Operations from 1998 to 2004, and Vice President of Marketing & Sales from 1993 to 1998. Mr. Ridley joined the Company in 1988 as its Director of Marketing & Sales.
Laura H. Wright has served as the Companys Senior Vice President Finance & Chief Financial Officer since July 2004. Ms. Wright also served as Vice President Finance & Treasurer from June 2001 to July 2004, Treasurer from 1998 to 2001, Assistant Treasurer from 1995 to 1998, and Director Corporate Finance from 1990 to 1995. Ms Wright joined the Company in 1988 as its Director Corporate Taxation.
The Companys common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and is traded under the symbol LUV. The following table shows, for the periods indicated, the high and low sales prices per share of the Companys common stock, as reported on the NYSE Composite Tape, and the cash dividends per share declared on the Companys common stock.
The Company currently intends to continue declaring dividends on a quarterly basis for the foreseeable future; however, the Companys Board of Directors may change the timing, amount, and payment of dividends on the basis of results of operations, financial condition, cash requirements, future prospects, and other factors deemed relevant by the Board. As of February 2, 2011, there were approximately 10,438 holders of record of the Companys common stock.
Stock Performance Graph
The following Performance Graph and related information shall not be deemed soliciting material or filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, nor shall such information be incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each as amended.
The following graph compares the cumulative total Shareholder return on the Companys common stock over the five-year period ended December 31, 2010, with the cumulative total return during such period of the Standard and Poors 500 Stock Index and the AMEX Airline Index. The comparison assumes $100 was invested on December 31, 2005, in the Companys common stock and in each of the foregoing indices and assumes reinvestment of dividends. The stock performance shown on the graph below represents historical stock performance and is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.
The following financial information for the five years ended December 31, 2010, has been derived from the Companys Consolidated Financial Statements. This information should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes thereto included elsewhere herein.
Reconciliation of Reported Amounts to non-GAAP Financial Measures (unaudited) (in millions, except per share and per-ASM amounts)
Note Regarding Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures
The Companys Consolidated Financial Statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (GAAP). These GAAP financial statements include unrealized non-cash adjustments and reclassifications, which can be significant, as a result of accounting requirements and elections made under accounting pronouncements relating to derivative instruments and hedging.
The Company also provides financial information in this filing that was not prepared in accordance with GAAP and should not be considered as an alternative to the information prepared in accordance with GAAP. The Company provides supplemental non-GAAP financial information, including results that it refers to as economic, which the Companys management utilizes to evaluate its ongoing financial performance and the Company believes provides greater transparency to investors as supplemental information to its GAAP results. The Companys economic financial results differ from GAAP results in that they only include the actual cash settlements from fuel hedge contractsall reflected within Fuel and oil expense in the period of settlement. Thus, Fuel and oil expense on an economic basis reflects the Companys actual net cash outlays for Fuel during the applicable period, inclusive of settled fuel derivative contracts. Any net premium costs paid related to option contracts are reflected as a component of Other (gains) losses, net, for both GAAP and non-GAAP (including economic) purposes. These economic results provide a better measure of the impact of the Companys fuel hedges on its operating performance and liquidity since they exclude the unrealized, non-cash adjustments and reclassifications that are recorded in GAAP results in accordance with accounting guidance relating to derivative instruments, and they reflect all cash settlements related to fuel derivative contracts within Fuel and oil expense. This enables the Companys management, as well as investors, to consistently assess the Companys operating performance on a year-over-year or quarter-over-quarter basis after considering all efforts in place to manage fuel expense. However, because these measures are not determined in accordance with GAAP, such measures are susceptible to varying calculations and not all companies calculate the measures in the same manner. As a result, the aforementioned measures, as presented, may not be directly comparable to similarly titled measures presented by other companies. Special items also include a 2010 charge of $7 million and a 2009 charge of $66 million (each before the impact of profitsharing or taxes) related to expenses associated with the Companys planned acquisition of AirTran and to Freedom 09, the Companys early-out program, respectively. Management does not believe these expenses are a meaningful indicator of the Companys results for those particular periods or in comparison to its performance in the corresponding prior or subsequent period. As a result of the anticipated acquisition of AirTran, which is expected to close during second quarter 2011, the Company expects to incur substantial charges associated with integration of the two companies. While the Company cannot predict the exact timing or amounts of such charges, it does expect to treat the charges as special items in its future presentation of non-GAAP results. See Note 2 and Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on the planned acquisition of AirTran and Freedom 09, respectively.
Further information on (i) the Companys fuel hedging program, (ii) the requirements of accounting for derivative instruments, and (iii) the causes of hedge ineffectiveness and/or mark-to-market gains or losses from derivative instruments is included in Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Year In Review
The year 2010 proved to be one of significant progress for the Company in many respects. For the 38th consecutive year, the Company was profitable, earning $459 million ($.61 per share, diluted) in 2010, compared to the Companys 2009 net profit of $99 million ($.13 per share, diluted). On a non-GAAP basis, the Companys 2010 net income was $550 million, or $.74 per share, diluted, which was significantly better than the Companys 2009 net income of $143 million, or $.19 per share, diluted, on a non-GAAP basis. See the previous note regarding the use of non-GAAP financial measures. This considerable improvement in net income was achieved through better revenue management techniques and strategies, improving economic conditions which led to higher demand for air travel, capacity restraint and reallocation by both the Company and the entire airline industry, fare increases, and targeted marketing campaigns designed to enhance the Companys already strong
Brand and Customer Experience. Even though the Companys jet fuel cost per gallon was 21.3 percent higher than 2009 on an economic basis, a 16.9 percent increase in operating revenues enabled it to overcome these higher prices and achieve a solid profit.
Revenue management has been a focus area for the Company for several years, and those efforts paid significant dividends during 2010. The Company continued to optimize its flight schedule through the elimination of a number of unprofitable routes and re-deployment of aircraft in either new markets or by adding additional frequencies in existing markets where demand is higher. Even with a very slight year-over-year capacity increase of less than one percent in 2010, the Company was able to add Panama City, Florida to its route map, as well as continue to grow such markets as Denver and Boston. This continued flight optimization, along with new expected aircraft deliveries, will also provide the Company the ability to commence service to three additional markets in the first quarter of 2011Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, and the New York-New Jersey area through the acquisition of 18 pairs of takeoff and landing slots at Newarks Liberty International Airport. Another milestone for the Company during 2010 was the launch of a marketing partnership with Volaris, which is Mexicos second largest airline. As a result of this marketing partnership, the Companys Customers can now book international flights to five Mexican destinations (Cancun, Guadalajara, Morelia, Toluca/Mexico City, and Zacatecas) from 20 Southwest-served cities through the Companys new international connect product. The Company also completed all of the necessary testing and certifications for adding WiFi connectivity to its 737-700 aircraft fleet and began installation during the second half of 2010. As of January 31, 2011, WiFi connectivity is available on more than 60 aircraft and the Company expects these installations to continue on its remaining 737-700 fleet. The Company believes all of these accomplishments, along with initiatives introduced in the prior year, including new service offerings such as EarlyBird Check-in and Pets Are Welcome on Southwest (PAWS) products, are examples of opportunities for continued future revenue growth.
Planning for the future has been an area of intense focus for the Company in 2010, as well. During 2010, the Company announced it would be converting a portion of its future aircraft orders with Boeing to 737-800 aircraft. All 20 of the Companys existing orders for aircraft deliveries from Boeing in 2012 have been converted to 737-800s. These aircraft offer approximately 25 to 30 percent more Customer seating capacity than the Companys existing fleet of 737-700s and 737-300s, which will enable it to more economically add service to longer-range markets or to add seats to current markets without increasing the number of flights. The Company is also evaluating substituting 737-800s in lieu of 737-700 firm orders currently scheduled for 2013 through 2016. The Company has also made the decision to embark on a project that will result in the ultimate replacement of its reservations system over the next several years, and will launch its All New Rapid Rewards frequent flyer program on March 1, 2011. The Company believes a new reservations system and the new frequent flyer program will create a platform for enhanced revenue growth over the long-term. Under the new frequent flyer program, members will earn points for every dollar spent instead of credits for flight segments flown. The amount of points earned will be based on the fare and fare class purchased, with higher fare products (e.g., Business Select) earning more points than lower fare products (e.g., Wanna Get Away). Each fare class will be associated with a points earning multiplier, and points for flights will be calculated by multiplying the fare for the flight by the fare class multiplier. Likewise, the amount of points required to be redeemed for a flight will be based on the fare and fare class purchased; however, unlike the current program, under the new program, (i) members will be able to redeem their points for every available seat, every day, on every flight, and with no blackout dates; and (ii) points will not expire so long as the Rapid Rewards Member has points-earning activity during a 24-month time period. In addition, Rapid Rewards Credit Cardmembers will be able to redeem their points for items other than travel on Southwest Airlines, such as international flights, cruises, hotel stays, rental cars, gift cards, event tickets, and more. In addition to earning points for revenue flights, Rapid Rewards Members will have the ability to purchase points.
The new frequent flyer program also features enhanced A-List and Companion Pass programs for the most active members, and adds a new level of status, A-List Preferred. Both A-List and A-List Preferred Members will enjoy benefits such as priority checkin and security lane and ticket counter access, dedicated phone lines,
standby priority, and an earnings bonus on eligible revenue flights (25% for A-List and 100% for A-List Preferred). In addition, A-List Preferred Members will enjoy free Inflight WiFi on equipped flights. The new program has been designed to drive more revenue by (i) bringing in new Customersboth frequent flyers as well as new members for the Companys co-branded Visa card; (ii) increasing business from existing Customers; and (iii) strengthening the Companys Rapid Rewards hotel, rental car, credit card, and retail partnerships.
