Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
kiowa
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:37 am

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Sun Jul 28, 2019 10:04 pm

freakyrat wrote:
The 2 free checked bags works out well on them for ski trips.


I like the no cost checked skis but it doesn’t justify the pricier ticket cost out of MKE.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3638
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Sun Jul 28, 2019 11:25 pm

adamblang wrote:
Aceskywalker wrote:
having open seating, 2 free bags, and a no penalty cancel fee

When all the airlines had free bags and no cancellation fees, maybe ~20% of each airline's customers were willing to pay a fare premium for those benefits. The people for whom free bags is important isn't a large enough customer base for the entire industry to chase. When doing revenue projections, the folks weighing fees versus not decided it's worth chasing the ~80% of the customers who'll pay the fee at the expense of the ~20% that won't. ~20% of your customers might be something an individual airline is willing to risk but ~20% of the market is a huge opportunity for one carrier to stick their neck out for. You constantly hear airline executives talking about differentiating themselves in a commodity market. Southwest has that included bags / no change fees segment cornered. There's not enough of this market segment for every airline to chase but there is enough for one airline to chase it and those customers pay Southwest a premium for it.

Aceskywalker wrote:
WN is opening up more expensive routes (Hawaii, potentially EU if rumors are to be taken seriously).

Their revenue managers are no dummies. If their fares don't cover their costs, I'm sure they'll cut the routes. We've seen Southwest trim lagging routes – they're not asleep at the helm.

Aceskywalker wrote:
Prices of fuel are almost guaranteed to go up with geopolitical tensions.

Southwest is probably the least susceptible to this in the U.S. They have no MD-80s guzzling gas. No inefficient RJs. No long-haul routes that require huge amounts of fuel to operate. Their entire operation is one low gallon per available seat mile aircraft.

Aceskywalker wrote:
The cost of potentially having grounded MAXs well into 2020 if not longer, compounded with pressure to introduce a new fleet type.

Are MAX groundings hurting Southwest? Sure. Will it break the company? No. Boeing will pay out compensation. The planes will eventually come back online. 5% of a fleet grounded is a lot but also not catastrophic. We're heading into the low season when 5% of planes would've been out of service anyway. Adding a new fleet type would be a long term solution to a sort term problem. Hell, by the time Southwest started taking delivery of a new fleet type, the MAX will probably be flying again. It's not like getting new planes, in particular adding a new fleet type, is a quick and easy thing.


Agree except the no long haul flights. WN has east coast Phoenix & west coast Hawaii.Hawaii has very high fuel cost & no way to ferry the fuel.
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2630
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:27 am

Cubsrule wrote:
Am I missing a reason their decades of consistent profits do not speak for themselves?


You're not the only one -- that was my first thought when I saw the thread topic. Fifty-two years of profits and growth without using bankruptcy protection like the other US majors -- and a bunch of broke armchair CEO's living on credit cards think they could run Southwest better. It's so absurd all you can do is laugh.
 
bob75013
Posts: 1023
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:34 am

9Patch wrote:
Aceskywalker wrote:
Southwest has developed a loyal customer base by having open seating, 2 free bags, and a no penalty cancel fee (albeit money spent converts to credit with a 12 month expiration date).


The open seating is one feature of Southwest I don't like!


Then fly someone else.

Oh, it doesnt seem to bother the 160,000,000+ people that fly it.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21962
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:39 am

kiowa wrote:
Although their product is marginal, their marketing and advertising is unsurpassed in the industry. I own a lot of their stock for that reason. They will be fine.


WN differentiates itself on soft product. When I fly WN, I feel like the employees want to make sure I'm taken care of. If a flight is delayed, they help you find a different flight. They're friendly, they seem to care, and their overall employee and corporate culture are good.

Also, a big part of why I enjoy flying WN is the speed at which they operate. The lack of assigned seating makes planes board faster because passengers are not all trying to use the same part of the plane at once. So the whole experience is a bit less stressful and there's less waiting around. I've also noticed that aboard WN, passengers are a bit friendlier. Most of the conversations I've struck up with seatmates have been aboard WN. So overall, there's just a certain aura that's difficult to capture about the airline and their brand and that has evolved over time.

