Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Future Of Legacy Carriers- Article  
User currently offlineSWAbubba From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 154 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2934 times:

It's fairly technical, but makes for an interesting read...


4 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineStevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2902 times:

Required reading for all armchair CEO/CFO's here on airliners.net !!!!  Big thumbs up

SWA's rising costs was something I found interesting, and they're going to have resolve simmering labor troubles now so they don't become a legacy carrier!

Underscores my belief that US utterly failed in their Ch. 11 restructuring efforts, and it will only be a matter of time before they refile for Ch. 11 and eventually Ch. 7.

User currently offlineSWAbubba From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 154 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2826 times:


SWA's continually rising costs are something we are all aware of and watching closely. Even though pay rates and health care costs are rising the addition of long-haul flights makes up for it to some degree on a per seat-mile basis. Another thing that will help bring the average costs down will be the resumption of growth next year- new employees obviously start at the bottom of the payscale and lower the average.

I think the FA's new contract (whenever it gets settled) will be the last large increase in employee costs you'll see for a while. The pilot contract is up in '06 but will likely focus on improved benefits vs straight pay.

I agree completely that US's bankruptcy didn't get their costs where they need to be. I think US will continue to shrink and will eventually stabilize as a niche regional carrier.

User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 7210 posts, RR: 37
Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 2762 times:


Thanks for providing the link. The article made for interesting reading but I think that the authors were a bit selective in how they used the facts presented to suit some of their points (and in some cases they were incorrect.)

I think that they certainly sensationalized SWA's rising unit costs though they did say that SWA was addressing them, and that cost control has always been central to their managemant philosophy.

Aside from the rez center consolidation from 9 to 6, the gradual retiring of the 737-200's from the fleet, and the addition of blended winglets, I believe that that they overlooked the easiest way for SWA to potentially reduce their CASM, if SWA would choose to do so: swap some of the 124 737-700's on order with 737-800's. That would increase productivity significantly by the addition of about 40 seats per flight. (The authors incorrectly state that SWA has around 400 737's on order.)

The authors also failed to mention other examples of SWA poductivity gains that will result from online checkin; Ticketless Travel for Rapid Rewards Members using Award Tickets and Companion Passes; and, in the upcoming year, the ability to receive connecting boarding passes at the airport or online.

The example of BWI to illustrate what could/will happen at PHL I think is also a bit overblown. BWI was a unique situation and it shows it - BWI is ranked third for number of departures and non-stop cities served on SWA yet the station was only established in 1993. But I do agree that SWA's entry into PHL will be further restricting the oxygen flow that US Airway's needs to survive. However, entry into PHL is not the fatal blow that they hint at. SWA is not the only shark that smells blood in the water...

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineSWAbubba From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 154 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 2711 times:


-800's would add a few seats but would also add a 4th FA, meaning crews would have to be scheduled seperately for that fleet. Generally we have prefered adding frequency on routes that justify it rather than adding capacity by increasing the number of fleet types.

As of the 3Q financial statement we have 140 firm orders and 274 options through 2012.

PHL is more congested than BWI, but it also has a larger population base. BWI and MDW both grew very quickly for us, I wouldn't be too surprised to see the same in PHL if the delays don't kill us.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Future Of Travel: Fascinating Article posted Fri Aug 18 2006 18:03:59 by Cedarjet
A Complete List Of The Benefits Of Legacy Carriers posted Thu Mar 10 2005 06:52:42 by UnitedStarGold
Future Of Swiss... Interesting Article posted Sat Jan 11 2003 16:34:59 by Too Low
Future Of US Legacy Carriers Post-new Threats posted Fri Aug 11 2006 15:57:30 by B777A340Fan
Sum Up The Future Of US Legacy Carriers posted Sun Sep 18 2005 02:43:35 by Afrikaskyes
Unadvertised Benefits Of The Legacy Carriers posted Sat Dec 24 2005 02:21:13 by Cory6188
Silly Article From Msnbc On Legacy Carriers posted Wed Nov 2 2005 17:42:59 by Greenguy01
Legacy Carriers Defense Of Fortress Hubs posted Tue Jul 19 2005 22:55:02 by Apodino
Lack Of Competition Between Legacy Carriers posted Wed Jul 13 2005 01:51:15 by Cory6188
Future Of US International Flights/carriers? posted Thu Jan 8 2004 21:32:30 by Kaitak