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

Other Airlines Suit Up To Play Southwest's Game

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
Other Airlines Suit Up To Play Southwest's Game

By Keith L. Alexander
Tuesday, July 18, 2006;

Over more than 30 years, Southwest Airlines has justly earned a reputation as the first carrier travelers look to for cheap fares. Its influence in lowering air fares generally can't be overstated. Any time the airline moved into a new market, its rivals were forced to bring their prices down. In 1993, when Southwest arrived at BWI, US Airways and United Airlines had to cut their prices by as much as 40 percent.

Now, however, the low-fare goliath is facing some tough competition of its own -- and its fares are not always the cheapest anymore, especially for business travelers, who often purchase tickets at the last minute.

Consider: A round-trip, nonstop flight from BWI to Fort Lauderdale leaving today and returning Wednesday was $476.60 on Southwest's Web site yesterday. The same route went for $178 on US Airways, according to Orbitz.com. A round-trip, nonstop flight to Denver was $644 on Southwest but $607 on United.

"We're not saying we will be the lowest fare every time, 100 percent guarantee," said Keith Taylor, Southwest's vice president of revenue management and pricing. "But we will say that Southwest has the lowest fares in the industry and the highest amount of seats at those fares."

Southwest does have more seats at cheap fares than other airlines, giving travelers more chances to get those seats. Other airlines have fewer flights and a wider range of prices, limiting chances for the cheapest seats.

Many travelers welcomed the news last week that Southwest would begin operating out of Dulles on Oct. 5, offering some attractive advance-purchase fares to select cities. The airline will fly nonstop to Chicago's Midway, Orlando, Tampa and Las Vegas for $79 to $99 each way for tickets purchased 14 days in advance.

For some travelers, finding cheaper tickets on Southwest is a game of chance. Michael Decker of Davidsonville recently bought three tickets to Midway from BWI for his family next month. Southwest offered a fare of $600 for the three, but when Decker tried to purchase the tickets, no seats were available at that price. The only seats for purchase cost $900. So the Deckers went with ATA Airlines for $469.

But for a trip to Phoenix, Decker's wife, Marilyn, found round-trip ticket on Southwest for $270 each. The next-cheapest ticket was on America West for about $400.

Michael Lippman, a consultant with Blue Raster LLC, a mapping company, said he assumed for years that Southwest was cheaper, and so he would rarely check prices on other carriers. But as the drive to BWI from Arlington, where he lives, became more costly with the rise in gas prices, Lippman started comparing the cost of tickets.

"They're not always the lowest. If you're able to purchase well in advance, that's when you have the opportunity to get the less expensive flight," Lippman said.

Southwest hasn't been immune to forces affecting the industry and driving prices higher. Fuel bills for all carriers have climbed sharply in recent years, with the cost of jet fuel eclipsing labor as the industry's No. 1 expense. Southwest, which has had some success in hedging its fuel costs, still faces an $800 million fuel expense this year. The airline has already raised its fares four times since Jan. 1.

Air fares were an average 9.1 percent higher across the nation during the fourth quarter of 2005 than in the comparable period in 2004, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

Southwest's fares aren't routinely the lowest prices anymore partly because competing legacy carriers such as United, Delta and US Airways have been aggressively matching or undercutting Southwest's prices. Those carriers used the bankruptcy courts to reduce their costs enough to better compete with Southwest at the ticket counter.

Also pressuring Southwest, other low-fare carriers such as AirTran Airways and JetBlue Airways have expanded along Southwest's routes, often matching -- and in some cases beating -- Southwest's fares.

"That gap that existed between Southwest and the other airlines has narrowed substantially," says Joe Brancatelli, editor and publisher of business travel site JoeSentMe.com.

Yet while Southwest's fares may not be as cheap as in previous years, the carrier still offers many perks that other airlines do not, such as no fees to change tickets or fly standby and refundable tickets. Also, Southwest, unlike many carriers, doesn't require a Saturday night stay for a cheaper ticket.

And pilots wonder why their airline can't turn a profit. Selling your product for less than it cost's, they will just make it up in paycuts.:confused:
 
Wouldn't that ticket mentioned in the article from BWI-MDW be an SWA code share flt anyway?.............ATA is not flying that city pair.
 
canyonblue said:
And pilots wonder why their airline can't turn a profit. Selling your product for less than it cost's, they will just make it up in paycuts.:confused:

From the above aticle:

"Many travelers welcomed the news last week that Southwest would begin operating out of Dulles on Oct. 5, offering some attractive advance-purchase fares to select cities. The airline will fly nonstop to Chicago's Midway, Orlando, Tampa and Las Vegas for $79 to $99 each way for tickets purchased 14 days in advance."

So are you saying that $79 to $99 covers the cost of flying a person from Dulles to one of the above mentioned cities? The answer is, of course not. However, every seat on that flight is not sold at $79 or $99. Enough are sold at $319 to cover the losses on the cheap seats. Just as USAirways or United attempts to sell enough seats at $500 to cover the loss taken on their cheap seats.

