SWA plan for 15% ROIC

[maxblast72]

Right.... Put the crack pipe down, a strike will kill a company inside of a week, severely damage it in days, thinking otherwise is naive.

Really? Maybe you are naive. United, Delta, American, and Southwest are too big to fail. Once you are that big, stakeholders will take big concessions not to get a bunch of assets dumped back in their laps when a big company liquidates. All the above 4 airlines I listed could last more than 1 week if the pilots went on strike. Maybe PCL128 can list the duration of some strikes, like the Northwest strike in the late 1990s. I could of swore it lasted over a week.

 

[737tanker]

I don't know about that one. If I bought a ticket on an airline and than saw people having to shell out $40 to cut in front of me, I would be thinking next time I'll take my business to someone else.

Is paying the $40 to upgrade your boarding position from a "B" or a "C" to "A1-15" any different than getting an upgrade at those airlines that have a higher class seating.

 

[Dan Roman]

I see your point, but I think it's one thing to buy an upgrade and all that entails vs simply being put in a position of every person for themselves when you board and oh yeah, for $40 we'll let some passengers cut in front of you. If you got something for your $40 other than being able to cut in front of your fellow passengers I could see it, but it sounds to me like the people who don't pay the $40 are getting their travel experience diminished if they don't cough up the extra 40 more bucks.

 

[FlyinGuy]

How is their travel experienced diminished?

What about any other airline out there? Does the person who pays twice as much for the last seat on a sold out flight have a diminished travel experience? Maybe, maybe not.

The only "issue" is that people can see what is happening. If a group of 5 people walked up to the ticket counter and purchased the last 5 business select boarding positions 50 minutes prior to departure, does that diminish the others travel experience? Probably not, because they did not see what was happening.

SWA said they tested this and it worked pretty good. Will some be p/o'ed. Sure, but they are welcome to go pay their $40 to move up. Will it work in the long run? Who knows, but at least SWA is trying some things to boost their revenue. FYI, my bet is that by 2015, bags will not fly for free.

 

[humveedriver]

I see your point, but I think it's one thing to buy an upgrade and all that entails vs simply being put in a position of every person for themselves when you board and oh yeah, for $40 we'll let some passengers cut in front of you. If you got something for your $40 other than being able to cut in front of your fellow passengers I could see it, but it sounds to me like the people who don't pay the $40 are getting their travel experience diminished if they don't cough up the extra 40 more bucks.

It's sort of a gamble too. Because thru passengers on a multi leg flight can move after deplaning free of charge. So you are buying better odds of a seat you would prefer to sit in, not a guarantee, and if it doesn't include free booze, what's the point...

But SWA has a loyal following and this plan caters to some. People have a choice and can and will fly on another airline based on price, convenience and value.

 

[Dan Roman]

But SWA has a loyal following and this plan caters to some. People have a choice and can and will fly on another airline based on price, convenience and value.

I think that's the danger. People equate SWA with a cheap ticket and not getting screwed by extra charges. That's what creates loyalty. Unfortunately, that makes you vulnerable if you stray from what people expect and made them loyal to you. I don't think it's that big a deal, but I can see this alienating a fair amount of people.

 

[climbhappy]

i've become a regular customer going to see my son in nashville...i'm finding the best way to board a flight is wait til the last minute and go to the back of the plane...maybe get a whole row to yourself.....i cant believe anyone would shell out 40 dollars to get off the airplane first at a podunk airport like Nashville...

 

[humveedriver]

I think that's the danger. People equate SWA with a cheap ticket and not getting screwed by extra charges. That's what creates loyalty. Unfortunately, that makes you vulnerable if you stray from what people expect and made them loyal to you. I don't think it's that big a deal, but I can see this alienating a fair amount of people.

I think all airlines tinker with pricing and incentives to see what they can get away with and what does/doesn't work. I think they are trying to capture a very slim demographic that wants to pay a little more to get the aisle seat or whatever. Everyone else in line is going to be thinking "sucker" like our friend Climb. AT did similar moves to counter fuel and generate money. They increased the price of walk up business class several times over and then primed the FA's to sell it one more time after the door closed.

 

[737tanker]

It's sort of a gamble too. Because thru passengers on a multi leg flight can move after deplaning free of charge. So you are buying better odds of a seat you would prefer to sit in, not a guarantee

From information published on Swalife there will be a mechanism in place that looks at the numbers of through passengers and if that number is above a certain level the $40 upgrade will not be offered.

 

[PCL_128]

Right.... Put the crack pipe down, a strike will kill a company inside of a week, severely damage it in days, thinking otherwise is naive.

