What has the company done to increase revenue?

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/30/2002 6:13:44 AM KCFlyer wrote:

Okay okay, ACARS never lies...how come I see these posts on the UAL board about the pilots "poping the brakes" while the plane is still being loaded. Don't come back with the "I've never done that"...YOur response implies that ALL SWA pilots are liars and cheats. So all things being equal, I am forced to assume that the post I read on the UAL board relects the actions of all UAL pilots. The difference being that the SWA pilots "lying" only affect the on time rating (and they'd better learn to lie better...they're #6 in that category), while the UAL pilots actions have the same effect as punching the time clock...it starts the pay clock running.
----------------
[/blockquote]

I guess I need to remind you that DOT on-time Stats (the ones that count) are figured from from arrival time at the gate. Despite tight scheduled times (more than half my flights lately have been at a lower alt/ higher speed and still planned over target) I have consistantly had lower actual block vs scheduled. any early brake release only gives the local manager a bonus (like THATS my goal!!) and does NOTHING for my monthly pay. as a matter of fact, a good portion of our ontime success of late is due to an extrodinary effort by most of the GND folks to get us out and on our way. Now as to SWA's ranking 6th, what is there ranking among airlines for the highest number of flights late over 80% of the time? 70% of the time? Hard to lie when you're an hour late. And when you consider the "tight turns" that have a snowball effect, one can properly assume SWA's actual on-time rate is the worst in the industry. But again I ask you, why does SWA trust it's pilots to accurately report times to the government, while it refuses to trust it's hourly employees without making them "clock in"?

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/30/2002 10:02:02 PM CPRich wrote:

I'll gladly pay $30-$50 for an assigned seat, preferential treatment that recognizes me as a frequent revenue generator, ability to travel with a crew of loud drunks, and ongoing 'amusing' chatter over the PA. In fact, I have done so (more than $50) over the last few weeks as I take UA and AA over SW
----------------
[/blockquote]

Careful, you'll make me tear up...

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/30/2002 11:09:44 PM TomBascom wrote:


"Other than not being at the head of the line how is that any different from the preferred boarding rush?


So actually there was no need to be bothered by the cattle call?"

I'LL ANSWER THAT!! According to the koolaid drinkers, SWA doesn't "give" "special" treatment. What does that mean to you Tom? Lets look at the latest DOT results for some insight. During the month of Oct, U had 16K "voluntary" denied boardings. SWA was close at 20K. HOWEVER, SWA had nearly 15 times the rate of "involuntary" DB's!!! That means YOU needed to get there, bought a ticket, and SWA refused to give you what you paid for nearly 15 times more often than U. If SWA is truley the airline of the people, they don't care if you have a business meeting you have to make. Sorry, Thelma and Louise checked in before you, you're SOL!! However, had you had the foresight to be on the happy list at U, they would give you priority, why?, because YOUR business feeds the bottome line and you are a FF with status. And the beauty of the whole equation is U was nice enough to sweeten the pot for the bumped pax well enough that they VOLUNTEERED to get bumped. How about boarding priority? If you're last in line, and there is no more bin space, they'll check your bag right? well you'll also be happy to know that U was more likely to deliver that checked bag than SWA was. And how about dependability? If you buy a ticket for meeting, it's nice to know the flight will actually go right? Well again, SWA was 3 times MORE LIKELY to cancel your flight than U. Those are the facts Tom, enjoy the peanuts!!

----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/30/2002 6:54:43 PM Rhino wrote:

Busdrvr, your continued jabs at SWA hurt my feelings and make all us SWA employees feel very badly. All of us wish we'd been talented enough to work for a great airline like UAL. We're so jealous.


----------------
[/blockquote]

Rhino, you make me laugh. Check my response to your Craf post on AA's board. Didn't realize you are so old. Seems your luck at picking airline winners may be even worse than mine (I doubt you've been at SWA that long). Best of luck to you! I will say this, your CEO hasn't been out making an arse of himself WRT UAL's "troubles", and for that we thank you guys for showing some class.

