SWA posts $162 Mil Net Income/ $.22 per share

[General Lee]

General, I gave you credit for being smarter than that. Guess I was wrong. The accounting is a little deeper than that. BAke

I was asking a question. If you DIDN'T have the hedges, would you be in the red according to your own numbers? Instead of trying to put me down, answer the question. It is great that you have the hedges, good for you. Answer the question.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Want to share where your at since you cast stones at employees from another airline all the time.

I work at Skybus! Or do I?

Why don't you post your resume fat boy?

 

[328dude]

Just as I suspected.........

Fat boy's rule, it's the girls you have to watch out for. But you already know that...

 

[General Lee]

The article says you had $162 million in net profit and:

"Despite favorable cash settlements from our fuel hedging program of $189 million for third quarter 2007"


So, had you not had the $189 million cash settlements for the hedging program, you would have been $27 million in the hole, right? Am I right or wrong? Thank gawd for your fuel hedging.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[GuppyWN]

We're a band of brothers, aren't we?

Gup

 

[pilotyip]

Tony your right, with lucky's attitude he is probalby lucky to have job. Why do pilots put down others good news.

 

[firstthird]

General,
I'm no CPA but I'm pretty sure the reason you can't just take net profit and subtract out the hedging gains goes something like this.

1 - hedges cost money to buy (expense) that we wouldn't have if we didn't hedge

2 - hedging profits entail taxes to be paid on them, so 189 million is hedging gain is really less because of the tax cost associated with the financial derivative

3 - w/o hedges we would have had a different cost argument to enter in our revenue maximization formula, thus probably charged higher fares (up to a point, which would depress loads, which is why revenue management guys should get big bucks. FWIW I think we undercharged all spring and summer and now for that matter. with loads as high as they've been, we should've cleared more net income)

4 - there is another part to it, something about which side of the balance sheet it goes on, but I don't remember it right now.

short version is that
profit - hedges = profit w/o hedges
is not a valid equation.

It could be safely said that our profit would have been less, but how much less is not self-evident w/o an hp12c accounting calculator and more knowledge / time than I have.

 

[SWA/FO]

Soon the fuel hedges will run out and the legacys will be taking names...SWA F/O you are such a chump

JEALOUS??? - why you hangin out on a Southwest Airlines thread, Now you get upset when there is good news posted within it. Take your negative energy to your local legacy carrier forum.....we don't want it here.

 

[Andy]

LUV, nice quarterly numbers. It's nice to see at least one airline that's actually able to make a consistent profit.

A very well run company with deep management talent. Definitely a rarity in the airline business.

 

[Tanker Clown]

Just think how much money SWA would have made if they took concessions like DAL...but then again, maybe with $1 Bill in consessions you guys could have ditched the LBB overnights.

You SWA guys are hosed. Now that your $29 dollar hedges have run out, all that you have are the $45 hedges that are almost gone...and after that all you have is $51 hedges. With oil at almost $90 you guys are all screwed. I've been saying this for almost 66 strait quarters...as soon as your hedges run out you are screwed.

You guys should start an airline within an airline. An "ultra low cost" airline. It would undercut the likes of Song and make you more competitive.

I'll be looking for you SWA guys in the soup lines.

Bye Bye -- Tanker Clown