AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:03 am

WN has to make changes necessary for its future and those changes necessary are just not always going to be what may have helped WN get to the point it is today; I think Gary Kelly is just the right person who understands this and for WN’s sake, I’m glad he’s at the helm right now because this is undoubtedly going to turn out to be a significant point in WN’s history.

I think assigned seating is all but paramount and I would even venture to include IFE is as just as important, because while WiFi is a good place to start I think by ten years from now all new pax airliners will have them standard and carriers like VX will make WN's service look downright shabby – WN already admits that when it will be competing in markets alongside VX they will have to do more than just offer comparable pricing to be competitive. I personally despise the current cattle call boarding philosophy as I am one who does not enjoy sitting in traffic on the road home from work and so the last thing I want to do when I travel by air is wait in a long line when I'm boarding just so I don't have to sit in the middle seat!

I think WN has to go into MSP as its next destination - the market is very large as is and all indications point to it growing exponentially in the future as well evident by the MAC’s new runway at MSP that they recently opened 18 months ago. I think now is opportune for WN to enter the MSP area as the consumers have very little love for NW - it would be the epitome of the WN effect when they enter that market.

In regards to another aircraft type or size, I disagree that WN needs a slightly smaller sized aircraft to go into all the small markets, though. Typically those markets are just not terribly lucrative but than again, that's XE's mission statement right now. If anything, WN should simply form a subsidiary company like AMR and American Eagle, and operate and manage that company as a partner yet separate entity if anything.

Conversely, I believe that WN needs to go the opposite direction with regards to another size/type aircraft, rather I would recommend a 737-800 type/sized aircraft to supplement WN's fleet. For example, WN has like 30 flights a day in DAL-HOU where as they could operate the same numbers of people on 20 flights of a 738, still accomplish the frequency necessary for their business model in that important market, and save a lot of money operating an otherwise very similar aircraft to their 73G/W's. In that regard I say they WN should buy SY and put their 10 738's into immediate service while also utilizing all of SY's gates at the Humphrey terminal at MSP.

With aircraft like 739ER's, that would be an opportunity for WN to consider select international routes on it's own metal, but then again if they really wanted to go international on their own metal they may be better off starting their own separate subsidiary airline comprised of just 787's and use them to begin the inevitable US LCC long-haul industry. WN could place an order for say 20 787's and use them to launch an entirely separate company with WN still the parent; it is oft rumored that FR is already trying to do this with EI across the pond to the US should he eventually be able to acquire the company, and Gary Kelly has already specifically spoken about the benefit of having an international long haul product to help one's revenues when the domestic numbers aren't doing as well, evident by numerous US legacy carriers success overseas right now.

As for taking on F9 at DEN, if I were F9 I'd be looking for a merger with B6 as I think that would be a great combination and perhaps the only way either carrier is still in the air ten years from now. Once that happened, if I were FL I'd be open to a DL merger as well.

[Edited 2007-07-03 02:31:45]
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:22 am

Mostly, I agree with what Boyd says here. One thing he doesn't address is the how to cope with the increasing crew costs and fuel costs. I do agree that Southwest does need a second aircraft type. They will eventually run out of 737-sized markets.

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
f anything, WN should simply form a subsidary company like AMR and American Eagle, and operate and manage that company as a partner yet seperate entity.

I hope not. Wholly-owned regionals have not been terribly successful of late. Further, I really don't care to imagine what the working conditions at a low cost carrier's lower cost regional would look like. Also, no one has been able to successfully demonstrate to me how owning and operating two companys with two sets of infrastructure is cheaper than operating just one to do the same amount of work.

Good luck to Southwest, if the Skybus model succeeds, I think they will find themselves caught uncomfortably in the middle.
Proud OOTSK member
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11830
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:42 am

Boyd is always pointing out how WN's strategy isn't working... We've seen this before.

Yet WN keeps the cattle call... why? Customers will tolerate it for the low fares partially enabled by the fast turn times of the cattle call...  scratchchin 

I think the best thing for WN is to ignore the Boyd group.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 1):

Good luck to Southwest, if the Skybus model succeeds, I think they will find themselves caught uncomfortably in the middle.

If Skybus works, WN will have to adapt fast... but so will every other airline. There won't be much middle... there will be a bunch of airlines imitating skybus and far fewer with "premium" service that just doesn't deserve the name.

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
Can you imagine how exciting it would be for WN to place an order for say 20 787's and use them to launch an entirely seperate company with WN the parent

Umm... what exactly is WN doing with TZ if not pursuing longer haul flights via their partnership? (e.g., Hawaii). WN's a step ahead. They have their 2nd airline already. If WN wants TZ to order twenty 787's... TZ will get the funds and order them.  Wink

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
As for taking on F9 at DEN, if I were F9 I'd be looking for a merger with B6 as I think that would be a great combination and perhaps the only way either carrier is still in the air ten years from now. Once that happened, if I were FL I'd be open to a DL merger as well.

It would work... except for F9's unions... B6 crew would in no way support a merger due to their non-union preference. (Talk to the B6 crews... they're happy as is.)  Sad I'm sad, as it would be a great merger from an equipment and route standpoint. (DEN for B6, A320's for F9 with A319's for other routes. And the synergy of the two networks would be great... but the merging of the crews will probably kill the deal)

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:44 am

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
With aircraft like 739ER's, that would be an opportunity for WN to consider select international routes on it's own metal,

I don't understand this when the 73G already has more range than the 9ER's.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:10 am

Those who can DO. Those who can't consult.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
AA737-823
Posts: 4898
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 11:10 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:29 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 2):
Customers will tolerate it for the low fares partially enabled by the fast turn times of the cattle call...

