SouthWest adding fees!

[N1atEcon]

Peanuts and pop are still free too.

 

[clippyrip]

No hidden fees still applies....they have come right out and said they will charge you for the extras.

 

[pilotyip]

They recently raised the advance purchase tickets prices held them for a week. Probably saw a sharp drop off in advance booking and lower the prices. Now they have to look at a new way of generating revenue in order to remain profitable. They are no longer the low cost carrier.

 

[Paul R. Smith]

nevermind

 

[Andy Neill]

Industry forces Southwest to add fees for pets, baggage and unaccompanied minors

Southwest Airlines, which has long bragged of no hidden fees, joined other carriers fighting industry economic challenges and grouped several fees into one announcement today, the Dallas News reported. The airline will allow small cats and dogs as carry-on items and charge $75 each way.....

Is allowing dogs and cats as carry-ons a new policy that comes with a charge or were they previously allowed free and are now being charged? If the former, then this is not a very good indicator of SWA following the herd.

 

[mokitty]

Is allowing dogs and cats as carry-ons a new policy that comes with a charge or were they previously allowed free and are now being charged? If the former, then this is not a very good indicator of SWA following the herd.

Only comfort animals were previously allowed. So now we allow carryon pets and we charge for them.

 

[The Prussian]

Funny. Some SWA guys on here said they would never follow the so called nickel and dime crowd. Just goes to show the bottom line will always dictate what a given business will and wont do.

Funny...it was SWA that showed the rest of the industry where the bottom line was.

 

[ASADFW7]

None of the pilots posting on here have any input into management decisions.

 

[clippyrip]

They are no longer the low cost carrier.

There is an event horizon beyond which expansion makes the airline just like everyone else. There is only so long you can run an airline on $89 one ways and keep growing without increasing costs and thus the price of a ticket. Southwest seems to be expanding beyond this horizon.

DING..."you are now free to be just like every other airline in the industry"...

 

[Twin Daddy]

Actually I think growth keeps costs lower. But I'm no businessman.

 

[monkeybrains01]

uhhh.....yeah. if it's over 3 minutes from towbar gone to takeoff, hell yeah. that's over 50% of the time for the places I go to. not to even mention ground telling of a slot time once you call for taxi

here's an equation for ya: time to the end of the runway - time to start and warm up engine. If that even gets you just one minute its anywhere from 1 to 5 gallons saved.

That is a farce. Unless you're sittin with both running and the parking brake on, you're not saving any gas. I should preface that by saying that technically if you started one motor and didnt touch the throttle all the way to the t/o roll youd save some gas, but otherwise its basic physics...it takes X amount of energy to get a 150000 lb aircraft to the end of the rwy, doesnt matter whether you run the fuel through motor or two, and forget it if youre starting your taxi with a turn into the running motor or for you DEN folks, have to stop at 2E, Id argue that on one motor, you might be burning more fuel.

 

[scoreboardII]

But saving on engine time...

 

[Benjamin Dover]

That is a farce. Unless you're sittin with both running and the parking brake on, you're not saving any gas. I should preface that by saying that technically if you started one motor and didnt touch the throttle all the way to the t/o roll youd save some gas, but otherwise its basic physics...it takes X amount of energy to get a 150000 lb aircraft to the end of the rwy, doesnt matter whether you run the fuel through motor or two, and forget it if youre starting your taxi with a turn into the running motor or for you DEN folks, have to stop at 2E, Id argue that on one motor, you might be burning more fuel.

Clueless. You ever worked for a jet airline that single engine taxied? Savings is signficant. Except for higher taxi weights, plane gets going just fine on one engine. If you are heavy, or are in LGA with soft taxiways, start two. Short taxi, start two. But our "always start two and captain must do it" procedures are stone age.

And are you trying to say the total fuel burn for taxi on two engines equals total fuel burn for 1 engine plus APU? You better call clear skies ...

 

[Atlanta Vicks]

None of the pilots posting on here have any input into management decisions.

That's probably a good thing.

 

[monkeybrains01]

Clueless. You ever worked for a jet airline that single engine taxied? Savings is signficant. Except for higher taxi weights, plane gets going just fine on one engine. If you are heavy, or are in LGA with soft taxiways, start two. Short taxi, start two. But our "always start two and captain must do it" procedures are stone age.

And are you trying to say the total fuel burn for taxi on two engines equals total fuel burn for 1 engine plus APU? You better call clear skies ...

I do right now, and i see no difference in fuel burn one way or the other, tried it both ways, however that is what they want me to do so I do it, and if I work for the same one that you do, which I am guessing I do, try starting 2 a bit sooner so I dont have to wait behind while you taxi at 5 kts and do a big slow heavy turn into position waiting for your two minutes...