Commercial Aviation: Preliminary Observations on Legacy Airlines' Financial Condition, Bankruptcy, and Pension Issues
Released: 2005-06-22T00:00:00

Letter

Legacy Airlines Must Reduce Costs to Restore Profitability

Since 2000, legacy airlines have faced unprecedented internal and external challenges. Internally, the impact of the Internet on how tickets are sold and consumers search for fares and the growth of low cost airlines as a market force accessible to almost every consumer has hurt legacy airline revenues by placing downward pressure on airfares. More recently, airlines’ costs have been hurt by rising fuel prices (see figure 1). This is especially true of airlines that did not have fuel hedging in place. Externally, a series of largely unforeseen events—among them the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001 and associated security concerns; war in Iraq; the SARS crisis; economic recession beginning in 2001; and a steep decline in business travel—seriously disrupted the demand for air travel during 2001 and 2002.

Low fares have constrained revenues for both legacy and low cost airlines. Yields, the amount of revenue airlines collect for every mile a passenger travels, fell for both low cost and legacy airlines from 2000 through 2004 (see figure 2). However, the decline has been greater for legacy airlines than for low cost airlines.

Legacy airlines, as a group, have been unsuccessful in reducing their costs to become more competitive with low cost airlines. Unit cost competitiveness is key to profitability for airlines because of declining yields. While legacy airlines have been able to reduce their overall costs since 2001, these were largely achieved through capacity reductions and without an improvement in their unit costs. Meanwhile, low cost airlines have been able to maintain low unit costs, primarily by continuing to grow. As a result, low cost airlines have been able to sustain a unit cost advantage as compared to their legacy rivals (see figure 3). In 2004, low cost airlines maintained a 2.7 cent per available seat mile advantage over legacy airlines. This advantage is attributable to lower overall costs and greater labor and asset productivity.

Weak revenues and the inability to realize greater unit cost-savings have combined to produce unprecedented losses for legacy airlines. At the same time, low cost airlines have been able to continue producing modest profits as a result of lower unit costs (see figure 4). Legacy airlines have lost a cumulative $28 billion since 2001 and are predicted to lose another $5 billion in 2005, according to industry analysts.

Since 2000, as the financial condition of legacy airlines deteriorated, they built cash balances not through operations but by borrowing. Legacy airlines have lost cash from operations and compensated for operating losses by taking on additional debt, relying on creditors for more of their capital needs than in the past. In the process of doing so, several legacy airlines have used all, or nearly all, of their assets as collateral, potentially limiting their future access to capital markets.

In sum, airlines are capital and labor intensive firms subject to highly cyclical demand and intense competition. Aircraft are very expensive and require large amounts of debt financing to acquire, resulting in high fixed costs for the industry. Labor is largely unionized and highly specialized, making it expensive and hard to reduce during downturns. Competition in the industry is frequently intense owing to periods of excess capacity, relatively open entry, and the willingness of lenders to provide financing. Finally, demand for air travel is highly cyclical, closely tied to the business cycle. Over the past decade, these structural problems have been exacerbated by the growth in low cost airlines and increasing consumer sensitivity to differences in airfares based on their use of the Internet to purchase tickets. More recently airlines have had to deal with persistently high fuel prices—operating profitability, excluding fuel costs, is as high as it has ever been for the industry.

Bankruptcy is Common in the Airline Industry, but There is No Evidence that it is Harmful to the Industry or Competitors

Airlines seek bankruptcy protection for such reasons as severe liquidity pressures, an inability to obtain relief from employees and creditors, and an inability to obtain new financing, according to airline officials and bankruptcy experts. As a result of the structural problems and external shocks previously discussed, there have been 160 total airline bankruptcy filings since deregulation in 1978, including 20 since 2000, according to the Air Transport Association. Some airlines have failed more than once but most filings were by smaller carriers. However, the size of airlines that have been declaring bankruptcy has been increasing. Of the 20 bankruptcy filings since 2000, half of these have been for airlines with more than $100 million in assets, about the same number of filings as in the previous 22 years. Compared to the average failure rate for all types of businesses, airlines have failed more often than other businesses. As figure 5 shows, in some years, airline failures were several times more common than for businesses overall.

