Since the year 2000, medical care has increased in cost by 49%. Food is up 32%. But automobiles are flat and apparel is down 8%. Part of the reason for the better performance of automobiles and apparel has been the extreme stress of competition both of those industries have suffered. But the growth in the cost of medical care pales in comparison with the increased cost of college tuition and fees. That’s up 92% since 2000. (See the Symptom & Implication, “The industry has been able to preserve margins by increasing prices” on StrategyStreet.com.) All of this data comes by way of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Some people are beginning to question whether the cost of a college education justifies the benefits. It appears they do. The average college graduate with a Bachelors Degree earns about $53,000 a year. In real terms, that’s down 1% since 2000. The average high school graduate earns about $33,000 a year. This figure is also down 1% in real terms since 2000. Clearly, the costs of college tuition and fees have gone up enormously compared to slight declines in the earnings of college graduates. Still, the difference in annual earnings is slightly over $20,000 a year. The average state school probably charges something on the order of $10,000 a year for tuition and fees. A private school would charge considerably more. Some are just crossing the $50,000 a year threshold for tuition and room and board. So, the cost of a college education, without counting opportunity costs of foregone working income, range between $40,000 and $200,000. The college graduate, then, makes up that cost with improved earnings over the high school graduate in as little as two years, or as many as ten. Even if you discount the difference in future earnings, the college graduate is better off well before he or she reaches early middle age.
The pain of high tuition and fees is just beginning to squeeze. The risk is more likely in competitive supply than it is in customer demand. (See “Audio Tip #130: The Problem with High Returns” on StrategyStreet.com.) Young people are likely to continue paying the cost of college fees and tuitions because they earn it back, even if it takes several years to do so. On the other hand, these rising fees and tuition attract new entrants into the education market. That is where the colleges and universities are likely to feel the pain and suffering that result from thirty years of tuition and fee increases greater than the rate of inflation. They are creating a price umbrella for new market entrants.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Yep, Those Germans are the Problem
There has been much press over the last few weeks about the problems in the Euro Zone. Most particularly, we have learned more than we may want to know about the problems of deficit spending in Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal. Just recently, though, we may have learned that the problem is not the deficit spending in those recessionary countries. No, the problem seems to be the Germans.
Over the last ten years those nasty Germans have kept the lid on labor cost growth and have jacked up their rates of productivity. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Some competitors automate to become the lowest cost players” on StrategyStreet.com.) These simple actions have enabled Germany to compete on price despite high labor rates and competition from countries in the Euro Zone with nominal lower labor costs. Oh, those countries include Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal. Those inconsiderate Germans have produced a Euro 136 billion trade surplus in 2009. Spain, Greece and Portugal ran significant deficits. The Finance Minister of France has suggested that Germany’s export dependent growth model may be causing a lot of the problem in the Euro Zone. Her answer to this problem is for Germany to begin spurring domestic demand. So we see that the problem in the Euro Zone is people who do not deficit spend and who take advantage of all their poorer neighbors who do deficit spend.
This is causing turmoil in the Euro Zone that, in the long run, is almost certainly bad for the Euro. Some countries might have to exit the Euro Zone. Greece has threatened to use IMF resources to continue its deficit spending. The economic disunity in the Euro Zone is creating political disunity as well. There is a question whether the Euro Zone can continue in its present form.
We have similar situations among the states in the United States. The differences are that the states can not threaten to withdraw from the Dollar Zone, nor are they eligible for IMF financing. Our deficit financing states tend to be those with the highest labor costs. As a result, the unemployment rate in these states is higher, often much higher, than that in the country as a whole. In January of 2010, the United States national unemployment rate, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, showed an average of 10% unemployment in the country. The highest unemployment occurred in Michigan, with a 14.3% rate. Other high unemployment states included Rhode Island, California, Illinois and Ohio. In many of these states, labor costs are not only high, but they are inflexible. Companies can not change work rules, nor adjust rates of labor, to match the current economy. That’s part of the reason that jobs flee these states.
In the Euro Zone, German workers have wages and benefits among the highest in Europe. They average Euro 34 an hour, roughly $48 an hour. Recently, the German Metal Workers Union accepted a new contract with very low wage growth in order to protect their jobs in Germany.
