N670UW
Topic Author
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 9:55 am

Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 11:02 am

I haven't seen this posted anywhere yet.

Here's an article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Colleen Barrett, the president of Southwest.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05132/502929.stm

The funny thing that caught my eye was one of the bullet points at the end of the article, where Barrett remarks about the propsed US/HP merger:

About the prospects of a merger between US Airways and America West Airlines, Barrett said America West Chief Executive Officer Doug Parker and US Airways Chief Executive Officer Bruce Lakefield "must be on drugs. I think they're crazy. I don't know why anybody in today's environment would want to add more woes to what they got. ... I don't know [if] the deal will come to pass."

The article also mentions WN would probably not be in PIT if it weren't for the US Airways cutbacks. With rumors of further cutbacks swirling, WN may have further opportunities in the future. She also mentions her distaste for the Wright Amendment and employees preferring PIT over PHL.

Certainly an interesting read.



N670UW
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 11:28 am

Its in her best interests for them not to merge. This is what's expected.

N
 
slider
Posts: 6805
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 11:29 am

And to think we thought Gordon let it rip!

She's right, and everyone's thinking it...
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15215
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 11:31 am

"Its in her best interests for them not to merge. This is what's expected."

Idunno 'bout that. No one I know in the industry thinks the HP/US merger is a good idea.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
ntspelich
Posts: 740
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 2:35 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 11:32 am

Got to love Mom and her uncanny ability to just tell it how she sees it.

NTS
United 717 heavy, you're facing the wrong way. Any chance you can powerback to get off of my deice pad?
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 11:32 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1):
Its in her best interests for them not to merge. This is what's expected.

Maybe not. According to some folks, the merger would eventually kill both carriers off (and maybe Mesa too, since 75% of their traffic comes from the two airlines). Were that the case, she'd be cheering the merger on...

Don't know if that would actually happen or not, but Ms. Barrett is hardly alone in her opinion...even from folks that -don't- work for SWA...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
September11
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On D

Fri May 13, 2005 11:33 am



No wonder Herb Kelleher liked her ...
Airliners.net of the Future
 
padcrasher
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 11:37 am

They woudn't be in PIT if it were not for US cutbacks but what's the excuse for PHL?

They're now against the Wright Amendment because it's good for consumers but they had no problem lobbying against express train service between Dallas and Houston.?

And of course a sensible merger between HP/US that has protections for HP's cash position is a bad idea?

Sounds self serving to me.
 
September11
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 12:06 pm

sorry that's Colleen Barrett in the picture above .. from Southwest.com

thanks
Airliners.net of the Future
 
commavia
Posts: 9642
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 12:32 pm

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1):
Its in her best interests for them not to merge.

I completely disagree. I think an HP-US merger would be an absolute present for WN. It would distract both companies from their primary competitor -- WN -- and drive (perhaps hundreds) of millions of dollars in integration and cutover costs. In addition, there is no way on earth that a combined US-HP merger would result in an airline with comporable operating costs to WN. If Lakefield and Parker think that's going to happen, then I'm sorry, but Barrett is right -- they are smoking something. They both have much more complex and costly operational systems, US much much more so, and there is no way that they could ever get those down to a level to truly compete on a cost basis with WN. WN is probably praying that US and HP announce a merger!
 
ScottB
Posts: 5413
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 1:14 pm

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1):
Its in her best interests for them not to merge. This is what's expected.

I'm going to throw my opinion with Commavia here -- it's entirely in their best interests for HP and US to merge, especially if they do believe that the merger would be a disaster. I also don't believe that Colleen would be one to prevaricate on this one -- and I don't believe it would be terribly sporting (or in-character) for her to say, "we hope they do merge because we think it would ultimately hasten the failure of two of our competitors."

America West has enough problems to face on its own what with a dwindling cash position. And now they're going to distract themselves from running the business with this merger? I would be livid if I were a shareowner! The costs of integrating the two operations will be huge. Fixing US Airways' high costs won't happen overnight, either, and that won't be cheap. And the clashes over seniority between labor at the two airlines will be ugly.

You do not just combine US Airways and America West and, voila!, end up with a low-cost carrier. AWA stock hit its 52-week low yesterday because Wall Street thinks this is a bad idea.
 
FlyingTexan
Posts: 2998
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 8:30 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 1:37 pm

Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 7):
They woudn't be in PIT if it were not for US cutbacks but what's the excuse for PHL?

Wonder what the US excuse is for $350+ fares walk-up, one way PIT-PHL? On May 4, they all of a sudden lowered their fares to $64 walk-up, one way, all in. Maybe it was those crazy folks from Texas with a bunch of old Boeing 737s with no assigned seats ???

Quoting Padcrasher (Reply 7):
Sounds self serving to me.

Face it - Southwest has been profitable for the past 3+ decades.

You are now free to move about Pennsylvania.
"Wouldn't your boss like to fly home nonstop at 4:30 on a Friday afternoon?" -Airline Exec to Congressional Staffer
 
flyboyaz
Posts: 2077
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 11:32 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 2:03 pm

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 11):
Wonder what the US excuse is for $350+ fares walk-up, one way PIT-PHL?

Ah...because you're flying on a plane...not a Greyhound!
Catch a ride on a smile!
 
ejmmsu
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:05 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Ah...because you're flying on a plane...not a Greyhound!

There had better be a lot of service differentiation for a 300 dollar difference, and quite frankly, there isn't.

Assigned seating aside, the in-flight coach service on US is no better than WN.

This is a senseless argument, just a case of sour grapes.
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
 
flyboyaz
Posts: 2077
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 11:32 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 2:22 pm

No sour grapes.....airfares are too low...it's great for a local market but it's become too common across the country. $64 is a rediculous amount to charge for an airplane ticket...why not just give them away for free? WN has great service, but they have cheapened air travel...in more ways than one.
Catch a ride on a smile!
 
padcrasher
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 2:25 pm

Just take Colleens' word for it . They're only offering $39 OW (below cost) fares between PIT-PHL because US cut down on PIT service. Simple as that.

Southwest is Pope John Paul of the skies.
 
ejmmsu
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:05 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 2:26 pm

No sour grapes.....airfares are too low...it's great for a local market but it's become too common across the country.

WN posts a profit with their fare structure, while offering a comparable coach product.
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
 
flyboyaz
Posts: 2077
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 11:32 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 2:37 pm

Well that's great for them...now what about the rest?

Sounds like the president's social security plan..."I can live without social security payments...why can't you?" BECAUSE I CAN'T AFFORD IT
Catch a ride on a smile!
 
ejmmsu
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:05 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Quoting Flyboyaz (Reply 17):
Sounds like the president's social security plan..."I can live without social security payments...why can't you?" BECAUSE I CAN'T AFFORD IT

What does that have to do with anything. That analogy makes no sense.

And even if it did, does that mean that WN should raise their fares just because their competitors can't compete with them?

That makes even less sense.
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
 
flyboyaz
Posts: 2077
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 11:32 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 2:55 pm

Well competetion is necessary in every business or you would have a monopoly.

But...just because one airline can charge next to nothing for an airline ticket and make money, doesn't mean another can do the same thing. Airfares are the same or lower than they were 20 years ago....EVERYTHING else has gone up in price including gas, landing fees, aircraft costs, employee wages, etc. It's nuts dude.
Catch a ride on a smile!
 
ejmmsu
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:05 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 3:01 pm

Quoting Flyboyaz (Reply 19):
But...just because one airline can charge next to nothing for an airline ticket and make money, doesn't mean another can do the same thing.

Thats why unprofitable businesses die off and are replaced by business that can compete. US can probably never evolve enough to compete with WN, even with their lucrative LGA and DCA slots. This is an ominous sign for them.

Quoting Flyboyaz (Reply 19):
Airfares are the same or lower than they were 20 years ago....EVERYTHING else has gone up in price including gas, landing fees, aircraft costs, employee wages, etc. It's nuts dude.

I agree with that statement. However, it doesn't change the fact that WN has been profitable despite all that. Their competitors have to figure out how to compete with them, or they are doomed to fail. Southwest shouldn't raise their fares just because other airlines can't compete with them.
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
 
SonOfACaptain
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:36 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 3:28 pm

Now, if this person is serious, then she is the one on drugs. She knows that US needs this merger. She knows the industry needs a shakedown and she knows this will start it. Like it or not, WN will rather not have them merge, and don't give me that WN loving bull sh*it that WN would rather have them merge so they can take out "both" of them. WN desperately wants US out of here, and if WN actually focuses on HP, they could so easily take them down, just like every other airline. HP, although at this very moment probably doesn't need this merger, realizes that now is the time to do something because they know there will be a shakedown and they don't want to be let in the dust. Look, the head ponchos at HP ain't no morons. If they feel a merger is the best option, why in the hell should we all believe a bunch of armchair, know-it-all hotshots who believe WN is the greatest thing to happen to the industry. Most of us don't know a thing about the airline industry, and we base our beliefs on what would be best for WN, not the industry.

-SOAC
Non Illegitimi Carborundum
 
SHUPirate1
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 3:40 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 9):
In addition, there is no way on earth that a combined US-HP merger would result in an airline with comporable operating costs to WN.

Hang on a second...if the two airlines merged, and did absolutely nothing but fire the guy who came up with the idea, that airline alone would achieve cost savings. I don't know where you guys come up with the idea that airlines that merge together will have their costs rise. Sure, the integration costs may (likely will) be substantial, but think about it...you only need one management team, and then at stations where they had served jointly, you only need one station manager, half as many supervisors, etc...just that alone, if they stay at their current size, will REDUCE (not add) to their long-term unit costs. That said, if they then elect to be as stupid as to get rid of some of their assets (particularly if they get rid of 733's, 319's, or 320's, as the combined entity would have 104 733's, 96 319's, and 79 320's), THEN you are talking about a CASM raise long-term.
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
ejmmsu
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:05 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 3:48 pm

Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 21):
She knows the industry needs a shakedown and she knows this will start it.

And she certainly understands that the "shakedown" that the industry needs is for profitable carriers to expand and those in bankruptcy to either pull out of it or liquidate. Colleen is simply expressing the same opinion as the majority.

Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 21):
WN desperately wants US out of here, and if WN actually focuses on HP, they could so easily take them down, just like every other airline.

Well, the top two WN operations are also the top two operations for HP. WN offers very competitive fares at both PHX and LAS. WN has proven that they CANT kill off HP. Kudos to HP, for understanding their competition and adjusting their business model accordingly.



US was spoiled being able to charge outrageous fares on walkup tickets. WN moved into PHL and PIT because they knew both markets were thirsting for some LCC competition. The numbers in PHL support the fact that WN lowers fares and stimulates more flying. And the fact that WN is posting a profit in the meantime cannot be ignored.

I can't stand this type of argument. WN is such an efficient and popular airline, that any airport they decide to fly to is going to have lower fares. This in turn hurts airlines that were charging high fares. So does this make WN predatory? Should they just stop expanding because poor little US airways can't compete with them. Even if US dies, they are not going to raise fares to gouge people. WN's fare structure is the same for EVERY CITY THEY SERVE. The don't play favorites like other airlines do.

Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 21):
If they feel a merger is the best option, why in the hell should we all believe a bunch of armchair, know-it-all hotshots who believe WN is the greatest thing to happen to the industry.

They can do whatever they want, but it doesn't change the fact that the numbers simply don't add up. Two wrongs don't make a right. Adding two financially tenuous carriers together is not going to magically make a profitable operation.

As far as armchair, know-it-all hot-shots..........

What are you really trying to say here, that everyone else is wrong and you are right?

People respect WN because they bring fair, equitable pricing to every market they serve. People respect WN because they do all this while posting a profit in an environment where no one else is. People don't respect US because they gouge customers when they can. They have a complex fare scheme that punishes some cities and rewards other cities at the expense of the cities they gouge.

Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 21):
Most of us don't know a thing about the airline industry, and we base our beliefs on what would be best for WN, not the industry.

We want the best for WN because they are a profitable, popular airline that offers great service and low fares to every market they serve.

However, we do want what is best for the industry. If a profitable, popular airline with a track record of fairness replaced an unprofitable, bankruptcy protected airline that has unfair pricing strategies and poor service be bad for the industry. I personally think it would be great for the industry.

If US wants to stick around, all it has to do is become profitable and offer good service and fair pricing. Its not too much to ask, because WN has proven it can be done.

Edited for spelling and grammar.

[Edited 2005-05-13 09:23:37]
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
 
txagkuwait
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 1999 7:39 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 3:58 pm

Congrats, ejm, you've just picked up another respect vote.

It's a shame I couldn't give you two---one for a great post that makes sense, and a second one for having to live in Wichita Falls.

Several years ago, Texas Monthly ran an article about the worst jobs in Texas. Full time resident of Wichita Falls was ranked right there with rendering plant worker and highway button layer.
 
ejmmsu
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:05 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 4:14 pm

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 24):
Several years ago, Texas Monthly ran an article about the worst jobs in Texas. Full time resident of Wichita Falls was ranked right there with rendering plant worker and highway button layer.

Despite all its faults, Wichita Falls has been a great place to grow up. For my money, Its better than Lubbock, Amarillo, San Angelo, Odessa, Midland, Etc.

I also can't stand Houston. But when comparing it to cities like Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio, etc.... there is no comparison.

But alas, my time in Texas is almost up, as I'll be moving to the GSO area in august to start working on my PHD at Wake Forest.

Thanks for the Kudos!!!
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
 
SonOfACaptain
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:36 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 4:29 pm

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 23):
for profitable carriers to expand and those in bankruptcy to either pull out of it or liquidate.

Any airline expanding is not going to help the industry, it may help that one airline, but it won't help the industry.

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 23):
Well, the top two WN operations are also the top two operations for HP. WN offers very competitive fares at both PHX and LAS. WN has proven that they CANT kill off HP. Kudos to HP, for understanding their competition and adjusting their business model accordingly.

True, WN does have major competition against HP, but they are not trying to kill them the way they are against US. Like it or not, WN if they tried with all their might, could kill or or severely weaken anybody. It wouldn't make economical sense (except for US) but they could.

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 23):
WN moved into PHL and PIT because they knew both markets were thirsting for some LCC competition.

Now that is 100% WN BS right there. That is exactly what they want you to think, and you have to give WN credit, they are a public genius.

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 23):
They can do whatever they want, but it doesn't change the fact that the numbers simply don't add up. Two wrongs don't make a right. Adding two financially tenuous carriers together is not going to magically make a profitable operation.

I don't know what numbers you are reading, but apparently it makes sense to some, and may I say very important, people.

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 23):
What are you really trying to say here, that everyone else is wrong and you are right. People respect WN because they bring fair, eqiuitable pricing to every market they serve. People respect WN because they do all this while posting a profit in an environment where no one else is. People don't respect US because they gouge customers when they can. They have a complex fare scheme that punishes some cities and rewards other cities at the expense of the cities they gouge.

No, what I am saying that 99% of us, MYSELF INCLUDED, don't know anything that is going on in the industry to make such confident beliefs and to pronounce that everything US does is stupid.

Most people "respect" WN just because they bring low fares. That's it. Business wise, WN is the most ruthless, backstabbing airline in the industry. WN does a great job hidind this. I personally respect WN because the a freakin smart. The public views about them is amazing because of the genius levels of the guys who run WN.

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 23):
However, we do want what is best for the industry. If a profitable, popular airline with a track record of fairness replaced an unprofitable, bankruptcy protected airline that has unfair pricing strategies and poor service be bad for the industry. I personally think it would be great for the industry.

WN would never replace US. If you think this would be great for the industry, do you not read news that are coming out of the airlines!

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 23):
If US wants to stick around, all it has to do is become profitable and offer good service and fair pricing. Its not too much to ask, because WN has proven it can be done.

Wow, that has to be the most stupid remark in my life, with all do respect. It is soooo much harder than it looks. BTW, US would be making money right now if not for the fuel and WN would be losing money if not for the hedging. WN isn't perfect ya know.

-SOAC

[Edited 2005-05-13 09:29:43]
Non Illegitimi Carborundum
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 4:31 pm

Quoting Flyboyaz (Reply 19):
But...just because one airline can charge next to nothing for an airline ticket and make money, doesn't mean another can do the same thing.

Er, yes it does. If they are offering comparable service levels, they can charge comparable fares. If US wants to differentiate itself from LCC competition, and justify the higher fare, then they should do that, but it will take more than a couple of extra peanuts in the snack pack to justify a USD200.00 fare difference. People want to see real quantifiable value when they pay more money - they want better facilities, better service and a better attitude. This goes for any business, not just airlines, although for airlines it is that much harder, because with the rapid erosion of service over the last 10 years, airlines have reduced themselves and their product to a commodity, with no discernable difference from the customer's point of view. This in turn has led to the customer thinking "Well if I can get a seat on US for USD250.00, or a seat on WN for USD75.00, why should I pay USD175.00 more for what amounts essentially to the same thing - a seat on a plane going more or less where I want, more or less at the time I want." It's called a value proposition, and at the moment the value proposition of the US legacy carriers is virtually nil. What have you got, really ?

- Frequent flyer programs that promise the world but deliver less and less each year.
- First Class. Limited availability at enormously increased cost, for the sake of a couple of inches wider seat, a couple of inches more legroom, and a drink before take-off. For a flight under 3 hours, what's the point ?
- Connecting service to hundreds of cities ? Yes maybe, but through congested, crowded, weather-vulnerable hubs, and with ever greater reliance on smaller and smaller aircraft for all but the trunk routes.
- Assigned seating ? Personally I like it, but would I pay USD175.00 for it ? Na-ah.

The legacy airlines have only themselves to blame for the price-resistance they themselves created with their hugely complicated and illogical fare structures, and now they are reaping their reward.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
ejmmsu
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:05 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 4:53 pm

Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 26):
Any airline expanding is not going to help the industry, it may help that one airline, but it won't help the industry.

According to the statement that you were replying to, I was talking about profitable airlines expanding and non-profitable airlines liquidateing. Why is the expansion of efficient, profitable, and popular airlines and the death of inneficient, unprofitable, and unpopular airlines a bad thing for the industry?

Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 26):
True, WN does have major competition against HP, but they are not trying to kill them the way they are against US. Like it or not, WN if they tried with all their might, could kill or or severely weaken anybody. It wouldn't make economical sense (except for US) but they could.

Why aren't they trying to kill them. Their fare structure in PHX and LAS is exactly the same as the fare structure in PHL and PIT. They are obviously offering introductory fares that are a little lower (just like they do in every new market), but those fares will not last forever. During their "systemwide savings" booking periods, those really low fares are available in every market.

So let me get this straight. WN adding a small number of flights to both PIT and PHL is trying to "kill" US, but having a full scale mini hub in PHX and LAS is not trying to kill HP? If this is what you are trying to say, I would love for you to expand on why you think this is true.

HP went into bankruptcy, and has emerged as a break even carrier in WN's backyard. They proved that you can play with WN in its own backyard if you play your cards right.

Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 26):
No, what I am saying that 99% of us, MYSELF INCLUDED, don't know anything that is going on in the industry to make such confident beliefs and to pronounce that everything US does is stupid.

Well beliefs are just what they are. You believe a merger would be good, I believe a merger would be bad. Neither of us are Aviation insiders, and thats ok. Thats why we have discussions like this to say why a merger would be good or bad. It is not nessiscary to say that we should just quit talking about it because we aren't experts. Neither of us are acting as advisors to the airlines, just people with opinions expressing those opinions in a public forum.

Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 26):
Most people "respect" WN just because they bring low fares. That's it. Business wise, WN is the most ruthless, backstabbing airline in the industry. WN does a great job hidind this. I personally respect WN because the a freakin smart. The public views about them is amazing because of the genius levels of the guys who run WN.

I would love to hear some examples of WN being "Ruthless" and "Backstabbing". I just dont' see it. What is ruthless and backstabbing is charging $1000 dollars for a walkup DFW-MEM fare when a similarly lengthed OKC-STL walkup fare is $112. What is ruthless and backstabbing is a fare system that punishes some cities and rewards other cities at random. WN is fair and equitable. They don't play favorites like other airlines do, and that is a fact. Their fare structure is good for EVERY CITY THEY SERVE. According to their track record, if they became the only airline left, they still wouldn't gouge customers.

But anyway, I think it would be fascinating to discuss some of the instances of WN being ruthless and backstabbing in a business sense. Fell free to post some of them so we can have a general discussion about them.

Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 26):
Now that is 100% WN BS right there. That is exactly what they want you to think, and you have to give WN credit, they are a public genius.

So PHL and PIT were not thirsting for lower fares. Do you think PHL pax were happy with the fact that they were paying 1100 dollar walkup fares on PHL-PVD? According to you, WN is some sort of stalker with a butcher knife looking for its next vicitim. This doesn't make sense.

Again, it goes back to the argument that any WN expansion is predatory. This cannot be true. Should we pass a law forcing WN to quit expanding just because the other airlines cannot handle it? WN publically said that they would not have gone into PIT if there had not been the US pull out. WN saw a need for air service and they filled it. They knew they could be profitable in PHL and PIT because those two markets were fed up with high fares. Its not BS, its the truth. WN does things for business reasons, but they treat every city the same. They don't play favorites.
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
 
ejmmsu
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:05 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 5:06 pm

Sorry, I accidentally sent that post before I had completed it, so here is its completion......

Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 26):
WN would never replace US. If you think this would be great for the industry, do you not read news that are coming out of the airlines!

I never said anything about WN replacing US. All I said was that in a general situation it would be good for the airline industry if a profitable, popular, efficient airline with low fares and a fair pricing strategy were to replace an unpopular, inefficient, bankrupted airline with unfair pricing. Why wouldn't this be a good thing. By attributing this situation to WN and US, are you then admitting that WN is a popular, profitable, and fair airline and US is the opposite of these things.

And again, I think it would be fascinating to discuss some of this "news" coming out of the airlines that says that WN replacing US would be bad for the industry. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm simply saying I'm not familiar with it, and a news search has pulled up nothing. Feel free to give examples or post links when you make generalizations like that.

Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 26):
Wow, that has to be the most stupid remark in my life, with all do respect. It is soooo much harder than it looks. BTW, US would be making money right now if not for the fuel and WN would be losing money if not for the hedging. WN isn't perfect ya know.

Why is this a stupid remark?

I never said it would be easy. In fact, I think US has very little chance of doing it. They don't have the finances to hedge fuel, and their fleet types and route structures are too complex to be able to compete with WN. All I was trying to say there is that airlines can make money with WN's fare structure, because WN can. They simply have to have the right business model. Even if fuel went down, US's business model is still far behind WN's. WN will always make more money on competing routes due to their superior business model.

No, WN is not perfect. They are just "more perfect" than any of their competitors, and that's what counts in the business world.

[Edited 2005-05-13 10:12:39]
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 5:31 pm

Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 26):
Business wise, WN is the most ruthless, backstabbing airline in the industry.

SOAC,

You know, I've been reading your posts for some time now, and I've cranked in more than a fair amount of "slack" given your stated age, assumed maturity level, and the fact that your Dad (and your family) have unfortunately been on the wrong end of changes within the airline industry.

All that said, as someone who's been a SWA employee for longer than you've been alive, your quoted statement above is the biggest crock of bovine fecal material that I've seen in quite awhile. I submit that unless you yourself have been personally involved in business dealings with Southwest, you are completely unqualified to make the assessment that you have made. Otherwise, it's just flailing around, and other assorted sour grapes.

The hows and whys of how your Dad's airline came to be in its present state have been discussed several times over, and should be well known by now. It's not your fault. It's not my fault. It's not Southwest's fault, although it's clear that you've erroneously cast them as the ruthless backstabbing villain here. If that's what it takes to make yourself feel better, go right ahead, but it doesn't make your opinion the reality. You continue to demonstrate that you're too emotionally close to the situation to see that "it's just business" and not an attack on you (and your family) personally.

Best wishes for the future...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
John
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 1999 10:47 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Fri May 13, 2005 11:39 pm

Southwest is a great DOMESTIC U.S. airline with a mediocre (at best) frequent flyer program. If you're flying DOMESTIC, fine, but don't be looking for any partner alliances across the globe you can accrue mileage with, plus routes to major European cities and also an ever expanding Carribean/Central American network of flights to choose from. Does WN fly A330s across the pond?

[Edited 2005-05-13 16:42:33]
 
travelin man
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Sat May 14, 2005 1:35 am

Quoting John (Reply 31):
Southwest is a great DOMESTIC U.S. airline with a mediocre (at best) frequent flyer program. If you're flying DOMESTIC, fine, but don't be looking for any partner alliances across the globe you can accrue mileage with, plus routes to major European cities and also an ever expanding Carribean/Central American network of flights to choose from. Does WN fly A330s across the pond?

Yeah, look how successful that strategy has been for U.....
 
FlyingTexan
Posts: 2998
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 8:30 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Sat May 14, 2005 1:52 am

SOAC –

OPNL summed it up in a diplomatic way. The misfortune of a carrier can be an unintended consequence of Southwest. They don’t actively seek and destroy weak carriers.

Southwest’s reasonable fares have allowed my business to flourish. They have allowed me to do things I wouldn’t otherwise have the opportunity or funds for. As a matter of a fact, proximity to low air fares - particularly Southwest service - is a big factor in me making a decision to go there.

Yesterday, I made 7 bookings to fly to the same destination every other week for late summer and early fall. Unfortunately, the nearest Southwest station is a good 6 hour drive away. I reluctantly gave my business to another carrier. And god forbid, when my plans change, as they oft do, I have to pay the ludicrous $100 change fee plus fare difference – something Southwest doesn’t have. And even worse – if I decide to send a cohort instead, I can’t transfer (change a name) on these tickets – a la Southwest.

One can easily say, buy a full fare then. Well, I checked. And a full fare ONE-WAY is the same cost as Southwest’s top full fare ROUNDTRIP. I took the gamble and went with the $500 ‘deeply’ discounted coach tickets. See why I try to do business where Southwest is present?

Due to the reason first stated, I view ‘Southwest’ as an extension of my family. I have a ‘cult’ like mentality, can-do-no-wrong attitude toward them. Over the years, I have found I am not alone. Southwest has done the same good to other customers as well. They have the similar ‘cult’ like mentality toward Southwest.

I just didn’t wake up one day when I was 17 and think ‘wow – look at those hideous colored boring Boeings!’ As a matter of a fact, when I was 17 I wanted to fly Continental and try out their ‘new’ 757s in 1994. I didn’t set out to fly planes that have those ‘cool’ winglets and no IFE.

Over the last 10+ years I’ve grown closer to WN and am thankful for them. I attribute my success to Southwest and am gracious for what they enabled me to do. I have the utmost respect for them as a corporation (oh and I hate corporations) and their employees.

Over years I developed this view towards them.

This is off topic but I just wanted to state why some people prefer WN and why some people don’t just harvest their opinions of WN from others’ misfortune or IFE or A&E’s Airline. I have formed my opinion of WN over years and years of flying them.

