Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

SWA starts coast-to-coast flights

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

T1bubba

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
317
Not much new info, but still a pretty good article.
T1bubba


Southwest launches nonstop flights to L.A.
Twice-daily schedule puts airline into coast-to-coast competition with majors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Paul Adams
Baltimore Sun Staff
Originally published September 15, 2002



No-frills carrier Southwest Airlines launches twice-daily flights from Baltimore to Los Angeles today, marking the first time the Dallas-based company has challenged major hub airlines in the transcontinental market.
Best known for its short flights and Spartan service, Southwest says the first of its twice-daily nonstop transcontinental flights are booked, suggesting passengers are willing to forgo assigned seats, hot meals, inflight movies and the relative comfort of a bigger jet if it means paying $99 to fly coast-to-coast. Southwest exclusively flies Boeing 737s and serves only peanuts and snacks.

"I think they will continue with this, and I think they see that some of their competitors are charging outrageous amounts of money," said Washington-based aviation consultant Adam Pilarski, referring to last-minute transcontinental air fares that can easily exceed $1,000 on major hub airlines. "They will take advantage of the misfortune of other carriers to establish themselves in this market."

Though Southwest stresses that it is not abandoning its niche as a short-haul airline, industry analysts say the carrier's limited move into the transcontinental market underscores the difficulties facing the biggest names in aviation. With the exception of Southwest, the nation's top 10 airlines are hemorrhaging money and cutting costs by eliminating employees and shrinking flight schedules.

Southwest, which remains profitable, is adding pressure to its struggling rivals by capping its most expensive walk-up fares at $299 each way - a step that enhances its appeal to business travelers who have significantly cut back on travel in the past year. The move has forced other airlines to match Southwest's fares at a time when none can afford to lose revenue.

As other airlines cut back, Southwest has tried to fill the gaps by extending its low-cost business model into new markets. Among other areas, the airline has increased its presence in Chicago and several East Coast cities. In Baltimore, Southwest added flights to take advantage of Arlington, Va.-based US Airways' decision to pull more than half its service out of Baltimore-Washington International Airport, including its transcontinental flights to Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco.

With US Airways out of the market, United Airlines is the only other carrier with nonstop service between BWI and Los Angeles. The nation's second-largest airline charges more than $1,000 each way for a last-minute fare on that route, but the price dips to $218 roundtrip when booking two weeks in advance. The carrier uses a Boeing 757, a narrow-body plane that is slightly larger than the 737 used by Southwest.

Since late 1997, Southwest has exclusively invested in Boeing's 737-700, a newer model that has a longer range than its predecessors. With four more planes coming, the 737-700 will account for 124 of the airline's 370 planes.

That has made it easier for the airline to add longer flights to its schedule, such as Chicago to Seattle and Baltimore to Phoenix, Las Vegas and, now, Los Angeles. Long-haul flying - defined as more than 750 miles - makes up about 20 percent of its schedule, an increase of 5 percent from five years ago, said Gary Kelly, the airline's chief financial officer.

"We haven't really set a strategy to become either more or less of a long-haul carrier, but certainly through the last year we've seen more opportunities to add long-haul flights, and we've tried to take advantage of that," Kelly said.

Analysts expect Southwest to expand its transcontinental flying from BWI if the flights to Los Angeles prove popular, though Kelly dismisses such talk as "premature." Oakland, Calif., San Francisco and Seattle are all possible destinations, some suggest.

"Even though they claim they aren't operating a hub in Baltimore, clearly they are operating a hub in every sense of the word," said Henry H. Harteveldt, a travel analyst for Forrester Research Inc. "They are going to cause a lot of financial pain to carriers like JetBlue, who flies from Dulles to the West Coast, and United [Airlines]."

Southwest's new flights also will test whether passengers will warm to the idea of flying long distances on a relatively small plane with only a snack to tide them over. Travel experts note that passengers are already accustomed to flying coast-to-coast on narrow-body jets like the Boeing 757 or Airbus 320. That wasn't the case 10 years ago, when wide-body jets were commonly used on transcontinental flights.

"Once you come to grips with the fact that you're on a narrow-body plane, the length of the plane probably doesn't matter much," said David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association.