What low fares?
Sometimes, WN is cheap. Other times, not. Booking tickets for my parents, Dallas-ABQ. AA, a legacy carrier with all that goes with it, is over $20 cheaper per person. Also, WN only allows their lowest fares on this route in the wee hours of the morning or evening... while American's fares are consistent (in this case) for all flights offered.

That's just one example, and I'd say it's fifty-fifty, but the point is, don't be so quick to assume Southwest is cheaper, because, more often than not, they're par for the course.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:10 am

AirRyan, it's typically a good idea to provide a link and some introductory context when quoting someone:

http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:24 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):
AirRyan, it's typically a good idea to provide a link and some introductory context when quoting someone:

http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm

I had a link originally but I guess I lost it when I was editing my post for grammar; thanks for the link.
 
AlexPorter
Posts: 1655
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:10 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:04 pm

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
In that regard I say they WN should buy SY and put their 10 738's into immediate service while also utilizing all of SY's gates at the Humphrey terminal at MSP.

I hope not. While I otherwise wouldn't mind WN coming to MSP, SY offers generally low fares like SY, but a better product, including assigned seats (although open seating is nice if you can get on first - on Ryanair I was able to get an excellent exit row seat, which are often hard to get with assigned seating) and a hot sandwich, for example. Last I checked, WN wasn't big into food. Of course, WN exceeds SY in some regards, including network reach and a mileage program.

Not to mention that SY has a first-class section, whereas WN does not.

Personally, I think WN should go to CLT first - US Airways is probably hated more in CLT than NW is in MSP, and CLT doesn't have an LCC hub or focus city operation (like ATL and MSP do). WN should be able to do fine in CLT if they grow fast enough. Of course, CLT is a smaller market than MSP, but I suppose SLC would be a good comparison here - Charlotte and Salt Lake City have relatively small metro areas to be supporting major legacy hubs, but WN does fine at SLC, so I imagine it would do fine at CLT.
Last Flight: SCX701 MSP-PHX B738 8Jan2008
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11428
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:10 pm

Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 8):
Personally, I think WN should go to CLT first - US Airways is probably hated more in CLT than NW is in MSP, and CLT doesn't have an LCC hub or focus city operation (like ATL and MSP do). WN should be able to do fine in CLT if they grow fast enough.

There's no space at CLT for WN.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
sccutler
Posts: 5568
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:37 pm

IFE, yes, and soon. Expect it.

Assigned seating? For each person you find craving it, you'll find three or four who oppose it and prefer Southwest's open seating model. It is especially popular with Southwest's core travelers, full-fare business travelers who often book on only a day's notice or so. It may come, likely as a necessary accommodation of connecting passengers from whatever international deal is made, but it is by no means universally sought.

By the way, I have yet to see a boarding line for a carrier with assigned seating that was not a cattle call.

Skybus and its ilk are not competition for Southwest; WN's bread and butter are business travelers who require and receive premium air transportation service from Southwest. Skybus is exclusively focused on leisure travelers. Utterly different targets.

As for fares, rather than comparing AA's limited-availability long-lead fares on a city pair with competition, compare low-competition pairs of similar length. Some airlines resist the urge to jack up fares just because they dominate a pair, others do not; the ones which do not are showing respect for their customers, and earning loyalty in the bargain.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
PavlovsDog
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:28 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:28 pm

I agree that WN should be looking at smaller aircraft for smaller markets. Right now the best candidate is the Q-400.

If I were WN I would approach a manufacturer, Bombardier and ATR lead the list, and ask them to develop a turbo-prop specifically for their needs.

A three-member family of turbo-props with 75-100-125 seats and low operating costs would be ideal not only for new smaller markets but also many of WN's current shorter routes. I can see such an aircraft having a significant cost advantage not only over WN's own jets but over competitors. They could lock-up the first 150 production slots and rake in the cash.
 
keesje
Posts: 8749
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:37 pm

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
I think WN has to go into MSP as its next destination - the market is very large as is and all indications point to it growing exponentially in the future as well evident by the MAC’s new runway at MSP that they recently opened 18 months ago. I think now is opportune for WN to enter the MSP area as the consumers have very little love for NW - it would be the epitome of the WN effect when they enter that market.

So NW will look were competition would be most damaging for WN & start cheap full service A321 flights there ?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
SWALoveField
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:49 pm

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:25 pm

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
For example, WN has like 30 flights a day in DAL-HOU where as they could operate the same numbers of people on 20 flights of a 738, still accomplish the frequency necessary for their business model in that important market,

I don't think the Boyd Group gets it (WN).

I'm a business traveler with business in both Dallas and Houston (Not to mention Austin, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, etc). I live less than 2 miles from DAL. WN's frequencies, ease of everything (and I mean everything from parking to check in, etc.) and cost make it the ONLY choice for me.

WN gets me. The Boyd Group does not.

Robb
Dallas, TX
 
Bohlman
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:52 pm

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:00 pm

Shows a fundamental lack of understanding for the WN model.

The most egregious error would be talking about larger A/C. Any additions to the fleet will be drastic additions, not simply a headache like a 738, which will only cause huge scheduling issues.
I'm not pro-Boeing or pro-Airbus, I'm pro-crew all the way.
 
PVD757
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:23 pm

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:14 pm

If (big if) WN ever decides to introduce another aircraft type, it would almost have to be smaller. Today's industry is one of high fuel (and other) costs putting enormous pressure on all airlines to raise revenue regardless of overall cost structure. WN misses out on many, many strong market pairs that can't support multiple 737s. Many of these markets are business orientated markets which make it a requirement to have at least 2 frequencies. O&D pairs with 100-200 passengers are too small for 2 137 seat 737s, but would be perfect for somethinbg like the E90 or E95. Since I know my local market the best, I can think of several, unserved markets that would be great for this type of service:

PVD-RDU (2)
PVD-ORF (2)
PVD-JAX (1)
PVD-IND (2)

I'm sure every medium (and some small) hub airport has a similar list...
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:22 pm

Quoting Bohlman (Reply 14):
The most egregious error would be talking about larger A/C. Any additions to the fleet will be drastic additions, not simply a headache like a 738, which will only cause huge scheduling issues.

Why is this a "huge" scheduling issue? SWA already deals with aircraft with dissimilar seating capacities (122, 128 (4), and 137), so how would a larger 738 be fundamentally different in its scheduling/routing?
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
NKMCO
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:23 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:18 pm

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 16):
larger 738 be fundamentally different in its scheduling/routing

Most probably referred to as adding additional flight attendant(s) into the cost (and scheduling) structure.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6106
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:10 am

Quoting SWALoveField (Reply 13):
WN gets me. The Boyd Group does not.



Quoting Bohlman (Reply 14):
Shows a fundamental lack of understanding for the WN model.

Boyd's article illustrates several key points that shows how WN needs to continue to evolve over time. Contrary to popular believe, the "WN model" has drastically changed over the past few years. Everyone speaks of this "WN Model" that has existed for 30 years, when it has changed signficantly in the past 5-6 years.

Things such as:
1) Flying into major airports (PHL, DEN, SFO, IAD)
2) Flying Trans-cons (some are being cut now)
3) Scheduling 30-40+ minute turn times (the 20 minute turn in most places is a thing of the past)
4) Codesharing (ATA)

Boyd mentions things that may or may not be done to address WN's key business issues. After all, WN is a publicly held company that needs to operate for-profit and generate sufficient shareholder returns. WN needs to ensure that revenue exceeds costs, plan and simple. Also, investors generally don't like when when a company just stays at the status-quo. Increasing profits - whether it be through growth, and altering the operation to increase the spread between revenue and costs, are needed to raise shareholder value.

Staying the same is also a recipe for disaster if your competition is constantly evolving. WN needs to be aware of their competitors, or they will be left behind. The most well-run companies are constantly changing how they operate.

WN is beyond the point where they have saturated their original and core markets. Like every airline, there is a base of passengers that will always fly them, no matter what. The difference between a profit and a loss in this business is so razor thin, they need to capture that large portion of the general public who doesn't have a preference in airline, those who solely make their selection on the basis of price, and those who value some level of service for their money.

What works on the short hop flights down in Texas may or may not be appropriate on larger/longer routes with other competition. Many domestic markets are rather stagnant in passenger growth, with everyone fighting for each other's share of the pie. Particularly leisure & discretionary travel is stagnant in many markets.
 
xbraniffone
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:12 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:32 am

I don't think WN will come to MSP.

NW and probably SY will match all fares of WN and WN is not in the position to lose money for a long period of time. IT will be a huge battle and I just don't think they will be willing to take that on right now.

It's a Texan carrier and the midwest residents (most of them) will be suppportive of hometown carriers. NW because of FF miles and SY because it's the underdog. SY is great to fly by the way. It's flies out of the HHH terminal and is so much easier than going through the hell at the main terminal.

But this being said...who the heck knows anymore about this business? I mean, who would have thought that SY could make it against the big carriers, but they are able to.
DC3 8 9 10, 1011, BAC111, 707 720 727 737 747 757 767 777 A319 320 330 340
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3351
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:33 am

The Boyd Group states that they expect big changes at Southwest Airlines over the next eighteen months...and we've seen the first effects with that re-shuffling of flights for the fall.

Among several observations, Boyd notes that the carrier may have designs on Boston. And the natural by-product of that, he says, would be a draw-down at Manchester (MHT). How likely do you think it is that Southwest would enter Boston? I realize the carrier has been entering big-city airports, and Logan is an easier place to get to now that the 'Big Dig' is done (well, except for the lawsuits...but I digress). The Bos-Wash air corridor is exceptionally congested, and the Manchester departure/arrival patterns nicely by-pass that mess. And since jetBlue is one of the incumbent LCCs at Logan, they would certainly go to Massport and try to 'make life difficult' for WN. Indeed, is there enough available room at Logan to service Southwest?

Do you personally think that Boyd is onto something here, or is he wildly off-base? Obviously, no Southwest executives sat down with Boyd to have an 'Exclusive Interview,' so what Boyd is essentially saying amounts to guesswork on his part. It was my feeling that MHT and PVD (which would also stand to lose here) are among the stronger stations in this part of the country for Southwest.

Chris in NH
 
dvk
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 12:18 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:33 am

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 5):
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 2):
Customers will tolerate it for the low fares partially enabled by the fast turn times of the cattle call...

What low fares?

How true. It has been at least four years since I found a fare on WN that wasn't matched or beaten by a fare on another carrier.
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:57 am

Quoting NKMCO (Reply 17):
Most probably referred to as adding additional flight attendant(s) into the cost (and scheduling) structure.

Computers could figure out the flight attendant problem quite simply. This is 2007, nobody is still making the flight attendants schedule on pen and paper. If every other airline in the country can figure it out, WN could.

Quoting SWALoveField (Reply 13):
I'm a business traveler with business in both Dallas and Houston (Not to mention Austin, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, etc). I live less than 2 miles from DAL. WN's frequencies, ease of everything (and I mean everything from parking to check in, etc.) and cost make it the ONLY choice for me.

If WN dropped DAL-HOU from let's say 30x to 23x on 739ER's, you'd hardly notice the difference. Their bottom line would notice the difference, but your schedule would hardly notice a thing. You'd be talking flights tweaked by 20 minutes one way or another, hardly noticable in the big picture. You can lose 20 minutes on the highway driving to/from the airport and hardly notice it even. If you need a schedule down to the minute that perfectly that a 20 minute interval will kill you, I think you need to fly your last flight on WN on a route of DAL-ABQ and visit a company called Eclipse. They can help that problem.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11830
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:01 am

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 5):
That's just one example, and I'd say it's fifty-fifty, but the point is, don't be so quick to assume Southwest is cheaper, because, more often than not, they're par for the course.

Ok, I miss typed checkmark  However, their CASM is low... and in the long run that gives them a huge competitive advantage. But there is no arguing that its the other airlines are matching WN fares... (I've yet to see a route where WN charges, even after inflation, what the price was before they entered.)

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 10):
Assigned seating? For each person you find craving it, you'll find three or four who oppose it and prefer Southwest's open seating model.

True. How many threads do we see that "airline XX won't let me select a seat..." On WN I know I'll find a stranger who will move to let me sit next to my wife. While HA accommodated us, it didn't exactly make me happy after buying tickets to find out that during our honeymoon I had to select two seats well apart from each other on an inter-island flight. So there is a point to it...

Quoting SWALoveField (Reply 13):

I'm a business traveler with business in both Dallas and Houston (Not to mention Austin, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, etc). I live less than 2 miles from DAL. WN's frequencies, ease of everything (and I mean everything from parking to check in, etc.) and cost make it the ONLY choice for me.

And this is why WN thrives. They deliver what the business customer demands. Most business travelers in "trapped markets" hate their hometown airline. But not for WN in Dallas, Pheonix, or Las Vegas. Hmmm...  scratchchin 

Now the interesting thing is would WN buy another size airframe? 739ER? E190? That depends on if the models show that they could use 150+ of that airframe. Anything number less and they would have to dramatically change their aircraft utilization strategy. The Boyd group themselves have pointed out the RASM benefit of through flights (e.g., LAX-LAS-DEN-MCO vs. LAX-LAS-LAX (rinse and repeat). So any new airframe would need to be able to be utilized nationally, not regionally.

Quoting Xbraniffone (Reply 19):
But this being said...who the heck knows anymore about this business? I mean, who would have thought that SY could make it against the big carriers, but they are able to.

I'm impressed on how SY has held on. Who is to say where they'll be in 10 years? But WN must keep adding cities, and MSP is a definitive hole in the system.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:15 am

Quoting NKMCO (Reply 17):
Most probably referred to as adding additional flight attendant(s) into the cost (and scheduling) structure.

A non-issue, and one that (curiously) seems to keep popping up only in the minds of folks that don't work here. We have the ability to schedule/track a 3rd pilot and 4th F/A (both for IOE purposes) along with our aircraft, and I'm at a loss to understand why some folks don't seem to think we have the computer horsepower, resources, or expertise to theoretically do something "different" in the operation.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15260
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:34 am

Quoting Bohlman (Reply 14):
The most egregious error would be talking about larger A/C

Boyd doesn't make any mention of a smaller aircraft, in fact that's the last thing WN needs when their average LF starts with a 6. If anything they need a smaller aircraft, perhaps around the size of a E-190.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:57 am

Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 11):
I agree that WN should be looking at smaller aircraft for smaller markets. Right now the best candidate is the Q-400.

If I were WN I would approach a manufacturer, Bombardier and ATR lead the list, and ask them to develop a turbo-prop specifically for their needs.

A three-member family of turbo-props with 75-100-125 seats and low operating costs would be ideal not only for new smaller markets but also many of WN's current shorter routes. I can see such an aircraft having a significant cost advantage not only over WN's own jets but over competitors. They could lock-up the first 150 production slots and rake in the cash.

I've always been intrigued by this possibility. Now that we have Horizon's successful operations in Seattle as a model, it looks even more interesting. A turboprop about half the size of a 737 would allow a lot of expansion potential - and would allow Southwest to keep many of its historic smaller markets. Also, it would allow more frequencies on certain shorthaul routes. The turboprop is one way to bring Southwest's original high-frequency shorthaul model to smaller cities while still making money.

Another idea would be an Allegiant type "Southwest Express" type operation. Have less then one flight per day to smaller cities. Use airport staff as ground crew. This has been considered before and rejected, but perhaps times have changed.

Or they could get something like the 787-3 and drive down CASM on Northeast-Florida and transcon routes. With CASM down sufficiently, they could lower fares and generate more traffic.

Most likely, IMHO, they will expand internationally before any new airframe is considered. The have already promised ATA that they will upgrade their systems to allow international codeshares. Most likely Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean would be first on the list. Southwest is well regarded in the Hispanic community in Texas, California and elsewhere. There is a lot of potential traffic from strong Southwest stations such as MDW, BWI, and many Texas cities.

One thing Boyd is overlooking is that WN can simply retire 737-300's if they end up with to many airplanes.

