Sw's Master Strategy

[KCFlyer]

KC Flyer - I think awa and u have too much money to shut down quickly. Their CEO, Parker said yesterday that now they will have $2B and that they can stay in there with the rest of them.

What a statement! It's like I have more money to spend than you and I can last longer.

[post="272985"][/post]​

IIRC - VERY shortly before US filed their first bankruptcy, they had $2 billion on hand. But the 'burn rate' is pretty stiff - And IMHO, they are going to burn thru a lot of money before they ever show a profit.

 

[AirplaneFan]

True, but overcapacity also wouldn't be there if WN didn't add another flight to each route every 2 weeks. Demand doesn't necessarily follow supply.

[post="272984"][/post]​

There is not anover capacity problem in the US. SW would stop adding flights if passengers refused to fly them. Flights are full (or 75% full). "Analysts" say there is an overcapacity problem, but that is seen thru the prism of that if supply stayed down then demand would increase and prices would rise making the hub-n-spokes profitable.

More succinctly the problem is that the hub-n-spokes don't have pricing control and the only way they can make money is that if supply were to dry up. The LLC's make money by adding supply into the system.

 

[imlars]

And I thought only B6 ers, imagined they were the omnipotent power in the domestic market. SWA is joining the list. Must get lonely at the top.

Lars

 

[Dea Certe]

Oh you guys! Southwest is here to stay. They have a good business plan, haven't strayed from it despite "pressure" to do so and still command an amazing market share. They "under-promise" and "over-deliver" regularly. The staff works as a team and has a wonderfully supportive management team.

Their frequent flyers love them. The competitors, if you can call them that, fear them.

I've yet to meet a Southwest employee who is not willing to go the extra mile to get the job done. The employees are well-paid and happy to be with Southwest. You just don't hear a Southwest employee at any level say "that's not my job." They all know their job is to get the planes out on time, with the pax bags loaded and provide a pleasant travel experience.

I truly believe the only thing keeping SWA from ruling the skies is no assigned seating, but that would screw up the business plan and SWA is too smart to get suckered into that.

They are unique mavericks and I admire them greatly.

Keep on keeping on, my SWA friends! You rock!

Dea

 

[hobbes]

shame on them for adding to the already overcapacity in the industry!

:down:

[post="272803"][/post]​

Hey, skyflyr69...your jealousy is showing again.

 

[Skull-1]

I'd say LUV is already number one. As noted, they carry more than anyone else.

Way to go guys.

I wonder how these huge load factors are affecting your turn times... Are you still working for a 15 minute turn as your goal or is that unrealistic now?

 

[wnbubbleboy]

I'd say LUV is already number one. As noted, they carry more than anyone else.

Way to go guys.

I wonder how these huge load factors are affecting your turn times... Are you still working for a 15 minute turn as your goal or is that unrealistic now?

[post="273493"][/post]​

The 15 min turn was before we started shipping cargo.

 

[SWAFA30]

I wonder how these huge load factors are affecting your turn times... Are you still working for a 15 minute turn as your goal or is that unrealistic now?

[post="273493"][/post]​

25-30 minutes is the current standard. The days of the 10 or 15 minute turn as a rule are long gone. Those "quick turns" came about at a time when WN aircraft seated fewer Customers and none of them came aboard hauling most of their worldly posessions. Nowadays getting 137 people(and all their stuff) off the plane and another 137(and all their stuff)back on takes 20-25 minutes minimum. Then of course there's Customers in wheelchairs, moms and dads with strollers and carseats, etc. All of these things further slow the boarding process. I understand that at many of jetBlue's destinations, they use airstairs to board the aircraft from the from the rear while the front boards via jetbridge. In BUR where we do use airstairs it really does seem to make a difference. If we can't get a handle on turn times...boarding from both doors systemwide might be something we need to look into.

 

[I'mRayFlyMe]

25-30 minutes is the current standard.  The days of the 10 or 15 minute turn as a rule are long gone.  Those "quick turns" came about at a time when WN aircraft seated fewer Customers and none of them came aboard hauling most of their worldly posessions.  Nowadays getting 137 people(and all their stuff) off the plane and another 137(and all their stuff)back on takes 20-25 minutes minimum. Then of course there's Customers in wheelchairs, moms and dads with strollers and carseats, etc.  All of these things further slow the boarding process.  I understand that at many of jetBlue's destinations, they use airstairs to board the aircraft from the from the rear while the front boards via jetbridge.  In BUR where we do use airstairs it really does seem to make a difference. If we can't get a handle on turn times...boarding from both doors systemwide might be something we need to look into.

[post="273796"][/post]​

Excellent points, but there's also one more point that contributed to the "10-minute turn" that's been mostly forgotten (not to mention impossible in this day and age, in light of safety): back then, Customers did not have to remain in their seats as the jet taxied to the gate, which enabled them to retrieve their carryons, etc. before the plane even arrived at the gate!

 

[firstamendment]

Every dog enjoys his day in the sun. Enjoy it, I have heard the same things in the past from the best of them.

 

[KCFlyer]

Every dog enjoys his day in the sun. Enjoy it, I have heard the same things in the past from the best of them.

[post="273886"][/post]​

I'm sure the HP folks will remember their day in the sun...where their company "saved" a bankrupt carrier, and then the bankrupt carriers employees took their jobs.

 

[insp89]

What's shameful, they are making money, providing good transportation at a reasonable cost, and giving their shareholders a return on their investment. What's shameful?

[post="272932"][/post]​

What is "shameful", is that while some carriers continue to add aircraft to a system that is reportably at over-capacity,

These same carriers whine and cry that there are too many carriers offering too many seats..Just a little Hypocrytical...

It's no wonder some carriers get aggravated when their competitors do not liquidate and just go away.

 

[Tanker]

SWAFA30
SWA has tried the dual boarding bridges in ALB, AUS, & DAL. The only ones that they are still using are in ALB, and they were bought by the airport authority. We stopped the experiment in DAL & AUS because the little, if any, time saved wasn't worth the expense of the new jetways, especially when you consider how often they broke down. I don't know if you remember the old terminal at ONT, but they boarded with airstairs just like BUR. When they built the new terminal at ONT and went to jetways there was no significant increase in the turn times there. Because of all that I don't see SWA looking into the bual boarding bridges again.

 

[KCFlyer]

What is "shameful", is that while some carriers continue to add aircraft to a system that is reportably at over-capacity,

These same carriers whine and cry that there are too many carriers offering too many seats..Just a little Hypocrytical...

It's no wonder some carriers get aggravated when their competitors do not liquidate and just go away.

[post="273904"][/post]​

I'd say let any profitable airline add as much capacity as is needed. If the free market were allowed to be operated as it was intended, there would actually be a demand for the entire supply. But...I suppose a couple of trips to bankruptcy court, the hopes of a "white knight" and the dreams of financing by General Electric are just too much to pass up.

 

[insp89]

I'd say let any profitable airline add as much capacity as is needed.  If the free market were allowed to be operated as it was intended, there would actually be a demand for the entire supply.  But...I suppose a couple of trips to bankruptcy court, the hopes of a "white knight" and the dreams of financing by General Electric are just too much to pass up.

[post="273928"][/post]​

KCFlyer, I have no problem with Southwest adding capacity to the airline system.

I DO have a problem when Southwest's management moans and groans about over capacity...When they are obviously adding to the problem that they are whining about. I would think this would be common sense to most people..

KC, I think you should keep a closer eye on what's happening over at Usaiways. General Electric is slowly LIMITING their exposure to both Us and America West.

The "white knight" you speak of is in need of a little help themselves.