SW: Just how do they do it?
- Thread starter speedbird86
- Start date
Yes U employees make less per hour then WN employees however, WN employees are more productive. Just sit in CLT,PHL or PIT and watch how many flights our employees work. Maybe 3 or 4 turns per gate while a WN employee would work 8 or 9 in the same time frame. WN uses less gates for their operation thus less rent. One type of aircraft = less aircraft parts to stock. Also look at the airports served. WN operates into secondary airports were landing fees are much lower. In our station that has only 11 flights per day, our monthly landing fees are well over $300,000 per month. One solution to our problem would be to have rolling Hubs, the same thing AA is doing in DFW which adds to productivity.
----------------
On 3/25/2003 7:07:09 PM SalesGuyCCY wrote:
Actually, one significant difference is the Southwests labor costs are still significantly lower than U, even post-Chapter. U will about at 10.2 cent/mile and SW is somewhere around 6 cents. That''s part of it. Having just one fleet type helps too. No big hubs with big costs either and no first class and the amenities that go with it.
----------------
On 3/25/2003 7:07:09 PM SalesGuyCCY wrote:
Actually, one significant difference is the Southwests labor costs are still significantly lower than U, even post-Chapter. U will about at 10.2 cent/mile and SW is somewhere around 6 cents. That''s part of it. Having just one fleet type helps too. No big hubs with big costs either and no first class and the amenities that go with it.
----------------
With a handle like "SalesGuyCCY" I''m assuming that you''re so close to HQ that you can''t be blamed for drinking that kool-aid.
Try flying in F someday and then come back and try to justify the idea that it is somehow an expensive burden to support.
The only way to come up with numbers like that is to follow the sort of government accounting process that leads to $600 screwdrivers.
----------------
On 3/26/2003 7
04 AM BluShamu wrote:
Well down the road when we get all these precious RJ''s, won''t that then bring our CSM down even more, and make us more competive with LUV? Anyone have idea what the projected CSM will be after we start getting rj''s on a regular basis?
----------------
On 3/26/2003 7
04 AM BluShamu wrote: Well down the road when we get all these precious RJ''s, won''t that then bring our CSM down even more, and make us more competive with LUV? Anyone have idea what the projected CSM will be after we start getting rj''s on a regular basis?
----------------
It''s hard to say. You''ll have some parts of the cost side of the equation lower but you''ll have fewer seats to spread them over. CASM may well increase as a result.
----------------
On 3/25/2003 746 PM PITbull wrote:
Are you saying that SW labor costs are lower? Give examples.
I showed you the f/as rate without putting out our lengthy contract and theirs; but I can do that.
Our f/a costs at U are much lower than SW. That is not disputable. I don''t have the comparisons for the other labor groups, so, can you give an example of what you speak.
----------------
On 3/25/2003 7
46 PM PITbull wrote: Are you saying that SW labor costs are lower? Give examples.
I showed you the f/as rate without putting out our lengthy contract and theirs; but I can do that.
Our f/a costs at U are much lower than SW. That is not disputable. I don''t have the comparisons for the other labor groups, so, can you give an example of what you speak.
----------------
You seem to be confusing the rate of pay with the cost to get the job done.
Suppose that cashiers at McBurger are paid $10/hr and cashiers at WhopperBurger are paid $12/hr. Therefore McBurger''s costs are lower? No, you also have to look at how they staff -- if McBurger puts 4 cashiers in place to handle 100 customers per hour while WhopperBurger uses 3 cashiers to handle the same 100 customers then WhopperBurger has lower costs.
Note that I''m not saying that McBurger cashiers are any better or worse at their jobs than WhopperBurgers -- they might be, or they might not be. Or it could be that management just likes having lots of extra people twiddling their thumbs for half the day. It might also be that WhopperBurger, by happily letting their customers "have it their way" while still offering simple, easy to understand value meals is able to handle the same number of customers with fewer employees than McBurger with their array of confusing options and their arcane repricing strategy involving the intervention of a district manager whenever a customer wants to substitute a lemonade for a Coke...
wwtraveler99
Member
- Jan 31, 2003
- 94
- 0
>>
Pineybob,
I would like to see what fares are $100 or more than the others carriers. I have seen that SWA is not always the lowest fare but more by $100. is hard to believe. SWA highest fare is $299.00 each way max. Thats it. I would like to see an example if you have one to show. I travel SWA quite often but have never seen that big of a fare differecne.
Thank you,
Pineybob,
I would like to see what fares are $100 or more than the others carriers. I have seen that SWA is not always the lowest fare but more by $100. is hard to believe. SWA highest fare is $299.00 each way max. Thats it. I would like to see an example if you have one to show. I travel SWA quite often but have never seen that big of a fare differecne.
Thank you,
----------------
On 3/25/2003 9:07:57 PM PineyBob wrote:
PITbull let me try to answer this based on what I know about SWA and some research I have done over the past months.
1. Work Rules - Old line industries are filled with restrictive and unproductive work rules that date back to well before de-regulation of the airline industry. SWA has far fewer "past practices" to deal with than US
3. Attitude of management towards workers - US has at least 4 VP or higher with the duties that involve labor relations. SWA has one and her title says alot, VP People.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Piney Bob,
I''ll stipulate to your other points; I want to get into these two.
1. The big work groups at U have been ALPA, AFA, IAM-mechanic, IAM-fleet, and CWA. The first three have been union forever; IAM-F and CWA ratified in 1999. ALPA has generally had some very nice perks in their contract; you are seeing those stripped out before your eyes. AFA never had ALPA or IAM-M''s leverage; their contracts have trended to the industry average. IAM-M had some serious leverage, second only to ALPA. They''ve taken it in the shorts as well. But ALPA or IAM-M never trended above the industry average, and their work rules didn''t stray from industry norms. IAM-F and CWA merely ratified the corporate policy guide in 1999; it was no gravy train. The fact it took 5 years to negotiate the corporate policy guide (which naturally, was VERY favorable to management) and the contract''s duration was 5 years (historically, contracts were 3 year deals) is another rant I won''t go into here. Additionally in 1999, the parity review for wages was instituted. For ALPA and IAM-M, it was considered concessionary. For CWA and IAM-F, pre-contractual pay was so low, parity resulted in a significant raise.
The upshot is, the bulk of the workforce has worked for quite a while on terms favorable to management. WN''s secret is they deploy their resources more efficiently; an area U labor has no say in.
2. Right on, brother. This is a major issue historically (why do you think IAM-F and CWA organized? we got tired of management arrogance!) and right up unto today. I don''t know how it is in other work groups, but nothing has changed in mine from the W&G days. And I''m in a position to know. I''ve recently been in a deal that indicates to me nothing will change, except perhaps for the worst.
On 3/25/2003 9:07:57 PM PineyBob wrote:
PITbull let me try to answer this based on what I know about SWA and some research I have done over the past months.
1. Work Rules - Old line industries are filled with restrictive and unproductive work rules that date back to well before de-regulation of the airline industry. SWA has far fewer "past practices" to deal with than US
3. Attitude of management towards workers - US has at least 4 VP or higher with the duties that involve labor relations. SWA has one and her title says alot, VP People.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Piney Bob,
I''ll stipulate to your other points; I want to get into these two.
1. The big work groups at U have been ALPA, AFA, IAM-mechanic, IAM-fleet, and CWA. The first three have been union forever; IAM-F and CWA ratified in 1999. ALPA has generally had some very nice perks in their contract; you are seeing those stripped out before your eyes. AFA never had ALPA or IAM-M''s leverage; their contracts have trended to the industry average. IAM-M had some serious leverage, second only to ALPA. They''ve taken it in the shorts as well. But ALPA or IAM-M never trended above the industry average, and their work rules didn''t stray from industry norms. IAM-F and CWA merely ratified the corporate policy guide in 1999; it was no gravy train. The fact it took 5 years to negotiate the corporate policy guide (which naturally, was VERY favorable to management) and the contract''s duration was 5 years (historically, contracts were 3 year deals) is another rant I won''t go into here. Additionally in 1999, the parity review for wages was instituted. For ALPA and IAM-M, it was considered concessionary. For CWA and IAM-F, pre-contractual pay was so low, parity resulted in a significant raise.
The upshot is, the bulk of the workforce has worked for quite a while on terms favorable to management. WN''s secret is they deploy their resources more efficiently; an area U labor has no say in.
2. Right on, brother. This is a major issue historically (why do you think IAM-F and CWA organized? we got tired of management arrogance!) and right up unto today. I don''t know how it is in other work groups, but nothing has changed in mine from the W&G days. And I''m in a position to know. I''ve recently been in a deal that indicates to me nothing will change, except perhaps for the worst.
----------------
On 3/26/2003 6:38:31 AM Hope777 wrote:
Yes U employees make less per hour then WN employees however, WN employees are more productive. Just sit in CLT,PHL or PIT and watch how many flights our employees work. Maybe 3 or 4 turns per gate while a WN employee would work 8 or 9 in the same time frame. WN uses less gates for their operation thus less rent. One type of aircraft = less aircraft parts to stock. Also look at the airports served. WN operates into secondary airports were landing fees are much lower. In our station that has only 11 flights per day, our monthly landing fees are well over $300,000 per month. One solution to our problem would be to have rolling Hubs, the same thing AA is doing in DFW which adds to productivity.
----------------
-----------------------------------------------------------On 3/26/2003 6:38:31 AM Hope777 wrote:
Yes U employees make less per hour then WN employees however, WN employees are more productive. Just sit in CLT,PHL or PIT and watch how many flights our employees work. Maybe 3 or 4 turns per gate while a WN employee would work 8 or 9 in the same time frame. WN uses less gates for their operation thus less rent. One type of aircraft = less aircraft parts to stock. Also look at the airports served. WN operates into secondary airports were landing fees are much lower. In our station that has only 11 flights per day, our monthly landing fees are well over $300,000 per month. One solution to our problem would be to have rolling Hubs, the same thing AA is doing in DFW which adds to productivity.
----------------
Absolutely on the mark.
Question. Who has the initiative on every item you mention, labor or management?
Question. Who took it in the shorts to pay for the poor choices.
Spilt milk at this point, but utter BS. I just love being blamed as the problem.
----------------
On 3/26/2003 9:33:48 AM TomBascom wrote:
You seem to be confusing the rate of pay with the cost to get the job done.
Suppose that cashiers at McBurger are paid $10/hr and cashiers at WhopperBurger are paid $12/hr. Therefore McBurger''s costs are lower? No, you also have to look at how they staff -- if McBurger puts 4 cashiers in place to handle 100 customers per hour while WhopperBurger uses 3 cashiers to handle the same 100 customers then WhopperBurger has lower costs.
Note that I''m not saying that McBurger cashiers are any better or worse at their jobs than WhopperBurgers -- they might be, or they might not be. Or it could be that management just likes having lots of extra people twiddling their thumbs for half the day. It might also be that WhopperBurger, by happily letting their customers "have it their way" while still offering simple, easy to understand value meals is able to handle the same number of customers with fewer employees than McBurger with their array of confusing options and their arcane repricing strategy involving the intervention of a district manager whenever a customer wants to substitute a lemonade for a Coke...
----------------
On 3/26/2003 9:33:48 AM TomBascom wrote:
----------------
On 3/25/2003 746 PM PITbull wrote:
Are you saying that SW labor costs are lower? Give examples.
I showed you the f/as rate without putting out our lengthy contract and theirs; but I can do that.
Our f/a costs at U are much lower than SW. That is not disputable. I don''t have the comparisons for the other labor groups, so, can you give an example of what you speak.
----------------
On 3/25/2003 7
46 PM PITbull wrote: Are you saying that SW labor costs are lower? Give examples.
I showed you the f/as rate without putting out our lengthy contract and theirs; but I can do that.
Our f/a costs at U are much lower than SW. That is not disputable. I don''t have the comparisons for the other labor groups, so, can you give an example of what you speak.
----------------
You seem to be confusing the rate of pay with the cost to get the job done.
Suppose that cashiers at McBurger are paid $10/hr and cashiers at WhopperBurger are paid $12/hr. Therefore McBurger''s costs are lower? No, you also have to look at how they staff -- if McBurger puts 4 cashiers in place to handle 100 customers per hour while WhopperBurger uses 3 cashiers to handle the same 100 customers then WhopperBurger has lower costs.
Note that I''m not saying that McBurger cashiers are any better or worse at their jobs than WhopperBurgers -- they might be, or they might not be. Or it could be that management just likes having lots of extra people twiddling their thumbs for half the day. It might also be that WhopperBurger, by happily letting their customers "have it their way" while still offering simple, easy to understand value meals is able to handle the same number of customers with fewer employees than McBurger with their array of confusing options and their arcane repricing strategy involving the intervention of a district manager whenever a customer wants to substitute a lemonade for a Coke...
----------------
Hold the pickels, hold the lettuce, special airfares don''t upset us..........LOL
Now I''m hungry
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,566
- 37
Bob,
While I do agree that SWA is not always the cheapest, I think your comparison falls apart when you include the commuting costs. Of course, if you live 180 miles from a SWA serviced airport, the costs will be more.
As a counterpoint to that, I can say that even if I were to assume my time is worth $150/hour (in my current business, that''s a smidge low, but we''ll run with it) and it takes me 2 hours each way to drive from my place to CLE, it is very often still a cheaper proposition to drive to CLE and pay the LUV walkup $299 to get to LAX one-stop than to fly ex-PIT on U (billing the extra time at $150/hour and the 4 hours of drive at $150/hour). Or, as I have done many times in the past, _get on the U plane to PIT and then get on the flight I ACTUALLY wanted_ for that same low price.
Generally, Southwest will be cheaper. Contrary to popular opinion, the real savings is for the business traveler at the last minute, as the majors are pretty good about keeping pace with LUVs advance purchase fares, and in many cases offering _more_ seats at LUV does at a given price point.
While I do agree that SWA is not always the cheapest, I think your comparison falls apart when you include the commuting costs. Of course, if you live 180 miles from a SWA serviced airport, the costs will be more.
As a counterpoint to that, I can say that even if I were to assume my time is worth $150/hour (in my current business, that''s a smidge low, but we''ll run with it) and it takes me 2 hours each way to drive from my place to CLE, it is very often still a cheaper proposition to drive to CLE and pay the LUV walkup $299 to get to LAX one-stop than to fly ex-PIT on U (billing the extra time at $150/hour and the 4 hours of drive at $150/hour). Or, as I have done many times in the past, _get on the U plane to PIT and then get on the flight I ACTUALLY wanted_ for that same low price.
Generally, Southwest will be cheaper. Contrary to popular opinion, the real savings is for the business traveler at the last minute, as the majors are pretty good about keeping pace with LUVs advance purchase fares, and in many cases offering _more_ seats at LUV does at a given price point.
----------------
On 3/26/2003 2:06:22 PM PineyBob wrote:
I''m not going to continue but I have a friend that works for SWA and we had a heated argument over SWA being cheaper. We took 10 of my real business itineraries and compared the price on the internet and exactly once was the price the same. When the cost of commuting is factored in SWA lost EVERYTIME! Did you read that? EVERYTIME! My employer pays for parking and mileage and when all of the costs are factored in SWA is NOT Competitive! Not with a 186 mile drive to BWI vs a 28 mile drive to ACY! $12.75/day parking vs $4.00/day in ACY! Factor in that all ACY flights connect in PHL and I get a ride in a nice new Airbus in a fat leather seat. A free cocktail or 2, good snacks and no "A,B,C card Cattle Call" SWA offers me no value for dollars spent. Heck they aren''t even cheap. As a Cockroach I should know
----------------
In your case, WN might not be the cheapest since you don''t live close to a WN market. But if you live closer to a WN market, WN starts to make a big difference. Sure, US might undercut WN on the advanced purchase fares and guess what that means...US just keeps losing money. I''m glad you like flying US on these cheap fares...problem is that US is losing lots of money on flyers like you. Worst of all since you''re a CP, US gives you extra perks as a favor for losing them money. Maybe you think thats a good business model, but I don''t. On 3/26/2003 2:06:22 PM PineyBob wrote:
I''m not going to continue but I have a friend that works for SWA and we had a heated argument over SWA being cheaper. We took 10 of my real business itineraries and compared the price on the internet and exactly once was the price the same. When the cost of commuting is factored in SWA lost EVERYTIME! Did you read that? EVERYTIME! My employer pays for parking and mileage and when all of the costs are factored in SWA is NOT Competitive! Not with a 186 mile drive to BWI vs a 28 mile drive to ACY! $12.75/day parking vs $4.00/day in ACY! Factor in that all ACY flights connect in PHL and I get a ride in a nice new Airbus in a fat leather seat. A free cocktail or 2, good snacks and no "A,B,C card Cattle Call" SWA offers me no value for dollars spent. Heck they aren''t even cheap. As a Cockroach I should know
----------------
As for fare comparison between WN and US, lets do a last minute fare check. I want to fly on Monday morning (March 31) and return Friday (April 4).
USAirways Flight ACY-PHL-LAX
USAirways Flight LAX-PHL-ACY
Total Fare: $1,625
Southwest Flight BWI-LAX
Southwest Flight LAX-BWI
Total Fare: $392.50
Is it worth it to drive from ACY to BWI to save about $1200?
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
----------------
On 3/26/2003 9:33:48 AM TomBascom wrote:
You seem to be confusing the rate of pay with the cost to get the job done.
Suppose that cashiers at McBurger are paid $10/hr and cashiers at WhopperBurger are paid $12/hr. Therefore McBurger's costs are lower? No, you also have to look at how they staff -- if McBurger puts 4 cashiers in place to handle 100 customers per hour while WhopperBurger uses 3 cashiers to handle the same 100 customers then WhopperBurger has lower costs.
Note that I'm not saying that McBurger cashiers are any better or worse at their jobs than WhopperBurgers -- they might be, or they might not be. Or it could be that management just likes having lots of extra people twiddling their thumbs for half the day. It might also be that WhopperBurger, by happily letting their customers "have it their way" while still offering simple, easy to understand value meals is able to handle the same number of customers with fewer employees than McBurger with their array of confusing options and their arcane repricing strategy involving the intervention of a district manager whenever a customer wants to substitute a lemonade for a Coke...
----------------
On 3/26/2003 9:33:48 AM TomBascom wrote:
----------------
On 3/25/2003 746 PM PITbull wrote:
Are you saying that SW labor costs are lower? Give examples.
I showed you the f/as rate without putting out our lengthy contract and theirs; but I can do that.
Our f/a costs at U are much lower than SW. That is not disputable. I don't have the comparisons for the other labor groups, so, can you give an example of what you speak.
----------------
On 3/25/2003 7
46 PM PITbull wrote: Are you saying that SW labor costs are lower? Give examples.
I showed you the f/as rate without putting out our lengthy contract and theirs; but I can do that.
Our f/a costs at U are much lower than SW. That is not disputable. I don't have the comparisons for the other labor groups, so, can you give an example of what you speak.
----------------
You seem to be confusing the rate of pay with the cost to get the job done.
Suppose that cashiers at McBurger are paid $10/hr and cashiers at WhopperBurger are paid $12/hr. Therefore McBurger's costs are lower? No, you also have to look at how they staff -- if McBurger puts 4 cashiers in place to handle 100 customers per hour while WhopperBurger uses 3 cashiers to handle the same 100 customers then WhopperBurger has lower costs.
Note that I'm not saying that McBurger cashiers are any better or worse at their jobs than WhopperBurgers -- they might be, or they might not be. Or it could be that management just likes having lots of extra people twiddling their thumbs for half the day. It might also be that WhopperBurger, by happily letting their customers "have it their way" while still offering simple, easy to understand value meals is able to handle the same number of customers with fewer employees than McBurger with their array of confusing options and their arcane repricing strategy involving the intervention of a district manager whenever a customer wants to substitute a lemonade for a Coke...
----------------
Tom,
Excellent, excellent analogy. I finally get it, and you make perfect sense. That must be how they operate so efficiently. They pay their folks more but with less doing the job. I can understand the business sense to that, however, conversely, that would hurt us as a union, as we like to create more jobs; not less.
But, if we take a look now, our management has gotten both....
paying less wages and using less people to do the job.
wwtraveler99
Member
- Jan 31, 2003
- 94
- 0
----------------
On 3/26/2003 2:06:22 PM PineyBob wrote:
Well it depends on the whether you calculate the true cost of travel into the ticket price. But here is one fresh off the web pages. First off a little background. G/F lives in GRR, closest SWA airport is DTW. Fare comparison therefore is GRR to PVD on US, vs DTW to PVD. Both have one connection. SWA = $329.00 vs $275.00 for US. Factor in 2 3.5 hour drives totaling nearly 400 miles R/T at the IRS rate of .32 per mile and you add an additional $128.00 to the SWA equation. Factor in parking for 4 days at a differential of $6.50/day and add $26.00 more. Place a minimum wage value on her time - $5.45/hr x 6 hrs. = $32.70 and the decision to fly SWA costs her an additional $241.00, (roughly the cost of a trip to visit me!) not to mention that she doesn't get to sit in an FC seat, or that her time is worth far more than minimum wage. In this scenario US is still the less expensive more convienient alternative. I have tried to fly SWA on numerous occassions and have NEVER found a fare that was less than EQUAL to a fare I actually paid on US Airways. SWA's low prices are a myth for my specific travel patterns. BTW the above itinerary was booked on US about 10 minutes ago. US Airways didn't just get my business, they EARNED it! They offer an excellent value and great customer service.
I'm not going to continue but I have a friend that works for SWA and we had a heated argument over SWA being cheaper. We took 10 of my real business itineraries and compared the price on the internet and exactly once was the price the same. When the cost of commuting is factored in SWA lost EVERYTIME! Did you read that? EVERYTIME! My employer pays for parking and mileage and when all of the costs are factored in SWA is NOT Competitive! Not with a 186 mile drive to BWI vs a 28 mile drive to ACY! $12.75/day parking vs $4.00/day in ACY! Factor in that all ACY flights connect in PHL and I get a ride in a nice new Airbus in a fat leather seat. A free cocktail or 2, good snacks and no "A,B,C card Cattle Call" SWA offers me no value for dollars spent. Heck they aren't even cheap. As a Cockroach I should know
----------------
On 3/26/2003 2:06:22 PM PineyBob wrote:
----------------
On 3/26/2003 12:25:20 PM wwtraveler99 wrote:
>>
Pineybob,
I would like to see what fares are $100 or more than the others carriers. I have seen that SWA is not always the lowest fare but more by $100. is hard to believe. SWA highest fare is $299.00 each way max. Thats it. I would like to see an example if you have one to show. I travel SWA quite often but have never seen that big of a fare differecne.
Thank you,
----------------
On 3/26/2003 12:25:20 PM wwtraveler99 wrote:
>>
Pineybob,
I would like to see what fares are $100 or more than the others carriers. I have seen that SWA is not always the lowest fare but more by $100. is hard to believe. SWA highest fare is $299.00 each way max. Thats it. I would like to see an example if you have one to show. I travel SWA quite often but have never seen that big of a fare differecne.
Thank you,
----------------
Well it depends on the whether you calculate the true cost of travel into the ticket price. But here is one fresh off the web pages. First off a little background. G/F lives in GRR, closest SWA airport is DTW. Fare comparison therefore is GRR to PVD on US, vs DTW to PVD. Both have one connection. SWA = $329.00 vs $275.00 for US. Factor in 2 3.5 hour drives totaling nearly 400 miles R/T at the IRS rate of .32 per mile and you add an additional $128.00 to the SWA equation. Factor in parking for 4 days at a differential of $6.50/day and add $26.00 more. Place a minimum wage value on her time - $5.45/hr x 6 hrs. = $32.70 and the decision to fly SWA costs her an additional $241.00, (roughly the cost of a trip to visit me!) not to mention that she doesn't get to sit in an FC seat, or that her time is worth far more than minimum wage. In this scenario US is still the less expensive more convienient alternative. I have tried to fly SWA on numerous occassions and have NEVER found a fare that was less than EQUAL to a fare I actually paid on US Airways. SWA's low prices are a myth for my specific travel patterns. BTW the above itinerary was booked on US about 10 minutes ago. US Airways didn't just get my business, they EARNED it! They offer an excellent value and great customer service.
I'm not going to continue but I have a friend that works for SWA and we had a heated argument over SWA being cheaper. We took 10 of my real business itineraries and compared the price on the internet and exactly once was the price the same. When the cost of commuting is factored in SWA lost EVERYTIME! Did you read that? EVERYTIME! My employer pays for parking and mileage and when all of the costs are factored in SWA is NOT Competitive! Not with a 186 mile drive to BWI vs a 28 mile drive to ACY! $12.75/day parking vs $4.00/day in ACY! Factor in that all ACY flights connect in PHL and I get a ride in a nice new Airbus in a fat leather seat. A free cocktail or 2, good snacks and no "A,B,C card Cattle Call" SWA offers me no value for dollars spent. Heck they aren't even cheap. As a Cockroach I should know
----------------
Well I do thank you for showing me your example. When I first read your post I thought you were going to compare apples to apples (same city pairs). I do see how for you SWA fares are more costly. Now if you can show me an apples to apples comparison I would like to see the real "fare" difference of $100. or more.
Here is one I looked up at random. USAIRWAYS LAX to PVD with a change in PHL. Price is 655.00. Dep LAX at 1055a Arr PVD at 939p. (Travel Time = 9hr 44min) Return ... Dep PVD at 720a Arr LAX at 1244p (Travel Time = 8hr 24min)
SOUTHWEST LAX to PVD with a change in BWI (same plane on return) Price 560.00. Dep LAX at 945a Arr PVD at 810p (Travel Time = 7hr 25min) Return ... Dep PVD at 725a Arr LAX 1230p (Travel Time = 8hr 5min)