However, they also need a constant stream of new employees to keep their labor costs low. To high a percentage of high seniority people and costs go up. WN can't just hire people to sit around - in fact they are known for using labor efficiently. They have to expand to use the new people.

IN OTHER WORDS, Southwest doesn't have to expand quickly in order to use all the 737's it has on order. It can simply retire 300's and modify their business model a bit. Labor costs are the true reason they must expand - if they don't their labor costs will go way up as employees gain seniority and move up the pay scale. They need a bunch of new people on the bottom of the list to make up for that - and to hire new people you have to expand.

Regarding assigned seating - for the most part, the people who can't live without assigned seating are those that remember the pre-deregulation days. They associate assigned seats with those times, which they remember fondly. Those of us who grew up with the post-deregulation passenger experience do not value it nearly as much. In fact, many of us prefer Southwest's system. Southwest may stand to lose as many people as it would gain by switching to assigned seats.
 
drgmobile
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:06 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:03 am

I think the best thing for WN is to ignore the Boyd group.

Agreed. All I see here is a lot of baseless assertions -- none of it grounded in any data or compelling facts. Who are anybody here to say that WN "must" keep growing or introduce IFE? WN still has an advantage that other carriers have a hard time matching: profitability at sustained low fares.

Evolution should be the mantra, not revolution. There is nothing to suggest that the WN business model is "broken."
 
SkyyMaster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:34 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:04 am

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 10):
Skybus and its ilk are not competition for Southwest; WN's bread and butter are business travelers who require and receive premium air transportation service from Southwest. Skybus is exclusively focused on leisure travelers. Utterly different targets.

Thank you. I've been flamed on this site for supporting WN and pointing out how different it is than Skybus. SX is not a threat to WN now and it's unlikely to ever be on any grand scale (assuming it lasts, and that is a huge IF despite all the cheer-leading). Southwest will adapt, and continue to be an industry leader. Just because it's fuel hedges are going away does not signify they need a totally new philosophy. They will be flying long after Skybus and many current legacy and LCC's have bitten the dust.

I generally agree with Boyd on his analysis of the industry, but he's always had a bone to pick with Southwest for some reason, and he's wrong on this one just as he has been in the past when it comes to WN.
 
ScottB
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:15 am

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
In regards to another aircraft type or size, I disagree that WN needs a slightly smaller sized aircraft to go into all the small markets, though. Typically those markets are just not terribly lucrative but than again, that's XE's mission statement right now.

I also disagree with Boyd here, but I think his position basically stems from what his consulting business does for a living -- help smaller airports develop new air service. When you're a hammer, suddenly everything starts to look like a nail. The issue isn't so much that there's no money in the smaller markets; rather, it's more cost-effective for Southwest to use low fares at larger airports to draw travelers from smaller markets within a two-to-three-hour drive.

To some degree, when he speaks of WN potentially pulling out of MHT, I think he misses the fact that MHT's true catchment area is actually a pretty attractive market. It's centrally located for over a million relatively affluent residents of Southern NH, and it's also more convenient than Logan to people living in the Merrimack Valley of Massachusetts as well as north central Mass.

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 20):
How likely do you think it is that Southwest would enter Boston? I realize the carrier has been entering big-city airports, and Logan is an easier place to get to now that the 'Big Dig' is done (well, except for the lawsuits...but I digress).

The problem with going into Logan, aside from congestion, remains gate availability. I'm of the opinion at Southwest going into BOS would have complemented their service at MHT and PVD, just as they serve four airports in the L.A. Basin. However, jetBlue managed to grab substantially all of Delta's old gates in Terminal C, and the now-empty gates in Terminal A will soon be used by CO. There are only a handful of free gates scattered around the terminal -- the former America West gates on the AA side of Terminal B come to mind.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 24):
We have the ability to schedule/track a 3rd pilot and 4th F/A (both for IOE purposes) along with our aircraft, and I'm at a loss to understand why some folks don't seem to think we have the computer horsepower, resources, or expertise to theoretically do something "different" in the operation.

Well, you certainly would know far better than the rest of us  biggrin . I'd imagine one drawback would be how things are handled during irregular operations or if an aircraft swap is needed (and how that impacts crew scheduling). It's all doable -- everyone else manages somehow -- but it adds complexity. Sometimes the value you gain is worth the complexity, sometimes it isn't.

Quoting DTW.SCE" class=quote target=_blank>PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 18):
Everyone speaks of this "WN Model" that has existed for 30 years, when it has changed signficantly in the past 5-6 years.

Things such as:
1) Flying into major airports (PHL, DEN, SFO, IAD)

They've flown into major/primary airports for many years -- places like LAX, SEA, STL, DTW, MCO, TPA, LAS, PHX, SAN, PDX, MCI, MSY, etc.

Quoting DTW.SCE" class=quote target=_blank>PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 18):
Staying the same is also a recipe for disaster if your competition is constantly evolving. WN needs to be aware of their competitors, or they will be left behind. The most well-run companies are constantly changing how they operate.

 checkmark  Which is why you see Gary Kelly talking up all the planned changes without being too specific (to allow competitors less time to react). They are looking to make changes at the right time -- the company is still decently profitable and they're doing it to drive earnings growth, not to pull the company out of losses. Historically, WN has been managed with the bad times factored into the business plan.

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
while WiFi is a good place to start I think by ten years from now all new pax airliners will have them standard and carriers like VX will make WN's service look downright shabby – WN already admits that when it will be competing in markets alongside VX they will have to do more than just offer comparable pricing to be competitive.

Perhaps, but WN's core business is frequent short-haul service. I'm not so certain that in-seat TV's are much of a competitive advantage on a flight that's only 60 to 90 minutes in length. In-flight Internet access will be attractive to business passengers who would like to be able to get some work done while on a flight. TV's, music, movies, games, etc. are probably more relevant to longer stage lengths. These features haven't given B6 a revenue premium on LGB-OAK as compared to WN on LAX-OAK -- nor did they make F9 successful between LAX and SFO.
 
717-200
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2000 1:29 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:21 am

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
Regarding assigned seating - for the most part, the people who can't live without assigned seating are those that remember the pre-deregulation days. They associate assigned seats with those times, which they remember fondly. Those of us who grew up with the post-deregulation passenger experience do not value it nearly as much. In fact, many of us prefer Southwest's system. Southwest may stand to lose as many people as it would gain by switching to assigned seats.

Didn't WN try assigned seating not too long ago as a test out of certain markets? How did that go over?
72S 733 734 735 73G 738 742 752 763 E190 M82 M83
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:28 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 29):
I'd imagine one drawback would be how things are handled during irregular operations or if an aircraft swap is needed (and how that impacts crew scheduling). It's all doable -- everyone else manages somehow -- but it adds complexity. Sometimes the value you gain is worth the complexity, sometimes it isn't.

True, but I think some of the others here need to keep in mind that "increased complexity" is not synonymous with "insurmountable obstacle..."  Wink
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:32 am

Quoting 717-200 (Reply 30):
Didn't WN try assigned seating not too long ago as a test out of certain markets? How did that go over?

Out of SAN on some flights, for 30-60 days (can't recall which) back some months ago.. Results? You'll have to wait like the rest of us to find out...  Wink
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6504
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:36 am

Quoting Dvk (Reply 21):
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 5):
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 2):
Customers will tolerate it for the low fares partially enabled by the fast turn times of the cattle call...

What low fares?

How true. It has been at least four years since I found a fare on WN that wasn't matched or beaten by a fare on another carrier.

Fares only tell part of the story. While a legacy carrier can certainly match or beat an LCC fare; if one has to make a change to their reservation, in addition to the fare difference, the legacy will charge a $100 change fee on top of it. At present, WN does not charge a change fee beyond the difference in airfare.

If one's checking more luggage; IIRC, WN allows 3 pieces of luggage to be checked at no extra cost compared to just 2 pieces from other carriers.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 16):
SWA already deals with aircraft with dissimilar seating capacities (122, 128 (4), and 137), so how would a larger 738 be fundamentally different in its scheduling/routing?

The 738s would most likely require an additional F/A. In comparison, the number of F/As on WN's aircraft (be it a 733, 735 or 73G) has always been 3.
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
hoya
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:25 pm

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:36 am

Quoting Drgmobile (Reply 27):
Agreed. All I see here is a lot of baseless assertions -- none of it grounded in any data or compelling facts. Who are anybody here to say that WN "must" keep growing or introduce IFE? WN still has an advantage that other carriers have a hard time matching: profitability at sustained low fares.

One thing many here are overlooking is that WN is finally starting to pay market prices for fuel. Their fuel hedges are running out, so they are no longer able to pay half the price of fuel compared to other airlines. This means they can no longer offer sustained low fares if they want to remain profitable. Hence the need for more revenue, which is Boyd's argument. WN's strategy may have been really successful while their hedges were in place (approx $30-40/bbl), but costs, both fuel and labor, are rising quickly. They are now competing on an even playing field in regards to fuel with both the legacies and the other LCCs, which offer a better in-flight product(assigned seats, IFE, etc.). WN needs to find ways to increase revenue to sustain profitability, hence the need for changes to their strategy. It is in this regard that Boyd's arguments make a lot of sense.

[Edited 2007-07-03 20:38:55]
Hoya Saxa!!
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:38 am

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 33):

The 738s would most likely require an additional F/A. In comparison, the number of F/As on WN's aircraft (be it a 733, 735 or 73G) has always been 3.

But so what? The computers can easily compensate for that. It's not as if the FA's are an inseparable 3-person "team" that ALWAYS fly together on every single flight.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:51 am

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 16):
Why is this a "huge" scheduling issue? SWA already deals with aircraft with dissimilar seating capacities (122, 128 (4), and 137), so how would a larger 738 be fundamentally different in its scheduling/routing?



Quoting NKMCO (Reply 17):
Most probably referred to as adding additional flight attendant(s) into the cost (and scheduling) structure.



Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 33):
The 738s would most likely require an additional F/A. In comparison, the number of F/As on WN's aircraft (be it a 733, 735 or 73G) has always been 3.

My response to the other poster as to why this was a "scheduling" issue wasn't in the context of how many FAs it would take to operate a 738, but rather why it was a scheduling issue in the context the assumed "difficulty" of our being able to track 3 FAs or 4 FAs.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 35):
It's not as if the FA's are an inseparable 3-person "team" that ALWAYS fly together on every single flight.

More often then not, all FAs would all be scheduled to operate the same flights.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6504
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:52 am

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 35):
But so what? The computers can easily compensate for that. It's not as if the FA's are an inseparable 3-person "team" that ALWAYS fly together on every single flight.

Who said ANYTHING about the same 3 people flying every single same flight? Whether one of the 3 F/As from one completed flight separate to serve as part of another 3-F/A crew for another flight (not sure if this is done?) is irrelevant IMHO.