 

[TomBascom]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/30/2002 10:02:02 PM CPRich wrote:

Sorry, but, yes, it is all that bad. After several years off from my last experience, I figured I'd give SW another try a couple weeks ago. Egads, I'll do anything I can to avoid that airline.

And to whomever said that the long lines were a thing of the past - there was a line of 40 people that rushed up the boarding station as soon as they announced that the incoming aircraft was in range. I'm not exagerating in the slightest - they stood there for 30 minutes+ for it to land, taxi, deplane, and prep. And it was all by A/B/C, so the earlier you're there, and the quicker you get in line, the better seat you get (of course, they weren't quite bright enough to count the number of people in the area vs the capacity of a 737.
[/blockquote]

Other than not being at the head of the line how is that any different from the preferred boarding rush?

Heck my last SWA flight the line formed almost an hour before the flight landed... You know what clinched it for me? The lack of any attempt at extortion when I started the journey by missing my flight. In fact the agent smiled and took care of everything with nary a blink of the eye and with less typing than an ordinary checkin @ U.

[blockquote]
I got on just about last and got a nice aisle seat, half way back, with the rest of the row empty.)
[/blockquote]

So actually there was no need to be bothered by the cattle call?

[blockquote]
I'll gladly pay $30-$50 for an assigned seat, preferential treatment that recognizes me as a frequent revenue generator, ability to travel with a crew of loud drunks, and ongoing 'amusing' chatter over the PA. In fact, I have done so (more than $50) over the last few weeks as I take UA and AA over SW (and over US - Ben's cockroach remarks and the other hate-the-customer moves still keep this long-time CP away).
----------------
[/blockquote]

Exactly my point. It is worth something -- it just isn't worth 8x a V fare. $30-$50 over SWA is something that quite a few of us seem comfortable with. It's also more than the increase in average ticket price that US Airways needs to achieve.

 

[KCFlyer]

Busdriver - Simple question - have you EVER met a customer who booked your airline primarily because of the DOT on time ranking? Ever? It was a big deal when Newsweek had nothing better to report (and even then, it usually concern EWR and LGA - two places not served by the airline you love to hate). And despite the #6 ranking, SWA is somehow still making a profit. If I were you, I'd concern yourself less with blasting SWAs on time rating and more with your own companies survival. And with the number of flights that SWA operates every day, having a dozen that are on the "perpetually late" list alone isn't going to drag them to #6. And if that doesn't, then perhaps those lyin', cheatin' b*stards over at LUV need to do a better job of lying.

 

[TomBascom]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/30/2002 11:40:20 PM Busdrvr wrote:

I'LL ANSWER THAT!! According to the koolaid drinkers, SWA doesn't "give" "special" treatment. What does that mean to you Tom? Lets look at the latest DOT results for some insight. During the month of Oct, U had 16K "voluntary" denied boardings. SWA was close at 20K. HOWEVER, SWA had nearly 15 times the rate of "involuntary" DB's!!! That means YOU needed to get there, bought a ticket, and SWA refused to give you what you paid for nearly 15 times more often than U. If SWA is truley the airline of the people, they don't care if you have a business meeting you have to make. Sorry, Thelma and Louise checked in before you, you're SOL!! However, had you had the foresight to be on the happy list at U, they would give you priority, why?, because YOUR business feeds the bottome line and you are a FF with status. And the beauty of the whole equation is U was nice enough to sweeten the pot for the bumped pax well enough that they VOLUNTEERED to get bumped. How about boarding priority? If you're last in line, and there is no more bin space, they'll check your bag right? well you'll also be happy to know that U was more likely to deliver that checked bag than SWA was. And how about dependability? If you buy a ticket for meeting, it's nice to know the flight will actually go right? Well again, SWA was 3 times MORE LIKELY to cancel your flight than U. Those are the facts Tom, enjoy the peanuts!!
----------------
[/blockquote]

Various pithy quotes about statistics and lies spring to mind...

Amazing that in spite of the statistics that you quote that SWA's customers still love them. And somehow they make a profit. Meanwhile the customers of "the majors" pretty much hate them and they can't turn a profit. I wonder why? The facts are so clear after all.

If I need to be somewhere for a meeting I long ago learned that I had better not be taking the last possible flight that will make the schedule work. No matter what airline I'm flying. And if it's really important I better give myself at least a day of padding. Regardless of "status".

Sure, it's nice that U takes care of me. It's another one of those things that keeps me around. But the list is getting shorter and each item on the list is getting harder and harder to see. Which makes the total premium that I'm willing to pay to obtain those services that much smaller.

 

[KCFlyer]

During the month of Oct, U had 16K "voluntary" denied boardings. SWA was close at 20K. HOWEVER, SWA had nearly 15 times the rate of "involuntary" DB's!!! That means YOU needed to get there, bought a ticket, and SWA refused to give you what you paid for nearly 15 times more often than U.

Need to look at the whole picture here busd. If the DB rate is 15 times U's, then why isn't this reflected in the complaints? Oh, I'm sure you'll claim "lowered expectations", but allow me to illustrate with a real life example. My wife flew to SAN from MCI last Friday. The flight was scheduled for 7:45 a.m. and it was oversold. There were indeed some denied boardings there. What did SWA do? Put them on the 8:00 a.m. (15 minutes later) flight thru LAS and got them to SAN one hour later. How about this...suppose I wanted to go to PIT from MCI on U. If they oversell that one, it's 3 hours until the next flight. What would happen if I showed up at the counter less than 30 minutes before my flight on UAL...wouldn't I be "denied boarding"...even it the flight isn't oversold? Bottom line, you better get to the airport early for UAL flights too, lest you be denied for no other reason than you overslept by 15 minutes and were able to watch your flight board and depart without you. Does it begin to make sense now?

 

[diogenes]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/30/2002 12:35:31 AM autofixer wrote:

Busdrvr, I was quoteing none other than evil Bob Crandal in the "Wall Street Journal". Heck I don't care if anyone pays attention...let it sink I am on my own! Typical Allegehny, we know best; or "Trust us, we know how to run an airline." No dumber words have ever been spoken. Good luck, you are going to need it.
----------------
[/blockquote]
------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, you're right. We used to shipped over a ton, daily, of GE parts at PDQ rates. Also had decent load factors. Then U replaced the Boeings with F100s, which could not accomodate the GE shipment. Concurrently, we had a shipper that was in the top 20 system wide. We lost a bunch of his business due to the F100's. Now the Fokkers are parked, but that business did not come back. GE is trucking their stuff to an airport a few hours away, and AA is lifting it to it's destination. The second guy trucks a bunch of his stuff now. Oh well, an RJ couldn't lift this stuff either, and that seems to have been the plan all along.

 

[Tango-Bravo]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/31/2002 753 AM TomBascom wrote:

Various pithy quotes about statistics and lies spring to mind...


Amazing that in spite of the statistics that you quote that SWA's customers still love them. And somehow they make a profit. Meanwhile the customers of "the majors" pretty much hate them and they can't turn a profit. I wonder why? The facts are so clear after all.

----------------
[/blockquote]


Speaking of the antipathy customers feel toward the Big Six... here are some of the more telling opinions I have come across from frequent business travelers:

...the only other industry where you have the same level of hostility and mistrust between customers and companies is the managed health care industry. (Kevin Mitchell, Business Travel Coalition)

(The irrational pricing schemes of the Big Six airlines) "are antithetical to everything we do in a normal business environment." (a DL million mile ff -- in published letter to DL)

Of this ff's sentiments and countless others who share the same view, Kevin Mitchell went on to tell it like it is: "...what this shows is that the airlines are moving these customers from being frustrated to being angered to being almost radicalized. This guy has had it." (the article went on to tell how he voted with his $$$)

Perhaps the most telling and succinct expression I have seen concerning the sentiments of frequent travelers toward the Big Six came in the form of a subtitle that appeared in August, 2001 (BTW, for the UA faithful, that was before 9/11/01) for an article about the revolt of business travelers toward the rapacius pricing practices of full-service airlines: "It's payback time."

Yes, as I have seen in posts elsewhere on this site, "payback is a ####." Forget about airline to airline paybacks -- the real payback airlines need to be concerned about is the one they created toward themselves by the arrogant, cavalier manner in which they thought they could go on fleecing business travelers (and a few hapless leisure travelers) to subsidize the increasing hordes (including a growing number of business travelers) flying on loss-leader fares. Once again, the Big Six have been (and continue to be) their own worst enemy.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/31/2002 6:01:44 AM KCFlyer wrote:

Busdriver - Simple question - have you EVER met a customer who booked your airline primarily because of the DOT on time ranking? Ever? It was a big deal when Newsweek had nothing better to report (and even then, it usually concern EWR and LGA - two places not served by the airline you love to hate). And despite the #6 ranking, SWA is somehow still making a profit. If I were you, I'd concern yourself less with blasting SWAs on time rating and more with your own companies survival. And with the number of flights that SWA operates every day, having a dozen that are on the "perpetually late" list alone isn't going to drag them to #6. And if that doesn't, then perhaps those lyin', cheatin' b*stards over at LUV need to do a better job of lying.
----------------
[/blockquote]


Then Why did SWA put the stickers on the side of the jets announcing the "triple crown"? It's called trying to create a quality brand. It doesn't happen overnight. Nor does the perception that you aren't a quality producer. it happens slowly, day after day, with each pax that get's POed. But it DOES happen. as for me worrying about UAL's survival, I'd think someone as "enlightened" as yourself could see that that is EXACTLY what we are doing. Recheck the stats, UAL is NUMBER 1. It doesn't "just" happen. It's taken an icredible team effort. we haven't had a flight late 80% of the time THIS WHOLE YEAR! NOT ONE. If we are number ONE, it follws that somebody ELSE isn't. I'm merely pointing it out.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/31/2002 8:43:00 AM KCFlyer wrote:

"Need to look at the whole picture here busd. If the DB rate is 15 times U's, then why isn't this reflected in the complaints? Oh, I'm sure you'll claim "lowered expectations", but allow me to illustrate with a real life example."

No highspeed internet service in the trailer park... SWA had less complaints about luggage to, despite losing more. I guess the cost of replacing a "Bi-LO" bag is pretty low, no need to complain.

"My wife flew to SAN from MCI last Friday. The flight was scheduled for 7:45 a.m. and it was oversold. There were indeed some denied boardings there. What did SWA do? Put them on the 8:00 a.m. (15 minutes later) flight thru LAS and got them to SAN one hour later."

So if you are a businessman, you've got an hour to burn hear and there, no big deal right?

"How about this...suppose I wanted to go to PIT from MCI on U. If they oversell that one, it's 3 hours until the next flight."

They'd put you on code share partner UAL from MCI to ORD then back to U or UAL to Pit, but if you are a FF, you wouldn't be bumped anyway.

"What would happen if I showed up at the counter less than 30 minutes before my flight on UAL...wouldn't I be "denied boarding"...even it the flight isn't oversold?"

Do you have checked luggage? If not then, NO you wouldn't be bumped. As for SWA "holding" flights for the last pax showing up at departure time, explain to me how that works for the other businessmen. They got there 2 hours prior to get the A card, now they are going to be late to a meeting because some "jack***" decides he wants to personally inconvienience the other 130 something folks crammed onto a Guppy?

"Bottom line, you better get to the airport early for UAL flights too, lest you be denied for no other reason than you overslept by 15 minutes and were able to watch your flight board and depart without you. Does it begin to make sense now?"


No true, maybe if you flew those rascally hub airlines more, you'd start to get it.
----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[KCFlyer]

Then Why did SWA put the stickers on the side of the jets announcing the "triple crown"? It's called trying to create a quality brand. It doesn't happen overnight. Nor does the perception that you aren't a quality producer. it happens slowly, day after day, with each pax that get's POed. But it DOES happen. as for me worrying about UAL's survival, I'd think someone as "enlightened" as yourself could see that that is EXACTLY what we are doing. Recheck the stats, UAL is NUMBER 1. It doesn't "just" happen. It's taken an icredible team effort. we haven't had a flight late 80% of the time THIS WHOLE YEAR! NOT ONE. If we are number ONE, it follws that somebody ELSE isn't. I'm merely pointing it out.

It's called "marketing". It's a shame your marketing department doesn't create their own award - like SWA did. It's a shame that I can see ads for SWA during football games and the like - letting people know they are there. I can't recall the last time I saw a UAL ad or a U ad. I have seen some AA ads, but your marketing departments are failing you big time. If you're #1 you should be telling the world. SWA did, several years ago, and apparently it's STILL stuck in your craw. It's a shame that the cutbacks have affected marketing your message to all but the "elites" via letters to them. But you don't want to appeal to the drunks, bums, lowlifes, trailer park dwellers that watch NFL football or NHL hockey, or most any other sport, that you claim SWA attracts. Too bad. Their money spends just as well as the many "elites" does. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. SWA is making the horse thirsty. The others are too busy cutting costs to even try getting the horse to the pond.

 

[ITRADE]

[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 12/31/2002 8:43:00 AM KCFlyer wrote: [BR][BR][BR]Need to look at the whole picture here busd. If the DB rate is 15 times U's, then why isn't this reflected in the complaints? Oh, I'm sure you'll claim "lowered expectations", but allow me to illustrate with a real life example. My wife flew to SAN from MCI last Friday. The flight was scheduled for 7:45 a.m. and it was oversold. There were indeed some denied boardings there. What did SWA do? Put them on the 8:00 a.m. (15 minutes later) flight thru LAS and got them to SAN one hour later. How about this...suppose I wanted to go to PIT from MCI on U. If they oversell that one, it's 3 hours until the next flight. What would happen if I showed up at the counter less than 30 minutes before my flight on UAL...wouldn't I be "denied boarding"...even it the flight isn't oversold? Bottom line, you better get to the airport early for UAL flights too, lest you be denied for no other reason than you overslept by 15 minutes and were able to watch your flight board and depart without you. Does it begin to make sense now?----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]Wow, thats pretty amazing KCFlyer.[BR][BR]What is more amazing is that if you're flying fom LGA to BNA, and you get denied boarding on the 9:10 flight from LGA to PIT, you can simply catch the 9:20 flight from LGA to CLT. So, I'm not awestruck by your breakthrough analysis.

 

[KCFlyer]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/31/2002 1247 PM ITRADE wrote:

Don't worry Bob. KC thinks that Southwest is the cat's meow and this thread constitutes a kick at the cat. Hence, you see the fiestyness.[/P]
----------------
[/blockquote]

I think SWA is a great airline - no doubt about that. What strikes me as somewhat funny is that you all seem to want first class upgrades, airport clubs, and preferred boarding at Southwest prices - hence the "I've never found a lower fare on Southwest". It's odd that these airlines consider you "elite" by purchasing an advance fare that is lower than Southwest, and which is causing their "carrier of choice" to lose money, while accruing mileage to take a FREE trip to Europe. That's great...but the time is coming soon where those who WANT those things will need to be prepared to PAY for those things. The airlines are bleeding money, and labor (whom managment seems to hit up time and time again for cuts) can provide only so much in the way of cuts to help stem the losses. After that, there may well be the reduction in "complementary upgrades" for anything less than full Y fare tickts. You may find yourself having to pay for some airport club services.

The other thing the airlines could learn is that you have to SELL the public on why they should fly your airline. The "elites" already have their incentive with their FF programs, but apparently the elites aren't spending enough to make their airline profitable. So they have to SELL it to the people who aren't elite. Bottom line, and as nasty as it is to think about - the elites are costing the airlines money. How long before the airlines say "No Mas".