Why Fares Remain Low...ABC News article

[SWA/FO]

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.

 

[PCL_128]

so PLC SWA pilots are under paid?

Yes, absolutely.

 

[Red Baron]

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

 

[chase]

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.

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...

 

[PCL_128]

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.

 

[canyonblue]

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.

 

[chase]

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

 

[Chest Rockwell]

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.

 

[PCL_128]

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.

 

[canyonblue]

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.

 

[canyonblue]

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.

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?

 

[chase]

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,

 

[SWA/FO]

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!!

 

[canyonblue]

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?

 

[PCL_128]

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.