Hedging is extremely odd in that while it is thought of as a way to lock in 'certainty' on the price of something, it really is just another way of gambling on a price.
In the case of airlines, they are effectively 'short' oil, in that they profit if the price of oil falls, and lose if the price rises. So the usual story is that it makes sense to hedge their oil costs. They can do this in three main ways:
1) Buy oil forward. They get to lock in the price of oil at a future time. If oil prices rise, they win. But if oil prices fall, they lose out, since competitors can now buy oil more cheaply.
2) Buy a call option on oil. They get the right to buy oil at a fixed price at a future time. If oil prices rise, they can exercise the option, and win. If oil prices fall, they can just take the cheaper price => another win. But the option itself has a cost, so if oil prices don't change much, they lose out since they had to eat the cost of buying the option.
3) Sell a put option on oil. This is the airline being paid by someone for the option to sell them oil at a fixed price at a future time. In this case, the airline wins if oil prices don't move too much in any direction (since they get paid for the put option). If oil falls in price, they will have to buy it at the higher price => they lose. If the oil price rises, they also lose since the costs have risen.
Yet, in all cases, after hedging, the airline will still either win or lose depending upon the change in oil price. No certainty has been gained.
The choice whether to hedge or not is really down to game theory. What matters is not just whether/how your airline hedges, but what your competitors do.
> Yet, in all cases, after hedging, the airline will still either win or lose depending upon the change in oil price. No certainty has been gained.
That’s not really true. You’re locking in the price that you’re going to pay - that’s the certainty. You might however not be getting the best price at that point in time. From a financial forecasting perspective it probably worthwhile trade off though as you’re fixing one of your costs for that time period and that’s useful even when sub optimal.
There's still no certainty. For an airline, your prices have to be competitive. If you've locked in an oil price, and it turns out to be a high one, then your fares will be more expensive than your competitors (assuming that they didn't hedge in the same way). So the only certainty there is failure.
In all situations, hedging and non hedging, the oil price will determine whether you win or lose. There is no magical combination of derivatives that will ensure success. In fact, for every financial product you buy, you're paying a cost due to the margin that the bank/market charged you.
Hedging might make sense for some accounting/tax situations, but that's another issue entirely.
You are free to lose money by keeping the prices competitive, or lose money by raising your prices and losing business. Either way, it's the same result.
Airlines sell tickets in advance, so hedging will allow them to match their near-future fuel prices to the ticket prices they're selling now. They consume fuel but don't produce it, so I don't think they can fully balance things out over time internally.
edit: I see this was mentioned already in the thread.
> There's still no certainty. For an airline, your prices have to be competitive. If you've locked in an oil price, and it turns out to be a high one, then your fares will be more expensive than your competitors (assuming that they didn't hedge in the same way). So the only certainty there is failure.
A huge chunk of airline tickets are sold in advance. The oil futures can literally lock in the prices for only sold airfare if you're that paranoid.
Also (probably more important), the cost of oil on a given ticket is quite low and it would take a drastic change in oil prices for it to be obvious to customers comparison shopping.
> Hedging is extremely odd in that while it is thought of as a way to lock in 'certainty' on the price of something, it really is just another way of gambling on a price.
Actually, yours is a rather odd take on the term 'certainity' itself! To clarify, I'll lay out the layman take & the quant take.
The layman explanation is - life is a gamble but I wear seatbelt. Because that's the certainity I won't die by being thrown off the seat. Yes, that might mean I might die in other ways. Like maybe the car dives into a lake & I couldn't get out because the seatbelt is stuck so I drown to death. But the car in lake probability is smaller than car collision probability. So I have purchased certainity in my mortal affairs by wearing the seatbelt. Atleast if my car collides with another car, I don't get thrown off for certain.
The quant problem is the same. My quant professor at UChicago always insisted "only losers buy stocks". He repeated that in so many ways that lesson stuck to all of us. Like, stocks are for losers. Quants don't buy stock, losers do. Now why did he take such a radical stand ? Stocks are a random variable so there is no certainity. That's the very definition of positive rv y(t), it can do anything on the positive y axis, because it is random. But you are not completely helpless. You can buy certainity on both the x & the y axis! And on functions of those if you are clever. So if you pay put premium on a 1 month expiry with say strike at 1 sigma, you are saying I am only willing to lose 1 sigma from my present mu within next month. If my stock falls below mu-1sigma, then some other loser better pay up. Who is that other loser ? The guy who sold me the put option. Because he holds the opposite belief, which is why he sold me the put. So I am certain I won't lose below 1 sigma. I have literally purchased my certainity by paying that put premium. The loser why sold me the put is also certain it won't go below 1 sigma, which is why he gets to collect my premium. Now, what will really happen ? Well, who the fuck knows. The stock is a random variable, so anything can happen. But neither of us have bought the stock. I have bought 1 certainity, the seller has sold another certainity. So its a win-win on the certainity axis. Because my max loss is capped at mu minus one sigma, I am certain of that. So even though underlying is random I am certain!
> No certainty has been gained. is really down to game theory.
This is simply not true. A lot of certainity has been gained, which is literally why money has been exchanged. Price of certainity is by definition the premium.
Show me where the certainty is, then! In all cases (being unhedged, hedging against rising, falling, stationary or volatile prices), the airline can still be adversely affected by the future oil price. Either directly, or through becoming unable to compete profitably with rivals who did not hedge.
You can make an indirect bet on oil futures by trading airline stocks. Southwest Airlines (LUV) if it's going up, American Airlines (AAL) if it's going down.
