Luv Fades

[magsau]

No more than it mattered that Southwest doesn't fly to SJU. But you saw fit to comment, so I thought I'd add to it. I mean, I rarely book a flight between two US cities and ask myself "Does this airline or a code share partner serve Shanghai"? Does it matter when I only want to go to Nashville? If Southwest doesn't fly where I'm going, I'll fly an airline that does.

And as a result you lose those "free" trips to your vacation destination. Perhaps it is the small town mentality that has you fixated on not realizing the world is where business works. Not the OH valley.

Did you happen to catch the chart in the USA today business section today? Good graph on the business and leisure traveler seeking services on the non LCC airline.

As for Shanghai I suspect that you are not going to be going there anyway.

 

[KCFlyer]

And as a result you lose those "free" trips to your vacation destination. Perhaps it is the small town mentality that has you fixated on not realizing the world is where business works. Not the OH valley.

Did you happen to catch the chart in the USA today business section today? Good graph on the business and leisure traveler seeking services on the non LCC airline.

As for Shanghai I suspect that you are not going to be going there anyway.

You might want to put away the Jepp charts and pull out a Rand McNally atlas to see how far out of the OH valley Kansas City really is.

It seems to me that in the real world that United was operating in - they weren't getting enough money from that business world to stay solvent. And if they weren't making money then - does that mean that they were giving away trips to people that weren't paying enough for tickets to bring them a profit?

Kudos to you and your coworkers for taking the pay and benefit cuts necessary to be able to give those folks their free trips and get you a couple of quarterly profits.

And you're right...I don't have any plans on going to Shanghai. Sydney, yes. Shanghai - no. And I can tell you one airline that won't be taking me to Sydney.

 

[magsau]

You might want to put away the Jepp charts and pull out a Rand McNally atlas to see how far out of the OH valley Kansas City really is.

Sorry to confuse you. When one travels they often leave the area they departed from. I was giving you the benefit of traveling all the way to the OH valley. Should have limited it to the Tornado Alley, my error.

Kudos to you and your coworkers for taking the pay and benefit cuts necessary to be able to give those folks their free trips and get you a couple of quarterly profits.

Thank you very much. I sincerely appreciate all you have to say about the finances of myself and my fellow employees. You know I am pretty comfy with the wages, having made the adjustments neccessary for my family I could probably choke up a couple more nickels if it would assist in your self eddy of angst. Of course we WERE told the paycuts were needed and I think the results we have shown have proven that. Making money is a nice change of pace. As for the free trips, there is no free lunch. FF miles depletion is a good way to reduce liability. How many hayseeds does SWA fly around on a given day using FF tickets? They do have some type of prgram to get you to El Paso or Islip right?

And you're right...I don't have any plans on going to Shanghai. Sydney, yes. Shanghai - no. And I can tell you one airline that won't be taking me to Sydney.

I take it you ment Sidney, NE right? Sure the livestock show is something you would not want to miss. As for the other Sydney, enjoy your trip it is a lovely place and one of my favorite destinations.

They flew point to point as a way to keep cost down and compete against AA and its army of lawyers and lobbyists. Did your airline have powerful lawmakers line up to create a law specifically designed to put UA out of business like SWA did???

Well as a matter of fact SWA, AA and various others were part of the anti ATSB process for UAL. SWA pilots have utilized the MULE program for sometime and so in effect there was a concentrated effort to do harm to UAL by SWA and it employees. Therefore any hardship that might befall them is well within the balance of "fair" play. With the public now seeing through the veil of what SWA actually is and booking with the major carriers at a higher rate of travel it is good for us and bad for them. Cycles happen. We will see how well managed SWA is with a down cycle on their end. With the company grasping for straws of Assigned seating, hubbing ops, flights to high cost airports and lower yield the onus is on SWA to keep the streak alive. Heck we have already proven we can go BK. We have proven we can lose money and most importantly we have proven we have resilency to bounce back. SWA has not had to yet. Will be watching to see how they react.

Seems to me your pay cuts are a direct result of UA management not recognizing the competitive threat and reacting to it.

