Interesting 737-300 Comparisons
- Thread starter FM2436
- Start date
Don't grab at straws here folks. Southwest is not profitable year after year after year because they hedged fuel or because they have lower payments on their 737s.
Southwest is profitable because they keep every cost they can control down as low as possible. And they keep their operation simple. The difference between US and Southwest is that Southwest looks only at their own operation. If they see a cost they can cut they do so. They do things right and the do them at the lowest cost they can without regard to what other airlines are doing. And while you can find instances where Southwest does in fact have a higher cost somewhere in their operation than US Airways, rest assured that cost is either going to be addressed or it is the by-product of another (perhaps) larger cost cut elsewhere.
Currently, the "Plan" at US is to find $1.5 billion in savings. Management has been pretty clear that they want $800 million from labor and the additional $700 million from operational changes. Many of the operational changes have been announced - new website, more Caribbean flying, more point-to-point flights from high O&D cities, better aircraft utilization et al. US and its employees need to realize that every penny counts and every slice of the pie, regardless of how thin it is or how thick it used to be, must be addressed. For an airline that's waffled its way through the last twenty years with a broken rudder, it is a critical time.
Southwest is profitable because they keep every cost they can control down as low as possible. And they keep their operation simple. The difference between US and Southwest is that Southwest looks only at their own operation. If they see a cost they can cut they do so. They do things right and the do them at the lowest cost they can without regard to what other airlines are doing. And while you can find instances where Southwest does in fact have a higher cost somewhere in their operation than US Airways, rest assured that cost is either going to be addressed or it is the by-product of another (perhaps) larger cost cut elsewhere.
Currently, the "Plan" at US is to find $1.5 billion in savings. Management has been pretty clear that they want $800 million from labor and the additional $700 million from operational changes. Many of the operational changes have been announced - new website, more Caribbean flying, more point-to-point flights from high O&D cities, better aircraft utilization et al. US and its employees need to realize that every penny counts and every slice of the pie, regardless of how thin it is or how thick it used to be, must be addressed. For an airline that's waffled its way through the last twenty years with a broken rudder, it is a critical time.
geo,geo1004 said:
The CWA website has a credible comparison of labor costs,
http://cwa.net/PDFs/SWcomparison.pdf
I have access to the IAM, WN and CWA contracts, and the CWA is not fudging.
I do not disagree that WN operates PHL-MCO (or anywhere else) cheaper than U.
As U has a labor cost advantage vis a vis WN, exactly what else could be inflating U's costs?
Higher acquisition costs?
Higher costs to access capital - I bet WN can get loans FAR cheaper than U.
Wn can spread their operating costs over a fleet of some 400 a/c. Not only does U not have 400 a/c, they do not have near that many 737's to spread the costs of training, mx, parts, etc. over.
Poor business plan? Naaaaaaaaaaah, it's all GOTTA be labor's fault.
Well, let's beat this horse again.mweiss said:
I have no doubt that on a passenger per employee ratio, WN wins hands down.
That is the by-product of a hub system. Not the contracts. Do you not find it of interest that NO ONE has responded to my challenge to cite one example in the agents' contracts that precludes WN style productivity? That is because there isn't one. It is human nature to blame the victim, but it is seldom based in fact.
Were you to swap WN in for U, giving WN the exact same position as U occupies, WN would be a failing carrier.
Were you to allow WN to carry their labor contracts with them, they would still not be a going concern.
The LCC's are carving out the legacy carriers' muscle; i.e. the traffic from sizeable metropolitan areas.
That strategy is leading to a major reduction of service to smaller cities (the legacies are not going to conceed ORD-NYC), and a lack of connectivity to the global markets.
This is a reversal of of decades of public policy, and it is occurring without debate. The pols love the low costs, and as the market is being allowed to 'speak', I can't wait for the good senators to find out no one serves their home town, anymore.
Wonder how the taxpayers feel about being stuck with the tab of unused infrastructure?
I mostly agree with you.geo1004 said:
Where I disagree is I have seen no evidence that U believes "every penny counts." Most of the evidence I have seen is they believe every LABOR penny counts. Did not dave himself recently admit there were an additional 2 cents in non-labor costs to be wrung out of U's CASM?
What has been stopping them? I can assure you, the agent contracts are, for the most part, the U Personnel Policy Guide with an IAM or CWA logo on the cover. There is nothing that has stopped U from realizing those savings.
Failing to realize those savings is poor business, yes? I'll save the "this proves a conspiracy against labor" for another thread. IT IS POOR BUSINESS.
Every business in America is lowering costs to survive.
You wouldn't buy stock (give money) to a business that failed to do so.
I don't blame you.
In a lot of stations I'm familiar with, fleet cleans the RON's, and has done so since the mid 90's.
Contract (initial one in 99) didn't change a thing.
If I understand correctly, the remnant of utes are in places like PHL and CLT.
If we terminated them all today, would it save the company?
Would it restore fleet and mech to 2001 pay?
Nope.
There's a bigger ball we need to keep our eye on.
Contract (initial one in 99) didn't change a thing.
If I understand correctly, the remnant of utes are in places like PHL and CLT.
If we terminated them all today, would it save the company?
Would it restore fleet and mech to 2001 pay?
Nope.
There's a bigger ball we need to keep our eye on.
But ignoring that while pointing to the payscales is turning the argument into apples and oranges.diogenes said:
It is a by-product of a hub system, to a degree. However, there's still plenty of room for improvement in the efficiency of hubs. That must be addressed.
Last time I checked, air travel isn't supposed to be a charity.
Where's the money going ?? That's what I've been asking you. Do you know ?? If you do , let us know..Maybe your "stats " aren't quite as "simple" as you would have us believe because you are reluctant to dig down and answer a few questions. I work in the maintence dept. and am asking {again} if you know what an A&P mechanic @ SW makes when compared to a mechanic @ U ??? Also, do you know how much it cost SW in outsourcing costs for their 737 fleet ??? Please tell me that you are aware that CASM numbers are meaningless UNLESS you BOTHER to also look at the RASM numbers. This is this companies oldest trick in the book. Tell both sides of the story. If you are planning to confuse me with "simple logic" please supply some.geo1004 said:
wnbubbleboy
Veteran
I've been off the ramp for a while but here goes how it was back in 96'. During the day if it's on the rubber ie lav and galley floor Provisioning would clean. If it's on the carpet it's Op's and F/A's responsiblity. I worked in BWI back in 94 as a ramper and we would clean the overnights after we unloaded them back then we only 5 RON aircraft. Now here in BWI they have contract cleaners do the overnights. Appearance techs are only in base stations as far as I know; DAL-PHX-MDW-HOU. Things may have changed over there on the ramp side but I doubt it's changed that much.700UW said:
