Bo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (15 years 8 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1293 times:
This post refers to regional competition between Southwest Airlines and American Airlines, particularly on commuter routes within the state of Texas (both airlines are Dallas based by the way).
Within Texas, SWA has made a lot of money on business routes such as HOU-AUS, HOU-DAL, AUS-DAL, etc. It has been effective for two main reasons: low cost walk up fares and accessibilty to airports which are closer to city centers. Dallas Love Field, for example, is only about 5 miles from downtown Dallas. The concept is similar to the "Shuttle" concept of US and DL on the northeast corridor but without actually calling it that.
In 1998, American Airlines decided to take on SWA by introducing 14 daily nonstops between DAL and AUS and a similar number between DAL and HOU, employing MD-80 and occasionally Fokker F100 aircraft. Only an airline like AA could afford such a ballsy manuever, and it turned out to be one of their biggest flops yet. The higher-ups just couldn't figure out why their MD-80's were leaving with a full complement of about 4-5 passengers while SWA was full time after time, day after day. At one point they tried reducing the fares to as low as $29-$39 round trip but to no avail.
Recently, they have substituted the ERJ-135/145 on these routes which has brought down operating costs significantly but passenger loads remain dismal despite equal pricing with that of Southwest. This is a great example of how image can mean so much to an airline towards reeling in that prized passenger.
My question is this: Why doesn't AA simply give up? I know an ERJ can turn a profit with a small pax load but this service doesn't seem profitable in the long run. The gutsy arrogance which characterized AA's swooping into the market has really been a disaster for the airline but they still continue the service?
But this is just one example. Does anyone know of any other sectors where SWA is killing Regional service of the big boys?
Why do the airlines continue to fight SWA?
Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 43
Reply 1, posted (15 years 8 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1177 times:
United is feuding with WN in most of the West Coast Shuttle by United routes.
Delta Express and USAirways MetroJet were both set up to combat Southwest.
Why? Can't be anything more lofty than the perpetual pursuit of the almighty dollar.
Hypermike From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1001 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (15 years 8 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1175 times:
The other carriers don't get it. You can't just repaint your planes and call it a new product. It's not that easy. Southwest has carved a whole new phenomenon in our flying society.
MetroJet was launched as a single-class, low-frills carrier. However, when they first started, most flights went through their BWI hub. That's just like the United Shuttle flights going through DEN or SFO. Southwest does point-to-point, going to lots of places from lots of places. If one airport gets shut down, Southwest has other options to reroute customers. The others have a harder time.
The other thing is aircraft utilization. An airplane on the ground isn't making money. Southwest keeps their planes on the ground no more than 20-30 minutes. I'd like to see United or US Airways pull that one off for every flight.
Southwest also knows where they SHOULD NOT serve. They avoid congested airports or those that suffer serious delays. Why the heck is MetroJet going into BOS or ATL? That's insane!
A while back, I wrote a post about why I think Southwest is so successful. You'll find it here.
Tcttx From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (15 years 8 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1157 times:
To set the record straight...
AA began service DAL-AUS with 14 trips using MD80 & F100s. AA did not serve DAL-HOU. When AA couldn't fill the MD80s, they went to all F100s, and subsequently now the ERJs.
AA was (re-)establishing a presence at DAL, in case the airport is opened to longer-haul flying, which will probably happen. That was more important than competing w/ WN on the route. AA wanted facilities at DAL in the event they felt necessary to compete w/ longer-haul flights from there in the future.
Bo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (15 years 8 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1158 times:
Interesting.....you are correct there was no DAL-HOU service but I believe there was AUS-HOU service.
While they may be establishing a presence at DAL, aren't they still losing quite a bit of money on the routes in addition to the amount they have lost already? Will the Wright Amendment be repealed allowing long haul into DAL? If so, wouldn't this be a greater boon to SWA than to American?
AA already has extensive ops out of DFW? Why would they care about long haul out of Love Field?
It seems like AA is making a mistake by just jumping into the market in this haphazard way.
RL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4856 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (15 years 8 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1163 times:
I shall tell you all the tale of what happened at PVD. SW came here is 1996 when the airport has 2.4 million passengers. When AA heard word of SW comming they threatened to pull out but it was all talk. though they did drop 1 flight. As time went on for the major airlines pax skyrocketed but yields dropped. Now for 1999 PVD his 5.15 million growth has slowed alittle as expected but the airport is expected to maintian higher than average growthi belive around 8% was estimated for the next 10 years. Since then We have seen a larget split into which airlines are "good" and wich are "bad" All Airlines show strong growth but only some show good plans towards the future. UAL posted 50% growth for 1999 at PVD CO posted near 30% as did AA. UAL and CO both have intent on expanding. A DEN flight by UAL as well as upgrade to CRJ's is possible this year. CO just upgraded a ERJ to a 737 on CLE and might add a 2nd IAH flight. AA on the other hand has HUGE demands for both DFW and MIA neither fo which they serve. PVD is actually the largets market in the US for DFW that doesnt have n/s service and MIA is in the top 10. The Rhode Island Airport Corp has met with AA twice petitioning for DFW and MIA service yet both tiems they have refused my guess it due to the "Southwest effect" But if AA dont want to do it whe they have HUGE potential hey it is their own loss. SW already serves HOU in TX and SW can serve FLL just N. of MIA if AA wont do it, We arent gonna wait for them, were gonna go right on without em. Delta and USairways also dont add flights due to low yields. Good examples of this are how BOS has had a large Metrojet expansion as well as Delta express to attemp to combat SW but arent winning.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
Tcttx From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (15 years 8 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1152 times:
I guess AA felt the $$ lost on the DAL-AUS flights was worth the potential for getting in at DAL before the floodgates are opened as they feel will happen if the Wright Ammendment is repealed. I think AA is just too protective of its regional traffic from the DFW area that they believe they must compete on long haul service from DAL if that happens.