Delta assignment

Q1. Calculate the annual depreciation expense that Delta and Singapore would record for

each $100 gross value of aircraft.

(a) For Delta, what was its annual depreciation expense (per $100 of gross aircraft

value) prior to July 1, 1986; from July 1, 1986 through March 31, 1993; and from

April 1, 1993 on?

(b) For Singapore, what was its annual depreciation expense (per $100 of gross aircraft

value) prior to April 1, 1989; and from April1, 1989 on?

Ans. Delta Airlines always followed a Straight Line depreciation policy. So, annual

depreciation expense, for $100 value of gross aircraft is given as

Depreciation expense = (Cost – Residual Value)/Asset Life

(i) Prior to July 1,1986

Residual Value = 10% of Cost Asset Life = 10 years

Depreciation Expense = ($100-$10)/10 = $9

(ii) From July 1, 1986 through March 31, 1993



(iii) From April 1, 1993 onwards


Depreciation Expense = ($100-$5)/20 = $4.75

(b) Singapore Airlines also followed the Straight Line depreciation method and thus the

same formula can be used here also

(i) Prior to April 1,1989


Depreciation Expense = ($100-$10)/8 = $11.25

(ii) From April 1, 1989



Q2. Are the differences in the ways that the two airlines account for depreciation expense

significant? Why would companies depreciate aircraft using different depreciable lives and

salvage values? What reasons could be given to support these differences? Is different

treatment proper?

Ans. Even though both airlines follow the Straight Line method, there is a significant

difference in the salvage value (5% for Delta and 20% for Singapore) as well as the

depreciable life (20 years for Delta and 10 years for Singapore), so we can say that there is a

significant difference in the ways that these two airlines account for depreciation.

Different airlines have different needs and methods of operation. Based on this, they will

depreciate their aircraft using different depreciable lives and salvage values.

In the current case, Delta Airlines was suffering from huge losses in 1993 and thus, they

wanted to reduce their expenses as much as possible. The depreciation expense could be

reduced considerably by increasing the asset life of the aircraft, which is exactly what they

did. On the other hand, Singapore Airlines was in good economic health and could afford

higher depreciation expense.

It is also possible that Singapore Airlines want to resell their aircraft and thus had a shorter

asset life while Delta Airlines plan to use their aircraft for a longer period and then discard

them.

We should also note that Singapore Airlines has a higher capacity utilization rate (71.3%)

and average miles per passenger (2720 miles) as compared to Delta Airlines (62.3% and 969

miles). Due to the higher utilization, Singapore Airlines might have taken a lower asset life.

As long as the companies follow the accounting standards, the different treatment is proper

because the depreciable life and salvage value differ for each company based on its needs

and operation policies.

Q3. Assuming the average value of flight equipment that Delta had in 1993, how much of a

difference do the depreciation assumptions it adopted on April 1, 1993 make? How much

more or less will its annual depreciation expense be compared to what it would be was it

using Singapore’s depreciation assumptions?

Ans. Average value of flight equipment owned by Delta in 1993 is:

($9,043 + $8,354)/2 + $173 = $8872 million

Difference due to new depreciation expenses:

$8872*($6 - $4.75)/$100 = $111 million

Delta’s depreciation expense is less than what would be by Singapore’s method by amount:

$8872*($8 - $4.75)/$100 = $288.4 million

Q4. Singapore Airlines maintains depreciation assumptions that are very different from

Delta’s. What does it gain or lose by doing so? How does this relate to the company’s overall

strategy?

Ans. Singapore Airlines is currently making good profits so it can afford to have high

depreciation expenses. It stands to gain that in the future it can show much less

depreciation expense. Also, it will have a much depreciated asset later which it can sell to

make larger profits at a later stage. The company can also save on taxes by showing higher

expenses. The loss of doing so is that the company will show lower net revenue and the

profit will also decrease as a result.

The company’s overall strategy involves selling used aircraft at relatively higher prices after

using them for a shorter period. This is supported by Exhibits 1 and 5 of the case which show

Delta’s annual book gain on the sale of flight equipment during 1989-1993 was about $30

million, whereas Singapore’s average annual book gain on the sale of flight equipment was

$74 million (after adjusting exchange rate). As a result, the company can buy new aircraft

regularly. The average age of aircraft for Singapore Airlines is only 5.1 years as compared to

8.8 years for Delta. Purchasing new aircraft like the Boeing MEGATOP 747-400 regularly

helps Singapore Airlines in providing better customer satisfaction. Exhibits 3 and 7 show that

while Delta has no MEGATOPs, Singapore Airlines has 18 of them. Due to these reasons,

Singapore Airlines follows a different strategy than Delta’s.

Q5. Does the difference in the average age of Delta’s and Singapore’s aircraft fleets have any

impact on the amount of depreciation expense that they record? If so, how much?

Ans. No, the difference in the average age of Delta’s (8.8 years) and Singapore’s (5.1 years)

aircraft does not have any impact on the amount of depreciation expense they record. This

is because they both use the straight line method for recording depreciation and in this

method, the depreciation expense is dependent only on the initial cost, salvage value and

the depreciable life of the asset and not on the current age of the asset. However, we

should take care not to depreciate an asset after its depreciable life is over.

Delta assignment

Education

Transcript of Delta assignment