SW: Just how do they do it?

[mga707]

----------------
On 3/26/2003 8:24:37 PM PineyBob wrote:

It's very nice that you picked PVD but I don't live in PVD, I live in the general PHL Metro area and SWA Sucks! Even in your comparission with my companies 7% discount I would pay only $49.15 more and get a first class meal and a first class seat due to my Charimans's status. And sir like it or don't I'd have to drive to PVD. Who cares about fares for place you don't go? I SAID Time and again that for ME, SWA is a losing proposition, Period.
----------------​

No, for you they are not the way to go. But (and it's a big but), what you don't appear to grasp is that you are NOT the norm.
The average passenger, like me, who gets on a plane the average of three, maybe four times per year, is NOT going to get that first class seat, no matter what.
So, the comparison is between US's coach seat and the undeniably roomier coach seat on WN. Except for AA and UA's Econ+ (which, again, the average pax like me is not going to get anyway), WN has the roomiest coach seating of any other major carrier.
The added plus of WN is that, with Rapid Rewards, even a guy like me who may only make four short trips per year can still earn a free ticket, which can be used for a longer trip. Could I do that with US's frequent flyer program?
Another thing: For me the added travel cost part would work in WN's favor, since they depart from an airport less than 10 miles from my house, while to catch one of a limited number of US flights to a limited number of places (all on the other side of the country), I would have to drive about 120 miles each way. Just doesn't work for me.
I did fly US once, about 15 year ago. They were fine.
Diff'rent strokes...

 

[PITbull]

Bob,

Bingo!


Below is an excerpt of AFA hired consulting specialists ECLAT regarding our profit sharing in #round 2 negotiations:

Quoted from their 6 page analysis:

"UNDER A SECOND ROUND PROFIT SHARING, THE EMPLOYEES WILL RECIEVE 50% OF ANY MONIES USAIRWAYS RECEIVES IN EXCESS OF A 7% PRE-TAX MARGIN. THIS PORTION DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EITHER/OR DECISION, BUT RATHER WAS NEGOTIATIED TO OCCUR AUTOMATICALLY. UNDER THE CURRENT PROJECTIONS HOWEVER, THE COMPANY IS NOT ANTICIPTED TO EXCEED THIS 7% HURDLE AND THEREFORE THIS PROVISION IS NOT CURRENTLY EXPECTED TO YEILD ANY RETURNS. SHOULD USAIRWAYS HAVE A PRE-TAX PROFIT IN EXCESS OF 7%, THE FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WOULD RECIEVE APPROXIMATELY 10% OF THE MONEY AVAILABLE TO ALL EMPLOYEES. THE TERM "APPROXIMATELY" IS USED TO INDICATE THAT THERE STILL APPEARS TO BE SOME ISUES RELATED TO CALCULATING EACH GROUP'S CONCESSION CONTRIBUTION AS IT RELATES TO THE DECEMBER 2002 NEGOTIATIONS."

Boy, looked good on paper before we voted; but obviously will yield a big fat "0".

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 3/26/2003 8:24:37 PM PineyBob wrote:

It's very nice that you picked PVD but I don't live in PVD, I live in the general PHL Metro area and SWA Sucks! Even in your comparission with my companies 7% discount I would pay only $49.15 more and get a first class meal and a first class seat due to my Charimans's status.

You have also just cited one of the reasons the other airlines are hurting...you only paid $49 more and got first class amenities. Those are added costs that the airline cannot afford. The game has always been that the captive business passengers company was going to pay exhorbinantly high airfares, so the airline would "treat" the employee to upgrades, free trips, airport clubs, etc. Now, business is demanding "Southwest style" fares, but the employee is still expecting first class service. Something has to change here...no matter how painful it might be. BTW - Southwest doesn't really suck...if you haven't driven out of PHL to fly them, how can you really make that claim?

And sir like it or don't I'd have to drive to PVD. Who cares about fares for place you don't go? I SAID Time and again that for ME, SWA is a losing proposition, Period. Airports that are within 100 miles of my ocean front cottage are TTN, ACY & PHL, EWR is just over 100 miles.[ So for me SWA is not a viable proposition and the point is they are not the cheapest when you factor in the amenities of Chairman's Preferred, and the Total Cost of flying.

