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

Why Fares Remain Low...ABC News article

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

chase

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
1,217
Interesting article that describes very well the impact of SWA on the pricing side of house. Near the end Boyd gives his usual predictions of impending hell to pay for SWA...oh well. Some other interesting points to consider not included in the article:

1. SWA's 2005 10K states SWA raised fares last year by 5.6%.
2. Airline analysts are predicting airlines will raise fares anywhere from 6-12% in '06.
3. Financial analysts estimate that if SWA raised its current fares 1%, an additional $80m in revenue would be generated.
4. If SWA increased fares (they're hovering around $90 I think) by the same amount they did last year, additional revenue of $450m could be generated
4. Fuel costs this year will add, according to GK, $600m to the cost side of he house.
5. To offset that difference either fare increases greater than last year but less than the analysts predict legacy carriers will raise them or more areas of productivity/efficiency can be found.....one involves slightly higher air fares, one doesn't. Sometimes it gets as simple as that.
6. Last webcast & 10K I believe also stated CASM minus fuel in '06 is projected to be slightly less than last year.
7. Legacies still carry around 70% of passengers...there is a great need for them to remain in business....I wish all of their employees well
8. The entire industry is changing and those leaders who are visionary in predicting & then moving their company in the right direction should be praised & respected...I hope for their employees sake that occurs among many of the carriers...history doesn't have a good track record of showing that happens however.

This is a crazy business & as a senior executive for RyanAir said recently, every year this is some sort of catastrophy in the airline industry that no one predicts & raises all mighty heck on the bottom line....having an ability to "flex" when that happens is a luxury that SWA has, very fortunate indeed for SWA.

GK along with the employees are always searching for more ways to be productive....also GK & his team are searching for more ways to generate revenue in "creative" ways that are longer laster than merely fuel hedges (not bad mouthing fuel hedges, they just have term limits though). Those are good things. SWA is attempting to continue to give low fares to folks who deserve them, the American public. What other carriers are doing isn't as much a concern in my opinion to the leadership of Southwest as the fact the company appears to still be interested in focusing on delievering a quality product, at a fare price & with outstanding customer service....it isn't a lot to some but it is what's made Southwest successful. Hopefully you'll find the article interesting.

Not trying to pat SWA on the back or rub any other carriers in the nose as much as to provide an article to the occasional visitor, potential new hire or recurring lurker with an article that illustrates in a clear & concise description of the focus of Southwest Airlines. Hope I didn't offend anyone with the article...cheers.

Why Airfares Stay So Low -- While Airlines Struggle


Carriers Hesitate to Raise Prices too Much, for Fear of Losing More Customers to Southwest


//http://abcnews.go.com/images/Business/apgb_southwest_060209_sp.jpg
Southwest's discount prices pressure the bigger legacy carriers to keep airfares low. (AP Photo)





By Alexandra Marks

http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/story/byline_thechristiansciencemonitor.gif

NEW YORK, Feb. 10, 2006 — Oil prices might be hovering just below record highs, but it's still almost as cheap to fly as it is to take the bus.
In fact, airfares are almost 20 percent lower than they were in 2000, even though jet fuel is more than twice as expensive.
That's expected to change this year, but not by much. Fares, which have been inching up in response to the spiraling oil prices, will probably continue to rise in only modest increments.
That's not good news for the ailing aviation industry, which, despite record cost-cutting and restructuring, is expected to rack up its sixth straight year of multibillion-dollar losses in 2006. But fliers — who are taking to the skies in record numbers — can thank something that could be called the Southwest effect for continued bargain-basement prices.
"Given how big Southwest is, they're a pricing leader, and they'll continue to keep [downward] pressure on airfares," says Helane Becker, an airline analyst at the Benchmark Co. in New York. "So there's a limit as to how high fares can go."
Southwest is now the nation's third-largest carrier, and it's growing at 10 percent a year. Its current ability to keep fares low is partly because it has 75 percent of its jet fuel hedged for this year. That has allowed it to pay about $1.20 a gallon, compared with the $2 a gallon most other carriers are paying.
So Southwest can remain profitable while other carriers — even Southwest's low-cost cohorts like JetBlue — wallow in jet-fueled red ink. Even though most airlines won't make enough money to cover their basic operating costs, they're hesitant to raise prices too much for fear of losing even more customers to Southwest.
That means the so-called legacy carriers like United, which just emerged from three years in bankruptcy during which it shed $7 billion in annual costs, face another unprofitable year.
"They are going to limp along, but how long they can do this depends on the next economic downturn and the severity of it," says Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition in Radnor, Pa. "If it's in the next couple of years, it could be difficult, because there's just nothing left to mortgage."

Better Times on the Way?



Yet some analysts believe this could at least be a turnaround year — if not a profitable one — for the legacy carriers. That's because as fuel prices push fares up — even if only a little for the leisure travelers — the legacy carriers will be able to increase business fares more. And because the legacy carriers have more extensive networks than their low-cost rivals, they can begin charging bigger premiums for people who want to go to out-of-the way places that aren't served by the low-cost carriers.
"The auto-part salesman in North Carolina that has to get to Erie, Pa., will pay anything to get there. There's huge growth in those markets, and Southwest can't get their paws on those passengers," says Michael Boyd, president of the Boyd Group in Evergreen, Colo.
While the legacy carriers can begin to cash in on their networks, Boyd notes, the low-cost carriers are more constrained in how much they can raise their fares because their success — and profits — depend on extremely price-sensitive travelers, many of whom would rather stay home on the couch than pay too much to see relatives. Add to this the fact that Southwest would also be losing money were it not hedged out until 2009, and Boyd believes that analysts will be talking about a very different "Southwest effect" come 2007.
"They're living on borrowed time, and they know that," says Boyd, referring to Southwest. "The Southwest model today doesn't work unless someone's paying 30 percent of your fuel. So I'd say, the Southwest effect [we're talking about now] is the reason that a year from now we'll be talking about the low-fare carriers as being in such deep trouble."
 
Last edited:
No hedging, prices higher?

If Southwest wasn't hedged, airfares would be higher, no doubt. Does that mean that everyone else would have made money? Well, if airfares were higher, load factors would have been lower too. So where would we be? I think Southwest would have still made money. But what do I know?
I also think that oil prices will drop significantly in the next ten years due to new technologies no one is talking about.
 
Jayhawkdude

Yes that part of the article raised my eye when the author stated about the the third largest carrier. Domestic passenger wise I believe that SWA is still #1 in that arena. In terms of overal revenue I'm not sure....in terms of employees we're around 6th I believe.

As far as the growth statement, I believe the announced fleet additions actually make the growth at 8%, plus or minus a little. RASM will certainly grow faster than ASMs but that is hopeful thinking.
 
As for pricing power--that trip from NC to Erie is likely outrageous. I priced a short range ticket from PFN to Corpus Christi recently--over $1100 with taxes. I could fly a GA plane there and back for half that direct operating cost for less than 10 hours round trip. Five hours in a GA plane sounds like a long time until you do a long turn in an oversold hub (IAH) on a rainy night after the food vendors have all closed. If I was a businessman needing 2-3 people there the savings would be even higher. Point is these high fares from obscure markets subsidize the cheap transcon and high traffic routes, and in the process have/will create a niche for GA and Part 135 operators to fill. Those Cirrus ads with the "...right now there is some guy getting strip searched in security..." are ringing true with at least some small businesses.
 
AlbieF15 said:
Those Cirrus ads with the "...right now there is some guy getting strip searched in security..." are ringing true with at least some small businesses.

Ahhh yes. The CEO as the pilot. Makes for good front page reading in the USA today and a sad article in the local obituary.
 
AlbieF15 said:
As for pricing power--that trip from NC to Erie is likely outrageous. I priced a short range ticket from PFN to Corpus Christi recently--over $1100 with taxes. I could fly a GA plane there and back for half that direct operating cost for less than 10 hours round trip. Five hours in a GA plane sounds like a long time until you do a long turn in an oversold hub (IAH) on a rainy night after the food vendors have all closed. If I was a businessman needing 2-3 people there the savings would be even higher. Point is these high fares from obscure markets subsidize the cheap transcon and high traffic routes, and in the process have/will create a niche for GA and Part 135 operators to fill. Those Cirrus ads with the "...right now there is some guy getting strip searched in security..." are ringing true with at least some small businesses.
HEADLINE
SMALL PLANE CRASHES ON APPROACH TO CRP. BAD WEATHER TO BLAME?
 
Go SWA! Luv ya! That article claims we have pricing power, not exact words but something like that. When I said that a few months ago - I got my a$$ jumped on flightinfo.com. So where are these people now? I think Boyd is a tool.
 
chase said:
SWA is attempting to continue to give low fares to folks who deserve them, the American public.

Not trying to pat SWA on the back or rub any other carriers in the nose as much as to provide an article to the occasional visitor, potential new hire or recurring lurker with an article that illustrates in a clear & concise description of the focus of Southwest Airlines. Hope I didn't offend anyone with the article...cheers.

When the American public will pay $4 for a coffee, $1000 to go to a professional sports game, etc, they do not "deserve" to pay $90 for a flight. They should at least be paying enough to cover the cost of the flight for God's sake.

I don't see how your post shows SWA in a positive light. I think it pretty much says that SWA is responsible for low fares.

Cheers
 
Capt go figure, SWA lowest fares, most profitable, almost highest paid pilots. There must be something to their business plan and managment worth copying.
 
SWA is attempting to continue to give low fares to folks who deserve them, the American public.
Why on Earth does the consumer "deserve" low fares? Do I "deserve" a low price on a Bentley? What's the difference? Why should the travelling consumer be treated with such deference? These idiots pay $99 to go from JFK to LGB and they then complain that the seats are too uncomfortable and that they don't get a free meal. Why do these morons deserve anything? They get no sympathy from me. At least not until I only have to pay $5 bucks for a Rolex. Because I "deserve" it, you know.:rolleyes:
 
pilotyip said:
almost highest paid pilots.

SWA has the highest paid pilots because everyone else has been forced to come down to their level with draconian concessions. Not the other way around.
 
so PLC SWA pilots are under paid?
 
pilotyip said:
Capt go figure, SWA lowest fares, most profitable, almost highest paid pilots. There must be something to their business plan and managment worth copying.

True. We'll see how long they remain the "highest paid"

PCL 128: I agree with everything you said.
 
Capt. Mega...

You could argue UPS charges to little to ship! You could argue that your customers don't deserve a decent price when shipping things. My guess is if you guys get the big raise your after everything will be fine, if not maybe you should raise your prices?

Maybe the folks at SWA are happy with what they make. Not breaking the bank, but not a bad income either. I'd rather make 16,000 a month for the rest of my career then to make 20,000 a month and be furloughed for 5 years, missing out on income or being assigned a different airplane and title. (you know like going to the DC-9 and switching seats due to seniority)

Southwest is concerned about Southwest... If other companies can't make money at the going rate (what we charge) then we just created another advantage that we have over them. Market share is increasing everywhere.

The freight business is much different, I remember when the last UPS strike was going on, Fed Ex could not handle all the extra volume... those companies are both needed. In the Pax side of things if an airline failed, the other carriers would pick up the slack in a hurry.
 
Last edited:
PCL_128 said:
SWA has the highest paid pilots because everyone else has been forced to come down to their level with draconian concessions. Not the other way around.

Yeah, we are at such a terrible level to come down too! We are holding the bar. Why is that so bad? We just do what we do, and let you guys do all the complaining.

Happy flying,

RB
 
PCL_128 said:
Why on Earth does the consumer "deserve" low fares? Do I "deserve" a low price on a Bentley? What's the difference? Why should the travelling consumer be treated with such deference? These idiots pay $99 to go from JFK to LGB and they then complain that the seats are too uncomfortable and that they don't get a free meal. Why do these morons deserve anything? They get no sympathy from me. At least not until I only have to pay $5 bucks for a Rolex. Because I "deserve" it, you know.:rolleyes:

PCL,

The traveling public,"idiots", "morons", are the very folks who pay your company, my company, allow both of us to have an income. Whenever these wonderful folks come on to my plane to allow me & my fellow employees to "take" their money, I believe they "expect" something in return. They expect to be treated with respect, not contempt; with appreciation, not derision over their spending habits; with a smile & thanks, not with a "sit down & shut up, you didn't pay enough to be worthy of having an opinion" that you appear to be implying from your post....sorry if I misread that somehow.

The consumer can do with their money what they want, spend it however they wish & with it determine the value of many things that you or I may not agree with. But when the time comes when they do spend money in my direction the last thing I need to express to them, either verbally or with my attitude/non-verbal comm is the attitude you appear to have toward them. It's certainly my right to but I shouldn't be surprised if they choose to go somewhere else next time.

My apologies in advance if I've misread your view of the very folks who proivde you an income. You & I deserve whatever income the market place dictates & in turn whatever is negotiated...at the end of the day the "idiots", "morons" & other passengers will determine that fact, not my union, not my company nor other pilots who "think" they know what they should be paid. It's called the free market system. However, when I spend my money, I can "expect" certain things also....remember who is paying who here?

Thanks for your reply....I believe it sums up the view of some posters I see regularly that come down on a different side of how customers are viewed....some view them as a necessary irritant, others like myself appreciate each & everyone, without them I'd be out of work....we'd all be my friend is my point. As long as your view is prevalent among carriers, Southwest will prosper....the differences will be obvious to the casual observer & customer....cheers...
 
Last edited:
Chase, I agree that pax need to be treated with respect when they ride on our planes. I always make PA's to keep them informed of delays, comp drinks when appropriate, and stand at the door after the flight to thank them for flying with us. However, in thanks, they do nothing but complain about the service they get for their measly $100 ticket. It's no different than a car buyer purchasing a KIA and complaining that it isn't as comfortable as a BMW. If you want first class service, then you need to pay for it. The flying consumer is unwilling to do that, and it's because people like you keep telling them that they "deserve" low air fares. They don't "deserve" any such thing. Air travel is an amazing feat of human engineering, and it takes thousands upon thousands of "little people" (ie: labor) to make it possible each and every flight. Reducing such an unbelievable thing to a $25 ticket price is simply absurd. No, the traveling consumer doesn't "deserve" low prices. They need to learn that they're going to have to pay a reasonable price for an airline ticket. I say bring back regulation.
 
CaptainMark said:
ALL PILOTS ARE UNDERPAID!!!!

Until there is a pilot group that will not accept a certain wage, management will make them work for it, and lower, until someone says no and walks away. So far, no one has.
 
Thanks for replying PCL_128...here's what I find interesting though & again if this comes across poorly my apologies....

You say you treat them well to their face...I'll agree because you say it is so. Yet you appear to have a certain contempt for their unfair demands. They complain.

My fellow SWA pilots fly their passengers & while some may complain, the last year SWA once again had the fewest number of complaints from passengers. I would generally say the passengers I run in don't complain & in fact I would say it more likely is they are happy to be flying with SWA & appear very satisified. They're positive about their experience.

Result...your passengers are not happy, You say their treated well. SWA's passengers are happy....aI say they are treated well....assuming you're dealing from the same general public SWA draws from, what makes the people you fly react differently?

Fares?
Equipment?
Customer service?
Expectations being/not being met?
Interaction w/employees?
Just wondering what your take on it is? thanks in advance....

BTW, speaking of incredible feats of engineering....sitting in a hotel room, typing on a keyboard & debating with someone isn't a bad marvel either...but the first thing I ask at the hotel is..."is the internet free"..........they smile & say yes usually.....that is after I find out if they have "1,2,3"....just because something is a wonderful marvel doesn't mean it can't be sold at a lower price.....I'd recommend you read a book by Thomas Friedman, "The World is Flat"...it has applicability to the airline world also....I listened to day about the "flattening effect of the world since the turn of the 20th century....from a small city in Ely,CO, it use to take 12 days to carry something on wagon to Salt Lake City...when the railroad came to town, the same trip took 12 hours....that same trip could be flown in less than 45 minutes now by air...to send something by computer takes mere seconds....the world is getting flatter & faster, as an industry we must understand this concept & learn how to apply to the various companies we work with...if we don't & then adapt, then I would be worrying about our future...sorry to drift into a worthless ramble PCL_128...cheers
 
Last edited:
It is not necessarily how much you pay your pilots, it is how many pilots that you have to pay. The benefits package is a huge portion of the "cost" of an employee.

SWA is where it is today because, from day one, most everone here worked a little harder and a little longer than our counterparts at other carriers. I believe that in 2000, our average pilot flew close to 800 hours compared to around 400 at UAL. Everyone here felt that it was us against the world and each employee took ownership in the sucess or failure of the company. No pension but a great 401k and profitsharing that further guarantees a motivated work force. Will it continue? Hopefully it will but, perhaps not. I personally see a decline in the newer generation of employees. Most are great, but I see more and more that walk in the door with sense of entitlement. Herb has said it many times that the greatest threat to SWA is that we forget how we got here.
 
Chase, I think the difference is evident. In order to compete with such horridly low fares coming from the likes of JetBlue and SWA, real airlines like NWA have had to do such things as remove pillows from planes, stop serving any food (including basics like pretzels), and outsource ground services. As a result, people get cranky because they aren't getting fed and can't sleep without a pillow, and they are stuck sitting on an airplane for 15 minutes after arriving at the gate because the ground crew is so understaffed that they can't get the job done fast enough. This is a direct result of the low fare that they "demand," yet they complain about the result. Because of the hedges, SWA is able to provide these low fares without these negative side effects. That advantage will soon come to an end. As a result, SWA will either have to cut back services, raise fares, or not turn a profit for once. If you cut back services as we have, then your customers will soon become just as unsatisfied as ours.
 
PCL_128 said:
SWA has the highest paid pilots because everyone else has been forced to come down to their level with draconian concessions. Not the other way around.

Want to post your pay scale? Until you are part of the solution, you need to shut up about pay.

It is not about people deserving low fares, it's about what it will take for someone to get on an airplane. Believe it or not, many senior citizens and large families cannot afford to travel by air. When the price is low enough, they travel. Because of Southwest management, we have an edge over the competition and can charge far less than they can and still make money. Unfortunately those same carriers try to match our fares which is economic suicide. They end up losing money and go after their employee's to make up for the shortfall in cash. The employees oblige, and then complain about the low fares their customers get. If you really does bother you I would suggest you apply to an airline that charges big bucks for airline tickets. Good luck finding one.
 
PCL_128 said:
real airlines like NWA have had to do such things as remove pillows from planes, stop serving any food (including basics like pretzels), and outsource ground services. As a result, people get cranky because they aren't getting fed and can't sleep without a pillow, and they are stuck sitting on an airplane for 15 minutes after arriving at the gate because the ground crew is so understaffed that they can't get the job done fast enough.

And stuck on your RJ for over an hour. I flew the plane and loved some aspects of it, but that plane is horrible for passengers over an hour, and would lead many passengers to feel cranky. That is why our short-haul still does well, we compete against an RJ and a 737 will always win. I just hope that the "Legacy" airlines who get the new generation RJ's will keep the flying in house.

PCL_128 said:
I say bring back regulation.

Would be nice, but with the drop in passengers you would see less demand in air-travel, therefore requiring less pilots to fly. After the dust settles you would be back as a CFI but your friends at the Mainline would enjoy a hefty paycheck. Just remember, when the music stops do you have a seat?
 
PCL...thanks again for a respective reply...here's something to think about....

For the sake of argument, lets say there are two reasons why SWA makes money & a "real" (your description of NWA:) ) airline makes money.

1. SWA has fuel hedges (huge benefit, granted), "real" airlines don't

(For lack of a better word, I'll use the word friction in the following context : Friction = inefficiencies and comparable efficiencies found within an airline (single airplane type, point to point, no interlining, hub & spoke, technology advances such as higher % of folks buying tickets on the internet...in other words all the "non-fuel, no labor" costs that make up the category of CASM...how the factory/airline operations works ona given day)).

2. SWA has removed more "friction" from taking people from point to point than any other carrier (currently).

Now, using what I think you're saying, you would like for SWA to :

1. increase fares to allow other "real" airline companies who dont' have hedges to raise their fares to offset the higher fuel costs in order to make money

2. Add more "friction" to SWA operations to allow other carriers to compete with SWA & everyone is happy...all pilots get paid fair wages & everyone lives happily ever after.

Our "core" costs are lower, almost by 1/2 compared to most legacy carriers....that's called efficiency. Fuel hedges are an advantage but as the very first thread shows, SWA is raising fares, others are raising them also & it would appear they maybe doing it a rate that exceeds SWA's...other companies are doing it to feed their appetite for revenue which is caused by huge debt, remaining "friction" within their system, but mostly much higher fuel costs....SWA is doing it for the same reason, cover our higher fuel costs.....how much should SWA raise the fares so others can prosper..SWA isn't the blame for the rising fuel prices, I know you would agree but you appear to blame SWA for not "raising fares" to a point that others can also...what other business in the world would operate with that type of approach? Any ideas?
Thanks again in advance for a thoughtful reply....cheers,
 
Last edited:
CHASE,

Where you been? I could have used your help weeks ago, when they were all calling me names and making me cry :crying: . You tell 'em, Union Brother!!
 
capt. megadeth said:
When the American public will pay $4 for a coffee, $1000 to go to a professional sports game, etc, they do not "deserve" to pay $90 for a flight. They should at least be paying enough to cover the cost of the flight for God's sake.

I don't see how your post shows SWA in a positive light. I think it pretty much says that SWA is responsible for low fares.

Cheers

Problem is, the majority of the American public do not even do any of the things you posted. Even as far as shipping a package, I won't even pay over $5, because I get an airline discount at FedEx. Heck, as soon as someone does it for $4, I'm there. Do you also complain about the price of gasoline? A gallon of gas cost $.77 cents in 1979, adjusted for inflation that would be $2.18. Still want to complain?
 
I'm certainly not suggesting that SWA voluntarily raise their fares just to help out the rest of the industry. That's ridiculous, and no one should ever expect that. This is a business, and SWA will do whatever it takes for SWA to make money, everyone else be danged.

What I am suggesting is that this is not ultimately good for the consumer, and certainly not good for the economy in the long run. The consumer and the economy depend upon a viable air transportation system. SWA is not able to provide a full transportation system. They serve a few dozen cities, many of them smaller or secondary airports, and leave a large share of the country with no air service. Not to mention the fact that they have no international service. Therefore, if the "real" airlines were to cease to exist because of these ridiculous fare wars, then the economy would suffer due to a lack of air service to many important markets. A businessman in Evansville, IN will never be able to get an SWA flight to go to Burlington, VT. SWA simply won't do it, because they can't make money doing it. "Real" airlines provide service to these smaller markets because they have always acted as loss-leaders when they feed travelers to their money-making international and trans-con flights. It's not working that way anymore, because even the trans-con flights don't make money. Only a select few international flights make any money. This is why many cities like Youngstown, OH no longer have any airline service. That trend will continue if the "real" airlines can't make any money. This isn't good for anyone, except for SWA of course.

Regulation would put an end to this. The "leisure traveler" that isn't willing to spend more than $29 to go to FL may disappear, but at least the entire country would receive adequate air service, and the businessman that is necessary for economic stability will be able to go where he needs to, albeit at a slightly higher fare than he's become used to.

Note: When I say "real airline," it's not intended as a stab at SWA. I don't consider my airline a "real" airline either since we only act as a contractor for NWA. I simply mean that SWA doesn't have a complete route structure serving the smaller markets and international destinations. To me, that's what a "real airline" is. Airlines like SWA and JetBlue are "niche carriers" really.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom