MaxBlast feeling the LUV!

[jball2]

Im going to have to agree they should have a "best practices" committee. I have commuted on Airtran for 12 years and more than once I suggested bringing some of their procedures to SWA. Once, I was told by the boss "That's a GREAT idea but unfortunately it's not Dallas' idea!"

I have LUVed my time here at SWA but sometimes I'm left scratching my head at "The Low Cost Leader." That being said, I couldn't run the joint so who am I to complain?

Ugh!

 

[madjack]

"you based in Dallas, do you live in Dallas? Are you a management pilot, a former Marine Fighter pilot? No... you don't know s&*^." That is kind of the flt ops mgmt principle here...

 

[Just thinking]

Typical squid..... jealous of a Jarhead

 

[madjack]

Ha Ha, but that's not my quote, just the feeling on the line...

 

[Tripower455]

I am at 120 now with zero premium and only 15 days. It can be done wo much effort. Last month 116 and 14 days no prem.

You're obviously not an MCO Capt......

As a commuter, I need to fly blocks, and can't pickup the odd turn here and there to pad the TFP. I rarely bid on open time, and in the few times I have, have gotten exactly one POT trip.

I live and die by ELITT. This month, I started, as usual for these times, with a 87ish line with 4, 3 day pairings. I've been on ELITT dozens of times every day since the 25th and have 105 for 15 (5 frigging commutes) and that INCLUDES a POT move up, otherwise it would be 98 or so.

July and August were the same, but I gave up at 87 and 95 respectively.

Before this year, I'd bid 90ish TFP 12 day lines and have 100ish for 13 days in the first 20 minutes of ELITT on the 25th and often quite a bit more.

It's been this way most of this year and will only get worse as we are increasingly overmanned. At least there was "no harm".........

 

[canyonblue]

SWA builds productive 3 day trips, but they are only commutable on one end, leaving the Pilot with the hotel room or crash pad stay for each pairing.

The key word is SWA, with a big helping of PA. Believe me, I would love to have double commutable trips like our FA's, but I don't know when it's going to happen, if ever. I remember bringing this up to a crusty CA years ago and he made sure he let me know that he would never want trips like that, he bids PM's and by-god he is not about to wake up early on day three just so I can get home a day early. Of course he does not commute, like a large percentage of our pilots, so this is primarily what we are up against here. It's not that they can't be built, it's more like why should they.

 

[Ty Webb]

The key word is SWA, with a big helping of PA. Believe me, I would love to have double commutable trips like our FA's, but I don't know when it's going to happen, if ever. I remember bringing this up to a crusty CA years ago and he made sure he let me know that he would never want trips like that, he bids PM's and by-god he is not about to wake up early on day three just so I can get home a day early. Of course he does not commute, like a large percentage of our pilots, so this is primarily what we are up against here. It's not that they can't be built, it's more like why should they.

Heh-heh . . . I remember hearing other Pilots over here ranting, "Why do I have late starts on the frirst few days, and early starts on the last ones? Why can't we have a.m. and p.m. lines like SWA?!??!"

I guess no matter which way you go, someone's not happy.

Btw, I'm not bitching . . . . I am just trying to counter the idea some folks have that everything about AAI sucked and everything that SWA has is great . . . . We have some things in our contract that you guys might like to have, as well.

Regards,
Ty

 

[DonVerita]

As I recall, you guys used to fly even older, nastier, used DC-9s. You eventually bought newer airplanes, and retired the older ones as you had the opportunity. What do you see differently about -300s being slowly phased out in favor of NGs at SWA? Not too familiar with your own history? The -300s are still making money--and a lot more than your 717s could ever make.

Delta believes they can make the 717 profitable, but only as replacements 70-seat RJs. So, okay, I suppose the 717 is somewhat better than a 70-seat RJ. Happy now? That make you feel all better?



No, I don't love flying the -300 on "6 intra-state legs in Texas." Don't do much of that out of LAS, fortunately, and there isn't nearly as much of that anywhere in the system these days, actually. But on the other hand, if that makes the company money (and keeps my job secure and well-paid), then I'm all for it. What is it you don't get about this? I'll say it one more time for the guy whose either incredibly stupid, very forgetful, or just trying to be a dick: it's more important for an airline's aircraft to make money, than it is for the airline's aircraft to keep the pilots more comfortable and lazy. Seriously, what is it that you don't understand about this? I'm glad you're not in charge of actually managing anything.

Glad to hear that AirTran was so much more "technologically advanced" and more "innovative and efficient" than Southwest. Tell me again which company always made a profit, pays its employees much better, and has never furloughed again? And which on hasn't done any of those? Again, thank God for everyone here that you're not in charge of jack sh!t around here.

By the way, you keep saying "your company," meaning mine. Don't you mean "ours"? They're the ones paying your salary these days, since your old management couldn't wait to get rid of you. And if you really can't stand the thought of flying a -300 instead of your idea of the best airplane ever made (the 717), then keep in mind that you know where they're going. And I hear those guys are hiring as well. You can fly for Delta, on the very bottom of their totem pole, where even they believe the 717 should be.

Get a grip, man. Get over things that you can't change. Or don't.

Bubba

Give it a rest already. Delta categorizes their aircraft based on size. The 717 resides at the "bottom of their totem pole", not because it is a bad aircraft, but because it is the smallest in their fleet whereas the 747-400 is the largest and therefore at the top.

You and your ego obviously have an anuerism level problem with anyone who points out the deficiencies at SWA. I'm sure it's easy for you to sit up there on your pedestal and preach while ignoring the elephant in the room; but you just keep telling yourself that everything is all peachy.

Let me try to explain this to you in a different way, some of which I will borrow parts of from other commentators on F.I. Your big time profits for a number of years were the result of Legacy bankruptcies and Fuel hedges. Those legacies are now lean and mean, firing on all cylinders. Your hedge advantages are gone. ULCC carriers like Spirit are quietly and quickly gaining market share and hitting all the right places (check out their caribbean map). Add to that the fact that passengers are becoming more savvy by the day and no longer just assume SWA is the low fare leader. How is SWA going to counter all of this? In a nutshell, they have to up their game bigtime. That means quickly retiring old aircraft (not running them out for another 10 years..unless they do some substantial modernization packages like Delta is doing for their MD-88 series), getting on the cutting edge of technology..and staying there, capturing additional revenue opportunities such as checked baggage, assigned seating, business class. Hey, but what do I know? According to you, you're glad that I am, "not in charge of actually managing anything." I'll tell you what I'm glad about pal. I'm glad that you aren't in charge of managing anything either, otherwise we'd all be flying a -200.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Give it a rest already. Delta categorizes their aircraft based on size. The 717 resides at the "bottom of their totem pole", not because it is a bad aircraft, but because it is the smallest in their fleet whereas the 747-400 is the largest and therefore at the top.

You and your ego obviously have an anuerism level problem with anyone who points out the deficiencies at SWA. I'm sure it's easy for you to sit up there on your pedestal and preach while ignoring the elephant in the room; but you just keep telling yourself that everything is all peachy.

Let me try to explain this to you in a different way, some of which I will borrow parts of from other commentators on F.I. Your big time profits for a number of years were the result of Legacy bankruptcies and Fuel hedges. Those legacies are now lean and mean, firing on all cylinders. Your hedge advantages are gone. ULCC carriers like Spirit are quietly and quickly gaining market share and hitting all the right places (check out their caribbean map). Add to that the fact that passengers are becoming more savvy by the day and no longer just assume SWA is the low fare leader. How is SWA going to counter all of this? In a nutshell, they have to up their game bigtime. That means quickly retiring old aircraft (not running them out for another 10 years..unless they do some substantial modernization packages like Delta is doing for their MD-88 series), getting on the cutting edge of technology..and staying there, capturing additional revenue opportunities such as checked baggage, assigned seating, business class. Hey, but what do I know? According to you, you're glad that I am, "not in charge of actually managing anything." I'll tell you what I'm glad about pal. I'm glad that you aren't in charge of managing anything either, otherwise we'd all be flying a -200.

You must have been phenomenal at dodgeball in grade school. Nice of you to address something we weren't talking about.

I never said SWA doesn't have deficiencies. Clearly we do, and certainly we can improve things, including learning from AirTran's operation. And also, I'm sure there's more that can be done to increase revenue opportunities. Duh. People are working on that: new interiors and winglets in the -300s, -800s, pet fees, business select and upgrade fees, etc. if you've got any great ideas, send 'em in.

What we were talking about was you incessant bitching about how dicked up Southwest is in your eyes, and your juvenile whining about how the 717 with its "one push engine start" is such a better choice. BS. You don't have to be on the "cutting edge" in every aspect of technology to make money. And actually, I'm all for newer technology when it saves or makes money, but not just for your personal comfort. And "newer technology" (on the same par as the 717) already makes up the 4/5 of our fleet, with even higher technology on the way in the form of the -Max.

I'm sorry you may have to "work" a little harder when on a -300 Don, but it's pretty clear that a 737 (including our -300s) makes more money than your beloved 717 can. Yours is a pretty plane, it's easier for the pilots, but it can't make enough money for us, no matter how many bells and whistles. I don't know much clearer I can make that point.

THAT'S what we were talking about.

Bubba

 

[redflyer65]

The 300's have been paid for 'in full' for years. I'd rather fly a paid off airplane than make payments on a plane that has engine and cargo issues. Along with a second sim, full complement of parts/manuals.. and you start to understand why SW made the simple decision to sub-lease them. It was a slam dunk.

Up their game bigtime and not run the planes that are paid for? Did you actually type this? I'm sure Southwest has the money to run out and buy whatever they want....to the tune of 3 Billion in the bank...but I'm glad they operate with cost being a big issue on capital expenditures. It's always been that way here Don and the sooner you realize it the better. You don't have to agree with it, but at least understand how the company operates and you'll have more insight.