I'm simply saying that since all WN's flight have 3 F/As; any necessary F/A crew changes/or substitutions that may arise can be done without needlessly having one extra F/A idling because they were part of a 4-F/A crew that had their flight cancelled due to weather or whatever.
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11428
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 4:50 am

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 37):

I'm simply saying that since all WN's flight have 3 F/As; any necessary F/A crew changes/or substitutions that may arise can be done without needlessly having one extra F/A idling because they were part of a 4-F/A crew that had their flight cancelled due to weather or whatever.

It's really not too hard. If WN wanted to do it really simply, they could schedule 3 f/as on every flight and a fourth f/a who simply followed the 738 all day. There are compelling reasons not to schedule like this, but it's a very easy way to add the f/a while barely affecting crew scheduling.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
Flighty
Posts: 7681
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:04 am

Other airlines schedule multi-size fleets with different FA counts all day long. It is slightly tricky, but solutions exist to make it work extremely well. You don't need to always tote around the extra F/A. You keep extra F/As at your crew bases, and they fly from there as needed.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:17 am

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 5):
Sometimes, WN is cheap. Other times, not. Booking tickets for my parents, Dallas-ABQ. AA, a legacy carrier with all that goes with it, is over $20 cheaper per person

The legacy carriers tend to discount some seats on some flights for advance purchase, and those seats often match or undercut WN. I just bought tickets on AA DFW-PHX and DFW-SEA cheaper than WN, but that's with over a month advance planning. If you need to fly next week or next day, you can't beat WN.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 5):
Also, WN only allows their lowest fares on this route in the wee hours of the morning or evening... while American's fares are consistent (in this case) for all flights offered.

My AA red-eye return flight from SEA was about $60 cheaper than a daytime flight. AA may be more consistent, but some discount prices do vary by schedule.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:46 am

My guess would be that Southwest might ask Boeing for a -750 before ordering a -800; they could stretch it just enough to add two more rows and not have any scheduling issues (other than having to make due if they sub in a -700).

Steve
 
CitrusCritter
Posts: 770
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:36 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 6:01 am

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
Regarding assigned seating - for the most part, the people who can't live without assigned seating are those that remember the pre-deregulation days. They associate assigned seats with those times, which they remember fondly. Those of us who grew up with the post-deregulation passenger experience do not value it nearly as much. In fact, many of us prefer Southwest's system.

I definitely don't associate it with the days of regulation. My #1 reason for avoiding WN is that I have a habit of being sure I am early (to ensure promptness) in everything I do, including arriving at the airport. I do not desire to arrive at my gate and have to stand in line for an hour to ensure I can board and get a seat I want. I much prefer being able to sit down and read the WSJ and relax before the flight, which is why FL and B6 are my airlines of choice out of MCO. If WN starts assigning seats, then it's likely I'll start flying WN occassionally.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 26):
Southwest may stand to lose as many people as it would gain by switching to assigned seats.

Also true. Several of my friends fly Southwest only and one reason is that they like being able to choose their own seat when they get on-board.

[Edited 2007-07-03 23:02:25]
 
jmc1975
Posts: 2893
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2000 10:57 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 6:18 am

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
If anything, WN should simply form a subsidiary company like AMR and American Eagle, and operate and manage that company as a partner yet separate entity if anything.



Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
they may be better off starting their own separate subsidiary airline comprised of just 787's and use them to begin the inevitable US LCC long-haul industry. WN could place an order for say 20 787's and use them to launch an entirely separate company with WN still the parent;

With any subsidiary they may start, I always thought it would be appropriate to include their ticker symbol within their name in some way (i.e. AirLuv, Luvair, Sky o' Luv, Flyluv, etc.)
.......
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:30 am

Quoting NKMCO (Reply 17):
Most probably referred to as adding additional flight attendant(s) into the cost (and scheduling) structure.

There would be no reason they would have to have an additional FA as they would configure them with 149 seats.

The real reason the 738 is not an option is that there is a large number of parts on the 738/739 that are different and to operate a subfleet would add a good pile of cost for a short term gain.


You can fully expect the 737RS as configured for WN to seat 149Y with 33" pitch at a MINIMUM. Might be somewhat larger to be a 100% 738 replacement. There will be no 737-700 replacement in the 737RS unless they do a 5Y "thin man" version. WN will be buying the smallest of the larger plane in this case as cargo and turn times make the smaller plane not work. With a lower trip cost than the 737-700 and an extra 12 seats the 737RS will "fix" much of the analysts worries with one easy step. Replace any plane on any flight with only benifits, MX and labor commonality not a concern given its going to be around for many decades to come and short term costs will be meaningless in the face of that.


For those that argue 738 for WN at this time, I would put it to you that WN has had lots of opportunities to get used 738's and get them at excelent prices too. They have had the opportunity to switch thier new deliveries to the larger model for some time. It doesn't make sense to pick up a new "type" with a signifigant parts difference at this time. If the 737RS was arriving in 2020 or later, then sure WN *might* pick up 60+ 738/737-700ER for those routes that need those models, but to dribble them in right now, with the revolution of the narrowbody market effectively "tomorrow" then it makes no sense.
 
iwok
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:35 pm

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 9:07 am

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
I think assigned seating is all but paramount

most customers think not, especially the core full fare business traveller.

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
I would even venture to include IFE is as just as importan

Why?

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
WN already admits that when it will be competing in markets alongside VX they will have to do more than just offer comparable pricing to be competitive.

When was this startling admission?  Yeah sure

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
so the last thing I want to do when I travel by air is wait in a long line when I'm boarding just so I don't have to sit in the middle seat!