With very few exceptions, airlines that enter bankruptcy do not emerge from it. Of the 146 airline Chapter 11 reorganization filings since 1979, in only 16 cases are the airlines still in business. Many of the advantages of bankruptcy stem from legal protection afforded the debtor airline from its creditors, but this protection comes at a high cost in loss of control over airline operations and damaged relations with employees, investors, and suppliers, according to airline officials and bankruptcy experts.

Contrary to some assertions that bankruptcy protection has led to overcapacity and under pricing that have harmed healthy airlines, we found no evidence that this has occurred either in individual markets or to the industry overall. Such claims have been made for more than a decade. In 1993, for example, a national commission to study airline industry problems cited bankruptcy protection as a cause for the industry’s overcapacity and weakened revenues. More recently, airline executives have cited bankruptcy protection as a reason for industry over capacity and low fares. However, we found no evidence that this had occurred and some evidence to the contrary.

First, as illustrated by Figure 6, airline liquidations do not appear to affect the continued growth in total industry capacity. If bankruptcy protection leads to overcapacity as some contend, then liquidation should take capacity out of the market. However, the historical growth of airline industry capacity (as measured by available seat miles, or ASMs) has continued unaffected by major liquidations. Only recessions, which curtail demand for air travel, and the September 11th attack, appear to have caused the airline industry to trim capacity. This trend indicates that other airlines quickly replenish capacity to meet demand. In part, this can be attributed to the fungibility of aircraft and the availability of capital to finance airlines.

Similarly, our research does not indicate that the departure or liquidation of a carrier from an individual market necessarily leads to a permanent decline in traffic for that market. We contracted with Intervistas/GA2, an aviation consultant, to examine the cases of six hub cities that experienced the departure or significant withdrawal of service of an airline over the last decade (see table 1). In four of the cases, both local origin-and-destination (i.e., passenger traffic to or from, but not connecting through, the local hub) and total passenger traffic (i.e., local and connecting) increased or changed little because the other airlines expanded their traffic in response. In all but one case, fares either decreased or rose less than 6 percent.

We also reviewed numerous other bankruptcy and airline industry studies and spoke to industry analysts to determine what evidence existed with regard to the impact of bankruptcy on the industry. We found two major academic studies that provided empirical data on this issue. Both studies found that airlines under bankruptcy protection did not lower their fares or hurt competitor airlines, as some have contended. A 1995 study found that an airline typically reduced its fares somewhat before entering bankruptcy. However, the study found that other airlines did not lower their fares in response and, more importantly, did not lose passenger traffic to their bankrupt rival and therefore were not harmed by the bankrupt airline. Another study came to a similar conclusion in 2000, this time examining the operating performance of 51 bankrupt firms, including 5 airlines, and their competitors. Rather than examine fares as did the 1995 study, this study examined the operating performance of bankrupt firms and their rivals. This study found that bankrupt firms’ performance deteriorated prior to filing for bankruptcy and that their rivals’ profits also declined during this period. However, once a firm entered bankruptcy, its rivals’ profits recovered.

Legacy Airlines Face Significant Near-term Liquidity Pressures, including $10.4 Billion in Pensions Contributions over the Next 4 Years

Under current law, legacy airlines’ pension funding requirements are estimated to be a minimum of $10.4 billion from 2005 through 2008. These estimates assume the expiration of the Pension Funding Equity Act (PFEA) at the end of this year. The PFEA permitted airlines to delay the majority of their deficit reduction contributions in 2004 and 2005; if this legislation is allowed to expire it would mean that payments due from legacy airlines will significantly increase in 2006. According to PBGC data, legacy airlines are estimated to owe a minimum of $1.5 billion this year, rising to nearly $2.9 billion in 2006, $3.5 billion in 2007, and $2.6 billion in 2008. In contrast, low cost airlines have eschewed defined benefit pension plans and instead use defined contribution (401k-type) plans.

