form10q.htm
UNITED
STATES
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington,
D.C. 20549
FORM
10-Q/A
Amendment
No. 1
(Mark
One)
þ
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934
|
|
For
the quarterly period ended June 30,
2009
|
¨
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934
|
|
For
the transition period from ________ to
________
|
Commission
File No. 1-7259
Southwest
Airlines Co.
(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)
TEXAS
|
74-1563240
|
(State
or other jurisdiction of
|
(IRS
Employer
|
incorporation
or organization)
|
Identification
No.)
|
|
|
P.O.
Box 36611, Dallas, Texas
|
75235-1611
|
(Address
of principal executive offices)
|
(Zip
Code)
|
Registrant's
telephone number, including area code: (214) 792-4000
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 check mark whether the
registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if
any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to
Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12
months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit
and post such files). Yes þ No ¨
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 ¨ (Do not check if a
smaller reporting
company) Smaller
reporting company ¨
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule
12b-2 of the Exchange Act).Yes
¨ No þ
|
Number
of shares of Common Stock outstanding as of the close of business on July
20, 2009: 741,447,409
|
EXPLANATORY
NOTE
This
Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment) amends and restates Southwest
Airlines Co.’s (Company or Southwest) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009, originally filed on July 23, 2009 (Original
Filing).
As
disclosed in the Company’s Form 8-K dated October 15, 2009, on October 14, 2009,
the Company determined that its previously issued unaudited interim
condensed consolidated financial statements for the three and six month periods
ended June 30, 2009, contained an error with respect to one rule within
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities” (SFAS 133), as amended. Specifically, to
facilitate the implementation of new hedge accounting software, in April 2009,
existing hedging instruments were de-designated and re-designated as new
hedges. Included in the re-designation, however, were certain
derivative instruments that were in a net written option position that did not
qualify as hedges according to SFAS 133.
The
result of this error was that a portion of the increase in fair value of these
derivatives was deferred as part of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income/Loss
(AOCI), when in fact those increases should have been recognized in earnings in
the second quarter 2009. Recognizing these increases in earnings
results in an increase in GAAP Net income of $37 million for second quarter
2009. The net increase in fair value related to these instruments,
totaling $57 million, before taxes, during second quarter 2009, relates entirely
to unrealized changes in fair value as substantially all of the instruments will
not settle until periods subsequent to 2009. Since the Company
classifies these unrealized noncash changes in fair value as a component of
Other (gains) losses, net in the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statement of
Operations, this error had no impact on the Company’s operating income for the
three or six month periods ended June 30, 2009, nor did it impact the Company's
net cash flows for the same periods of 2009. The impact on the Company's
unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet is a decrease (debit) to AOCI of
$35 million, an increase to Retained earnings of $37 million, a decrease to
Accrued liabilities of $5 million, and an increase to Deferred income taxes of
$3 million as of June 30, 2009. This error had no impact on any financial
statements prior to those issued for second quarter 2009. In light of
this error, the Company’s financial statements and other financial information
included in the Original Filing for second quarter 2009 are being restated in
this Amendment.
The
information contained in the Original Filing has been updated in this Amendment
to give effect to the restatement. This Amendment continues to speak as of
the dates described herein, and with the exception of Note 13, the disclosures
have not been updated to reflect any events that occurred subsequent to such
dates. With the exception of Note 13, information not affected by the
restatement is unchanged and reflects the disclsoures at the time of the
Original Filing. Therefore, this Amendment should be read in conjunction
with the Company’s other filings made with the Securities and Exchange
Commission subsequent to the Original Filing.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES
CO.
TABLE OF CONTENTS TO FORM
10-Q/A
SOUTHWEST
AIRLINES CO.
FORM
10-Q/A
Part I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Southwest
Airlines Co.
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet
(in
millions)
(unaudited)
|
|
June
30, 2009
|
|
|
December
31, 2008
|
|
ASSETS
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
Current
assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
946 |
|
|
$ |
1,368 |
|
Short-term
investments
|
|
|
1,252 |
|
|
|
435 |
|
Accounts
and other receivables
|
|
|
237 |
|
|
|
209 |
|
Inventories
of parts and supplies, at cost
|
|
|
200 |
|
|
|
203 |
|
Deferred
income taxes
|
|
|
365 |
|
|
|
365 |
|
Prepaid
expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
73 |
|
Total
current assets
|
|
|
3,094 |
|
|
|
2,653 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property
and equipment, at cost:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flight
equipment
|
|
|
13,690 |
|
|
|
13,722 |
|
Ground
property and equipment
|
|
|
1,849 |
|
|
|
1,769 |
|
Deposits
on flight equipment purchase contracts
|
|
|
204 |
|
|
|
380 |
|
|
|
|
15,743 |
|
|
|
15,871 |
|
Less
allowance for depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
5,082 |
|
|
|
4,831 |
|
|
|
|
10,661 |
|
|
|
11,040 |
|
Other
assets
|
|
|
272 |
|
|
|
375 |
|
|
|
$ |
14,027 |
|
|
$ |
14,068 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES
AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts
payable
|
|
$ |
732 |
|
|
$ |
668 |
|
Accrued
liabilities
|
|
|
1,024 |
|
|
|
1,012 |
|
Air
traffic liability
|
|
|
1,207 |
|
|
|
963 |
|
Current
maturities of long-term debt
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
163 |
|
Total
current liabilities
|
|
|
3,068 |
|
|
|
2,806 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term
debt less current maturities
|
|
|
3,278 |
|
|
|
3,498 |
|
Deferred
income taxes
|
|
|
1,924 |
|
|
|
1,904 |
|
Deferred
gains from sale and leaseback of aircraft
|
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
105 |
|
Other
deferred liabilities
|
|
|
481 |
|
|
|
802 |
|
Stockholders'
equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
stock
|
|
|
808 |
|
|
|
808 |
|
Capital
in excess of par value
|
|
|
1,223 |
|
|
|
1,215 |
|
Retained
earnings
|
|
|
4,900 |
|
|
|
4,919 |
|
Accumulated
other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
(797 |
) |
|
|
(984 |
) |
Treasury
stock, at cost
|
|
|
(986 |
) |
|
|
(1,005 |
) |
Total
stockholders' equity
|
|
|
5,148 |
|
|
|
4,953 |
|
|
|
$ |
14,027 |
|
|
$ |
14,068 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See
accompanying notes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southwest
Airlines Co.
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations
(in
millions, except per share amounts)
(unaudited)
|
|
Three
months ended June 30,
|
|
|
Six
months ended June 30,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING
REVENUES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Passenger
|
|
$ |
2,506 |
|
|
$ |
2,747 |
|
|
$ |
4,758 |
|
|
$ |
5,161 |
|
Freight
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
Other
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
167 |
|
Total
operating revenues
|
|
|
2,616 |
|
|
|
2,869 |
|
|
|
4,972 |
|
|
|
5,399 |
|
OPERATING
EXPENSES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salaries,
wages, and benefits
|
|
|
863 |
|
|
|
839 |
|
|
|
1,699 |
|
|
|
1,639 |
|
Fuel
and oil
|
|
|
726 |
|
|
|
945 |
|
|
|
1,423 |
|
|
|
1,745 |
|
Maintenance
materials and repairs
|
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
191 |
|
|
|
373 |
|
|
|
333 |
|
Aircraft
rentals
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
Landing
fees and other rentals
|
|
|
179 |
|
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
345 |
|
|
|
330 |
|
Depreciation
and amortization
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
293 |
|
Other
operating expenses
|
|
|
338 |
|
|
|
344 |
|
|
|
666 |
|
|
|
690 |
|
Total
operating expenses
|
|
|
2,493 |
|
|
|
2,664 |
|
|
|
4,899 |
|
|
|
5,106 |
|
OPERATING
INCOME
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
205 |
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
293 |
|
OTHER
EXPENSES (INCOME):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
expense
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
Capitalized
interest
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
Interest
income
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
Other
(gains) losses, net
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
(345 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(307 |
) |
Total
other expenses (income)
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(324 |
) |
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
(273 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME
BEFORE INCOME TAXES
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
529 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
566 |
|
PROVISION
FOR INCOME TAXES
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
211 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET
INCOME
|
|
$ |
91 |
|
|
$ |
321 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
355 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET
INCOME PER SHARE, BASIC
|
|
$ |
.12 |
|
|
$ |
.44 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
.48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET
INCOME PER SHARE, DILUTED
|
|
$ |
.12 |
|
|
$ |
.44 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
.48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE SHARES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OUTSTANDING:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
741 |
|
|
|
732 |
|
|
|
741 |
|
|
|
733 |
|
Diluted
|
|
|
741 |
|
|
|
737 |
|
|
|
741 |
|
|
|
736 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See
accompanying notes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southwest
Airlines Co.
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows
(in
millions)
|
|
Three
months ended June 30, |
|
|
Six
months ended June 30, |
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
CASH
FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
income (loss)
|
|
$ |
91 |
|
|
$ |
321 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
355 |
|
Adjustments
to reconcile net income (loss) to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cash
provided by operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation
and amortization
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
293 |
|
Unrealized
loss (gain) on fuel derivative instruments
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(324 |
) |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
(290 |
) |
Deferred
income taxes
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
129 |
|
Amortization
of deferred gains on sale and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
leaseback
of aircraft
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
Share-based
compensation expense
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Excess
tax benefits from share-based
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
compensation
arrangements
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
Changes
in certain assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts
and other receivables
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(97 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(167 |
) |
Other
current assets
|
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(50 |
) |
Accounts
payable and accrued liabilities
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
286 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
333 |
|
Air
traffic liability
|
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
244 |
|
|
|
372 |
|
Cash
collateral received from (provided to) fuel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
derivative
counterparties
|
|
|
(125 |
) |
|
|
1,865 |
|
|
|
(185 |
) |
|
|
2,435 |
|
Other,
net
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(71 |
) |
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
(116 |
) |
Net
cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
2,336 |
|
|
|
420 |
|
|
|
3,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH
FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases
of property and equipment, net
|
|
|
(187 |
) |
|
|
(223 |
) |
|
|
(272 |
) |
|
|
(587 |
) |
Purchases
of short-term investments
|
|
|
(1,394 |
) |
|
|
(2,226 |
) |
|
|
(3,090 |
) |
|
|
(3,447 |
) |
Proceeds
from sales of short-term investments
|
|
|
1,203 |
|
|
|
1,185 |
|
|
|
2,347 |
|
|
|
2,645 |
|
Other,
net
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
- |
|
Net
cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(377 |
) |
|
|
(1,264 |
) |
|
|
(1,014 |
) |
|
|
(1,389 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH
FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds
from sale and leaseback transactions
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
381 |
|
|
|
- |
|
Issuance
of Long-term debt
|
|
|
332 |
|
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
332 |
|
|
|
600 |
|
Proceeds
from Employee stock plans
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
Payments
of long-term debt and capital lease obligations
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
(25 |
) |
Payment
of revolving credit facility
|
|
|
(400 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(400 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
Payment
of credit line borrowing
|
|
|
(91 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(91 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
Payments
of cash dividends
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
Repurchase
of common stock
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(54 |
) |
Excess
tax benefits from share-based
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
compensation
arrangements
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
Other,
net
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
Net
cash provided by financing activities
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
599 |
|
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
529 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET
CHANGE IN CASH AND
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH
EQUIVALENTS
|
|
|
(199 |
) |
|
|
1,671 |
|
|
|
(422 |
) |
|
|
2,440 |
|
CASH
AND CASH EQUIVALENTS AT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BEGINNING
OF PERIOD
|
|
|
1,145 |
|
|
|
2,982 |
|
|
|
1,368 |
|
|
|
2,213 |
|
CASH
AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AT
END OF PERIOD
|
|
$ |
946 |
|
|
$ |
4,653 |
|
|
$ |
946 |
|
|
$ |
4,653 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH
PAYMENTS FOR:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest,
net of amount capitalized
|
|
$ |
42 |
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
78 |
|
|
$ |
41 |
|
Income
taxes
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See
accompanying notes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southwest
Airlines Co.
Notes
to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(unaudited)
1. BASIS
OF PRESENTATION
The
accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of Southwest
Airlines Co. (Company or Southwest) have been prepared in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for interim
financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of
Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the
information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States for complete financial statements. The unaudited
condensed consolidated financial statements for the interim periods ended June
30, 2009 and 2008, include all adjustments which are, in the opinion of
management, necessary for a fair presentation of the results for the interim
periods. This includes all normal and recurring adjustments, but does
not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted
accounting principles for complete financial statements. Financial
results for the Company, and airlines in general, are seasonal in
nature. Historically, the Company’s revenues, as well as its overall
financial performance, are better in its second and third fiscal quarters than
in its first and fourth fiscal quarters. However, as a result of
significant fluctuations in revenues and the price of jet fuel in some periods,
the nature of the Company’s fuel hedging program, the periodic volatility of
commodities used by the Company for hedging jet fuel, and the accounting
requirements of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 133,
“Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” as amended (SFAS
133), the Company has experienced, and may continue to experience significant
volatility in its results in certain fiscal periods. See Note 5 for
further information. Operating results for the three months and six months ended
June 30, 2009, are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be
expected for the year ended December 31, 2009. For further
information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and footnotes
thereto included in the Southwest Airlines Co. Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2008.
Certain
prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current
presentation. In the unaudited Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2008, the Company's cash
collateral deposits related to fuel derivatives that have been provided to a
counterparty have been adjusted to show a “net” presentation against the
fair value of the Company's fuel derivative instruments. The entire
portion of cash collateral deposits as of December 31, 2008, $240 million, has
been reclassified to reduce “Other deferred liabilities.” In the
Company’s 2008 Form 10-K filing, these cash collateral deposits were presented
“gross” and all were included as an increase to “Prepaid expenses and other
current assets.” This change in presentation was made in order to
comply with the requirements of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
Staff Position FIN 39-1 (FIN 39-1), which was required to be adopted by the
Company effective January 1, 2008. Following the Company’s 2008 Form
10-K filing on February 2, 2009, the Company became aware that the requirements
of FIN 39-1 had not been properly applied to its financial derivative
instruments within the financial statements. The Company determined
that the effect of this error was not material to its financial statements and
disclosures taken as a whole, and decided to apply FIN 39-1 prospectively
beginning with its first quarter 2009 Form 10-Q. Also, in the
unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for the three and six
months ended June 30, 2008, the Company has reclassified certain unrealized
noncash gains recorded on fuel derivative instruments and the cash collateral
received from counterparties to its fuel hedging program, in order to conform to
the current year presentation. These reclassifications had no impact
on net cash flows provided by operations.
In
preparation of the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements, the
Company reviewed, as determined necessary by the Company’s management, events
that occurred after June 30, 2009, up until the original issuance of the
financial statements, which occurred on July 23, 2009. In connection
with the reissuance of these financial statements on Form 10-Q/A, the Company
reviewed, as determined necessary by the Company’s management, events that
occurred up until the reissuance of the financial statements, which occurred on
October 22, 2009.
