American at Love: Faking Angina

[Flopgut]

Scorecard: I take NO pleasure in pointing this out. Another SWA type on another thread corrected me and told me SWA was not like WalMart, but rather more like Microsoft. So I decided to check it out a little. Because I had just read how Bill and Melinda Gates had decided to contribute 150 million per year for forever to try to stamp out world infant mortality. So I was sure I was going to find great things about SWA's charity work because why else would that poster make that claim? Well, its pretty sad. WalMart does more than you. But I did think I would find that no other US airline would be recognized meaningfully...low and behold...there is Delta! The same legacy being assailed in this thread (one of them). I think it is amazing that DAL can make that kind of commitment in these tough times. Good for them!

Evidently, Dallas is an abyss of corporate charity donations. And I guess SWA is Dallas' largest employers (according to a SWA someone who was grilling me). I feel inclined to give AA some relief on this issue, actually, I was ready to only see SWA as the single US airline to engage in corporate charity, so this is still a surprise. AA does make it available directly through the website to donate your miles to a number of affiliated charities. This is not the case with SWA. With Rapid Rewards you have to do the leg work; It is just like you are giving the ticket to a friend. SWA does none of the work for you except during Katrina through the Red Cross, but it is not a permanent deal.

I have looked at this pretty close and I think I'm right. But it does not feel like it could be right. Honestly, SWA has got to be the number one benevolent airline company in the US...Right? If you are not, something is wrong. Low fares are not charity.

If I'm shown to be wrong on this delicate issue, I will crawl (figuratively speaking) to the SWA people on here with the humblest of apologies.

In the mean time, if you want to stop pi$$ing me off, every SWA employee can stop talking about horrible world events like it is just some business phenomenon (chase, 3+ times in this thread). Your 100th year of profitability will not be as significant as the day AA can restore their own profitability and recall every furloughed employee.

Happy Holidays.

 

[vc10]

Low fares are not charity? Of course not, they're better than charity. They leave more money in the pockets of customers, who are therefore able to devote more of their own funds to charity, if they so choose.

The idea that a legacy major is somehow virtuous for bending over passengers and then taking a small amount of the proceeds and tossing it into the collection cup is completely absurd.

In Europe the last decade there are a ton of stories of folks who've fallen in love and gotten married---with this relationship possible only because a low cost carrier was flying between the cities where they lived. Customers appreciate low prices. They enable people to do things they could never contemplate otherwise. That's why Southwest has that Freedom motif in its tag lines. And it's true. Heck, I had a friend once who lived in ABQ and worked by LAX, possible because of Southwest's low fares.

The great thing about low fares is that you don't have to be a pilot to commute...

Scorecard: I take NO pleasure in pointing this out. Another SWA type on another thread corrected me and told me SWA was not like WalMart, but rather more like Microsoft. So I decided to check it out a little. Because I had just read how Bill and Melinda Gates had decided to contribute 150 million per year for forever to try to stamp out world infant mortality. So I was sure I was going to find great things about SWA's charity work because why else would that poster make that claim? Well, its pretty sad. WalMart does more than you. But I did think I would find that no other US airline would be recognized meaningfully...low and behold...there is Delta! The same legacy being assailed in this thread (one of them). I think it is amazing that DAL can make that kind of commitment in these tough times. Good for them!

Evidently, Dallas is an abyss of corporate charity donations. And I guess SWA is Dallas' largest employers (according to a SWA someone who was grilling me). I feel inclined to give AA some relief on this issue, actually, I was ready to only see SWA as the single US airline to engage in corporate charity, so this is still a surprise. AA does make it available directly through the website to donate your miles to a number of affiliated charities. This is not the case with SWA. With Rapid Rewards you have to do the leg work; It is just like you are giving the ticket to a friend. SWA does none of the work for you except during Katrina through the Red Cross, but it is not a permanent deal.

I have looked at this pretty close and I think I'm right. But it does not feel like it could be right. Honestly, SWA has got to be the number one benevolent airline company in the US...Right? If you are not, something is wrong. Low fares are not charity.

If I'm shown to be wrong on this delicate issue, I will crawl (figuratively speaking) to the SWA people on here with the humblest of apologies.

In the mean time, if you want to stop pi$$ing me off, every SWA employee can stop talking about horrible world events like it is just some business phenomenon (chase, 3+ times in this thread). Your 100th year of profitability will not be as significant as the day AA can restore their own profitability and recall every furloughed employee.

Happy Holidays.

 

[scoreboard]

I have looked at this pretty close and I think I'm right. If I'm shown to be wrong on this delicate issue, I will crawl (figuratively speaking) to the SWA people on here with the humblest of apologies.

Happy Holidays.

So what proof of charitabiltiy are you looking for, a webpage? Canceled checks, photos, what? Maybe your just not looking in the right place, maybe we just don't advertise enough. Again, just cause it's not bannered on our website doesn't mean we are not hugely charitable. Come on, cheap fares sure, now we are being judged by your moral standard for charity? My paycheck has five deductions on it for differing charitable entities. I, as are a significant percentage of our pilot force, am an Adopt-A-Pilot (education to 4-5 grade). Again, you didn't answer the question, WHAT DO YOU DO?

 

[Flopgut]

The truth about how LCC is bad for our country: This country needs to lead in all things aerospace, worldwide. We won't do that with just SWA as a national carrier. Secondly, I stand behind the example I have used as comparison with Alaska. SWA would like nothing more than to assimilate all lucrative routes flown by Alaska in the Pacific NW. SWA would have no intention of taking on the important flying the airline does in Western Alaska and service into bush villiages. Important flying into a very expensive, but necessary, environment would be lost. Project that onto the rest of the US and walla: We're a third world country with a less capable airline system than Aeroflot. Thirdly, if this charity business is at all fact then, obviously, getting rid of an airline like DAL in favor of SWA is not a good thing.

You don't like what I'm saying and I don't like saying it. Just consider this a professional correction to behavior that you need to change. SWA folks need to stop portraying the most despicable of world events like it is just business as usual. Sure it has revealed SWA to have certain advantages, just cool it with the "Yeah baby" stuff. The manner in which these changes have been occasioned is not indicative of a normal business cycle. I'm sorry, but you can't take the normal satisfaction in your company's triumph that you could if our industy's recent history were anything normal. Take the money, accept your victories, but do so with a little more tact. Lets all take a little personal inventory this holiday season and see if we can start some more positive dialog on here.

 

[firstthird]

Charity, here is a link to the SWA record.
http://www.southwest.com/about_swa/share_the_spirit/share_the_spirit.html
Frankly, it isn't that much. Biggest one is $7 million for Ronald Mcdonald Houses. And that is over 19 years.

Look at the first award though.

100 Best Corporate Citizens, 2000 to 2005, awarded by Business Ethics for service to seven stakeholder groups.

I think that sums it up. SWA is a corporation that exists to make a profit. Our duty is to our shareholders and employees, in that order. We discharge that duty by being fair to our customers and offering flights for reasonable prices. That is what we do, nice and simple.

We are not here to "save the profession," or to ensure that
"this country leads in all things aerospace, worldwide." We are here to sell seat miles at a low price. I know you've heard the slogan, "DING! You are free to move about the country." That is what we do. And, I for one, am proud that we seem to do it well. I know that we don't serve everywhere and don't go international. Other people do, glad that they do it. We, however, don't.

About the charity. It is great that Delta does contribute part of their corporate profits to charity. Although, if I was a stockholder, I'd rather they paid me some dividends and then I could contribute to the charities I prefer. Corporate charity giving is out of control in this country. Corporations should be worrying about making a profit, let their stockholders and employees to the contributing. The earlier comment about Microsoft was illustrative. Most of that giving is not in fact from Microsoft but from Bill and Melinda Gates, individuals and shareholders. They are giving out of their PERSONAL fortune. Good for them.

Short version. Companies exist to make a profit. Let their employees and stockholders do the charitable giving.

And frankly, one pension dump off on the PGBC wipes out a whole lot of corporate giving. The taxpayers that end up funding the pensions that are no longer funded might have preferred that the subject corporations had not done charitable giving and instead had funded their pensions.

Reminds me of a little joke about how the younger generation always sets out to clean up the world. The older generation tells them to clean up their room first.

 

[Flopgut]

So what proof of charitabiltiy are you looking for, a webpage? Canceled checks, photos, what? Maybe your just not looking in the right place, maybe we just don't advertise enough. Again, just cause it's not bannered on our website doesn't mean we are not hugely charitable. Come on, cheap fares sure, now we are being judged by your moral standard for charity? My paycheck has five deductions on it for differing charitable entities. I, as are a significant percentage of our pilot force, am an Adopt-A-Pilot (education to 4-5 grade). Again, you didn't answer the question, WHAT DO YOU DO?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You do more than me. I usually find one particular charity this time of year and give what I can. I give more routinely to my church. I used to do more. I have to act with financial caution now because my job may go away.

 

[enigma]

What is the purpose of charity? To help people maybe?

Who is being more charitable, a company that allows the average American to move about the country, or a company who screws it's shareholders and customers in order to make money so that it can then puff itself up by giving some money away?

For that matter, I believe corporate charity to be dishonest in all cases. If a corporation is giving anything away, I consider that to be proof positive that the corporation is stealing from it's shareholders.

 

[sf260pilot]

Companies just like individuals get tax benefits of being charitable. Would you rather write a check to the IRS for $5000, or give a charity of your choosing part of the monies and write a smaller check to Uncle Sam?

 

[Flopgut]

What is the purpose of charity? To help people maybe?

Who is being more charitable, a company that allows the average American to move about the country, or a company who screws it's shareholders and customers in order to make money so that it can then puff itself up by giving some money away?

For that matter, I believe corporate charity to be dishonest in all cases. If a corporation is giving anything away, I consider that to be proof positive that the corporation is stealing from it's shareholders.

A morbidly confused, fascist perspective if I ever saw one.

In this country, for IRS purposes, corporations are treated just like individuals. Individuals AND corporations can/should give to charity. It helps people and it saves you money. So, quite the opposite is true. If your company is NOT giving meaningfully to charity you can be sure that even as an employee or a shareholder, you are both wasting money and being greedy at the same time, which is stupid.

 

[scoreboard]

Hypocrit

A morbidly confused, fascist perspective if I ever saw one.

In this country, for IRS purposes, corporations are treated just like individuals. Individuals AND corporations can/should give to charity. It helps people and it saves you money. So, quite the opposite is true. If your company is NOT giving meaningfully to charity you can be sure that even as an employee or a shareholder, you are both wasting money and being greedy at the same time, which is stupid.

First, good for you on your charity. I didn't mean to make it personel, but it does begin at home.

How does paying more for a product so a corporation can give to charity saving me or anyone money?

And like you said, it's tax deductable, so there is a strong reason to give, and as posted, how is dropping an entire generations worth of retirement obligations on the Feds, while giving a fraction back, really charity, how is that?