Then go online and check-in in advance.  bigthumbsup 

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
I think WN has to go into MSP as its next destination

Good idea; definitely a good growth market.

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
If anything, WN should simply form a subsidiary company like AMR and American Eagle,

Why? And what is the advantage of such a system? Financial losses?  Embarrassment
It appears that WN does not like losses. Heck they even pay a (drum roll) stock divident. WOW!

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
WN could place an order for say 20 787's and use them to launch an entirely separate company with WN still the parent

This is definitely interesting, but why not code share with Air Tran?

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 1):
Also, no one has been able to successfully demonstrate to me how owning and operating two companys with two sets of infrastructure is cheaper than operating just one to do the same amount of work.

Exactamentino!

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 2):
I think the best thing for WN is to ignore the Boyd group.

:D

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 10):
It is especially popular with Southwest's core travelers, full-fare business travelers who often book on only a day's notice or so

That is the main reason not to changer over to assigned seating. Buy a last minute transcon ticket with UA or AA and you basically wind in sitting in the bathroom the whole way. At least with WN you get a good seat! I'd take that any day over a back of the plane seat.

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
In regards to another aircraft type or size, I disagree that WN needs a slightly smaller sized aircraft

I disagree too. The current size works just great  bigthumbsup 

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
With aircraft like 739ER's, that would be an opportunity for WN to consider select international routes on it's own metal

Why go for the 739ER? The current fleet can fly anywhere in North America and the Carribean. 739ER will not take you to Europe cost effectively.

iwok
 
5mileBob
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:45 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 9:13 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 4):
Those who can DO. Those who can't consult

Amen...amen!
Still looks like a Ramp Rat
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6106
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:22 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 29):
They've flown into major/primary airports for many years -- places like LAX, SEA, STL, DTW, MCO, TPA, LAS, PHX, SAN, PDX, MCI, MSY, etc.

Correct, they are major airports, however not delay prone and/or do not have suitable secondary airports. However if you read these boards 4-5 years ago, everyone swore that you would never see WN in PHL, DEN, SFO, or IAD because of the delays (PHL & SFO) specifically, or the fact they were major fortress hubs.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 29):
Which is why you see Gary Kelly talking up all the planned changes without being too specific (to allow competitors less time to react). They are looking to make changes at the right time -- the company is still decently profitable and they're doing it to drive earnings growth, not to pull the company out of losses. Historically, WN has been managed with the bad times factored into the business plan.

I agree. They are smart, as the recognize we are one incident (World Event, terrorism, etc) away from another collapse of the airline industry. Whether it be a direct incident, or something that drives of the price of fuel significantly, it will change the demand for discressionary travel significant and/or raise the cost of operations (i.e., fuel). They recognize right now is not the time to be going crazy with growth and there needs to be a Plan B in the event of a major downturn.

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
I think WN has to go into MSP as its next destination - the market is very large as is and all indications point to it growing exponentially in the future as well evident by the MAC’s new runway at MSP that they recently opened 18 months ago. I think now is opportune for WN to enter the MSP area as the consumers have very little love for NW - it would be the epitome of the WN effect when they enter that market.

Don't look for MSP in the short term, particularly since WN has made plans to beef up DEN. That will be WN's focus for the time being, in addition to seeing how SFO goes, plus potential opportunities at PHL & IAD. They probably will be in MSP at some point, but contrary to popular belief there is competition in MSP. FL, F9, SY, and US/HP are all there. Even if WN went into MSP, I wouldn't look for anything significant. MDW/ORD-MSP is already rock-bottom, bargain basement with all of the competition, and SY & FL blanket the rest of the major leisure routes. Gate space is an issue in MSP too. The new runway was built more or less to reduce delays in crosswind situations. It wasn't built to for anticipated future growth. MSP is a healthy market, but there a lot of other markets in the West/South that are growing at a much faster rate. Plus, the majority of people appreciate NWA in the Twin Cities. Its just the vocal A.net crowd that doesn't like them because they don't offer IFE, hot F/A's, or pretzels in coach.

Quoting 5mileBob (Reply 46):
Quoting Pope (Reply 4):
Those who can DO. Those who can't consult

Amen...amen!

Boyd is actually a pretty smart guy. Again, keep in mind his audience and who pays for his firm's services. He is in the business to provide advisory services primarily for airports, suppliers, aircraft manufacturers, local communities, and the media. Many of these institutions do not have people with enough industry knowledge, background, or access to data to be able to do execute specific projects with the assistance of someone else. Airport administrations are notorously staffed via political appointees who lack industry knowledge but more or less get their position through cronism. They need to consult on someone like Boyd to determine how to recruit new air service, write proposals, and review data that they do not have time, resources, or understanding to collect.

He does make a lot of good assumptions and he is often right in some of his predictions. Not all of them, but enough that he should be taken seriously for what he writes. After all A.net is a lot worse than his insight. Could you imagine if this industry was run by a majority of the A.net members? I guarentee it we be in far worse shape than it is today.

[Edited 2007-07-04 04:23:30]
 
luvfa
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 10:05 pm

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:54 am

The Boyd group has always criticized the Southwest Model and has always been wrong. This criticism should be of no surprise. Michael Boyd should not comment on Southwest. It undermines what little credibility he has!

That said this is definitely a period of challenge, the executives at WN have stated this. However look for a tweaking of our model if anything!
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15260
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: The Boyd Group On The Future Of WN...

Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:08 pm

Quoting Luvfa (Reply 48):
The Boyd group has always criticized the Southwest Model and has always been wrong.

Such as....?
E pur si muove -Galileo