2. RESTATEMENT
OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The
Company has determined that its previously issued unaudited interim condensed
consolidated financial statements for the three and six month periods ended June
30, 2009, contained an error with respect to one rule within SFAS
133. Specifically, to facilitate the implementation of new hedge
accounting software, in April 2009, existing hedging instruments were
de-designated and re-designated as new hedges. Included in the
re-designation, however, were certain derivative instruments that were in a net
written option position that did not qualify as hedges according to SFAS
133. As a result, the Company is restating its financial statements
for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2009. The
following table illustrates the correction as it is associated with certain line
items in the financial statements (in millions, except per share
amounts):
Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet (unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June
30, 2009
|
|
|
|
As
reported
|
|
|
Adjustment
|
|
|
Restated
|
|
Accrued
liabilities
|
|
|
1,029 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
1,024 |
|
Total
current liabilities
|
|
|
3,073 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
3,068 |
|
Deferred
income taxes
|
|
|
1,921 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1,924 |
|
Retained
earnings
|
|
|
4,863 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
4,900 |
|
Accumulated
other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
(762 |
) |
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
(797 |
) |
Total
stockholders' equity
|
|
|
5,146 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
5,148 |
|
Condensed
Consolidated Statement of Operations (unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three
months ended June 30, 2009
|
|
|
|
As
reported
|
|
|
Adjustment
|
|
|
Restated
|
|
Other
(gains) losses, net
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
(23 |
) |
Total
other expenses (income)
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
16 |
|
INCOME
(LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
107 |
|
PROVISION
(BENEFIT) FOR INCOME TAXES
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
NET
INCOME (LOSS)
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
91 |
|
NET
INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE, BASIC
|
|
|
0.07 |
|
|
|
0.05 |
|
|
|
0.12 |
|
NET
INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE, DILUTED
|
|
|
0.07 |
|
|
|
0.05 |
|
|
|
0.12 |
|
Condensed
Consolidated Statement of Operations (unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six
months ended June 30, 2009
|
|
|
|
As
reported
|
|
|
Adjustment
|
|
|
Restated
|
|
Other
(gains) losses, net
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
Total
other expenses (income)
|
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
73 |
|
INCOME
(LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
- |
|
PROVISION
(BENEFIT) FOR INCOME TAXES
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
- |
|
NET
INCOME (LOSS)
|
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
- |
|
NET
INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE, BASIC
|
|
|
(0.05 |
) |
|
|
0.05 |
|
|
|
- |
|
NET
INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE, DILUTED
|
|
|
(0.05 |
) |
|
|
0.05 |
|
|
|
- |
|
3. NEW
ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
On April
9, 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Staff Position
SFAS 107-1 and Accounting Principles Board (APB) Opinion No. 28-1, “Interim
Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments” (FSP 107-1 and APB
28-1). FSP 107-1 amends FASB Statement No. 107, “Disclosures about
Fair Values of Financial Instruments,” to require disclosures about fair value
of financial instruments in interim financial statements as well as in annual
financial statements. APB 28-1 amends APB Opinion No. 28, “Interim
Financial Reporting,” to require those disclosures in all interim financial
statements. FSP 107-1 and APB 28-1 are effective for interim periods
ending after June 15, 2009 and the Company has adopted them in second quarter
2009. See Note 11.
On April
9, 2009, the FASB issued Staff Position SFAS 157-4, “Determining Fair Value When
the Volume and Level of Activity for the Asset or Liability Have Significantly
Decreased and Identifying Transactions That Are Not Orderly” (FSP
157-4). FSP 157-4 provides additional guidance in estimating fair
value under statement No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements” (SFAS 157), when the
volume and level of transaction activity for an asset or liability have
significantly decreased in relation to normal market activity for the asset or
liability. FSP 157-4 also provides additional guidance on
circumstances that may indicate a transaction is not orderly. FSP
157-4 is effective for interim periods ending after June 15, 2009, and the
Company has adopted its provisions during second quarter 2009. FSP
157-4 did not have a significant impact on the Company’s financial position,
results of operations, cash flows, or disclosures for second quarter
2009.
On April
9, 2009, the FASB issued Staff Position SFAS 115-2 and SFAS 124-2, “Recognition
and Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary Impairments” (FSP
115-2). FSP 115-2 provides guidance in determining whether
impairments in debt securities are other than temporary, and modifies the
presentation and disclosures surrounding such instruments. FSP 115-2
is effective for interim periods ending after June 15, 2009, and the Company has
adopted its provisions for second quarter 2009. FSP 115-2 did not
have a significant impact on the Company’s financial position, results of
operations, cash flows, or disclosures for second quarter 2009.
In May
2009, the FASB issued statement No. 165, “Subsequent Events” (SFAS 165). SFAS 165
modifies the definition of what qualifies as a subsequent event—those events or
transactions that occur following the balance sheet date, but before the
financial statements are issued, or are available to be issued—and requires
companies to disclose the date through which it has evaluated subsequent events
and the basis for determining that date. The Company adopted the
provisions of SFAS 165 for second quarter 2009, in accordance with the effective
date. See Note 1.
In June
2009, the FASB issued statement No. 167, “Amendments to FASB Interpretation No.
46(R)” (SFAS
167). Among other items, SFAS 167 responds to concerns about the
application of certain key provisions of FIN 46(R), including those regarding
the transparency of the involvement with variable interest
entities. SFAS 167 is effective for calendar year companies beginning
on January 1, 2010. The Company has not yet determined the impact
that adoption of SFAS 167 will have on its financial position, results of
operations, cash flows, or disclosures.
4. NET
INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE-RESTATED
The
following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net income
(loss) per share (in millions except per share amounts):
|
|
Three
months ended June 30, |
|
|
Six
months ended June 30, |
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
NUMERATOR:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
income (loss)
|
|
$ |
91 |
|
|
$ |
321 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
355 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DENOMINATOR:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average
shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
outstanding,
basic
|
|
|
741 |
|
|
|
732 |
|
|
|
741 |
|
|
|
733 |
|
Dilutive
effect of Employee stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
options
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Adjusted
weighted-average shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
outstanding,
diluted
|
|
|
741 |
|
|
|
737 |
|
|
|
741 |
|
|
|
736 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET
INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$ |
.12 |
|
|
$ |
.44 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
.48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$ |
.12 |
|
|
$ |
.44 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
.48 |
|
The
Company has excluded 79 million and 56 million shares, respectively, from its
calculations of net income per share, diluted, for the three months ended June
30, 2009 and 2008, and has excluded 79 million and 72 million shares,
respectively, from its calculations of net income per share, diluted, for the
six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, as they represent antidilutive stock
options for the respective periods presented.
5. FINANCIAL
DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS-RESTATED
Fuel
Contracts
Airline
operators are inherently dependent upon energy to operate and, therefore, are
impacted by changes in jet fuel prices. Jet fuel and oil (including
related taxes) consumed during the three months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008,
represented approximately 29 percent and 35 percent of the Company’s operating
expenses, respectively. The Company’s operating expenses have been extremely
volatile in recent years due to dramatic increases and declines in energy
prices. The Company endeavors to acquire jet fuel at the lowest
possible cost and to reduce volatility in operating expenses. Because
jet fuel is not traded on an organized futures exchange, there are limited
opportunities to hedge directly in jet fuel. However, the Company has
found that financial derivative instruments in other commodities, such as crude
oil, and refined products such as heating oil and unleaded gasoline, can be
useful in decreasing its exposure to jet fuel price volatility. The
Company does not purchase or hold any derivative financial instruments for
trading purposes.
The
Company has used financial derivative instruments for both short-term and
long-term time frames, and typically uses a mixture of purchased call options,
collar structures (which include both a purchased call option and a sold put
option), and fixed price swap agreements in its portfolio. Generally,
when prices are lower, the Company prefers to use fixed price swap agreements
and purchased call options. However, when prices are higher, the
Company uses more collar structures due to the high cost of purchased call
options and the increased risk associated with fixed price
swaps. Although the use of collar structures can reduce the overall
cost of hedging, these instruments carry more risk than purchased call options
in that the Company could end up in a liability position when the collar
structure settles. With the use of purchased call options, the
Company cannot be in a liability position at settlement.
The
following table provides information about the Company’s volume of fuel hedging
for the first half of 2009, and its portfolio as of June 30, 2009, for future
periods. These hedge volumes are presented strictly from an
“economic” standpoint and thus do not reflect whether the hedges qualified or
will qualify for special hedge accounting as defined in SFAS 133. The
Company defines its “economic” hedge as the total volume of fuel derivative
contracts held, including the net impact of positions that have been effectively
“settled” through offsetting positions, regardless of whether those contracts
qualify for hedge accounting as defined in SFAS 133.
|
|
Fuel
hedged as
|
|
|
Approximate
%
|
|
|
|
of
June 30, 2009
|
|
|
of
jet fuel
|
|
Period
(by year)
|
|
(gallons
in millions)
|
|
|
consumption
|
|
2009
|
|
|
518 |
|
|
|
37 |
%
* |
2010
|
|
|
653 |
|
|
|
47 |
%
* |
2011
|
|
|
211 |
|
|
|
15 |
%
* |
2012
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
7 |
%
* |
2013
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
7 |
%
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period
(by quarter for 2009)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First
quarter 2009
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
4 |
% |
Second
quarter 2009
|
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
50 |
% |
Third
quarter 2009
|
|
|
144 |
|
|
|
40 |
%
* |
Fourth
quarter 2009
|
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
52 |
%
* |
*
Forecasted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upon
proper qualification, the Company accounts for its fuel derivative instruments
as cash flow hedges, as defined in SFAS 133. Under SFAS 133, all
derivatives designated as hedges that meet certain requirements are granted
special hedge accounting treatment. Generally, utilizing the special
hedge accounting, all periodic changes in fair value of the derivatives
designated as hedges that are considered to be effective, as defined, are
recorded in "Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)” (“AOCI”) until the
underlying jet fuel is consumed. See Note 6 for further information
on “AOCI.” The Company is exposed to the risk that periodic changes
will not be effective, as defined, or that the derivatives will no longer
qualify for special hedge accounting. Ineffectiveness, as defined,
results when the change in the fair value of the derivative instrument exceeds
the change in the value of the Company’s expected future cash outlay to purchase
and consume jet fuel. To the extent that the periodic changes in the
fair value of the derivatives are not effective, that ineffectiveness is
recorded to “Other (gains) losses, net” in the statement of
operations. Likewise, if a hedge ceases to qualify for hedge
accounting, any change in the fair value of derivative instruments since the
last period is recorded to “Other (gains) losses, net” in the statement of
operations in the period of the change; however, in accordance with SFAS 133,
any amounts previously recorded to “AOCI” would remain there until such time as
the original forecasted transaction occurs at which time these amounts would be
reclassified to “Fuel and oil” expense. In a situation where it
becomes probable that a hedged forecasted transaction will not occur, any gains
and/or losses that have been recorded to “AOCI” would be required to be
immediately reclassified into earnings. The Company did not have any
such situations occur for the three or six months ended June 30, 2009 or
2008.
Ineffectiveness
is inherent in hedging jet fuel with derivative positions based in other crude
oil related commodities. 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 resulted, in increased
volatility in the Company’s financial results. Factors that have and
may continue to lead to ineffectiveness and unrealized gains and losses on
derivative contracts include: significant fluctuation in energy prices, the
number of derivative positions the Company holds, significant weather events
affecting refinery capacity and the production of refined products, and the
volatility of the different types of products the Company uses in
hedging. The number of instances in which the Company has
discontinued hedge accounting for specific hedges and for specific refined
products, such as unleaded gasoline, has increased recently, primarily due to
the foregoing factors. However, even though these derivatives may not
qualify for SFAS 133 special hedge accounting, the Company continues to hold the
instruments as it believes they continue to afford the Company the opportunity
to minimize jet fuel costs.
SFAS 133
is a complex accounting standard with stringent requirements, including the
documentation of a Company hedging strategy, statistical analysis to qualify a
commodity for hedge accounting both on a historical and a prospective basis, and
strict contemporaneous documentation that is required at the time each hedge is
designated by the Company. As required by SFAS 133, the Company
assesses the effectiveness of each of its individual hedges on a quarterly
basis. The Company also examines the effectiveness of its entire
hedging program on a quarterly basis utilizing statistical
analysis. This analysis involves utilizing regression and other
statistical analyses that compare changes in the price of jet fuel to changes in
the prices of the commodities used for hedging purposes.
All cash
flows associated with purchasing and selling derivatives are classified as
operating cash flows in the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash
Flows. The following table presents the location of all assets and
liabilities associated with the Company’s hedging instruments within the
unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet (in millions):
|
|
|
Asset
Derivatives
|
|
|
Liability
Derivatives
|
|
Derivatives
designated as hedging
|
|
|
Fair
Value at 6/30/09
|
|
|
Fair
Value at 12/31/08
|
|
|
Fair
Value at 6/30/09
|
|
|
Fair
Value at 12/31/08
|
|
instruments
under SFAS 133
|
Balance
Sheet Location |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(As
restated) |
|
|
|
|
Fuel
derivative contracts (gross)*
|
Accrued
liabilities
|
|
$ |
92 |
|
|
$ |
94 |
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
19 |
|
Fuel
derivative contracts (gross)*
|
Other
deferred liabilities
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
522 |
|
Interest
rate derivative contracts
|
Other
assets
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
Interest
rate derivative contracts
|
Other
deferred liabilities
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
derivatives designated as hedging
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
instruments
under SFAS 133
|
|
|
$ |
254 |
|
|
$ |
217 |
|
|
$ |
52 |
|
|
$ |
544 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives
not designated as hedging
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
instruments
under SFAS 133
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel
derivative contracts (gross)*
|
Accrued
liabilities
|
|
$ |
403 |
|
|
$ |
387 |
|
|
$ |
651 |
|
|
$ |
708 |
|
Fuel
derivative contracts (gross)*
|
Other
deferred liabilities
|
|
|
308 |
|
|
|
266 |
|
|
|
970 |
|
|
|
530 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
derivatives not designated as
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hedging
instruments under SFAS 133
|
|
|
$ |
711 |
|
|
$ |
653 |
|
|
$ |
1,621 |
|
|
$ |
1,238 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
derivatives
|
|
|
$ |
965 |
|
|
$ |
870 |
|
|
$ |
1,673 |
|
|
$ |
1,782 |
|
*
Does not include the impact of cash collateral deposits provided to
counterparties. See discussion
|
|
|
|
|
|
of
credit risk and collateral following in this Note.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In
addition, the Company also had the following amounts associated with fuel
derivative instruments and hedging activities in its unaudited Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet (in millions):
|
Balance
Sheet
|
|
June
30,
|
|
|
December
31,
|
|
|
Location
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
Cash
collateral deposits provided
|
Offset
against Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to
counterparty - noncurrent
|
deferred
liabilities
|
|
|
374 |
|
|
|
240 |
|
Cash
collateral deposits provided
|
Offset
against Accrued
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to
counterparty - current
|
liabilities
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
- |
|
Due
to third parties for settled fuel contracts
|
Accrued
liabilities
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
Net
unrealized losses from fuel
|
Accumulated
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hedges,
net of tax
|
comprehensive
loss
|
|
|
785 |
|
|
|
946 |
|
The
following tables present the impact of derivative instruments and their location
within the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the
three and six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 (in millions):
Derivatives
in SFAS 133 Cash Flow Hedging Relationships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount
of (Gain) Loss Recognized in AOCI on Derivative (Effective
Portion)
|
|
|
Amount
of (Gain) Loss Reclassified from AOCI into Income (Effective
Portion)(a)
|
|
|
Amount
of (Gain) Loss Recognized in Income on Derivatives (ineffective portion)
(b)
|
|
|
|
Three
months ended June 30,
|
|
|
Three
months ended June 30,
|
|
|
Three
months ended June 30,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel
derivative
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
contracts
|
|
$ |
(7 |
)
* |
|
$ |
(1,493 |
)
* |
|
$ |
96
|
* |
|
$ |
(284 |
)
* |
|
$ |
(25 |
) |
|
$ |
20 |
|
Interest
rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
derivatives
|
|
|
(20 |
)
* |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
(27 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,493 |
) |
|
$ |
96 |
|
|
$ |
(284 |
) |
|
$ |
(25 |
) |
|
$ |
20 |
|
* Net
of tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
Amounts related to fuel derivative contracts and interest rate derivatives
are included in
|
|
Fuel
and oil and Interest expense, respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(b)
Amounts are included in Other (gains) losses, net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives
in SFAS 133 Cash Flow Hedging Relationships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount
of (Gain) Loss Recognized in AOCI on Derivative (Effective
Portion)
|
|
|
Amount
of (Gain) Loss Reclassified from AOCI into Income (Effective
Portion)(a)
|
|
|
Amount
of (Gain) Loss Recognized in Income on Derivatives (ineffective portion)
(b)
|
|
|
|
Six
months ended June 30,
|
|
|
Six
months ended June 30,
|
|
|
Six
months ended June 30,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel
derivative
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
contracts
|
|
$ |
45
|
* |
|
$ |
(1,923 |
)
* |
|
$ |
206
|
* |
|
$ |
(454 |
)
* |
|
$ |
(9 |
) |
|
$ |
26 |
|
Interest
rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
derivatives
|
|
|
(25 |
)
* |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
(1,923 |
) |
|
$ |
206 |
|
|
$ |
(454 |
) |
|
$ |
(9 |
) |
|
$ |
26 |
|
* Net
of tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
Amounts related to fuel derivative contracts and interest rate derivatives
are included in
|
|
Fuel
and oil and Interest expense, respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(b)
Amounts are included in Other (gains) losses, net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives
not in SFAS 133 Cash Flow Hedging Relationships
|
|
Amount
of (Gain) Loss Recognized in Income on Derivatives |
|
|
|
|
Three
months ended June 30,
|
|
|
Location
of (Gain) Loss Recognized in Income
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
on
Derivatives
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel
derivative contracts
|
$ |
(38
|
) |
|
$ |
(381
|
) |
|
Other
(gains) losses, net
|
Derivatives
not in SFAS 133 Cash Flow Hedging Relationships
|
|
Amount
of (Gain) Loss Recognized in Income on Derivatives |
|
|
|
|
Six months
ended June 30,
|
|
|
Location
of (Gain) Loss Recognized in Income
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
on
Derivatives
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel
derivative contracts
|
$ |
(65
|
) |
|
$ |
(365
|
) |
|
Other
(gains) losses, net
|
The
Company also recorded expense associated with premiums paid for fuel derivative
contracts that settled/expired during the three months ended June 30, 2009 and
2008, respectively, of $37 million and $14 million, and during the six months
ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively, of $69 million and $27
million. These amounts are excluded from the Company’s measurement of
effectiveness for related hedges.
