SWA could add 60 jets in 2005

[SWAdude]

Southwest Air says could add 60 jets in 2005

Tue Nov 9, 2004 02:41 PM ET
By Jon Herskovitz
DALLAS, Nov 9 (Reuters) - Southwest Airlines Inc. (LUV.N: Quote, Profile, Research) sees steady growth for the airline in a struggling industry, and the low-cost carrier could add as many as 60 aircraft to its fleet this year, Chief Executive Gary Kelly said on Tuesday.

Southwest, which recently took delivery of its 400th aircraft, has delivery and retirement plans that will result in it adding 29 net aircraft to its fleet this year.

"We think we can probably take 50 to 60 airplanes in total, not incrementally, for 2005," Kelly said at an analyst meeting that was monitored via Webcast. He said that if Southwest added as many as 50 or 60 aircraft, that would be a record year for new aircraft for Southwest.

Southwest exclusively operates 737 aircraft from Boeing Co. (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) . Kelly said that apart from the deliveries of new aircraft from Boeing, Southwest may consider used 737 models on the market, reiterating an interest in 737-800 planes operated by bankrupt carrier ATA.

Kelly said the main focus of Southwest's growth in 2005 would be at Chicago's Midway airport and in Philadelphia, where it started operations earlier this year.

Kelly said Southwest was interested in bidding on gates that may be available at Midway due to ATA's withdraw and said a good number of new gates for Southwest would be about seven.

ATA parent Indianapolis-based ATA Holdings Corp. (ATAH.O: Quote, Profile, Research) sought bankruptcy protection in October. It is the largest presence at Midway.

Southwest has been the only consistently profitable major U.S. airline since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. It has relied on a model of no-frills service, simple airplane fleets and low operating costs to secure steady profits.

Kelly said recruiting, training and deployment of personnel were the main constraints to Southwest flying more passengers.

"We are not interested in growing just for growth's sake," Kelly.

Kelly said struggling rivals are flooding the market with seats for sale but once there is a shakeout in the industry, Southwest should thrive.

"The earning power of Southwest has not yet been realized," he said.

 

[Swerpipe]

Webcast

SWADude,

I listened to the webcast, and I got the feeling that it was almost a PR move to let the World know that "when and if we decide to double our number of airplanes next year, don't worry it's something we've looked at carefully and is well within our capability". The concern being cultural and the challenge of implementing such a large addition in one year. He did say that he was confident in Southwest's capability to go up to 60 aircraft total for '05. Kelly said those aircraft could be analog/EFIS -300/-500 or -800. He reiterated however that SWAs preference would be to stick to the 122 or 137 seat aircraft although they were prepared to move into the -800 if necessary. On a previous conference on Nov 4 he hinted that those -800 could be used for a couple of transcons a day plus 1 or 2 "high density" runs which would bring the daily block time per aircraft to about 11 hours. The drawback being that it's not easy to replace a -800 with a -700 or -500. That pain would be somewhat mitigated by the 12% lower per seat mile cost of the -800 compared to the -700.
My question to you is there was some discussion about SWA looking into red-eye flights. He stated that the major impact would be to SWA crews and that it was something that SWA would probably look into next. What do you think would be the reaction of the red-eye flights by the flight crews?

 

[SWAdude]

My question to you is there was some discussion about SWA looking into red-eye flights. He stated that the major impact would be to SWA crews and that it was something that SWA would probably look into next. What do you think would be the reaction of the red-eye flights by the flight crews?

The reaction?? No freekin way by probably 95% of the crews. The other 5% are probably on the avoidance bids.

On a side note, when I went to upgrade 4 years ago Herb told us at the lunch they throw for us in the boardroom that there would be no red- eyes in the future due to scheduling concerns. We all let out cheers and applause and Herb said that he expected that.

Although 4 years is an eternity in this business.

Thanks for asking.

SWAdude

 

[Swerpipe]

That's what I thought

When Mr. Kelly was saying that I could almost hear the booos....

 

[RJones]

I'd do "red-eye" flights ... I guess I'm on every Captain's avoidance list. I know I'm on SWADude's.

RJ

 

[goofyleftwich]

the commuters might like them

 

[mdf]

I am also for red eyes...if it makes money. I may also be a 5%er

 

[SWAdude]

I'd do "red-eye" flights ... I guess I'm on every Captain's avoidance list. I know I'm on SWADude's.

RJ

Why would you say that?? Do I know you?

 

[SWAdude]

I could imagine what a red-eye schedule would look like at SWA.

Leave LAS at 10pm. Arrive FLL at 5:30 AM. Depart FLL at 6:30AM. Arrive MSY at 7:15AM (Central). Depart MSY 7:45AM Arrive TPA 10:15AM (eastern).

10:15 hours of duty.

I know this is one of many examples. Some better than others.

I have done red-eyes in the past. And personally they looked a whole lot better on paper than what they actually were.

But to each their own. I also haven't flown an AM in over a year and if I had by druthers, would never fly one again.

SWAdude

Also 5% might be extreme. 20% might be a fair number. There is the commuter side of it of which i'm not one.

 

[RJones]

May have bumped into each other if you in TX I recon.

Just kiddin 'bout the avoidance thing. Really don't mind the all night flying thing ... did it for over 12 years haulin trash around. I think I could get into it for a while, but then I'd want to become a real person again.