Since Sept. 11, passengers are becoming accustomed to the absence of meals on flights, a trend that could work in Southwest's favor. Major airlines have significantly cut back on meal service to cut costs in the face of shrinking revenue.

"Basically, every day you pick up a newspaper airlines are considering taking more things away from passengers and the more they cut back on services ... the more they begin to look like Southwest, except for the [price]," said Kevin P. Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition, a group that represents business travelers.

Mitchell said the addition of long-haul flights should help Southwest pick up more business travelers, who have historically been willing to pay extra for first-class amenities on long flights.

Southwest has made inroads at Black & Decker Corp. in Towson, which has been trying to cut travel costs as a result of the sluggish economy. Black & Decker officials flew Southwest 2,800 times in the first eight months of this year, up 22 percent from last year, said Peter Buchheit, the toolmaker's director of travel and marketing services. That makes it the company's fourth-most popular airline behind US Airways, American Airlines and United Airlines.

Black & Decker officials flew from Baltimore to Los Angeles 225 times in the first eight months of this year, spending an average of about $352 each way, thanks to volume discounts with several major airlines.

Buchheit said company officials would not hesitate to grab a brown-bag lunch before departure and save a buck by using Southwest on future transcontinental flights.

"There's a lot of pressure on people to reduce expenses," he said.

But some Maryland companies aren't likely to switch, mainly because they have long-term contracts with major carriers that give them access to deep discounts. Southwest doesn't offer corporate discounts, arguing that its everyday fares are already low.

"I would say Southwest and other [discount carriers] are less than 1 percent of our total," said Richard Wooten, director of corporate travel for Lockheed Martin Corp.

The company does more than 90 percent of its business with five major carriers, which negotiate low fares that are comparable with Southwest's fares.
 
Yeah, that's pretty much the business plan -- copy Jet Blue.

We've already started painting the airplanes blue and we've added leather seats. The last step will be replacing the pilots with computer operators. ;)
 
Last edited:
dhampton:

It's good to see you still have your sense of humor:)

I even like the quip about jetBlue computer operators....that's a good one.

As you can see that I still have mine too.
 
Once you guys get rid of your 30-year old jets, you too can have a plane with a computer in it! Maybe your son/daughter can even teach YOU how to use one. In fact, the plane is so easy to fly, I'm surfing the web right now!

You had to expect some good responses to your post.

As Speedbird put it...Autopilot on, my FCU.
 
What to do with that computer ....

In fact, the plane is so easy to fly, I'm surfing the web right now!

WOW! That is so cool! Maybe on your next flight you can load a flight simulator and pretend you are flying!

Maybe your son/daughter can even teach YOU how to use one.

Maybe your grandfather/grandmother can even teach you how to fly a plane with a real yoke and rudder pedals: some strange nostalgic nutcases actually think it is fun!

I hope you expected good responses to your post too!!
 
What's a yoke?

That's good stuff. And yes, I did expect some good responses from my post as well.

Oh yeah, isnt a yoke that yellow thing inside of an egg?

Disclaimer: my previous post was meant to be funny.
 
Actually the average age is 8.9 years, the youngest in the fleet of any MAJOR airline. You'll will be lucky to be around that long, that mormon has you fooled, wait till all of the initial investors cash in on their stock which I believe they can do in OCT. for an average rate of return of 800%. Unless they are all smoking out of the same pipe as David, they would be fools not to in this econonmic environment. Also, how many of those High-Tech aircraft do you own outright, title in hand?I think we all know the answer.
 
Man, people are in a bad mood lately; seems like every thread turns into a food fight before long...

Back to the issue at hand...wonder what Alaska Airlines is thinking about SWA competition on their relatively new (and as I understand it profitable) ventures between Washington D.C. and Seattle? SWA usually makes pretty good business decisions but it will be interesting to see if Seattle travelers will choose to drive to BWI to fly 4+ hours with cokes and peanuts vs. departing from the more convenient National/Dulles for award-winning service albeit at a higher price. Any thoughts?
 
ERROR!!!!!!!

The previous post have cause an exception in module 12X-333-thso456-dtow. This program will close immediately and all unsaved information will be lost. Please contact your system administrator to correct this problem. Continued use of this system may cause bodily harm or loss of life. Please do not operate heavy machinery during this computer outage.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

You guys kill me!

Keep the pointed end going forward.
 
seriously.

Man what is up with the thin skin falcon 1 and the rah rah for SWA over all others. There was no offense implied on any level from what I read. If you work there, cool. It is a great company. No one argues that point. Surely there are somethings you would like to change about the company. I mean those old 37's are a little old- the new ones do look sharp. From what my SWA friends told me, no meal plan has got to suck after a while. Me, I can't even look at another blue chip. And what about that pay for training- errrrrrr type rating required? And before I forget, how long is the pool to start training in Dallas? These cheap shots could continue. But why- its pretty lame.


As for comparing JB at 2+ years, to SWA 30 and counting, hardly a real comparrison. I do think that SWA 28 years ago, wasn't where jetblue is now- a napkin and three cities, compared to a national presence and growing rapidly. But that means nothing as to what the future will hold for either company now does it?

As for the transcon issue, I think JB has a slight advantage with the TV"s- it is the opiate of the masses and all, but SWA has more cities and planes. Its all relative.

Why turn an a funny comment into something personal. You have to get ugly and even play the religion card on a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** nice guy. I guess now is the time to start ripping that wild Turkey drinking drunk of a CEO you have. What say we organize an arm wrestling match? Since you started at SWA, how are your stock options doing? Does your car have SWA stickers all over does it? or a 'my other car is a 737 on it'?

I don't wish any ill will on SWA, as apparently you do to JB, why the hostility? You aren't hearing footsteps are you? For all the SWA'ers out there, and this is a pro SWA message board- it is all good. I would be working there if there was no pool, oh well.

Just don't grip the yoke so tight, and remember that a rising tide floats all boats, or some other positive economic saying. SWA isn't going anywhere, and hopefully JB won't either.

BTW- I have got to get a pic of me playing flight sim on my laptop while flying- now that would be funny.
 
If we think the SWA bunch is nasty now, just wait until next year around April with no classes in sight.
 
Four Observations

First: Lighten up Francis, er, I mean Falcon1

Second: Kwij...nicely put.

Third: I feel I have to redeem myself after an intended humorous response to a funny comment from dhampton, so here goes. Personally, I think that if the decision of which carrier to fly is based on the almighty dollar, people will choose the cheaper alternative most of the time. In this case, that opinion is bolstered by SWA's great reputation. Those same people seem to justify painful drives to far away airports with cost savings that in some cases are insignificant. On the other hand, after having some less-than-good experiences with UAL, AAL, or DAL in that area, people may feel compelled to try something new (read: Alaska). Either way, there is one metric a$$load of people that share the three airports. When considering distance, traffic, and convenience, most middle class folks, and there's lots of 'em in that area, choose the airport that's closest and easist, regardless of the airline. Unless there's any absolutely ridiculous disparity between fares/incentives, I think there's enough market share for both. On a separate note, I have never flown on Alaska. I have flown SWA a few times, mostly for pleasure. I will say that they have all been pleasant experiences. My only complaint, and the reason why I wouldn't choose SWA during my business travel (even if it meant adding a leg), is the constant waiting in lines and the cattle car free-for-all to get a seat. So for me, I'd give Alaska at least one shot if I had to get to Seattle (I live closer to National, and IAD and BWI are equally painful to get to). Then again, I could fly jetBlue to Long Beach and then hop up to Seattle!

Fourth: Based on all of the previous drivel about Airbus computer operators, wouldn't it be redundant for us to be using a flight simulator on our laptop?
 
Article

T1bubba,

Thanks for posting that article. I enjoyed reading it. Take care.

:cool:
 
Humor!

It sure is lame how humor is so hard right now (or maybe I am not funny);)

Based on all of the previous drivel about Airbus computer operators, wouldn't it be redundant for us to be using a flight simulator on our laptop?

Um yeah, that was the joke ... so I guess I'll keep my day job... opps I already quit the military so I could get into the SWA pool!

If we think the SWA bunch is nasty now, just wait until next year around April with no classes in sight.

Now I know humor is very personal, but "Mr Anderson" that is just plain mean! You be carefull or when I do get to fly Shamu I'll get her to make do do on your house.

PS every pilot's favorite airline should be the one that hires you.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top