Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What A May For SWA!  
User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1581 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10690 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

SWA has reported today their traffic for May and RPM's were up a staggering 10.7%. Load factor was up to 82.3% (an increase of 5.1% from May 2010). It is becoming increasingly apparent that SWA is growing at the expense of other carrriers.

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4319 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10146 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well, I knew something was up.

While I've only flown WN a couple of times this year (mostly SAN-LAS, SAN-SFO, SAN-ELP) all 132 seats were filled on each of the planes I flew. So I've been flying pretty much on planes with 100% loads.

Not as scientific as you business statisticians, but you can *see* traffic is up.


User currently offlineflyingcat From United States of America, joined May 2007, 546 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9988 times:

Quoting n471wn (Thread starter):
It is becoming increasingly apparent that SWA is growing at the expense of other carrriers.

I would not put too much stock into this.

Fuel increase have led to fare increases. A rising tide lifts all ships

US was up by 11 points. So using your comparison WN was .3 points worse than a legacy.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9570 times:

Quoting n471wn (Thread starter):
Load factor was up to 82.3% (an increase of 5.1% from May 2010).

Hasn't WN made a conscientious decision to up load factors? A 67% target load factor just isn't profitable at WN's ticket prices with fuel up as high as it is   I know that, back in the day, 67% was Southwest's targeted load factor, as anything higher than that got management seriously thinking about adding frequencies to a city pair...the past few times I've flown on WN, I have been encountering flights 100% full    That's a good thing, as full flights make a better profit than flights that are only 2/3 full. Not so good in that my wife and I have to buy a ticket for our toddler son...  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineboslax From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9492 times:

Quoting flyingcat (Reply 2):
US was up by 11 points

US was up 11 pts in what? Certainly not RPM's. US RPM's were up 7.6% in May, compared to 10.6% for WN.


User currently offlinejetblast From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1231 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8900 times:

Quoting n471wn (Thread starter):
It is becoming increasingly apparent that SWA is growing at the expense of other carrriers.

Here we go with the Kool-Aid rampant in threads relating to SWA.

Care to substantiate any of these claims with solid numbers showing how SWA is growing while other carriers are not?



Speedbird Concorde One
User currently offline737-990 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 370 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8457 times:

Quoting n471wn (Thread starter):
It is becoming increasingly apparent that SWA is growing at the expense of other carrriers.

What is apparent is that May was a good month for airline traffic in general. I'm going to attribute this to Easter being late this year and some of that spring break traffic spilling over into May and a better economy versus last year. Looking at various airline press releases only United/Continental showed a decline in traffic and that corresponded to a decline in capacity so it was a wash. American was the real standout this month with some very impressive numbers. Below are airline traffic (RPM) reports for May 2011 versus May 2010.

Alaska +11.7%
American +17%
Delta +2.2%
Frontier +4%
Southwest +10.6%
United/Continental -0.3%
USAirways +7.4%



Happiest is a man who has his vocation as a hobby
User currently onlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 727 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8119 times:

Quoting 737-990 (Reply 6):
American was the real standout this month with some very impressive numbers. Below are airline traffic (RPM) reports for May 2011 versus May 2010.

About time there was some good news for AA. Hopefully they keep that going over the rest of the quarter and summer and maybe even see some surplus cash at the end! Of course, if the CASM increased by 18% then 17% RPM isn't going to cut it  

I always ask the question: X% of what? 17% of 10 is a whole different answer than 17% of 100000! If AA is starting from a very low point in comparison to say WN then 17% may not be as good as 10% from WN. We won't know the full results until earnings in August!


User currently offlineLHUSA From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 569 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7357 times:

What's up with UA/CO? Is this a result of the on-going merger?

Quoting BD338 (Reply 7):
Alaska +11.7%
American +17%
Delta +2.2%
Frontier +4%
Southwest +10.6%
United/Continental -0.3%
USAirways +7.4%


User currently offlineGA330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6514 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 1):
all 132 seats were filled on each of the planes I flew. So I've been flying pretty much on planes with 100% loads.

I know this is picking bones, but Southwest's 733, 73G are configured at 137 seats and 735 at 122 seats, there are no aircraft configured at 132.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 3):
Hasn't WN made a conscientious decision to up load factors?

That is true. The various organizations at the airline has made quite an effort in order to increase load factor over the year. One thing that is contributing to this is the no bag fee and no change fee campaign that has been very much promoted across all media type. Gary Kelly has said that these campaign may have contributed up to $1 billion of revenue since it has been heavily advertised.

Quoting n471wn (Thread starter):
Load factor was up to 82.3% (an increase of 5.1% from May 2010)
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 3):
I have been encountering flights 100% full
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 1):
So I've been flying pretty much on planes with 100% loads.

