Southwest's new plan to screw Airtran pilots

[Lear70]

Give it a rest dude. The airline had enough cash. Things would have been just fine.

Go celebrate Christmas with your family or friends or coworkers or your closest Chinese restaurant. Fa ra ra ra ra and all that stuff.

 

[SWA/FO]

Give it a rest dude. The airline had enough cash. Things would have been just fine.

Go celebrate Christmas with your family or friends or coworkers or your closest Chinese restaurant. Fa ra ra ra ra and all that stuff.

just dodging the question! ha...

 

[Lear70]

just dodging the question! ha...

No, I answered it. You said "someone said..." without giving source or specifics. I answered in kind.

Those of us well-versed in the company financials have answered your question and will now go enjoy our holiday with our families. Not going to continue to engage you.

Merry Christmas. Happy New Year.

 

[madjack]

As someone wisely stated a few pages ago...no one will be able to convince the other side to change their opinions on SWA/AAI...the best advice is to acknowledge each other's position (not agree) and try to find common ground going forward.

 

[scoreboardII]

No, cash from a loan appears as both cash and debt.

No, cash is cash. That was the question. Debt from a loan is under another column. They meet in the middle as the cost of getting the cash is as a debt, but cash on hand is cash on hand.

When you take $50 out of your ATM and used the credit card function do you tell yourself, "I can't spend that now because it created a debt", or do you buy a few beers and dinner?

 

[PCL_128]

You just don't understand how a corporate balance sheet works. When you take out a loan (as long as it's a loan, and not just a line of credit), then it appears as both cash and a liability (debt).

 

[scoreboardII]

dude cut the condescending crap, I know balance sheets.

We are talking right by each other, cash is cash, forget the debt part of the equation. If you have X amount of cash on hand, it's cash for your use. Thats what a corporate balance sheet looks like.

Thats what started this whole discussion "how much cash does AT have on hand?" was the question.

It is irrelevant to the discussion to then add "but they owed X plus Y". Thats a debt part of the equation, which was not asked.

 

[texman]

Just a question? I thought AT had 2 plus billion in debt that we are paying off? What kind of Debt was it?

 

[PCL_128]

dude cut the condescending crap, I know balance sheets.

We are talking right by each other, cash is cash, forget the debt part of the equation. If you have X amount of cash on hand, it's cash for your use. Thats what a corporate balance sheet looks like.

Thats what started this whole discussion "how much cash does AT have on hand?" was the question.

It is irrelevant to the discussion to then add "but they owed X plus Y". Thats a debt part of the equation, which was not asked.

The ironic thing is, if we were having this same discussion prior to the SLI, you'd be arguing the other side, claiming we were weak because part of our cash was debt.

 

[scoreboardII]

Correct, but that wasn't the question, my response specifically answered the "how much cash" question, that is all, now I'm out, take care.

 

[humveedriver]

Just a question? I thought AT had 2 plus billion in debt that we are paying off? What kind of Debt was it?

Dunno. SWA bought AT for 670 million cash and assumed 2 billion dollars in debt. The result was an advertised sale of 1.4 billion dollars. I'm not a tax attorney, but I'm guessing there are addition benefits like tax write offs that go with that assumption of debt and other merger related items. Then you throw in the pricing power and market control SWA gets and viola, deal looks good on paper.

 

[SWA/FO]

2 billion dollars in debt

are we talking AT debt or the loss of our fuel hedges??

 

[humveedriver]

are we talking AT debt or the loss of our fuel hedges??

Maybe that information can be found at Edgar online. I just looked at this article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2010/09/27/southwest-airlines-airtran_n_739975.html

I enjoyed the part where it said SWA would drop AT's baggage fees in 2012 :-O

 

[texman]

are we talking AT debt or the loss of our fuel hedges??

Yes 2 bil for debt. The hedges, I think are paid off first quarter in 2013 we actually got AT pretty cheap. The 717 deal with Boeing cost wise is a wash. Even though we are paying to convert them to DL the cost savings we are getting from Boeing is tremendous. I think we will be pretty close to 15 % roic next year.

 

[SWA/FO]

In welcome news for weary travelers, Southwest said it will drop AirTran's bag fees when the pair combine in 2012. Right now, AirTran charges $20 for the first checked bag, $25 for the second.

Funny, we "love" the bag fees I but we just can't lower ourselves to that level. I mean who needs the extra billion or 2 anyway. We just recently raised the tranny bag fee from $20.00 a bag to $25.00 I guess we need the extra cash to pay them?

 

[carl p]

Why cant we (SWA) start charging for a second bag? Save face by keeping the first bag free, collect revenue on the second...a win/win and a way to move toward the eventual charging for all checked bags if they choose.

 

[jonjuan]

Why cant we (SWA) start charging for a second bag? Save face by keeping the first bag free, collect revenue on the second...a win/win and a way to move toward the eventual charging for all checked bags if they choose.

The problem with charging for bags is lost market share. It's all about the unintended consequences.

 

[climbhappy]

i dont think there is any data to support a claim like that. sometimes a policy has to be tried and then it can be rescinded...if the goal is to grow revenue then a second bag fee and overweight bag fees are sure to do it...spirit customers certainly dont leave spirit because of their ancillary fees...

 

[SWA/FO]

Why cant we (SWA) start charging for a second bag? Save face by keeping the first bag free, collect revenue on the second...a win/win and a way to move toward the eventual charging for all checked bags if they choose.

Thats where it will start. We should do it. The public has accepted this practice.

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

The problem with charging for bags is lost market share. It's all about the unintended consequences.

Can you prove to me where SWA has gained market share by not charging for bags?

No you can't, and the financial analysts that cover the airline industry can't seem to see it either. That's why they keep asking Gary to prove his claims of increased market share.

 

[jonjuan]

Yo, Leeroy-like taking candy from a baby

apparently, you, climbhappy, and SWA/FO think you're smarter than SWA management.

Can you prove to me where SWA has gained market share by not charging for bags?

No you can't, and the financial analysts that cover the airline industry can't seem to see it either. That's why they keep asking Gary to prove his claims of increased market share.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-12-13-southwest-checked-bags_N.htm

Gary Kelly, Southwest's CEO, says the no-fee policy has helped the airline increase its share of the domestic market by about 1%, or $800 million to $900 million.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0718/features-southwest-airlines-gary-kelly-midway-grown-up.html

In the end it was a genius move and typical Southwest: unconventional, brash, unabashed. By refusing to nickel-and dime customers, Southwest added two percentage points in marketshare, increased passenger loads by 10% and brought in $2 billion in incremental annual revenue--at a cost of $500 million or so in forgone bag fees. "We added 24% more revenue per mile without buying another plane," says Kelly.

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

apparently, you, climbhappy, and SWA/FO think you're smarter than SWA management.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-12-13-southwest-checked-bags_N.htm

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0718/features-southwest-airlines-gary-kelly-midway-grown-up.html

Let me type really slowly so you will understand.

P-R-O-V-E I-T!
The Financial Analysts are asking the EXACT same thing and Gary doesn't seem to be able to give them data that satisfies their questions.

If you think that two articles from the USA Today and Forbes is some sort of proof then you are a bigger moron than I thought you were to begin with.

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

BTW, if Bags Fly Free was such a brilliant campaign then why hasn't AAI stopped charging for bags?

Got an answer for that?

 

[jonjuan]

Hey Moron,
Why hasn't Gary started charging for bags? Answer that, dummy.

 

[PCL_128]

Hey Moron,
Why hasn't Gary started charging for bags? Answer that, dummy.

Because Gary made a fool of himself by making such a huge deal of not charging for bags, and now he'll look like an even bigger fool if he goes back on it. He's painted himself into a corner.

 

[General Lee]

Hey Moron,
Why hasn't Gary started charging for bags? Answer that, dummy.

Hey Dummy, have you ever seen the "People's Court" SWA TV commercials? I guess you haven't. They always said "Oh, SWA would NEVER do that...." when it came to charging for bags. OOOOOPS.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[jonjuan]

16,781....

 

[jonjuan]

Hey Dummy, have you ever seen the "People's Court" SWA TV commercials? I guess you haven't. They always said "Oh, SWA would NEVER do that...." when it came to charging for bags. OOOOOPS.


Bye Bye---General Lee

Guess you can't answer the question, either.

 

[scoreboardII]

Gary can't charge for bags because the computer reservation system can't charge for bags.

 

[General Lee]

Gary can't charge for bags because the computer reservation system can't charge for bags.

Yet you can charge for priority boarding that gives you a free drink along with it? Are you sure about that? What about the new fees for more than 2 bags? Are you sure about your statement?


Bye Bye---General Lee