The most significant strategic decision made by the Company during 2010, however, was its entry into an agreement to acquire AirTran Holdings, Inc. (AirTran). Subject to the terms and conditions of the merger agreement, which has been unanimously approved by the boards of directors of both the Company and AirTran, if the merger is completed, each outstanding share of AirTran common stock will be converted into the right to receive 0.321 shares of Southwest Airlines Co. common stock and $3.75 in cash, without interest. The number of shares of Southwest common stock and, under some circumstances, the cash consideration to be received is subject to adjustment based on the Companys share price prior to closing. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information regarding the merger, the merger agreement, and the exchange ratio adjustment mechanism.
The Company believes that, if approved, its proposed acquisition of AirTran would position it to better respond to the economic and competitive challenges of the industry because:
The merger is subject to both government and AirTran stockholder approval, with closing expected to occur in second quarter 2011. The Company believes the transaction has the potential to yield net annual synergies of more than $400 million by 2013. Excluding one-time acquisition and integration costs estimated to be approximately $500 million, the transaction is also expected to be accretive to the Companys fully-diluted earnings per share in the first year following the close of the transaction, and strongly accretive, thereafter, upon full realization of the estimated net synergies. In addition, the Company and AirTran are complementary, with little route overlap between the two carriers, and strategically, both carriers have an emphasis on outstanding Customer service, high quality low-cost operations, all-Boeing fleets, solid low-fare brands, and strong Employee cultures.
The Company believes its Bags Fly Free and No Change Fees campaigns, its new frequent flyer program, continued schedule optimization, and other revenue management efforts offer significant potential for continued
revenue momentum. However, higher fuel prices do present a threat to the Company, and there are no assurances the Company will be able to generate enough incremental revenues to offset higher fuel costs. Absent increased fuel price volatility or slowing of consumer travel demand, the Company has a solid outlook for 2011. Other than the Companys growth opportunity presented by the AirTran acquisition, the Company currently does not intend to significantly grow its overall fleet size for 2011. The Company anticipates it will receive 19 737-700 deliveries during 2011, 17 of which are new aircraft from Boeing, and is currently expecting to retire a similar number of its older 737-300s. However, even with relatively little fleet growth, the Company currently forecasts 2011 ASMs to increase approximately five to six percent compared to 2010.
Results of Operations
2010 compared with 2009
The Companys consolidated net income of $459 million ($.61 per share, diluted) in 2010 represented an increase of $360 million, or 364 percent, compared to its 2009 net income of $99 million ($.13 per share, diluted). The results in each year were significantly impacted by the Companys fuel hedge program and the accounting requirements related to the derivative instruments used in the Companys hedging activities. As a result of the fuel hedges the Company had in place during 2010including those that settled during 2010 and those that will settle in future yearsthe Company recognized a net total of $426 million in losses allocated between Fuel and oil expense and Other (gains) losses, net, in the Consolidated Statement of Income. During 2009, the Company recognized a total of $408 million in losses as a result of its fuel hedging activities, allocated between Fuel and oil expense and Other (gains) losses, net. Each of these totals for 2010 and 2009 includes the net premium costs the Company paid to enter into a portion of its fuel derivative instruments such as option contracts which are classified as a component of Other (gains) losses, net. See Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on fuel derivative instruments. The Companys results for 2009 also included a one-time charge of $66 million (before the impact of profitsharing or taxes) related to Freedom 09, a voluntary early retirement program that was accepted by 1,404 Employees. See Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on this program. The Companys 2010 operating income was $988 million, which was significantly better than the Companys 2009 operating income of $262 million, as the 16.9 percent increase in operating revenues outpaced the 10.2 percent increase in operating expenses.
Consolidated operating revenues increased $1.8 billion, or 16.9 percent, primarily due to a $1.6 billion, or 16.1 percent, increase in Passenger revenues. The majority of the increase in Passenger revenues was attributable to the 10.8 percent increase in Passenger yield (Passenger revenues per RPM flown), primarily due to higher average fares. The Companys load factor also increased 3.3 points to 79.3 percent in 2010, which was a record for the Company. These strong revenue results were achieved due to better revenue management techniques and strategies, improving economic conditions which led to higher demand for air travel versus 2009, including a new and improved website at www.southwest.com, capacity restraint and reallocation by both the Company and the entire airline industry, fare increases, and targeted marketing campaigns designed to enhance the Companys already strong Brand and Customer Experience. Bookings, thus far, for first quarter 2011 are strong. For January 2011, the Company estimated passenger unit revenues increased in the eight to nine percent range as compared to January 2010.
Consolidated Freight revenues increased $7 million, or 5.9 percent, versus 2009, primarily due to higher average rates charged as a result of better economic conditions versus the prior year. The Company currently expects freight revenues for first quarter 2011 to be in line with fourth quarter 2010 freight revenues. Other revenues increased $150 million, or 44.1 percent, compared to 2009. Approximately 63 percent of the increase was due to revenues from initiatives, such as the Companys EarlyBird product, for which Customers can pay $10 to automatically receive an assigned boarding position before general checkin begins, and service charges for
unaccompanied minors and for pets. The remainder of the increase primarily was due to higher commissions earned from programs the Company sponsors with certain business partners, such as the Company sponsored Chase® Visa card. The Company also expects Other revenues for first quarter 2011 to exceed first quarter 2010, due to anticipated increased revenues from these initiatives, but at a significantly lower rate than the 41.2 percent year-over-year increase in fourth quarter 2010.
Consolidated operating expenses for 2010 increased $1.0 billion, or 10.2 percent, compared to a slight increase in capacity. Historically, except for changes in the price of fuel, changes in operating expenses for airlines are largely driven by changes in capacity, or ASMs. The following presents the Companys operating expenses per-ASM for 2010 and 2009 followed by explanations of these changes on a per-ASM basis and/or on a dollar basis (in cents, except for percentages):
The Companys 2010 CASM (cost per available seat mile) increased 9.7 percent compared to 2009. Over 55 percent of this year-over-year CASM increase was due to an 18.4 percent increase in the Companys average jet fuel cost per gallon. The Companys 2009 operating expenses also included the impact of Freedom 09, the early retirement plan offered by the Company, which resulted in a $66 million charge. Excluding the impact of this prior year charge, 2010 integration costs associated with the Companys anticipated acquisition of AirTran, and Fuel and oil expense for each year, 2010 CASM increased compared to 2009 primarily due to higher wage rates, higher profitsharing expense, and higher airport costs. Based on current cost trends and an estimated eight to nine percent increase in first quarter year-over-year capacity, the Company anticipates first quarter 2011 unit costs to increase at a lower year-over-year rate than fourth quarter 2010s 5.8 percent, excluding fuel and special items.
Salaries, wages, and benefits increased $236 million on an absolute dollar basis, including the impact of the $66 million charge recorded during third quarter 2009 as a result of Freedom 09, the early retirement plan offered by the Company that was accepted by 1,404 Employees. Excluding the impact of the Freedom 09 charge, approximately 55 percent of the year-over-year increase was from higher salaries and wages, primarily as a result of higher average wage rates. The remainder of the year-over-year increase primarily was attributable to a $124 million increase in profitsharing, as a result of higher income available for profitsharing. The Companys profitsharing expense is based on profits that exclude the unrealized gains and/or losses the Company records for its fuel hedging program. See Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on fuel hedging. Salaries, wages, and benefits expense per-ASM was 6.2 percent higher than 2009, primarily due to pay scale increases as a result of increased seniority and contractual rate increases for the Companys unionized workforce, who make up the majority of its Employees, while the Companys ASM capacity increased only slightly compared to 2009. These increases combined with relatively flat headcount resulted in higher average rates per Employee. Based on current cost trends and anticipated capacity, the Company expects salaries, wages, and benefits per-ASM in first quarter 2011 to be relatively consistent with first quarter 2010s unit cost of 3.82 cents.
The Companys Pilots are subject to an agreement between the Company and the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SWAPA) that was to become amendable August 31, 2011. As part of its evaluation process for
the addition of the Boeing 737-800 to its fleet, the Company and SWAPA agreed on a one-year contract extension to the existing agreement. Their contract now becomes amendable August 31, 2012.
The Companys Flight Attendants are subject to an agreement between the Company and the Transport Workers Union Local No. 556 (TWU 556) that was to become amendable May 31, 2012. As part of its evaluation process for the addition of the Boeing 737-800 to its fleet, the Company and TWU 556 agreed on a one-year contract extension to the existing agreement. Their contract now becomes amendable May 31, 2013.
The Companys Stock Clerks are subject to an agreement between the Company and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 19 (IBT Local 19). This agreement became amendable in August 2008. The Company is currently in discussions on a new agreement with IBT Local 19.
The Companys Aircraft Appearance Technicians and its Dispatchers are subject to agreements between the Company and the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) and the Company and the Transportation Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 550 (TWU 550), which became amendable in February and November 2009, respectively. The Company is currently in discussions on new agreements with both AMFA and TWU 550.
Fuel and oil expense increased $576 million, or 18.9 percent, and on a per-ASM basis increased 18.3 percent versus 2009. Both the dollar and the per-ASM increase were driven primarily by an 18.4 percent increase in the average price per gallon for jet fuel, including the impact of fuel derivatives used in hedging, and including related taxes. As a result of the Companys fuel hedging program and inclusive of the impact of the accounting guidance for derivatives and hedging, the Company recognized net losses totaling $324 million in 2010 in Fuel and oil expense relating to fuel derivative instruments versus net losses of $467 million recognized in Fuel and oil expense in 2009. These totals are inclusive of cash settlements realized from the expiration/settlement of fuel derivatives, which were $153 million paid to counterparties in 2010 versus $245 million paid to counterparties for 2009. However, these totals exclude gains and/or losses recognized from hedge ineffectiveness, which are recorded as a component of Other (gains) losses, net. See Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
As of January 18, 2011, the Company had derivative contracts in place related to first quarter and full year 2011 at the following levels:
Beyond 2011, excluding the impact of the anticipated AirTran acquisition, the Company has coverage of approximately 60 percent of its estimated fuel consumption in 2012; approximately 50 percent in 2013; and approximately 45 percent in 2014, all at varying price levels.
As a result of prior hedging activities, the Company continues to have significant amounts frozen in Accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI), and these amounts will be recognized in the Consolidated Statement of Income in future periods when the underlying fuel derivative contracts settle. The following table displays the Companys estimated fair value of remaining fuel derivative contracts (not considering the impact of the cash collateral provided to or received from counterpartiesSee Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial
Statements for further information) as well as the amount of deferred losses in AOCI at December 31, 2010, and the expected future periods in which these items are expected to settle and/or be recognized in earnings (in millions):
Based on forward market prices and the amounts in the above table (and excluding any other subsequent changes to the fuel hedge portfolio), the Companys jet fuel costs per gallon are expected to exceed market (i.e., unhedged) prices during some of these future periods. This is based primarily on expected future cash settlements associated with fuel derivatives, but excludes any impact associated with the ineffectiveness of fuel hedges or fuel derivatives that are marked to market because they do not qualify for hedge accounting. See Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information. Based on its fuel hedge portfolio and market prices (as of January 18, 2011), the Company estimates its economic fuel costs, including fuel taxes, for first quarter 2011 will be approximately $2.80 per gallon. Assuming no changes to the Companys current 2011 fuel derivative portfolio, but including all previous hedge activity for fuel derivatives that have not yet settled, and considering only the expected net cash payments related to hedges that will settle in 2011, the Company is providing a sensitivity table for first quarter 2011 and full year 2011 jet fuel prices at different crude oil assumptions as of January 18, 2011, and for expected premium costs associated with settling contracts each period.
Maintenance materials and repairs increased 4.5 percent on a dollar basis, and increased 4.1 percent on a per-ASM basis compared to 2009. On both a dollar and a per-ASM basis, the increases were due to an increase in the number of scheduled airframe maintenance events versus 2009. The Company expects Maintenance materials and repairs per-ASM for first quarter 2011 to be slightly higher than the .79 cents per-ASM experienced in fourth quarter 2010, based on currently scheduled airframe maintenance events and projected engine hours flown.
Aircraft rentals expense per-ASM decreased 5.3 percent and, on a dollar basis, decreased $6 million. Both decreases primarily were due to the renegotiation of several aircraft leases at lower rates. Based on current fleet plans, the Company expects rental expense per-ASM for first quarter 2011 to increase slightly from the .18 cents per-ASM experienced in fourth quarter 2010.
Landing fees and other rentals increased $89 million on a dollar basis and increased 12.3 percent on a per-ASM basis, compared to 2009. The majority of both the dollar increase and per-ASM increase was due to higher space rentals in airports as a result of higher rates charged by those airports due to either higher operating costs or to cover shortfalls caused by reductions in service by airlines over the past few years. When airlines reduce their capacity, airport costs are then allocated amongst a fewer number of total flights. As a consequence of continued rate inflation at various airports, the Company currently expects Landing fees and other rentals per-ASM in first quarter 2011 to be higher than the .84 cents per-ASM experienced in first quarter 2010.
Depreciation and amortization expense increased $12 million on a dollar basis compared to 2009, and was up 1.6 percent on a per-ASM basis. These increases were both primarily due to the amortization of capitalized software costs associated with various information technology upgrade and replacement projects the Company completed during 2010. For first quarter 2011, the Company expects Depreciation and amortization expense per-ASM to increase slightly from fourth quarter 2010s .64 cents.
Other operating expenses increased $89 million, and were up 6.6 percent on a per-ASM basis, compared to 2009. On both a dollar and a per-ASM basis, these increases primarily were due to an increase in revenue-related costs (such as credit card interchange fees) associated with the 16.1 percent increase in Passenger revenues. Excluding any first quarter 2011 costs incurred in connection with planning for the integration and transition related to the Companys anticipated 2011 acquisition of AirTran, the Company currently expects other operating expenses on a per-ASM basis for first quarter 2011 to be approximately 1.60 cents.
Through the 2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, the federal government has continued to provide renewable, supplemental, first-party war-risk insurance coverage to commercial carriers, at substantially lower premiums than prevailing commercial rates and for levels of coverage not available in the commercial market. The government-provided supplemental coverage from the Wartime Act is currently set to expire on September 30, 2011. Although another extension beyond this date is expected, if such coverage is not extended by the government, the Company could incur substantially higher insurance costs or unavailability of adequate coverage in future periods.
Other expenses (income) include interest expense, capitalized interest, interest income, and other gains and losses. Interest expense decreased by $19 million, or 10.2 percent, primarily due to the Companys conversion of its $400 million of 10.5% secured notes due 2011 and its $300 million of 5.75% senior unsecured notes due 2016 to floating interest rates during fourth quarter 2009. The Company currently expects its first quarter 2011 interest expense to be consistent with first quarter 2010. See Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for more information on long-term debt transactions. Capitalized interest declined 14.3 percent, or $3 million, compared to 2009, due to a reduction in progress payment balances for scheduled future aircraft deliveries and lower interest rates. Interest income decreased $1 million, or 7.7 percent, primarily due to a decrease in average rates earned on invested cash and short-term investment balances.
Other (gains) losses, net, primarily includes amounts recorded as a result of the Companys fuel hedging activities. The following table displays the components of Other (gains) losses, net, for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009:
See Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on the Companys hedging activities.
The provision for income taxes, as a percentage of income before taxes, decreased to 38.4 percent in 2010 from 39.6 percent in 2009. The lower 2010 rate primarily was due to the Companys higher 2010 earnings, which dilutes the impact of permanent tax differences, thus reducing the tax rate. The Company currently expects its 2011 effective tax rate to be 38 to 39 percent.
2009 compared with 2008
The Companys consolidated net income of $99 million ($.13 per share, diluted) in 2009 represented a decrease of $79 million, or 44.4 percent, compared to its 2008 net income of $178 million ($.24 per share, diluted). The results in each year were significantly impacted by the Companys fuel hedge program and the accounting requirements related to the derivative instruments used in the Companys hedging activities. As a result of the fuel hedges the Company had in place during 2009including those that settled during 2009 and those that will settle in future yearsthe Company recognized a net total of $408 million in losses allocated between Fuel and oil expense and Other (gains) losses, net, in the Consolidated Statement of Income. During 2008, the Company had recognized a total of $1.0 billion in net gains as a result of its fuel hedging activities, allocated between Fuel and oil expense and Other (gains) losses, net. Each of these totals for 2009 and 2008 includes the net premium costs the Company paid to enter into a portion of its fuel derivative instruments such as option contracts which is classified as a component of Other (gains) losses, net. See Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on fuel derivative instruments.
Consolidated operating revenues decreased $673 million, or 6.1 percent, primarily due to a $657 million, or 6.2 percent, decrease in Passenger revenues. The majority of the decline in Passenger revenues was attributable to a 7.4 percent decrease in Passenger revenue yields (Passenger revenues divided by revenue Passenger miles or RPMs), as the percentage of full fare bookings was down versus 2008 and the Company offered more fare sales and discounted seats in response to the decline in demand for air travel amid domestic economic conditions. However, as a result of the Companys fare discounting efforts and a number of newly implemented revenue initiatives, combined with a 5.1 percent reduction in ASMs, load factor increased 4.8 points to 76.0 percent in 2009. The higher load factor mostly offset the decline in Passenger yield, resulting in only a net 1.0 percent decline in operating revenue yield per ASM (unit revenue) versus 2008.
The revenue initiatives implemented by the Company in 2009 enabled it to partially offset the loss of full fare traffic versus 2008 and thus minimize the year-over-year decline in unit revenues. During 2009, the Company launched a new and improved website at www.southwest.com, introduced EarlyBird check-in, which allows Customers to pay $10 to automatically get an assigned boarding position before general check-in begins, introduced new fees for unaccompanied minors and for pets, and continued to optimize its schedule and tout its Bags Fly Free campaign.
Consolidated freight revenues decreased $27 million, or 18.6 percent, versus 2008. This decrease primarily was due to fewer shipments as a result of the worldwide recession in 2009. This prevented the Company from being able to increase its shipping rates during 2009. During the majority of 2008, better economic conditions enabled the Company to increase its shipping rates when fuel prices were rising. Other revenues increased $11 million, or 3.3 percent, compared to 2008. The majority of the increase was due to revenues from 2009 revenue initiatives, such as fees for unaccompanied minors and for pets, revenue from the Companys EarlyBird initiative, and an increase in the fee charged for Customers checking a third bag.
Consolidated operating expenses for 2009 decreased $486 million, or 4.6 percent, compared to a 5.1 percent decrease in capacity. Historically, except for changes in the price of fuel, changes in operating expenses for airlines are largely driven by changes in capacity, or ASMs. The following presents the Companys operating expenses per-ASM for 2009 and 2008 followed by explanations of these changes on a per-ASM basis and/or on a dollar basis (in cents, except for percentages):
The Companys 2009 CASM was up slightly from 2008, increasing by a net .5 percent. However, 2009 operating expense included the impact of Freedom 09, the early retirement plan offered by the Company, which resulted in a $66 million charge recorded during third quarter 2009. Excluding the impact of this charge, 2009 CASM was flat compared to 2008 as lower fuel costs were offset by higher airport costs and by higher wage rates paid to nearly all Employee groups.
Salaries, wages, and benefits increased $128 million on an absolute dollar basis, including the $66 million charge recorded during third quarter 2009 as a result of Freedom 09, the early retirement plan offered by the Company that was accepted by 1,404 Employees. Excluding the impact of the Freedom 09 charge, the majority of the year-over-year increase was from higher salaries and wages, primarily as a result of higher average wage rates. This was partially offset by a $53 million decrease in profitsharing, attributable to lower income available for profitsharing. The Companys profitsharing expense is based on profits that exclude the unrealized gains and/or losses the Company records in its fuel hedging program. See Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on fuel hedging. Salaries, wages, and benefits expense per-ASM was 9.6 percent higher than 2008, primarily due to the fact that the Companys unionized workforce, who make up the majority of its Employees, had pay scale increases as a result of increased seniority, while the Companys ASM capacity declined 5.1 percent compared to 2008.