However, pension funding obligations are only part of the sizeable amount of debt that carriers face over the near term. The size of legacy airlines’ future fixed obligations, including pensions, relative to their financial position suggests they will have trouble meeting their various financial obligations. Fixed airline obligations (including pensions, long term debt, and capital and operating leases) in each year from 2005 through 2008 exceed total cash balances of these same legacy airlines by a substantial amount. Legacy airlines carried cash balances of just under $10 billion going into 2005 (see figure 7). These airlines fixed obligations are estimated to be over $15 billion in both 2005 and 2006, over $17 billion in 2007, and about $13 billion in 2008. Fixed obligations in 2008 and beyond will likely increase as payments due in 2006 and 2007 may be pushed out and new obligations are assumed. If these airlines continue to lose money this year as analysts predict, this picture becomes even more tenuous.

The enormity of legacy airlines’ future pension funding requirements is attributable to the size of the pension shortfall that has developed since 2000. As recently as 1999, airline pensions were overfunded by $700 million based on Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings; by the end of 2004 legacy airlines reported a deficit of $21 billion (see figure 8), despite the termination of the US Airways pilots plan in 2003. Since these filings, the total underfunding has declined to approximately $13.7 billion, due in part to the termination of the United Airline plans and the remaining US Airways plans.

The extent of underfunding varies significantly by airline. At the end of 2004, prior to terminating its pension plans, United reported underfunding of $6.4 billion, which represented over 40 percent of United’s total operating revenues in 2004. In contrast, Alaska reported pension underfunding of $303 million at the end of 2004, or 13.5 percent of its operating revenues. Since United terminated its pensions, Delta and Northwest now appear to have the most significant pension funding deficits—over $5 billion and nearly $4 billion respectively—which represent about 35 percent of 2004 operating revenues at each airline.

The growth of pension underfunding is attributable to 3 factors.

Assets losses and low interest rates. Airline pension asset values dropped nearly 20 percent from 2001 through 2004 along with the decline in the stock market, while future obligations have steadily increased due to declines in the interest rates used to calculate the liabilities of plans.

Management and labor union decisions. Airline management has funded their pension plans far less than they could have. For example, PBGC examined 101 cases of airline pension contributions from 1997 through 2002; these cases covered 18 pension plans sponsored by 5 airlines.During this time, $28.2 billion dollars could have been contributed to these pension plans on a tax-deductible basis; actual contributions amounted to $2.4 billion, or about 8.5 percent of what they could have contributed, despite earning profits in 1997-2000 (see figure 9) The maximum deductible contribution was made in only 1 of the 101 pension contribution cases examined by PBGC. In addition, management and labor have sometimes agreed to salary and benefit increases beyond what could reasonably be afforded. For example, in the spring of 2002, United’s management and mechanics reached a new labor agreement that increased the mechanics’ pension benefit by 45 percent, but the airline declared bankruptcy the following December.

Pension funding rules are flawed. Existing laws and regulations governing pension funding and premiums have also contributed to the underfunding of defined benefit pension plans. As a result, financially weak plan sponsors, acting within the law, have not only been able to avoid contributions to their plans, but also increase plan liabilities that are at least partially insured by PBGC. Under current law, reported measures of plan funding have likely overstated the funding levels of pension plans, thereby reducing minimum contribution thresholds for plan sponsors. And when plan sponsors were required to make contributions, they often substituted “account credits” for cash contributions, even as the market value of plan assets may have been in decline. Furthermore, the funding rule mechanisms that were designed to improve the condition of poorly funded plans were ineffective.