I guess you thought it was OK for Southwest to operate this way for years, but now that other airlines are doing the same thing, it's wrong. No offense, but I have to disagree.
 
Southwest is awesome 100% of the time. This article fails to mention that fact. I have taken the liberty to state so above.
 
TriStar_drvr said:
I guess you thought it was OK for Southwest to operate this way for years, but now that other airlines are doing the same thing, it's wrong. No offense, but I have to disagree.

No, it's ok for Southwest to sell tickets for $8 as long as they don't come asking me for a pay cut to subsidize their lunacy. With hedges in place, and a productive workgroup, it is hard to match Southwest, yet we see airlines not only match, but undercut by a wide margin. I know that you can find a sample at any airline and any price that would show SWA is either more expensive or cheaper, that is a fact. But to see airlines that can't even eek out a profit sell tickets for less than Southwest is insane. But then again, I don't work for any of those carriers that practice that, so I can't complain. But someone can, but most likely not.:rolleyes:
 
SWA/FO said:
Southwest is awesome 100% of the time. This article fails to mention that fact. I have taken the liberty to state so above.

Yes they are, imagine that. Legacy airline mis-management is probably losing money like crazy trying to compete with SWA fares. At the same time, SWA pilots make more $$! Go SWA!
 
TriStar_drvr said:
From the above aticle:

"Many travelers welcomed the news last week that Southwest would begin operating out of Dulles on Oct. 5, offering some attractive advance-purchase fares to select cities. The airline will fly nonstop to Chicago's Midway, Orlando, Tampa and Las Vegas for $79 to $99 each way for tickets purchased 14 days in advance."

So are you saying that $79 to $99 covers the cost of flying a person from Dulles to one of the above mentioned cities? The answer is, of course not. However, every seat on that flight is not sold at $79 or $99. Enough are sold at $319 to cover the losses on the cheap seats. Just as USAirways or United attempts to sell enough seats at $500 to cover the loss taken on their cheap seats.

I guess you thought it was OK for Southwest to operate this way for years, but now that other airlines are doing the same thing, it's wrong. No offense, but I have to disagree.

Yeah, but would they be priced that way without the hedges?
 
SWA/FO said:
Southwest is awesome 100% of the time. This article fails to mention that fact. I have taken the liberty to state so above.

Have you ever seen the show "Airline" on cable?

It should be renamed "Reasons I don't want to fly on Southwest".

100% of the time? Too funny!

GP
 
Ever flown on your airline? :laugh:
 
SWA/FO said:
Ever flown on your airline? :laugh:

I have. I call it "Reasons I never applied to United".
 
Bavarian Chef said:
Yeah, but would they be priced that way without the hedges?

I would say no, but then again everyone else is priced that way WITHOUT hedges.:puke:
 
frmrBUFFdrvr said:
No. But they ARE hedging, so what's your point?

I guess, my point is that the hedges give them a lot of pricing power. No hedges could mean higher prices. Imagine how much more profitable swa could be right now and in the next few (even with hedges in place) if they didn't have any jb-style fares.

canyon and others -- don't look for any swa flamebait in my posts. My past posts bear that out. I hope jb can emulate y'alls success someday.
 
GuppyPuppy said:
Have you ever seen the show "Airline" on cable?
It should be renamed "Reasons I don't want to fly on Southwest".
100% of the time? Too funny!

Oh geez...you make it sound as if that stuff took place all day long every day. I used to talk to the film crews when I saw them looking bored in the concourse, and they would tell me that they would put in a heck of a lot of hours just to get about 3 minutes of film. Sometimes they would go a week without getting anything.

Seems I remember a guy in 1st class on UAL who did something smelly on a serving cart...does that make all UAL 1st class passengers the same as him? Or how about the guy who started his own website dedicated to compliants about UAL?

Besides....that show hasn't been on TV in over a year.

BTW...from what I've noticed, the DEN Customers are really nice folks.

Tejas
 
Bavarian Chef said:
I guess, my point is that the hedges give them a lot of pricing power. No hedges could mean higher prices. Imagine how much more profitable swa could be right now and in the next few (even with hedges in place) if they didn't have any jb-style fares.


canyon and others -- don't look for any swa flamebait in my posts. My past posts bear that out. I hope jb can emulate y'alls success someday.

I agree with you, and don't take it as flamebait. This period should have seen Southwest really pile in the profits if everyone else would have priced their fares at a profit making price. Instead it will go down as one of the worst era's in airline labor, all because someone was afraid Southwest would dominate the world, all with a 737.:confused:
 
canyonblue said:
I have. I call it "Reasons I never applied to United".

Looking at your experience profile - you never had a major job until the corndog picked you up, so the idea that you never applied to United lowers the credibility of anything else you say.
 
Bavarian Chef said:
Yeah, but would they be priced that way without the hedges?
You be the judge Chef...

SWA (current quarter)--
salaries, wages and benefits--786m
interest expense--34m
fuel--518m

4.3% ratio--interest/wages


AMR (last quarter)--
salaries, wages and benefits--1729m
interest expense--261m
fuel--1473m

15% ratio--interest/wages

Also, read the plan to put winglets on 90 -300's. IMHO, that is taking the place of the hedges.
 
Last edited:
canyonblue said:
I agree with you, and don't take it as flamebait. This period should have seen Southwest really pile in the profits if everyone else would have priced their fares at a profit making price. Instead it will go down as one of the worst era's in airline labor, all because someone was afraid Southwest would dominate the world, all with a 737.:confused:

Ahh, the folksy, seemingly understated, ultra arrogant perspective of the modern SWA pilot. (not all to be sure, but way too many)

Southwest's success during this "period" or "era" in airline labor is only half the story. Absent deregulation, DOJ intrusion on airline mergers, non market geopolitical churn of extraordinary proportions, and my personal favorite: protected enclave at Love Field, where exactly would SWA be? Your company is well run, and you made a bunch of money, good for you. However, as you assail other airlines as causal to the industrys' and labors' ills, do this too: Take your latest performance and compare it to FDX and UPS. Because absent the aformentioned adversities, that's very likely what the US passenger airline business would look like. Two huge, sophisticated multinational companies with earnings that make SWA look like a not-for-profit company. You guys started the revolution, own it.
 
Flopgut said:
Take your latest performance and compare it to FDX and UPS. Because absent the aformentioned adversities, that's very likely what the US passenger airline business would look like. Two huge, sophisticated multinational companies with earnings that make SWA look like a not-for-profit company. You guys started the revolution, own it.

Ok, I'll use your logic. Two huge, sophisticated multinational companies in the passenger business without any real competition. We will go with AA and SWA and the rest can go away. Then we will have the earnings you speak of. Flopgut, do your fellow pilots really like flying with you?
 
Flopgut said:
.... and my personal favorite: protected enclave at Love Field...

It's a Global powerhouse first rate airport! Thousands of flights a day!:rolleyes: Are you thinking of DFW by any chance. :confused:
 
canyonblue said:
Ok, I'll use your logic. Two huge, sophisticated multinational companies in the passenger business without any real competition. We will go with AA and SWA and the rest can go away. Then we will have the earnings you speak of. Flopgut, do your fellow pilots really like flying with you?

Oh no, SWA wouldn't be one of them. Maybe AA. Probably 20-25k employees each with bases all over the world. The two of them would be flying about 50% of the total number of widebodies on the planet. Retiring pilots could look forward to lavish retirement at a young age. But, that's gone for good, and who do we have to thank? Just look at who signed your paycheck bud.

Fast forward to this thread: Your on here talking smack about how everyone else's low fares screwed up your "era". WTF? Where do you think that sort of behavior came from? Again, look at who signed your paycheck. It doesn't matter in the least that their low fares resulted from employee paycuts; That's NO different than your initial low fares being enabled by crap pay and no retirement. The whole thing started with one person willing to fly a 737 for poop, who was that?

SWA wanted to save the consumer from the clutches of the airline pilot that made [say] 350K, now your going to hate the guys who want to save the consumer from your 200k clutches? Ridiculous.
 
canyonblue said:
It's a Global powerhouse first rate airport! Thousands of flights a day!:rolleyes: Are you thinking of DFW by any chance. :confused:

Right. Many may not realize it, but this is one of the most disgusting and arrogant posts ever written here. Without the deal SWA got at Love, they would not be in business, period.
 
But they are in business. So I guess you can just keep banging your head against the wall saying "what if" the rest of your life.
 
Hardly. I'm just trying to keep it real. If the guy wants to talk about what SWA lost out on because of someone elses low fares, then let's talk about what we ALL lost out on because of SWA's low fares.
 
frmrBUFFdrvr said:
No. But they ARE hedging, so what's your point?

Couldnt have said it better myself T. How are things going?
 
Retiring pilots could look forward to lavish retirement at a young age. But, that's gone for good, and who do we have to thank? Just look at who signed your paycheck bud.

What flapgut is "the man holding you down?" What has ALPA done for you lately? You can thank your own managment team for your downfall. Poor old flapgut, poor SOB.
 
SWA/FO said:
What flapgut is "the man holding you down?" What has ALPA done for you lately? You can thank your own managment team for your downfall. Poor old flapgut, poor SOB.

Look SWA/FO: Even as batpoop nuts as you act on here, you've got to admit, Canyonblue's complaint of other airlines' low fares detracting from SWA earnings is crazy. Right?

If USAir can sell a ticket cheaper than you good for them. They've come a long way.

BTW, you guys have a longway to go with your deal in reality. Why don't you guys go get the big bucks out of SWA? Get the total pay and benefit metrics the cargo guys have, or what DAL and UAL got 8-9 years ago. Your only on top because everyone else came down. We could all more easily tolerate Canyon's low fare arguement and your harshness toward ALPA if you had actually accomplished something in earnest yourselves.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom