New Casm?

[BoeingBoy]

What % of passengers does WN fly nonstop vs. connecting, and how does that compare to the legacies?

[post="244897"][/post]​

Don't know if this helps, but in the 4th quarter WN had 17,709,289 "Revenue passengers carried" and 20,144,834 "Enplaned passengers".

Someone else can explain to both of us if that means only 2,435,535 passengers connected (enplaned twice) or if there were that many Non-revenue passengers.

Jim

 

[FWAAA]

Don't know if this helps, but in the 4th quarter WN had 17,709,289 "Revenue passengers carried" and 20,144,834 "Enplaned passengers".

Someone else can explain to both of us if that means only 2,435,535 passengers connected (enplaned twice) or if there were that many Non-revenue passengers.

Jim

[post="244898"][/post]​

I assumed that the difference explained nonrevs (like RapidRewards tix plus employee nonrev) but I'm probably mistaken. 10% of total pax on free tickets is about comparable to AA and UA.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Since I have absolutely no idea, that's good enough for me. Thanks.

Jim

 

[mweiss]

I can't really add much to this discussion; you folks have pretty much said all that I would have said.

I'll add, however, that until the last quarter's numbers came out my response would have included the observation that WN's yields are lower than the legacies. Historically, that was true. It wasn't that time.

Why is this? My first reaction is to suggest that it's the bankruptcy effect (i.e., people are more wary of buying tickets on a bankrupt airline, so they command a fare discount relative to a more solvent carrier). I'm tossing this one out as a theory...I haven't a clue if it's true or not.

Any thoughts?

 

[insp89]

insp89,

Trying to predict what mweiss will say here....

I think it'll be a long time before fuel hedges are WN's only advantage. While there are offsetting advantages the legacies are reaching (pay, primarily), WN will still have the advantage of a single fleet type, rapid turn, high utilization business model. That'll be awfully hard for a legacy to duplicate.

Examples...

Pitot training - WN pilots generally go to A/C initial training twice in their career, when hired and when upgrading to captain. We have more than a few pilots going to initial twice a year. Each time is a month (or more) of pay with zero productivity (ASM's produced).

Utilization - even with the extensive long haul high utilization international operations of the big legacy carriers, they get less utilization out of the airplanes per day than WN does flying mostly short haul domestic.

Turn times (which contribute to utilization) - DL's new ATL schedules call for 50 minute turns (according to media reports). Mostly the same for our transformation plan (possible exception is the 737 at spoke cities where 35 is the minimum, but not necessarily the scheduled). WN turns their planes in about 35 minutes max.

One final advantage WN has is RASM, which seems odd because theirs is low compared to the legacies. But consider why it's low when their yield is pretty comparible to the legacies (4Q04 it was higher than U) - load factor. WN seems content to achieve a roughly 60-75% average LF depending on time of year. That means it's fairly easy for them to raise RASM if they need to by cutting back capacity on specific routes, primarily by reducing frequencies).

Jim

[post="244812"][/post]​

Jim, Turn Times & Utilitization are two items that should of been addressed by management long ago.

Instead, Management made the decision to make Employee concessions Priority One and let the operational side of the airline slide.

Since they accomplished Priority One, HOPEFULLY management will actually start doing their jobs and address these two issues.

I see very little Southwest is doing that US can't do, [NOW] since they were successful in screwing over the work force..

I disagree that a single fleet type is that big of an advantage as some may think..[Look at JetBlue, ordering Embraer 190's].

 

[insp89]

What's your evidence? funguy2, BoeingBoy, and I have been unable to see how US's non-fuel CASM will get within striking distance of WN's.

And, yes, Jim, you pretty much said what I was thinking.

[post="244827"][/post]​

Unable to see ? Open your eyes. Read my response to Jim.

Southwest has no magic wand, Just a well managed airline, thats all.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim, Turn Times & Utilitization are two items that should of been addressed by management long ago.

Agreed

Instead, Management made the decision to make Employee concessions Priority One and let the operational side of the airline slide.

So true

Since they accomplished Priority One, HOPEFULLY management will actually start doing their jobs and address these two issues.

Hope does spring eternal - let's keep our fingers crossed

I see very little Southwest is doing that US can't do, [NOW] since they were successful in screwing over the work force..

Other than hedging retroactively and single fleet type, agreed

I disagree that a single fleet type is that big of an advantage as some may think..[Look at JetBlue, ordering Embraer 190's].

It'll be interesting to see how JetBlue and AirTrans 2nd fleet type works out, though Airtran has little choice if they wanted to get into transcon. Plus, some extra fleet types give the ability to do things the LCC's can't (so far), like European service, so there's a trade-off there

[post="244914"][/post]​

 

[funguy2]

mweiss... I would add that since LUV always charges a "reasonable" fare, that LUV's passengers are generally less likely to shop around, since they seem to get a consistently good, but basic, product, at a fare that is predictably reasonable. The legacies, on the other hand are battling for market share, stealing customers back and forth, and competing more on price than reputation. Southwest, and jetBlue, get some leeway on lowest price based on a perception of value to their brand (always on time, always relatively cheap). The majors are much more of a mixed bag when it comes to perception.

insp89: I agree that one single fleet type is not the end all be all. Particularly if you pay crews like America West does - one pay scale for all equipment types does not encourage the desire to constantly fly something bigger on the basis that it translates to a pay raise. However, we've discussed in other topics, at length, that US Airways simply has 2 aircraft types for each mission, from transatlantic down to 30-seat turbo props. That seems excessive.

Actually, America West seems to be the only LCC with two similar fleet types which is not actively engaged in a fleet transition (like Frontier or Spirit). I guess you could argue that the Airbus' allowed economic transcons to the east coast where the 757 would be too big and the 737-300 would not have the range, thus offering a unique mission... The same would be true for US Airways if its A319s were used more for secondary transcons (like PHL-PDX or CLT-SJC). You can make the same argument about Southwest's 737-700NG vs the 737-300/500 family, as LUV has been able to grow its long-haul service only because of the 73G. But as it stands now, US Airways simply has two fleets for every mission, which is unacceptable by most LCC standards.

In the cases of jetBlue and AirTran, the two fleets clearly have distinct missions... jetBlue will use A320's for transcons and medium haul/high density routes. The E190's are for medium haul/medium density and short haul routes. The same can be said for AirTran's 73Gs and 717's.

 

[SpinDoc]

Jim, Turn Times & Utilitization are two items that should of been addressed by management long ago.

Insp:

Reach down and pull those belts tight. The initiative
to roll the PHL hub and reduce turn times is coming
this Saturday. The new schedule will be released
reflecting the new turn times. CLT will also be
adding 1 more bank of flights and begin depeaking.

Looks like CCY is gearing up to take advantage of
the new union contracts.

 

[mweiss]

Unable to see ? Open your eyes. Read my response to Jim.

Southwest has no magic wand, Just a well managed airline, thats all.

[post="244918"][/post]​

It takes time, effort, and money to turn an airline structured the way US is structured into an airline structured the way WN is structured.

US has precious little of two of those, and upper management has long shown little interest in the third.

So, perhaps you'd understand my skepticism. If it makes you feel better, I'll rephrase my original comment thusly:
funguy2, BoeingBoy, and I have been unable to see evidence that US's non-fuel CASM will get within striking distance of WN's.

 

[mweiss]

I disagree that a single fleet type is that big of an advantage as some may think..

[post="244914"][/post]​

Even if it's not that big of an advantage, having two fleets for each mission becomes a pretty big disadvantage on a number of levels.

 

[insp89]

It takes time, effort, and money to turn an airline structured the way US is structured into an airline structured the way WN is structured.

US has precious little of two of those, and upper management has long shown little interest in the third.

So, perhaps you'd understand my skepticism. If it makes you feel better, I'll rephrase my original comment thusly:
funguy2, BoeingBoy, and I have been unable to see evidence that US's non-fuel CASM will get within striking distance of WN's.

[post="244948"][/post]​

Well Weiss, Sounds like you don't give ole Usairways much of a chance..

Tell ya the truth, It doesn't concern me too much if you are "skeptical" or not.

The reason you do not see evidence of the non-fuel CASM coming down is very simple. I'll say it again just for you. Management in all their wisdom has focused all their efforts in driving down their labor costs. thusly they let the operational part of the equation slide..

.Management has a lot of work to do just to make you feel better about US's non-fuel CASM..[I'm sure they're as concerned as I am about your opinion].

 

[insp89]

Even if it's not that big of an advantage, having two fleets for each mission becomes a pretty big disadvantage on a number of levels.

[post="244952"][/post]​

As time goes on, The 737's will be phased out.

Could it be the 737's are still here because of the people who lease these planes to US ? :huh:

Nothing new here, old news.

 

[BoeingBoy]

As time goes on, The 737's will be phased out.

Could it be the 737's are still here because of the people who lease these planes to US ? :huh:

[post="244979"][/post]​

That's what is only slightly surprising about the aircraft that GE is taking back - not all 737's (though I hate to see the Boeings go). But like you said, I doubt that US had much choice in the matter - GE said jump and US dared not take the time to ask "How high?"

Jim

 

[mweiss]

Well Weiss, Sounds like you don't give ole Usairways much of a chance..

It's not me who has to give them the chance. :huh:

The reason you do not see evidence of the non-fuel CASM coming down is very simple. I'll say it again just for you.  Management in all their wisdom has focused all their efforts in driving down their labor costs. thusly they let the operational part of the equation slide..

Gee, ya think?

But here's the flaw in that logic: the two were not mutually exclusive activities!!! Even if we assume the greatest in nefariousness in negotiation, that they decided to prolong the losses in order to extract the greatest amount of concessions, the logic still falls apart. After all, the concessions have been achieved...the rest of the business should have appeared like magic the day after the judge approved the IAM contract.

But it didn't.

What does that tell you?