Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Frontier (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/frontier/)
-   -   Are we next? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/frontier/152916-we-next.html)

AK26 05-02-2026 01:50 PM


Originally Posted by Togaabort (Post 4030681)
This isn’t really accurate — Frontier is not in the same risk category.

Frontier is structurally in a stronger position than Spirit for a few simple reasons:

AI slop and much of it is wrong (none of this is to say Frontier is definitely next, but PLEASE do not make decisions based on biased, incorrect information and reasoning):


Originally Posted by Togaabort (Post 4030681)
[*]Lower CASM, period. Frontier consistently runs one of the lowest cost structures in the industry. When margins get tight, the lowest-cost operator survives — that’s Aviation 101.

Delta and United can afford to offer loss-making economy (and basic economy) seats to fill planes, so that they can generate higher margin revenue up front. The AI is treating airlines as a full commodity, not an industry with several (mostly commoditized) tiers.


Originally Posted by Togaabort (Post 4030681)
[*]Better balance sheet discipline. Frontier didn’t load up on the same level of debt and financial commitments Spirit did, especially tied to growth and failed merger fallout.

Frontier has $5.144B in net debt, compared to $388M in 2025 EBITDAR (a fake # used to give investors a reason to buy overvalued and often unprofitable, capital intensive companies), for 13.3x leverage...a healthy airline should trade at around 6x EBITDAR and should not have leverage over 2x. Just because Frontier's debt is in the form of leases rather than bonds and loans, does not make it not debt...and owning your own planes is better than leasing.


Originally Posted by Togaabort (Post 4030681)
[*]More flexible network. Frontier’s point-to-point, leisure-heavy model lets them cut or shift flying quickly without being tied to complex hubs or international commitments.

As opposed to Spirit's point-to-point, leisure-heavy model that lets them cut or shift flying quickly without being tied to complex hubs or international commitments? Good job AI.


Originally Posted by Togaabort (Post 4030681)
[*]Cleaner execution of the ULCC model. Frontier leaned harder into the true ULCC structure (high-density config, ancillaries, cost control), while Spirit drifted slightly higher cost over time.

Spirit only "drifted slightly higher cost" by adding ancillaries after bankruptcy. Frontier is in the process of doing the exact same thing, because it's a way to increase RASM without increasing headline prices, with a minimal CASM impact.


Originally Posted by FlyingSlowly (Post 4030719)
A few more more:[*]Economic tailwinds. Only major direct competitor now gone in the ULCC space. This matters a lot for Frontier around its network and secondarily for JetBlue in FLL.

Frontier's major direct competitor is not Spirit, it's Delta, United, American, and Southwest. Frontier had a larger route overlap with all of these airlines than their overlap with Spirit. There is still capacity being added to US domestic route networks, and Spirit's reduction in flying over the past few quarters/years has not helped Frontier's RASM-CASM issue.


Originally Posted by FlyingSlowly (Post 4030719)
[*]More explicitly on CASM, more A320/1neos. The per passenger fuel hit wasn't quite as bad for Frontier as for Spirit, especially with the highest-density fleet and new-technology engines.

More fuel efficient, newer planes are great, but Frontier pays higher lease rates for these. Larger planes have been the focus of Spirit and Frontier to help reduce CASM, but that only works when you are filling the planes and operating routes with enough demand. Frontier's sub-80% load factors (vs say, Ryanair's load factors of over 95%) show that the routes Frontier is flying do not have enough demand to fill out such large planes, and the new deliveries are increasing Frontier's seats/plane from sub-190 a few quarters ago to well over 200, exacerbating the issue. Bigger planes are not always better; some markets can handle them, but those markets often see the majors enter due to their size. The markets that are better fit for low-cost carriers to operate profitably with less competition are generally too small for A321neos.

Also, regardless of whose per-passenger fuel hit was worse, an unprofitable airline burning over $600M in cash seeing their biggest cost input more than double is a massive problem, doesn't matter if it affects other airlines more...airlines price off demand not costs.


Originally Posted by FlyingSlowly (Post 4030719)
[*]Open space for up-charging. The ULCC standard is now Frontier, so Frontier can price as Frontier chooses.

The ULCC standard is Delta and United basic economy; Frontier still has no pricing power.


Originally Posted by spooldup (Post 4030785)
Frontier and Spirit may have been somewhat similar airlines, however our balance sheets and ownership are completely different.

We are not anywhere near Spirit's position. We are actually very far from it. Even if we keep slowly losing money quarterly, we have little to no debt and have very close to 1B in liquidity.