Many of you who are reading this may also experience mostly 100% capacity on WN flights, and may wonder why the load factor is actually 80~% instead of 90+. This is actually due to the fact that Southwest has a very liberal non-revenue policy for its employees and their friends (buddy passes). Also, since WN is a company that encourages work-life balance, many of the employees uses their privileges quite often. This brings me to the point that while many flights are 100% filled, is not an indicator that the flight is filled with 100% revenue paying pax. Many are employees, their families and friends, maybe anywhere between 5-30 pax on any given flight. So, guess what, 137-20/137 is 0.85, so on many of the flights there are only 80 some percent who are paying for their seats, and the rest are either the people who make the airline great or their friends and families.



China Eastern MU586 KLAX - SZPD with B-6055
User currently offlinecrownvic From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1942 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6420 times:

Has anyone recently tried to book WN? While I realize the topic has been covered well, their air fares are going through the roof and a lot of what also maybe filling the plane is advanced bookings that paid much lower fares. In the past few weeks, I have attempted to book WN on about 4 different occasions. The result was the same. The legacy carriers with baggage fees and other hidden charges, were far cheaper than WN.

The American public takes a bit of time to react to change and as the word gets out that WN is no longer associated w/ cheap fares, their load factors will adjust accordingly. In my opinion, this airline has completely lost what it has been known for, since it's inception.


User currently offlineGA330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6339 times:

Fares have gone up an average $35 one way and around $60 IIRC since the beginning of this year for SWA. The reason I think was adjustment for fuel prices. I dont know if they have adjusted the fares recently with the falling prices.

Quoting crownvic (Reply 10):
I have attempted to book WN on about 4 different occasions. The result was the same. The legacy carriers with baggage fees and other hidden charges, were far cheaper than WN.

For many, flying SWA is not only because of the fares, but the service that is provided. Remember, no change fees are also a part of other airlines fees if you actually have to change your ticket.

And also, how far ahead and how active were you looking at the flights? I know of two occasions within the past 2 weeks where last minute tickets were definitely way cheaper than usual.

(MCO-DAL 1 day prior to departure, for a Sunday, o/w fare of $110 and SNA-MDW, on day of departure, on a Monday, o/w business select fare of $180)



China Eastern MU586 KLAX - SZPD with B-6055
User currently offlineEIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1549 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6267 times:

I have to say intra-Cali air fares on WN have gotten much more expensive. I used to accumulate WN credits like crazy, but I just booked a flight on VX because they were $100 cheaper round-trip than WN ($199 versus $299). Neither is cheap, but it sort of astonishes me to see walk-up fares over $200 these days. I do think WN's no change fee and no baggage fee campaign has paid off, but with Rapid Rewards nearly useless for me with the recent changes, I am unlikely to show much loyalty toward WN in the future.

User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4097 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6203 times:

Clearly this thread is going down the same road as every other thread about WN. It devolves into bipartisan bickering and plenty of talk about how things used to be and how they have changed for the worse.

User currently offlineODAFZ From Afghanistan, joined Jul 2004, 357 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6179 times:

"International traffic at American Airlines jumped 4.9% in May as the carrier boosted capacity for international flights by 6.1%. The increase in international traffic offset a 0.9% decrease in domestic traffic for the month. Overall, American Airlines traffic grew by 1.3% for May. "

The above excerpt is from ATASMARTBRIEF , it just illustrates that the RPM increased by 17% ( normal as the economy is building up) but the overall domestic traffic decreased by almost 1% meaning that some other airlines are eating AA's market share


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4319 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5251 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting GA330 (Reply 9):
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 1):
all 132 seats were filled on each of the planes I flew. So I've been flying pretty much on planes with 100% loads.

I know this is picking bones, but Southwest's 733, 73G are configured at 137 seats and 735 at 122 seats, there are no aircraft configured at 132.

I should know that since I have flown more than once as seat A in row 23.

Twenty-three rows times six chairs is actually 138.

Sorry for the misstatement.


User currently offlinegizmonc From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4719 times:

SWA only has 137 seats on the 737-300/700 and 122 on the 737-500.

User currently offlinerbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4464 times:

Quoting crownvic (Reply 10):
Has anyone recently tried to book WN? While I realize the topic has been covered well, their air fares are going through the roof and a lot of what also maybe filling the plane is advanced bookings that paid much lower fares. In the past few weeks, I have attempted to book WN on about 4 different occasions. The result was the same. The legacy carriers with baggage fees and other hidden charges, were far cheaper than WN.

Couldn't agree more. I don't even shop them anymore. They were always higher than other carriers when I did check them.

I do realize, however, that without WN in the market fares in general would be much higher. But growing at the expense of the legacy carriers? That's a bit over the top.


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4319 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3031 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting gizmonc (Reply 16):
SWA only has 137 seats on the 737-300/700

And I'm saying to myself. "Six seats across times 23 rows -- How could that be????" So I looked it up.

You're absolutely right.

But this row #11 business is weird.

http://www.seatexpert.com/seatmap/41...Southwest_Airlines_Boeing_737-300/

http://www.seatexpert.com/seatmap/41...Southwest_Airlines_Boeing_737-700/


User currently offlinecrownvic From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1942 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2814 times:

GA330...Just for the record (and this is not directed at you), I have been a WN supported for the companies entire history. It is only in recent months, I am getting very discouraged. Here are just some examples of fares I encountered:

1) Last week, I tried to book LAS-SAT seven days out. The fare was $580.00 for the outbound and the same for the return. Total was $1160.00 plus tax and this was for ALL flights.

2) This week I went to book LAS-PDX for late August. Last week, the fare was $119.00 each way on all flights. One week later, it shot up to $190.00 each way plus tax. I wound up booking AS for $100.00 less.

So lets hear all the folks jump in and say "Dude, you're in Vegas. What do you expect?" I hope the "low yield city" folks also jump in with their regular, "Vegas is low yield" comments too. If that SAT example is low yield, then I guess I must not understand airline P/L.

When people make a comment like: "Clearly this thread is going down the same road as every other thread about WN. It devolves into bipartisan bickering and plenty of talk about how things used to be and how they have changed for the worse", they need to understand (especially if they are an airline employee that does not pay to fly), there have been drastic changes in in WN's airfare structure and not subtle changes over a long period of time that warrant this saying. This is nothing more than sudden "sticker shock" that has transpired over just a few month period. Yes, fuel has gone up, but it does not warrant fares that are 2, 3, 4, 5x what they were, just a few months back.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2787 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 18):
And I'm saying to myself. "Six seats across times 23 rows -- How could that be????" So I looked it up.

You're absolutely right.

But this row #11 business is weird.

Heh, back in the club seating days, the extra seat was missing from Row 1 (which was rear-facing), there was no 1F. It was great if you were sitting in 2F, you could stretch your legs as far forward as you wanted  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinega330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2736 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 18):
But this row #11 business is weird.

This is because of the position of that row next to the emergency exit, and you may ask what about the left side? That is because the alignment of the seats with the exits worked out better on the this side since there is nothing in front of the bulkhead, whereas on the right side there is the galley. I think it is the same thing with B735.

Quoting crownvic (Reply 19):
GA330...Just for the record (and this is not directed at you), I have been a WN supported for the companies entire history. It is only in recent months, I am getting very discouraged. Here are just some examples of fares I encountered:

Totally understand your perspective and for the record, I have also heard from a lot of customers who are considering switching allegiance from WN to someone else, even long time customers who have been with the airline since the 70s and 80s due to the recent fare hike and RR changes.

I also understand that some of the fares are really high and non-WN-esque, but considering what the airline offers (service wise), I think most of the fares that are a few weeks out are still reasonable. I mean the no bag fee itself is a big draw.

In your situation, I think the LAS-SAT price is that high not because of O/D pax, but maybe with the amount of connecting pax either through LAS or SAT (SAT being less likely but still possible), and also the fact that it is less than 2 weeks probably plays into account how the RM computer spews that fare out. maybe the fact that LAS is low yield resulted in that fare too, as RM computer tries to squeeze money out of last minute paying pax.

The PDX one I think almost for sure has something to do with O/D pax bookings beyond LAS-PDX market. LAS is the only mega station that WN has in that western region (PHX is huge also, but I dont think is as large), so a lot of pax that are not from the west coast going to / from PDX may be connecting there, so I suspect the fare jumped higher because of RM prediction that there will be more higher fare paying pax that are connecting through LAS to PDX.

Another scenario maybe because WN has already burned through the fuel budget for this year just after 3-4 months of operations, and trying to make up for it.

My 2 cents, maybe head on, maybe totally wrong.



China Eastern MU586 KLAX - SZPD with B-6055
User currently offlinejimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

The Economist had an article on Southwest in this week's edition, going over these issues.

http://www.economist.com/node/18774997?story_id=18774997


User currently offlinewwtraveler99 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2533 times:

Quoting crownvic (Reply 19):
1) Last week, I tried to book LAS-SAT seven days out. The fare was $580.00 for the outbound and the same for the return. Total was $1160.00 plus tax and this was for ALL flights.

This could be what you saw, AT THE TIME, but looking for traval tomorrow return 14th the total with taxes was $985.40. High? Maybe but that is what it is.

Quoting crownvic (Reply 19):
2) This week I went to book LAS-PDX for late August. Last week, the fare was $119.00 each way on all flights. One week later, it shot up to $190.00 each way plus tax. I wound up booking AS for $100.00 less.

Not sure what you are looking at, but WN's low fare calendar shows Mon, Tue, Wed, Thur, Sat at $119. Fri and Sun is $160-$170.

Quoting crownvic (Reply 19):
This is nothing more than sudden "sticker shock" that has transpired over just a few month period. Yes, fuel has gone up, but it does not warrant fares that are 2, 3, 4, 5x what they were, just a few months back.

Yes there is some "sticker shock" as you say to some of WN's fares these days. But yes with fuel up they are where they need to be. Everyone is up. ABout 12-18 months ago i could get to Hawaii, on most anyone, for about $325.00. Now they are about $500-$600. EVERYONE has been rasing fares.

I think the issue is that last time around WN had some very nice fuel hedges. This allowed them to not have to raise fares. When they finally got burned when oil dropped very quickly they had to get out of the hedges. When they jumped back in to the hedging they paid much high prices on those contracts. WN has said that fuel will cost them $1,300,000,000 more this year than last. Those are additional dollars for 2011 not a total.


User currently offlinega330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2396 times:

Quoting wwtraveler99 (Reply 23):
I think the issue is that last time around WN had some very nice fuel hedges. This allowed them to not have to raise fares. When they finally got burned when oil dropped very quickly they had to get out of the hedges. When they jumped back in to the hedging they paid much high prices on those contracts. WN has said that fuel will cost them $1,300,000,000 more this year than last. Those are additional dollars for 2011 not a total.

You are more or less right. I think the hedges that WN has now are not for daily operational use, instead it is more for catastrophic protection. I dont think the hedges even kicked in during the past few months though the fuel prices were above $100 per barrel, and that WN are pretty much paying market prices now.

Reminds me of what Gerard Arpey said in msnbc's "Day in the Life of American Airlines" that he looks forward to the day where the playing field is level when WN's hedges are gone. Looks like he got his wish after all.



China Eastern MU586 KLAX - SZPD with B-6055
25 Cubsrule : Given the healthy load factor increases, my response to WN's fare increases is "so what." Passengers are obviously still flying them in droves, and o
26 wwtraveler99 : I agree with you about the "so what". The thing I agreed with from the poster is that we are not used to seeing fares this high from WN. As long as t
27 goblin211 : Well n471wn, based on these increases it's probably just from the travel season of Easter. doesn't mean it's not good news, just nothing to have a pa
28 n471wn : yes agree that it may be a combination of forces but look at the other data you provided----American was near to flat domestically so the 17% is not
29 apodino : But...one thing I can say about Southwest more than other carriers is at least they will charge a fare that will allow them to cover the cost of oper
30 Post contains links United1 : Just to correct a number the numbers you posted for AA were for American Eagle...AA Mainline was up by 1.3% yoy. American Eagle was up 17% mainly due
31 crownvic : wwtraveler99...On the LAS-PDX example, I had two other people doing the booking too. We were shocked at the fare increase. For the record, it was out
32 Cubsrule : Can you find a single fare that you consider "gouging?" I can't - $900 for BNA-CAE o/w is gouging. $580 for LAS-SAT - a flight of over 1,000 miles -
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...
More C Series Orders - What Now For Embraer? posted Thu Feb 25 2010 06:28:45 by dougbr2006
What Reason For A `59-Departure? posted Wed Oct 21 2009 17:27:09 by Dairy
722... 752.... What's Next For The Box Haulers posted Fri Sep 18 2009 17:43:57 by LV
What's Next For G4 - Allegiant Summer 2009 posted Thu Mar 12 2009 02:05:02 by DTWTOLBase
What Next For Qantas? A Merger With CX Or MH? posted Sat Dec 20 2008 00:23:17 by Shanxz
What Future For Icelandair? posted Tue Dec 16 2008 08:06:03 by TFFIP
What Route For Rudd's BBJ posted Thu Nov 13 2008 02:48:53 by Peh
What Now For VA With End Of Boeing Strike? posted Mon Oct 27 2008 23:34:28 by REALDEAL
What Routes For CO 777's? posted Wed Oct 1 2008 10:13:25 by Thestooges
Bankruptcy: What Now For ATA DC10-30's? posted Tue Apr 15 2008 06:23:49 by REALDEAL