Southwest Vs. Us Airways

[BoeingBoy]

sfb,

You make a very interesting (and valid) point. Eclat consulting published some figures last year saying that only 3% of the "lower 48" city pairs generated over 100 passengers each way daily. Their point was that there was a natural "barrier" to LCC growth. For my money, what they forgot was the "Southwest effect" you so clearly demonstrated.

Jim

 

[mweiss]

While it is true that the markets out of MHT and PVD have grown immensely on a percentage basis, I'd bet large sums of money that if BOS had comparable fares to those two cities, you'd see substantial reductions in the MHT and PVD markets.

That isn't meant to imply that WN doesn't generate significant growth in the markets in which they enter. Rather, it's important to look at the overall picture in order to get a more accurate view.

 

[BoeingBoy]

mweiss,

You are correct about those markets you mentioned, but they're only a part of the big picture. For example, BUF doesn't have a nearby major city to draw from, likewise ALB. In talking about Southwest, my belief is you have to look at the population in the catchment area - not just the "local" market or even metropolitan area.

Jim

 

[mweiss]

Jim,

Of course you're right.

I just hate it when people bring out the PVDs as examples of massive growth. The "real" numbers are spectacular on their own, without the need for stastistical inflation. WN's network is filled with cities that are real examples of 500% growth.

 

[BoeingBoy]

mweiss,

Right on.

Jim

 

[FM2436]

FM2436-

The funny thing is, most of the city pairs from BWI you listed WEREN'T "high-density" before WN started service. Taking DOT's compilations of daily passenger counts on several routes:

ALB-BWI: Before WN (1Q00), 74 (pax/day); Most recent (2Q03), 621 (pax/day)
BUF-BWI: Before WN (1Q00), 94; Most recent (2Q03), 757
BDL-BWI: Before WN (2Q99), 241; Most recent (2Q03), 933
IND-BWI: Before WN (1Q00), 193; Most recent (2Q03), 476
ISP-BWI: Before WN (4Q98), 26; Most recent (2Q03), 542
MHT-BWI: Before WN (1Q98), 25; Most recent (2Q03), 1531
PVD-BWI: Before WN (2Q95), 159; Most recent (2Q03), 1715
ORF-BWI: Before WN (2Q01), 96; Most recent (2Q03), 216
RDU-BWI: Before WN (1Q99), 121; Most recent (2Q03), 575
PBI-BWI: Before WN (4Q00), 239; Most recent (2Q03), 439
JAX-BWI: Before WN (2Q96), 199; Most recent (2Q03), 602
MCO-BWI: Before WN (3Q95), 426; Most recent (2Q03), 1965
TPA-BWI: Before WN (3Q95), 354; Most recent (2Q03), 1298

I can't get figures for before 4Q93 which would give traffic numbers from BWI to STL, MDW, BNA, STL, CLE, HOU, and LAX before Southwest. But of the markets I listed, the smallest percentage increase was to PBI (84%) ranging up to a ridiculously large increase of 6000% in traffic between MHT and BWI.

I wouldn't exactly call PVD-PHL a high-density pair, either, at a whopping 116 daily passengers. But with the stimulative effect of the AVERAGE one-way fare dropping from $325 to under $50, it wouldn't surprise me to see traffic increase by 1000% or more on that route. Same for MHT-PHL, at 102 daily passengers paying an average one-way fare of $303. Most of the other routes announced by Southwest already have or will have non-stop low-fare competition (TZ to MDW, HP to PHX/LAS, FL to PBI/MCO/TPA/FLL, F9 to LAX).

sfb

Your's is the most fact filled post I've seen in a long time. Excellent job!

 

[moosedog]

I find it funny that salaries are compared to SW now. The solution is this, look at the pay for a SW pilot for the past 7 years with similar seniority and position. Look at the USAirways pilot pay for same period. If they are the same, then the SW formula should still work. If the Airways pilot made more, then to be on SW pay now he/she should give the difference back to the company. I read these once in a while and find few business ideas, just gripes that the formula of working less for lots more money no longer works. Question, even when things were good, anyone at Airways willing to pay major carrier prices to take their family on vacation so those people can make good money. Not. When the money was available for making changes in the 90s, we took home instead of keeping it in the company. Certainly management did not give us much hope for anything but a sale. But even after 9-11, we continued to take the money instead of stopping the flow. SW pilots did some free flying, we just blamed it on someone else. I did not see anyone say in 1993, lets get into the SW pay scale. Nope, pay us like Delta because we fly 737s. Airways can make it, but only when we all realize how good we had it, but things have changed, and good times may be ahead, but not if we once again hold on to strong to the concept we are one of the big boys. <_< .

 

[BoeingBoy]

moosedog,

"The solution is this, look at the pay for a SW pilot for the past 7 years with similar seniority and position.


And therein lies the tale...with 4 examples.

I'm senior here flying 737 captain for the time you mentioned. If I'd been at Southwest during that period, I'd have been flying 737 captain and probably made less in salary (the stock portion of the compensation would make a big difference though).

Mid-level seniority here is either senior F/O or junior captain. Had that pilot been at Southwest, they'd have been a captain the whole time with good seniority as captain now. Call it a wash (and there's that stock again).

Junior here is reserve F/O for most of the period. Had they been at Southwest, they'd have been a captain most if not all the period. Definitely would have made more at Southwest (and there's that stock again).

And then there's the bottom 1/3 of our pilots who are furloughed and have been a significent part of that 7 years. The more senior of them would be captains at Southwest now, though probably not the entire seven years. The junior would have been employeed the whole time moving up the seniority ladder. Yes, they'd definitely have made more at Southwest (and there's that stock yet again).

Jim