Again, Frontier has over $5B in net debt, and about $300-500M in liquidity. Headline liquidity is $874M, but you should subtract the air traffic liability from cash, as once cash/ATL gets close to or below 1x, card processors will stop letting you pre-fund operations using cash from new bookings. Additionally, the $220M revolver (included in headline liquidity) includes non-standard language that indicates a cash reserve requirement when borrowing against it. That is fine for a stressed but performing business, but if cash drops too low, the revolver becomes useless as the card processor and bank both want cash reserves. Liquidity is only an important metric when judging how long a distressed company can continue operating in the current structure, and should be viewed through the lens of the worst case scenario. In that worst case, the $874M figure turns into $874-ATL-revolver (or at least part of it, depending on exactly how strict the cash reserve requirement is), getting you to somewhere between $300-500M.

Frontier burned over $200M last year even when including over $400M in SLB infusions. Fuel was $929M. If that jumps by even 50% for the full year, and the RASM-CASMx issue is not fixed, that is a huge and immediate issue. Hope the best for all the Spirit and Frontier (and JetBlue) pilots and employees.

Ozone Scrubber 05-02-2026 02:02 PM


Originally Posted by AK26 (Post 4030795)
AI slop and much of it is wrong ...

Thank you AK26 for exposing the AI amongst us.

Stayontarget 05-02-2026 02:27 PM


Originally Posted by AK26 (Post 4030795)
If I deleted or didn’t answer to some portions of your post it’s because I completely or generally agree with your point.


Frontier has $5.144B in net debt, compared to $388M in 2025 EBITDAR (a fake # used to give investors a reason to buy overvalued and often unprofitable, capital intensive companies), for 13.3x leverage...a healthy airline should trade at around 6x EBITDAR and should not have leverage over 2x. Just because Frontier's debt is in the form of leases rather than bonds and loans, does not make it not debt...and owning your own planes is better than leasing.

Is it? We just rejected 24 in a deal so we don’t have to pay for them anymore. Not a great thing to do of course but also some flexibility there. Spirit couldnt sell their owned older airplanes effectively.


As opposed to Spirit's point-to-point, leisure-heavy model that lets them cut or shift flying quickly without being tied to complex hubs or international commitments? Good job AI.

Spirit was slow to adjust to many things. Frontier hasn’t been as slow. Does it always work? No, but if it doesn’t we move on quick.

Spirit only "drifted slightly higher cost" by adding ancillaries after bankruptcy. Frontier is in the process of doing the exact same thing, because it's a way to increase RASM without increasing headline prices, with a minimal CASM impact.

They tell us the front two rows have been highly successful. I can’t vouch for or against but they are always full on my flights.

Frontier's major direct competitor is not Spirit, it's Delta, United, American, and Southwest. Frontier had a larger route overlap with all of these airlines than their overlap with Spirit. There is still capacity being added to US domestic route networks, and Spirit's reduction in flying over the past few quarters/years has not helped Frontier's RASM-CASM issue.

Tough to say which routes have had the RASM/CASM gains/losses. We have hit ATL extremely hard and have been told it has been successful. SWA and Spirit moving out surely helped.

More fuel efficient, newer planes are great, but Frontier pays higher lease rates for these. Larger planes have been the focus of Spirit and Frontier to help reduce CASM, but that only works when you are filling the planes and operating routes with enough demand. Frontier's sub-80% load factors (vs say, Ryanair's load factors of over 95%) show that the routes Frontier is flying do not have enough demand to fill out such large planes, and the new deliveries are increasing Frontier's seats/plane from sub-190 a few quarters ago to well over 200, exacerbating the issue. Bigger planes are not always better; some markets can handle them, but those markets often see the majors enter due to their size. The markets that are better fit for low-cost carriers to operate profitably with less competition are generally too small for A321neos.

Generally agree. Again we don’t see load factors/yields on particular routes. What we do notice is that if it has a low load factor it is cut quickly. But also strangely many routes that are completely full get cut too to our frustrations. Must be a yield issue but it’s annoying nonetheless.


The ULCC standard is Delta and United basic economy; Frontier still has no pricing power.

I’ve always wondered this in reality. History says otherwise though since the now 10 yr old study of the JetBlue effect and more recent Spirit exiting MSP and the subsequent price increase. But who led who in price is more difficult to answer?

Frontier burned over $200M last year even when including over $400M in SLB infusions. Fuel was $929M. If that jumps by even 50% for the full year, and the RASM-CASMx issue is not fixed, that is a huge and immediate issue. Hope the best for all the Spirit and Frontier (and JetBlue) pilots and employees.

Yes. That’s why BB was fired and two years too late. He focused on costs while neglecting RASM. Perhaps change is afoot, perhaps not. Either way it will take time to see the changes.

