Southwest to reduce flight schedule?

[English]

This is what American Airlines is distributing to their employees. Any truth?



Southwest to Reduce Texas Frequencies
Compiled from news wire services.

Southwest Airlines plans to reduce the number of flights it operates from Texas markets to increase fleet efficiency.

Reductions begin October 31 in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Austin. Its the largest flight reduction in the history of the company.

A Southwest representative said that the flight reductions are only a small part of a nationwide schedule change that will take place in the time period.

The carrier will reduce Houston-Austin daily flights to eight from 10, and trips between Dallas and Houston will be reduced from 32 to 29. There will be three fewer departures from Houston to San Antonio and two fewer departures from San Antonio to Houston.

 

[LUVChild]

True.

Not bad news...they're just doing a pretty comprehensive schedule overhaul, and directing our aircraft to areas where they'll make us more money. You'll see some reductions in some places, and some increases in others (like Philly).

 

[chase]

Somewhere around 25 flights (all shorthaul) are being eliminated as a part of a new scheduling program that is being implemented with the late Oct schedule. This article does state some of the changes...others include 2 BWI-ORF flights, 1 inter-FL route, MSY a flight, MAF loses 1, around 11 flights in TX plus some others around the system.

Shorthaul flights being converted to higher yield producing long haul flights. We reduced frequencies, not removing routes in the system. It makes sense to do this & the result in the new schedule is a net of 6 aircraft worth of new flights being added to the system (again, long haul).

I believe it will help the bottom line. If American is using this info to show that SWA is losing traction, I would say they are grasping at straws....while we aren't where we want to be in terms of overall yield, we are attempting to make adjustments to fix it & the results will speak for themselves. It is a small move but one of many that will help the bottom line.

 

[airlinepilot]

It's all about Productivity!

Amazing how another company would jump on this as a sign of weakness......what they should be really worried about is "where are those extra flights going". It's all about productivity....and that is the goal of eveyone here at SWA....increasing our productivity from our fleet and employees.

I had a charter to Columbia, SC two weeks ago and after we landed we heard ground asked by several other airlines if SWA was coming into Columbia.....tower told them he didn't think so. We were just there to pickup some troop.....I just keyed the mike and said...."your worst nightmare".

 

[RVR300]

If it's "Weakness" that's pretty funny. This re-routing of aircraft has yielded the equivalent of six new aircraft to the line.

That's not bad. Wright Amendment Schmright Amendment, put the planes where needed.

 

[lowecur]

Shorthaul flights being converted to higher yield producing long haul flights. We reduced frequencies, not removing routes in the system. It makes sense to do this & the result in the new schedule is a net of 6 aircraft worth of new flights being added to the system (again, long haul).

Hard to believe those long haul flights will increase yield. RASM can be increased on the lower yield long haul if the planes are full. It's always been my understanding that the short haul flights have the highest yield per seat, but if LF's are low then you're better off moving the planes to PHL. I can see CASM reduction as the result of stretching the average stage length. Overall, it is a smart move.

 

[MLBWINGBORN]

Im sure Herb will be pleased you think so..

Mike

 

[Thedude]

Lowecur,
Once again you prove that you have no idea about the airline industry. Longer flights tend to equal lower cost while short legs equal higher cost. I dont have time to go into it now, but you need a serious education before you start lipping off.

 

[lowecur]

Lowecur,
Once again you prove that you have no idea about the airline industry. Longer flights tend to equal lower cost while short legs equal higher cost. I dont have time to go into it now, but you need a serious education before you start lipping off.

Well, I'm always ready to learn. So when you or any other person on this board wants to discus the merits of yield, then lets talk.

 

[chase]

Remove 6 flights (less than 1 hr flts), load factor of less than 50% average per flight, fuel, crew, salaries, landing fees, etc. add up to a certain cost.

Take these flights & convert to 2 x 3 hr long haul flights (simple math, sorry) with load factors that exceed 90%, the comparison is simple, the yield per seat is going to be higher on the long haul as compared to the short haul flights mentioned above.


If you replace 6 high load factor flights with big yields with 2 long haul flights with similar loads, yes it would make sense to keep with the shorthaul flights (all things being equal, proportional pricing & the like, i.e. charge by the mile)

Hope that makes the reasoning a little more clear.


Yes if we charged some huge amount for the 50% of the folks who were flying the short haul routes & charged $99 to every customer on the long haul routes then an argument could be made yields MIGHT be larger on the shorthaul but that isn't how we manage our revenue when it comes to ticket sales.

Your logic would be applicable to other carriers because they do charge an arm & leg for short legs in hopes of subsidizing one side of the market with the other (we do the same mind you but it is much less) but when the loads on these short haul flights were so low, it makes sense to move them to long haul routes where "yields" will be higher compared to what they were on the short haul (non-existant).

Low, I'm sure you knew all of this so I apologize for stating the obvious but I believe your response to others may have given them the impression you were spouting something that wasn't true....you probably just didn't explain yourself well enough. cheers,

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

It's all part of the posturing for the merger between Southwest, Virgin USA, Alaska and Aloha. Haven't you heard?

 

[lowecur]

Chase

Low, I'm sure you knew all of this so I apologize for stating the obvious but I believe your response to others may have given them the impression you were spouting something that wasn't true....you probably just didn't explain yourself well enough. cheers,

Let me first define yield. Yield is the term used to tell us just how much an airline makes based on RPM(Revenue Passenger Miles). In other words, how much did the airline make on each seat it sold. I think LUV's yield for RPM was around $11.54.

Let me now define RASM. It's the yield based on all the seats available. This is a more accurate figure as it shows how an airline is performing better than the yield figure alone. I think LUV's RASM was in the $9. area.

Now I can tell you that historically the money an airline makes on each seat for RPM is more on a short haul than long haul. For instance, I believe LUV charges around $50. one way between Hobby & Love. The distance is 189nm. Compare that from PHL to LAX where the fare will average around $150. for 2100nm, and you can see the yield for RPM is higher on the shorter flight. The key is LF. Like you say, if the average LF is 50% on the short flight, and the long flight is 90%, then the RASM(or yield based on total availabe seats) is the way to go.

The above will do a few things. By moving a/c to longer routes with higher load factors, you will increase the BELF and decrease the CASM. This goes against LUV's history of short flights which creates a low BELF due to the high yield. I still think it will work out for the better, as reducing those short flights by only a few frequencies, you will still be able to maintain an overall low BELF, but it should have a good effect on lowering the overall CASM.

 

[T1bubba]

The other way the new schedule increases utilization is to fly later at night. The last LAS-BWI is scheduled to land at 2 am. Not quite a red-eye, but close.

 

[chase]

You're right...SWA won't be hurt by reducing frequency, just removing flights that had low low factors. As I said we're not cutting any city pairings that I'm aware of (even though that could happen in the future I believe) but there is more efficiency to be rung from the system I'm told...expect more moves like this as we try to become more productive with the 2800 daily flights we have.

 

[English]

It's all part of the posturing for the merger between Southwest, Virgin USA, Alaska and Aloha. Haven't you heard?

Right on. Let's see...do I pack a parka, swimsuit, or nothing at all ?