Lindy field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3086 posts, RR: 15 Posted (11 years 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 1842 times:
Southwest Announces Further Growth Plans; Airline Plans More New Flights for June
DALLAS, March 13 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- In a continuing effort to cautiously grow the airline, Southwest Airlines' (NYSE: LUV) officials today
announced the carrier will add five new daily flights to its schedule in June.
The new service will be made possible by two previously deferred deliveries of aircraft from The Boeing Co. The June deliveries will allow the
airline to begin three new nonstop flights between Chicago Midway and San Diego. Southwest also will add two additional nonstop flights between Phoenix
and Orange County.
With these two additional aircraft, Southwest will have accepted delivery of 14 aircraft in 2002, bringing its fleet to a total of 366 Boeing 737 aircraft. These 14 aircraft are part of the 19 aircraft deliveries deferred
On June 9, 2002, Southwest will initiate new nonstop service between Chicago Midway and San Diego with three daily nonstop flights. A seven-day
advance purchase fare of $89 each way based on a roundtrip purchase is available on this new nonstop service through June 9.
On the same day, Southwest also will add two daily nonstop flights between Phoenix and Orange County, bringing to five the total of daily nonstop
roundtrip flights between the two cities.
"We believe there is a demand for this new nonstop service," said Jim Parker, Southwest's CEO and vice chairman. "While we continue to recover, we
want to keep Customer demand for low-cost, convenient flights top of mind."
The fare for the new nonstop flights between Chicago Midway and San Diego is $89 each way with a roundtrip purchase and overnight stay required (any
night). Travel at this fare must be completed by Aug. 3, 2002. The fare is for the nonstop flights only. Tickets must be purchased at least seven days
before departure and within one day of making reservations. Fares do not include segment fees of $6 roundtrip, airport-assessed passenger facility
charges of $6 roundtrip, and a government-imposed September 11 Security Fee of $5 roundtrip. Tickets are nonrefundable but (except for tickets purchased
through our Group Tickets program) may be applied toward the purchase of future travel on Southwest Airlines. Seats are limited and may not be
available on some flights that operate during peak or holiday travel times.
Fares are subject to change until ticketed, and any change in itinerary could result in an increase in the fare.
Southwest currently serves 59 airports in 58 cities in 30 states. Based in Dallas, Southwest currently operates more than 2,700 flights a day.
This is not a great surprise to me. San Diego seemed like a natural choice for service from MDW. I suspect, however, that Southwest's decision to offer this service means that ATA is a bit less likely to begin flights on this same route.
San Diego's summer schedule is beginning to shape up. New services offered this year include:
A daily flight to Boise with Horizon.
3 daily CRJ flights to Phoenix on America West--in addition to their mainline flights
3 daily flights to Midway on Southwest
AA will upgrade its midday flight to JFK from 738 to 757/762/763 on various days this summer.
Hope to see more. Still waiting for Southwest to announce a few flights from SAN to RNO.
LoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3751 posts, RR: 36 Reply 1, posted (11 years 9 months 19 hours ago) and read 1738 times:
They seem to have started at SEA, then went down the WestCoast hitting all the major cities - OAK, LAX, now SAN. I wonder why they skipped PDX, though? Not enough demand between that city pair?. I sure would like to see MDW-AUS and MDW-SAT next.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7860 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1678 times:
With WN opening that new terminal at MDW, they now have the ability to seriously hurt UA on Chicago to US West Coast flights. I do know that OAK-MDW and LAX-MDW are confirmed starting in early May; I think SJC-MDW is being planned.
And now, I wonder will WN be bold enough to establish COS as their next destination and REALLY take on UA at their DEN fortress hub.
Deltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1617 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1627 times:
I don't think this will really hurt UAL. This will probably only motivate people to fly who probably would not have flown at all. So UAL/AA won't know the difference. Those that travel on a frequent enough basis from Chicago to the west would never give up the FF miles for WN.
