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

At 35, Southwest's strategy gets more complicated

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

canyonblue

Everyone loves Southwest
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,314
At 35, Southwest's strategy gets more complicated

By Dan Reed, USA TODAY

DALLAS — When Donald Cloo of Phoenix boarded Southwest Airlines Flight 2444 Monday in San Diego, he did something no passenger had ever done in the 35-year history of the discount carrier. He sat in an assigned seat.
With that, Dallas-based Southwest began an eight-week test with selected flights out of San Diego to see whether assigning seats will speed up the boarding process and allow the carrier to dispatch its planes quicker.

Southwest says it will make no change in its unique open-seating policy before 2008 — and maybe not even then. But Cloo's assignment to seat 19C on the 137-seat Boeing 737 is indicative of something much larger and much riskier than the way in which customers get on a Southwest jet.

On several fronts, the legendary Texas discounter that has rewritten the rules of air travel in the USA is adjusting to its rapid growth. It's already overcome its former aversion to taking on competitors at their own crowded hub airports. And the day may come when the spartan discounter starts to match some of the in-flight amenities available at other airlines — movies, for example.

Its growth is pushing the carrier uncomfortably close to what executives, flight crews and ordinary workers here always have disdained: a typical big airline. The risk: whether Southwest can balance its rapid growth with the folksy, offbeat approach to air travel that has inspired legions of loyal customers.

CEO Gary Kelly, in an interview, acknowledged that, to an old-timer returning from 20 years on a desert island, Southwest's "maverick aspect probably would be less visible." But, he says, that's mostly because the big traditional airlines have become more like Southwest. And despite the changes, Kelly says, "The soul of our company is unchanged."

Since it began flying in 1971, the lack of assigned seating has been the No. 1 customer complaint. Though some die-hards swear by it, most travelers accept it as a trade-off for Southwest's low fares. Now, though, the industry iconoclast is the USA's No. 6 airline. And it's trying to sell tickets in new markets to customers who didn't grow up with its quirky ways.

Other fronts where Southwest seems to be morphing into a more conventional carrier:

•Fares. Southwest, which long promoted itself as "the low-fare carrier," has shown a new willingness to raise them. It's done so nine times since the middle of last year, including a $10 increase on some longer flights over the July Fourth weekend. In the first quarter, its average one-way fare inched above $100 for the first time.

•Competition. For years, Southwest sought to avoid head-to-head competition with big, traditional airlines. But over the past 26 months, it's launched service at rivals' hubs, first at Philadelphia, a US Airways stronghold, then this year at Denver, a hub to both United and Frontier.

•Amenities. Notoriously bare-bones Southwest is considering adding some type of in-flight entertainment technology, Kelly has said.

•Code sharing. It is moving quickly to develop its fledging partnership with ATA Airlines, which it helped rescue from Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Now, Southwest frequent fliers can claim free trips to places the airline itself doesn't go, such as Hawaii and New York City.

•Fleet diversification. Southwest's efficiency is built largely on its all-Boeing 737 fleet. Kelly says that he's "intrigued" by the possibility of flying 100-seat jets in markets with too little demand to support 737 service. He says nothing is currently in the works.

•International flying. In 2008, when the new computer system that permits seat assignments is working, Southwest also will be able to sell tickets in foreign currencies. Kelly says nothing's imminent, but "it's a matter of when, not if" Southwest will launch service to Mexico, Canada, or even the Caribbean.

It's still different

Yet Southwest remains a different kind of airline. There continues to be no first-class seating, no meals and no posh airport VIP clubs.

Still, it is changing. The plucky little start-up that began with four planes flying to three Texas cities is long gone. In its place is a behemoth. By year's end, Southwest will have 478 planes. That's more than United's 460 mainline jets. With orders and purchase options for 284 more 737s, it's on track to pass American, with its 683 mainline jets, in about six years. It would then have the world's largest commercial fleet.

For now, the debate is growing among company veterans, analysts and longtime customers about whether Southwest is changing too much for its own good. Christopher Day, of Valparaiso, Ind., corporate chef at Mercer Cutlery, typifies the problem that fast-growing Southwest faces. A faithful customer for most of the past 12 years, Day says he's learned that he can no longer assume that Southwest will have the best deal. He has flown on other carriers eight of his last 10 trips. "The others were priced better, or at least competitively, with less hassle," Day says.

Lamar Muse, Southwest's blunt-talking, 86-year-old founding CEO, is among those who fret that Southwest is drifting too far away from its successful formula.

Muse says he remains one of Southwest's biggest fans and a frequent buyer of its stock. But he does worry that it is "becoming a legacy carrier just as fast as they know how to." By legacy carrier, Muse is referring to the big airlines that were founded long before deregulation and that, together, have lost more than $42 billion since 2000.

Muse was forced out at Southwest in a famous 1978 boardroom showdown with co-founder Rollin King. Herb Kelleher, the airline's lawyer and third co-founder, stepped in as board chairman, then added the CEO title in 1983.
Kelleher had no aviation experience when he began. But he became an industry legend because of his sometimes outrageous antics and Southwest's resolute adherence to Muse's simple, no-frills formula. But since the early 1990s, Muse says, Southwest has veered from his model. Today, its average passenger flies 796 miles, triple the distance flown in 1973.

That has exposed Southwest and its minimalist brand of service to competition with carriers offering not just low fares but also assigned seats, in-flight entertainment, food, more attractive frequent-flier programs and larger service networks.

Muse says Southwest's fares in those longer, more competitive routes — currently capped at $319 one way — are too low. To compensate, he says, Southwest is now charging too much for short-haul flights. Lower short-haul prices, he says, would generate lots more demand, as they did in the 1970s.
Furthermore, Muse says, the gradual change to a more complicated fare structure resembling those of the legacy carriers undermines consumers' confidence in Southwest's low-fare brand.

Industry consultant Mike Boyd takes a different view. He agrees with Muse that Southwest is surrendering some of its low-fare leadership role. But that's a positive, he says. Demand for short-haul flights has not rebounded from the Sept. 11 terrorism to the extent that longer flights have. That's forcing Southwest to adjust, Boyd says.

Longer routes are "where the revenues are these days," he says.
 
A record no one can touch

Southwest has strung together 60 consecutive quarterly profits, a record of profitability no other carrier can touch.

But investors seem largely unimpressed. Southwest shares have languished for the past year between $13 and $18 a share. The carrier's 2005 net profit margin — profit as a percentage of revenue — of 7.2% is below the double-digit margins it posted from 1998 to 2000.

Kelly says, "I refuse to be frustrated" by the stock price. He says investors are concerned about fuel costs, particularly the unwinding of Southwest's successful fuel-hedging program over the next year. That program, in which Southwest has used contracts to lock in its future fuel prices, saved the carrier $900 million last year.

But with oil prices now near a record high, Southwest can't find trading partners to take its hedging bets.

How big a deal is that? The step down in hedging from last year, when it paid $26 a barrel for 83% of its fuel, to this year, when it is paying $36 a barrel for 73% of its fuel, adds more than $600 million to costs. Unless things change, Southwest will be paying market price for all its fuel in 2010.

To regain Wall Street's confidence, Kelly has promised a 15% profit increase this year, a target the company appears on course to hit.

"It's simple. We produce the earnings, and the stock price will take care of itself."

One key to doing that will be increasing productivity. Problem is, Southwest already is the most productive airline flying. For the past two years, there's been a "soft" hiring freeze. Pilots and flight attendants who are needed to fly all the new planes, coming in at a rate of about 35 a year, are being hired. But few others. Measured by employees per aircraft, the company has increased productivity 25% in a decade, going from an industry low of 94 people per plane in 1996 to 71 in 2005.

Labor negotiations coming

Investors aren't the only ones Kelly and Southwest have to win over. Negotiations with the pilots union on its first new contract since 1994 will begin next month.

By most measures, Southwest's pilots now are the highest paid in the industry, thanks to big pay cuts for pilots at all the legacy carriers.
A Southwest pilot flying close to the maximum 1,000 hours a year allowed by law can earn more than $180,000 a year, excluding per-diem expenses and other small compensation items. And they are the only pilots with a profit-sharing plan that has paid out 32 consecutive years.

Nevertheless, Southwest pilots expect raises. As the industry's only consistently profitable carrier, they figure it can afford it.

Kelly won't discuss the upcoming pilot talks. But in public forums he has laid out the general principle of offsetting labor rate and benefit cost increases with productivity gains and growth.

Ike Eichelkraut, president of the Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association, says there's not much more productivity to squeeze out. Last year, the pilots flew an average of 67 hours a month, higher than the industry norm. With required rest periods, training time and vacations, Eichelkraut says, "We probably can't get above about 69 to 70 flight hours a month."

That's where the possible switch to assigned seating comes in. If the airline can shave five minutes off the turnaround time of its 3,100 flights a day, it could improve the airlines' productivity by freeing up almost 260 extra hours a day of airplane and crew time. It would be like adding 25 planes to the fleet at no extra cost.

That's why Kelly calls Southwest's look at assigned seating a "strategic pursuit."

"Assigned seating tomorrow won't enhance our earnings one bit," he says.
"But we want to be strategically positioned so we can (offer) the best customer experience" in the evolving era when all carriers, discounters and legacy carriers alike will have low fares.
 
Funny. I haven't spoken to a single coworker or union member that "expects a raise." Everyone here seems to favor a smoothing of the work-rules instead of hard per-trip pay increases.
 
I expect a raise.
 
canyonblue said:
I expect a raise.

If we don't get at least a COLA raise, then its a concession.

Our work rules are not bad. Just the lack of language in our contract that makes the interpretation loose.
 
Work rules and language are the big things we are looking for at AirTran. Unfortunately, the company doesn't want to budge in this environment.
 
canyonblue said:
I expect a raise.
Guess I better start polishing off my resume.

Highest paid pilots with the best work rules and a fuel hedge running out faster than we can raise our fares which is only just beginning to chase away customers to the likes of jetBlue and others with amenities.

Yep, furloughs will come when the greed starts.

You don't strike me as a greedy person so I hope you are speaking of inflationary raises.
 
Last edited:
Dh, Although I work for somebody else the employees in my business use you lot so i can tell you not to worry about JB. .Except for the younger guys that just have to have the electronic stuff you(SWA) seem to win hands down. Price and reliability will do that ..
PS. Anything less than a COLA raise is a concession.And read that Boyd thread too....
 
Last edited:
filejw said:
Dh, Although I work for somebody else the employees in my business use you lot so i can tell you not to worry about JB. .Except for the younger guys that just have to have the electronic stuff you(SWA) seem to win hands down. Price and reliability will do that ..
PS. Anything less than a COLA raise is a concession.And read that Boyd thread too....
I hope you are right but I'm a "Murphy's Law" type a person when it comes to the airline business. When I jump on jetBlue I cannot help but always be impressed with their operation, product, and people. If they get their costs in line there won't be anyone out there who can beat them. That's a big if! On the business side I think they have gone down some bad roads that may be unrecoverable. They are the tops of every customer satisfaction survey and it's obvious why. It's also obvious why we aren't. While we have great people, our airplanes are old, smaller, louder, and dirtier. No entertainment, 2nd to last in on time performance, and near the bottom for losing bags. Additionally JBs ticket prices are the same as ours. Who would you fly on if you had a choice between the two?

Our prices are continually increasing. 6 price increases this year alone and the competition prices and costs are matching us if not beating us, but because of our hedge we are winning. When it's gone in 2009 that will be the test of what SWA is made of.

Again I trust our SWAPA leadership will do the right thing and hammer out a deal with SWA quickly and it will allow all of us to keep our jobs and QOL.

Unfortunately there are your "legacy" types around here who want to bleed the company dry. Fortunately they are in the minority and aren't on the negotiating committee.

I would just like to see the contract language cleaned up. After 12 years the thing is a little ragged out. There are some pilots who "abuse" the contract to their benefit to get paid a lot more than their flying. While one side thinks whatever the language is than so be it while others think there are just some morally wrong aspects to taking advantage of it's loop holes. The company has also on occasion taken liberties on the language. It needs to be cleaned up to benefit both sides but raises, in my opinion, should only be done if the company continues to make profits.
 
Last edited:
DH , The SWA franchise is a very clean simple business plan. Nothing to complicated and reliable to all.I even think trying assigned seats is a bit of a mistake although fine tuning is OK.To me the thing that makes SWA money is the A/C flying so much time in a day.Thats were the money is,keeping your assets working. Look at your friends a JB ,they are starting to look like a legacy with all the changes they have made over the last 5 yrs.And no offense to either.I am a big fan of the keep it simple stupid business plan.
 
Last edited:
PS. Look at tonight. I'm sure you guys are just sliding in and out of PVD and MHT while BOS is probably a mess.
 
Measured by employees per aircraft, the company has increased productivity 25% in a decade, going from an industry low of 94 people per plane in 1996 to 71 in 2005.

Look at that baby! No way AirTran has less employees per airplane.
 
DH2WN said:
I would just like to see the contract language cleaned up. After 12 years the thing is a little ragged out. There are some pilots who "abuse" the contract to their benefit to get paid a lot more than their flying. While one side thinks whatever the language is than so be it while others think there are just some morally wrong aspects to taking advantage of it's loop holes. The company has also on occasion taken liberties on the language. It needs to be cleaned up to benefit both sides but raises, in my opinion, should only be done if the company continues to make profits.
That's what I'm talkin' about...

Well said.

And I can understand wanting a COLA increase. I just don't want to see a (said like Captain James T. Kirk) "must...be...highest paid...737 driver...ever" attitude. We may be doing well-enough, but that doesn't mean we can't price ourselves right out of existence.
 
What about the golden goose? What about the golden eggs?
 
SWA/FO,

According to AirTran's latest quarterly report, as of Mar 31, 2006, it employed an equivalent total of approximately 6,900 people and had a fleet of 110 aircraft. That's a ratio of approximately 62.7 employees per aircraft.

According to Southwest's latest quartely report, it employed 31,396 people and it's fleet size was 451. That's a ratio of 69.6 employees per aircraft.

AirTran's CASM (including fuel) was 9.73 cents while SWA's was 8.70 cents. CASM increased by 9.3% from 2005 while at SWA it increased 11.3%. CASM (ex fuel) was nearly identical: AirTran's was 6.51 (a 1.1% increase) while SWA's was 6.43 (a .2% decline).

AirTran 10Q for Q1 2006 said:
We employed approximately 6,900 full-time equivalent employees, as of March 31, 2006...
AirTran 10Q for Q1 2006 said:
Our fleet expanded to 110 aircraft during the first quarter of 2006 with the delivery of five new Boeing 737-700 (B737) aircraft.

While AirTran has yet to match SWA's cost structure, it is fairly close and it seems like it is (as you said) the competitor SWA is most concerned with.
 
Thanks for that! I knew AirTran was a good place, they hired me too.
 
The only pay raise we get should be tied to profitability. Makes no sense to get a "steady" raise if we are not profitable in this environment. The Tranny and Blue will have costs rising along with ours (maybe not at the same rate), but that should keep us in the ballpark until 2010. Of course, this just my opinion and does not reflect the views of Southwest Airlines, SWAPA, or any of their subsidiaries.
 
Aplus9 said:
The only pay raise we get should be tied to profitability. Makes no sense to get a "steady" raise if we are not profitable in this environment. The Tranny and Blue will have costs rising along with ours (maybe not at the same rate), but that should keep us in the ballpark until 2010. Of course, this just my opinion and does not reflect the views of Southwest Airlines, SWAPA, or any of their subsidiaries.


DING DING DING!
We have a winner ... this has been both my prediction and my hope.

The legacies have demonstrated that hard pay isn't so hard after all, and let's face it, if GK asked for (and needed) concessions, he'd get 'em. So screw a raise (of hard pay over COLA anyhow). But if we actually stumble through and suceed it would be nice to get a fair slice of the reward.
 
ivauir said:
DING DING DING!
We have a winner ... this has been both my prediction and my hope.

The legacies have demonstrated that hard pay isn't so hard after all, and let's face it, if GK asked for (and needed) concessions, he'd get 'em. So screw a raise (of hard pay over COLA anyhow). But if we actually stumble through and suceed it would be nice to get a fair slice of the reward.

...well said...as was the above.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom