Ny Times Article

[BonTemps]

According to an article in today's NY times, Southwest's lucrative fuel hedging will be cut by
one third in 2006, and it will add 500-600 million dollars to cost, erasing the 313 million dollar profit in
2004, and expected 400 plus in 2005.

Welcome to the real world?

 

[WNJETFIXER]

According to an article in today's NY times, Southwest's lucrative fuel hedging will be cut by
one third in 2006, and it will add 500-600 million dollars to cost, erasing the 313 million dollar profit in
2004, and expected 400 plus in 2005.

Welcome to the real world?

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. SWA has a game plan, always has ,always will. Just watch and be amazed!!!!

 

[WNJETFIXER]

Welcome to the real world?

Hasn't SWA been operating in the real world???? Just because our ex CFO / current CEO had the forsight to hedge fuel, our company is bashed. Please tell me what world we have been operating in, I think we would all love to know. Please!!! :blink:

 

[corl737]

According to an article in today's NY times, Southwest's lucrative fuel hedging will be cut by
one third in 2006, and it will add 500-600 million dollars to cost, erasing the 313 million dollar profit in
2004, and expected 400 plus in 2005.

Welcome to the real world?

Yea!!! Finally SWA will be able to file for Chapter 11 and be a "real world" "real airline!"

 

[WNJETFIXER]

Yea!!! Finally SWA will be able to file for Chapter 11 and be a "real world" "real airline!"

Thank You, at least you see my point

 

[wnbubbleboy]

According to an article in today's NY times, Southwest's lucrative fuel hedging will be cut by
one third in 2006, and it will add 500-600 million dollars to cost, erasing the 313 million dollar profit in
2004, and expected 400 plus in 2005.

Welcome to the real world?

Incrediable insight!

Thank you for this information. Your concern for us is duely noted and much appreciated.

My resumes to find an other job are going out today.

Take care, and God Bless.

 

[skyguy25]

Shall i begin: "full pay or work at Chik-fil-a" HAHA! Wnbubbleboy- let me know if you hear back from that great new airline USAirways..i am dying to know if they got your resume.........HA!

I feel the employees are starting to abandon SWA and are jumping ship. Maybe Delta, or Northwest, or ATA, or I know FLYI!!!! there i go....thats where I am going!

 

[autofixer]

The assumtion is that oil will still be at $65 next year. Who knows? I do know it will not go below $40 again, but there is a big difference between $40 and $65. Once hurricane season is over and the real affects of high energy costs ripple throughout the economy, the market [forces] will bring the cost of oil back down to around $40 per barrel. Of course, the rising tide will float ALL SHIPS. JMHO

 

[WNjetdoc]

According to an article in today's NY times, Southwest's lucrative fuel hedging will be cut by
one third in 2006, and it will add 500-600 million dollars to cost, erasing the 313 million dollar profit in
2004, and expected 400 plus in 2005.

Welcome to the real world?

Take a deep breath and relax dude. You are getting overly excited over even a POSSIBLITY that SWA could lose money in the future. FYI we lost money for a quarter during the Gulf war so its not like we've never lost money in a quarter...please. Its just that we are not EXPERTS at losing money like your airline is, he,he.

Your title to this thread says it all about you, since you just went ahead and made up your own headline....do you work for some gossip magazine?

I like corl737's post, funny as a big dog. We can lose money, file bankruptcy, not pay our bills, screw the employees...since our costs are already lower than the legacy's prior to our bankruptcy you can only imagine how low our costs would be then.

Would would the legacy's do then? Welcome to the real world, lol.

 

[ramper_in_las]

i find it reprehensable that so many people are waiting for swa to fall. mind your own business and worry about the well being of your own companies. We will worry about ours as traditionally the employees all have done in the past and as usual we will make it through the tough times. :down:

 

[WNjetdoc]

i find it reprehensable that so many people are waiting for swa to fall. mind your own business and worry about the well being of your own companies. We will worry about ours as traditionally the employees all have done in the past and as usual we will make it through the tough times. :down:

I totally agree...I see posters from other airlines wandering over here making blanket statements about how ALL SWA employees are doing or saying this or that about their airline. The fact is they read one post from someone on this board, (who may not even work at SWA), and then you hear the crap how SWA employees shouldn't say stuff like that...I try to explain to those idiots that its ONE poster, not the ENTIRE airline saying it.

It seems to me I see a lot more posters from other airlines wishing ill will on us at SWA than I've ever read going the other way.

People should be pissed at the people running their airline into the ground....which is mostly people at the top of the food chain. They should be pissed at the US Government and the Courts for allowing the airlines to get away with the unbelievable things that they are doing to the employees. But of course Corporate America and the Gov. are in bed together, IMO, so any complaining will fall on deaf ears, but that is another thread, but its the truth.

 

[luvn737s]

People should be pissed at the people running their airline into the ground....which is mostly people at the top of the food chain. They should be pissed at the US Government and the Courts for allowing the airlines to get away with the unbelievable things that they are doing to the employees. But of course Corporate America and the Gov. are in bed together, IMO, so any complaining will fall on deaf ears, but that is another thread, but its the truth.

You can't understand why people who have had to have their wages cut 50-100% in order to compete with a carrier who decided it would charge $39 for a ticket? The airline didn't charge 20% less. The airline didn't charge 50% less. In many cases it charged 75% less than the incumbents, and due to it's ability to gain market mass it eroded the profitability out of the entire industry to the point that what little there is to be made is being made by that one airline. Even if the incumbent airlines had thrown out all their union contracts and slashed their costs overnight, the people who worked there would still feel the way they do today.

The so-called "Southwest effect" is to train the traveling public that they don't have to pay more than $99 for a flight. Which, if you only want to fly in 737's to less then 70 cities only in the continental US and with limited non-stop service, and you can pay 50% less than everyone else for fuel, maybe under those circumstances you can justify ruining the industry with cheap tickets. But many airlines have higher costs related to providing a wide variety of services from international to small-city service. But those airlines are seen as robber-barons who rip off customers with astronomical fares. One only has to look at the historically thin profit margins the airline industry has lived with, to see that these fares were in line with the cost of production.

But quite a few folks thought that airline people were overpaid and they applied to work for less at Southwest. Now the wages they were willing to work for have become the high water mark of industry wages and you still can't understand why some people harbor ill will towards Southwest? Be proud of your success, but realize that you didn't win the game, you changed it. It went from basketball to football and the 300lb linemen you sent in decimated the other team. Blame the management for failing to adapt? Partially. But a fair measure of blame for this industry's woes can be placed at the feet of a competitor who decided to unilaterally change what airline fare pricing would be.

While a mature industry doesn't need or deserve any regulatory protection, what Southwest did to the industry is precisely why the airlines were regulated in the first place. Now there is insufficient profit industrywide to stimulate investment or much technological advancement. If there was a Southwest 50 years ago, we would still be flying in Convairs and DC-3's.

So in closing be proud of what you've accomplished, take the blame for what you've caused and realize that you can't be the hero to those you've vanquished.

 

[corl737]

So in closing be proud of what you've accomplished, take the blame for what you've caused and realize that you can't be the hero to those you've vanquished.

Love us, hate us, or neglect us, but do not blame us. This is a competitive industry. History will show that the failure of your company to adapt and thrive is a reflection not only on managment but on labor as well. Egos and Greed eventually take their toll. This will undoubtedly be the story of SWA sometime in the future as well.

 

[WNjetdoc]

You can't understand why people who have had to have their wages cut 50-100% in order to compete with a carrier who decided it would charge $39 for a ticket? The airline didn't charge 20% less. The airline didn't charge 50% less. In many cases it charged 75% less than the incumbents, and due to it's ability to gain market mass it eroded the profitability out of the entire industry to the point that what little there is to be made is being made by that one airline. Even if the incumbent airlines had thrown out all their union contracts and slashed their costs overnight, the people who worked there would still feel the way they do today.

The so-called "Southwest effect" is to train the traveling public that they don't have to pay more than $99 for a flight. Which, if you only want to fly in 737's to less then 70 cities only in the continental US and with limited non-stop service, and you can pay 50% less than everyone else for fuel, maybe under those circumstances you can justify ruining the industry with cheap tickets. But many airlines have higher costs related to providing a wide variety of services from international to small-city service. But those airlines are seen as robber-barons who rip off customers with astronomical fares. One only has to look at the historically thin profit margins the airline industry has lived with, to see that these fares were in line with the cost of production.

But quite a few folks thought that airline people were overpaid and they applied to work for less at Southwest. Now the wages they were willing to work for have become the high water mark of industry wages and you still can't understand why some people harbor ill will towards Southwest? Be proud of your success, but realize that you didn't win the game, you changed it. It went from basketball to football and the 300lb linemen you sent in decimated the other team. Blame the management for failing to adapt? Partially. But a fair measure of blame for this industry's woes can be placed at the feet of a competitor who decided to unilaterally change what airline fare pricing would be.

While a mature industry doesn't need or deserve any regulatory protection, what Southwest did to the industry is precisely why the airlines were regulated in the first place. Now there is insufficient profit industrywide to stimulate investment or much technological advancement. If there was a Southwest 50 years ago, we would still be flying in Convairs and DC-3's.

So in closing be proud of what you've accomplished, take the blame for what you've caused and realize that you can't be the hero to those you've vanquished.

So if I read you correctly SWA is to blame for the legacy's carriers ineptitude to adapt to todays market? I hear you laying blame on SWA for the cost issue but what about your carriers putting blame on 9-11? How about cursing Big Oil? Why not damn the hurricanes as they raised fuel prices even higher? No, its "little ole' SWA" causing everyones problems.

There have been many posts that do not even put us with the "Big Boys"...how can such a little guy cause all of your problems? We are not a real carrier because we don't fly Widebody's or fly overseas, I've heard several posters point out....seems like a like of havoc being caused by such a small airline doesn't it?

You seem to say the flying public is pretty naive with your so called, "Southwest Effect" line. Naive or stupid you seem to be saying. Why is it SWA that is charging too low a fare....Perhaps the flying public isn't as dumb as you imply. I think once SWA arrived and they saw they could afford to fly they started looking at flying to get somewhere without taking out a second mortgage.

I think the flying public got tired of being screwed by the legacy carriers, I think they got tired of paying 1500.00 for a fare when SWA go them there, or a airport pretty dang close, for 150.00.

You can only screw people for so long dude, once they see what the truth is then most move on it. Rock on "Southwest Effect".

Are you the same guy that came up with that crazy analogy about Herb, horse breath, truck drivers, barnes and sniffing your dogs butt in some previoius thread? I think so....LOL. Your posts are improving.

So you can blame SWA for your problems, or even big oil, your own officers or perhaps the hurricanes...fill in the blank, however the bottom line is its the passengers that are to "blame" for your problems. Offer them a superior product, or at least a decent one, then come back and talk.









Corl, are we on the same wave length? We typed almost the same thing, I hope people don't think I copied off of you, lol...I guess if you look at the times of our post they were made at the exact same time, however I took a lot longer to make the same point...good post!!

 

[WNjetdoc]

For some reason my post WAS at the same time as yours, then I did a "fast repy" and it changed my post time and made it as one post...whatever...in the end both of our posts are the truth.