CactusA319 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2918 posts, RR: 27 Reply 8, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1606 times:
Yeah I agree with DeltaFlyertoo. This move would probably increase traffic to the LA area from Chicago, but wouldn't take too much more away from UA and AA. They have their passenger base all set, what with FF programs and people who turn their noses on low-fare carriers. Also, even though MDW is in Chicago, it's almost like a completely different market. Low-fare airlines operate almost exclusively at MDW, and most people from the South and West side as well as suburbs in that area prefer MDW over driving up to ORD.
SWA would capture mostly leisure travelers, folks looking for bargains, and buisness travelers on tight travel budgets. But there is room for them to operate in harmony alongside AA and UA at neighboring ORD.
TxAgKuwait From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1803 posts, RR: 45 Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1590 times:
I swear, people still don't get it.
Everyone thinks that Southwest carries only leisure travelers...or people that would not have flown. They honestly believe that business travelers do not fly Southwest.
I've read it here, on other message boards, and heard other airline employees say this. Nothing is further from the truth.
If you have spent any real time on Southwest's aircraft going someplace, you come to realize that the airplane is chock full of businessmen (and women).
Smart businesses realize that money not thrown away on airplane tickets for their employees accrues directly to the bottom line. Since most businesses are in business to make a profit, well, it generally behooves them to encourage/require/mandate that their employees fly on whoever provides the best fare.
Granted, there are some folks out there who are exceedingly anal or have some sort of status complex that would cause them to want to shell out more money for a plane ticket than is necessary, but their numbers are dwindling.
Thus, Southwest nonstops between San Diego and Chicago should do very well, they will pull traffic off of other carriers as well as generating new traffic in that marketplace.
And the fares the other airlines can get away with charging will fall, too. So for United et al, this is a lose-lose proposition. They are gonna have to cut their fares to match Southwest, which is going to bring in less money, and they are going to see some of their traffic defecting to Southwest, which will further erode the amount of revenue they are bringing in.
Deltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1617 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1569 times:
I disagree with you on business travelers and WN. WN may carry the business travelers but that is primarily going to remain on the short haul. Business travelers come from lucrative corporate accounts. I.E. Motorola, Johnson and Johnson, Ford, P&G, etc. Each airline has a team of Account Executives that call on these companies individually and maintain corporate accounts. Johnson and Johnson for example has agreements with Continental, UAL and AA. So this means when the company sends staff to travel, they go to their travel dept. and are automatically placed on one of these 3 airlines. SW avoids SABRE, the leading industry booking tool with agencies. On long routes like Chicago to SAN, you aren't going to see business flyers leaving UAL/AA for WN. The only business flyers you will get are those with smaller companies looking for the price difference. Again, like I said in another post, these are people that would not fly anyway.
UAL/AA and the other big majors have the business market totally cornered. They have up to ten year contracts with these firms. Those that do have contracts with WN for the shorthauls will probably see some interesting incentives from the other majors to keep their employees flying the long haul Chicago routes with them.
BTW, if you look at price comparisons, a cross country flight on WN is often more expensive than CO, UAL, AA. So WN will serve a niche with this but this won't be the ultimate prize for them with business travelers.
Av8trxx From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 657 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1554 times:
As predicted a few weeks ago, SAN-MDW is now a reality. The longhauls out of SAN to MDW are always at least 80% full, so this will bust things wide open.
As far as frequent flyers: What company expense account in these troubled economic times can afford to pay for all those higher priced only 4 roundtrips booked via the internet on SWA gets them a free RT ticket!? The free spending days of corportate air travel are not what they used to be, and the incredible amount of briefcase travelers has only increased on SWA. I will bet that the aftershocks of 9-11 and the tightening budgets of many corporate travel depts will keep those Rapid Rewards reps very busy...
FATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5738 posts, RR: 16 Reply 13, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1551 times:
The only business flyers you will get are those with smaller companies looking for the price difference. Again, like I said in another post, these are people that would not fly anyway.
Not completely true. Money isn't the only decider. The last time I was in Chicago on business, I was in meetings near Midway. My company would pay any F or Y fare to get me to my next meeting in LA. But it made no sense to drive to ORD. Using connections out of Midway to add to elite status and risk missing the next meeting was out of the question. So I booked on ATA. Next time it will probably be on WN.
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
TxAgKuwait From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1803 posts, RR: 45 Reply 14, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1526 times:
Like I said, you just don't get it.
DL, UA, U, AA etc etc don't get it either.
They haven't decided whether to fiddle while Rome burns, or to burn Rome and then fiddle. What I mean is....they have sat there for 25 yrs and watched Southwest grow from a Texas intrastate with less than a dozen airplanes (in 1977) to a company that within 3 or 4 years will be the leading passenger carrying airline in the United States.
Business people do fly Southwest. That's why they are profitable. The other airlines like to think business people don't fly Southwest. That might have a lot to do with their current financial status.
I said it 4 years ago back on PlaneBusiness.Com before Holly turned that in to a "pay to play" site.....in the future, all airlines will either be Southwest or they will be extinct.
While the old adage "the future is now" is not exactly true, it's a lot closer to true than some of the gee-whiz management at U, UA, DL, or AA might like to admit.
Ncflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 449 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1518 times:
Let me ad my own 2 cents.
This has got to hurt UA and AA very badly. Every one of their high yield ORD markets is slowly going by the wayside. Let's say UA keeps all its Motorola, J and J, Kraft, etc. business and only loses 2% of its high paying business travelers to WN. Let's not forget that airlines are a hugely fixed cost business, so even losing a little marginal business to WN, like a mere 2%, kills revenues without doing anything to costs, so profits fall big time. And I think 2% is way too conservative, cause AA and UA will have to drop fares to compete with WN. If you don't believe me on this, compare walk up and advance fares on UA to let's say PVD or Manchester with UA to let's say PHL or EWR or Richmond. I don't know the answer, but I'll bet I can guess. And as someone else said, show me a corp. travel manager who would rather have their guys travel on UA or AA with higher fares, and I'll show you a travel manager I would show the door to. It's their job to keep costs low, not to protect employee FF miles
Bicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1499 times:
If given a choice, this business traveler will not fly Southwest. The boarding process sucks, most of the passengers don't have a clue (as I've said before, it's the Jerry Springer audience) and the price difference won't make a difference to most multi billion dollar companies. Yes, there are business travelers on Southwest, but they aren't coming from larger, profitable companies, unless there's no alternative. I fly a lot. ....over 100K on United/Star three years running and I think United is wonderful. After long days and frequent cities on one trip, I like to know where I'm sitting, have more legroom, be upgraded and enjoy being away from the Jenny Jones fans by retreating to a Red Carpet Club. Yes, I'm glad Southwest is there as an alternative, but it's not my choice. San Diego to Chicago...United is my choice.
Mbird139 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 37 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1494 times:
in the future, all airlines will be either be Southwest or they will be extinct
You can't be serious . Sorry, but I want my assigned seat/meal/IFE that Southwest does not offer. And I can guarantee you I am not the only one that thinks this way. If you don't believe me, check out Flyertalk. As for business travelers flying Southwest, yes, many do. I have seen very full planes of them traveling between AUS-HOU and AUS-DAL, so I will give you that, but your quoted statement above is way off base.
TxAgKuwait From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1803 posts, RR: 45 Reply 18, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1481 times:
The problem, as i see it....
is that there are folks who sit there and say they have to have that assigned seat (one of these days I am gonna have to give a history lesson on how assigned seats came to be...it had nothing at all to do with providing addl service to the passenger)....or some sort of in flight entertainment (although I'll be damned if I've ever been entertained on AA between DFW & COS)
there are not enough folks who demand those things to keep the other so-called major airlines solvent.
I expect there will be a place for the major airline that can connect you three times and carry you from Valdosta, Georgia to Bryan/College Station, Texas or from Manhattan, Kansas to Flagstaff, Arizona.
But not a very big place.
The hub and spoke system can't withstand the assault or desirability of nonstop service. That is how Southwest has slain their competitors in and out of MCI. By flying people where they want to go nonstops. Businessmen might want an assigned seat, but I daresay that businessmen would probably throw that assigned seat over the side if they had to make connections and suffer layovers to get it.....if a pleasant nonstop with a reserved (albeit unnasigned) seat was available.
Somebody might be able to make the Southwest concept work with assigned seats. There is no law saying that it can't. What is going to go away, though, is the gouging, raping, and pillaging of business travelers in this great land of yours and mine. The airlines that have persisted in making a few bucks by putting it to their best customers are not going to get away with it.
Charging a businessman a few extra bucks for the convenience of a last minute seat is okay and makes good business sense. Charging him 8 times what you charge your advance purchase ticketholders, though, enters the theater of the absurd.
JonPaulGeoRngo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1481 times:
Well bicoastal are us "LUVers" more like Jerry Springer or Jenny Jones? I'm confused. Heck, the folks I sat next to on WN the other day from ABQ-HOU were as "Blue Blood" as one could possibly be. I guess the old addage is true "Rich people get rich by not spending money."
I'll make sure I pack "my clues" next time I unfortunately wind up on American, United, Delta and the rest of pick pocket carriers.
Mbird139 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 37 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1474 times:
The hub and spoke system is here to stay. You can't tell me that airlines, including Southwest, would want to start flights between AMA-MEM or AMA-CLT or AMA-FLL and expect to make money on them (not picking on Amarillo, just an example). This is why the hub systems work very well. As for Southwest "slaining" competition at MCI, well, the last time I checked, Vanguard and Midwest Express were adding flights from this market as well. Remember, many flights on Southwest that leave MCI originate in other cities (especially MDW) and that helps the load factors also
N521NA From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 511 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1451 times:
Wow... so many spoiled people in here! IFE? Nothing beats reading a good book!
Meals? That stuff is just plain nasty. You really enjoy that stuff Mbird?
The boarding process is very organized and I've never had a problem with it. Most if not all people DO know what to do at boarding. The Southwest employees explain the boarding procedure to newcomers very well.
About legroom... last I checked UA gives you 32" seat pitch in economy. Southwest gives you around 34".
KAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1958 posts, RR: 34 Reply 23, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1451 times:
Yes, the extra "service" you get on delta, united, american on short hauls (read: Non-Trans Altantic) is PURE CRAP. Just a whiff of the food they serve induces vomitting more quickly than syrup of epicac.
And oh, Delta and American's LUXURIOUS Fokker 100's, MD-80's, and MD-90's certainly have state of the art entertainment systems.......bravo....same goes for and ua, co. You get no more entertainment on these flights than you would on southwest. Besides, if you want entertainment, bring your Laptop or a cd player with headphones. Heck, even buy one of those portable DVD player with a built in monitor. It would more than pay for itself after three or four trips on WN.
If you are willing to pay twice as much for the same product just because of "snob appeal", why not put the money you could save to good use by donating it to a charity? That would be far more rewarding than blowing dough so you can tell yourself how much better you are than the mere common folk. It's just a waste.
For those that bash WN pax:
WN's passengers are FAR FAR FAR FAR more pilot than the people I encounter on United, both employees and customers. UAL usually has the rudest passengers on it, but maybe that's just because they're mostly from the northeast, I dunno.
No impossible to find seats.
No Incredibly rude passengers.
No vomit inducing meals.
No Snobby Holier than thou Pricks.
All very good reasons NOT to fly United. All very good reasons to fly Southwest.