Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Southwest is buying somebody...or something

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

radarlove

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Posts
677
we are reviewing our previous plan to retire 22 aircraft in light of this month's dramatic industry developments.

We have flexibility to adjust our fleet plans and are well-positioned to respond to a rapidly changing environment.

They're cutting existing deliveries, but are well-positioned to respond, huh? That means the hullls are coming from somewhere else. Perhaps the detrius from the DAL/NWA collision? Anti-trust spin-offs of assets and gates?

Something's happening.
 
cutting existing deliveries...but I bet they could still get new ships if demand called for it.

I beleive JB is poised for the same plan.

I dunno if SWA will aquire anyone, I bet they're waiting for the weakest of the heard to fall to the rear and then eat the leftovers...much easier and less costly
 
Actually, the part about reviewing this year's plan to retire planes means we might get more planes on property sooner; while pushing off until 2009 the slowing of growth to 2 or 3% (which we had been planning on doing in 2008.
 
I wouldn't read too far into this. Gary is just positioning SWA to be able to better take advantage of any sudden changes in capacity. SWA's "reduction in growth" was merely an acceleration of aircraft retirements... the benefit of which is you can increase growth by slowing this retirement process down.

A more complete version of what Gary said:
"Presently, we still plan to accept 29 new Boeing 737-700s in 2008, but we are reviewing our previous plan to retire 22 aircraft in light of this month’s dramatic industry developments. We have flexibility to adjust our fleet plans and are well-positioned to respond to a rapidly changing environment.

“For 2009, we have decided to reduce our fleet growth. Prior to today’s announcement, we had 28 737-700 aircraft (25 firm and three options) scheduled for delivery from Boeing in 2009. Our revised plan is to grow our fleet in 2009 by no more than 14 737-700 aircraft, which is half our previous plan, assuming no retirements, and will bring our 2009 year-over-year ASM capacity growth to two to three percent.”
If anything, I think this all means SWA is leaning away from a buyout and would rather grow into a vacated market.

Hopefully this is good for pilot hiring, but with reduced new aircraft in 2009, it's more of a mixed message.
 
cutting existing deliveries...but I bet they could still get new ships if demand called for it.

I beleive JB is poised for the same plan.

I dunno if SWA will aquire anyone, I bet they're waiting for the weakest of the heard to fall to the rear and then eat the leftovers...much easier and less costly

I think you are right. I hope we will wait out the merger game and then pick up flying that everyone else will leave behind. I hope we dont even think about the m word.
 
Maybe NOT, according to the end of this article....

Continental, Southwest earnings hurt by fuel costs

Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:11am EDT

By Mark McSherry NEW YORK (Reuters) -
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Continental Airlines Inc (CAL.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Southwest Airlines Co (LUV.N: Quote, Profile, Research), two of the healthiest major U.S. carriers, said on Thursday that record-high fuel costs led to disappointing quarterly earnings and they cut growth plans.
Continental's loss and Southwest's decline in profit highlight the biggest challenges facing the airline industry today -- skyrocketing fuel prices and a sagging U.S. economy.

These were also contributors to the quarterly loss reported on Wednesday by AMR Corp's (AMR.N: Quote, Profile, Research) American Airlines.
Tough market conditions may also pressure Continental to take part in a merger to better compete with rivals Delta Air Lines Inc (DAL.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Northwest Airlines Corp (NWA.N: Quote, Profile, Research), which on Monday said they planned to combine to form the world's largest airline by traffic volume.
Continental and UAL Corp's (UAUA.O: Quote, Profile, Research) United Airlines have reportedly been in merger talks for months.

On Thursday, Continental said it will reduce domestic mainline capacity 5 percent beginning this fall and take another 14 single-aisle 737-300 aircraft out of service as leases expire beginning in September. These are in addition to the 34 737-300s and 500s that were already planned to be removed from service in 2008 and 2009.
"In this fuel environment, we must reduce our domestic capacity to help reduce our losses in the domestic system," Jeff Smisek, president of Continental, said in a statement.
Continental, the fourth-largest U.S. carrier, reported a net loss of $80 million, or 81 cents a share, compared with a year-earlier profit of $22 million, or 21 cents a share.

Excluding special items, the loss was 86 cents a share. Analysts on average had expected a loss of 94 cents, according to Reuters Estimates.
Despite the tough conditions, Continental's revenue increased 12.3 percent to $3.6 billion, helped by international growth, fuel surcharges and modest fare increases.

COST OF JET FUEL THREATENS

Southwest on Thursday pulled back on growth plans and posted lower quarterly earnings as the weak U.S. economy and fuel costs took a toll on the leading U.S. discount carrier.
Although Southwest has a history of successfully hedging against higher fuel prices, it said on Thursday it was concerned about soaring energy costs.
"We cannot ignore the threat of volatile and unprecedented jet fuel prices," Chief Executive Gary Kelly said in a statement.
"We will continue to take steps to restore our profit margins, including an ongoing rigorous review of our flight schedule to eliminate nonproductive flying," Kelly said.

Southwest said it would increase its fleet in 2009 by no more than 14 737-700 aircraft -- half its previous plan.

Southwest's first-quarter net profit fell to $34 million, or 5 cents per share, from $93 million, or 12 cents per share, in the same period last year.
Excluding one-time items, profit was $43 million, or 6 cents a share, compared with $33 million, or 4 cents a share, in the year-ago period. Analysts on average had expected a penny a share, according to Reuters Estimates.
Revenue rose 15 percent to $2.53 billion.

On CNBC television, Kelly said his company needs to adjust to the changing environment and Southwest "can't just stand still.
"I don't think that means we have to look for a merger partner," he added, saying the best course of action for Southwest may be to do nothing amid the consolidation.
(Editing by Maureen Bavdek)


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Last edited:
I can't believe I am saying this, but I might have to agree with the general on this. I see little reason for us SWA guys (especially FOs) to be optimistic, but I hope I am wrong. We may have been hearing and repeating our optimistic rumors so much that we try to fit Gary's announcements into the scheme. I hope I am wrong and there is really some growth and expansion around the corner but I don't honestly see a lot of evidence for it. The incredible devaluation of the dollar and subsequent explosion in fuel prices may have substantially changed the rules of the game.

But hey, I hope I am wrong and fortunately, I frequently am.
 
2009 is still a long time away, then again so is next week in today's airline world. What is said today about 2009 or any day, take with a grain of salt. Mergers, BK filings and outright closing doors change the airline landscape where one gets stung and another benefits. Best of luck to all in this crazy business.
 
Hi!

SWA's CEO publicaly stated numerous times in the last few months that SWA WOULD be merging with someone if any other mergers occurr, as SWA would be too small to compete on their own.

He wouldn't comment on specific airlines, but did say that an airline with 2 aircraft types would be more difficult to merge with, compared with an all 737 place, but it would be doable.

They are now in talks with Airtran (reading between the lines on other posts).

cliff
YIP
 
On CNBC television, Kelly said his company needs to adjust to the changing environment and Southwest "can't just stand still.
"I don't think that means we have to look for a merger partner," he added, saying the best course of action for Southwest may be to do nothing amid the consolidation.

Best news I've heard in a long time.
 
They are now in talks with Airtran (reading between the lines on other posts).

You would do well to stop getting your news from other FI posters.
 
Hi!

SWA's CEO publicaly stated numerous times in the last few months that SWA WOULD be merging with someone if any other mergers occurr, as SWA would be too small to compete on their own.

He wouldn't comment on specific airlines, but did say that an airline with 2 aircraft types would be more difficult to merge with, compared with an all 737 place, but it would be doable.

They are now in talks with Airtran (reading between the lines on other posts).

cliff
YIP


That's nice but what GK said 2 months ago is completely irrelevant now. 2 months is ancient history in this business with the way things are changing on a daily basis.

He said 2 times TODAY (CNBC and earnings release conference call) that the best bet is probably to stay on the sidelines and pick and choose places to try to pick up market share. A more "risk-adverse" position as he said it.
 
Hi!

Yep. Sounds like he's changed his tune publicly.

If SWA is not talking to AirTran, then somebody else is.

cliff
YIP
 
That's nice but what GK said 2 months ago is completely irrelevant now. 2 months is ancient history in this business with the way things are changing on a daily basis.

He said 2 times TODAY (CNBC and earnings release conference call) that the best bet is probably to stay on the sidelines and pick and choose places to try to pick up market share. A more "risk-adverse" position as he said it.

Yea, what he should do is hint that he is looking at airtran and drive the stock price up so it costs him twice as much. Thats much more logical.
 
If SWA is not talking to AirTran, then somebody else is.

I hope so. I think a merger would be in our best interests, I just hope it isn't SWA.
 
I would like to see Alaska as my first choice. Big presence on the West coast, ETOPS, and lucrative Hawaiian flying, plus a 737 fleet that merges seamlessly with ours while bringing the bigger -800 and -900 models.
 
Well I agree with you there. But SWA would be a close second. ALaska would be good because of a lot of points between our two networks to allow growth. Plus I could get back to AK!!!!
 
Well I agree with you there. But SWA would be a close second. ALaska would be good because of a lot of points between our two networks to allow growth. Plus I could get back to AK!!!!

I'm firmly convinced that we'll get completely raped if SWA comes after us. The further they stay away, the better. I'd actually prefer AMR over SWA.
 
Actually, Gary Kelly isn't changing his tune. He never said SWA would merge with someone, he just said they were open to it. People read into his statements, twist them to pit their optimistic imaginations, post them on FI, and the next thing you know they are gospel. Just like that "info" that we are in negotiations with AirTran.

The only thing he has committed to is that our next chili cookoff will be our last. Until the next one.

Man if things get any tighter we will have to print smaller kick-tail stickers.
 
I would like to see Alaska as my first choice. Big presence on the West coast, ETOPS, and lucrative Hawaiian flying, plus a 737 fleet that merges seamlessly with ours while bringing the bigger -800 and -900 models.

Lucrative Hawaiian flying? Most of the pax are frequent fliers probably. And, I don't know if a 737 is large enough to pay for the gas and make money. Look at some other 737 operators who have had problems making money to Hawaii----namely Aloha and ATA. Alaska does very well to Alaska and from SEA southbound and eastbound. I think they had to add Hawaii for their frequent fliers.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
I would bet that flying from the mainland to Hawaii is quite profitable. It's the intra-island flying that is not. And ATA's BK had nothing to do with Hawaii flying.
 
I would bet that flying from the mainland to Hawaii is quite profitable. It's the intra-island flying that is not. And ATA's BK had nothing to do with Hawaii flying.

I think the General is correct. I have read in several articles that the frequent flyer points make Hawaii a loss leader for airlines. With fuel at the present level the larger efficient aircraft have an advantage on long haul.

My thoughts of being a SWA pilot is if we stay out of the news, and still are profitable I would be happy.
 
Not sure you want to have Alaska buy AAI.. Just ask the Alaska guys how happy they are right now.. Trust me, AAI guys are a lot happier than Alaska guys.. Alaska could be just as bad as SWA when it comes to a merger. Those senior Alaska guys are not going to give up any thing to a young AAI pilot group.... Theve been p1ssed on enough as it is..
 
I'm firmly convinced that we'll get completely raped if SWA comes after us. The further they stay away, the better. I'd actually prefer AMR over SWA.

Why AMR? You want to be on the street? They have more pilots on furlough than we have pilots.
How is that going to work out for us??????

I'll take SWA over AMR any day.
 
With all due respect to the AAI guys and to AMR's APA, you don't want to have a shotgun wedding with AMR. They still have over 2000 pilots on the street, I believe. Not to mention, the APA is not the most accomodating when it comes to mergers or buyouts.

All you have to do is talk to the TWA guys. I'm not faulting the APA for that. They look out for their own and they do an effective job. But I believe that if AMR comes in the picture with AAI, the company will probably no longer exist. And yes I do mean the pilots. I'd be willing to bet that any company that pairs up with them will come away with two black eyes and a few broken bones to say the least.

If there's any legal loops to staple and furlough, they will find it and use it. Again, not faulting them, just stating from past observation. LUV might have a hard time staffing 130 airframes from one day to the next. Thus, I think the outcome for AAI in particular would be more favorable.
 
Why AMR? You want to be on the street? They have more pilots on furlough than we have pilots.
How is that going to work out for us??????

I'll take SWA over AMR any day.

I didn't say I like the idea of AMR, just that I prefer it over SWA. Either option would be a complete cluster. In the history of SLI arbitration, furloughed pilots always end up getting the short end of the stick. I wouldn't worry to much about being placed junior to furloughed pilots.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom