Sorry to interrupt the debate, but I just couldn't let this one pass.
I guess you feel that SWA's superior business model (ie point to point, high frequency, on time performance at very affordable prices), superior management (people running an airline like it is their family business, you know with a stake in its success rather than just a short term stock price gain, grab the bonus and run off to Tahiti mentality), reduced training costs due to a single fleet type, extremely motivated and mostly content workforce that takes pride in their company and their work ethic (among other things I'm sure I've left out) have nothing to do with SWA's success over the past 35 years?
There are many reasons why SWA is kicking everybody else's arse, those are just some of them. To continually point to hedges as the only reason SWA is successful is pretty simplistic and highly inaccurate.
Ok, back to our regularly scheduled betch-fest.
FJ
Actually, all of those statement are true, but if you examine Southwest's 10Q's/annual reports over the past, say 10 years, you'll notice two things that were their highest costs: fuel and labor. So it's true that all of those things you mention have an effect on SWA's low costs, but certainly their low labor costs (especially in the 90's and early 00's) and their fuel hedging/derivative strategy (more apparent in the past few years) have had a much greater effect. In fact, if you look on page B-22 of SWA's annual report for 2007, you'll see that fuel and labor account for about 63% of SWA's operating expenses. Everything else you mention is nice, but not the overriding factors to their success in my opinion.