Fuel and oil expense decreased $669 million, or 18.0 percent, and on a per-ASM basis decreased 13.6 percent versus 2008. Both the dollar and the per-ASM decrease were driven primarily by a 13.1 percent decrease in the average price per gallon for jet fuel, including the impact of fuel derivatives used in hedging, and including related taxes. As a result of the Companys fuel hedging program and inclusive of the impact of the accounting requirements for derivatives and hedging, the Company recognized net losses totaling $467 million in 2009 in Fuel and oil expense relating to fuel derivative instruments versus $1.1 billion of net gains recognized in Fuel and oil expense in 2008. These totals are inclusive of cash settlements realized from the expiration/settlement of fuel derivatives, which were $245 million paid to counterparties in 2009 versus $1.3 billion received from counterparties for 2008. Additionally, in 2009 and 2008, there were net losses recognized in Fuel and oil expense, of $222 million and $188 million, respectively, due to the fact that the Company had previously recognized gains associated with settling contracts in each period that were associated with ineffective hedges or derivatives that did not qualify for hedge accounting. However, these totals exclude gains and/or losses recognized from hedge ineffectiveness, which are recorded as a component of Other (gains) losses, net. See Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. In 2009, the Company also continued to make progress in improving the fuel efficiency of its fleet. Despite the large increase in load factor from 2008 to 2009, the Company was able to produce the same fuel gallons consumed per-ASM flown for each year.
Maintenance materials and repairs were flat on a dollar basis, but increased 4.3 percent on a per-ASM basis compared to 2008. On a dollar basis, an increase in engine expense was mostly offset by a decrease in airframe expense. The majority of the increase in engine costs related to the Companys 737-700 aircraft, which for the second half of 2008 and all of 2009 were accounted for under an agreement with GE Engines Services, Inc. (GE Engines) that provides for engine repairs to be done on a rate per flight hour basis. For the first half of 2008, these aircraft engines were accounted for on a time and materials basis, and there were very few repair events. The expense for 737-700 engines recognized in 2009 associated with the current agreement exceeded the expense recognized in 2008. Under this engine agreement, which is similar to the power-by-the-hour agreement with GE Engines the Company has in place for its 737-300 and 737-500 fleet, payments are primarily based on a rate per flight hour basis. Since the Company has effectively transferred the risk for specified future repairs and maintenance on these engines to the service provider, expense is recorded commensurate with each hour flown on an engine. The decrease in airframe expense primarily was due to a decline in the number of scheduled airframe maintenance events versus 2008. On a per-ASM basis, the increase in Maintenance materials and repairs compared to 2008 primarily was due to the increase in 737-700 engine costs combined with the Companys 5.1 percent decline in ASMs.
Aircraft rentals expense per-ASM increased 26.7 percent and, on a dollar basis, increased $32 million. Both increases primarily were due to the fact that the Company executed sale and leaseback transactions for a total of 16 of its 737-700 aircraft during December 2008 and the first half of 2009, combined with the impact of the Companys 5.1 percent ASM reduction for 2009 compared to 2008. All of the lease agreements executed as part of the sale and leaseback transactions were classified as operating leases.
Landing fees and other rentals increased $56 million on a dollar basis and increased 14.1 percent on a per-ASM basis, compared to 2008. The majority of both the dollar increase and per-ASM increase was due to higher space rentals in airports as a result of higher rates charged by those airports for gate and terminal space. The majority of these higher rates charged by airports was due to other airlines reduced capacity during 2009 (which in most cases exceeded the Companys capacity reductions at those airports), as airport costs are then allocated among a fewer number of total flights.
Depreciation and amortization expense increased $17 million on a dollar basis compared to 2008, and was up 8.6 percent on a per-ASM basis. The increase on a dollar basis primarily was due to higher owned aircraft depreciation expense, primarily due to a reduction in the estimated salvage values of owned aircraft that were recently retired or are expected to be retired during 2010 and 2011, based on current and expected future market conditions for used aircraft. This increase in expense was mostly offset by the execution of sale and leaseback
agreements for 11 previously owned 737-700s during the first half of 2009. The increase on a per-ASM basis primarily was due to the fact that the Companys fleet size remained constant, while it reduced the number of ASMs flown as a result of economic conditions.
Other operating expenses decreased $48 million, but were up 1.5 percent on a per-ASM basis, compared to 2008. Approximately 29 percent of the decrease on a dollar basis was due to lower bad debt expense related to revenues from credit card sales, and another 28 percent of the decrease was due to lower personnel expenses, primarily due to the reduction in headcount, the Companys decline in capacity versus 2008, and other cost-reduction efforts. On a per-ASM basis, the increase in operating expenses per-ASM primarily was due to an increase in advertising expense compared to 2008 combined with the reduction in ASMs.
Other expenses (income) include interest expense, capitalized interest, interest income, and other gains and losses. Interest expense increased by $56 million, or 43.1 percent, primarily due to new debt issuances, including the Companys December 2008 issuance of $400 million of secured notes, its borrowing under its $332 million term loan in May 2009, and its July 2009 $124 million borrowing under a term loan agreement. These issuances were partially offset by declines in floating interest rates associated with the Companys floating rate debt. See Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for more information on long-term debt transactions. Capitalized interest declined 16.0 percent, or $4 million, compared to 2008, due to a reduction in progress payment balances for scheduled future aircraft deliveries and lower interest rates. Interest income decreased $13 million, or 50.0 percent, primarily due to a decrease in average rates earned on invested cash and short-term investment balances.
Other (gains) losses, net, primarily includes amounts recorded as a result of the Companys fuel hedging activities. The following table displays the components of Other (gains) losses, net, for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008:
See Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on the Companys hedging activities.
The provision for income taxes, as a percentage of income before taxes, increased to 39.6 percent in 2009 from 35.9 percent in 2008. The lower 2008 rate included a $12 million ($.01 per share, diluted) net reduction related to the first quarter 2008 reversal of a 2007 revision in Illinois income tax laws. The 2009 rate also includes the impact of slightly higher effective state income tax rates.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Net cash provided by operating activities was $1.6 billion in 2010 compared to $985 million provided by operations in 2009. For the Company, operating cash inflows primarily are derived from providing air
transportation for Customers. The vast majority of tickets are purchased prior to the day on which travel is provided and, in some cases, several months before the anticipated travel date. Operating cash outflows primarily are related to the recurring expenses of operating the airline. Operating cash flows can also be significantly impacted by the Companys fuel hedge positions and the significant fluctuation in fair value of those positions and the corresponding cash collateral requirements associated with those positions. In the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows, increases and/or decreases to these cash deposits are reflected in operating cash flows as Cash collateral received from (provided to) fuel derivative counterparties. As of December 31, 2010, the net amount of cash provided to fuel hedge counterparties was $65 million. Since the amount of cash collateral deposits provided by the Company at December 31, 2009 was $330 million, the net change in cash deposits for 2010 was a net operating inflow of $265 million. Cash flows associated with entering into new fuel derivatives, which are also classified as operating cash flows, were net outflows of $359 million in 2010, $86 million in 2009, and $418 million in 2008. Cash flows from operating activities for 2010 were also driven by $459 million in net income, plus noncash depreciation and amortization expense of $628 million. For further information on the Companys hedging program and counterparty deposits, see Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements and Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk, respectively. Operating cash generated is used primarily to finance aircraft-related capital expenditures and to provide working capital.
Net cash flows used in investing activities in 2010 totaled $1.3 billion, versus $1.6 billion used in 2009. Investing activities in both years included payments for new 737-700 aircraft delivered to the Company and progress payments for future aircraft deliveries. The Company purchased 11 new 737-700 aircraft in 2010 versus the purchase of 13 737-700s in 2009. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Investing activities for 2010 and 2009 also reflect $772 million and $986 million, respectively, related to changes in the balance of the Companys short-term investments. The Company increased its short-term investments in 2010 compared to 2009 due to higher overall cash balances and in order to seek higher returns on its cash holdings.
Net cash used in financing activities was $149 million in 2010. During 2010, the Company repaid $155 million in debt and capital lease obligations that came due, and also repaid $44 million from a credit line borrowing associated with auction rate security instruments that were redeemed back to its counterparty. Net cash provided by financing activities was $330 million in 2009. During 2009, the Company raised $381 million from the sale and leaseback of 11 737-700 aircraft, and borrowed $332 million and $124 million under secured term loan arrangements. Also during 2009, the Company repaid the $400 million it had borrowed during 2008 under its revolving credit agreement. See Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for more information on the issuance and redemption of long-term debt and Note 6 for more information on the Companys revolving credit arrangement.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements, Contractual Obligations, and Contingent Liabilities and Commitments
The Company has contractual obligations and commitments primarily with regard to future purchases of aircraft, payment of debt, and lease arrangements. The Company received 12 Boeing 737-700 aircraft in 2010, 11 of which were new aircraft purchased from Boeing and one of which was leased from a third party. The Company also brought back its four 737-300 aircraft that had been removed from active service and put into storage during 2009, and retired five older leased and owned 737-300 aircraft from service during 2010. As of January 19, 2011, the Company had firm orders with Boeing for a total of 88 737-700 aircraft and 20 737-800 aircraft for the years 2011 through 2016. The firm orders for the 20 737-800 aircraft are a result of the Companys decision to substitute this aircraft type for 737-700s that had been previously ordered for 2012. The Company also had purchase options for 37 737-700 aircraft from 2013 through 2017, with an additional 98 purchase rights for 737-700 aircraft through 2021 (as further described in Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements). The Company also has the option to substitute 737-600s for the 737-700s ordered from Boeing with at least 18 months notice prior to the contractual delivery date, and can substitute 737-800s for the 737-700s with at least twelve months notice.