Other legal plan provisions and amendments, such as lump sum distributions and unfunded benefit increases may also have contributed to deterioration in the funding of certain plans. If large numbers of participants in an underfunded plan elect to receive their pension benefits in a lump sum, it can create the effect of a “run on the bank” and exacerbate the possibility of a plan’s insolvency as plan assets are liquidated more quickly than expected. Plan funding can also be worsened by unfunded benefit increases. When a pension plan is underfunded and the plan sponsor is also in poor financial condition, there is an incentive, known as moral hazard, for the plan sponsor and employees to agree to pension benefit increases because at least part of the benefit increases may be insured by PBGC.

Finally, the premium structure in PBGC’s single-employer pension insurance program does not encourage better plan funding. While PBGC premiums may be partially based on plan funding levels, they do not consider other relevant risk factors, such as the economic strength of the sponsor, plan asset investment strategies, the plan’s benefit structure, or the plan’s demographic profile. In addition, current pension funding and pension accounting rules may also encourage plans to invest in riskier assets to benefit from higher expected long-term rates of return.

The cost to PBGC and participants of defined benefit pension terminations has grown in recent years as the level of pension underfunding has deepened. When Eastern Airlines defaulted on its pension obligations of nearly $1.7 billion in 1991, for example, claims against the insurance program totaled $530 million in underfunded pensions and participants lost $112 million. By comparison, the US Airways and United pension terminations cost PBGC $9.6 billion in combined claims against the insurance program and reduced participants’ benefits by $5.2 billion (see table 2).

In recent pension terminations, active and high salaried employees generally lost more of their promised benefits compared to retirees and low salaried employees because of statutory limits. For example, PBGC generally does not guarantee benefits above a certain amount, currently $45,614 annually per participant at age 65. For participants who retire before 65 the benefits are even less; participants that retire at age 60 are currently limited to $29,649. Commercial pilots often end up with substantial benefit cuts when their plans are terminated because they generally have high benefit plans and are also required by FAA to retire at age 60. Far fewer nonpilot retirees are affected by the maximum payout limits. For example, at US Airways fewer than 5 percent of retired mechanics and attendants faced benefit cuts as a result of the pension termination. Tables 3 and 4 summarize the expected cuts in benefits for different groups of United’s active and retired employees.

It is important to emphasize that relieving legacy airlines of their defined benefit funding costs will help alleviate immediate liquidity pressures, but does not fix their underlying cost structure problems, which are much greater. Pension costs, while substantial, are only a small portion of legacy airlines’ overall costs. As noted previously in figure 3, the cost of legacy airlines’ defined benefit plans accounted for a 0.4 cent, or 15 percent difference between legacy and low cost airline unit costs. The remaining 85 percent of the unit cost differential between legacy and low cost carriers is attributable to factors other than defined benefits pension plans. Moreover, even if legacy airlines terminated their defined benefit plans it would not fully eliminate this portion of the unit cost differential because, according to labor officials we interviewed, other plans would replace them.

Widely reported recent large plan terminations by bankrupt sponsors such as United Airlines and US Airways and the resulting adverse consequences for plan participants and the PBGC have pushed pension reform into the spotlight of national concern. The effect of various proposals to reform pension requirements on airlines, PBGC, and plan participants will vary. The funding relief afforded by PFEA will expire at the end of this year and many agree that the current rules are flawed and must be fixed. Various proposals have been made to correct these rules and shore up the PBGC guaranteed plans, and these proposals are still being debated. The administration has proposed tightening the funding rules among other changes. Some of the legacy airlines with large shortfalls have endorsed another bill in the Senate for a 25-year payback period if current plans are frozen. However, one legacy airline that has better funded its plan, while supporting a longer payback period, opposes freezing their plan.

