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

61 of 73 new markets lose money for SWA

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

To be fair why don't we go back as far as we can to view all the stocks
from their inception instead of just giving a one day snapshot like Your Pilot Friend likes to do.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=LUV&t=my&l=off&z=l&q=l&c=CAL,AMR,LCC,NWA

Why does NWA just show up at the very end of the chart and show almost no history?

Oh yes, thats right they just emerged from BK. Yeah! Thats solid management!! :rolleyes:
 
SW has never been non-operationally profitable since then, get your facts straight. Last year SW delivered
+$499 million operating profit
-$1.399 billion on equipment
-$809 million in stock buyback.
+ about $700 million on fuel options
total loss of $1 billion last year.
This year they are already down $500 million. They will need a loan to pay for the rest of their aircraft deliveries, or they can enter the payments into the cash flow and go into the red operationally.

SWA has been getting 30+ airplanes a year since at least 2000. They even had a year with high costs due to -200 retirements.

So they have spent 1.4B a year during those times, minimum, for new airplanes. Where is the high debt to show for it? The debt to equity is still way low. It went up for about a year and is now back down.

Answer--They are racking up assets as they increase debt. A low debt to equity operation. Works great in a rising interest rate environment and reduces the need to lease airplanes and equipment. Which, over the long term, is expensive.

So you're saying they need another $700mil to replace the hedges. o.k. But so does everyone else.

I'm not seeing the doom and gloom you are. New routes are expensive to start and establish. Once they are humming along for a couple of years folks get used to them and loyalty (aware of the schedule, reliability factor) sets in.

The worst I see is loss of low hanging fruit and frustration of future growth. Prediction of doom, gloom and big losses, IMHO, is premature. If the future is losses, there is quite a bit of room to get expenses back down if necessary.

Remember, Wall street trades on trends. Not on the ability of a company to deal with those trends long term.
 
Last edited:
Doom & Gloom

Just Wwait & See-
This once again bears out the fact that whoever is on top today will be sucking hind tit tomorrow. Southwest was stupid by expanding so fast. They should have stayed the size they were.
Anyone who has taken an Economics class knows about "economies of scale" Southwest has grown beyond theirs, and they will soon be in the same boat as all the other majors unless they make some changes.
As for the guy above who claims they are spending 1.4 Billion a year on new planes-he is smoking something. No airline pays cash to own its planes outright. They pay the leasing company who actually owns the plans over a period of many years. This way they have to pay very little upfront for new wheels and they also are not exposed to so much tax as they would be if all their assets were owned before they had depreciated.
I would bet that in a few years Southwest will either have to make drastic changes and be more like they used to be in terms of route structure and size, or they will be in bankruptcy as well. Never assume that any airliine will be on top for long.
 
That was basically the game of the SW pilots for 30 years - and guess what - it finally happened!! Let's try to operate with more than just a post 9/11 memory.

In a perfect world no one would work for less than their counterparts and pilot wages would not be the competitive tool they are now. The die has been cast for decades.

Just spit balling here, but I believe things were a bit different 36 years ago.
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top