And the SWA pay increases were on the backs of the wages negotiated by the ALPA pilots at the major carriers. If the organized labor groups had not have done their bit SWA pilots would earn the wages they earn today. They did not move to the front. They were left there when everyone else took paycuts.

 

[KCFlyer]

I take it you ment Sidney, NE right? Sure the livestock show is something you would not want to miss. As for the other Sydney, enjoy your trip it is a lovely place and one of my favorite destinations.

Oh I'm sure I will. You know, there aren't any real "cheap seats" from MCI-SYD - especially in business class. Yep...us hillbilly's can't afford first class, but biz is doable. You might wanna price that routing on United and see what your attitude towards potential customers has cost your airline. It's AA and QANTAS for me, thank you very much. And I do mean thank YOU very much.

 

[jbguppy]

You guys are way too wrapped up in details. Unlike some other airlines, SWA doesn't try to be everything to everybody. The important thing is that SWA is about being a PROFITABLE business. Part of their path in doing this is keeping things fairly simple. If you have to have a "club" or first class seat, then pay the extra bucks and don't fly SWA. The numbers show that there are plenty of people will fly on SWA and like it.

One of the great union guys of the past, perhaps Samual Gompers, said, "The greatest harm you can do to employees is to not remain profitable"

Problem is, you will have to pay the extra bucks to fly SWA too.

KC, I know you are going to respond, but before you do go to the street dot com and read the article titled "now united looks smart"

JBG

 

[KCFlyer]

Problem is, you will have to pay the extra bucks to fly SWA too.

KC, I know you are going to respond, but before you do go to the street dot com and read the article titled "now united looks smart"

JBG

YOu know something...I read about how Wall Street was pretty down on Costco...I mean, they were profitable and everything, but Wall Street said that if they only weren't so generous in pay and benefits for their employee's - they could make more. I imagine Wall street says the same thing about United.

 

[magsau]

However you can go to the Congressional Record and READ the Wright Ammendment in all of its dubious glory.

I am sure you are correct. The Wright Amendment could not have been in place when SWA moved to DAL. Someone must have put it in place just after they moved in. Oh wait, SWA moved to DAL to take advantage of the other carriers leaving. (do you see the trend of SWA riding the coattails of others) The other carriers left because of the Wright Amendment and the opening of DFW. If SWA did not want to operate under the confines of the WA then they were more than welcome to compete out of the vast expanse of DFW.

Your tantrum is interesting to say the least. Arguing about a piece of legislation that suited you in the early stages but now doesn't. Typical

 

[KCFlyer]

I am sure you are correct. The Wright Amendment could not have been in place when SWA moved to DAL. Someone must have put it in place just after they moved in. Oh wait, SWA moved to DAL to take advantage of the other carriers leaving. (do you see the trend of SWA riding the coattails of others) The other carriers left because of the Wright Amendment and the opening of DFW. If SWA did not want to operate under the confines of the WA then they were more than welcome to compete out of the vast expanse of DFW.

Your tantrum is interesting to say the least. Arguing about a piece of legislation that suited you in the early stages but now doesn't. Typical

YOur ignorance is showing. Try google. The Wright Amendment was implemented in 1979 - 5 years AFTER DFW airport opened,and after SWA started service to New Orleans. The Wright Amendment had absolutely NOTHING to do with the other airlines moving to DFW. But you are a mighty unerring skygod United pilot...I suppose we can rewrite history to match your version of it. Southwest had been in business about 8 years by that time. They would have been in busisness earlier, and most likely would have had to sign the same agreement that the other airlines did, but for the fact that Braniff and Texas International kept filing lawsuits to keep them grounded. Oh well. Add to that the fact that Southwest was not under the jursidiction of the CAB back then. And don't forget that the Wright Amendment was the first piece of regulation to be passed after the airline deregulation act of 1978. You remember that act, don't you - the one that was supposed to open up competition to pretty much any airport that wanted service.

 

[SKY HIGH]

I'll call your attention to SWA's position and UA's. Don't know what that tells you.

IT MEANS THEY CANT COMPLAIN ABOUT "SERVICE" THEY DONT GET!

 

[jbguppy]

KC Flyer,

Give up those two (JBguppy and Magsau) are totally clueless. Profit is the name of the game in business, else you have no job. SWA generates it consistantly, UA and the other legacies DON'T. Key word being consistancy.

Now we can debate the product offering all we like but it's pretty well known where SWA carved it's market from. SWA has done a far far better job of who they are and where they fit than any other carrier. They stick to what they know works for them. Their product doesn't work for me, but it does work for many others.

These two alledgedly educated pilots can't get it through their collective heads that SWA hasn't ruined the airline business they've just built a more efficient way of doing things and lots of people like it.

SWA did not create the Yield Management software that gouges some while letting others ride nearly free and below cost.

SWA created their business model partly as a result of the legal onslaught they endured to even get in the air. Most don't know that the reason they are so anal about fast turns is that in the early days they had one of their 4 planes reposessed and they felt that in order to survive they had to maintain their existing schedule.

They flew point to point as a way to keep cost down and compete against AA and its army of lawyers and lobbyists. Did your airline have powerful lawmakers line up to create a law specifically designed to put UA out of business like SWA did???

You talk about a level playing field which is the antithesis of capitalism. SWA built a better business model and you think they should be penalized for that? Seems to me your pay cuts are a direct result of UA management not recognizing the competitive threat and reacting to it. SWA is in business for its investors not UA pilots so get over it

Hey Bob,
you might have a little more success in calling me clueless if you knew how to spell consistency...

SWA does not have a better business model, they had one.

At the end of the day, SWA would have had many un-profitable quarters without their hedges, is their business model a hedge??

Amaranth with wings...

JBG

 

[KCFlyer]

Hey KC whats Amaranth with wings??? He's using big pilot words and a lowly Star Alliance Gold like me can't follow along. I only know how to read a P & L, (especially all those UA ones covered in RED) not comprehend big high fallutin' words like Amaranth.

It's the botanist in him coming out. It's a fancy word for pigweed. So if we must go to the botany department He and mags with their insulting demeanor towards some in the flying public could well be described as belladonna in the cockpit.

 

[ngneer]

For what it's worth (From Reuters Tue Nov 7, 2006 8:14am ET):

RESEARCH ALERT-Credit Suisse raises Southwest Airlines

Credit Suisse said Southwest Airlines' general risk/reward outlook has materially improved and the shares represent an attractive entry point at current levels.

 

[magsau]

US AIRWAYS 0.98
AMERICAN AIRLINES 1.20
UNITED AIRLINES 1.34

I'll call your attention to SWA's position and UA's. Don't know what that tells you.

When you have passengers that expect nothing then they are fine with it. And when things to go awry they are not the most highly skilled or educated that are flying SWA. Do you think the people that eat at McDonalds would send a burger back versus the Mortons crowd and a filet?

 

[KCFlyer]

When you have passengers that expect nothing then they are fine with it. And when things to go awry they are not the most highly skilled or educated that are flying SWA. Do you think the people that eat at McDonalds would send a burger back versus the Mortons crowd and a filet?

You still don't get it, do you mags. Most of the passengers on the jets you fly aren't getting that "Morton's Service"...they are stuck back in the McDonaldland that you call "coach class".

Sure, flying Southwest is like McDonalds...we all pretty much get the same thing. Flying United is where a handful of passengers are directed into the Morton's, while the bulk of the passengers can only smell the aroma as they pass bythe door to Mortons and head to the counter next door and order up a big mac.

 

[jimntx]

Found this in an aviation industry news email I receive.

Subject:Aviation Daily (ASCII) - Nov 06, 2006

1. Intelligence: Southwest Could Hire As Many As 600 Pilots In 2007

Southwest plans to hire 550-600 pilots next year and continues to troll the used market for more aircraft. It is also pushing to grow earnings 15% in 2007, but analysts at Raymond James note it is not clear how it can meet that target as its fuel costs are expected to rise $300 million in 2007 and "capacity appears poised to rise again" next year. They point out Southwest's already efficient cost structure "leaves little room for additional economies of scale."


Now if that doesn't sound the death knell of any airline I don't know what does. Hiring 600 new pilots and looking around to buy extra airplanes. To paraphrase Cheney's statement about the Iraqi insurgency (17 months ago), "SWA is in its last throes."