Actually, AirTran would have been just fine for about 10-14 days. Southwest could weather a strike for a couple of months with their cash position. Alaska, as well. Most of the legacy carriers couldn't go much more than a few weeks, though. That's true nowadays. But that's not really the point. What you and your fellow SWA posters here can't seem to understand is that a strike vote is not a vote to shut down the company. It's an authorization vote. It's a shot across the bow of management that you're willing to put up with a little risk. It's also a demonstration to the NMB that the pilot group is unified and is willing to follow the union's leadership, which the NMB always wants to see before considering a proffer. Finally, even the proffer isn't seen by the NMB (or even ALPA) as a means to a strike. It's seen as a means to reach a deal. It brings highly elevated pressure to bear on both sides of the table, which encourages both sides to bargain in good faith.

 

[madjack]

An old EAL guy who now is a Cappy at SWA told me once he would never trust SWAPA with a strike...way too many guys would cross the line for the $$...at EAL everybody just voted/acted the way the CP told them to...according to him...

 

[madjack]

People have a choice to pay for pref bdg...they may not when it comes to checking a bag...

 

[pilotyip]

Actually, AirTran would have been just fine for about 10-14 days. Southwest could weather a strike for a couple of months with their cash position. Alaska, as well. Most of the legacy carriers couldn't go much more than a few weeks, though. That's true nowadays. But that's not really the point. inally, even the proffer isn't seen by the NMB (or even ALPA) as a means to a strike. It's seen as a means to reach a deal. It brings highly elevated pressure to bear on both sides of the table, which encourages both sides to bargain in good faith.

Yea good stuff; just ignore those people who buy tickets, who worry bout getting stranded, who stop buying tickets, weeks even months in advance of a possible strike. Screw them, they owe the union members a job and they should never forget that.

BTW Did I not read after the five day strike by NWA in 1998 or 99. It took them years to recover their load factors?

 

[Mamma]

Yea good stuff; just ignore those people who buy tickets, who worry bout getting stranded, who stop buying tickets, weeks even months in advance of a possible strike. Screw them, they owe the union members a job and they should never forget that.

BTW Did I not read after the five day strike by NWA in 1998 or 99. It took them years to recover their load factors?

So you say the responsibility is only on labor if a strike comes to fruition? You say the actions of management had no part whatsoever in a strike? A strike is the only legal action the Railway Act gives unions and this is after years and years of negotiations. I'm surprised you are so ignorant on these matters having been on this board and in the industry for years. I guess you are proof one does not need a college degree to be in this business. Look what the taxpayer got with yours...

 

[EngineThunder]

So you say the responsibility is only on labor if a strike comes to fruition? You say the actions of management had no part whatsoever in a strike? A strike is the only legal action the Railway Act gives unions and this is after years and years of negotiations. I'm surprised you are so ignorant on these matters having been on this board and in the industry for years. I guess you are proof one does not need a college degree to be in this business. Look what the taxpayer got with yours...

His response will be sending his manifesto/ work history to you via PM before the day is over. Call it a hunch.

 

[canyonblue]

I don't know about that one. If I bought a ticket on an airline and than saw people having to shell out $40 to cut in front of me, I would be thinking next time I'll take my business to someone else.

Heard that same argument about people having to pay for checking their bags, how did that one go?

 

[PCL_128]

Yea good stuff; just ignore those people who buy tickets, who worry bout getting stranded, who stop buying tickets, weeks even months in advance of a possible strike. Screw them, they owe the union members a job and they should never forget that.

So I should just work for free if management demands it, just so those passengers don't get stranded? Sorry, not gonna happen.

The process in the RLA is there to resolve disputes in a way that avoids disruptions to service if at all possible. By the time it gets to a strike, management has had opportunities for years to solve the problem. The NMB doesn't release anyone to self help if management is being reasonable. The blame for those passengers missing their flights is on management, not the union. The union is just resorting to the last possible option that they really don't want.

BTW Did I not read after the five day strike by NWA in 1998 or 99. It took them years to recover their load factors?

NWA was making enormous profits prior to 9/11, just like every other airline.

 

[jonjuan]

From information published on Swalife there will be a mechanism in place that looks at the numbers of through passengers and if that number is above a certain level the $40 upgrade will not be offered.

And that number will be 135. :nuts:

 

[jonjuan]

Heard that same argument about people having to pay for checking their bags, how did that one go?

Southwest management said it drove market share toward SWA. What's the counter to that?

 

[khsgt]

Pilots are a funny bunch. Most are smart enough to realize the massive damage a strike will do to their respective companies, but most are also self absorbed enough to not care. As soon as it becomes "us vs them" with your management, you both lose. Money is hard enough to make in the airline business...do you really want to complicate that?

If you owned your own small business and were dealing with employee issues such as this, how would you handle it? How would you feel as the owner?