SWA downgraded due to "lucrative pilot contract and dwindling fuel hedges"

[satpak77]

Thats the truth...

I will third-that

 

[pilot141]

Try reading some of the Cargo pilots posts on this board. Talk about being humble.

I completely agree with you.

I once had an old captain tell me "everyone has their turn in the barrel". At one time it was NWA, or DAL, or AA (can you say B-scale?), and even SWA, FDX and others. Stick around long enough and the airline you thought "had it all" is the one "in the barrel".

Humility is a hard thing to come by in this business, and most pilots are reluctant to admit that their career success has nothing at all to do with their flying skills and everything to do with the timing and luck that brought them to the right carrier at the right time.

Fly safe out there!

 

[satpak77]

just remember Pan Am, in bed with the CAA, was a bulletproof airline. Both Pan Am and TWA introduced jet service with the 707 in the late 60's/early 70's

For discussion say you are 15 year old kid, who wants to work for the bulletproof, intercontinental, Pan Am.

It is 1970, and the bulletproof Pan Am just flew into Heathrow with a new 747. They obviously are doing something right.

You pay your dues via military or civilian, finally getting hired by Pan Am at age 32, Kit Darby's official airline new-hire age. It is now 1987. You pass new-hire probation and in 1988 you and your wife have your first child.

Flash forward to 1991, if you weren't already furloughed, you are now. Pan Am liquidates completely and shuts down.

Who we work for (like said before) is sometimes left to who is hiring and the luck of the draw.

The above scenario can be replayed at ANY airline.....

 

[SeaSlam]

Your attention grabbing thread title complete with a big "stoplight" is an example of someone who needs to get a life.

I don't think it's a stoplight. If you look closely and don't jump to conclusions (as you so fatherly pointed out) it appears the "big stoplight" is actually quite small and that the yellow light is lit which is more indicative of "caution".

As someone more knowledgeable than I once said..."those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it". Just an interesting article FL717...nothing more, nothing less....jacka$$.

 

[FL717]

I don't think it's a stoplight. If you look closely and don't jump to conclusions (as you so fatherly pointed out) it appears the "big stoplight" is actually quite small and that the yellow light is lit which is more indicative of "caution".

As someone more knowledgeable than I once said..."those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it". Just an interesting article FL717...nothing more, nothing less....jacka$$.

LOL! Jacka$$ huh?! LOL!!

First off... I'm not sure where you are from.... but in America its IS called a stoplight regardless of which light happens to be illuminated at the time

Second.... there is no real lesson in the ridiculous article you posted. In fact the article actually is quite contradictory in its illustration, but the reporter and obviously you can't figure that out.

Regardless, Southwest is in fact profitable.... and all you are doing by linking the article, is allowing some pinhead reporter to use YOU to further their agenda.

The article really tells us NOTHING, and perpetuates that labor costs ruin airlines... which simply isn't true. But you can't see that therefore YOU become the tool for the problem.

Finally, while I may not like what you posted, and you may not like what I posted, I never once resorted to name calling as you so quickly chose to do after objecting to my point, but hey thats the internet... so cower away behind the keyboard name calling...LOL!

 

[SeaSlam]

LOL! Jacka$$ huh?! LOL!!

First off... I'm not sure where you are from.... but in America its IS called a stoplight regardless of which light happens to be illuminated at the time

Actually, it's called a traffic signal. So it appears I'm right...about both the light and your being a jacka$$.

Lighten up Francis.

 

[SWA/FO]

Swa - Upgraded!!!!!!

Boy, I'm glad that downgrade only lasted a day or so.....looks like we are back in this thing!!!

MarketWatch
Market Pulse: Southwest upped, Continental cut at J.P. Morgan
Wednesday September 21, 5:27 am ET
By Aude Lagorce

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- J.P. Morgan upgraded Southwest Airlines to overweight from underweight, citing increasingly aggressive pricing, rising growth opportunities and superior survival prospects. The broker also cut Continental Airlines, Inc. to underweight from neutral on liquidity concerns regarding the second half of fiscal 2006 and uncompetitive costs.

 

[JPAustin]

Boyd Group

[font=Tahoma, Verdan, Lucida]http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm[/font]

Well respected aviation analysts at the Boyd Group had this to say about Southwest (among other forecasts):

"[font=Tahoma, Verdan, Lucida]The fact is that on a fully-adjusted "normalized" basis, Southwest is losing money. True, its fuel hedges are allowing it to report legitimate profits, but these are essentially the result of a well-managed bet that somebody else lost. Fuel hedges are like a no-interest, no-payback loan. Great. But they will expire in the next 18-24 months - and that will expose Southwest's Achilles heel - high labor costs - to the hard light of competitive reality."

[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdan, Lucida]They also point to the inability of an LCC (save Jet Blue in the future with multiple-size fleet types) to access the amount of markets traditional hub-and-spoke and (in the future) hybrid structures can:

[/font]

"As many communities found on a small scale after US Airways closed its PIT hub - there isn't a replacement for much of the service lost. That's because the LCC model is a cherry-picking, high-density traffic model. It's a model that doesn't typically accommodate the economics to support the types of equipment that can access traffic at either Bangor or Beijing. Nor do they have any economic incentive to invest tens of millions in establishing new multi-level hub operations.
​

So, if Delta accommodates the fervent desires of some in academia, and goes out of business, don't hold your breath for an LCC to toss several hundred flights into CVG or SLC."

​

"But what most folks are missing is that a P & L statement involves two sides of the ledger. The cost part is what everybody seems to be focusing on. But the revenue part is the one that's more important. While Southwest can do a great job in high density markets, its fleet of 737s are useless in relatively small markets like Saltillo or Muskegon or Montgomery or Shreveport. And they're not very good in accessing traffic at Shanghai or Taipei or Osaka, either. Tumble to it: it's markets like these where the real future revenue growth will be found.
​

Northwest, on the other hand, can access the revenues at places such as these and cross-flow them throughout their system. So can American and United and Continental."

​

On to my own predictions... once the fuel hedges are over, Southwest will face the exact same issues the legacies have been facing. True, Southwest's operational tempo and finesse is comparable to a Formula 1 racer, nevertheless Southwest too will require extensive cutting and slicing due to its one dimensional point-to-point structure and high-labor costs.

​

Now, Southwest is preempting foreseeable problems, for example, encouraging Boeing to design a new fleet mix of 737s that are as ultra-efficient as the 787 will be. This preemption is on par with Jet-Blue ordering the mixable Embraer "double-bubbles" and the legacies with their already existing ability to match capacity to route at the strategic AND tactical levels of operation. Gaining an honorable mention is the soon to be built C-Series by Bombardier which is currently holding the keen interest of Northwest Airlines (and of course, future arguments on flightinfo.com will include "what property" the Embaer's and C-Series belong on when economics will make that decision regardless of webboard pissing contests).
Southwest has also been preempting future problems with a hefty cash balance.

​

When this all said done (atleast this battle of the deregulation war), Southwest will still be around, but it will have undoubtedly changed from the Southwest we see today. Unless it stays in its current niche, which is easily survivable, Southwest might then be operating more than one fleet type on a hybrid (point-to-point/hub-and-spoke) route structure, and will be doing so side-by-side with newly minted "legacies" that have completely morphed into lean-mean operators due to bankruptcy proceedings (most likely on the backs of their former fee-for-departure carrriers).

​

Now flame away...

​

 

[jetflier]

[font=Tahoma, Verdan, Lucida]http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm

JP....

Good post.

Can you post the entire Boyd Group forcast?

Looks like some interesting reading...


[/font]
Well respected aviation analysts at the Boyd Group had this to say about Southwest (among other forecasts):

"[font=Tahoma, Verdan, Lucida]The fact is that on a fully-adjusted "normalized" basis, Southwest is losing money. True, its fuel hedges are allowing it to report legitimate profits, but these are essentially the result of a well-managed bet that somebody else lost. Fuel hedges are like a no-interest, no-payback loan. Great. But they will expire in the next 18-24 months - and that will expose Southwest's Achilles heel - high labor costs - to the hard light of competitive reality."

[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdan, Lucida][/font]

 

[FL717]

Actually, it's called a traffic signal. So it appears I'm right...about both the light and your being a jacka$$.

Lighten up Francis.

Keep on name calling...LOL!! It defines my opinion of you.

Thats okay. Just go ahead and keep hiding. From both the reality of my original point, and behind your little keyboard. It seems to be quite easy for you....LOL!

By the way, it is is in fact commonly called a stoplight.... regardless of your more important intent to try and deflect my original post on this thread.

You represent exactly what is wrong with some of the mindsets of people in this business.... a mindset that is continually perpetutuated by the media.

So exactly what airline do you work for?

 

[SWAdude]

Well respected aviation analysts at the Boyd Group had this to say about Southwest (among other forecasts):

"[font=Tahoma, Verdan, Lucida]The fact is that on a fully-adjusted "normalized" basis, Southwest is losing money. True, its fuel hedges are allowing it to report legitimate profits, but these are essentially the result of a well-managed bet that somebody else lost. Fuel hedges are like a no-interest, no-payback loan. Great. But they will expire in the next 18-24 months - and that will expose Southwest's Achilles heel - high labor costs - to the hard light of competitive reality."

[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdan, Lucida][/font]

There is no doubt that given todays environment, and assuming this is here to stay, that when SWA's hedges run out (2009 not 18-24 months) there would be a challenging situation for my company. But if things do not change in the next few years then we will definitely see a changed landscape for the legacy carriers. They will certainly have a failure or two along the way. Or consolidation that will equally downsize the seating capacity and decrease their competition. Either one of the scenarios will help the entire industry finally climb out of this depression and allow our model to experience the level of profitability we have had in the past.

 

[SeaSlam]

You represent exactly what is wrong with some of the mindsets of people in this business.... a mindset that is continually perpetutuated by the media.

Thanks Freud...have you noticed you're the only one who didn't "get the intent" of the original post. Oh yeah...I almost forgot...jacka$$.

 

[JPAustin]

Boyd Group

Jetflier --

Actually that was the entire website, but here is a link for the base website:

http://www.aviationplanning.com/

A lot of smart cookies over there. Its amazing though how little people and "experts" seem to listen to them though...