[Edited 2005-05-13 18:55:34]
"Wouldn't your boss like to fly home nonstop at 4:30 on a Friday afternoon?" -Airline Exec to Congressional Staffer
 
slider
Posts: 6805
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Sat May 14, 2005 2:18 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 9):
I completely disagree. I think an HP-US merger would be an absolute present for WN. It would distract both companies from their primary competitor -- WN -- and drive (perhaps hundreds) of millions of dollars in integration and cutover costs.

I would concur with this. You're taking two carriers with different systems, labor VS non-union contracts and those that are unionized with different unions among common workgroups even, and with 2 different products and then throwing them together. WN has to be licking it's chops.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 9):
In addition, there is no way on earth that a combined US-HP merger would result in an airline with comporable operating costs to WN. If Lakefield and Parker think that's going to happen, then I'm sorry, but Barrett is right -- they are smoking something.

Leaving WN out of this now, I say BINGO Commavia.

Methinks the worst characteristics of each will remain, sadly. HP has vey low costs and is squeaking by; adding the albatross of US makes no sense. And every foray US has made out west has been an utter failure.

Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 21):
She knows that US needs this merger. She knows the industry needs a shakedown and she knows this will start it.

I'd echo the idea that shakedown isn't synonymous with merger.
 
John
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 1999 10:47 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Sat May 14, 2005 3:55 am

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 32):
Yeah, look how successful that strategy has been for U...

Quite the contrary, the international routes have been and continue to be the CASH COW for US Airways.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Sat May 14, 2005 6:09 am

Quoting Flyboyaz (Reply 12):
Ah...because you're flying on a plane...not a Greyhound!

And?

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 13):
the in-flight coach service on US is no better than WN.

Not as good really

Quoting Flyboyaz (Reply 14):
$64 is a rediculous amount to charge for an airplane ticket...why not just give them away for free?

Who are you to determine what I should pay for an airline ticket. WN's cost structure allows a certain number of tickets to be sold under each condition. You may see them with fares as low as $19 each way LAX-LAS, but you can bet that if you miss the time for that fare, no matter how full the plane is, the price will go up. If you buy the day before, they will not dump to get seats filled like a "legacy", you will pay the full, refundable, reasonable walk-up.

Quoting Flyboyaz (Reply 14):
WN has great service, but they have cheapened air travel...in more ways than one.

No they haven't. Their service levels have consistantly grown while other carriers have slashed their's. Oh, and I love how people blame industry woes on WN now. I mean, WN was already one of the largest carriers in the world in the late 1990s when airlines like DL and UA were posting BILLION dollar annual profits. It is not WN's fault they f'ed up the good thing they had going and are now in a deep hurt.

Quoting John (Reply 31):
with a mediocre (at best) frequent flyer program

Yeah, because you fly fewer flights to get further and it is purely space available? They have one of the best FF programs
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Junction
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 2:50 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Sat May 14, 2005 6:40 am

From what I read here, I'm guessing that most people would be perfectly happy if the LCC model made famous by WN controlled the entire U.S. domestic air travel system? Is that really true? I sure hope not.
 
SonOfACaptain
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:36 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Sat May 14, 2005 7:23 am

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 28):
According to the statement that you were replying to, I was talking about profitable airlines expanding and non-profitable airlines liquidateing. Why is the expansion of efficient, profitable, and popular airlines and the death of inneficient, unprofitable, and unpopular airlines a bad thing for the industry?

That would be the ideal way, but in the real world, it wouldn't happen like that. Plus, most airlines stuggle and to say the automatically need to die is a bit harsh.

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 28):
Why aren't they trying to kill them.

They aren't trying to kill them. They are competing with them, but that is a diferent thing. Ans yes, WN is without a doubt trying to kill US, and I am NOT talking from my emotions. To tell you the truth, and could care less if US dies. My dad is trying to get hired by a different airline plus he already lost hie retirement, so to say I only want US to live because it would help me is stupid. I want them to live because I feel there is a better option that dying.

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 28):
So let me get this straight. WN adding a small number of flights to both PIT and PHL is trying to "kill" US, but having a full scale mini hub in PHX and LAS is not trying to kill HP? If this is what you are trying to say, I would love for you to expand on why you think this is true.

WN doesn't have to have tons of flights to affect US chances of survival. They realize that once they enter the market, the "Southwest effect" will take place and US would lower all of not most of the fares, something that most def. doesn't help US.

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 28):
HP went into bankruptcy, and has emerged as a break even carrier in WN's backyard. They proved that you can play with WN in its own backyard if you play your cards right.

So why isn't anybody giving US a chance, especially whem the HP guys will be in charge of US.

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 28):
Well beliefs are just what they are. You believe a merger would be good, I believe a merger would be bad. Neither of us are Aviation insiders, and thats ok. Thats why we have discussions like this to say why a merger would be good or bad. It is not nessiscary to say that we should just quit talking about it because we aren't experts. Neither of us are acting as advisors to the airlines, just people with opinions expressing those opinions in a public forum.

Hey, that's why I keep coming back. I love these arguments and the challenge of trying to convince ignorant people like you and I. I don't think we will ever change our minds.

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 28):
I would love to hear some examples of WN being "Ruthless" and "Backstabbing".

Trust me, when you get to see what's happening behind closed doors, you would see how mean they are. I mean come on, just look at PIT and especially PHL. This isn't only happening against US, it is happening against all airlines.

Also, what is up with that WN lady calling the US CEO on drugs. How unprofessional is that.

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 28):
So PHL and PIT were not thirsting for lower fares. Do you think PHL pax were happy with the fact that they were paying 1100 dollar walkup fares on PHL-PVD? According to you, WN is some sort of stalker with a butcher knife looking for its next vicitim. This doesn't make sense.

Once again, that is the story WN wants you to believe.

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 28):
Again, it goes back to the argument that any WN expansion is predatory. This cannot be true. Should we pass a law forcing WN to quit expanding just because the other airlines cannot handle it? WN publically said that they would not have gone into PIT if there had not been the US pull out. WN saw a need for air service and they filled it. They knew they could be profitable in PHL and PIT because those two markets were fed up with high fares. Its not BS, its the truth. WN does things for business reasons, but they treat every city the same. They don't play favorites.

WN is a predator. Enough said. I am not going to argue this anymore because I have stated my case many times before.

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 29):
No, WN is not perfect. They are just "more perfect" than any of their competitors, and that's what counts in the business world.

Amen.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 30):
SOAC,

You know, I've been reading your posts for some time now, and I've cranked in more than a fair amount of "slack" given your stated age, assumed maturity level, and the fact that your Dad (and your family) have unfortunately been on the wrong end of changes within the airline industry.

If you think I am wrong, don't hold up. I am man enough to take any criticism. Also, please don't assume that because I am "younger" that my maturity level is up to yours any others. In fact, there have been many cases in which I have displayed more maturity than 30+ year-olds. Another thing, I don't base any of my opinions with my family situation. I leave that to a personal level, where is is suppose to be.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 30):
All that said, as someone who's been a SWA employee for longer than you've been alive, your quoted statement above is the biggest crock of bovine fecal material that I've seen in quite awhile. I submit that unless you yourself have been personally involved in business dealings with Southwest, you are completely unqualified to make the assessment that you have made. Otherwise, it's just flailing around, and other assorted sour grapes.

With that said, do you think that your opinions can be bias also?

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 33):
OPNL summed it up in a diplomatic way. The misfortune of a carrier can be an unintended consequence of Southwest. They don’t actively seek and destroy weak carriers.

I disagree, but that is my opinion and I won't say you are wrong.

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 33):
Over the last 10+ years I’ve grown closer to WN and am thankful for them. I attribute my success to Southwest and am gracious for what they enabled me to do. I have the utmost respect for them as a corporation (oh and I hate corporations) and their employees.

See, that's the problem with a lot of people. They base their opinions on the costumer side of WN, not the business side. The business side is were I base my opinions on. I know the costumer side is the best in the industry.

Quoting Slider (Reply 34):
I'd echo the idea that shakedown isn't synonymous with merger.

I think a good number of mergers is a huge shakedown.

-SOAC
Non Illegitimi Carborundum
 
txagkuwait
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 1999 7:39 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Sat May 14, 2005 7:23 am

>>From what I read here, I'm guessing that most people would be perfectly happy if the LCC model made famous by WN controlled the entire U.S. domestic air travel system? Is that really true? I sure hope not.<<

You say "I sure hope not." I guess my question is....what would be wrong with that?

You have a carrier with a business model that makes money for its shareholders, employs a lot of people and pays them well for being productive, and provides safe, frequent, dependable airline transportation between major cities and not-so-major cities. Even in places where they have no competition, they embrace a pricing model that stimulates traffic while producing a profit. What, I ask, is so bad about that?

For those people who claim Southwest only flies to real big places...that they "cherry pick" only the most lucrative of routes.....I point them towards Harlingen, Amarillo, and Midland/Odessa. Those cities have multiple 737s a day in and out of there....if Southwest wasn't in the picture it would be strictly RJs (or worse) and it would be extraordinarily high fares.

We could do a lot worse than have the Southwest model across the entire domestic airline industry. In fact, we have and we are.
 
SonOfACaptain
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:36 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Sat May 14, 2005 7:29 am

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 39):
For those people who claim Southwest only flies to real big places...that they "cherry pick" only the most lucrative of routes.....I point them towards Harlingen, Amarillo, and Midland/Odessa. Those cities have multiple 737s a day in and out of there....if Southwest wasn't in the picture it would be strictly RJs (or worse) and it would be extraordinarily high fares.

You also have to point out that those flights have been there a long time, since WN is a TX airline.

-SOAC
Non Illegitimi Carborundum
 
qxq400
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:42 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Sat May 14, 2005 7:55 am

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 16):
WN posts a profit with their fare structure, while offering a comparable coach product.

I am sooooo sick of hearing how profitable WN is.If they are so profitable then why can they not pay there bills?? I know our baggage delivery company recently dropped WN deliveries. It took them 5 month to get paid on a bill that was agreed to be paid monthly.

Take away there fuel hedging and WN is in as much financial trouble as everyone else. WN financail picture is a big house of mirrors nothing more.
This great fascination with WN is sickening. They have hurt the industry beyond all repair. Ask any one of my fellow AAG rampers in SEA.

Signed WN hater.  box 
Welcome baby Madison Renee
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On D

Sat May 14, 2005 7:59 am

Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 38):
If you think I am wrong,

Sigh...

The point remains that you're too emotionally close to the situation to possibly see it in the larger terms and context of the industry as a whole. As you don't, and apparently can't, you then have to go out and make all these wild assertions that SWA does this that and the other thing under the sun with maximum evil intent and malice aforethought. Unless you've been a fly on the wall when SWA biz has been conducted and have actually witnessed things that truly support your anti-SWA claims, your statements are just conjecture and speculation. Your opinions, true, just not necessarily informed ones.

You can continue to make SWA and other LCCs you're own personal boogeyman if you'd like, but that doesn't in any way prove your position beyond it being personal sour grapes of one kind or another. You might want to consider letting it go, and not getting so wrapped around the axle about it all. It's not healthy.

You asked about my bias, as an employee. Sure, there is some, and it's inescapable, but that doesn't change the fact that -others- here (who don't work for SWA) have essentially told you the same things. This should tell you something...

That's my last word on this subject with you.. Good luck..  Wink
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Sat May 14, 2005 8:19 am

Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 40):
You also have to point out that those flights have been there a long time, since WN is a TX airline.

Ok, how about JAN, GEG, MHT, PVD, ISP, ALB, TUS and all the other smaller, non-Texas communities that WN services?
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
txagkuwait
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 1999 7:39 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Sat May 14, 2005 8:24 am

Qxq writes in and says: >>>

"I am sooooo sick of hearing how profitable WN is.If they are so profitable then why can they not pay there bills?? I know our baggage delivery company recently dropped WN deliveries. It took them 5 month to get paid on a bill that was agreed to be paid monthly. " <<<

Well, one thing you have to admit, when they do send you a check, you can take it to the bank and not worry about it being returned NSF. Do you have any idea how many creditors have been burned by US and UA and other airlines who have cloaked themselves in the protection of the bankruptcy courts?

And perhaps your baggage delivery company was in breach of contract? Perhaps they failed to provide the service agreed to. Maybe they did not provide Southwest Airlines Co with an invoice in the agreed to format? How much about this are you not telling us?

>> Take away there fuel hedging and WN is in as much financial trouble as everyone else. WN financail picture is a big house of mirrors nothing more.<<

That has to be one of the funnier comments I have read lately. Have you ever taken a course in managerial finance or accounting? The bottom line is black, the profits, while not huge, continue to roll in, and there's nothing unethical, illegal, or even vaguely dumb about hedging fuel costs to provide some predictability in what your Jet A bill is going to be.

Had Southwest not been hedged, and had they not taken other steps (tweak the prices, juggle the yield management to sell more cheap seats and run that load factor to 80%, chop wages {the popular thing among other airlines these days} - yes, they would have lost a little money in the 1st Quarter. Not a lot, but a little. They would have seen nowhere near the losses experienced by other carriers. But that is assuming their management would have sat idly by and done nothing while they lost money. That's not their usual modus operandi.

Their financial health, though, cannot be compared to other airlines. Southwest debt is considered investment grade.....other carriers debt doesn't even make it to junk bond status. Southwest stock, while not setting the world on fire, is still a safe bet for the portfolio of widows and orphans. Stockholders who owned US or UA can use those certificates to wrap fish, line a bird cage...or, if shredded, is suitable as litter for guinea pigs.

Qxq....you seem bitter about something? Did you interview with Southwest and not get hired?
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On D

Sat May 14, 2005 8:51 am

Quoting Flyboyaz (Reply 14):
why not just give them away for free? WN has great service, but they have cheapened air travel...in more ways than one.

True Story.

Quoting Ejmmsu (Reply 29):
BTW, US would be making money right now if not for the fuel and WN would be losing money if not for the hedging. WN isn't perfect ya know.

US is losing money because of other things too. Doesnt help that they mishandle baggage on a daily basis in large doses!
I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
 
midex461
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2000 11:08 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Sat May 14, 2005 9:47 am

OPNLguy, congratulations on another respect vote! I wish it could be more than one, b/c you deserve it.
It's all too obvious that SOAC blames WN for the woes of his fathers airline. It's a delight to see cooler heads prevail. WN simply has people that REALLY know their stuff in charge.

And to SOAC (and the rest of y'all), my father is currently an FO with DL. Heaven knows that DL isn't in the best shape in the world. Do I blame WN or FL for that condition? No, I put the blame squarely where it belongs - on the inept managers running DL.
Opinions and views expressed are MINE and do NOT represent the views of US Airways
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Sat May 14, 2005 10:13 am

Quoting Midex461 (Reply 46):
OPNLguy, congratulations

Thanks.. I feel for the guy, I really do. You're the 3rd or 4th person who has taken the same stance, so maybe he'll see that it's not a personal conspiracy against him.

A quote from the article...

"While she argued Southwest did not cause the problems now faced by US Airways and other older carriers: "We would be foolish not to take advantage. Because if we don't, someone else will."

Like I said earlier, it's just business, nothing more, nothing less.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
goingboeing
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Sat May 14, 2005 10:55 am

Several years ago there was a 60 minutes piece on "Herb and his airline". They interviewed Ed Beauvis (sp), who was then CEO of America West and he whined "Delta doesn't try to put American out of business...but Southwest tries to put America West out of business". Herb's response - "not true at all...if we were, we would have".

U and UAL are the problem with this industry...in bankruptcy either once for two years or twice in two years, not paying bills, and offering ridiculously low fares to maintain "market share" and full loads in an environment where there are too many seats. IF even one of those airlines folds, it only makes the others stronger...not just Southwest, but the other majors who AREN'T in bankruptcy. However unpleasant that sounds, it's the truth.
 
douwd20
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 3:45 am

RE: Colleen Barrett: US CEO Lakefield Must Be On Drugs

Sat May 14, 2005 10:59 am

Can anyone think of one successful merger in the past 15 years? One that didn't ultimately involve job losses and retrenchment?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: An767, Baidu [Spider], dk44, DoktorR, dstc47, GCT64, hyd09l27r, Jetty, LazarosK, lollomz, MrHMSH, oslmgm, Pohakuloa, QANTAS747-438, Roadcruiser1, shamrock350, tommy1808 and 291 guests