Here is a contrast for you. In 2008, the average worker for the “Big Three” automakers earned $73 an hour in total compensation. Workers at Toyota, and other foreign makers, earned an average of $48 in their U.S. operations. These companies have located their U.S. plants in areas where labor is more flexible. The average U.S. manufacturing worker earned something less than $32 an hour in 2008. These labor cost disparities help us understand how Detroit is losing population. Nearly a quarter of its manufacturing jobs have left. The city suffers from a 50% unemployment rate. Detroit’s woes certainly have contributed to Michigan’s nation-leading 14.3% unemployment rate. But isn’t some of this woe self-inflicted? Why can’t domestic automakers make cars in the U.S. for $48 an hour?
The German unions have learned that they can sustain their high rates of pay only so long as they help their companies become more productive with every hour of labor. The workforce shares a large portion of the improvement in productivity. (See “Audio Tip #187: The Components of Productivity” on StrategyStreet.com.) Apparently, at least one of our leading labor unions does not share that calculus.
Over the last ten years those nasty Germans have kept the lid on labor cost growth and have jacked up their rates of productivity. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Some competitors automate to become the lowest cost players” on StrategyStreet.com.) These simple actions have enabled Germany to compete on price despite high labor rates and competition from countries in the Euro Zone with nominal lower labor costs. Oh, those countries include Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal. Those inconsiderate Germans have produced a Euro 136 billion trade surplus in 2009. Spain, Greece and Portugal ran significant deficits. The Finance Minister of France has suggested that Germany’s export dependent growth model may be causing a lot of the problem in the Euro Zone. Her answer to this problem is for Germany to begin spurring domestic demand. So we see that the problem in the Euro Zone is people who do not deficit spend and who take advantage of all their poorer neighbors who do deficit spend.
This is causing turmoil in the Euro Zone that, in the long run, is almost certainly bad for the Euro. Some countries might have to exit the Euro Zone. Greece has threatened to use IMF resources to continue its deficit spending. The economic disunity in the Euro Zone is creating political disunity as well. There is a question whether the Euro Zone can continue in its present form.
We have similar situations among the states in the United States. The differences are that the states can not threaten to withdraw from the Dollar Zone, nor are they eligible for IMF financing. Our deficit financing states tend to be those with the highest labor costs. As a result, the unemployment rate in these states is higher, often much higher, than that in the country as a whole. In January of 2010, the United States national unemployment rate, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, showed an average of 10% unemployment in the country. The highest unemployment occurred in Michigan, with a 14.3% rate. Other high unemployment states included Rhode Island, California, Illinois and Ohio. In many of these states, labor costs are not only high, but they are inflexible. Companies can not change work rules, nor adjust rates of labor, to match the current economy. That’s part of the reason that jobs flee these states.
In the Euro Zone, German workers have wages and benefits among the highest in Europe. They average Euro 34 an hour, roughly $48 an hour. Recently, the German Metal Workers Union accepted a new contract with very low wage growth in order to protect their jobs in Germany.
Here is a contrast for you. In 2008, the average worker for the “Big Three” automakers earned $73 an hour in total compensation. Workers at Toyota, and other foreign makers, earned an average of $48 in their U.S. operations. These companies have located their U.S. plants in areas where labor is more flexible. The average U.S. manufacturing worker earned something less than $32 an hour in 2008. These labor cost disparities help us understand how Detroit is losing population. Nearly a quarter of its manufacturing jobs have left. The city suffers from a 50% unemployment rate. Detroit’s woes certainly have contributed to Michigan’s nation-leading 14.3% unemployment rate. But isn’t some of this woe self-inflicted? Why can’t domestic automakers make cars in the U.S. for $48 an hour?
The German unions have learned that they can sustain their high rates of pay only so long as they help their companies become more productive with every hour of labor. The workforce shares a large portion of the improvement in productivity. (See “Audio Tip #187: The Components of Productivity” on StrategyStreet.com.) Apparently, at least one of our leading labor unions does not share that calculus.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Another Quieter Challenge from Below
The majority of citizens go to banks for credit cards, loans and other day-to-day financial transactions. Over the last few years, the banks have easily pushed through significant fee increases in all of their services because most people deal only with one bank and are unlikely to want to go to the trouble to change banks to get lower prices. The result is that lower prices aren’t offered, at least not to the average citizen. (See the Symptom & Implication, “The industry has been able to preserve margins by increasing prices” on StrategyStreet.com.)
There is an exception, though. That exception is Wal-Mart. After carefully dismantling the economics of variety stores, jewelry stores and grocery stores, Wal-Mart is now beginning to stalk the financial industry. They will be successful here because the financial industry is highly unlikely to have the will to compete with Wal-Mart where it chooses to serve customers.