What about the chairman's preferred who lives in CLT and needs to get to LAX tomorrow, coming back Saturday... He could pay the $2,000 fare to U, or he could drive to RDU, catch a U flight back through CLT and save $1,400. That would cover about 4,000 miles worth of driving.

BTW the GRR-PVD vs DTW-PVD is a valid comparission since SWA doesn't go to GRR and that's the point, SWA doesn't go where I go and I wish people would stop acting like they are the be all end all to this industry. There scope of operations is limited and they have no first class, They are truly IMHO a Greyhound Bus with wings. Big deal so they dress business casual with golf shirts and crack jokes on board. Give me a fat seat, a free drink and save the jokes for Leno. Just in case you're wondering I don't shop Wal-Mart either. No value there either for dollars expensed.

Southwest isn't the be all end all. But please hold the first class argument...first class isn't going to save U, UAL, AA or anybody else. The typical domestic narrowbody only has about 12 first class seats to 120+ coach seats. Flying 12 people in first class at fares that are $48 above Southwests fares because they are "Chairmen Preferred" are not going to bring anyone to profitablity...it's the 130 Wal Mart shoppers in back that are going to have to turn things around. Times have changed a bit....and the ones who can't recognize that are the "elites" who are flying the deep deep discount fares.

----------------​

 

[wwtraveler99]

pineybob,

You need to pull that stick out of your backside. As I said and agreed with you that for YOUR situation SWA does not work. You and all the others like you, CP, billion mile flyers, etc need to continue to fly on US, UA, AA, DL. With the attitude you display I would not want to be behind you in line or next to you on any airline. You probably raise holly heck anytime something does not go your way.

Again I am happy that USAIRWAYS works much better for your situation.


BTW I do fly some of those carriers above. I fly about 15-20 round trip a year. For me and my situation SWA is better most everytime.

 

[Hope777]

One thing I can tell you is that WN employees treat airline employees better then most, including USAirways.

 

[TomBascom]

----------------
On 3/26/2003 8:39:45 PM KCFlyer wrote:
You have also just cited one of the reasons the other airlines are hurting...you only paid $49 more and got first class amenities.  Those are added costs that the airline cannot afford.
...
Southwest isn''t the be all end all.  But please hold the first class argument...first class isn''t going to save U, UAL, AA or anybody else.  The typical domestic narrowbody only has about 12 first class seats to 120+ coach seats.  Flying 12 people in first class at fares that are $48 above Southwests fares because they are "Chairmen Preferred" are not going to bring anyone to profitablity...it''s the 130 Wal Mart shoppers in back that are going to have to turn things around.  Times have changed a bit....and the ones who can''t recognize that are the "elites" who are flying the deep deep discount fares. 
----------------​

KC -- you seem to have a real bug about "elites", FC and "amenities". As someone who fits the profile I''m curious -- please explain what, exactly, is so horrifically expensive about maintaining an F cabin and providing upgrades.

It can''t be the loss of seats -- 12 F seats cost the airlines 6 potential coach seats (there isn''t enough extra leg room for another row...) But until they''re flying with load factors in the high 90s that doesn''t cost them anything.

It isn''t the meals. All we get on most flights is a wicker snack basket with packets of pretzels, cookies and chips. Even greedy pigs can''t get more than $5 worth of stuff from that. The so-called meals on trans-cons might cost $20.

It can''t be the flight attendant -- they staff to FAA minimuns that don''t take class of service into account. And I hear that this addled notion of "high density" aircraft to FL is actually going to require an extra FA...

Maybe it''s that we get a full can of soda? Or the free booze? Maybe that adds up to enough to break the airline''s back?

So where is this enormous cost burden? I''d like to get my money''s worth and I''m not seeing $49 here. I think the airline made at least $40 off of that extra $49...

From a cost perspective this is a lot like arguing that pillows and blankets (which go to 10x more people...) are a tremendous burden.

Also -- that CP "elite" up front flies about 50x as often as the Wal-Mart shopper in the back. The extra $49 over all of those tickets goes a long ways towards making the difference between profit and loss. That''s a pretty good reason to be focused on making that person happy with silly little things like an F cabin to upgrade into.

Having that cabin is, in fact, an important differentiator between US & WN. It''s one that the marketing geniuses at Fort Fumble seem bent on turning against themselves by spouting all this drivel about how horribly expensive it is and so forth. They really ought to be playing it up rather than bad mouthing it but they think that we need to hear that it''s worth thousands of dollars (when it plainly isn''t) so that they can continue to believe that there is some sort of justification for their insane full fares.

As for comparative fares -- unlike PineyBob I fly from an airport that is served by both US & WN and I often go to places that are served by both. I occasionally price out a ticket on Southwest and have even been known to buy one. And I''m bigger than he is (taller anyway) so I have no love for a coach seat.

It''s not that bad once in a while. It''s certainly better than taking out a second mortgage to fund a US Airways walk-up ticket.

Usually US has a slightly lower fare advance purchase fare available -- maybe $20 lower. However US always has lots of much higher fares available (the full fares) that far exceed anything that Southwest ever offers. And I know that if I need to make any changes, especially at the last minute, that those higher fares will be the ones that I''ll be dealing with. And then there''s all the crazy rules to keep track of.

So I try to find fares that are reasonable but less restrictive -- it''s hard work, the bright lights at Fort Fumble go to great lengths to prevent it, but I''m willing to pay a bit more in order to fly on an airline that provides certain "amenities".

If US Airways were to eliminate all of the sales prevention strategies that are currently in place (the fare rules and restrictions), align fares with Southwest''s but at a premium to cover the business friendly aspects of the airline (I think they could get 20% to 30% or so instead of the 900% currently aimed for...), add a few incentives to purchasing full fares, market the differences and align the workforce to operate appropriately in support of that direction they could kick butt.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 3/27/2003 1026 AM TomBascom wrote:


KC -- you seem to have a real bug about "elites", FC and "amenities". As someone who fits the profile I''m curious -- please explain what, exactly, is so horrifically expensive about maintaining an F cabin and providing upgrades.

Cutting one olive from a salad saved AA over a million dollars a year. The cost of renting space in an airport for an airport lounge, the cost of "free" drinks, and other amenities of first class cost the airlines money. The fact that businesses have been watching their travel dollars means that the rules of the game have changed concerning the "free" upgrades, lounges, etc. The costs of the tickets do not cover the costs to supply those amenities.

It can''t be the loss of seats -- 12 F seats cost the airlines 6 potential coach seats (there isn''t enough extra leg room for another row...) But until they''re flying with load factors in the high 90s that doesn''t cost them anything.

As long as they continue filling the planes with loss leading fares, and the first class seats are filled not with someone paying the F class or even full Y class fare, then they are costing the airline money.

It isn''t the meals. All we get on most flights is a wicker snack basket with packets of pretzels, cookies and chips. Even greedy pigs can''t get more than $5 worth of stuff from that. The so-called meals on trans-cons might cost $20.

The coach passengers don''t even get the $5 worth of stuff offered in first class. Giving that to someone who is paying the 21 day advance fare just because they happen to be sitting in a first class seat costs money.

It can''t be the flight attendant -- they staff to FAA minimuns that don''t take class of service into account. And I hear that this addled notion of "high density" aircraft to FL is actually going to require an extra FA...

There is one FA to handle 12 passengers. There are 3 FA''s to handle the remaining 130 passengers. From a productivity standpoint - it does cost them more.

Maybe it''s that we get a full can of soda? Or the free booze? Maybe that adds up to enough to break the airline''s back?

No...Southwest gave me a full can of soda. But they were charging the folks in back $4 for a mixed drink. Assuming all 12 first class passengers had one drink, that''s $48 for one trip. It ain''t much, but when employees have been asked to give up damn near everything, every little bit helps. Figure there are 600 flights a day (just a guess, the US webpage doesn''t list that info), that''s a cost of $28,800 per day or $10,521,000 per year.

So where is this enormous cost burden? I''d like to get my money''s worth and I''m not seeing $49 here. I think the airline made at least $40 off of that extra $49...

Just trying to point out that as painful as it may be to accept, those "insignificant costs" add up.

From a cost perspective this is a lot like arguing that pillows and blankets (which go to 10x more people...) are a tremendous burden.

Odd you should mention that...Just flew Airtran and they do not have pillows at all...only blankets.

Also -- that CP "elite" up front flies about 50x as often as the Wal-Mart shopper in the back. The extra $49 over all of those tickets goes a long ways towards making the difference between profit and loss. That''s a pretty good reason to be focused on making that person happy with silly little things like an F cabin to upgrade into.

If half of that CP elites number of flights would lose the airline money in coach class, it wouldn''t matter. The Wal-mart shoppers are costing the airline less.

Having that cabin is, in fact, an important differentiator between US & WN. It''s one that the marketing geniuses at Fort Fumble seem bent on turning against themselves by spouting all this drivel about how horribly expensive it is and so forth. They really ought to be playing it up rather than bad mouthing it but they think that we need to hear that it''s worth thousands of dollars (when it plainly isn''t) so that they can continue to believe that there is some sort of justification for their insane full fares.

I don''t doubt that the first class cabin differentiates - but since I am not a "preffered" flyer on any single airline, I beleive that I am looking at the costs involved in with a little more objectivity.

As for comparative fares -- unlike PineyBob I fly from an airport that is served by both US & WN and I often go to places that are served by both. I occasionally price out a ticket on Southwest and have even been known to buy one. And I''m bigger than he is (taller anyway) so I have no love for a coach seat. It''s not that bad once in a while. It''s certainly better than taking out a second mortgage to fund a US Airways walk-up ticket.


My response to Pineybob was due to two things - his "lack of first class" argument - since as I mentioned, the average narrowbody aircraft has 12 first class seats and 120+ coach seats. In the "good old days" the revenue from the coach seats could subsidize many of the "gimmes" in the FC cabin. Times, they are a changing and that can''t happen anymore. The second was his "Southwest sucks" followed by the comment that he never drives from PHL to fly them. If he won''t fly them from his home airport, then what would possess him to fly somewhere else, then fly them, then fly someone else home.


Usually US has a slightly lower fare advance purchase fare available -- maybe $20 lower. However US always has lots of much higher fares available (the full fares) that far exceed anything that Southwest ever offers. And I know that if I need to make any changes, especially at the last minute, that those higher fares will be the ones that I''ll be dealing with. And then there''s all the crazy rules to keep track of.

So I try to find fares that are reasonable but less restrictive -- it''s hard work, the bright lights at Fort Fumble go to great lengths to prevent it, but I''m willing to pay a bit more in order to fly on an airline that provides certain "amenities".


If US Airways were to eliminate all of the sales prevention strategies that are currently in place (the fare rules and restrictions), align fares with Southwest''s but at a premium to cover the business friendly aspects of the airline (I think they could get 20% to 30% or so instead of the 900% currently aimed for...), add a few incentives to purchasing full fares, market the differences and align the workforce to operate appropriately in support of that direction they could kick butt.

No argument on any of those points. I am only trying to point out that right now, the airlines are focusing on the "fare war" strategy that they cannot win. Doing so, while offering the freebies of the past to the elites is only costing them more. I have nothing against elites - only commenting that there really are costs to be considered in offering those extras to the elites. And if the elites cite that they only paid $49 over a SWA advance fare to get those extras, then I submit that they didn''t do the airline any favors, as the airline is still losing money.

----------------​

 

[TomBascom]

----------------
On 3/27/2003 148 PM JS wrote:

TomBascom wrote:

It can''t be the loss of seats -- 12 F seats cost the airlines 6 potential coach seats (there isn''t enough extra leg room for another row...) But until they''re flying with load factors in the high 90s that doesn''t cost them anything.​

The published load factor is only an average. Flights at peak times run full, and those six extra coach seats really come in handy, given that the last six people to buy a ticket are often paying full fare.
​

That''s why you bump people and hold open those upgrades until the last minute. Selling another 6 seats in advance at a money losing fare is more of a problem...

A few months ago there was a rumor that AA was going to yank More Room Throughout Coach. MRTC is still here but you can bet that if AA knew how far fares would fall in the next four years, they would have left those 10-12 seats in place.
----------------​

I doubt it. It sounded like simplisticly wishful thinking then and it still does now.

The goodwill that they get from MRTC more than offsets the money that they''d lose from selling more seats at a loss.

 

[longonsofty]

Piney,

I have enjoyed reading your thoughts on many issues. That said, I don''t care for you saying my employer sucks. SWA (I hope) will never try to be all things to all people. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I (It''s one of the many wonderful things about this great country we live in.) Now to relate this post to the original discussion, I am leaving for work shortly. I am a ramp agent and will have 5 flights on my gate tonight. I will also be responsible for assisting on 10 other flights in the 3 gate "zone" that my gate is in. So in an 8 hour shift I will be working 15 flights. That''s how we get it done. Good pay plus good efficiencies = profits. You can''t have one without the other.

Take care

 

[KCFlyer]

Tom - here's some math, albiet the following assumptions are made:

Liquor Cost = .50
"Food" cost = .50
Daily flights 600

If the average number of first class seats is 12 (haven't even factored in any widebodies), and each passenger consumes one snack and one drink, given the costs listed above, the airline would incur costs of $12 per flight, or $7,200 per day, or $2,628,000 per year.

The FAR's say that the requirements for FA staffing is 2 for aircraft with 100 seats or less, and one additional for every 50 (or part of 50) seats on the plane. An A320 carries 142 passengers total, so according to the FAR's, they only need 3 FA's for the aircraft. That's the number of FA's that are in coach, but there is a fourth FA for the 12 FC passengers. That's a cost.

 

[JS]

TomBascom wrote:

It can''t be the loss of seats -- 12 F seats cost the airlines 6 potential coach seats (there isn''t enough extra leg room for another row...) But until they''re flying with load factors in the high 90s that doesn''t cost them anything.​

The published load factor is only an average. Flights at peak times run full, and those six extra coach seats really come in handy, given that the last six people to buy a ticket are often paying full fare.

A few months ago there was a rumor that AA was going to yank More Room Throughout Coach. MRTC is still here but you can bet that if AA knew how far fares would fall in the next four years, they would have left those 10-12 seats in place.

 

[TomBascom]

Cutting one olive from a salad saved AA over a million dollars a year.


I've seen that myth debunked somewhere... think about it -- if it were true all any airline would have to do to be profitable would be to eliminate the whole salad! Crisis over, profitability restored.


The cost of renting space in an airport for an airport lounge,


If by "lounge" you mean The Club I'll remind you that there is a membership fee and that it is (supposedly) a profit center.


the cost of "free" drinks, and other amenities of first class cost the airlines money.


How much? More than $49???


The fact that businesses have been watching their travel dollars means that the rules of the game have changed


So far so good -- I've got no argument with that...


... concerning the "free" upgrades, lounges, etc.


The business paying the freight rarely cared about any of that to start with. That isn't the part that has changed. Those are the mechanisms that the airlines invented to persuade travelers to excercise what discretion they have to steer business to a certain carrier.

Please don't toss out "etc" -- I want to know exactly what the cost breakdown is. I don't don't believe the case -- not so much because you're saying it but because persons like B. Ben Baldanza use it as an excuse for their actions. Since nothing else these twits say is of value I'd like to know what's different about this. (Aside from the "class warfare" appeal that it obviously has to some...)

What has changed is what business (and their customers) are willing to pay for a ticket.


The costs of the tickets do not cover the costs to supply those amenities.


Prove it. I'm waiting patiently.


As long as they continue filling the planes with loss leading fares, and the first class seats are filled not with someone paying the F class or even full Y class fare, then they are costing the airline money.


That's incorrect.

1) They aren't filling the planes. Check out load factors -- they've got a long, long ways to go before that becomes a problem. No high revenue customers are being displaced by free loaders.

2) They need a fare that comes in at around $0.10/mile to break even on the seat (at today's load factors -- less if load factors go up...) Not a fare of $1.00/mile.

3) The incremental extra cost burden to the airline to put a customer in an empty F seat is very small. A couple of bags of nuts and a can of soda.

The coach passengers don't even get the $5 worth of stuff offered in first class. Giving that to someone who is paying the 21 day advance fare just because they happen to be sitting in a first class seat costs money.


Right. $5. Wow, I'm bankrupt.


There is one FA to handle 12 passengers. There are 3 FA's to handle the remaining 130 passengers. From a productivity standpoint - it does cost them more.


No it doesn't. From a customer service standpoint the customers are being stratified -- the coach customers get less service and the F passengers get more. But the same number of flight attendants are needed and staffed for X passengers regardless of how the cabin is split up. Productivity is the same.

No...Southwest gave me a full can of soda. But they were charging the folks in back $4 for a mixed drink. Assuming all 12 first class passengers had one drink, that's $48 for one trip. It ain't much, but when employees have been asked to give up damn near everything, every little bit helps. Figure there are 600 flights a day (just a guess, the US webpage doesn't list that info), that's a cost of $28,800 per day or $10,521,000 per year.


That would be $48 of lost revenue opportunity -- not $48 of cost. The actual cost of those little bottles, purchased in bulk, is a lot lower than $4...

Just trying to point out that as painful as it may be to accept, those "insignificant costs" add up.

Not to anything like the level that they are portrayed -- not to anything close to the additional revenue that those customers bring in.


Odd you should mention that...Just flew Airtran and they do not have pillows at all...only blankets.


The key to success? :sun:


If half of that CP elites number of flights would lose the airline money in coach class, it wouldn't matter. The Wal-mart shoppers are costing the airline less.


Show your math

I don't doubt that the first class cabin differentiates - but since I am not a "preffered" flyer on any single airline, I beleive that I am looking at the costs involved in with a little more objectivity.


I think you dramatically over-estimate the costs of the "elite" experience.

No argument on any of those points. I am only trying to point out that right now, the airlines are focusing on the "fare war" strategy that they cannot win.

I agree completely. I brought up my WN point of view to support the idea that it isn't about price. In my markets WN isn't the pure price leader -- they're close, usually very close, but not #1.

They also aren't offering the same product. The F cabin, to be sure, is an obvious differentiator. But I believe that the far greater factor in their success is the way they approach the business -- the fare rules, the pricing strategy and their treatment of customers are the real reason that they're successful. That's a model that can be adapted to a full service airline. HP is doing it and the differences between HP and US are not all that great.

On the "not the same product" vein -- when US sells a low fare ticket it's a dramatically inferior product to the ticket that WN sells. US' closest similar product (feature for feature, comparing rules and restrictions) is usually 2x or 3x more expensive than WN's most expensive fare. That's the difference between the airlines. Customers aren't stupid -- they can figure this stuff out.


Doing so, while offering the freebies of the past...


The freebies of the past are in the past. Way in the past. They don't have pianos upstairs nor do they bring the carving cart by your seat in F anymore... Like I said -- you get a wicker basket of snacks and a drink or two. Believe it or not we've taken cutbacks -- lots of them. Just a couple of years ago I would get a very nice cinammon roll and a fruit plate, served with linen on china on a 1hr flight. Trust me that isn't what happens today.


... to the elites is only costing them more. I have nothing against elites - only commenting that there really are costs to be considered in offering those extras to the elites. And if the elites cite that they only paid $49 over a SWA advance fare to get those extras, then I submit that they didn't do the airline any favors, as the airline is still losing money.


And I argue that the identified costs do not come close to the $49. Leaving considerable profit for the airline so long as the basic fare is at least break-even. (I can only help them "make it up on volume" if they're going to price everything at a loss...)

 

[Singleflyer]

As with Pineybob SWA does not work for me, and I fly out of a SWA city, MHT. My tickets are always purchaed within 36 hours of flying and usually within 12 hours of flying. Friday I am flying to ORD on UA. That ticket is $107.00 more than SWA to MDY. For that money I get closer to my office, save @$25.00 on cab fare. I don''t need to be at the airport two hours earlier so I can be assured of an aslie seat. I get a direct flight, not htrough BWI. I have a chance of getting an E+ seat with more room. The VALUE of paying about $75.00 (fare difference less savings on cab fare) far exceeds the additional cost. Just because their cost may be the cheapest, it does not mean it is the best value for flying. BTW, I hate the service on UA and have for 25 years.

Last year I had three flights on SWA, and the none arrived within 30 minutes of schedule. In Dec I booked a direct flight on SWA from BWI to MHT. I arrived at the airport at 2:00 PM for a 4:15 PM flight to learn the flight was cancelled due to snow, as most flights that day. This was a Thursday afternoon, and the agent told me the FIRST FLIGHT she could confirm me on was Saturday at 10:30 PM, folks that was 60 hours later, and it was going to cost me $75.00 more for that ticket. I was so doumbfounded I did not know what to say. That is the reason I will never fly SWA again. Poor customer service.

I walked over to US and purchased a ticket through PHL, the plane boarded late, but it went to PHL. The flight in PHL was evenlater, but I got home that night, even though it was 3:30AM the next day.

If you need to get to a destination don''t fly SWA because on as cancelled flight they do nothing, and remember they only fly cities that can fill many 737 per day. Try flying SWA to places like SOuix City, Watertown NY, International Falls MN or many other those places are hours from any SWA city. They just don''t serve enough cities, and I will support airline that do fly to those cities as lone as their pricing reflects the value of the service they are offering.

 

[sfb]

Singleflyer-

Last time I checked, Southwest flew twice a day non-stop to MDW from MHT (and I''ve been on those flights before), so you don''t have to go through BWI. And don''t forget that part of what keeps last-minute fares to ORD on United from MHT in check is the fact that Southwest flies MHT-BWI. You''ll pay more from BOS or PWM since there is less competition.

I don''t think anyone would argue that Southwest is always the cheapest; they simply aren''t. But what they do offer is the assurance that the fare they charge will always be reasonable, and the quality of the service will be predictable. Some folks don''t like the cattle car boarding, and that''s fine; I have to say that I''ve been assigned some pretty crummy seats (middle seat in the last row next to the lav) on network carriers as well. Just remember that the process of assigning seats does add cost to an airline''s operations - think what happens when equipment is changed.

Southwest keeps its costs low while paying comparable or higher wage rates by hewing very closely to a proven business model -- keep utilization and productivity of labor and capital assets high while offering a product which is easily understood by the customer. And do it with a strong focus on pleasing the customer. This means that yes, they will never fly to Altoona or Kalamazoo, but that decision leaves business opportunities open to others who can service those smaller airports efficiently and profitably.

 

[TomBascom]

On 3/27/2003 2:17:12 PM KCFlyer wrote:

Tom - here's some math, albiet the following assumptions are made:

Liquor Cost = .50
"Food" cost = .50
Daily flights 600

If the average number of first class seats is 12 (haven't even factored in any widebodies), and each passenger consumes one snack and one drink, given the costs listed above, the airline would incur costs of $12 per flight, or $7,200 per day, or $2,628,000 per year.
​

$49 - $12 = $37 x 12 customers = $444, times 600 flights = $266,400/day or darn near $100M/year in revenue above and beyond the SW fare. That easily offsets the "savings".

The FAR's say that the requirements for FA staffing is 2 for aircraft with 100 seats or less, and one additional for every 50 (or part of 50) seats on the plane. An A320 carries 142 passengers total, so according to the FAR's, they only need 3 FA's for the aircraft. That's the number of FA's that are in coach, but there is a fourth FA for the 12 FC passengers. That's a cost.
----------------​

Someone will have to step in since I'm not flying today and I haven't been spending a lot of time doing head counts lately. But I don't think that there have been 4 flight attendants on any a320 flights that I've been on lately. OTOH I typically only see whoever is greeting the passengers and whoever serves the front cabin -- there could be dozens could be hiding in the back somewhere

Even if there are 4 of them the FA up front spends plenty of time running supplies to the back and collecting trash (I consider that a good thing, helping out and pitching in for the team...) so it wouldn't be accurate to allocate the entire FA to those 12 customers.