The fair
value of the derivative instruments, depending on the type of instrument, was
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. Included in the Company’s total net unrealized losses from
fuel hedges as of June 30, 2009, are approximately $288 million in unrealized
losses, net of taxes, that are expected to be realized in earnings during the
twelve months following June 30, 2009. In addition, as of June 30,
2009, the Company had already recognized cumulative net losses due to
ineffectiveness and derivatives that do not qualify for hedge accounting
totaling $6 million, net of taxes. These losses were recognized in
the three months ended June 30, 2009, and prior periods, and are reflected in
“Retained earnings” as of June 30, 2009, but the underlying derivative
instruments will not expire/settle until subsequent periods of 2009 or future
periods.
Interest
rate swaps
The
Company is party to interest rate swap agreements related to its $385 million
6.5% senior unsecured notes due 2012, its $350 million 5.25% senior unsecured
notes due 2014, its $300 million 5.125% senior unsecured notes due 2017, and its
$100 million 7.375% senior unsecured debentures due 2027. The primary
objective for the Company’s use of these interest rate hedges is to better match
the repricing of its assets and liabilities. Under each of these
interest rate swap agreements, the Company pays the London InterBank Offered
Rate (LIBOR) plus a margin every six months on the notional amount of the debt,
and receives payments based on the fixed stated rate of the notes every six
months until the date the notes become due. These interest rate swap
agreements qualify as fair value hedges, as defined by SFAS 133. In
addition, these interest rate swap agreements qualify for the “shortcut” method
of accounting for hedges, as defined by SFAS 133. Under the
“shortcut” method, the hedges are assumed to be perfectly effective, and, thus,
there is no ineffectiveness to be recorded in earnings.
The
Company also entered into interest rate swap agreements concurrent with its
entry into a twelve-year, $600 million floating-rate term loan agreement during
2008, and a ten-year, $332 million floating-rate term loan agreement during May
2009. Under these swap agreements, which are accounted for as cash
flow hedges, the interest rates on the term loans are effectively fixed for
their entire term at 5.223 percent and 6.64 percent, respectively, and
ineffectiveness is required to be measured each reporting period. The
fair values of the interest rate swap agreements, which are adjusted regularly,
have been aggregated by counterparty for classification in the unaudited
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.
Credit
risk and collateral
The
Company’s 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
the reporting date. These outstanding instruments expose the Company
to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the counterparties to the
agreements. However, the Company has not experienced any significant
credit loss as a result of counterparty nonperformance in the
past. To manage credit risk, the Company selects and will
periodically review counterparties based on credit ratings, limits its exposure
to a single counterparty, and monitors the market position of the fuel hedging
program and its relative market position with each counterparty. At
June 30, 2009, the Company had agreements with all of its counterparties
containing early termination rights and/or bilateral collateral provisions
whereby security is required if market risk exposure exceeds a specified
threshold amount or credit ratings fall below certain levels. Based
on the Company’s current agreements with two of these counterparties, cash
deposits are required to be posted whenever the net fair value of derivatives
associated with those counterparties exceed specific thresholds. If
the threshold is exceeded, cash is either posted by the counterparty if the
value of derivatives is an asset to the Company, or posted by the Company if the
value of derivatives is a liability to the Company.
Under one
of the Company’s counterparty agreements, as amended, until January 1, 2010, if
the Company becomes obligated to post collateral for obligations in amounts of
up to $300 million and in excess of $700 million, the Company is required to
post cash collateral; however, if the Company becomes obligated to post
collateral for obligations in amounts between $300 million and $700 million, the
Company has pledged 20 of its Boeing 737-700 aircraft as collateral in lieu of
cash. At June 30, 2009, the fair value of fuel derivative instruments
with this counterparty was a net liability of $302 million, and the Company had
posted $300 million in cash collateral deposits with the counterparty, with the
remaining $2 million secured by pledged aircraft. If the fair value
of fuel derivative instruments with this counterparty were in a net asset
position, the counterparty would be required to post cash collateral to the
Company on a dollar-for-dollar basis for amounts in excess of $40
million. This agreement does not contain any triggers that would
require additional cash to be posted by the Company outside of further changes
in the fair value of the fuel derivative instruments held with the
counterparty. However, if the fair value of fuel derivative
instruments with this counterparty were in a net asset position, and the
counterparty’s credit rating were to be lowered to specified levels, the
counterparty could be required to post cash collateral to the Company on a
dollar-for-dollar basis related to the first $40 million of assets
held.
Under
another of the Company’s counterparty agreements, the Company is obligated to
post collateral related to fuel derivative liabilities as
follows: (i) if the obligation is up to $125 million, the Company
posts cash collateral, (ii) if the obligation is between $125 million and $625
million, the Company has pledged 29 Boeing 737-700 aircraft as collateral in
lieu of cash, and (iii) if the obligation exceeds $625 million, the Company must
post cash or letters of credit as collateral. The Company pledged 29
of its Boeing 737-700 aircraft to cover the collateral posting band in clause
(ii). As of June 30, 2009, the fair value of fuel derivative
instruments with this counterparty was a net liability of $399 million, and the
Company had posted $125 million in cash collateral deposits to this
counterparty, with the remaining $274 million secured by pledged
aircraft. This agreement also provides for the counterparty to post
cash collateral to the Company on a dollar-for-dollar basis for any net positive
fair value of fuel derivative instruments in excess of $150 million held by the
Company from that counterparty. This agreement does not contain any
triggers that would require additional cash to be posted by the Company outside
of further changes in the fair value of the fuel derivative instruments held
with the counterparty. However, if the fair value of fuel derivative
instruments with this counterparty were in a net asset position, and the
counterparty’s credit rating were to be lowered to specified levels, the
counterparty would be required to post cash collateral to the Company on a
dollar-for-dollar basis related to the first $150 million of assets
held.
As of
June 30, 2009, other than as described above, the Company did not have any fuel
hedging agreements with counterparties in which cash collateral is required to
be posted based on the Company’s current investment grade credit
rating. However, additional fuel hedging agreements contain a
provision whereby each party has the right to terminate and settle all
outstanding fuel contracts if the other party’s credit rating falls below
investment grade. Upon this occurrence, the party in a net liability
position could subsequently be required to post cash collateral if a mutual
alternative agreement could not be reached. At June 30, 2009, the
Company’s estimated fair value of fuel derivative contracts with one
counterparty containing this provision was a liability of $101 million,
including $29 million that will settle by the end of 2009.
Due to
the Company’s current fuel hedging agreements with counterparties, in the
Company’s judgment, it does not have significant exposure to future cash
collateral requirements. As an example, even if market prices for the
commodities used in the Company’s fuel hedging activities were to decrease by 50
percent from market prices as of June 30, 2009, given the Company’s current fuel
hedge portfolio and its investment grade credit rating, it would not have had to
provide additional cash collateral to its current counterparties.
The
Company classifies its cash collateral provided to counterparties in accordance
with the provisions of FIN 39-1. FIN 39-1 requires an entity to
select a policy of how it records the offset rights to reclaim cash collateral
associated with the related derivative fair value of the assets or liabilities
of such derivative instruments. Entities may either select a “net” or
a “gross” presentation. The Company has elected to present its cash
collateral utilizing a net presentation, in which cash collateral amounts held
or provided have been netted against the fair value of outstanding derivative
instruments. The Company’s policy differs depending on whether its
derivative instruments are in a net asset position or a net liability
position. If its fuel derivative instruments are in a net asset
position with a counterparty, cash collateral amounts held are first netted
against current derivative amounts (those that will settle during the twelve
months following the balance sheet date) associated with that counterparty until
that balance is zero, and then any remainder would be applied against the fair
value of noncurrent outstanding derivative instruments (those that will settle
beyond one year following the balance sheet date.) If its fuel
derivative instruments are in a net liability position with a counterparty, cash
collateral amounts provided are first netted against noncurrent derivative
amounts associated with that counterparty until that balance is zero, and then
any remainder would be applied against the fair value of current outstanding
derivative instruments. At June 30, 2009, of the $425 million in cash
collateral deposits posted with counterparties under its bilateral collateral
provisions, $374 million has been netted against noncurrent fuel derivative
instruments within “Other deferred liabilities” and $51 million has been netted
against current fuel derivative instruments within “Accrued liabilities” in the
unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.
6. COMPREHENSIVE
INCOME (LOSS)-RESTATED
Comprehensive
income (loss) includes changes in the fair value of certain financial derivative
instruments, which qualify for hedge accounting, and unrealized gains and losses
on certain investments. The differences between net income (loss) and
comprehensive income (loss) for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 and
2008, were as follows:
|
|
Three
months ended June 30, |
|
(In
millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
Net
income
|
|
$ |
91 |
|
|
$ |
321 |
|
Unrealized
gain on derivative instruments,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
net
of deferred taxes of $64 and $753
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
1,209 |
|
Other,
net of deferred taxes of $14 and ($1)
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
Total
other comprehensive income
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
|
1,207 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive
income
|
|
$ |
216 |
|
|
$ |
1,528 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six
months ended June 30, |
|
(In
millions)
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
income
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
355 |
|
Unrealized
gain on derivative instruments,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
net
of deferred taxes of $100 and $904
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
1,469 |
|
Other,
net of deferred taxes of $16 and ($7)
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
Total
other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
187 |
|
|
|
1,458 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive
income
|
|
$ |
187 |
|
|
$ |
1,813 |
|
A
rollforward of the amounts included in “AOCI,” net of taxes, is shown below for
the three and six months ended June 30, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
Fuel
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
hedge
|
|
|
|
|
|
comprehensive
|
|
(In
millions)
|
|
derivatives
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
income
(loss)
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
Balance
at March 31, 2009
|
|
$ |
(888 |
) |
|
$ |
(34 |
) |
|
$ |
(922 |
) |
Second
quarter 2009 changes in value
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
Reclassification
to earnings
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96 |
|
Balance
at June 30, 2009
|
|
$ |
(785 |
) |
|
$ |
(12 |
) |
|
$ |
(797 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
Fuel
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
hedge
|
|
|
|
|
|
comprehensive
|
|
(In
millions)
|
|
derivatives
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
income
(loss)
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
Balance
at December 31, 2008
|
|
$ |
(946 |
) |
|
$ |
(38 |
) |
|
$ |
(984 |
) |
2009
changes in value
|
|
|
(45 |
) |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
Reclassification
to earnings
|
|
|
206 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
206 |
|
Balance
at June 30, 2009
|
|
$ |
(785 |
) |
|
$ |
(12 |
) |
|
$ |
(797 |
) |
7. ACCRUED
LIABILITIES-RESTATED
|
|
June
30,
|
|
|
December
31,
|
|
(In
millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
Retirement
plans
|
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
$ |
86 |
|
Aircraft
rentals
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
118 |
|
Vacation
pay
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
175 |
|
Advances
and deposits
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
Fuel
derivative contracts
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
246 |
|
Deferred
income taxes
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
Workers
compensation
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
Other
|
|
|
246 |
|
|
|
206 |
|
Accrued
liabilities
|
|
$ |
1,024 |
|
|
$ |
1,012 |
|
8. POSTRETIREMENT
BENEFITS
The
following table sets forth the Company’s periodic postretirement benefit cost
for each of the interim periods identified:
|
|
Three
months ended June 30, |
|
(In
millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service
cost
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
Interest
cost
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Amortization
of prior service cost
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Recognized
actuarial gain
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
periodic postretirement benefit cost
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
|
Six
months ended June 30, |
|
(In
millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service
cost
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
Interest
cost
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Amortization
of prior service cost
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Recognized
actuarial gain
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
periodic postretirement benefit cost
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
9. FINANCING
TRANSACTIONS
On April
29, 2009, the Company entered into a term loan agreement providing for loans to
the Company aggregating up to $332 million, to be secured by mortgages on 14 of
the Company’s 737-700 aircraft. On May 6, 2009, the Company borrowed
the full $332 million and secured the loan with the requisite 14 aircraft
mortgages. The loan matures on May 6, 2019, and is repayable
quarterly in installments of principal beginning August 6, 2009. The
loan bears interest at the LIBO Rate (as defined in the term loan agreement)
plus 3.30 percent, and interest is payable quarterly, beginning August 6,
2009. Concurrent with its entry into the term loan agreement, the
Company entered into an interest rate swap agreement that effectively fixes the
interest rate on the term loan for its entire term at 6.315
percent. The Company used the proceeds from the term loan for general
corporate purposes, including the repayment of the Company’s revolving credit
facility.
During
May 2009, the Company fully repaid the $400 million it had previously borrowed
in 2008 under its available $600 million revolving credit
facility. Therefore, as of June 30, 2009, the entire $600 million of
the Company’s revolving credit facility was available for
borrowing.
10. COMMITMENTS
AND CONTINGENCIES
During
the first quarter and early second quarter of 2008, the Company was named as a
defendant in two putative class actions on behalf of persons who purchased air
travel from the Company while the Company was allegedly in violation of FAA
safety regulations. Claims alleged by the plaintiffs in these two putative class
actions include breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud/misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, and negligent and reckless operation of an
aircraft. The Company believes that the class action lawsuits are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Also in
connection with this incident, during the first quarter and early second quarter
of 2008, the Company received four letters from Shareholders demanding the
Company commence an action on behalf of the Company against members of its Board
of Directors and any other allegedly culpable parties for damages resulting from
an alleged breach of fiduciary duties owed by them to the Company. In
August 2008, Carbon County Employees Retirement System and Mark Cristello filed
a related Shareholder derivative action in Texas state court naming certain
directors and officers of the Company as individual defendants and the Company
as a nominal defendant. The derivative action claims breach of
fiduciary duty and seeks recovery by the Company of alleged monetary damages
sustained as a result of the purported breach of fiduciary duty, as well as
costs of the action. A Special Committee appointed by the Independent
Directors of the Company has been evaluating the Shareholder
demands.
The
Company is from time to time subject to various other legal proceedings and
claims arising in the ordinary course of business, including, but not limited
to, examinations by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
The
Company's 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 Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flow.
During
2008, the City of Dallas approved the Love Field Modernization Program, an
estimated $519 million project to reconstruct Dallas Love Field with modern,
convenient air travel facilities. Pursuant to a Program Development
Agreement with the City of Dallas, the Company is managing this project, and
initial construction is expected to commence during late 2009, with completion
scheduled for October 2014. Bonds are expected to be issued at a
later date by the Love Field Airport Modernization Corporation (a “local
government corporation” under Texas law formed by the City of Dallas) that will
provide funding for this project, with repayment of the bonds being made through
recurring ground rents, fees, and other revenues collected by the
airport.
11. FAIR
VALUE MEASUREMENTS-RESTATED
The
Company adopted SFAS 157 as of January 1, 2008. SFAS 157 establishes
a three-tier fair value hierarchy, which prioritizes the inputs used in
measuring fair value. These tiers include: Level 1, defined as
observable inputs such as quoted prices in active markets; Level 2, defined as
inputs other than quoted prices in active markets that are either directly or
indirectly observable; and Level 3, defined as unobservable inputs in which
little or no market data exists, therefore requiring an entity to develop its
own assumptions.
As of
June 30, 2009, the Company held certain items that are required to be measured
at fair value on a recurring basis. These included cash equivalents,
short-term investments, certain noncurrent investments, interest rate derivative
contracts, fuel derivative contracts, and available-for-sale
securities. Cash equivalents consist of short-term, highly liquid,
income-producing investments, all of which have maturities of 90 days or less,
including money market funds, U.S. Government obligations, and obligations of
U.S. Government backed agencies. Short-term investments consist of
short-term, highly liquid, income-producing investments, which have maturities
of greater than 90 days but less than one year, including U.S. Government
obligations, obligations of U.S. Government backed agencies, and certain auction
rate securities. Derivative instruments are related to the Company’s
fuel hedging program and interest rate hedges. Noncurrent investments
consist of certain auction rate securities, primarily those collateralized by
student loan portfolios, which are guaranteed by the U.S.
Government. Other available-for-sale securities primarily consist of
investments associated with the Company’s Excess Benefit Plan.
The
Company’s fuel derivative instruments consist of over-the-counter (OTC)
contracts, which are not traded on a public exchange. These contracts
include both swaps as well as different types of option
contracts. See Note 5 for further information on the Company’s
derivative instruments and hedging activities. The fair values of
swap contracts are determined based on inputs that are readily available in
public markets or can be derived from information available in publicly quoted
markets. Therefore, the Company has categorized these swap contracts
as Level 2. The Company determines the value of 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 financial institutions that trade
these contracts. In situations where the Company obtains inputs via
quotes from financial institutions, it verifies the reasonableness of these
quotes via similar quotes from another financial institution as of each date for
which financial statements are prepared. The Company also considers
counterparty credit risk and its own credit risk in its determination of all
estimated fair values. 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 of the inputs used to determine
the fair value of option contracts are unobservable (principally implied
volatility), the Company has categorized these option contracts as Level
3.
The
Company’s interest rate derivative instruments also consist of OTC swap
contracts. The inputs used to determine the fair values of these
contracts are obtained in quoted public markets. The Company has consistently
applied these valuation techniques in all periods presented.
The
Company’s investments associated with its Excess Benefit Plan consist of mutual
funds that are publicly traded and for which market prices are readily
available.
All of
the Company’s auction rate security instruments are reflected at estimated fair
value in the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. At June
30, 2009, approximately $109 million of these instruments are classified as
available for sale securities and $83 million are classified as trading
securities. The $83 million classified as trading securities are subject to an
agreement the Company entered into in December 2008, as discussed below, and are
included in “Short-term investments” in the unaudited Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheet. In periods when an auction process successfully takes
place every 30-35 days, quoted market prices would be readily available, which
would qualify as Level 1 under SFAS 157. However, due to events in
credit markets beginning during first quarter 2008, the auction events for most
of these instruments failed, and, therefore, the Company has subsequently
determined the estimated fair values of these securities utilizing a discounted
cash flow analysis or other type of valuation model. In addition,
during fourth quarter 2008, the Company performed a valuation of its auction
rate security instruments and considered these valuations in determining
estimated fair values of other similar instruments within its
portfolio. The Company’s 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 full par value. These securities were also compared,
when possible, to other securities not owned by the Company, but with similar
characteristics.
In
association with this estimate of fair value, the Company has recorded a
temporary unrealized decline in fair value of $11 million, with an offsetting
entry to “AOCI.” 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 these auction rate securities held by the
Company are almost entirely backed by the U.S. Government. In
addition, for the $109 million in instruments classified as available for sale,
these auction rate securities represented approximately five percent of the
Company’s total cash, cash equivalent, and investment balance at June 30,
2009. Considering the relative significance of these securities in
comparison to the Company’s liquid assets and other sources of liquidity, the
Company has no current intention of selling these securities nor does it expect
to be required to sell these securities before a recovery in their cost
basis. For the $83 million in instruments classified as trading
securities, the Company is party to an agreement with the counterparty that
allows the Company to put the instruments back to the counterparty at full par
value in June 2010. In conjunction with this agreement, the Company
has applied the provisions of SFAS 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial
Assets and Financial Liabilities” to this put option. Part of this
agreement also contains a line of credit in which the Company can borrow up to
$83 million as a loan from the counterparty that would be secured by the auction
rate security instruments from that counterparty. There were no
borrowings under this provision as of June 30, 2009. Both the put
option and the auction rate instruments are being marked to market through
earnings each period; however, these adjustments offset and had minimal impact
on net earnings for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009. At
the time of the first failed auctions during first quarter 2008, the Company
held a total of $463 million in securities. Since that time, the
Company has been able to sell $260 million of these instruments at par value in
addition to the $83 million subject to the agreement to be settled at par in
June 2010.
During
first quarter 2009, the Company also entered into a $46 million line of credit
agreement with another counterparty secured by approximately $92 million (par
value) of its remaining auction rate security instruments purchased through that
counterparty. This agreement allows the Company the ability to draw
against the line of credit secured by the auction rate security instruments from
that counterparty. As of June 30, 2009, the Company had no borrowings
against that available line of credit. The Company remains in
discussions with its other counterparties to determine whether mutually
agreeable decisions can be reached regarding the effective repurchase of its
remaining securities. The Company has continued to earn interest on
virtually all of its auction rate security instruments. Any future
fluctuation in fair value related to these instruments that the Company deems to
be temporary, including any recoveries of previous temporary write-downs, would
be recorded to “AOCI.” If the Company determines that any future
valuation adjustment was other than temporary, it would record a charge to
earnings as appropriate.
The
following items are measured at fair value on a recurring basis subject to the
disclosure requirements of SFAS 157 at June 30, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date
Using
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted
Prices in
|
|
|
|
|
|
Significant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active
Markets for
|
|
|
Significant
Other
|
|
|
Unobservable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identical
Assets
|
|
|
Observable
Inputs
|
|
|
Inputs
|
|
Description
|
|
June 30, 2009
|
|
|
(Level 1)
|
|
|
(Level 2)
|
|
|
(Level 3)
|
|
Assets
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
Cash
equivalents
|
|
$ |
946 |
|
|
$ |
946 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
Short-term
investments
|
|
|
1,252 |
|
|
|
1,222 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
103 |
|
Noncurrent
investments (a)
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
89 |
|
Interest
rate derivatives
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
- |
|
Fuel
derivatives (b)
|
|
|
915 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
338 |
|
|
|
577 |
|
Other
available-for-sale securities
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Total
assets
|
|
$ |
3,285 |
|
|
$ |
2,193 |
|
|
$ |
388 |
|
|
$ |
777 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel
derivatives (b)
|
|
$ |
(1,678 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(964 |
) |
|
$ |
(714 |
) |
(a)
Included in "Other assets" in the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(b)
In the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet, amounts are
presented as a net liability, and are also
|
|
net
of $425 million in cash collateral provided to
counterparties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
following table presents the Company’s activity for assets measured at fair
value on a recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) as
defined in SFAS 157 for the three months ended June 30, 2009:
|
|
Fair Value Measurements Using
Significant
|
|
|
|
Unobservable Inputs (Level
3)
|
|
|
|
Fuel
|
|
|
Auction
Rate
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
Derivatives
|
|
|
Securities
(a)
|
|
|
Securities
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
Balance
at December 31, 2008
|
|
$ |
(864 |
) |
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
(656 |
) |
Total
gains or (losses) (realized or unrealized)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Included
in earnings
|
|
|
530 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
530 |
|
Included
in other comprehensive income
|
|
|
(80 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(80 |
) |
Purchases
and settlements (net)
|
|
|
277 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
269 |
|
Balance
at June 30, 2009
|
|
$ |
(137 |
) |
|
$ |
192 |
(b) |
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
63 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
amount of total gains or (losses) for the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
period
included in earnings attributable to the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
change
in unrealized gains or losses relating to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assets
still held at June 30, 2009
|
|
$ |
523 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
523 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
Includes those classified as short-term investments and noncurrent
investments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(b)
Includes $83 million classified as trading securities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All
settlements from fuel derivative contracts that are deemed “effective,” as
defined in SFAS 133, are included in “Fuel and oil” expense in the period the
underlying fuel is consumed in operations. Any “ineffectiveness”
associated with derivative contracts, as defined in SFAS 133, including amounts
that settled in the current period (realized), and amounts that will settle in
future periods (unrealized), is recorded in earnings immediately, as a component
of “Other (gains) losses, net.” See Note 5 for further information on
SFAS 133 and hedging.
Gains and
losses (realized and unrealized) included in earnings related to other
investments for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, are reported in
“Other operating expenses.”
The
carrying amounts and estimated fair values of the Company’s long-term debt and
fuel derivative contracts at June 30, 2009 were as follows:
(In
millions)
|
Carrying
value
|
|
Estimated
fair value
|
10.5%
Notes due 2011
|
$400
|
|
$432
|
French
Credit Agreements due 2012
|
24
|
|
24
|
6.5%
Notes due 2012
|
400
|
|
409
|
5.25%
Notes due 2014
|
373
|
|
347
|
5.75%
Notes due 2016
|
300
|
|
270
|
5.125%
Notes due 2017
|
333
|
|
288
|
French
Credit Agreements due 2017
|
84
|
|
84
|
Term
Loan Agreement due 2019
|
332
|
|
336
|
Term
Loan Agreement due 2020
|
570
|
|
481
|
Pass
Through Certificates
|
458
|
|
473
|
7.375%
Debentures due 2027
|
114
|
|
107
|
Fuel
derivative contracts*
|
(763)
|
|
(763)
|
|
|
|
|
*
Does not include the impact of cash collateral deposits provided to
counterparties.
|
See
Note 5.
|
|
|
|
The
estimated fair values of the Company’s publicly held long-term debt were based
on quoted market prices.
12. DIVIDENDS
During
the three month periods ended March 31 and June 30, 2009, dividends of $.0045
per share were declared on the 740 million shares and 741 million shares of
Common Stock then outstanding, respectively. During the three month
periods ended March 31 and June 30, 2008, dividends of $.0045 per share were
declared on the 731 million shares and 733 million shares of Common Stock then
outstanding, respectively.
13. EARLY
RETIREMENT OFFER
On April
16, 2009, the Company announced Freedom ’09, a one-time voluntary early out
program offered to eligible Employees, in which the Company offered cash
bonuses, medical/dental coverage for a specified period of time, and travel
privileges based on work group and years of service. The purpose of
this voluntary initiative and other initiatives is to right-size headcount in
conjunction with the Company’s current plans to reduce its capacity by five
percent in 2009, and to help reduce costs. Virtually all of the
Company’s Employees hired before March 31, 2008 were eligible to participate in
the program. Participants’ last day of work will fall between July
31, 2009 and April 15, 2010, as assigned by the Company based on the operational
needs of particular work locations and departments, determined on an
individual-by-individual basis. The Company did not have a target or
expectation for the number of Employees expected to accept the
package.
Employees
electing to participate in Freedom ’09 were required to notify the Company of
their election by June 19, 2009. However, Employees had until July
16, 2009 to rescind their election and remain with the
Company. Following the deadline to rescind such election, a total of
1,404 Employees have remained as participants in Freedom ‘09, consisting of the
following breakdown among workgroups: 439 from Customer Support and
Services, 464 from Ground Operations and Provisioning, 113 Flight Attendants, 20
Pilots, 91 from Maintenance, and 277 Managerial and Administrative
Employees. The Company expects the total cost incurred for Freedom
’09 to be approximately $70 million, which will be expensed during third quarter
2009. The Company may need to replace a small number of the positions
with newly hired Employees to meet operational demands; however, the Company
expects that most of the positions will not be filled based on the Company’s
recent capacity reductions.
14. SALE
AND LEASEBACK TRANSACTIONS
On April
2, 2009, the Company closed the first tranche of a two tranche sale and
leaseback transaction with a third party aircraft lessor for the sale and
leaseback of six of the Company's Boeing 737-700 aircraft. In the
first tranche, the Company sold three of its Boeing 737-700 aircraft for
approximately $105 million and immediately leased the aircraft back for
approximately 12 years. On May 19, 2009, the Company sold an
additional three of its Boeing 737-700 aircraft for approximately the same
amount and upon similar terms as in the first tranche. These two sale
and leaseback transactions resulted in deferred gains of $20 million, which will
be amortized over the terms of the leases.
All of
the leases from these sale-leasebacks are accounted for as operating
leases. Under the terms of the lease agreements, the Company will
continue to operate and maintain the aircraft. Payments under the
lease agreements will be reset every six months based on changes in the
six-month LIBO rate. The lease agreements contain standard termination events,
including termination upon a breach of the Company's obligations to make rental
payments and upon any other material breach of the Company's obligations under
the leases, and standard maintenance and return condition provisions. Upon a
termination of the lease upon a breach by the Company, the Company would be
liable for standard contractual damages, possibly including damages suffered by
the lessor in connection with remarketing the aircraft or while the aircraft is
not leased to another party.
15. SUBSEQUENT
EVENTS
On July
1, 2009, the Company entered into a term loan agreement providing for loans to
the Company aggregating up to $124 million, to be secured by mortgages on five
of the Company’s 737-700 aircraft. Subsequently, the Company borrowed
the full $124 million and secured this loan with the requisite five aircraft
mortgages. The loan matures on July 1, 2019, and is repayable
semi-annually in installments of principal beginning January 1,
2010. The loan bears interest at a fixed rate of 6.84 percent, and
interest is payable semi-annually, beginning January 1, 2010. The
Company used the proceeds from the term loan for general corporate
purposes.
Item
2. Management's
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
Comparative
Consolidated Operating Statistics
Relevant Southwest comparative
operating statistics for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008
are as follows:
|
|
Three
months ended June 30,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Change
|
|
Revenue
passengers carried
|
|
|
22,676,171 |
|
|
|
23,993,342 |
|
|
|
(5.5 |
)% |
Enplaned
passengers
|
|
|
26,505,438 |
|
|
|
27,550,957 |
|
|
|
(3.8 |
)% |
Revenue
passenger miles (RPMs) (000s)
|
|
|
19,683,479 |
|
|
|
19,811,541 |
|
|
|
(0.6 |
)% |
Available
seat miles (ASMs) (000s)
|
|
|
25,552,927 |
|
|
|
26,335,085 |
|
|
|
(3.0 |
)% |
Load
factor
|
|
|
77.0 |
% |
|
|
75.2 |
% |
|
1.8
pts
|
|
Average
length of passenger haul (miles)
|
|
|
868 |
|
|
|
826 |
|
|
|
5.1 |
% |
Average
aircraft stage length (miles)
|
|
|
647 |
|
|
|
636 |
|
|
|
1.7 |
% |
Trips
flown
|
|
|
289,573 |
|
|
|
303,432 |
|
|
|
(4.6 |
)% |
Average
passenger fare
|
|
$ |
110.52 |
|
|
$ |
114.48 |
|
|
|
(3.5 |
)% |
Passenger
revenue yield per RPM (cents)
|
|
|
12.73 |
|
|
|
13.86 |
|
|
|
(8.2 |
)% |
Operating
revenue yield per ASM (cents)
|
|
|
10.24 |
|
|
|
10.89 |
|
|
|
(6.0 |
)% |
Operating
expenses per ASM (cents)
|
|
|
9.76 |
|
|
|
10.12 |
|
|
|
(3.6 |
)% |
Fuel
costs per gallon, including fuel tax
|
|
$ |
1.95 |
|
|
$ |
2.42 |
|
|
|
(19.4 |
)% |
Fuel
consumed, in gallons (millions)
|
|
|
371 |
|
|
|
388 |
|
|
|
(4.4 |
)% |
Full-time
equivalent Employees at period-end*
|
|
|
35,296 |
|
|
|
34,936 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
% |
Aircraft
in service at period-end**
|
|
|
543 |
|
|
|
535 |
|
|
|
1.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
Headcount is defined as "Active" fulltime equivalent Employees for both
periods presented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**
Excludes any aircraft that have been removed from service and are held for
sale or for return to the lessor.
|
|
|
|
Six
months ended June 30,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Change
|
|
Revenue
passengers carried
|
|
|
42,435,861 |
|
|
|
45,498,163 |
|
|
|
(6.7 |
)% |
Enplaned
passengers
|
|
|
49,555,428 |
|
|
|
52,259,572 |
|
|
|
(5.2 |
)% |
Revenue
passenger miles (RPMs) (000s)
|
|
|
36,575,108 |
|
|
|
37,403,700 |
|
|
|
(2.2 |
)% |
Available
seat miles (ASMs) (000s)
|
|
|
49,724,602 |
|
|
|
51,528,522 |
|
|
|
(3.5 |
)% |
Load
factor
|
|
|
73.6 |
% |
|
|
72.6 |
% |
|
1.0
pts
|
|
Average
length of passenger haul (miles)
|
|
|
862 |
|
|
|
822 |
|
|
|
4.9 |
% |
Average
aircraft stage length (miles)
|
|
|
641 |
|
|
|
632 |
|
|
|
1.4 |
% |
Trips
flown
|
|
|
568,708 |
|
|
|
598,222 |
|
|
|
(4.9 |
)% |
Average
passenger fare
|
|
$ |
112.13 |
|
|
$ |
113.42 |
|
|
|
(1.1 |
)% |
Passenger
revenue yield per RPM (cents)
|
|
|
13.01 |
|
|
|
13.80 |
|
|
|
(5.7 |
)% |
Operating
revenue yield per ASM (cents)
|
|
|
10.00 |
|
|
|
10.48 |
|
|
|
(4.6 |
)% |
Operating
expenses per ASM (cents)
|
|
|
9.85 |
|
|
|
9.91 |
|
|
|
(0.6 |
)% |
Fuel
costs per gallon, including fuel tax
|
|
$ |
1.97 |
|
|
$ |
2.28 |
|
|
|
(13.6 |
)% |
Fuel
consumed, in gallons (millions)
|
|
|
721 |
|
|
|
761 |
|
|
|
(5.3 |
)% |
Full-time
equivalent Employees at period-end*
|
|
|
35,296 |
|
|
|
34,936 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
% |
Aircraft
in service at period-end**
|
|
|
543 |
|
|
|
535 |
|
|
|
1.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
Headcount is defined as "Active" fulltime equivalent Employees for both
periods presented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**
Excludes any aircraft that have been removed from service and are held for
sale or for return to the lessor.
|
|
Material
Changes in Results of Operations
Summary
During
second quarter 2009, Southwest recorded net income of $91 million, or $.12
income per share, diluted, versus the Company’s second quarter 2008 net income
of $321 million, or $.44 per share, diluted. More than 70 percent of
the reduction in net income versus the same prior year period was due to a
difference in recorded adjustments related to derivative contracts the Company
utilizes in attempting to hedge against jet fuel price increases. In
second quarter 2008, the Company recorded significant unrealized gains from
marking to market derivatives used for hedging purposes, but that do not qualify
for special hedge accounting, as defined in SFAS 133. See Note 5 to the
unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for further information on
the Company’s hedging activities and accounting associated with derivative
instruments. Primarily as a result of second quarter 2008 increases
in prices for fuel derivatives that have or will subsequently settle after June
30, 2008, that were ineffective, as defined, or that did not qualify for special
hedge accounting, the Company recorded $361 million in net gains, which are
included in “Other (gains) losses, net.” In second quarter 2009, the
Company recorded a total of $63 million in net gains associated with fuel
derivatives that were ineffective, as defined, or that did not qualify for
special hedge accounting, in “Other (gains) losses, net.” The
majority of the remainder of the decrease in net income versus second quarter
2008 was due to a decline in demand for domestic air travel as a result of the
current U.S. and global recession. This decline in demand resulted in
fewer full-fare passengers and more fare discounting, which depressed yields,
and occurred despite the Company, as well as most other airlines, reducing
capacity versus the prior year. The Company experienced a 5.9 percent
decrease in passenger revenue yield per available seat mile (ASM) versus second
quarter 2008.
The
Company’s operating expenses declined 6.4 percent versus second quarter 2008,
the majority of which was attributable to lower fuel prices. Overall,
for second quarter 2009, the Company’s average jet fuel cost per gallon
(including related fuel taxes) decreased 19.4 percent compared to second quarter
2008, inclusive of gains and/or losses from fuel contract settlements and
related SFAS 133 adjustments included in “Fuel and oil” expense. Cash
settlements associated with fuel hedging were a loss of $60 million in second
quarter 2009 versus cash settlement gains of $511 million in second quarter
2008. However, despite this disparity, overall fuel expense declined
year-over-year primarily due to the dramatic decline in physical jet fuel
prices. For second quarter 2009, the Company had operating income of
$123 million compared to second quarter 2008 operating income of $205 million as
the reduction in revenues exceeded the benefit of lower Fuel and oil
expenses.
The
Company continues its diligent cost control efforts and remains committed to
maintaining its competitive cost advantage to sustain its strong low fare
brand. In addition to other cost containment measures, the Company
has a hiring freeze in place, as well as a pay freeze for all Company officers
and senior management. Also, during second quarter 2009, the Company
announced an early out option available for the vast majority of its
Employees. This voluntary separation program provides cash bonuses,
health care coverage for a specified period of time, and certain extended flight
privileges to eligible Employees who elect early retirement under the
program. The program was offered due to overstaffing created by the
Company’s prior decisions to reduce its capacity during 2009. A total
of 1,404 Employees elected to accept this early out offer, which will result in
approximately $70 million in nonrecurring cost to the Company in third quarter
2009. The Company currently expects annual savings in subsequent
years from the program to eventually exceed the cost incurred. See
Note 13 to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for further
information. Despite the Company’s overall reduction in capacity
during 2009, it continues to add flights and new markets through a continual
flight schedule optimization, which involves trimming unproductive and less
popular flights and reallocating capacity to fund market growth
opportunities. During the first half of 2009, the Company began
service to Minneapolis-St. Paul (in March) and New York’s LaGuardia airport (in
June). During the second half of the year, the Company expects to
begin service to Boston’s Logan International Airport (in August) and to
Milwaukee International Airport (in November.)
For the
six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company had breakeven results on both a net
basis and a per share, diluted, basis versus first half 2008 net income of $355
million, or $.48 per share, diluted. Results in each year were also
impacted by adjustments related to derivative contracts the Company utilizes in
attempting to hedge against jet fuel price increases. Due to the
significant unrealized adjustments recorded to “Other (gains) losses, net,”
which is below the operating income line, the Company believes operating income
provides a better indication of the Company’s financial performance in both
years than does net income. For the six months ended June 30, 2009,
the Company had operating income of $73 million versus first half 2008 operating
income of $293 million. The decline of $220 million or 75.1 percent
primarily was attributable to a 7.9 percent decrease in operating revenues as a
result of lower passenger yields, which more than offset realized savings from
lower fuel prices.
In second
quarter 2009, the Company received eight new Boeing 737-700s and retired four
Boeing 737-300 aircraft from service. The Company has only two
additional deliveries of new Boeing 737-700s scheduled during the remainder of
2009, but also plans to sell, retire and/or return from lease ten of its
existing Boeing 737 aircraft during the remainder of 2009. Overall,
the Company currently expects to end 2009 with 535 aircraft, which is a net
reduction of two aircraft for the year, and to fly approximately five to six
percent fewer ASMs than it flew in 2008. Based on current plans, the
Company expects its third quarter 2009 ASM capacity to decrease approximately
six to seven percent versus third quarter 2008. The Company’s
cautious strategy is designed to enable it to match flights with expected demand
in the current economic environment. However, the Company believes it
has retained the flexibility to enable it to begin growing again once economic
conditions improve.
Comparison
of three months ended June 30, 2009, to three months ended June 30,
2008
Revenues
Consolidated operating revenues
decreased by $253 million, or 8.8 percent, primarily due to a $241 million, or
8.8 percent, decrease in Passenger revenues. The majority of the
overall decrease in Passenger revenues was due to an 8.2 percent decrease in
Passenger yield per Revenue Passenger Mile (RPM yield), as full fare bookings
were down versus the prior year and the Company increased the amount of fare
discounting and fare sales in response to the decline in demand for air travel
amid current domestic economic conditions. As a result of the
Company’s fare discounting efforts and overall 3.0 percent reduction in ASM
capacity (ASMs), load factors increased 1.8 points to 77.0 percent in second
quarter 2009. The overall decline in operating revenues, combined
with the lower capacity led to a 6.0 percent decline in operating revenue yield
per ASM (unit revenue).
The Company has recently implemented
several programs and processes that it believes will create substantial
opportunities for revenue growth, and has more planned for the fall, including
the launch of a new and improved southwest.com, and several related products and
initiatives. However, demand for business travel remains weak, and
the Company continues to stimulate traffic with more discounted and promotional
fares. Unless demand rebounds significantly, the Company expects
third quarter 2009 unit revenues to decline year-over-year more than the second
quarter 2009 decline of six percent due to more difficult
comparisons.
Consolidated freight revenues decreased
by $8 million, or 21.6 percent, primarily due to fewer shipments as a result of
the ongoing worldwide recession. The Company expects a comparable
decrease in consolidated freight revenues for third quarter 2009 compared to
third quarter 2008. Other revenues decreased by $4 million, or 4.7
percent, compared to second quarter 2008. The majority of the
decrease was due to lower charter revenues. Second quarter 2008
charter revenues were unusually high due to bankruptcies and discontinuation of
service by some of the Company’s competitors. The Company expects
Other revenues for third quarter 2009 to improve versus third quarter 2008, due
to a number of revenue improvement initiatives, such as fees recently announced
for unaccompanied minors and pets, as well as an increase in fees already
charged for Customers checking a third bag.
Operating
expenses
Consolidated operating expenses for
second quarter 2009 decreased $171 million, or 6.4 percent, compared to second
quarter 2008, versus a 3.0 percent decrease in capacity compared to second
quarter 2008. Historically, except for changes in the price of fuel,
changes in operating expenses for airlines are typically driven by changes in
capacity, or ASMs. The following presents Southwest’s operating
expenses per ASM for second quarter 2009 and second quarter 2008 followed by
explanations of these changes on a per-ASM basis and/or on a dollar basis (in
cents, except for percentages):
|
|
Three
months ended June 30, |
|
|
Per
ASM
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salaries,
wages, and benefits
|
|
|
3.38 |
|
|
|
3.19 |
|
|
|
.19 |
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
Fuel
and oil
|
|
|
2.84 |
|
|
|
3.59 |
|
|
|
(.75 |
) |
|
|
(20.9 |
) |
Maintenance
materials
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and
repairs
|
|
|
.74 |
|
|
|
.73 |
|
|
|
.01 |
|
|
|
1.4 |
|
Aircraft
rentals
|
|
|
.19 |
|
|
|
.14 |
|
|
|
.05 |
|
|
|
35.7 |
|
Landing
fees and other rentals
|
|
|
.70 |
|
|
|
.60 |
|
|
|
.10 |
|
|
|
16.7 |
|
Depreciation
|
|
|
.59 |
|
|
|
.56 |
|
|
|
.03 |
|
|
|
5.4 |
|
Other
operating expenses
|
|
|
1.32 |
|
|
|
1.31 |
|
|
|
.01 |
|
|
|
.8 |
|
Total
|
|
|
9.76 |
|
|
|
10.12 |
|
|
|
(.36 |
) |
|
|
(3.6 |
) |
Operating
expenses per ASM for the three months ended June 30, 2009, were 9.76 cents, a
3.6 percent decrease compared to 10.12 cents for second quarter
2008. The decrease primarily was due to a decline in fuel and oil
expense. The Company’s fuel cost per gallon, net of hedging, declined
19.4 percent versus second quarter 2008. Excluding fuel and oil, the
Company’s operating expense per ASM increased versus second quarter 2008
primarily due to higher wage rates. In addition, the decline in
capacity versus second quarter 2008 has caused many of the Company’s fixed costs
to be spread over a smaller quantity of ASMs. On a dollar basis, the
majority of the $171 million overall decrease in operating expenses was due to a
$219 million decline in Fuel and oil expense, the majority of which was due to a
lower fuel cost per gallon. Partially offsetting this decrease was a
$24 million increase in salaries, wages, and benefits and a $20 million increase
in landing fees and other rentals. Excluding fuel and third quarter
2009 charges associated with Freedom ’09, the Company's voluntary out program,
and based on current cost trends and lower available seat miles, the Company
expects third quarter 2009 unit costs to increase approximately 7 percent from
third quarter 2008’s 6.67 cents. Furthermore, the Company is not
immune to the effects of the debilitating economic environment. Based
on weak travel demand and fuel price volatility, and excluding the impact of
Freedom ’09 and any ineffectiveness or mark to market adjustments associated
with fuel derivative instruments, the Company cannot predict a profitable third
quarter 2009. See Note 13 to the unaudited condensed consolidated
financial statements for more information on Freedom ’09.
Salaries, wages, and benefits expense
per ASM for the three months ended June 30, 2009, increased 6.0 percent compared
to second quarter 2008, and on a dollar basis increased $24
million. The majority of the increase per ASM was due to wage rate
increases. These rate increases were a result of both completed and
ongoing labor contract negotiations with various unionized Employee workgroups
and rate increases associated with promotions and increased seniority of
existing Employees. This increase was partially offset by a decrease
in profitsharing expense versus second quarter 2008. The Company’s
profitsharing accruals are based on year-to-date income before taxes, primarily
excluding unrealized gains and losses from fuel derivative contracts; therefore,
profitsharing expense for second quarter 2009 was $12 million, versus $37
million in second quarter 2008. On a dollar basis, there was a $31
million increase in salaries, primarily as a result of higher wage rates, and an
$18 million increase in health benefits expense. These were partially
offset by the $25 million decline in profitsharing expense. Based on
current trends and considering ongoing labor negotiations, the Company expects
third quarter 2009 salaries, wages, and benefits expense per ASM, excluding
charges associated with the Company's voluntary out program, to increase from
third quarter 2008's 3.25 cents per ASM.
The Company’s Pilots, totaling
approximately 5,600 active Employees, are subject to an agreement between the
Company and the Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association (“SWAPA”), which became
amendable during September 2006. During first quarter 2009, the
Company and SWAPA came to a tentative agreement on a new contract extending to
2011. The tentative agreement was voted down by SWAPA membership
during second quarter 2009, and the Company has restarted negotiations with
SWAPA.
The
Company’s Customer Service and Reservations Agents, totaling approximately 4,700
active Employees, are subject to an agreement between the Company and the
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (“IAM”),
which became amendable in November 2008. During second quarter 2009,
the Company and IAM came to a tentative agreement on a new contract extending to
2012. The tentative agreement was approved by IAM membership during
second quarter 2009.
The
Company’s Flight Attendants, totaling approximately 9,300 active Employees, are
subject to an agreement between the Company and the Transportation Workers of
America, AFL-CIO Local 556 (“TWU 556”), which became amendable in June
2008. During first quarter 2009, the Company and TWU 556 came to a
tentative agreement on a new contract extending to 2012. The
tentative agreement was approved by TWU 556 membership during second quarter
2009.
Fuel and
oil expense for the three months ended June 30, 2009, decreased $219 million,
and on a per ASM basis decreased 20.9 percent, primarily due to lower average
prices. Excluding hedging, but including related fuel taxes in both
years, the Company’s average fuel cost per gallon in second quarter 2009 was
$1.63 versus $3.64 in second quarter 2008. However, the Company had a
worse performance from its fuel hedging program in second quarter 2009 versus
the same prior year period. As a result of these positions, and
overall lower physical prices for crude oil, jet fuel, and related products
compared to second quarter 2008, the Company had hedging losses reflected in
Fuel and oil expense totaling $119 million, while second quarter 2008 hedging
gains recorded in Fuel and oil expense were $475 million. Including the
effects of hedging activities, the Company’s average fuel cost per gallon in
second quarter 2009 was $1.95, which was 19.4 percent lower than second quarter
2008.