So, where does it choose to serve its customers? At the lower end of the market, of course. Twenty-five percent of U.S. households are unbanked. The bigger banks are not interested in these customers because they will not, or cannot, pay significant fees on financial services. But Wal-Mart wants these customers. Wal-Mart cashes work and government checks, offers prepaid Visa debit cards, and provides money transfer and bill payment services…all services that are highly profitable to the typical bank.
And the business is growing very rapidly. (See the Symptom & Implication, “New entrants are growing much faster than the market” on StrategyStreet.com.) Recently, Wal-Mart opened its one thousandth money center. Each of these money centers is located inside a regular Wal-Mart. The company has also announced plans to grow the money centers by 50% over the next year. Once those additional 500 money centers are open, there will be an average of one money center for every two Wal-Marts in the U.S. This current group of money centers do an average of four million transactions a week, and are a very profitable part of Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart has not had an easy time of getting into this business. They have tried several times to obtain a bank charter. Such a charter would allow them to take deposits and lend money. The last effort the company made to obtain a bank charter was in 2007. But the banking establishment pressured the government to block Wal-Mart’s application.
The banking establishment has to watch out for these Wal-Mart guys. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Competitors are changing features of the product” on StrategyStreet.com.) Their approach to all businesses is to streamline, simplify, eliminate excess and lower prices. The company’s commitment to increase its money centers by 50% on a decent-sized base within a year is an eloquent testimony that Wal-Mart’s approach works in financial services. They will be a major force.
There is an exception, though. That exception is Wal-Mart. After carefully dismantling the economics of variety stores, jewelry stores and grocery stores, Wal-Mart is now beginning to stalk the financial industry. They will be successful here because the financial industry is highly unlikely to have the will to compete with Wal-Mart where it chooses to serve customers.
So, where does it choose to serve its customers? At the lower end of the market, of course. Twenty-five percent of U.S. households are unbanked. The bigger banks are not interested in these customers because they will not, or cannot, pay significant fees on financial services. But Wal-Mart wants these customers. Wal-Mart cashes work and government checks, offers prepaid Visa debit cards, and provides money transfer and bill payment services…all services that are highly profitable to the typical bank.
And the business is growing very rapidly. (See the Symptom & Implication, “New entrants are growing much faster than the market” on StrategyStreet.com.) Recently, Wal-Mart opened its one thousandth money center. Each of these money centers is located inside a regular Wal-Mart. The company has also announced plans to grow the money centers by 50% over the next year. Once those additional 500 money centers are open, there will be an average of one money center for every two Wal-Marts in the U.S. This current group of money centers do an average of four million transactions a week, and are a very profitable part of Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart has not had an easy time of getting into this business. They have tried several times to obtain a bank charter. Such a charter would allow them to take deposits and lend money. The last effort the company made to obtain a bank charter was in 2007. But the banking establishment pressured the government to block Wal-Mart’s application.
The banking establishment has to watch out for these Wal-Mart guys. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Competitors are changing features of the product” on StrategyStreet.com.) Their approach to all businesses is to streamline, simplify, eliminate excess and lower prices. The company’s commitment to increase its money centers by 50% on a decent-sized base within a year is an eloquent testimony that Wal-Mart’s approach works in financial services. They will be a major force.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Meeting a Challenge from Below
Boeing and Airbus have an interesting problem. These two companies had been sparring back and forth for several years in the large plane market. The industry’s largest customers, such as United and Republic Airways Holdings, are among the most important customers for the large planes and thus for Boeing and Airbus.
Recently, though, a new set of challengers has entered the lists. The two most important of these challengers are Canada’s Bombardier, Inc. and Brazil’s Embraer. These new challengers are much smaller companies. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Demand continues to grow but margins are low and new entrants are taking share” on StrategyStreet.com.) They also build smaller airliners with shorter ranges than Boeing’s 737 and Airbus’ A320. Normally, these smaller competitors would sell to the industry’s smaller regional airlines.
These new competitors, though, have offered something new and attractive. The new companies are each offering a 150 seat jetliner with 15% better fuel economy compared to current 737s and A320s. Now customers, including United and Republic, are demanding that Boeing and Airbus produce a plane with an equivalent savings.
But this is a problem for the leaders. After years of jostling back and forth for market share and industry leadership, the industry leaders’ margins on airliner sales are low, even though there are only two competitors fighting this price war. (See the Perspective, “What Ends Hostility?” on StrategyStreet.com.) Last year, Boeing had an operating profit of about 3% on $68 billion in sales. The price wars have indeed been tough. Furthermore, the company has only $2 billion in equity to support $62 billion in total assets. Things aren’t quite as bad as that may sound because about $11 billion of those assets are cash and equivalents. Still, the company’s margin for safety is relatively thin.
Now you can understand how Embraer and Bombardier were able to come up with new, cheaper, technology in the small jetliner market. They have been earning better profits selling to regional airlines. Both Boeing and Airbus had hoped to wait several more years before updating their small airliners, but the customers won’t stand for it. Instead, both of the larger companies seemed poised to improve the fuel economy of their 737s and A320s by changing the engine configuration as a way of updating and improving the jetliner’s efficiencies. This should close part of the 15% fuel economy gap, but not all of it.
It appears that the industry’s smaller, lower-end, competitors are in for a few good years. The industry leaders simply don’t have the resources to stop them in the near term. We’ll see something similar in the next blog, though the reasons for the success of the lower-end competitor is less in resources and more in will.
Recently, though, a new set of challengers has entered the lists. The two most important of these challengers are Canada’s Bombardier, Inc. and Brazil’s Embraer. These new challengers are much smaller companies. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Demand continues to grow but margins are low and new entrants are taking share” on StrategyStreet.com.) They also build smaller airliners with shorter ranges than Boeing’s 737 and Airbus’ A320. Normally, these smaller competitors would sell to the industry’s smaller regional airlines.
These new competitors, though, have offered something new and attractive. The new companies are each offering a 150 seat jetliner with 15% better fuel economy compared to current 737s and A320s. Now customers, including United and Republic, are demanding that Boeing and Airbus produce a plane with an equivalent savings.
But this is a problem for the leaders. After years of jostling back and forth for market share and industry leadership, the industry leaders’ margins on airliner sales are low, even though there are only two competitors fighting this price war. (See the Perspective, “What Ends Hostility?” on StrategyStreet.com.) Last year, Boeing had an operating profit of about 3% on $68 billion in sales. The price wars have indeed been tough. Furthermore, the company has only $2 billion in equity to support $62 billion in total assets. Things aren’t quite as bad as that may sound because about $11 billion of those assets are cash and equivalents. Still, the company’s margin for safety is relatively thin.
Now you can understand how Embraer and Bombardier were able to come up with new, cheaper, technology in the small jetliner market. They have been earning better profits selling to regional airlines. Both Boeing and Airbus had hoped to wait several more years before updating their small airliners, but the customers won’t stand for it. Instead, both of the larger companies seemed poised to improve the fuel economy of their 737s and A320s by changing the engine configuration as a way of updating and improving the jetliner’s efficiencies. This should close part of the 15% fuel economy gap, but not all of it.
It appears that the industry’s smaller, lower-end, competitors are in for a few good years. The industry leaders simply don’t have the resources to stop them in the near term. We’ll see something similar in the next blog, though the reasons for the success of the lower-end competitor is less in resources and more in will.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Wal-Mart and the Customer Buying Hierarchy
Recently, Wal-Mart found that it was losing some customers to competitors. After examining the reasons why, the company discovered that some of its customers were leaving because Wal-Mart had eliminated some of the products the customers were used to buying at Wal-Mart. This situation gives us the opportunity to look at the Customer Buying Hierarchy in a retail business.
We use the Customer Buying Hierarchy to analyze a company’s competitive situation and to evaluate its product and service innovation program. Through thousands of customer interviews, we have seen that customers buy in a four part hierarchy: Function, Reliability, Convenience and Price. And customers buy in the order of the hierarchy. They first solve their Function problem. If they have not chosen a supplier, they then move to Reliability and then to Convenience and finally to Price. Most purchase decisions are made well before the average customer gets to Price. That’s hard to believe, but it is certainly the case.
What do these four terms mean? Function refers to the benefits that the user of the product enjoys. In a retail context, Function benefits include the set of products available for sale and the physical layout and amenities offered at the retail location. Reliability refers to the consistency with which the company delivers on its real or implied promises to its customers. A retail customer usually measures Reliability in terms of product stock-outs and customer service in the event that a product the customer buys does not work as promised. If the customer does not see that the retailer accepts returns for defective products, the customer will consider that retailer to have failed on Reliability. Convenience refers to the ease with which a customer may purchase the product. This is an important benefit in retail, and wholesale as well. A retail customer measures Convenience by the ease with which the customer is able to find the product he wants, chose among the various alternative products, and pay for the product. Finally, there is Price. The Price refers to the net cash costs that the customer must pay for the product, after consideration of all extra charges and discounts.
We have found that most companies actually have some customer purchases in each one of the four categories of the Customer Buying Hierarchy. A company like Wal-Mart will have more in Price than will a high-end company like Nordstrom. But even Nordstrom will have a few customers purchasing because of Price, often because of Price on a particular high-end product.
Wal-Mart has found that it was losing share to competitors. It was losing share because it was failing to offer the Function benefits that it had previously offered. To save costs, it withdrew products from its shelves (see the Perspective, “Achieving the Low-Cost Position” on StrategyStreet.com.) Then, some customers found they had to make a separate trip to another retailer to buy those products. It is worth noting that Wal-Mart lost relatively few customers. These customer losses had a relatively small impact on its market share. This tells us that there are probably relatively few customers who go to Wal-Mart primarily due to its Function benefits. None-the-less, Wal-Mart failed at Function and lost share, even though, for the majority of customers, it continued to be a winner on Reliability, Convenience and Price.
We use the Customer Buying Hierarchy to analyze a company’s competitive situation and to evaluate its product and service innovation program. Through thousands of customer interviews, we have seen that customers buy in a four part hierarchy: Function, Reliability, Convenience and Price. And customers buy in the order of the hierarchy. They first solve their Function problem. If they have not chosen a supplier, they then move to Reliability and then to Convenience and finally to Price. Most purchase decisions are made well before the average customer gets to Price. That’s hard to believe, but it is certainly the case.
What do these four terms mean? Function refers to the benefits that the user of the product enjoys. In a retail context, Function benefits include the set of products available for sale and the physical layout and amenities offered at the retail location. Reliability refers to the consistency with which the company delivers on its real or implied promises to its customers. A retail customer usually measures Reliability in terms of product stock-outs and customer service in the event that a product the customer buys does not work as promised. If the customer does not see that the retailer accepts returns for defective products, the customer will consider that retailer to have failed on Reliability. Convenience refers to the ease with which a customer may purchase the product. This is an important benefit in retail, and wholesale as well. A retail customer measures Convenience by the ease with which the customer is able to find the product he wants, chose among the various alternative products, and pay for the product. Finally, there is Price. The Price refers to the net cash costs that the customer must pay for the product, after consideration of all extra charges and discounts.
We have found that most companies actually have some customer purchases in each one of the four categories of the Customer Buying Hierarchy. A company like Wal-Mart will have more in Price than will a high-end company like Nordstrom. But even Nordstrom will have a few customers purchasing because of Price, often because of Price on a particular high-end product.
Wal-Mart has found that it was losing share to competitors. It was losing share because it was failing to offer the Function benefits that it had previously offered. To save costs, it withdrew products from its shelves (see the Perspective, “Achieving the Low-Cost Position” on StrategyStreet.com.) Then, some customers found they had to make a separate trip to another retailer to buy those products. It is worth noting that Wal-Mart lost relatively few customers. These customer losses had a relatively small impact on its market share. This tells us that there are probably relatively few customers who go to Wal-Mart primarily due to its Function benefits. None-the-less, Wal-Mart failed at Function and lost share, even though, for the majority of customers, it continued to be a winner on Reliability, Convenience and Price.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Reliability in Tough Markets
The stats for the light vehicle sales in the U.S. during the month of February are out. Of course, Toyota’s sales shrank by nearly 9%. The surprising big winner was Ford, whose sales increased 43%, far more than anyone else. Its nearest competitor, Nissan, had a sales increase of 29%. GM’s sales increased by 12%. What may be driving this superb performance from Ford?
We often use the Customer Buying Hierarchy to evaluate a company’s performance against its competitors. The Customer Buying Hierarchy argues that customers buy Function, Reliability, Convenience and Price, in that order. Customers continue to cycle through their alternatives until they have chosen one supplier who offers something important to the customer that no one else offers. As we have noted before, in tough marketplaces, high Reliability is a hallmark of the best industry performers. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Competitors are emphasizing reliability in product quality” on StrategyStreet.com.)
Ford’s reliability is impressive today. (See the Perspective, “Reliability: The Hard Road to Sustainable Advantage” on StrategyStreet.com.) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration measures the complaints it receives about automakers and their products. Their measure is number of complaints per 100,000 vehicles sold. Honda is the leader here, with about 64 complaints. Ford follows at 81, then Toyota at 91 and GM at 104. So, Ford’s quality seems to be somewhat better than Toyota’s today. That is at least one reason why Ford is in the ascendant, and while Toyota is falling off the pace.
We often use the Customer Buying Hierarchy to evaluate a company’s performance against its competitors. The Customer Buying Hierarchy argues that customers buy Function, Reliability, Convenience and Price, in that order. Customers continue to cycle through their alternatives until they have chosen one supplier who offers something important to the customer that no one else offers. As we have noted before, in tough marketplaces, high Reliability is a hallmark of the best industry performers. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Competitors are emphasizing reliability in product quality” on StrategyStreet.com.)
Ford’s reliability is impressive today. (See the Perspective, “Reliability: The Hard Road to Sustainable Advantage” on StrategyStreet.com.) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration measures the complaints it receives about automakers and their products. Their measure is number of complaints per 100,000 vehicles sold. Honda is the leader here, with about 64 complaints. Ford follows at 81, then Toyota at 91 and GM at 104. So, Ford’s quality seems to be somewhat better than Toyota’s today. That is at least one reason why Ford is in the ascendant, and while Toyota is falling off the pace.
Monday, March 15, 2010
An Update on Cutting Capacity to Raise Prices
Several months ago, we wrote a blog (See Blog Here) that noted the capacity reductions in the airline industry. In particular, the large legacy airlines were reducing their capacity in order to raise industry pricing. At the time, this effort was showing relatively little help with industry pricing.
As part of this original blog, we noted that there was a problem with the withdrawal of capacity in order to force prices up. The problem is expansion of capacity by low cost competitors. We explained that we had seen many cases in other industries where industry leaders reduced capacity to force industry prices up, only to be stymied by the addition of capacity by low-cost competitors.
Well, some new numbers have shown that the same thing is happening in the airline industry. AirFinancials.com has measured the change in domestic capacity of the airline industry between 2003 and 2009. The four largest legacy carriers, Delta, American, United and U.S. Airways, reduced their available seat miles, the best measure of domestic capacity, by 85 billion miles, a 21% average reduction. However, during the same period of time, low-cost competitors, including Southwest, JetBlue, AirTran and four other smaller carriers, added 84 billion available seat miles to their capacity. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Foreign competitors are expanding with low prices” on StrateyStreet.com.) So the legacies reduced capacity by 85 billion and the smaller, low-cost carriers, added 84 billion. The industry’s total capacity dropped by 1 billion available seat miles, far less than demand has fallen over the last year. Price competition and low industry returns continue.
The legacy carriers are shrinking away their network and scale advantages to the low-cost carriers. The low-cost carriers are more than happy to replace the capacity that the legacy carriers drop. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Some competitors are using growth to reduce their costs” on StrategyStreet.com.) Bad news for the legacy carriers.
As part of this original blog, we noted that there was a problem with the withdrawal of capacity in order to force prices up. The problem is expansion of capacity by low cost competitors. We explained that we had seen many cases in other industries where industry leaders reduced capacity to force industry prices up, only to be stymied by the addition of capacity by low-cost competitors.
Well, some new numbers have shown that the same thing is happening in the airline industry. AirFinancials.com has measured the change in domestic capacity of the airline industry between 2003 and 2009. The four largest legacy carriers, Delta, American, United and U.S. Airways, reduced their available seat miles, the best measure of domestic capacity, by 85 billion miles, a 21% average reduction. However, during the same period of time, low-cost competitors, including Southwest, JetBlue, AirTran and four other smaller carriers, added 84 billion available seat miles to their capacity. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Foreign competitors are expanding with low prices” on StrateyStreet.com.) So the legacies reduced capacity by 85 billion and the smaller, low-cost carriers, added 84 billion. The industry’s total capacity dropped by 1 billion available seat miles, far less than demand has fallen over the last year. Price competition and low industry returns continue.
The legacy carriers are shrinking away their network and scale advantages to the low-cost carriers. The low-cost carriers are more than happy to replace the capacity that the legacy carriers drop. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Some competitors are using growth to reduce their costs” on StrategyStreet.com.) Bad news for the legacy carriers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
>