Concluding Observations

While the airline industry was deregulated 27 years ago, the full effect on the airline industry’s structure is only now becoming evident. Dramatic changes in the level and nature of demand for air travel combined with an equally dramatic evolution in how airlines meet that demand have forced a drastic restructuring in the competitive structure of the industry. Excess capacity in the airline industry since 2000 has greatly diminished airlines’ pricing power. Profitability, therefore, depends on which airlines can most effectively compete on cost. This development has allowed inroads for low cost airlines and forced wrenching change upon legacy airlines that had long competed based on a high-cost business model.

The historically high number of airline bankruptcies and liquidations is a reflection of the industry’s inherent instability. However, this should not be confused with causing the industry’s instability. There is no clear evidence that bankruptcy has contributed to the industry’s economic ills, including overcapacity and underpricing, and there is some evidence to the contrary. Equally telling is how few airlines that have filed for bankruptcy protection are still doing business. Clearly, bankruptcy has not afforded these companies a special advantage.

Bankruptcy has become a means by which some legacy airlines are seeking to shed their costs and become more competitive. However, the termination of pension obligations by United Airlines and US Airways has had substantial and wide-spread effects on the PBGC and thousands of airline employees, retirees, and other beneficiaries. Liquidity problems, including $10.4 billion in near term pension contributions, may force additional legacy airlines to follow suit. Some airlines are seeking legislation to allow more time to fund their pensions. If their plans are frozen so that future liabilities do not continue to grow, allowing an extended payback period may reduce the likelihood that these airlines will file for bankruptcy and terminate their pensions in the coming year. However, unless these airlines can reform their overall cost structures and become more competitive with low cost competition; this will be only a temporary reprieve.

As we have previously reported, the Congress should consider broad pension reform that is comprehensive in scope and balanced in effect.Revising plan funding rules is an essential component of comprehensive pension reform. For example, we testified that Congress should consider the incentives that pension rules and reform may have on other financial decisions within affected industries. Under current conditions, the presence of PBGC insurance may create certain “moral hazard” incentives—struggling plan sponsors may place other financial priorities above “funding up” its pension plan because they know PBGC will pay guaranteed benefits. Further, because PBGC generally takes over underfunded plans of bankrupt companies, PBGC insurance may create an additional incentive for troubled firms to seek bankruptcy protection, which in turn may affect the competitive balance within the industry.

In light of the intrinsic problems facing the defined benefit system, meaningful and comprehensive pension reform is required to ensure that workers and retirees receive the benefits promised to them. Ideally, effective reform would incorporate many elements, among them: improving the accuracy of plan funding measures while minimizing complexity and maintaining contribution flexibility; revising the current funding rules to create incentives for plan sponsors to adequately finance promised benefits; developing a more risk-based PBGC insurance premium structure and providing incentives for sponsors to fund plans adequately; addressing the issue of underfunded plans paying lump sums and granting modifying PBGC guarantees of certain plan benefits; resolving outstanding controversies concerning hybrid plans by safeguarding the benefits of workers regardless of age; and improving plan information transparency for pension plan stakeholders without overburdening plan sponsors.

The various proposals for comprehensive reform advanced by the Administration and various members of Congress could be a critical first step in addressing part of the long-term stability of the private defined benefits system. While we understand the legacy airline’s liquidity pressures and their request for assistance, the uncertain efficacy of industry-specific relief needs to be weighed against the potential effects on both the industry and the government. At this point, because of a lack of a thorough understanding of those effects, particularly as they might change under various specific legislative proposals, we would suggest proceeding carefully, relying on sound fiduciary principles as a guide.

This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at this time.

For further information on this testimony, please contact JayEtta Hecker at (202) 512-2834 or by e-mail at heckerj@gao.gov; or Barbara Bovbjerg at (202) 512-7215 or by e-mail at bovbjergb@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include Joe Applebaum, Paul Aussendorf, Anne Dilger, David Eisenstadt, Charles Ford, Charles Jeszeck, Steve Martin, George Scott, Richard Swayze, and Pamela Vines.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.