SWA...the sedition

[lowecur]

We'll agree to differ Lowecur but a company that is truly interested in not letting outside economic forces (poorly run airport authorities) keep it from staying true to its business model is one that takes a lot of courage...the easy way would've been to just jack the prices up & keep quiet.....everyone would be happy except for the consumers....its nice to work for a company that has more loyalty to its customers & shareholders than to a poorly run government entity and is willing to stay true to one's model. Cheers,

Chase I believe SWA is probably getting a reputation in the Bond Community as a spoiler for future development at some Airports. You can rest assured that most underwriters of future airport projects will be looking at the Southwest factor.

What is most puzzling to me is SWA ability to adapt and thrive at such high cost airports as PHL, DET, SEA, MSY, STL, MCI, TPA, MCO, MDW, PDX, BWI, PHX, LAS, and probably PIT in the future. They go there because that's the only option if they want to serve that community. Do they make money at these airports?...sure they do! It's a matter of charging the public based on your operating costs into that airport. What's disturbing to me is their callous approach to turn a major viable airport unside down for their own nominal gains ie SEA and DFW. It also allows them to weaken the competitions balance sheet by increasing the cost to operate from these airports exponentially as they start the ball rolling on defections. The main losers will be the hub carriers like AMR and ALK who have huge investments.

It will be interesting to see how they handle the increase in fees at STL that will be passed along with the opening of the new runway. Are they looking for a secondary airport in the area, and is one available? You can bet your boots that if there is one available they wouldn't think twice about castrating STL in the phony guise of saving their passengers $5. to $10. per operation.

 

[Delphi]

Any thoughts about how the gates will be split up at DAL if the Wright Amendment is over tuned.

 

[enigma]

Chase I believe SWA is probably getting a reputation in the Bond Community as a spoiler for future development at some Airports. You can rest assured that most underwriters of future airport projects will be looking at the Southwest factor.

Are you suggesting that SWA is going to be a hinderance to future airport expansion?

What is most puzzling to me is SWA ability to adapt and thrive at such high cost airports as PHL, DET, SEA, MSY, STL, MCI, TPA, MCO, MDW, PDX, BWI, PHX, LAS, and probably PIT in the future. They go there because that's the only option if they want to serve that community. Do they make money at these airports?...sure they do! It's a matter of charging the public based on your operating costs into that airport. What's disturbing to me is their callous approach to turn a major viable airport unside down for their own nominal gains ie SEA and DFW. It also allows them to weaken the competitions balance sheet by increasing the cost to operate from these airports exponentially as they start the ball rolling on defections. The main losers will be the hub carriers like AMR and ALK who have huge investments.

It will be interesting to see how they handle the increase in fees at STL that will be passed along with the opening of the new runway. Are they looking for a secondary airport in the area, and is one available? You can bet your boots that if there is one available they wouldn't think twice about castrating STL in the phony guise of saving their passengers $5. to $10. per operation.

lowecur, it seems to me that your argument is this: governments shouldn't compete with each other in the runway/terminal business.

I'm beginning to think that you might have a lot more money in airport bonds than you do Embraer stock.

enigma

 

[scoreboard]

Low, you've lost it boy...

Chase I believe SWA is probably getting a reputation in the Bond Community as a spoiler for future development at some Airports. You can rest assured that most underwriters of future airport projects will be looking at the Southwest factor. SO WHAT?

What is most puzzling to me is SWA ability to adapt and thrive at such high cost airports as PHL, DET, SEA, MSY, STL, MCI, TPA, MCO, MDW, PDX, BWI, PHX, LAS, and probably PIT in the future. This puzzles you? They go there because that's the only option if they want to serve that community. Ah, you answered your own question... Do they make money at these airports?...sure they do! It's a matter of charging the public based on your operating costs into that airport. What's disturbing to me is their callous approach to turn a major viable airport unside down for their own nominal gains ie SEA and DFW. So, if i decided to buy at Sears because they had a better price instead of Walmart, would i be turning Wally world upside down? It also allows them to weaken the competitions balance sheet by increasing the cost to operate from these airports exponentially as they start the ball rolling on defections. The main losers will be the hub carriers like AMR and ALK who have huge investments. And that is somehow our responsibility, to make sure the hub carriers remain profitable? Makes absolutaly no sense.

It will be interesting to see how they handle the increase in fees at STL that will be passed along with the opening of the new runway. Are they looking for a secondary airport in the area, and is one available? You can bet your boots that if there is one available they wouldn't think twice about castrating STL in the phony guise of saving their passengers $5. to $10. per operation. We do not castrate anybody, they do that all by themselves...

.....

 

[lowecur]

.....

Plagerist. See if you can be original there, Opie!

 

[ivauir]

the phony guise of saving their passengers $5. to $10. per operation.

Nothing phony about saving people money, although your figure is clearly bogus and made up. Furthermore, you refuse to address our main point:
Originally Posted by enigma
Why shouldn't SWA, or any othe airline for that matter, attempt to utilize the lowest price runway/terminal supplier?

 

[lowecur]

Nothing phony about saving people money, although your figure is clearly bogus and made up. Furthermore, you refuse to address our main point:
Originally Posted by enigma
Why shouldn't SWA, or any othe airline for that matter, attempt to utilize the lowest price runway/terminal supplier?

What's bogus about it? SeaTac passenger fees were $5 a decade ago, and are projected to go to $15. STL are $6. and projected to go $11. in 2007 that includes a $40M subsidy from the city. If SWA leaves SEA, I will bet that those fees go as high as $25. If they leave STL and go to Mid America, watch the fees go to $20. You think other airlines won't follow their lead and abandon those airports also?

Why shouldn't SWA, or any othe airline for that matter, attempt to utilize the lowest price runway/terminal supplier? I think I just answered that question above.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

AA pulled out of STL. Delta pulled out of DFW. I'm willing to bet each of these carriers signed off on expensive projects as they were considering their departure. They knew thier competitors would be stuck with the bill.

That is not my point. I think projects are unfairly spread out on all users. The system needs to be changed.

Is anyone tired of wasteful government spending? TSA spending. Flying around the clock for a month to close out a military unit's flying hours. What a waste of jet fuel and resources. All because the system requires them to. Fraud waste and abuse is rampant in the government. The only way to reign in the spending is to force them to change how things are done. A problem is not a problem until there is a 'crisis'. Then the bureacratic whining and predictions of doom follow. There is no crisis. Bondholders will be taken care of, they always are. AA is firmly on the road to a full recovery. DFW's changes will not kill them.

 

[SWAnging]

What's bogus about it? SeaTac passenger fees were $5 a decade ago, and are projected to go to $15. STL are $6. and projected to go $11. in 2007 that includes a $40M subsidy from the city. If SWA leaves SEA, I will bet that those fees go as high as $25. If they leave STL and go to Mid America, watch the fees go to $20. You think other airlines won't follow their lead and abandon those airports also?

Why shouldn't SWA, or any othe airline for that matter, attempt to utilize the lowest price runway/terminal supplier? I think I just answered that question above.

Kit, is that you????

 

[Metro752]

Isn't SWA about no delays and hardly no taxi time. Mid America........................ and Boeing Field would be perfect.

 

[80drvr]

AA pulled out of STL. Delta pulled out of DFW. I'm willing to bet each of these carriers signed off on expensive projects as they were considering their departure. They knew thier competitors would be stuck with the bill.

That is not my point. I think projects are unfairly spread out on all users. The system needs to be changed.

Is anyone tired of wasteful government spending? TSA spending. Flying around the clock for a month to close out a military unit's flying hours. What a waste of jet fuel and resources. All because the system requires them to. Fraud waste and abuse is rampant in the government. The only way to reign in the spending is to force them to change how things are done. A problem is not a problem until there is a 'crisis'. Then the bureacratic whining and predictions of doom follow. There is no crisis. Bondholders will be taken care of, they always are. AA is firmly on the road to a full recovery. DFW's changes will not kill them.

AA downsized mainline flights in STL after the TWA integration but did not pull out as Delta did in DFW. Many former mainline routes were transferred to AA connection under the AA code and still operate.

I'm not sure how you're getting the impression that AA is on the road to full recovery. We are still losing money (and will continue to lose money at present fuel costs) and have 3000 pilots furloughed.

 

[chase]

Lowecur,


Trying to attach "bond guilt" to all the other burdens SWA has to carry is more than I'll care to concede to....airport managers & government officials need to be held accountable to standards of basic business practices....outprice your product & folks will move elsewhere....just as you do or I do on a daily basis....bond investors (if they are burned) should also realize this fact...betting on a "sure thing" because the lemmings will follow & pay whatever is asked needs to be changed.

SWA has no duty to bondholders but to its shareholders, employees & customers to keep costs low & profits high. The market place (i.e. airports, vendors, etc.) shouldn't be propped up or protected from basic economic factors as SWA or any airline be hampered by governmental regulation in being kept from operating in a sound financial manner. SEA-TAC made an operational & business decision sometime ago, just as DFW did after 911....all airlines had to also...does SWA require another runway at STL now that AA is gone? Certainly not but we're all going to pay for it....there are other options & whether you call it the Southwest effect or not, I call it basic business principles....we have it within our power to save money, why not do it for the consumer & raise profits? The most healthy airline in the industry & one that has
(1) NOT LAID OFF A SINGLE PERSON SINCE 911

(2) HIRED 1200+ PILOTS SINCE 911

(3) HIRED 5000+ NEW AIRLINE EMPLOYEES SINCE 911
(4) Opened 3 new cities, provided billions of dollars in savings to flyers around the country who would not normally be able to fly

I think SWA has done its fair share at adding to the economy & giving folks the freedom to fly (above is not yelling, just an emphasis item to give a perspective to the "whoa is me, SWA is bad" mentality that some folks (not you of course Lowecur ) seem to have....it is nice to work for a company that continues to do this during the roughest patch of economic times for the airline industry....plus SWA expects to add at least 1000 more pilots over the next 2 years...again I don't believe SWA has much to apologize for take grief from folks when it comes to making smart business decisions....maybe if other government entities or businesses followed some of the basic principles that SWA uses we wouldn't even be having these discussions.

just some additional thoughts...cheers,

 

[scoreboard]

No you didn't Barney...

What's bogus about it? SeaTac passenger fees were $5 a decade ago, and are projected to go to $15. STL are $6. and projected to go $11. in 2007 that includes a $40M subsidy from the city. If SWA leaves SEA, I will bet that those fees go as high as $25. If they leave STL and go to Mid America, watch the fees go to $20. You think other airlines won't follow their lead and abandon those airports also?

Why shouldn't SWA, or any othe airline for that matter, attempt to utilize the lowest price runway/terminal supplier? I think I just answered that question above.

Not even close to an answer, so why should SWA care if the fees go up after we leave, thats why we are leaving?? You make no logical argument. Your point is based on emotion, not sound business practice. If you raised your insurance premiums for a policy I had with you, why should i not shop around? Please answer that.

....

 

[mach zero]

Hey Lower,

What about Tarrant County and the City of Fort Worth violating the DFW bonds when they built AFW and let FedEx open up shop there?

 

[lowecur]

Not even close to an answer, so why should SWA care if the fees go up after we leave, thats why we are leaving?? You make no logical argument. Your point is based on emotion, not sound business practice. If you raised your insurance premiums for a policy I had with you, why should i not shop around? Please answer that.....

People shopping insurance policies hardly has anything to do with what is best for the overall financial health of a community.

It's really quite a simple question in this discussion. Does the cost savings in airline tickets outweigh the cost of upheaval of the current commerical airport infrastructure and it's financial affect on the dominant carrier(s) for that airport? That's the debate right now in DFW, and will soon be the debate in SEA. Each metroplex must answer these questions and cast their vote with the government factions that will make the final decisions.

SWA airlines says that DFW is too expensive and they cannot get the turn-around times necessary to make their business model work. Yet, they are presently operating at many airports that present these same problems to them. SEA has many of the same problems except you're now talking about building a whole new access road infrastructure, terminal, and dealing with noise pollution that will bring out the environmentalists. Both moves by SWA will serve to divide the respective communities along devisive lines.