As of June 30, 2009, the Company had
fuel derivative instruments in place for approximately 30 percent of its
expected third quarter 2009 jet fuel consumption on an economic basis, the
majority of which effectively cap prices in the low $70 per barrel range of
crude oil. In addition to these positions, the Company also had
unsettled fuel derivative instruments relating to fourth quarter 2009 through
2013 whereby it has previously fixed some losses that will impact earnings in
these future periods. The Company’s current “economic hedge” position
for third quarter 2009 excludes these previously “fixed” fuel
contracts.
As a result of these previously fixed
losses, the Company expects to pay higher than market prices for fuel for the
remainder of 2009 through 2013. In addition, as a result of previous
hedges that have been “undesignated” as defined in SFAS 133, the Company has
significant amounts “frozen” in AOCI that will be recognized in earnings in
future periods when the underlying fuel derivative contracts
settle. As discussed in Note 6 to the unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements, the Company has deferred losses in AOCI of
$785 million, net of tax, related to fuel derivative contracts. The
estimated fair market value (as of June 30, 2009) of the Company’s net fuel
derivative contracts for the remainder of 2009 through 2013 reflects a net
liability of approximately $338 million, including the effect of $425 million in
cash collateral that had been provided to counterparties as of June 30, 2009,
which has been netted against the Company’s liability in the unaudited Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet. The following table displays the
Company’s estimated fair value of remaining fuel derivative contracts (not
considering the impact of the $425 million in cash collateral provided to
counterparties) as well as the amount of deferred losses in AOCI at June 30,
2009, and the expected future periods in which these items are expected to
settle and/or be recognized in earnings (in millions):
|
|
Fair
value
|
|
|
Amount
of
|
|
|
|
(liability)
of fuel
|
|
|
(losses)
deferred
|
|
|
|
derivative
contracts
|
|
|
in
AOCI at June 30,
|
|
Year
|
|
at
June 30, 2009
|
|
|
2009
(net of tax)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
2009
|
|
$ |
(92 |
) |
|
$ |
(154 |
) |
2010
|
|
$ |
(160 |
) |
|
$ |
(238 |
) |
2011
|
|
$ |
(221 |
) |
|
$ |
(164 |
) |
2012
|
|
$ |
(155 |
) |
|
$ |
(117 |
) |
2013
|
|
$ |
(135 |
) |
|
$ |
(112 |
) |
Total
|
|
$ |
(763 |
) |
|
$ |
(785 |
) |
Based on this liability at June 30,
2009 (and precluding any other subsequent changes to the fuel hedge portfolio),
the Company’s jet fuel costs per gallon are expected to exceed market (i.e.,
unhedged prices) during each of these periods. This is based primarily on
expected future cash settlements associated with fuel derivatives, but excludes
any SFAS 133 impact associated with the ineffectiveness of fuel hedges or fuel
derivatives that are marked to market value because they did not qualify for
special hedge accounting. See Note 5 to the unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements for further information. Based on
the Company’s derivative position and market prices as of July 20, 2009, the
Company is currently estimating its third quarter 2009 jet fuel cost per gallon
to decline significantly year-over-year to approximately $2.15 per gallon,
including fuel related taxes, but excluding the effects of any ineffectiveness
and mark to market adjustments from the Company’s fuel hedging
program. For full year 2009, the Company currently estimates its jet
fuel cost per gallon, including fuel related taxes, but excluding the effects of
any ineffectiveness and mark to market adjustments from the Company’s fuel
hedging program, to be less than $2.00.
The
Company has also continued its efforts to conserve fuel and, by the end of 2009,
expects to complete the installation of Aviation Partners Boeing Blended
Winglets on a total of 112 of its 737-300 aircraft (all 737-700 aircraft have
already been equipped with winglets). This and other fuel
conservation efforts resulted in an approximate 1.4 percent decrease in the
Company’s fuel burn rate per ASM for second quarter 2009 versus second quarter
2008.
Maintenance materials and repairs
expense for the three months ended June 30, 2009, was approximately flat on a
dollar basis compared to second quarter 2008, but increased 1.4 percent on a
per-ASM basis compared to second quarter 2008. The increase on a
per-ASM basis primarily was associated with a larger decrease in ASMs than the
decrease in expense. In late June 2008, the Company transitioned to a
new engine repair agreement related to its 737-700 aircraft fleet and expense is
now based on flight hours associated with 737-700
engines. Considering the new agreement, the Company expects
Maintenance materials and repairs per ASM for third quarter 2009 to be in the
high .70s cents per ASM range, based on currently scheduled airframe maintenance
events and projected engine hours flown.
Aircraft rentals per ASM for the three
months ended June 30, 2009, increased 35.7 percent compared to second quarter
2008, and, on a dollar basis, increased $9 million. Both of these
increases primarily were due to the Company’s recent sale and leaseback
transactions involving a total of 16 Boeing 737-700 aircraft. See
Note 14 to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for further
information. As a result of these transactions, the Company expects
aircraft rentals per ASM in third quarter 2009 to increase from the .19 cents
experienced during second quarter 2009.
Landing
fees and other rentals for the three months ended June 30, 2009, increased $20
million on a dollar basis, and increased 16.7 percent on a per ASM basis
compared to second quarter 2008. The majority of these increases were
due to higher space rentals in airports as a result of higher rates charged by
those airports for gate and terminal space. A portion of these higher
rates charged by airports is due to the fact that other airlines reduced
capacity at a faster pace than the Company’s 3.0 percent reduction, resulting in
the Company incurring a higher percentage of total airport-related
costs. As a consequence, the Company currently also expects Landing
fees and other rentals per ASM in third quarter 2009 to be higher than the .70
cents per ASM recorded in second quarter 2009, primarily due to these higher
rates.
Depreciation expense for the three
months ended June 30, 2009, increased by $2 million on a dollar basis compared
to second quarter 2008, and increased 5.4 percent on a per-ASM
basis. Both of these increases primarily were due to capitalized
software costs associated with various Company projects. On a dollar
basis, this increase was mostly offset by the Company’s execution of sale and
leasebacks of 16 Boeing 737-700 aircraft over the past twelve
months. See Note 14 to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements. For third quarter 2009, the Company expects Depreciation
expense per ASM to increase versus second quarter 2009’s .59 cents as a result
of an anticipated decline in ASMs.
Other operating expenses per ASM for
the three months ended June 30, 2009, were flat compared to second quarter 2008,
and on a dollar basis, decreased $6 million. On a dollar basis, the
decrease was related to a decline in bad debts related to revenues from credit
card sales. For third quarter 2009, the Company currently expects Other
operating expenses per ASM to be higher than third quarter 2008’s 1.33 cents due
to higher expected advertising expense.
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 August 31, 2009. 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
Interest expense for the three months
ended June 30, 2009, increased $15 million, or 46.9 percent, compared to second
quarter 2008, primarily due to the Company’s borrowing under its $600 million
term loan in May 2008, its December 2008 issuance of $400 million of secured
notes, and the Company’s borrowing under its $332 million term loan in May
2009. As a result of these transactions, the Company also expects
higher year-over-year interest expense for third quarter 2009. See
Note 9 to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements.
Capitalized interest for the three
months ended June 30, 2009, decreased $1 million, or 16.7 percent, compared to
the same prior year period primarily due to a decline in interest rates and a
decrease in progress payment balances for scheduled future aircraft
deliveries.
Interest income for the three months
ended June 30, 2009, decreased by $2 million, or 40.0 percent, compared to the
same prior year period, primarily due to a decrease in rates earned on invested
cash and short-term investments. In second quarter 2008, the
Company’s cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments included a
significant amount of collateral deposits received from a counterparty of the
Company’s fuel derivative instruments. Although these amounts were
not restricted in any way, the Company was required to remit the investment
earnings from these amounts back to the counterparty. See Item 3 of
Part I for further information on collateral deposits and Note 5 to the
unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for further information on
fuel derivative instruments.
Other (gains) losses, net, primarily
includes amounts recorded in accordance with the Company’s hedging activities
and SFAS 133. The following table displays the components of Other
(gains) losses, net, for the three months ended June 30, 2009 and
2008:
|
|
Three
months ended June 30, |
|
(In
millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
Mark-to-market
impact from fuel contracts settling in future
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
periods
- included in Other (gains) losses, net
|
|
$ |
(37 |
) |
|
$ |
(369 |
) |
Ineffectiveness
from fuel hedges settling in future periods -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
included
in Other (gains) losses, net
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
14 |
|
Realized
ineffectiveness and mark-to-market (gains) or
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
losses
- included in Other (gains) losses, net
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
Premium
cost of fuel contracts included in Other (gains) losses,
net
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
Other
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
$ |
(23 |
) |
|
$ |
(345 |
) |
Based on
the Company’s current fuel derivative contracts position, for the expense
related to amounts excluded from the Company's measurements of hedge
effectiveness (i.e., the premium cost of option and collar derivative
contracts), the Company expects expense of approximately $30 million relating to
these items in third quarter 2009.
The Company’s effective tax rate was
15.2 percent in second quarter 2009 compared to 39.3 percent in second quarter
2008. The lower rate in second quarter 2009 primarily was due to the
Company’s forecast that financial results for the full year 2009 will be lower
than the Company’s financial results for full year 2008, and the impact that
permanent tax differences have on the full year 2009 forecasted financial
results.
Comparison
of six months ended June 30, 2009, to six months ended June 30,
2008
Revenues
Consolidated operating revenues
decreased by $427 million, or 7.9 percent, primarily due to a $403 million, or
7.8 percent, decrease in Passenger revenues. Over 70 percent of the
overall decrease in Passenger revenues was due to a 5.7 percent decrease in
Passenger yield per Revenue Passenger Mile (RPM yield), as full fare bookings
were down versus the prior year and the Company increased the amount of fare
discounting and fare sales in response to the decline in demand for air travel
amid current domestic economic conditions. The majority of the
remainder of the Passenger revenue decrease was due to the 3.5 percent reduction
in capacity (ASMs) versus the prior year. These declines were
partially offset by a slight increase in load factors for the six months ended
June 30, 2009 versus the same prior year period, as a result of the Company’s
fare discounting efforts and overall reduction in capacity. The
overall decline in operating revenues combined with the lower capacity led to a
4.6 percent decline in operating revenue yield per ASM (unit
revenue).
Consolidated freight revenues decreased
by $13 million, or 18.3 percent, primarily due to fewer shipments as a result of
the ongoing worldwide recession. Other revenues decreased by $11
million, or 6.6 percent, compared to the first half of 2008. The
majority of the decrease was due to lower charter revenues. Charter
revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2008, were unusually high due to
bankruptcies and discontinuation of service by some of the Company’s
competitors.
Operating
expenses
Consolidated operating expenses for
first half 2009 decreased $207 million, or 4.1 percent, compared to first half
2008, versus a 3.5 percent decrease in capacity compared to the first half of
the prior year. Historically, except for changes in the price of
fuel, changes in operating expenses for airlines are typically driven by changes
in capacity, or ASMs. The following presents Southwest’s operating
expenses per ASM for the six months ended June 30, 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):
|
|
Six
months ended June 30, |
|
|
Per
ASM
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salaries,
wages, and benefits
|
|
|
3.42 |
|
|
|
3.18 |
|
|
|
.24 |
|
|
|
7.5 |
|
Fuel
and oil
|
|
|
2.86 |
|
|
|
3.38 |
|
|
|
(.52 |
) |
|
|
(15.4 |
) |
Maintenance
materials
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and
repairs
|
|
|
.75 |
|
|
|
.65 |
|
|
|
.10 |
|
|
|
15.4 |
|
Aircraft
rentals
|
|
|
.19 |
|
|
|
.15 |
|
|
|
.04 |
|
|
|
26.7 |
|
Landing
fees and other rentals
|
|
|
.69 |
|
|
|
.64 |
|
|
|
.05 |
|
|
|
7.8 |
|
Depreciation
|
|
|
.60 |
|
|
|
.57 |
|
|
|
.03 |
|
|
|
5.3 |
|
Other
operating expenses
|
|
|
1.34 |
|
|
|
1.34 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
9.85 |
|
|
|
9.91 |
|
|
|
(.06 |
) |
|
|
(.6 |
) |
Operating expenses per ASM for the six
months ended June 30, 2009, were 9.85 cents, slightly lower compared to 9.91
cents for first half 2008. This decrease primarily was due to a
decline in fuel costs, which was mostly offset by higher wages, as a result of
higher wage rates, and higher maintenance materials and repairs
expense. In addition, the decline in capacity versus first half 2008
has caused the Company’s fixed costs to be spread over a smaller quantity of
ASMs. On a dollar basis, the majority of the $207 million overall
decrease was due to a $322 million decline in Fuel and oil
expense. Approximately 74 percent of this decrease was due to a lower
fuel cost per gallon and the remainder was due to the reduction in fuel
consumption. The decline in Fuel and oil expense was partially offset
by increases in salaries, wages, and benefits and maintenance materials and
repairs expense.
Salaries, wages, and benefits expense
per ASM for the six months ended June 30, 2009, increased 7.5 percent compared
to first half 2008, and on a dollar basis increased $60
million. These increases primarily were due to wage rate
increases. These rate increases were a result of both completed and
ongoing labor contract negotiations with various unionized Employee workgroups
and rate increases associated with promotions and increased seniority of
existing Employees. This increase was partially offset by a $37
million, or 74.7 percent decrease in profitsharing expense versus first half
2008.
Fuel and
oil expense for the six months ended June 30, 2009, decreased $322 million, and
on a per ASM basis decreased 15.4 percent, primarily due to lower average
prices, excluding the impact of hedging. Excluding hedging, but including
related fuel taxes in both years, the Company’s average fuel cost per gallon in
first half 2009 was $1.60 versus $3.29 in first half 2008. Primarily
as a result of a difference in the fuel derivative portfolio held by the Company
in 2009 versus 2008, and overall lower physical prices for crude oil, jet fuel,
and related products compared to first half 2008, the Company had hedging losses
reflected in Fuel and oil expense totaling $265 million (of which $125 million
was cash settlements paid to counterparties and $140 million was unrealized
losses associated with derivative contracts settling in the first half of 2009),
while first half 2008 hedging gains recorded in Fuel and oil expense were $766
million. Including the effects of hedging activities, the Company’s average fuel
cost per gallon in first half 2009 was $1.97, which was 13.6 percent lower than
first half 2008. The Company’s fuel conservation efforts resulted in
an approximate 2.1 percent decrease in the Company’s fuel burn rate per ASM for
first half 2009 versus first half 2008.
Maintenance materials and repairs
expense for the six months ended June 30, 2009, increased $40 million or 12.0
percent on a dollar basis compared to first half 2008, and increased 15.4
percent on a per-ASM basis compared to first half 2008. On both a
dollar and a per-ASM basis, the increases compared to first half 2008 were due
to higher engine costs related to the Company’s 737-700 aircraft. For
most of the first half of 2008, these aircraft engines had been accounted for on
a time and materials basis, and there were relatively few repair events for
these engines during that period. This was due to the fact that the
737-700 is the newest aircraft type in the Company’s fleet, and there were not
yet a significant number of engines on these aircraft that were due for their
first major overhaul. In late June 2008, the Company transitioned to
a new engine repair agreement for these aircraft and expense is now based on
flight hours associated with 737-700 engines. The expense for 737-700 engines
recognized in the first half of 2009 associated with the current agreement
significantly exceeded the expense recognized in first half 2008, when repairs
were still being accounted for on a time and materials basis.
Aircraft rentals per ASM for the six
months ended June 30, 2009, increased 26.7 percent compared to first half 2008,
and, on a dollar basis, increased $17 million. Both of these
increases primarily were due to the Company’s recent sale and leaseback
transactions involving a total of 16 Boeing 737-700 aircraft. See
Note 14 to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for further
information.
Landing
fees and other rentals for the six months ended June 30, 2009, increased $15
million on a dollar basis, and on a per ASM basis was 7.8 percent higher than
first half 2008. The majority of the increases on both a dollar and a
per ASM basis were due to higher space rentals in airports as a result of higher
rates charged by those airports for gate and terminal space. A
portion of these higher rates charged by airports were due to the fact that
other airlines reduced capacity at a faster pace than the Company, resulting in
the Company incurring a higher percentage of total airport-related
costs.
Depreciation expense for the six months
ended June 30, 2009, increased by $7 million on a dollar basis compared to first
half 2008, and increased 5.3 percent on a per-ASM basis. The increase
on a dollar basis primarily was due to the Company’s net addition of eight
Boeing 737s to its fleet over the past twelve months. This included
the purchase of 16 new 737-700s from Boeing, net of six 737-300s returned from
lease and two owned 737-300 aircraft retired from service. In
addition, the Company executed sale and leasebacks of 16 737-700
aircraft. See Note 14 to the unaudited condensed consolidated
financial statements for information on some of these recent transactions. The
increase on a per-ASM basis primarily was due to the increase in the Company’s
fleet size combined with a decrease in ASMs as a result of the Company’s
decision to slow its growth given current economic conditions.
Other operating expenses per ASM for
the six months ended June 30, 2009, were flat compared to first half 2008, but
on a dollar basis decreased $24 million. On a dollar basis, the
decrease primarily was related to a decline in bad debts related to revenues
from credit card sales.
Other
Interest expense for the six months
ended June 30, 2009, increased $32 million, or 53.3 percent, compared to first
half 2008, primarily due to the Company’s borrowing under its $600 million term
loan in May 2008, its December 2008 issuance of $400 million of secured notes,
and the Company’s borrowing under its $332 million term loan in May
2009.
Capitalized interest for the six months
ended June 30, 2009, decreased $3 million, or 21.4 percent, compared to the same
prior year period primarily due to a decline in interest rates and a decrease in
progress payment balances for scheduled future aircraft deliveries.
Interest income for the six months
ended June 30, 2009, decreased by $4 million, or 33.3 percent, compared to the
same prior year period, primarily due to a decrease in rates earned on invested
cash and short-term investments.
Other (gains) losses, net, primarily
includes amounts recorded in accordance with the Company’s hedging activities
and SFAS 133. The following table displays the components of Other
(gains) losses, net, for the six months ended June 30, 2009 and
2008:
|
|
Six
months ended June 30, |
|
(In
millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
(As
restated)
|
|
|
|
|
Mark-to-market
impact from fuel contracts settling in future
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
periods
- included in Other (gains) losses, net
|
|
$ |
(39 |
) |
|
$ |
(373 |
) |
Ineffectiveness
from fuel hedges settling in future periods -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
included
in Other (gains) losses, net
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
19 |
|
Realized
ineffectiveness and mark-to-market (gains) or
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
losses
- included in Other (gains) losses, net
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
17 |
|
Premium
cost of fuel contracts included in Other (gains) losses,
net
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
Other
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
(307 |
) |
Based on the breakeven financial
results for the first half of 2009, the Company did not record any income tax
expense for this period, which compared to a rate of 39.3 percent in the first
half of 2008.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Net cash provided by operating
activities was $135 million for the three months ended June 30, 2009, compared
to $2.3 billion provided by operating activities in the same prior year
period. For the six months ended June 30, 2009, net cash provided by
operations was $420 million compared to $3.3 billion for the same prior year
period. The operating cash flows for the first half of 2008 were
largely impacted by counterparty deposits received associated with the Company’s
fuel hedging program. There was an increase in counterparty deposits
of $2.4 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2008, versus a decrease
(outflow) of $185 million during the six months ended June 30,
2009. Counterparty deposits are netted against the fair value of the
fuel derivative instruments to which they relate in the unaudited Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet—see Note 5 to the unaudited condensed consolidated
financial statements. The fluctuations in these deposits in both
years have been due to large changes in the fair value of the Company’s fuel
derivatives portfolio. See also Item 3 of Part I for further
information. Cash flows from operating activities for both years were
also impacted by changes in Air traffic liability. For the six months
ended June 30, 2009, there was a $244 million increase in Air traffic liability,
as a result of bookings for future travel. This compared to the prior
year’s $372 million increase in Air traffic liability. Net cash
provided by operating activities is primarily used to finance capital
expenditures and provide working capital.
Net cash
flows used in investing activities during the three months ended June 30, 2009,
totaled $377 million compared to $1.3 billion used in investing activities in
the same prior year period. For the six months ended June 30, 2009,
net cash used in investing activities was $1.0 billion compared to $1.4 billion
used in investing activities for the same 2008 period. Investing
activities for the first half of both years consisted of payments for new
737-700 aircraft delivered to the Company and progress payments for future
aircraft deliveries, as well as changes in the balance of the Company’s
short-term investments and noncurrent investments. During the six
months ended June 30, 2009, the Company’s short-term and noncurrent investments
increased by a net $743 million, versus a net increase of $802 million during
the same prior year period.
Net cash
provided by financing activities during the three months ended June 30, 2009,
was $43 million compared to $599 million provided by financing activities for
the same period in 2008. For the six months ended June 30, 2009, net
cash provided by financing activities was $172 million versus $529 million
provided by financing activities for the same 2008 period. During the
six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company raised $381 million from the sale
and leaseback of eleven 737-700 aircraft and borrowed $332 million under a term
loan agreement. See Notes 9 and 14 to the unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements for further information Also
during the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company repaid the $400 million
and $91 million it had borrowed during 2008 under its revolving credit agreement
and a credit line borrowing, respectively. During the six months
ended June 30, 2008, the Company borrowed $600 million under a term loan
agreement entered into during May 2008, and repurchased $54 million of its
Common Stock, representing a total of 4.4 million shares.
The
Company has a “well-known seasoned issuer” universal shelf registration
statement, effective April 3, 2009, to register an indeterminate amount of
debt or equity securities for future sales. The Company intends to use the
proceeds from any future securities sales off this shelf for general corporate
purposes. The Company has not issued any securities under this shelf
registration statement to date.
Contractual
Obligations and Contingent Liabilities and Commitments
Southwest has contractual obligations
and commitments primarily for future purchases of aircraft, payment of debt, and
lease arrangements. Through the first six months of 2009, the Company
purchased eleven new 737-700 aircraft from Boeing and is scheduled to receive
two more 737-700 aircraft from Boeing during the remainder of
2009. The Company also retired five of its older 737-300 aircraft
from service (three leased and two owned) during the first six months of
2009. The Company also completed the sale and leaseback of eleven of
its previously owned 737-700 aircraft during the first half of
2009. However, these transactions have no impact on the Company’s
future aircraft commitments with Boeing. See Note 14 to the unaudited
condensed consolidated financial statements for further information on recent
sale and leaseback transactions. Based on recent economic events and
announced industry capacity reductions, the Company continues to evaluate its
plans with regards to planned aircraft retirements and future deliveries from
Boeing. The Company currently plans to reduce its fleet by ten
additional aircraft during the remainder of 2009 through a combination of lease
returns, aircraft sales, and/or retirements, resulting in a fleet totaling 535
Boeing 737 aircraft as of December 31, 2009. As of July 20, 2009,
Southwest’s firm orders and options to purchase new 737-700 aircraft from Boeing
are reflected in the following table:
|
|
The
Boeing Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Firm
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Rights
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
13
|
* |
2010
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
10 |
|
2011
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
20 |
|
2012
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
23 |
|
2013
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
23 |
|
2014
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
20 |
|
2015
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
17 |
|
2016
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
23 |
|
2017
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
17 |
|
Through
2018
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
Total
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
Currently plan to reduce fleet by 15 aircraft, bringing 2009 to a
net
|
|
reduction
of two aircraft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table details information
on the 543 aircraft in the Company’s fleet that were in service as of June 30,
2009:
|
|
Average
|
Number
|
Number
|
Number
|
737
Type
|
Seats
|
Age
(Yrs)
|
of
Aircraft
|
Owned
|
Leased
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-300
|
137
|
17.8
|
180
|
110
|
70
|
-500
|
122
|
18.2
|
25
|
16
|
9
|
-700
|
137
|
5.6
|
338
|
318
|
20
|
TOTALS
|
|
10.2
|
543
|
444
|
99
|
The Company has the option, which must
be exercised two years prior to the contractual delivery date, to substitute
-600s or -800s for the -700s. Based on the above delivery schedule,
aggregate funding needed for firm aircraft commitments was approximately $3.3
billion, subject to adjustments for inflation, due as follows: $124 million
remaining in 2009, $344 million in 2010, $450 million in 2011, $571 million in
2012, $634 million in 2013, $508 million in 2014, and $693 million
thereafter.
During October 2008, the Company
elected to access $400 million of the available $600 million under its revolving
credit facility. During May 2009, the Company repaid this borrowing,
thus leaving the entire credit facility available for future
borrowings. The Company has various options available to meet its
capital and operating commitments, including cash on hand and short-term
investments at June 30, 2009, of $2.2 billion, internally generated funds, and
its $600 million revolving credit facility that expires in August
2010. Prior to its expiration, the Company anticipates that this
revolving credit facility will either be renewed or replaced with a revolving
credit facility that will provide sufficient capital resources to fund the
Company’s ongoing liquidity needs. However, continued disruption in
U.S. and international credit markets may adversely affect the Company’s ability
to renew or replace this credit facility and any new or renewed facility may be
under terms that are not as favorable as past credit agreements. As
discussed in Note 15 to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements, on July 1, 2009, the Company borrowed $124 million under a term loan
agreement secured by five of the Company’s 737-700 aircraft. The
Company will also consider other various borrowing or leasing options to
supplement cash requirements as necessary.
On July 22, 2009, Moody’s downgraded
the Company's senior unsecured debt rating from "Baa1" to "Baa3" and also
lowered the ratings of the Company’s Pass-through Enhanced Equipment Trust
Certificates (“PTC” and “EETC”). The downgrade of the Company’s
senior unsecured debt rating was based on Moody’s expectation of continuing weak
fundamentals of the domestic airline sector. The downgrade of the
Company’s ratings on its PTC’s and EETC’s reflects the reduction in the
Company’s underlying credit quality, and with respect to the PTC’s the elevated
loan to value ratios resulting from the older vintage 737-300 aircraft that are
pledged as collateral for these transactions. Also, on July 23, 2009,
Fitch downgraded the Company's senior unsecured debt rating from "BBB+" to
"BBB," based on the ongoing impact of the recession and the collapse in
full-fare passenger demand on the Company’s cash flow generation power and
leverage at a time when jet fuel prices remain volatile and
unpredictable. While the Company's credit rating remains "investment
grade," these lower ratings will likely result in a slight increase in its
borrowing costs on a prospective basis.
During 2008, the City of Dallas
approved the Love Field Modernization Program, an estimated $519 million project
to reconstruct Dallas Love Field with modern, convenient air travel
facilities. Pursuant to a Program Development Agreement with the City
of Dallas, Southwest is managing this project, and initial construction is
expected to commence during late 2009, with completion scheduled for October
2014. Bonds will be issued at a later date by the Love Field Airport
Modernization Corporation (a “local government corporation” under Texas law
formed by the City of Dallas) that will provide funding for this project, with
repayment of the bonds being made through recurring ground rents, fees, and
other revenues collected by the airport.
In January 2008, the Company’s Board of
Directors authorized the repurchase of up to $500 million of the Company’s
Common Stock. Repurchases may be made in accordance with applicable
securities laws in the open market or in private transactions from time to time,
depending on market conditions. The Company had repurchased 4.4
million shares for a total of $54 million as part of this program through
February 15, 2008; however, the Company has not repurchased any additional
shares from that date through the date of this filing. The Company
does not believe it is prudent to repurchase shares at the
current time considering the current economic environment.
Fair
value measurements
As discussed in Note 11 to the
unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements, the Company uses the
provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 (SFAS 157) in
determining the fair value of certain assets and liabilities. As
defined in SFAS 157, the Company has determined that it uses unobservable (Level
3) inputs in determining the fair value of its auction rate security
investments, valued at $192 million, a portion of its fuel derivative contracts,
which totaled a net liability of $137 million, and $8 million in other
investments, at June 30, 2009.
All of the Company’s auction rate
security instruments are reflected at estimated fair value in the unaudited
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. At June 30, 2009, approximately
$109 million of these instruments are classified as available for sale
securities and $83 million are classified as trading securities. In early 2008
and 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 under SFAS 157. However, due to events in
credit markets beginning during first quarter 2008, the auction events 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 as of June 30, 2009. In
addition, the Company recently performed a valuation of its auction rate
security instruments and considered these valuations in determining estimated
fair values of other similar instruments within its portfolio. The
Company’s 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 full par
value. These securities were also compared, when possible, to other
securities not owned by the Company, but with similar
characteristics. Due to these events, the Company reclassified these
instruments as Level 3 during first quarter 2008.
In association with this estimate of
fair value, the Company has recorded a temporary unrealized decline in fair
value of $11 million, with an offsetting entry to “Accumulated other
comprehensive income (loss).” Given the quality and backing of the
Company’s 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, for the $109 million in instruments classified as available for sale,
these auction rate securities represented approximately five percent of the
Company’s total cash, cash equivalent, and investment balance at June 30,
2009. Considering the relative significance of these securities in
comparison to the Company’s liquid assets and other sources of liquidity, the
Company has no current intention of selling these securities nor does it expect
to be required to sell these securities before a recovery in their cost
basis. For the $83 million in instruments classified as trading
securities, the Company has entered into an agreement with the counterparty that
allows the Company to put the instruments back to the counterparty at full par
value in June 2010. Part of this agreement also contains a line of
credit in which the Company can borrow up to $83 million as a loan from the
counterparty that would be secured by the auction rate security instruments from
that counterparty. There were no borrowings under this provision as
of June 30, 2009. At the time of the first failed auctions during
first quarter 2008, the Company held a total of $463 million in
securities. Since that time, the Company has been able to sell $260
million of these instruments at par value, in addition to the $83 million
subject to the agreement to be sold at par in June 2010. The Company
is also in discussions with other counterparties to determine whether mutually
agreeable decisions 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), as defined in SFAS 157, the Company has
categorized these option contracts as Level 3.
As discussed in Note 5 to the unaudited
condensed consolidated financial statements, any changes in the fair values of
fuel derivative instruments are subject to the requirements of SFAS
133. 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 do not qualify for special 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 Company’s derivative contracts
at a significantly different amount than what is reflected in the Company’s
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 values of fuel
derivatives with a single party exceed certain threshold
levels. Since this cash collateral is based on the estimated fair
value of the Company’s outstanding fuel derivative contracts, this provides
further validation to the Company’s estimate of fair values.
Forward-looking
statements
Some
statements in this Form 10-Q/A may be “forward-looking statements” within the
meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section
21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking
statements are based on, and include statements about, Southwest’s estimates,
expectations, beliefs, intentions, and 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,
statements related to the Company’s (i) growth strategies and
expectations; (ii) revenues, cost-cutting and other financial and operational
strategies and initiatives and related expectations for future results of
operations; (iii) expectations regarding liquidity, including anticipated needs
for, and sources of, funds; (iv) plans and expectations for managing risk
associated with changing jet fuel prices; and (v) expectations and intentions
relating to outstanding litigation. 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
Company’s forward-looking statements or from historical experience or the
Company’s present expectations. Factors that could cause these
differences include, among others:
(i)
|
continued
unfavorable economic conditions, which could continue to impact the demand
for air travel and the Company’s ability to adjust
fares;
|
(ii)
|
continued
volatility in the price and availability of aircraft fuel and the impact
of hedge accounting and any changes in the Company’s fuel hedging
strategies and positions;
|
(iii)
|
the
Company’s ability to timely and effectively prioritize its revenue and
cost reduction initiatives and its related ability to timely and
effectively implement, transition, and maintain the necessary information
technology systems and infrastructure to support these
initiatives;
|
(iv)
|
the
results of pending labor
negotiations;
|
(v)
|
continued
instability of the credit, capital, and energy markets, which could result
in future pressure on credit ratings and could also negatively impact the
Company’s ability to obtain financing on acceptable terms and the
Company’s liquidity generally;
|
(vi)
|
the
impact of aircraft industry incidents and the economy on the future
availability and cost of insurance;
|
(vii)
|
the
impact of technological initiatives on the Company’s technology
infrastructure, including its point of sale, ticketing, revenue
accounting, payroll and financial reporting
areas;
|
(viii)
|
the
extent and timing of the Company’s investment of incremental operating
expenses and capital expenditures to develop and implement its initiatives
and its corresponding ability to effectively control its operating
expenses;
|
(ix)
|
the
Company’s dependence on third party arrangements to assist with
implementation of certain of its
initiatives;
|
(x)
|
the
impact of governmental regulations and inquiries on the Company’s
operating costs, as well as its operations generally, and the impact of
developments affecting the Company’s outstanding
litigation;
|
(xi)
|
competitor
capacity and load factors; and
|
(xii)
|
other
factors as set forth in the Company’s filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, including the detailed factors discussed under the
heading “Risk Factors” in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2008.
|
Caution
should be taken not to place undue reliance on the Company’s forward-looking
statements, which represent the Company’s 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.
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About
Market Risk
As
discussed in Note 5 to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements, the Company uses financial derivative instruments to hedge its
exposure to material increases in jet fuel prices. At June 30, 2009,
the estimated gross fair value of outstanding contracts was a liability of $763
million.
Outstanding
financial derivative instruments expose the Company to credit loss in the event
of nonperformance by the counterparties to the agreements. However,
the Company does not expect any of the counterparties to fail to meet their
obligations. The credit exposure related to these financial
instruments is represented by the fair value of contracts with a positive fair
value at the reporting date. To manage credit risk, the Company
selects and periodically reviews counterparties based on credit ratings, limits
its exposure to a single counterparty, and monitors the market position of the
program and its relative market position with each counterparty. At June 30,
2009, the Company had agreements with all of its counterparties containing early
termination rights and/or bilateral collateral provisions whereby security is
required if market risk exposure exceeds a specified threshold amount or credit
ratings fall below certain levels. At June 30, 2009, the Company had
provided $425 million in fuel derivative related cash collateral deposits under
these bilateral collateral provisions to counterparties, but did not hold any
cash collateral deposits from any of its counterparties as of that
date. These collateral deposits are netted against the fair value of
the Company’s noncurrent derivative contracts in Other deferred liabilities in
the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. Cash flows as of
and for a particular operating period are included as Operating cash flows in
the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows.
On July 22, 2009, Moody’s downgraded
the Company's senior unsecured debt rating from "Baa1" to "Baa3" and also
lowered the ratings of the Company’s Pass-through Enhanced Equipment Trust
Certificates (“PTC” and “EETC”). The downgrade of the Company’s
senior unsecured debt rating was based on Moody’s expectation of continuing weak
fundamentals of the domestic airline sector. The downgrade of the
Company’s ratings on its PTC’s and EETC’s reflects the reduction in the
Company’s underlying credit quality, and with respect to the PTC’s the elevated
loan to value ratios resulting from the older vintage 737-300 aircraft that are
pledged as collateral for these transactions. Also, on July 23, 2009,
Fitch downgraded the Company's senior unsecured debt rating from "BBB+" to
"BBB," based on the ongoing impact of the recession and the collapse in
full-fare passenger demand on the Company’s cash flow generation power and
leverage at a time when jet fuel prices remain volatile and
unpredictable. While the Company's credit rating remains "investment
grade," these lower ratings will likely result in a slight increase in its
borrowing costs on a prospective basis.
See Item 7A “Quantitative and
Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” in the Company’s Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, and Note 5 to the unaudited
condensed consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-Q/A for further
information about Market Risk.
Item 4. Controls and Procedures
Disclosure
Controls and Procedures
The
Company maintains disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule
13a-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act) designed to provide reasonable
assurance that the information required to be disclosed by the Company in the
reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed,
summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and
forms. These include controls and procedures designed to ensure that
this information is accumulated and communicated to the Company's management,
including its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as
appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required
disclosure. Management, with the participation of the Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of the
Company’s disclosure controls and procedures as of June 30, 2009. In
the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009,
as filed on July 23, 2009, the Company disclosed that its management, with the
participation of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective
as of June 30, 2009, at the reasonable assurance level. In conjunction with the
filing of this amendment to that Form 10-Q and the Company’s decision to restate
the financial statements included in that Form 10-Q, management, with the
participation of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
re-evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and
procedures as of June 30, 2009. Based on this re-evaluation and the existence of
a material weakness in the Company's internal control over financial reporting
(discussed below) that gave rise to the restatement, the Company’s Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that the Company’s
disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of June 30, 2009, at
the reasonable assurance level.
Changes
in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
As
discussed in more detail in Note 2 to the condensed consolidated financial
statements included within this Form 10-Q/A, on October 14, 2009, the Company
determined that its financial statements for the three and six months ended June
30, 2009, contained an error with respect to one rule within SFAS 133 and that
this error arose from a material weakness in the Company's internal control over
financial reporting. Specifically, to facilitate the implementation
of new hedge accounting software, in April 2009, existing hedging instruments
were de-designated and re-designated as new hedges. Included in the
re-designation, however, were certain derivative instruments that were in a net
written option position that did not qualify as hedges according to
paragraph 28(c) of SFAS 133. Therefore, the Company has determined
that it did not maintain effective controls to ensure the proper application of
paragraph 28(c) of SFAS 133. In response, the Company intends
to implement the following changes in its internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act):
·
|
Enhanced
education of the Company’s financial reporting staff on paragraph 28 (c )
of SFAS 133;
|
·
|
Incorporation
of expanded explicit instructions and guidance into the Company’s future
hedge documentation regarding the types of instruments that cannot qualify
for special hedge accounting;
|
·
|
Additional
periodic recurrent training of the Company’s financial reporting staff by
external SFAS 133 experts; and
|
·
|
Revision
of the Company’s fuel hedging policy to require that any change to the
Company’s methodologies for recording hedge-related accounting
transactions be pre-approved by the Company’s Chief Financial
Officer.
|
During
second quarter 2009, the Company implemented a new fuel derivative instrument
management and valuation software which resulted in a material change in a
component of the Company's internal control over financial
reporting. The portion of the software implemented that was
responsible for the significant change in the internal control structure during
second quarter 2009 related primarily to the valuation of derivative instruments
as well as the estimation of future estimated cash flows used in cash flow
hedging relationships. Pre-implementation testing was conducted by
management to ensure that internal controls surrounding the implementation
process and the application itself were properly designed to prevent material
financial statement errors. The Company's management has determined
that the internal controls and procedures related to the information produced in
the new system related to fuel derivative instruments are effective as of the
end of the period covered by this report.
Except as
noted above, there were no changes in the Company’s internal control over
financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act) during
the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009, that have materially affected, or are
reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over
financial reporting.
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item
1. Legal
Proceedings
During
the first quarter and early second quarter of 2008, the Company was named as a
defendant in two putative class actions on behalf of persons who purchased air
travel from the Company while the Company was allegedly in violation of FAA
safety regulations. Claims alleged by the plaintiffs in these two putative class
actions include breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud/misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, and negligent and reckless operation of an
aircraft. The Company believes that the class action lawsuits are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Also in
connection with this incident, during the first quarter and early second quarter
of 2008, the Company received four letters from Shareholders demanding the
Company commence an action on behalf of the Company against members of its Board
of Directors and any other allegedly culpable parties for damages resulting from
an alleged breach of fiduciary duties owed by them to the Company. In
August 2008, Carbon County Employees Retirement System and Mark Cristello filed
a related Shareholder derivative action in Texas state court naming certain
directors and officers of the Company as individual defendants and the Company
as a nominal defendant. The derivative action claims breach of
fiduciary duty and seeks recovery by the Company of alleged monetary damages
sustained as a result of the purported breach of fiduciary duty, as well as
costs of the action. A Special Committee appointed by the Independent
Directors of the Company has been evaluating the Shareholder
demands.
The
Company is from time to time subject to various other legal proceedings and
claims arising in the ordinary course of business, including, but not limited
to, examinations by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
The
Company's 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 Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flow.
There have been no material changes to
the factors disclosed in Item 1A. Risk Factors in our Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008.
Item
2. Unregistered
Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
(a) Recent Sales of
Unregistered Securities
During
the second quarter of 2009, Herbert D. Kelleher, Chairman Emeritus of the
Company, exercised options to purchase unregistered shares of Southwest Airlines
Co. Common Stock from the Company as follows:
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
Number
of
|
Option
exercise
|
|
proceeds
to
|
shares
purchased
|
price
per share
|
Date
of exercise
|
the
Company
|
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
$1.00
|
4/16/2009
|
$10,000
|
The
issuance of the above shares to Mr. Kelleher was exempt from the registration
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Act”), pursuant to the
provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act because, among other things, of the
limited number of participants in such transactions and the agreement and
representation of Mr. Kelleher that he was acquiring such securities for
investment and not with a view to distribution thereof. The issuance
of such shares was not underwritten.
Item
3. Defaults
upon Senior Securities
None
Item
4. Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
The Company's Annual Meeting of
Shareholders was held in Dallas, Texas on Wednesday, May 20, 2009. The following
matters were voted on by the Company’s Shareholders at the Annual Meeting and
received the following votes:
|
1. Proposal
1 - Election of nine Directors for one-year terms expiring in
2010.
|
Name of Nominee
|
Votes For
|
Votes Withheld
|
Broker Non-Votes
|
David
W. Biegler
|
413,823,320
|
266,325,667
|
-
|
C.
Webb Crockett
|
315,127,440
|
365,021,547
|
-
|
William
H. Cunningham
|
410,523,787
|
269,625,200
|
-
|
John
G. Denison
|
655,271,899
|
24,877,088
|
-
|
Travis
C. Johnson
|
399,393,035
|
280,755,952
|
-
|
Gary
C. Kelly
|
420,042,502
|
260,106,485
|
-
|
Nancy
B. Loeffler
|
418,353,859
|
261,795,128
|
-
|
John
T. Montford
|
399,077,148
|
281,071,839
|
-
|
Daniel
D. Villanueva
|
646,557,851
|
33,591,136
|
-
|
|
2. Proposal
2 – A proposal to approve the Southwest Airlines Co. Amended and Restated
1991 Employee Stock Purchase Plan.
|
Votes For
|
Votes Against
|
Abstentions
|
Broker Non-Votes
|
586,195,297
|
3,947,529
|
3,843,304
|
86,162,857
|
|
3. Proposal
3 – A proposal to ratify the selection of Ernst & Young LLP as the
Company’s independent auditors for the fiscal year ending December 31,
2009.
|
Votes For
|
Votes Against
|
Abstentions
|
Broker Non-Votes
|
667,882,990
|
11,403,849
|
862,148
|
-
|
|
4. Proposal
4 – A Shareholder proposal requesting that the Board of Directors take the
necessary steps to reincorporate the Company in North
Dakota.
|
Votes For
|
Votes Against
|
Abstentions
|
Broker Non-Votes
|
116,538,447
|
474,351,834
|
3,095,849
|
86,162,857
|
|
5. Proposal
5 – A Shareholder proposal requesting that the Board of Directors adopt
principles for health care reform.
|
Votes For
|
Votes Against
|
Abstentions
|
Broker Non-Votes
|
30,446,500
|
465,960,873
|
97,578,758
|
86,162,856
|
Item
5. Other
Information
None
|
3.1
|
Restated
Articles of Incorporation of Southwest (incorporated by reference
to
|
|
|
Exhibit 4.1
to Southwest’s Registration Statement on Form S-3
(File
|
|
|
No. 33-52155));
Amendment to Restated Articles of Incorporation of
Southwest
|
|
|
(incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to Southwest’s Quarterly Report
on
|
|
|
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 1996 (File
No. 1-7259));
|
|
|
Amendment
to Restated Articles of Incorporation of Southwest (incorporated
by
|
|
|
reference
to Exhibit 3.1 to Southwest’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the
|
|
|
quarter
ended June 30, 1998 (File No. 1-7259)); Amendment to Restated
Articles of
|
|
|
Incorporation
of Southwest (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to
Southwest’s
|
|
|
Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-82735));
|
|
|
Amendment
to Restated Articles of Incorporation of Southwest (incorporated
by
|
|
|
reference
to Exhibit 3.1 to Southwest’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the
|
|
|
quarter
ended June 30, 2001 (File No. 1-7259)); Articles of Amendment
to
|
|
|
Articles
of Incorporation of Southwest (incorporated by
|
|
|
reference
to Exhibit 3.1 to Southwest’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the
|
|
|
quarter
ended June 30, 2007 (File No. 1-7259)).
|
|
3.2
|
Amended
and Restated Bylaws of Southwest, effective January 15,
|
|
|
2009
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to Southwest’s Current
Report
|
|
|
on
Form 8-K dated January 15, 2009 (File
No. 1-7259)).
|
|
10.1
|
Southwest
Airlines Co. Amended and Restated Director Severance
Plan
|
|
|
(filed
on July 23, 2009, as part of the original filing of
this Quarterly Report on
|
|
|
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (File
No. 1-7259)).
|
|
31.1
|
Rule
13a-14(a) Certification of Chief Executive Officer
|
|
31.2
|
Rule
13a-14(a) Certification of Chief Financial Officer
|
|
32.1
|
Section
1350 Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial
|
|
|
Officer
|
|
101.INS
|
XBRL
Instance Document (1)
|
|
101.SCH
|
XBRL
Taxonomy Extension Schema Document (1)
|
|
101.CAL
|
XBRL
Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document (1)
|
|
101.LAB
|
XBRL
Taxonomy Extension Labels Linkbase Document (1)
|
|
101.PRE
|
XBRL
Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document
(1)
|
(1) Furnished,
not filed.
Pursuant to the requirements of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to
be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly
authorized.
|
SOUTHWEST
AIRLINES CO.
|
|
|
|
October
22, 2009
|
By
|
/s/ Laura
Wright
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laura
Wright
|
|
|
Chief
Financial Officer
|
|
|
(On
behalf of the Registrant and in
|
|
|
her
capacity as Principal Financial
|
|
|
and
Accounting Officer)
|
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
Restated
Articles of Incorporation of Southwest (incorporated by reference
to
|
|
|
Exhibit 4.1
to Southwest’s Registration Statement on Form S-3
(File
|
|
|
No. 33-52155));
Amendment to Restated Articles of Incorporation of
Southwest
|
|
|
(incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to Southwest’s Quarterly Report
on
|
|
|
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 1996 (File
No. 1-7259));
|
|
|
Amendment
to Restated Articles of Incorporation of Southwest (incorporated
by
|
|
|
reference
to Exhibit 3.1 to Southwest’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the
|
|
|
quarter
ended June 30, 1998 (File No. 1-7259)); Amendment to Restated
Articles of
|
|
|
Incorporation
of Southwest (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to
Southwest’s
|
|
|
Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-82735));
|
|
|
Amendment
to Restated Articles of Incorporation of Southwest (incorporated
by
|
|
|
reference
to Exhibit 3.1 to Southwest’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the
|
|
|
quarter
ended June 30, 2001 (File No. 1-7259)); Articles of Amendment
to
|
|
|
Articles
of Incorporation of Southwest (incorporated by
|
|
|
reference
to Exhibit 3.1 to Southwest’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the
|
|
|
quarter
ended June 30, 2007 (File No. 1-7259)).
|
|
3.2
|
Amended
and Restated Bylaws of Southwest, effective January 15,
|
|
|
2009
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to Southwest’s Current
Report
|
|
|
on
Form 8-K dated January 15, 2009 (File
No. 1-7259)).
|
|
10.1
|
Southwest
Airlines Co. Amended and Restated Director Severance
Plan
|
|
|
(filed
on July 23, 2009, as part of the original filing of
this Quarterly Report on
|
|
|
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (File
No. 1-7259)).
|
|
31.1
|
Rule
13a-14(a) Certification of Chief Executive Officer
|
|
31.2
|
Rule
13a-14(a) Certification of Chief Financial Officer
|
|
32.1
|
Section
1350 Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial
|
|
|
Officer
|
|
101.INS
|
XBRL
Instance Document (1)
|
|
101.SCH
|
XBRL
Taxonomy Extension Schema Document (1)
|
|
101.CAL
|
XBRL
Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document (1)
|
|
101.LAB
|
XBRL
Taxonomy Extension Labels Linkbase Document (1)
|
|
101.PRE
|
XBRL
Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document
(1)
|
(1) Furnished,
not filed.