SWA being called PREDATORY of others' misfortune

[Wesb737fo]

You know....operationally (fuel hedging aside).....SWA is losing money just like everyone else....so who could argue with their management if they see a way to improve the bottom line.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Schadenfreude!

 

[RedDogC130]

You know....operationally (fuel hedging aside).....SWA is losing money just like everyone else....so who could argue with their management if they see a way to improve the bottom line.

why do you people not get it. if we paid more for fuel we would have higher ticket prices...why can't you understand that.

 

[navigatro]

why do you people not get it. if we paid more for fuel we would have higher ticket prices...why can't you understand that.

Because it is easier to blame someone else, rather than look in the mirror....

 

[skiandsurf]

why do you people not get it. if we paid more for fuel we would have higher ticket prices...why can't you understand that.

SWA does have higher ticket prices than most (I just bought tickets on AA LAX-AUS for $185RT). The real advantage that SWA has, is the missconception of having low-fares.

 

[lowecur]

Good for them! They are doing what any other self respecting management team would do in their place.

Much of the blame for the present situation needs to be shared by the Feds. They could have designed a new air traffic system along with percentage slots at the major hubs around the country, that would have allowed competition to flourish and limited the congestion that is wasting so much fuel. There is no reason carriers needed to have the kind of control in these major markets they do. It's all about keeping the other guy out first, and then building your network second. The regional's were allowed to propagate and swamp a system that was not designed to deal with that kind of traffic.

Hubs were a good idea for connecting the small/midsize market to the rest of the country on a limited basis, but they have grown into a bee's nest on steroids. Why do cities like Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo need 10-20 RJ's per day going into ORD? The airlines will tell you the business traveler demands frequency. That's BS. Those cities could all do very nicely with 25% of the frequency on larger a/c. It's all about keeping the competition out, period!

Management for these airlines are reaping what they sowed, but as usual the US taxpayer will end up bailing some of them out. The nice part about that is Congressional Committees likely will be formed to oversee disbursement of funds for BK DIP and exit financing. They should and will demand available capacity for low cost carriers to many of these hubs as a condition to qualifying for financing.

imp: ​

 

[Tejas-Jet]

It wasn't capitalism that ran Braniff out of Love Field.

Ahhh-kay....tell us then....what ran Braniff out of Love Field?

And where did you get your information?

And was that person actually involved in the decision making process at Braniff?...or just some line guy, fending off all the rumours like everyone else?

You have the floor....

 

[DOVPILOT]

Yes. This is true. The part about taking advantage. If other CEOs and executives would spend more of their time securing their airline's future instead of their own we would have little to exploit.

Oh God, this is sooooooo true!!!!

 

[Andy Neill]

Who is John Galt?

You beat me to it. My thoughts exactly!

 

[CA1900]

The real advantage that SWA has, is the missconception of having low-fares.

There's more than that... I find them generally easier to deal with if my plans change. Let's pick a random city pair: MCO to PDX. I want to travel a month from now, roundtrip, say, leaving August 1, returning August 5. Best price, with no more than one stop: Delta, for $295. Southwest is $436 -- significantly more.

But here's where it gets interesting... my plans have changed, and instead of leaving on August 1, I need to leave in a week. With Southwest, my entire $436 can be applied to the new ticket, so I'm only out another $45 for the fare difference. With Delta, I'm out a $100 change fee, plus the $199 difference in fare.

Sometimes the fares are close; sometimes they aren't. But if they're close, or if there's the slightest possibility my travel plans might change, the higher fare with Southwest is sometimes cheap insurance.

 

[contrail67]

Do you think that if the rolls were reversed that everyone else would be f'ing SW? Absolutely

And when and if that time comes...they will.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Plus, you'd have an upside-down hamburger.

Or you would have the burger resting on the crust side of the bread with all of the ketchup and grease running out. Not very yummy looking. That would be a total disaster!

 

[Tanker Clown]

Isn't John Gault a character in Altas Shrugged?

 

[Andy Neill]

Isn't John Gault a character in Altas Shrugged?

No, but John Galt was. That's the whole point of bringing his name up. The character John Galt had no time for people who thought that the successful should share their success with the mediocre and inept. The thrust of this thread is "If SWA was managed as poorly as the other airlines, they'd be losing money too." Well....yeah, but they're not. They're succeeding because they're getting it right. More power to 'em.

 

[Tonedrvr]

why do you people not get it. if we paid more for fuel we would have higher ticket prices...why can't you understand that.

Red,
I don't understand. Isn't SWA out there to make as much money as they can for their shareholders? Or are they providing a service to the consumers out of the goodness of its heart? If they are in the money business, shouldn't SWA be making as much money as they possibly can using the supply/demand model?
I seriously doubt your company is keeping fairs low out of the goodness of its heart.
I think SWA has done a great job of marketing itself as the discount carrier even though you often charge as much as the next guy. I don't think you have the ability to just raise fairs to keep making a profit.