Vctony From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 459 posts, RR: 0 Posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1420 times:
Why doesn't anyone think that the terrorist hijackings at the WTC and Pentagon will affect SW airlines? As I recall, SW has a much higher percentage of leisure travelers then the other airlines. While other airlines will suffer a loss of some leisure travelers, I think business travelers who fly frequently will still fly. SW with its higher percentage of leisure travelers will be adversely affected as, for at least the next 2-3 months, nobody that doesn't HAVE to fly, will fly. This is just my opinion. I don't want SW to go under or severely cut back its operations, especially since I live in the PHX area and I like having two hub carriers with 170+ daily departures, HP and SW.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1280 times:
They'll be affected-there isn't a carrier in the U.S. who won't be affected drastically. But I think some hysterical types who are saying WN will go out of business are just going off half-cocked. They're the most financially sound airline in the U.S., with CO right behind them, and they're smart enough to make it through this. They may be smaller after the smoke clears-literally, but they'll survive.
Hypermike From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1001 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1266 times:
Southwest will suffer, but not to the degree the other airlines will. Southwest has lower costs and more flexible work rules. Not only that, Southwest can VERY easily rally their people to just make it happen, and they will. Keep in mind that this is the airline that can come up with the creative solution to do just about anyting.
Deltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1686 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1248 times:
The reason SW will pull through this is mainly because of their operating structure and the efficiencies they already have built into place.
Another reason they will survive is that although it is true the leisure market will have a downturn because of this-WN's route structure is very unique in maximizing leisure traffic. Most of their routes are not based on a hub system and are designed to take people on the shorthall within 300 miles of 2 points. It won't be long at all before people will feel safe enough to take a plane at a cheap WN fare between Midway and STL or LAX and LAS or PHX.
The other airlines on the other hand existed more on taking leisure passengers across the country through their hubs. It maybe a long time before consumers are comfortable booking a flight between LAX and PVD w/ a stop in IAH, ORD, DFW or ATL.
Same rule for business travelers. As businesses across the country try and cope and move on, they may be more likely to send employees on short interstate hops to meet with customers than to send them on long transcontiental or even 2-3 hour long flying distances.
CactusA319 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2918 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1246 times:
One of the few airlines making a profit this year is SWA. They have a very low cost structure so they can survive this type of thing, even if it means cutting back a bit. The airline industry as a whole is going to get hit hard by what's going on but if there's any airline that can make it through, it's Southwest.
Also keep in mind, SWA was seeing an increase in business travel this year as companies are trying to cut travel expenses by choosing low-fare airlines.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16427 posts, RR: 55
Reply 8, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1224 times:
CactusA319 is correct. In tough economic times,the low cost carriers (perhaps erroneously called leisure carriers) see an increase in business travellers 'stepping down' from flying the majors in order to cut costs. SW is probably best placed amongst all nationals/majors to survive this downtown.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Mah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33594 posts, RR: 71
Reply 10, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1182 times:
Guys, a lot of you need to calm down. The airlines will be okay. jetBlue will be okay. Continental will be fine. airTran will survive. Northwest will make it through. I will say it again: THE AIRLINES WILL SURVIVE. Yes, they WILL suffer, but in 18 months, everything will be back to normal. I would not worry about the following airlines:
American/American Eagle/TWA, Continetal/Continental Express, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, jetBlue, Midwest Express, Frontier, USAirways, United, Alaska/Horizon, Vanguard, America West, airTran. The only airline I would worry about is National, though I still think they will survive.
SEA nw DC10 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 491 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1182 times:
Thank you Mah4546. The only airline we've really seen go under in the US from this catastrophie is Midway which was already suffering losses and already had filed chpt. 11. You guys are trippin. Although the airlines are suffering, they will not go under, guaranteed.
Redngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 42
Reply 12, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1176 times:
Southwest will do fine, and since they run shorter-haul flights out of BWI, they might even pick up some of USAirways' business since US's DCA hub is closed for the time being. BWI also has direct rail service into Washington's Union Station.
However, if you've noticed, since Southwest was big on e-ticketing and ticketless travel, they've had to come up with a huge contingency plan to print out receipts and get their customers "properly documented."
LoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3931 posts, RR: 32
Reply 13, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1154 times:
Regarding the e-ticket issue, passengers who purchase tickets on Southwest's site are still mailed a confirmation. All folks would have to do is take the confirmation with them to the airport (which I have always done anyway.) For those who forget to bring it, it shouldn't be too much of a problem for the agent to make a printout at the ticket counter. It may make the line go a little slower, but it shouldn't be too bad.
Lsjef From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1139 times:
I've flown twice on SWA since Thursday and, other than the low loads and tension/depression (to be expected this soon after the attack), everything is very normal. There is no "huge contingency plan" about SWA documentation; just go to the SWA website, click on the itinerary link, enter the 6-digit reservation code, and print your copy. In three minutes I printed two months worth of itinerary copies.
I was told by SWA that they flew their full schedule on Saturday and planned to do the same today. How many other airlines are doing this? Is this an indication of SWA trying to destroy their financial health, or is SWA just that durable that it can recover so quickly while the others cry bankruptcy?
I would be more surprised to see SWA reduce their schedule than to see them fly the schedule with no changes. This may change, though, if the airlines start to get really cut-throat about their fare pricing. We'll see...
Ihateawa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1113 times:
Reason why SW will survive
1. They operate small aircraft
2. They do not serve meals on long flight like LAX-DEN while other airlines like UA serve a snack.
3. They rarely operate for more than 4 hours on a single flight.
4. IT'S CHEAP
Coronado From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1259 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (13 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1112 times:
Another reason they will probably survive. They avoid the large congested hubs. The large congested hubs may be viewed as more 'dangerous' than the more remote airports where SWA operates. Let's face it a crazy guy can find Boston--he may have a harder time finding how to get to Providence. SWA tends to operate into airports that are below the so called proverbial 'radar screen', therefore public may be more comfortable flying out of those airports than out or through of the top dozen airports.
The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8137 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (13 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1070 times:
I think so sum it up, WN will survive because they have such astonishingly low seat-mile costs in general due use of 737 jets exclusively.
This allows lots of flexibility for the airline, and WN can change to market conditions far more quickly than other large carriers. Indeed, think back to the last major recession in the USA back in 1990-1991: WN consistently made profits.
Goingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (13 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1039 times:
Southwest has enough cash on hand that they could have survived a shutdown for 78 days before running out. If you figure in the equity, they could go for almost a full year. So they have money to keep them going. They have announced no layoffs, nor have they announced cutbacks in service. They are currently operating at the level they were prior to September 11. With the other airlines announcing 20% service cutbacks, they will be turning those passengers who would have flown over to SWA. SWA stands positioned to actually gain.
As far as business vs leisure - there are a considerable number of business travellers using SWA every day.
Delta737 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 516 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (13 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1035 times:
I really wouldn't use the "lack of a large hub" idea. I've always felt that the largest security threats were at small, hometown airports where people thought (past tense) "Oh, why would anything bad every happen at (blank) regional airport?" so security is fairly complacent.
Personally, I feel the safest at larger airports because terrorists would be absolutely stupid to target a large metropolitan airport with high security and high technology equipment in order to find threats.
I'm not sure if Barney Fife in Mayberry, NC is our best line of defense.