The leasing of aircraft (including the sale and leaseback of aircraft) effectively provides flexibility to the Company as a source of financing. Although the Company is responsible for all maintenance, insurance, and
expense associated with operating leased aircraft, and retains the risk of loss for these aircraft, it has not made any guarantees to the lessors regarding the residual value (or market value) of the aircraft at the end of the lease terms. As of December 31, 2010, the Company operated 97 leased aircraft, of which 92 are under operating leases. As prescribed by GAAP, assets and obligations under operating leases are not included in the Companys Consolidated Balance Sheet. Disclosure of the contractual obligations associated with the Companys leased aircraft is included below as well as in Note 8 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
The Company is required to provide standby letters of credit to support certain obligations that arise in the ordinary course of business. Although the letters of credit are off-balance sheet, the majority of obligations to which they relate are reflected as liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Outstanding letters of credit totaled $234 million at December 31, 2010.
The following table aggregates the Companys material expected contractual obligations and commitments as of December 31, 2010:
As discussed in Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, a portion of the consideration to be paid by the Company in connection with its planned acquisition of AirTran will be in cash. The Company intends to fund up to $670 million in cash consideration to AirTran stockholders out of cash on hand upon closing of the acquisition, which is expected to occur during second quarter 2011. The Company also expects to incur approximately $500 million in integration and closing costs associated with the acquisition, a portion of which are expected to be in 2011, and which are expected to be funded with cash. The Company believes that its current liquidity position, including cash and short-term investments of $3.5 billion as of December 31, 2010, anticipated future internally generated funds from operations, and its fully available, unsecured revolving credit facility of $600 million, will enable it to fund the acquisition without adding significant further borrowings. Additionally, as discussed in Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements and as set forth above in the contractual obligations table, the Company has long term debt maturities of $400 million in December 2011 and $385 million in March 2012. The Company will continue to consider various borrowing or leasing options to maximize liquidity and supplement cash requirements as needed. The Company believes it has access to financing arrangements because of its current investment grade credit ratings, unencumbered assets, modest leverage, and consistent profitability, which should enable it to meet its ongoing capital, operating, and other liquidity requirements. As of December 31, 2010, the book value of the Companys unencumbered aircraft totaled approximately $6.6 billion.
During 2008, the City of Dallas approved the Love Field Modernization Program (LFMP), a project to reconstruct Dallas Love Field (Airport) with modern, convenient air travel facilities. Pursuant to a Program Development Agreement (PDA) with the City of Dallas and the Love Field Airport Modernization Corporation
(or LFAMC, a Texas non-profit local government corporation established by the City to act on the Citys behalf to facilitate the development of the LFMP), the Company is managing this project. Major construction commenced during 2010, with completion of the project scheduled for the second half of 2014. Although subject to change, at the current time the project is expected to include the renovation of the Airport airline terminals and complete replacement of gate facilities with a new 20-gate facility, including infrastructure, systems and equipment, aircraft parking apron, fueling system, roadways and terminal curbside, baggage handling systems, passenger loading bridges and support systems, and other supporting infrastructure.
During fourth quarter 2010, the LFAMC issued $310 million in tax-exempt facility revenue bonds (LFMP Bonds), the proceeds of which have been or will be used: (1) to finance a significant portion of the ongoing costs of the LFMP; and (2) to reimburse the Company for approximately $80 million in early LFMP expenditures made from April 25, 2008, through the date of issuance of the LFMP Bonds (such expenditures and reimbursement were authorized pursuant to a June 25, 2008 Inducement Resolution approved by the Dallas City Council and subsequent Resolutions by the LFAMC). Repayment of the LFMP Bonds will be through the Facilities Payments described below. Reimbursement of the Company for its payment of Facilities Payments are expected to be made through recurring ground rents, fees, and other revenues collected at the Airport. The Company has guaranteed principal, premium, and interest on the issued bonds. Depending on funding needs and the timing of these funds from other sources, an additional tranche of bonds will likely be issued prior to the completion of the LFMP project. It is currently expected that the total amount spent on the LFMP project will be approximately $519 million.
Prior to the issuance of the LFMP Bonds by the LFAMC, the Company entered into two separate funding agreements: (1) a Facilities Agreement pursuant to which the Company is obligated to make debt service payments on the principal and interest amounts associated with the LFMP Bonds (Facilities Payments), less other sources of funds the City of Dallas may apply to the repayment of the LFMP Bonds (including but not limited to passenger facility charges collected from passengers originating from the Airport); and (2) a Revenue Credit Agreement pursuant to which the City of Dallas will reimburse the Company for the Facilities Payments made by the Company.
A majority of the monies transferred from the City of Dallas to the Company under the Revenue Credit Agreement are expected to originate from a reimbursement account created in the Use and Lease Agreement between the City of Dallas and the Company. The Use and Lease Agreement is a 20-year agreement providing for, among other things, the Companys lease of space at the Airport from the City of Dallas. The remainder of such monies transferred from the City of Dallas to the Company under the Revenue Credit Agreement is expected to originate from (1) use and lease agreements with other airlines, (2) various concession agreements, and (3) other Airport miscellaneous revenues.
The Companys liquidity could be impacted by the LFMP to the extent there is not an additional future successful bond issuance, or there is a timing difference between the Companys payment of the Facilities Payments pursuant to the Facilities Agreement and the transfer of monies back to the Company pursuant to the Revenue Credit Agreement; however, the Company does not currently anticipate the occurrence of either of these items. The LFMP is not expected to have a significant impact on the Companys capital resources or financial position. See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information and accounting requirements related to the LFMP.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
The Companys Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with GAAP. The Companys significant accounting policies are described in Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. The preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires the Companys management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the Consolidated Financial Statements and accompanying footnotes. The Companys estimates and assumptions are based on historical experience and
changes in the business environment. However, actual results may differ from estimates under different conditions, sometimes materially. Critical accounting policies and estimates are defined as those that are both most important to the portrayal of the Companys financial condition and results and require managements most subjective judgments. The Companys most critical accounting policies and estimates are described below.
Tickets sold for Passenger air travel are initially deferred as Air traffic liability. Passenger revenue is recognized and Air traffic liability is reduced when the service is provided (i.e., when the flight takes place). Air traffic liability represents tickets sold for future travel dates and estimated future refunds and exchanges of tickets sold for past travel dates. The balance in Air traffic liability fluctuates throughout the year based on seasonal travel patterns and fare sale activity. The Companys Air traffic liability balance at December 31, 2010, was $1.2 billion, compared to $1.0 billion as of December 31, 2009.
The Company estimates the amount of tickets that will expire unused and recognizes such amounts in Passenger revenue once the scheduled flight date has passed. Estimating the amount of tickets that will expire unused, be refunded, or exchanged involves some level of subjectivity and judgment. The majority of the Companys tickets sold are nonrefundable, which is the primary source of unused tickets. According to the Companys Contract of Carriage, tickets (whether refundable or nonrefundable) that are sold but not flown on the travel date can be reused for another flight, up to a year from the date of sale, or can be refunded (if the ticket is refundable). A small percentage of tickets (or partial tickets) expire unused. Fully refundable tickets are rarely forfeited. Estimates of tickets that will expire unused are based on historical experience over many years. The Company and other airlines have consistently applied this accounting method to estimate revenue from unused tickets at the date of travel. Holding other factors constant, a 10 percent change in the Companys estimate of the amount of tickets that will expire unused would have resulted in a $26 million, or .2 percent, change in Passenger revenues recognized for 2010.
Events and circumstances outside of historical fare sale activity or historical Customer travel patterns can result in actual refunds, exchanges, or forfeited tickets differing significantly from estimates. The Company evaluates its estimates within a narrow range of acceptable amounts. If actual refunds, exchanges, or forfeiture experience results in an amount outside of this range, estimates and assumptions are reviewed and adjustments to Air traffic liability and to Passenger revenue are recorded, as necessary. Additional factors that may affect estimated refunds and exchanges include, but may not be limited to, changes to the Companys ticketing policies, the Companys refund and exchange policy, the mix of refundable and nonrefundable fares, promotional fare activity, and the impact of the economic environment on Customer behavior. The Companys estimation techniques have been consistently applied from year to year; however, as with any estimates, actual refund, exchange, and forfeiture activity may vary from estimated amounts. During 2009, as a result of the Companys efforts to stimulate demand through fare sales, Passenger revenues consisted of a higher percentage of discount tickets flown and a lower percentage of fully refundable tickets flown. Consequently, the Companys estimate of the amount of refunded, exchanged, or forfeited tickets recorded during 2009 was in a range of approximately 30 to 35 percent higher than what it believes its historical averages would indicate. The Company believes these estimates are supported by actual data and are reasonable given the underlying fact patterns. During 2008 and 2010, the Company believes the amount of refunded, exchanged, or forfeited tickets recorded were closer to what historical trends would indicate.
The Company believes it is unlikely that materially different estimates for future refunds, exchanges, and forfeited tickets would be reported based on other reasonable assumptions or conditions suggested by actual historical experience and other data available at the time estimates were made.
Accounting for long-lived assets
As of December 31, 2010, the Company had approximately $16.3 billion (at cost) of long-lived assets, including $14.0 billion (at cost) in flight equipment and related assets. Flight equipment primarily relates to the
456 Boeing 737 aircraft in the Companys fleet at December 31, 2010, which are either owned or on capital lease. The remaining 92 Boeing 737 aircraft in the Companys fleet at December 31, 2010, are operated under operating leases. In accounting for long-lived assets, the Company must make estimates about the expected useful lives of the assets, the expected residual values of the assets, and the potential for impairment based on the fair value of the assets and their future expected cash flows.
The following table shows a breakdown of the Companys long-lived asset groups along with information about estimated useful lives and residual values of these groups:
In estimating the lives and expected residual values of its aircraft, the Company primarily has relied upon actual experience with the same or similar aircraft types, current and projected future market information, and recommendations from Boeing. Aircraft estimated useful lives are based on the number of cycles flown (one take-off and landing) as well as the aircraft age. The Company has made a conversion of cycles into years based on both its historical and anticipated future utilization of the aircraft. Subsequent revisions to these estimates, which can be significant, could be caused by changes to the Companys maintenance program, changes in utilization of the aircraft (actual cycles during a given period of time), governmental regulations on aging aircraft, and changing market prices of new and used aircraft of the same or similar types. The Company evaluates its estimates and assumptions each reporting period and, when warranted, adjusts these estimates and assumptions. Generally, these adjustments are accounted for on a prospective basis through depreciation and amortization expense, as required by GAAP. For example, during third quarter 2010, the Company changed the estimated residual values of its entire remaining fleet of owned 737-300 and 737-500 aircraft. Based on current and expected future market conditions related to these aircraft, the Company reduced the residual values of these aircraft from approximately 15 percent of original cost to approximately 10 percent of original cost. This determination was made due to the lack of buyers for these older aircraft, as many buyers of used aircraft prefer newer, more fuel efficient models, and the increase in the number of airlines retiring these older aircraft, which has effectively flooded the market. As this reduction in residual value is considered a change in estimate, it has been accounted for on a prospective basis, and thus the Company will record additional depreciation expense over the remainder of the useful lives for each aircraft.
The Company evaluates its long-lived assets for impairment. Factors that would indicate potential impairment may include, but are not limited to, significant decreases in the market value of the long-lived asset(s), a significant change in the long-lived assets physical condition, and operating or cash flow losses associated with the use of the long-lived asset. The Company has continued to operate virtually all of its aircraft, generate positive cash flow, and produce operating profits. Consequently, the Company has not identified any impairment related to its existing aircraft fleet. The Company will continue to monitor its long-lived assets and the airline operating environment.
The Company believes it is unlikely that materially different estimates for expected lives, expected residual values, and impairment evaluations would be made or reported based on other reasonable assumptions or conditions suggested by actual historical experience and other data available at the time estimates were made.
Financial derivative instruments
The Company utilizes financial derivative instruments primarily to manage its risk associated with changing jet fuel prices. See Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk for more information on these
risk management activities, and see Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for more information on the Companys fuel hedging program and financial derivative instruments.
All derivatives are required to be reflected at fair value and recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. At December 31, 2010, the Company was a party to over 600 financial derivative instruments, related to its fuel hedging program, for the years 2011 through 2014. The fair value of the Companys fuel hedging financial derivative instruments recorded on the Companys Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2010, not considering the impact of cash collateral deposits provided to counterparties, was a net asset of $142 million, compared to a net liability of $477 million at December 31, 2009. The change in fair value primarily was due to an increase in energy prices throughout most of 2010, the expiration (i.e., settlement in which the Company paid cash to counterparties) of approximately $153 million in fuel derivative instruments that related to 2010, and the purchase of new derivative positions that will settle in future periods. Although the Companys fuel derivative portfolio was in a net asset position at December 31, 2010, the positions that are expected to settle or expire during 2011 currently consist of a net liability of approximately $62 million. Changes in the fair values of these instruments can vary dramatically based on changes in the underlying commodity prices, as has been evident in recent years. For example, during 2008, market spot prices for crude oil peaked at a high of over $147 per barrel and hit a low price of under $35 per barrelboth within a period of approximately five months. During 2010, market spot prices ranged from a low of $68 per barrel to a high of $91 per barrel. Market price changes can be driven by factors such as supply and demand, inventory levels, weather events, refinery capacity, political agendas, value of the U.S. dollar, and general economic conditions, among other items. The financial derivative instruments utilized by the Company primarily are a combination of collars, purchased call options, call spreads, and fixed price swap agreements. The Company does not purchase or hold any derivative instruments for trading purposes.
The Company enters into financial derivative instruments with third party institutions in over-the-counter markets. Since the majority of the Companys financial derivative instruments are not traded on a market exchange, the Company estimates their fair values. Depending on the type of instrument, the values are determined by the use of present value methods or standard option value models with assumptions about commodity prices based on those observed in underlying markets. Also, since there is not a reliable forward market for jet fuel, the Company must estimate the future prices of jet fuel in order to measure the effectiveness of the hedging instruments in offsetting changes to those prices. Forward jet fuel prices are estimated through the observation of similar commodity futures prices (such as crude oil, heating oil, and unleaded gasoline) and adjusted based on variations of those like commodities to the Companys ultimate expected price to be paid for jet fuel at the specific locations in which the Company hedges.
Fair values for financial derivative instruments and forward jet fuel prices are estimated prior to the time that the financial derivative instruments settle and the time that jet fuel is purchased and consumed, respectively. However, once settlement of the financial derivative instruments occurs and the hedged jet fuel is purchased and consumed, all values and prices are known and are recognized in the financial statements. In some historical periods, because of increased volatility in energy markets, the Company has in fact lost hedge accounting for all unleaded gasoline derivative instruments. At such times, the Company has marked all such derivatives to fair value in each quarterly period, with all changes in value reflected as a component of Other (gains) losses, net in the Consolidated Statement of Income. However, the Company did not lose hedge accounting for any entire commodities during 2010, 2009, or 2008. Although commodities such as crude oil and heating oil have historically continued to qualify for hedge accounting in most cases, there have been instances in which the Company has also lost hedge accounting in specific geographic locations for these commodities. In these instances, the Company has also marked such derivatives to fair value with changes reflected in the Consolidated Statement of Income each reporting period. Although the Companys prospective assessment has been utilized to ensure that the commodities used in most cases still qualify for hedge accounting in specific locations where the Company hedges, there are no assurances that these commodities will continue to qualify in the future. This is due to the fact that future price changes in these refined products may not be consistent with historical price changes. Increased volatility in these commodity markets for an extended period of time, especially if such
volatility were to worsen, could cause the Company to lose hedge accounting altogether for the commodities used in its fuel hedging program, which would create further volatility in the Companys financial results.
Estimating the fair value of these fuel derivative instruments and forward prices for jet fuel will also result in changes in their fair values from period to period and thus determine their accounting treatment. To the extent that the change in the estimated fair value of a fuel derivative instrument differs from the change in the estimated price of the associated jet fuel to be purchased, both on a cumulative and a period-to-period basis, ineffectiveness of the fuel hedge can result. This could result in the immediate recording of noncash charges or income, representing the change in the fair value of the derivative, even though the derivative instrument may not expire/settle until a future period. Likewise, if a derivative contract ceases to qualify for hedge accounting, the changes in the fair value of the derivative instrument is recorded every period to Other gains and losses in the Consolidated Statement of Income in the period of the change.
Ineffectiveness is inherent in hedging jet fuel with derivative positions based in other crude oil related commodities, especially given the recent volatility in the prices of refined products. Due to the volatility in markets for crude oil and related products, the Company is unable to predict the amount of ineffectiveness each period, including the loss of hedge accounting, which could be determined on a derivative by derivative basis or in the aggregate for a specific commodity. This may result, and has historically resulted, in increased volatility in the Companys financial statements. The amount of hedge ineffectiveness and unrealized gains and losses on the change in fair value of derivative contracts settling in future periods recorded during historical periods has been due to a number of factors. These factors include: the significant fluctuation in energy prices, the number of derivative positions the Company holds, significant weather events that have affected refinery capacity and the production of refined products, and the volatility of the different types of products the Company uses for mitigation of fuel price volatility. The discontinuation of hedge accounting for specific hedges and for specific refined products, such as unleaded gasoline, can also be a result of these reasons. Depending on the level at which the Company is hedged at any point in time, as the fair value of the Companys hedge positions fluctuate in amount from period to period, there could be continued variability recorded in the Consolidated Statement of Income, and furthermore, the amount of hedge ineffectiveness and unrealized gains or losses recorded in earnings may be material. This is primarily because small differences in the correlation of crude oil related products could be leveraged over large dollar volumes.
The Company continually looks for better and more accurate methodologies in forecasting expected future cash flows relating to its jet fuel hedging program. These estimates are an important component used in the measurement of effectiveness for the Companys fuel hedges. The current methodology used by the Company in forecasting forward jet fuel prices is primarily based on the idea that different types of commodities are statistically better predictors of forward jet fuel prices, depending on specific geographic locations in which the Company hedges. The Company then adjusts for certain items, such as transportation costs, that are stated in fuel purchasing contracts with its vendors, in order to estimate the actual price paid for jet fuel associated with each hedge. This methodology for estimating expected future cash flows (i.e., jet fuel prices) has been consistently applied during 2010, 2009, and 2008, and has not changed for either assessing or measuring hedge ineffectiveness during these periods.
The Company believes it is unlikely that materially different estimates for the fair value of financial derivative instruments and forward jet fuel prices would be made or reported based on other reasonable assumptions or conditions suggested by actual historical experience and other data available at the time estimates were made.
Fair value measurements
The Company utilizes unobservable (Level 3) inputs in determining the fair value of certain assets and liabilities. At December 31, 2010, these included auction rate security investments, valued at $93 million, a portion of its fuel derivative option contracts, which were a net asset of $685 million, and $5 million in other investments.
All of the Companys auction rate security instruments are reflected at estimated fair value in the Consolidated Balance Sheet. In prior periods, due to the auction process which took place every 30-35 days for most securities, quoted market prices were readily available, which would have qualified as Level 1. However, due to events in credit markets beginning during first quarter 2008, the auctions for most of these instruments failed, and, therefore, the Company has determined the estimated fair values of these securities utilizing a discounted cash flow analysis or other type of valuation model, which qualify the instruments as Level 3. The Companys analyses consider, among other items, the collateralization underlying the security investments, the expected future cash flows, including the final maturity, associated with the securities, and estimates of the next time the security is expected to have a successful auction or return to par value.
In association with this estimate of fair value, the Company has recorded a temporary unrealized decline in fair value of $17 million, with an offsetting entry to Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). Given the quality and backing of the Companys auction rate securities held, the fact that the Company has not yet recorded a loss on the sale of any of these instruments, and the fact that it has been able to periodically sell instruments in the auction process, it believes it can continue to account for the estimated reduction in fair value of its remaining securities as temporary. These conclusions will also continue to be evaluated and challenged in subsequent periods. The Company currently believes that this temporary decline in fair value is due entirely to liquidity issues, because the underlying assets for the majority of securities are almost entirely backed by the U.S. Government. In addition, these auction rate securities represented less than three percent of the Companys total cash, cash equivalent, and investment balance at December 31, 2010, which the Company believes allows it sufficient time for the auction rate securities to return to full value. At the time of the first failed auctions during first quarter 2008, the Company held a total of $463 million in auction rate securities. Since that time, the Company has been able to sell $353 million of these instruments at par value. The Company also remains in discussions with its remaining counterparties to determine whether mutually agreeable terms can be reached regarding the effective repurchase of its remaining securities.
The Company determines the value of fuel derivative option contracts utilizing a standard option pricing model based on inputs that are either readily available in public markets, can be derived from information available in publicly quoted markets, or are quoted by its counterparties. In situations where the Company obtains inputs via quotes from its counterparties, it verifies the reasonableness of these quotes via similar quotes from another counterparty as of each date for which financial statements are prepared. The Company has consistently applied these valuation techniques in all periods presented and believes it has obtained the most accurate information available for the types of derivative contracts it holds. Due to the fact that certain inputs used in determining estimated fair value of its option contracts are considered unobservable (primarily volatility), the Company has categorized these option contracts as Level 3.
As discussed in Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, any changes in fair value of cash flow hedges that are considered to be effective, as defined, are offset within Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) until the period in which the expected cash flow impacts earnings. Any changes in the fair value of fuel derivatives that are ineffective, as defined, or that do not qualify for hedge accounting, are reflected in earnings within Other (gains) losses, net, in the period of the change. Because the Company has extensive historical experience in valuing the derivative instruments it holds, and such experience is continually evaluated against its counterparties each period when such instruments expire and are settled for cash, the Company believes it is unlikely that an independent third party would value the Companys derivative contracts at a significantly different amount than what is reflected in the Companys financial statements. In addition, the Company also has bilateral credit provisions in some of its counterparty agreements, which provide for parties (or the Company) to provide cash collateral when the fair value of fuel derivatives with a single party exceeds certain threshold levels. Since this cash collateral is based on the estimated fair value of the Companys outstanding fuel derivative contracts, this provides further validation to the Companys estimate of fair values.
Frequent flyer accounting
The Company utilizes estimates in its recognition of liabilities associated with its frequent flyer program. These estimates include the liability associated with frequent flyer awards that have been issued, are outstanding, and are expected to be redeemed at a future date, amounts associated with partially earned awards that are expected to turn into fully earned awards and be redeemed at a future date, and amounts associated with frequent flyer credits sold to companies participating in its Rapid Rewards frequent flyer program.
The Company utilizes the incremental cost method of accounting for frequent flyer awards issued and for partially earned awards (i.e., flight credits) earned in the Companys Rapid Rewards frequent flyer program. The term partial award refers to flight credits earned by Customers for flights taken that in the aggregate are less than the amount needed to earn a frequent flyer award. The Company records a liability and reduction of Passenger revenue for the estimated incremental cost of providing free travel as frequent flyer awards and partially earned awards are being earned. The liability recorded by the Company represents the total number of awards and partially earned awards expected to be redeemed by Customers. The estimated incremental cost of these liabilities include direct Passenger costs such as fuel, food, and other operational costs, but does not include any contribution to overhead or profit. Prior to 2010, the Company did not record a liability for partially earned Customer awards. However, effective January 1, 2010, the Company made a voluntary change in its accounting for frequent flyer benefits to begin accruing for partially earned frequent flyer awards. See Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information about this accounting change. At December 31, 2010, the Company had approximately 13.9 million full or partial awards outstanding, of which approximately 10.9 million were partially earned awards.
The Company also sells frequent flyer credits and related services to companies participating in its frequent flyer program. Funds received from the sale of flight segment credits are accounted for under the residual method. Under this method, as of December 31, 2010, the Company has estimated that approximately 83 percent of the amount received per flight segment credit sold relates to free travel, and the remaining 17 percent associated with items such as access to the Companys frequent flyer program population for marketing/solicitation purposes, use of the Companys logo on co-branded credit cards, and other trademarks, designs, images, etc. of the Company for use in marketing materials. This apportionment of value between free travel and marketing services is estimated based on several factors, including fares, the habits of Customers in redeeming awards for free travel, and the contractual rate paid by companies for the flight segment credits. Prior to 2010, the amount estimated to be associated with free travel had historically ranged from 75 percent to 82 percent. The estimated amounts associated with free travel are deferred and recognized as Passenger revenue when the ultimate free travel awards are flown or the credits expire unused. For the portion of funds received that is deemed not to be associated with future travel, the Company has determined that the period earned is the period in which the Company has fulfilled its obligation under the contract signed with the particular business partner, which is on a monthly or quarterly basis, upon sale, as the related marketing services are performed or provided. The vast majority of these marketing services consist of the access granted, either monthly or quarterly, to various lists of the Companys frequent flyer members. The estimated amount that is not associated with free travel is recognized in Other revenue in the period earned.
The Company believes it is unlikely that materially different estimates for the assumptions used in estimating the liabilities associated with its frequent flyer program would be made based on the conditions suggested by actual historical experience and other data available at the time estimates were made.
The Company has interest rate risk in its floating rate debt obligations and interest rate swaps, commodity price risk in jet fuel required to operate its aircraft fleet, and market risk in the derivatives used to manage its fuel hedging program. In addition, 16 of the leased aircraft in the Companys fleet have lease payments that fluctuate based in part on changes in market interest rates. The Company purchases jet fuel at prevailing market prices, but seeks to manage market risk through execution of a documented hedging strategy. The Company has market sensitive instruments in the form of fixed rate debt instruments and financial derivative instruments used to hedge its exposure to jet fuel price increases. The Company operates a total of 97 aircraft under operating and capital leases. However, except for the 16 aircraft that have lease payments that fluctuate based in part on changes in market interest rates, the remainder of the Companys leases are not considered market sensitive financial instruments and, therefore, are not included in the interest rate sensitivity analysis below. Commitments related to leases are disclosed in Note 8 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company does not purchase or hold any derivative financial instruments for trading purposes. See Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information on the Companys accounting for its hedging program and for further details on the Companys financial derivative instruments.
The Company utilizes financial derivative instruments, on both a short-term and a long-term basis, as a form of insurance against the potential for significant increases in fuel prices. The Company believes there is significant risk in not hedging against the possibility of such fuel price increases. Excluding the impact of the anticipated AirTran acquisition, the Company expects to consume approximately 1.5 billion gallons of jet fuel in 2011. Based on this usage, a change in jet fuel prices of just one cent per gallon would impact the Companys Fuel and oil expense by approximately $15 million per year, excluding any impact of the Companys derivative instruments.
As of December 31, 2010, the Company held a net position of fuel derivative instruments that represented a hedge for a portion of its anticipated jet fuel purchases for each year from 2011 through 2014. See Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information. The Company may increase or decrease the size of its fuel hedge based on its expectation of future market prices, as well as its perceived exposure to cash collateral requirements contained in the agreements it has signed with various counterparties. In 2010, the Company added to its fuel hedging position related to expected future fuel purchases. The total net fair value of outstanding financial derivative instruments related to the Companys jet fuel market price risk at December 31, 2010, was a net asset of $207 million. This balance consists of the market value of fuel derivative instruments totaling a net asset of $142 million, and is net of $125 million in cash collateral that has been provided by the Company to one counterparty and $60 million in cash collateral held from another counterparty. The fair values of the derivative instruments, depending on the type of instrument, were determined by use of present value methods or standard option value models with assumptions about commodity prices based on those observed in underlying markets. An immediate 10 percent increase or decrease in underlying fuel-related commodity prices from the December 31, 2010 (for all years from 2011 through 2014) prices would correspondingly change the fair value of the commodity derivative instruments in place by approximately $370 million. Fluctuations in the related commodity derivative instrument cash flows may change by more or less than this amount based upon further fluctuations in futures prices as well as related income tax effects. In addition, this does not consider changes in cash collateral provided to or by counterparties, which would fluctuate in an amount equal to or less than this amount, depending on the type of collateral arrangement in place with each counterparty. This sensitivity analysis uses industry standard valuation models and holds all inputs constant at December 31, 2010 levels, except underlying futures prices.
The Companys credit exposure related to fuel derivative instruments is represented by the fair value of contracts with a net positive fair value to the Company. At such times, these outstanding instruments expose the Company to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the counterparties to the agreements. As of December 31, 2010, the Company had four counterparties in which the derivatives held were a net asset, totaling
$383 million. To manage credit risk, the Company selects and will periodically review counterparties based on credit ratings, limits its exposure to a single counterparty with collateral support agreements, and monitors the market position of the program and its relative market position with each counterparty. However, if one or more of these counterparties were in a liability position to the Company and were unable to meet their obligations, any open derivative contracts with the counterparty could be subject to early termination, which could result in substantial losses for the Company. At December 31, 2010, the Company had agreements with all of its counterparties containing early termination rights triggered by credit rating thresholds and/or bilateral collateral provisions whereby security is required if market risk exposure exceeds a specified threshold amount based on the counterpartys credit rating. The Company also had agreements with counterparties in which cash deposits and/or pledged aircraft are required to be posted whenever the net fair value of derivatives associated with those counterparties exceeds specific thresholdscash is either posted by the counterparty if the value of derivatives is an asset to the Company, or is posted by the Company if the value of derivatives is a liability to the Company. The following table provides the fair values of fuel derivatives, amounts posted as collateral, and applicable collateral posting threshold amounts as of December 31, 2010, at which such postings are triggered:
At December 31, 2010, the $60 million in cash collateral deposits held by the Company has been netted against the noncurrent fuel derivative assets from that counterparty within Other assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheet. The $125 million in cash collateral deposits provided by the Company to one counterparty has been netted against the noncurrent fuel derivative liabilities from that counterparty within Other non-current liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Due to the terms of the Companys current fuel hedging agreements with counterparties and the types of derivatives held, in the Companys judgment, it does not have significant additional exposure to future cash collateral requirements. As an example, if market prices for the commodities used in the Companys fuel hedging activities were to decrease by 33 percent from market prices as of December 31, 2010, given the Companys fuel derivative portfolio, its aircraft collateral facilities, and its investment grade credit rating, it would have to provide an additional $497 million in cash collateral to its current counterparties. See also Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
During January 2011, the Company made the decision to forego its option under the agreement with one counterparty (Counterparty B in the above table) to use some of its aircraft as collateral in lieu of cash and has provided additional cash to that counterparty to meet its collateral obligation based on the fair value of its outstanding fuel derivative instruments. This decision, which can be changed at any time under the existing agreement with that counterparty, was made because the Company has an adequate amount of cash on hand available to cover its total collateral requirement and has determined it would be less costly to provide the cash instead of aircraft, due to the nominal additional charges it must pay if aircraft are utilized as collateral. The additional amount of cash provided as of January 19, 2011, was $108 million.
The Company also has agreements with each of its counterparties associated with its outstanding interest rate swap agreements in which cash collateral may be required based on the fair value of outstanding interest rate swaps, as well as the Companys and its counterpartys credit ratings. As of December 31, 2010, no cash collateral had been provided to or received from counterparties associated with the Companys interest rate derivatives. If the Companys credit rating had been below investment grade as of December 31, 2010, it would have been required to provide $4 million in cash collateral to one counterparty based on its outstanding net liability derivative position with that counterparty. The outstanding interest rate net derivative positions with all other counterparties at December 31, 2010 were assets to the Company.
Due to the significance of the Companys fuel hedging program and the emphasis that it places on utilizing fuel derivatives to reduce its fuel price risk, the Company has created a system of governance and management oversight and has put in place a number of internal controls designed so that procedures are properly followed and accountability is present at the appropriate levels. For example, the Company has put in place controls designed to: (i) create and maintain a comprehensive risk management policy; (ii) provide for proper authorization by the appropriate levels of management; (iii) provide for proper segregation of duties; (iv) maintain an appropriate level of knowledge regarding the execution of and the accounting for derivative instruments; and (v) have key performance indicators in place in order to adequately measure the performance of its hedging activities. The Company believes the governance structure that it has in place is adequate given the size and sophistication of its hedging program.
Financial market risk
The vast majority of the Companys assets are aircraft, which are long-lived. The Companys strategy is to maintain a conservative balance sheet and grow capacity steadily and profitably under the right conditions. While the Company uses financial leverage, it strives to maintain a strong balance sheet and has a BBB rating with Fitch and Standard & Poors, and a Baa3 credit rating with Moodys as of December 31, 2010. The Companys 1999 and 2004 French Credit Agreements do not give rise to significant fair value risk but do give rise to interest rate risk because these borrowings were originally issued as floating-rate debt. In addition, as disclosed in Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, the Company has converted certain of its long-term debt to floating rate debt by entering into interest rate swap agreements. As of December 31, 2010, this included the Companys $385 million 6.5% senior unsecured notes due 2012, the $350 million 5.25% senior unsecured notes due 2014, the $300 million 5.125% senior unsecured notes due 2017, the $100 million 7.375% senior unsecured debentures due 2027, the $400 million 10.5% secured notes due 2011, and the $300 million 5.75% senior unsecured Notes due 2016. Although there is interest rate risk associated with these floating rate borrowings, the risk for the 1999 and 2004 French Credit Agreements is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the Company may prepay this debt under certain conditions. See Notes 6 and 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for more information on the material terms of the Companys short-term and long-term debt.
Excluding the notes or debentures that have been converted to a floating rate as previously noted, the Company had no fixed-rate senior unsecured notes outstanding at December 31, 2010. The following table displays the characteristics of the Companys secured fixed rate debt as of December 31, 2010:
The carrying value of the Companys floating rate debt totaled $2.0 billion, and this debt had a weighted-average maturity of 4 years at floating rates averaging 3.3 percent for the twelve months ended December 31, 2010. In total, the Companys fixed rate debt and floating rate debt represented 12 percent and 18 percent, respectively, of total noncurrent assets at December 31, 2010. In January 2011, the Company terminated the fixed-to-floating interest rate swap agreements related to its $350 million 5.25% senior unsecured notes due 2014 and its $300 million 5.125% senior unsecured notes due 2017. The effect of these terminations is basically that the interest associated with these debts prospectively revert back to their original fixed rates. As a result of the gains realized on these transactions, which will be amortized over the remaining term of the corresponding notes, and based on projected interest rates at the date of termination, the Company does not believe its future interest expense, based on projected future interest rates at the date of termination, associated with these notes will significantly differ from the expense it would have recorded had the notes remained at floating rates. Although there is no longer interest rate risk associated with these notes, the Company will subsequently be exposed to the fair value risk over their remaining terms.
The Company also has some risk associated with changing interest rates due to the short-term nature of its invested cash, which totaled $1.3 billion, and short-term investments, which totaled $2.3 billion, at December 31, 2010. See Notes 1 and 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information. The Company currently invests available cash in certificates of deposit, highly rated money market instruments, investment grade commercial paper, and other highly rated financial instruments, depending on market conditions and operating cash requirements. As a result of turmoil in credit markets, the Company has discontinued further investments in auction rate securities. Because of the short-term nature of these investments, the returns earned parallel closely with short-term floating interest rates. The Company has not undertaken any additional actions to cover interest rate market risk and is not a party to any other material market interest rate risk management activities.
A hypothetical 10 percent change in market interest rates as of December 31, 2010, would not have a material effect on the fair value of the Companys fixed rate debt instruments. See Note 11 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on the fair value of the Companys financial instruments. A change in market interest rates could, however, have a corresponding effect on the Companys earnings and cash flows associated with its floating rate debt, invested cash (excluding cash collateral deposits held, if applicable), floating rate aircraft leases, and short-term investments because of the floating-rate nature of these items. Assuming floating market rates in effect as of December 31, 2010, were held constant throughout a 12-month period, a hypothetical 10 percent change in those rates would have an immaterial impact to the Companys net earnings and cash flows. Utilizing these assumptions and considering the Companys cash balance (excluding the impact of cash collateral deposits held or provided to counterparties, if applicable), short-term investments, and floating-rate debt outstanding at December 31, 2010, an increase in rates would have a net negative effect on the Companys earnings and cash flows, while a decrease in rates would have a net positive effect on the Companys earnings and cash flows. However, a 10 percent change in market rates would not impact the Companys earnings or cash flow associated with the Companys publicly traded fixed-rate debt.
The Company is also subject to a financial covenant included in its revolving credit facility, and is subject to credit rating triggers related to its credit card transaction processing agreements, the pricing related to any funds
drawn under its revolving credit facility, and some of its hedging counterparty agreements. Certain covenants include the maintenance of minimum credit ratings and/or triggers that are based on changes in these ratings. The Companys revolving credit facility contains a financial covenant requiring a minimum coverage ratio of adjusted pre-tax income to fixed obligations, as defined. As of December 31, 2010, the Company was in compliance with this covenant and there were no amounts outstanding under the revolving credit facility. However, if conditions change and the Company fails to meet the minimum standards set forth in the revolving credit facility, there could be a reduction in the availability of cash under the facility, or an increase in the costs to keep the facility intact as written. Five of the Companys hedging counterparty agreements contain ratings triggers in which cash collateral would be required to be posted with the counterparty if the Companys credit rating falls below investment grade by two of the three major rating agencies, and if the Company were in a net liability position with the counterparties including one counterparty in which the Company had posted $125M as if December 31 2010. See note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information. As of December 31, 2010, there was no cash posted with any other counterparties. The Company was in a net fuel hedge liability position with one counterparty at December 31, 2010 in which no cash was posted. Assuming its credit rating were below investment grade as of that date, the Company would have been required to post approximately $3 million in cash collateral deposits with that counterparty.
The Company currently has agreements with organizations that process credit card transactions arising from purchases of air travel tickets by its Customers utilizing American Express, Discover and MasterCard/VISA. Credit card processors have financial risk associated with tickets purchased for travel because, although the processor generally forwards the cash related to the purchase to the Company soon after the purchase is completed, the air travel generally occurs after that time, and the processor would have liability if the Company does not ultimately provide the air travel. Under these processing agreements, and based on specified conditions, increasing amounts of cash reserves could be required to be posted with the counterparty.
A majority of the Companys sales transactions are processed by Chase Paymentech. Should chargebacks processed by Chase Paymentech reach a certain level, proceeds from advance ticket sales could be held back and used to establish a reserve account to cover such chargebacks and any other disputed charges that might occur. Additionally, cash reserves are required to be established if the Companys credit rating falls to specified levels below investment grade. Cash reserve requirements are based on the Companys public debt rating and a corresponding percentage of the Companys Air traffic liability.
As of December 31, 2010, the Company was in compliance with all credit card processing agreements. However, the inability to enter into credit card processing agreements would have a material adverse effect on the business of the Company. The Company believes that it will be able to continue to renew its existing credit card processing agreements or will be able to enter into new credit card processing agreements with other processors in the future.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
(In millions, except share data)
See accompanying notes.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME
(In millions, except per share amounts)
See accompanying notes.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY