Love Field operating in the Red. Who's fault is that? Not SWA!

[Skyboss]

OK Mr MBA, you have made it apperent with this comment that you do not know what you are talking about. Charges to little---yet makes a profit, fuel hedges right, Serves only large markets, Midland, Spokane, Tuson, Lubbock, SWA puts other airlines in a financial wreck, the other airlines make their own decissions, SWA doesn't sit on their board. What AA or UAL does is based hopefully on a sound business plan. The airline business is not a zero-sum gain, create a product that people want and you will draw new customers and even some from other airlines. My point about Microsoft is that we don't have the most desired product, JBLU, AA etc are very nice airlines just like Apple is to the computer industry, so why then is Microsoft so popular: I'll save you the headache, they are masters of marketing, just like SWA has done along with sound business decissions (keeps costs low). We compete, AA competes, Braniff could not compete in a deregulated enviornment, so they are gone. It's great that you enjoy your airline, but make it better and let the others make mistakes.

You don't compete, you undercut prices then saturate markets so that competition is impossible. Compete, hell... How many major airports is Southwest to chicken chit to pull into? Time for Southwest to put their money where there mouth is.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Southwest charges too little, serves only large markets and puts every other airline in a financial wreck by saturating the major trunk routes.

You don't compete, you undercut prices then saturate markets so that competition is impossible. Compete, hell... How many major airports is Southwest to chicken chit to pull into? Time for Southwest to put their money where there mouth is.

Say Again?

You say SWA doesn't want to compete with your carrier and then, when the fare competition is too hot, you say SWA saturates the market too much. Not an invalide complaint, but I'm missing your point.

Do you want to compete by--

Aircraft size?
Time to 10,000 ft?
Quality of paintjob?

Or by profit vs. loss?

Please tell. I'm thinking SWA does put their money where their mouth is. How 'bout your airline (which one is that again?)

 

[Skyboss]

Say Again?

You say SWA doesn't want to compete with your carrier and then, when the fare competition is too hot, you say SWA saturates the market too much. Not an invalide complaint, but I'm missing your point.

Do you want to compete by--

Aircraft size?
Time to 10,000 ft?
Quality of paintjob?

Or by profit vs. loss?

Please tell. I'm thinking SWA does put their money where their mouth is. How 'bout your airline (which one is that again?)

There's more to it than profit and loss. Unless you consider the rest of the US fly-over country as Southwest does. Anyone can cherry pick markets with no risk. I'm sick of hearing about heroics of Southwest as they enter yet another market guranteed to have pax. Let's see them try to serve markets only network carriers dare to go after then see how they brag about profitability. This is Southwests flaw, and one they will never overcome. It is why they must continue to grow, but unfortunately for them that growth is limited.

Simple as that.

 

[mdf]

Okay, now it's becoming clear! Skyboss is really Skybox. The jilted x-wife of a SWA pilot.

 

[Remington]

Didn't general Custard try to compete where the odds where against him?
So, Skyboss, SWA should try to compete in a place that does not fit their business model so they can lose money like the other airlines in the US? What the hell is Southwest thinking - flying into cities where they can make money. Idiots. All Herb ever said was that he wanted to compete with folks driving from point A to point B, Not compete with the Goliaths of the Airline industry. 34 years later, that is exactly what they are doing. Profitably.
Maby you should stay with dispatching and let the people who know whats going on do their job.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

There's more to it than profit and loss. Unless you consider the rest of the US fly-over country as Southwest does. Anyone can cherry pick markets with no risk. I'm sick of hearing about heroics of Southwest as they enter yet another market guranteed to have pax. Let's see them try to serve markets only network carriers dare to go after then see how they brag about profitability. This is Southwests flaw, and one they will never overcome. It is why they must continue to grow, but unfortunately for them that growth is limited.

Simple as that.

An analyst just raised AMR's and CAL's 2006 profit outlooks by over a $1 a share. Southwest was increased by pennies. The profits will start rolling in at some of the hub and spoke carriers. Their improvements will be much more news worthy than the meager increases at SWA and JetBlue.

Hopefully that will help keep you from getting sick as more new Southwest cities are announced next year.

Cheer up, life is too short.

 

[SWA/FO]

The real airlines have very high fares into smaller cities.....ie. they like to rip them off.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't some airports pay (federal money) to get major airline service?

Skybox,

I'm with you on this one.... I wish we would start losing money and pick very small cities that don't even support our high frequency & high demand business model. We should smoke what you're smoking so then everyone would be happy... then we can re-name the airline....something like United, Northwest or Delta, sounds about right.