Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WN Posts $216 Million 2Q Profit.  
User currently offlineswacle From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 387 posts, RR: 1
Posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6209 times:

Hot off the newswire...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Southw...ts-prnews-3861496497.html?x=0&.v=1

$216 million before special items, $112 after special items.

Excercised 25 73G options, added 98 purchase rights, moved up several deliveries.

"No plans" to grow fleet in 2010, 11, or 12 at this point per Gary Kelly.

Don

Edit: Correct Spelling Error.

[Edited 2010-07-29 05:59:28]


Aircraft Flown: SF3 DH8 DH4 328 ERJ CRJ CR7 CR9 E70 E75 D9S M80 712 72S 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 739ER 752 318 319 32
63 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2733 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6162 times:

Congrats to WN!

Quoting swacle (Thread starter):
Excercised 25 73G options, added 98 purchase rights, moved up several deliveries.

"No plans" to grow flet in 2010, 11, or 12 at this point per Gary Kelly.

Does that mean they are doing a 1 for 1 replacement with these new aircraft?


It sounds like this is the last major 2nd quarter earnings report for the US...does anyone want to do a comparison of all of the results...someone with more of an accounting mind than myself? I am curious to how they all compare...great quarter for everyone, except AA  


User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 718 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6154 times:

Very strong results. Bottom line is still good even after all the special items are excluded, and breaking out to operating income that was almost eye-popping at $363M (11.5%) or $414M (13.1%) if special items are excluded. Is that the best % margin seen so far in the Q2 results? I recall DL was up in the 10-11% range, anyone else?

Nice job Southwest. I wonder if the Wall Street analysts will still be complaining WN are missing out by not charging for bags (answer: probably yes)


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7397 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6054 times:

Quoting BD338 (Reply 2):
Nice job Southwest. I wonder if the Wall Street analysts will still be complaining WN are missing out by not charging for bags (answer: probably yes)

Yes, now that the oil well is drying up, they need to do something else.  

Did look at the expenses against income, interest figures there also if attempting to compare their staff cost.
The Bags Fly Free numbers will most likey be a hot topic.

All in all well done by WN.


User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4696 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6043 times:

Interesting that with impressive numbers they are still projecting three full years of zero growth... does that seem odd to anyone? I believe most other airlines are projecting a 1-4% increase nextyear


Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 718 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5846 times:

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 4):
Interesting that with impressive numbers they are still projecting three full years of zero growth... does that seem odd to anyone? I believe most other airlines are projecting a 1-4% increase nextyear

They stated no (or only very modest) capacity growth for the fleet, they may still increase actual flight and seat capacity by using their aircraft even more efficiently. That is one of the 'hidden' reasons for the results reported today, WN have been expanding service (MSP, BOS etc. etc.) while dropping less profitable routes and reworking flight schedules for better efficiencies. In effect doing more with the same.


User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4696 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5833 times:

Quoting BD338 (Reply 5):
They stated no (or only very modest) capacity growth for the fleet, they may still increase actual flight and seat capacity by using their aircraft even more efficiently. That is one of the 'hidden' reasons for the results reported today, WN have been expanding service (MSP, BOS etc. etc.) while dropping less profitable routes and reworking flight schedules for better efficiencies. In effect doing more with the same.

They have been "squeezing out efficiency" for 2 years now, Im not sure how much more you can squeeze it until they start doing red-eyes. I think with every squeeze (schedule adjustment) they are getting less and less so I cant imagine much growth occuring from zero fleet growth.



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlinethegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5728 times:

Nice, look for WN to go forward with the Volaris codeshare by the end of the year...


Our Returning Champion
User currently offlineWNCrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1480 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5712 times:

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 4):
Interesting that with impressive numbers they are still projecting three full years of zero growth... does that seem odd to anyone? I believe most other airlines are projecting a 1-4% increase nextyear


But how much did the other airlines cut initially? I don't know (honestly I don't) if we cut as much as the other carriers, so while they're adding what looks like more, could it be that they're just still catching up? Plus, remember we operate all of our own flights. It's not like UA where UA themselves only operate some 1100 or 1200 flights per day and the rest is all contract flying, WN operates every single last one of it's own 3200 daily flights.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5709 times:

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 4):
Interesting that with impressive numbers they are still projecting three full years of zero growth... does that seem odd to anyone? I believe most other airlines are projecting a 1-4% increase nextyear

For Southwest - No. In an uncertain economy, they are taking a conservative approach. When the economy picks up, they will add capacity. Better to under promise and over deliver.


