///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Well Jim(BB),
the only other thing that we might consider(which Magsau mentioned) is that WN's Costs(Employee wages) have risen significantly AFTER their latest, highly successful fuel hedge.
NH/BB's
Actually, it depends on how you define costs....
In the "household" sense - how many dollars are spent on labor per hour, for example - yes they have. But in the traditional airline sense - CASM - they haven't. For proof, just look no further than WN's ex-fuel CASM over the last 2-3 years.
Take pilots, for example. I read a report within the last week which said that WN's pilot costs on the 737 are only 95% of the average legacy carrier's 737 pilot's cost
on a seat mile basis. That's despite the fact that an 8 year WN F/O makes more per hour than a top of scale 737 Captain at US, for example.
Every legacy carrier pays their 737 (or eqivalent) pilots less than WN, yet WN has a cost advantage where it matters - CASM.
Plus, don't miss the point that WN
is still hedging fuel, after those employee wages have risen significantly. A year ago (end of 1st qtr 06), they had hedges stretching out to 2009. Now (end of 1st qtr 07) they have hedges going to 2012.
And please don't miss the fact that for 2006, WN logged a $100+ million
expense for hedges that were deemed "ineffective" per accounting rules. Yet those "losing" hedge positions provided a known cost for fuel, so were still "successful"......
Mags tends to take a grain of truth, then put it through an extra long spin cycle. A perfect example is his "if WN doesn't make at least $500 million in profits in 2007, they'd lose money without the hedges." The end of 2006 net value of all WN's outstanding hedges was indeed $500+ million ($537 I think). However, the 2007 value (at the end of 2006) was only half of that amount - ~$276 million. This thread is full of spin like that......
Here's the way I look at it:
On one side you've a model that been profitable for 30+ years straight. Through the late 70's/early 80's economy. Through the early 90's economy. Through the early 2000's economy and 911. Through the period of rapid fuel price increases of the last few years. And this is supposed to be the failing model?
On the other hand, you've got the network model. Over the last 30 years this model has produced a net loss. Five of the six remaining carriers have been through bankruptcy during that time, two of them twice. Several failed completely. The remaining legacy carriers have yet to prove that they can generate profits consistently. And this is the model that's proclaimed a success?
Once WN has a string of annual loses and files for bankruptcy, there'll be time to debate whether their future looks bleak or not. For only then will their model be as "successful" as the legacy model has been demonstrated to be.......
Jim