CGLimits 05-02-2026 02:40 PM


Originally Posted by Ozone Scrubber (Post 4030799)
Thank you AK26 for exposing the AI amongst us.

And for proving that if you are bored it’s only because you want to be.

Bulldog319 05-02-2026 02:58 PM


Originally Posted by Planedrive (Post 4030657)
ULCC business model is officially broken. I guess it’s time to address the elephant in the room. Are we next?

If you are worried about it, maybe see where you can help improve costs. Single Engine taxi, cost Index even on the go home leg, minimize APU use (it takes about 8 minutes worth of single engine fuel burn at these prices to pay the maintenance contract cost for starting the APU last I heard)

Let the negative comments and downvotes commence.

AK26 05-02-2026 03:01 PM


Originally Posted by Stayontarget (Post 4030810)
Yes. That’s why BB was fired and two years too late. He focused on costs while neglecting RASM. Perhaps change is afoot, perhaps not. Either way it will take time to see the changes.

Your points here are valid and more interesting things to think about than the slop previously posted. Just one comment on the lease cancellations--those were not free. Usually, lease cancellations come with high cash costs, and I suspect that will continue to be the case moving forward.

The recent deal with AerCap was more complex than a simple lease cancellation. Frontier knows that they don't have enough profitable route pairings to take up capacity as much as they had planned for, but also has only been kept afloat due to cash from SLBs. Meanwhile, AerCap would rather not have a customer in financial distress, and simultaneously wants more planes and engines to take advantage of the current pricing environment. So, AerCap allowed Frontier to return 24 planes early in exchange for Frontier "deferring" their 2027-2030 deliveries to 2031-2033, with AerCap stepping in and taking over those slots. With the planes being returned early and an announcement of 48 new engines in their spare engine pool, it seems like AerCap may be parting out the planes and using the engines as spares given the high rates for spares currently. AerCap also has somewhat improved their lessee base--they now have less planes with Frontier and monetized the lease cancellations...in a hypothetical scenario where they had not done that, and Frontier went under later in 2026 or 2027, AerCap would not have a direct claim to the incoming Frontier orders; by preemptively doing this transaction, they reduce their Frontier exposure and secure the valuable 2028-2030 deliveries without paying an SLB premium. And to put some high-level math on it, using Frontier's average gain on SLBs, and discounting back to the present, we get to a present value of the SLBs of about $650M for the 69 planes that Frontier pushed out from 2027-2030. Frontier management sees $90M in annual savings from cancelling those 24 leases, which we can estimate as equivalent to a present value of about $460M for the 8 years of savings, so AerCap got some value here.

The above shows that the transaction is not proof that leasing is better than owning; lease rates are higher than debt costs for any airline that can raise debt (JetBlue is in firmly stressed territory and just raised new debt against their planes at under 7%), and you have more control over the planes, no maintenance reserves, etc. Instead, it is just another benefit of the extraordinarily well timed pandemic neo family order that IndiGo (both Frontier and Wizz) placed. I would also note that with current capacity trends, Frontier probably would have rather deferred 2026 deliveries as well, if not for the cash/SLB issues...they require the SLB cash to continue to operate, and the plan is obviously to try to stabilize the operations before 2027. If that doesn't work, however, 2027 will no longer have the several hundred million dollar cash infusion from SLBs, and the true operating profitability of the airline will become apparent.

dracir1 05-02-2026 05:31 PM


Originally Posted by AK26 (Post 4030826)
they require the SLB cash to continue to operate, and the plan is obviously to try to stabilize the operations before 2027. If that doesn't work, however, 2027 will no longer have the several hundred million dollar cash infusion from SLBs, and the true operating profitability of the airline will become apparent.

Stabilize operations before 2027. As in make a profit?

BlueJuicer17 05-02-2026 05:40 PM

Kirby might be gunning for F9 next

CGLimits 05-02-2026 05:42 PM


Originally Posted by Bulldog319 (Post 4030825)
If you are worried about it, maybe see where you can help improve costs. Single Engine taxi, cost Index even on the go home leg, minimize APU use (it takes about 8 minutes worth of single engine fuel burn at these prices to pay the maintenance contract cost for starting the APU last I heard)

Let the negative comments and downvotes commence.

Actually, since we effectively have no union now, no contract negotiations, and virtually no protections because just about every chair has quit, the only thing we have left is the company, trying to survive in a very challenging environment. I am planning on helping the airline as much as I can. Our new CEO has impressed me a lot more than our interim MEC chair. I have ditched my ALPA lanyard and have officially become a Company man. I can’t wait to start picking up open time. I don’t even care about premium. Go F9!!’

flier320 05-02-2026 05:48 PM

yes.

filler


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:55 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands