why no SWA regional?

[Coool Hand Luke]

Actually not long ago you were all called "commuters", so maybe being called a "regional' isn't so bad after all.

 

[AvroGuy]

Actually not long ago you were all called "commuters", so maybe being called a "regional' isn't so bad after all.

Really I could care less what we are called. Regional, commuter, feeder....they all are better than being called furloughed.

 

[tuna pimp]

If Southwest ever entered the 'Regional' jet marketplace it would be with a 90-110 seat product, sort of like what Jetblue has done. Completely different aircraft and economics than a 50 seat RJ.

 

[inthegoo]

Amazing

SW uses Jedi minds powers to convince people that being herded like animals into a Darwinian struggle for seats and overhead space on a packed airplane is fun.

I'm not sure another company could maintain the illusion that being treated like cattle is not a lot like, er, being treated like cattle, without the cattle catching on.

People like SW because the SW employees give off a different energy than legacy employees, their employees like being there and that makes all the difference in the world, compare SW gate agents to the DAL or UAL old bitty with her attitude of entitlement, and the customer is bothering them vibe, that runs the customer away.

 

[AvroGuy]

People like SW because the SW employees give off a different energy than legacy employees, their employees like being there and that makes all the difference in the world, compare SW gate agents to the DAL or UAL old bitty with her attitude of entitlement, and the customer is bothering them vibe, that runs the customer away.

Very true

 

[B190Captain]

I thought it was Greyhound.

No Greyhound is not a feeder, it's a competitor.

 

[Kugelblitz]

I am sure this has already been repeatedly stated, so let me add to the list:


THEY ARE ALREADY A REGIONAL

They just fly bigger 'regional' jets but have the same schedule, just much better pay. Best in the industry, after years of underbidding their pay caught up to us and brought the rest of us down. Good work LUV!!

 

[time builder]

Feeders aren't just about international feed but also about the entire hub and spoke model vs. point to point.

refresher course, please add to as you see fit.

hub & spoke =
a few main 'hubs' where MANY cities connect through so that you can fly from smalltown, anywhere to smalltown, anywhere with 2 legs, connecting throught the hub

point to point =
mainly one leg or same flight number/through aircraft, good for connecting larger population centers to each other for high frequency/density routes

hub & spoke is good at having a lot of possible destinations and making good use of various aircraft sizes (small planes fly to small towns, big ones to big cities or international). But, it entails more aircraft sit time at the hubs waiting for the connecting passengers/flights.

point to point is good at maximizing individual aircraft use by reducing ground time but not so good for smaller markets that can't support the freq/aircraft a point to point operator uses.

So, why doesn't SWA use a regional? SWA is point to point and we don't have a need or use for 'feed,' besides the previously mentioned private car feed from around our airports.

Many analysts tend to lump all LCC into the point to point model (B6 airtran frontier) but so far those 3 pretty much do point to point from their main city, or a one hub 'hub and spoke' system if you will. For instance, if you are going to or from JFK, then B6 has a lot of cities/choices. If you want to go from Jacksonville to Kansas City, not so much (unless you go through JFK and change planes, if B6 even flies to Kansas City). Same with Airtran, except you go through Atlanta.

Now, before Airtran or B6 guys jump me, yes they have other 'focus' cities but I'm talking about the majority of their flying. And as they get bigger they probably will fill in the gaps more, but then again Jetblue is at 50 cities (to SWAs 62) and it doesn't seem like there is that much point to point. Anyone know how many flights a day out of their total flights don't start or end in either FLL, LGB, JFK, or BOS?

So, not even most LCC are point to point and even SWA is getting into 'hubs' in that our big cities (BWI, MDW, PHX, etc) have more connecting passengers than in the past (as is evidenced by our lost bags and on time numbers)

I think yours is the best explanation yet.

It's not just point to point, though. Its a glorified light rail system. Every stop you drop a few off and pick up a few (if they were to drop everyone off and load the entire plane again, it'd take a lot longer than 20 min on the ground).

Many legs are high density, but many others, its a matter of accumulating passengers along the way, and its often easier to make a 20 min stop at MCI and MDW (or whereever) crossing the country than to take over an hour switching flights at the hub.

 

[firstthird]

I think something like 80 or 85% of our passengers only do one segment. Also, rarely are there more than a handful of throught passengers; meanigng we usually unload and reload most of the plane, albeit usually in 25 minutes vs. 20.

And you guys that think our work rules are on par with the typical regional, well, maybe you are right. My 12 days on 19 off this month (3 X 4 days) for a full credit month (96 trips ~ 80 or so credit hours) is probably the same as any regional guy has. I really don't know, I do know that if a regional is feeding a major at a big hub, it is unlikely his schedule is as efficient as mine in terms of trips/credit hours for hour on duty. But, if you think we work too hard, probably shouldn't apply I guess.

 

[masedogg19]

My 12 days on 19 off this month (3 X 4 days) for a full credit month (96 trips ~ 80 or so credit hours) is probably the same as any regional guy has.

I wish.....hopefully someday......

 

[Sticky]

OK...I still don't see any reason why SWA wouldn't benefit from some regional service. I know they're into the whole point-to-point system, but couldn't they still profit from having some regional service? I don't mean 50 seater jets, but some 20-30 seat turbos in CA or TX?

Most of the posts in this thread have been arguing whether SWA is a regional in itself.

 

[Coool Hand Luke]

OK...I still don't see any reason why SWA wouldn't benefit from some regional service. I know they're into the whole point-to-point system, but couldn't they still profit from having some regional service? I don't mean 50 seater jets, but some 20-30 seat turbos in CA or TX?

Most of the posts in this thread have been arguing whether SWA is a regional in itself.

I think you miss the whole point. Legacy carriers use regionals to feed the mainline system - in other words, to fill up their flights. Why would Southwest need a regional support network to feed their flights - their flights are already full. No need to pay (read = share profit) someone to put pax in seats when they can do it themselves just as easily and keep all the money.

Besides, the way Southwest see's it:

They can pay some reginal captain $50,000 a year to fly 50 pax at a time between PHX and LAX or they can pay one of their own Captains $150,000 to fly 150 pax at a time between PHX and LAX - what's the difference - so again, why not just do it themselves.

 

[Quimby]

OK...I still don't see any reason why SWA wouldn't benefit from some regional service. I know they're into the whole point-to-point system, but couldn't they still profit from having some regional service? I don't mean 50 seater jets, but some 20-30 seat turbos in CA or TX?

Most of the posts in this thread have been arguing whether SWA is a regional in itself.

If they thought it was needed, it would have been done by now (regarding having "regional feed").

 

[Speedtape]

The point of RJs is to feed a mainline's hub and fill up the big jets to London. RJs are meant to be a loss-leader.

Wrong! RJ's make money also. Look at the results of the regionals.

In a hub operation, every airplane is just another layer of flying, from bottom to top. Big Trees need a root system that is 3 times larger than the Big Tree. In a hub system, each component plays an integral part. Without feed, there would be no big jets to London, and visaversa! There is simply not enough O/D traffic in any gateway to make one route profitable, especially with any competition.

 

[Speedtape]

If they thought it was needed, it would have been done by now (regarding having "regional feed").

Southwest has continually assessed this issue for years. They have even gone as far as having rj manufacturers give presentations.

So far, the purpose was to evaluate the costs of their competition so they can plan the attack.

As mentioned, it is not the business model. Their business model is to stick with one aircraft model to obtain best cost efficiencies. Then, volume, volume, volume followed by frequency, frequency, frequency is their market approach. This allows for the cheapest fares. Southwest has succeeded by operating outside the box, assessing the habits of their competitors and implementing better practices, and doing things that no other competitor can do. Their cost structure and casm has remained low because of their continued growth.