User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4696 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5698 times:

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 8):
But how much did the other airlines cut initially? I don't know (honestly I don't) if we cut as much as the other carriers

WN has cut a lot, they have just been very quiet in doing so. I believe many pre-2005 stations are down between 10 and 30%.



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineWNCrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1480 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5656 times:

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 10):
Quoting WNCrew (Reply 8):
But how much did the other airlines cut initially? I don't know (honestly I don't) if we cut as much as the other carriers

WN has cut a lot, they have just been very quiet in doing so. I believe many pre-2005 stations are down between 10 and 30%.

Oh I understand that, but your original post wasn't station specific... it seemed to be targeted more to the entire system. As in, other carriers are projecting system-wide growth of 1-4%... not specific to one station. My question is, what percentage has WN shrunk since say 2008 vs the other carriers, and if the other carriers are now adding between 1-4%, is that bringing them ABOVE where WN is or still below.... did they initially cut more?



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineswacle From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 387 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5647 times:

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 10):
WN has cut a lot, they have just been very quiet in doing so. I believe many pre-2005 stations are down between 10 and 30%.

Some more. Here in CLE, we went from 21 in 05 (8 MDW, 5 BWI, 2 BNA, 2 STL, 2 MCO, 1 LAS, 1 PHX, IIRC) to 14 in the upcoming August schedule (6 MDW, 4 BWI, 2 BNA, 1 STL, 1 LAS).



Aircraft Flown: SF3 DH8 DH4 328 ERJ CRJ CR7 CR9 E70 E75 D9S M80 712 72S 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 739ER 752 318 319 32
User currently onlineseven3seven From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 318 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5381 times:

My union newsletter shows airplane daily use peaked a couple years ago at 12:30 minutes per day.

It now stands at 12:00 per day. So it would appear there is still another 30 minutes per 500+ airplanes per day to be squeezed out.



My views are mine alone and are not that of any of my fellow employees, officers, or directors at my company
User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4696 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5331 times:

Quoting seven3seven (Reply 13):
My union newsletter shows airplane daily use peaked a couple years ago at 12:30 minutes per day.

It now stands at 12:00 per day.

I think that is a function of them entering airports like LGA BOS and SFO with increased congestion at places like MDW and FLL.



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offline93Sierra From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 419 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5312 times:

So with that announcement can we squash the 737-800 rumor for good? I hope that WN can continue to squeeze this hard and avoid any problems down the road. I wonder how the "experts" on Wall Street are going to react and I am also curious as to how the WN management feels as they look forward.

Have an outstanding day


User currently offlinepsa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 527 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5286 times:

Quoting BD338 (Reply 2):
I wonder if the Wall Street analysts will still be complaining WN are missing out by not charging for bags

This always comes up. A more thoughtful analysis comes from Joe Brancatelli here:
http://www.portfolio.com/business-tr...nbundle-fares-hike-fees/index.html

"Then there's this: Southwest Airlines has mounted a massive advertising campaign to alert travelers to the fact that it continues to allow travelers to check two bags free of charge. The result: Southwest gained a full point of market share last year, an astonishing growth spurt in the usually glacial airline industry. And, of course, Southwest has been profitable for 37 consecutive years and last week declared its 136th consecutive quarterly dividend."

I think that WN's on to something here. When faced with a choice between UA and AC for an SFO-YVR flight, I selected AC despite the earlier time. For the same fare, AC allows one free checked bag. Sometimes you can't avoid bag fees but if given a choice I'll reward good behavior and fly the carrier that doesn't charge them.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13667 posts, RR: 61
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5221 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BD338 (Reply 2):
Nice job Southwest. I wonder if the Wall Street analysts will still be complaining WN are missing out by not charging for bags (answer: probably yes)

Of course they will, and rightly so - it'd be a change that would have been immensely profitable for them, and boosted share prices. It's safe to say they've missed the boat on that one though, now that they've so famously hitched their wagon to the 'no fees for bags' ad campaign.

Quoting psa188 (Reply 16):
Southwest Airlines has mounted a massive advertising campaign to alert travelers to the fact that it continues to allow travelers to check two bags free of charge. The result: Southwest gained a full point of market share last year, an astonishing growth spurt in the usually glacial airline industry

And that point of market share still didn't result in anywhere NEAR the profit a fee for checked bags would have brought in.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5694 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 5190 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 17):
And that point of market share still didn't result in anywhere NEAR the profit a fee for checked bags would have brought in.

You're assuming those same people would keep flying SWA. The argument always comes up and WN has done the math and research and they claim that they feel they would lose more passengers if they initiated the bag fees. After all why should I fly SWA now since they charge bags, I'll go to another airline.

More people are going to WN because of the LACK of bag fees. These same people would NOT be coming to WN if a bag fee was intiated, thus the market share would probably drop a bit too. Is this a fact, no but we have to view both sides of this.
WN apparantly feels not charging bags and icnreasing market share as a result, is more profitable than charging bags and probably risk losing profit share as those people could possibly go to other airlines, now they are all on the same playing field. WN could care less what wall street thinks, Employees come first, Customers 2nd, everyone else last. It's always been WN's business strategy.

Time and Time again people "mark their words" WN will start charging by year end. NOT HAPPENING. WN has stated it time and time again, this is not happening anytime soon, and has marketed a full campaign for it, you guys call it backing themselves into a corner, I call it WN coming out loud and proud and saying come here, we don't charge your bags.

Alex



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineWNCrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1480 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 5159 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 17):
And that point of market share still didn't result in anywhere NEAR the profit a fee for checked bags would have brought in.

I'm certain it did (since our yields are famously high) otherwise we wouldn't have done it. That point in market share was also quite the accomplishment. Having said that, it was published sometime last year that WN's other fees for non-common items (UM, Pet, etc) exceeded our competitions' baggage fee profits without alienating the passenger. I think that's an accomplishment to be proud of and I think the company has made it incredibly clear that we will not be charging for bags, and it has been the right decision.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13667 posts, RR: 61
Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5084 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 18):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 17):
And that point of market share still didn't result in anywhere NEAR the profit a fee for checked bags would have brought in.

You're assuming those same people would keep flying SWA.

A better point would have been to say, "You're assuming those same people would keep flying," as most of WNs customers choose to DRIVE rather than fly if the price point is too high - it's not a matter of defecting to other carriers. And as other carriers have experienced, there has really been no mass-defection to other carriers as a result of implementing bag fees.

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 19):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 17):
And that point of market share still didn't result in anywhere NEAR the profit a fee for checked bags would have brought in.

I'm certain it did

Wrong. It didn't. And that's a fact.

WN claims a 1% shift in market share. Since the annual U.S. domestic market is $80B, that means about $800M more revenue yearly, if WN's claims are correct. However, that's revenue, not profit - and since WN's pretax profit margin was 11% this past quarter, that means they earned about $22M extra in profit this past quarter based on that 1% market shift.

However, based on what other carriers have experienced, WN could expect a first bag fee to bring in anywhere from $100-150M PER QUARTER in pure profit. That translates into an additional $400-600M per year in profit.

Put another way, based on their current profit margins WN would need to experience an additional 5-8% shift in domestic U.S. market share to them just to offset the money they're leaving on the table by NOT charging bag fees.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineWNCrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1480 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4973 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 20):
WN claims a 1% shift in market share. Since the annual U.S. domestic market is $80B, that means about $800M more revenue yearly, if WN's claims are correct. However, that's revenue, not profit - and since WN's pretax profit margin was 11% this past quarter, that means they earned about $22M extra in profit this past quarter based on that 1% market shift.

However, based on what other carriers have experienced, WN could expect a first bag fee to bring in anywhere from $100-150M PER QUARTER in pure profit. That translates into an additional $400-600M per year in profit.

Put another way, based on their current profit margins WN would need to experience an additional 5-8% shift in domestic U.S. market share to them just to offset the money they're leaving on the table by NOT charging bag fees.

Oh okay....

Well.... WN still turned an impressive profit WITHOUT charging for bags. THE END



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3082 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4922 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 17):
Of course they will, and rightly so - it'd be a change that would have been immensely profitable for them, and boosted share prices. It's safe to say they've missed the boat on that one though, now that they've so famously hitched their wagon to the 'no fees for bags' ad campaign.

Heaven forbid WN treat customers better than other airlines, because it's the right thing to do! It's one of the few remaining ways that WN is maintaining their "maverick" image, and differentiating themselves in a demonstrable way to pax.

[Edited 2010-07-29 15:39:37]


Finally made it to an airline mecca!
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6797 posts, RR: 32
Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4879 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 20):
WN claims a 1% shift in market share. Since the annual U.S. domestic market is $80B, that means about $800M more revenue yearly, if WN's claims are correct. However, that's revenue, not profit - and since WN's pretax profit margin was 11% this past quarter, that means they earned about $22M extra in profit this past quarter based on that 1% market shift.

No, your analysis is incorrect. The additional $200 million in revenue for the quarter due to the shift in market share doesn't imply that costs increased proportionally; most of the costs of running the network would have still been there without the additional passengers. Thus, most of the additional $200 million in revenue also flowed through to the bottom line.

Southwest's RASM was up 21.5% year-over-year for the quarter. By comparison, domestic RASM was up 12.8% at Continental, up 14.1% at Delta, up 14.4% at American, up 19.1% at United, up 18.0% at US Airways (system), and up 10.7% at AirTran (also system). They outperformed everyone on RASM, and clearly their "Bags Fly Free" policy had something to do with that.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 20):
And as other carriers have experienced, there has really been no mass-defection to other carriers as a result of implementing bag fees.

Other carriers chose not to impose baggage fees on their most frequent flyers, which certainly helps to blunt the potential impact on "mass-defection." But it's also true that Southwest would be unable to carry everyone else's passengers, and the impact of the shift in market share across the rest of the industry would likely be at most a couple of tenths of a percentage point at each individual competitor.


User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4809 times:

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 8):
Plus, remember we operate all of our own flights. It's not like UA where UA themselves only operate some 1100 or 1200 flights per day and the rest is all contract flying, WN operates every single last one of it's own 3200 daily flights.

Why does this matter? What point are you trying to make with this statement I don't understand?

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 18):
WN could care less what wall street thinks, Employees come first, Customers 2nd, everyone else last. It's always been WN's business strategy.

A lot of WN employees and fans feel like this but I can assure you that its wrong! The owners of Southwest Airlines come first. They continue to let WN use their money because they believe in a return. Like every other publicly traded company Southwest Airlines is in business for one reason and that reason is to return a profit to the investors. WN is extremely concerned with what Wall Street thinks and keeping them happy because without them there is no airline. Everything that the airline does to keep customers happy and to keep employees happy is because it helps their bottom line. I'm not singling WN out with my comments, this is the way it is for EVERY publicly traded airline and EVERY publicly traded company for that matter. Shareholders ALWAYS come first because without them there is no company left.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
25 par13del : If I follow corectly, I think he was questioning whether the reduction percentages other airlines had implemented included their affiliates or just m
26 WNCrew : Thank you, this is my point.... and with it another can be made. That point is that, when WN turns a profit, it's purely because of the work of WN an
27 Post contains images EA CO AS : That's not entirely true, but even if it were, then that would mean their impressive percentage increase in RASM... ...is the ONLY thing that kept th
28 WNCrew : WHY is it not possible to just admit that WN is well-run, and congratulate them for making money? " [insert reason] is the ONLY thing that kept them
29 txagkuwait : To quote John McLaughlin of the McLaughlin Group.....You.....Are........Wrong.........! I am a child of Southwest Airlines. I was out at Gate 25 and
30 DocLightning : You know, in a market where few airlines ever turn a profit, WN seems to be pretty consistent at it. And then there are all these people on the board
31 merlot : ****INCORRECT**** Market share, rises and falls ENTIRELY BASED ON WHAT BUSINESS YOU HAVE TAKEN (or lost) FROM COMPETITORS. While it is sadly nostalgi
32 Tugger : Just curious but how many airlines have been good caretakers of their investors funds? Not many that I can think of. Hopefully the future is better.
33 ScottB : Well, that's certainly true, but it's also true FOR EVERYONE ELSE. If RASM had been flat year-over year: * CO would have posted an operating loss of
34 FutureUScapt : Wrong. Using the inverse of your hypothetical WN "drive customers," if WN stimulates the market by creating affordable airfare options to those who w
35 WNCrew : LOL! Right?!?!?! It never takes long for the jealous to crawl from beneath their wet rocks and try to convince everyone else that WN is wrong!
36 EA CO AS : That's a completely fair point, WNCrew - and you're right. WN is a VERY well-run company, and I do salute them and their people for consistently maki
37 AADC10 : Investors could care less about fleet growth. The industry has proven that it has far too much capacity and it is better for everyone involved to shr
38 MSPNWA : Good job again by WN. I've been trying to make it work to fly them for the first time, and its because of the positive image I see from them. When I s
39 EA CO AS : Not sure where you got that - per their earnings call, DL posted a 2Q10 profit of $549M ($467M net, GAAP), with an operating margin of 11.4%, but now
40 ScottB : Nowhere did I imply that WN's RASM increases were driven "primarily by market share defections," although I would argue the impact was likely in the
41 N505FX : rxagkuwait - not to turn this in to a UA v. WN thread - but like you, UA has put a roof over my family's head since 1946 - and while I agree with you
42 XT6Wagon : This is true today, but history is littered with companies that took the attitude that they can do whatever since thier competition can't really do a
43 AWACSooner : A few things can ALWAYS be guaranteed to come up whenever we discuss WN's quarterly earnings reports: 1. When are they gonna be like everyone else and
44 MSPNWA : It was right here on a.net in the DL profit thread. DL's profit was "X", and revenue on fees on baggage and other items was almost the same number.
45 EA CO AS : Sure looks like it to me - here's your commentary from our discussion about the 1% shift: This quote certainly seems to imply that their RASM increas
46 ScottB : "Bottom line" is profitability. And I'm perfectly willing to stand by my assertion that "Bags Fly Free" was a key reason they outperformed the rest o
47 EA CO AS : There you go again. You're claiming "Bags Fly Free" was the sole reason for that, and are also implying that $200M is pure profit. It isn't, and whil
48 Post contains images point2point : So with this, I guess that this can once and for all answer the question of whether DEN is making $$$ or not for WN.... a BIG congrats to Southwest. W
49 Post contains images EA CO AS : Well-said.
50 ScottB : Nice job of selective quoting by leaving off a very important word: APPARENTLY The marginal profit on the additional $200 million in revenue is likel
51 MSPNWA : From the start I said it was all extra fees and not limited to baggage. Your deeper findings only conformed this, albeit baggage wasn't a large perce
52 par13del : How about doing nothing, no change in service etc. the other airlines are off-loading so many service items and adding fees etc. that pax may be givi
53 EA CO AS : That figure doesn't seem anywhere near reasonable. For one, that added 1% in market share (which again, I don't necessarily believe, but for the sake
54 Tugger : Approximately 80% of Southwest's passengers book online and check-in online or at a kiosk in the airport (http://www.southwest.com/about_swa/press/fa
55 EA CO AS : Actually, you'd be amazed at how quickly call volumes pile up in a call center from even just a slight bump in passenger volume, regardless of where
56 UAL747DEN : Are you kidding! The reason that "nobody flys for us" or nobody flies for Southwest is that they don't need a regional airline or feeder airlines to
57 Post contains images ScottB : Yes, it is terribly unfortunate that WN's high labor rates in the call center come from their choice not to offshore those jobs and fire U.S. employe
58 EA CO AS : You make it sound almost as if I'd support outsourcing call center labor.
59 Post contains links merlot : It's funny but also sadly illuminating how those locked into the bankrupt legacy mindset continue in ignorance of how the facts of the industry are c
60 UAL747DEN : I think that both of us were trying to make the point that anyone who follows the industry knows what the Southwest Effect is. Your statements seem t
61 merlot : No. I was responding to those legacy defenders who show zero understanding of how market share is calculated and who then decided to show us some ori
62 EA CO AS : For someone who seems to THINK they know a lot about the airline industry, I find it interesting that you don't know that airlines measure their prod
63 FutureUScapt : Nope, but thanks anyways. My comment was in reference to what AIRLINES use. That you may not be privy to that method does not make my statement incor
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...
Northwest Airlines Posts $377 Million 2Q Loss posted Wed Jul 23 2008 08:34:30 by United1
Southwest Posts $162 Million 3Q Profit posted Thu Oct 18 2007 06:01:44 by SWACLE
AA Posts $81 Million 1Q Profit posted Wed Apr 18 2007 17:37:13 by MoMan
GOL Posts USD50 Million 3Q Profit (again!) posted Tue Nov 1 2005 13:33:39 by Hardiwv
British Airways Posts £13 Million Q3 Profit posted Mon Feb 10 2003 09:17:02 by Singapore_Air
WN Post 2Q Profit, Announces Buyouts posted Tue Jul 21 2009 06:13:09 by Typhaerion
Frontier Posts $4 Million 1Q Profit posted Fri Jul 28 2006 02:54:08 by A330300
AirTran Posts A $32 Million Profit posted Thu Jul 27 2006 15:52:54 by AirTran737
WN 2Q Profit: 333M posted Wed Jul 19 2006 15:58:37 by Dartland
WN Posts $62M Qtrly Profit; Hints At Int'l Travel posted Fri Apr 21 2006 07:51:44 by 777fan