Do I wish they had F? Yeah. I do. But overall, I enjoy flying WN and I feel like I'm in good hands with a company that cares about doing right by their passengers when I fly WN. I can't say that to quite that degree about any other airline.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
cdin844
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:21 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:01 am

People who fly Southwest fly Southwest and don’t even look at other options. Their customer base is loyal. They bank on that. I used to work for them and every aspect of their business is saving money - from the technology they use on their apps to the snacks they provide. Anyone who asks whether WN’s practices are sustainable simply doesn’t know enough about their business practices.
 
cdin844
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:21 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:06 am

Also oil price changes do not affect southwest as much as other airlines because they engage in long-term fuel hedging.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13434
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:58 am

Veigar wrote:
Are people still questioning WN?

Why fix what isn't broken, as hOMSaR pointed out?

The general answer to such a question is:
Because what doesn't evolve, will eventually perish due to changing environmental pressures.

That said, there doesn't seem to be any catalyst on the foreseeable horizon to bring WN to the point of radical change.... but that said, let's also not pretend that the WN of 2019 isn't significant different in many practices/procedures/approaches than the WN of the '90s and early '00s, either.

Gonna be interesting to keep an eye on them vs. NK, over time, however.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
9Patch
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:10 am

bob75013 wrote:
9Patch wrote:
Aceskywalker wrote:
Southwest has developed a loyal customer base by having open seating, 2 free bags, and a no penalty cancel fee (albeit money spent converts to credit with a 12 month expiration date).


The open seating is one feature of Southwest I don't like!


Then fly someone else.

I do.
I fly Alaska. Better product. Better mileage program. More partners. Often better prices in coach. First Class and Premium Economy if I'm feeling extravagant. I have their credit card, so I get a free checked bag and other benefits.
I've tried SW twice. Meh.
I can't understand why anyone would think open seating is better than assigned seats.
 
BNAMealer
Posts: 1033
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:03 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:20 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Veigar wrote:
Are people still questioning WN?

Why fix what isn't broken, as hOMSaR pointed out?

The general answer to such a question is:
Because what doesn't evolve, will eventually perish due to changing environmental pressures.

That said, there doesn't seem to be any catalyst on the foreseeable horizon to bring WN to the point of radical change.... but that said, let's also not pretend that the WN of 2019 isn't significant different in many practices/procedures/approaches than the WN of the '90s and early '00s, either.

Gonna be interesting to keep an eye on them vs. NK, over time, however.


That first sentence is a really good point.

Once things get back to normal after the MAX is fixed, I wonder where future growth opportunities will come from. It seems like they are getting close to being maxed out on growth opportunities in the lower 48 (unless they get a smaller fleet).

If there recent pull out of MEX is any indication, think they would struggle internationally as they don’t have a strong POS outside the US.

I have to wonder when/if they will get into codesharing. It seems like a low hanging fruit and there are some strong growth opportunities there if they were so inclined to pursue it, but do they have the willingness?

You’re right, it will be interesting to watch them, not necessarily vs NK, but in general. The next decade is going to be very telling for them.
 
avgeekjohn
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 2:24 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:26 am

I think that the model is sustainable just as it is. As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong here, is that a lot of fees, like the fees to check bags, were not "original" practices, if you will, but came as airlines tried to bring in extra revenue (that wording is a bit confusing...but what I'm aiming at here is that airlines didn't originally have certain fees but added them on later). Sure, these fees do bring in extra revenue and will help airlines stay afloat when gas prices rise, but I don't think that they're a be-all-end-all. Southwest has survived periods that were financially challenging in the past, and I'm sure that they can do it again.
Holding short of life's runway
 
jplatts
Posts: 3932
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:51 am

BNAMealer wrote:
Once things get back to normal after the MAX is fixed, I wonder where future growth opportunities will come from. It seems like they are getting close to being maxed out on growth opportunities in the lower 48 (unless they get a smaller fleet).


There are still plenty of domestic growth opportunities remaining for WN at stations such as AUS, CVG, CLE, HOU, MCI, RIC, SAT, and SAN.
 
User avatar
fraspotter
Posts: 2266
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 8:12 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:03 am

I love the WN experience and have found them to fit my travel needs. The 2 free checked bags (though I only need to check 1) is a big drawing point on me. I only travel with a small roller (could easily fit in the overhead bin) when I fly anyways but I still choose to check it for free with WN because then I don't have to worry about dragging a bag through the airport and into the overhead bin. I just wish they would go the DL and B6 route and get rid of the 2 year expiration limit for frequent flyer points.
"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee."

— Gunter's Second Law of Air Travel
 
User avatar
fraspotter
Posts: 2266
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 8:12 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:10 am

jplatts wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:
Once things get back to normal after the MAX is fixed, I wonder where future growth opportunities will come from. It seems like they are getting close to being maxed out on growth opportunities in the lower 48 (unless they get a smaller fleet).


There are still plenty of domestic growth opportunities remaining for WN at stations such as AUS, CVG, CLE, HOU, MCI, RIC, SAT, and SAN.


I agree. I've been saying on here for years but it's criminal how much WN is neglecting some of their former Air Tran destinations such as RIC. 20 consecutive months of record passenger numbers going through RIC and still all WN can muster is 3 daily flights during the week to ATL (2 each on Sat/Sun) and seasonal weekend service to MCO (Sat) and TPA (Sat/Sun)? Pathetic. I love WN but hoping that ATL doesn't s**t the bed either operationally or because of weather can be a big ask at times.
"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee."

— Gunter's Second Law of Air Travel
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:42 am

cdin844 wrote:
People who fly Southwest fly Southwest and don’t even look at other options. Their customer base is loyal. They bank on that. I used to work for them and every aspect of their business is saving money - from the technology they use on their apps to the snacks they provide. Anyone who asks whether WN’s practices are sustainable simply doesn’t know enough about their business practices.


So why would need to serve meals on their flights. I can plan ahead and bring my own, eat before arriving at the airport, or get something at the airport. I remember back when I was a child that BN would serve a full meal on the one hour flight between CRP and DFW. I was astounded they could actually serve a meal, then take up the trays, and prepare for landing. They might even serve another meal on the connecting flight.

I've never flown on a transcon, because I have always lived in the middle of the country at least in the east-west sense. A flight would have to be at least 5-6 hours before I would consider a complementary meal as a requirement. I definitely would not fly transatlantic without meal service, just because the logistics of preparing for such a flight and getting to hub airport to catch the flight are complex enough already. For basic transportation around the US, WN and its model is great.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:50 am

fraspotter wrote:
I love the WN experience and have found them to fit my travel needs. The 2 free checked bags (though I only need to check 1) is a big drawing point on me. I only travel with a small roller (could easily fit in the overhead bin) when I fly anyways but I still choose to check it for free with WN because then I don't have to worry about dragging a bag through the airport and into the overhead bin. I just wish they would go the DL and B6 route and get rid of the 2 year expiration limit for frequent flyer points.


I will often check my roll aboard bag if I am making s connection. It makes for less stuff I need to drag around at the connecting airport. It also helps for my 83 year old mother to check a roll aboard. That way she has just herself and a small roller bag that fits under the seat in front through the connecting airport.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 2443
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:16 am

PatrickZ80 wrote:
FLLflyboy wrote:
WN has some smart and bright people working for them. I wouldn't worry too much as to how they conduct business. They have proven they can weather just about anything and I think their long-term future looks promising.


I tend to disagree. In my opinion those "smart and bright people working for them" have a tunnel vision of how an airline should be run and everything that doesn't match their vision, they don't want to hear of. So far it has worked, but it has resulted in the products of Southwest and the rest of airlines drifting further and further apart. This total incompatibility with everyone else might eventually cause trouble for them.

Another airline with tunnel vision is Norwegian. Of course the product Norwegian has in mind is different from what Southwest has in mind, but just like Southwest Norwegian also doesn't want to adapt their product. They just set it up the way they see it and then wait for it to work. Even if it's obvious it's not going to work, they don't want to hear that and continue waiting for it to work. We know what that did to the financial situation of Norwegian. The same might happen to Southwest.

And yet they carry more domestic passengers than any other airline
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2365
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:23 am

9Patch wrote:
bob75013 wrote:
9Patch wrote:

The open seating is one feature of Southwest I don't like!


Then fly someone else.

I do.
I fly Alaska. Better product. Better mileage program. More partners. Often better prices in coach. First Class and Premium Economy if I'm feeling extravagant. I have their credit card, so I get a free checked bag and other benefits.
I've tried SW twice. Meh.
I can't understand why anyone would think open seating is better than assigned seats.


As I fly out of SEA, Alaska is my first choice. They are more open about fees than others, so I don't feel nickeled and dimed, one bag is usually free, they are easy to redeem miles with at not crazy amounts.

It is interesting that WN and AS have been more consistently profitable than any other US airline. Both will evolve as they see fit.
 
BigPlaneGuy13
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:01 am

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:43 am

This topic has been mentioned a few times in this thread so I'll bite:

Can someone explain to me how codesharing would work for international travel for Southwest? I am a bit perplexed because the airline uses a lot of secondary airports in key international gateways (SJC/OAK versus SFO, MDW versus ORD, DAL versus DFW, LGA versus JFK, FLL versus MIA) so how would they be able to connect passengers to these international flights?

Perhaps there is a simple answer, but to me this seems like a glaring reason as to why WN isn't in agreements with other airlines. Thoughts?
 
737MAX7
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:26 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 6:17 am

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:
This topic has been mentioned a few times in this thread so I'll bite:

Can someone explain to me how codesharing would work for international travel for Southwest? I am a bit perplexed because the airline uses a lot of secondary airports in key international gateways (SJC/OAK versus SFO, MDW versus ORD, DAL versus DFW, LGA versus JFK, FLL versus MIA) so how would they be able to connect passengers to these international flights?

Perhaps there is a simple answer, but to me this seems like a glaring reason as to why WN isn't in agreements with other airlines. Thoughts?

This and the fact that the pilots have been been against codesharing because they feel if we want to serve certain destinations then they should be flying the plane themselves. I’m not taking sides at all, i completely understand their point. I do believe there was some language thrown into their last contract allowing possible codesharing only on flights not possible to be flown on the 737. I welcome someone correcting me if I’m wrong it’s been a while since I’ve taken a peak at their contract.

As far as codesharing goes it certainly makes it hard flying out of the secondary airports. That being said we certainly could offer said codeshares in SAN, SFO, LAX and to a lesser extent SEA, DTW, PHL and MCO. I’m just throwing out airports with international long haul service that may or may not support a WN codeshare. Fun fact we already do some freight codesharing. I’ve personally seen British Airways, WestJet and Hawaiian.
 
BNAMealer
Posts: 1033
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:03 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:05 am

jplatts wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:
Once things get back to normal after the MAX is fixed, I wonder where future growth opportunities will come from. It seems like they are getting close to being maxed out on growth opportunities in the lower 48 (unless they get a smaller fleet).


There are still plenty of domestic growth opportunities remaining for WN at stations such as AUS, CVG, CLE, HOU, MCI, RIC, SAT, and SAN.


Yes, but there is only so much there as well. I’m talking about new cities that currently don’t have WN service at all. Without a smaller plane in the fleet, it will be difficult to serve smaller markets.
 
BNAMealer
Posts: 1033
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:03 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:19 am

737MAX7 wrote:
BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:
This topic has been mentioned a few times in this thread so I'll bite:

Can someone explain to me how codesharing would work for international travel for Southwest? I am a bit perplexed because the airline uses a lot of secondary airports in key international gateways (SJC/OAK versus SFO, MDW versus ORD, DAL versus DFW, LGA versus JFK, FLL versus MIA) so how would they be able to connect passengers to these international flights?

Perhaps there is a simple answer, but to me this seems like a glaring reason as to why WN isn't in agreements with other airlines. Thoughts?

This and the fact that the pilots have been been against codesharing because they feel if we want to serve certain destinations then they should be flying the plane themselves. I’m not taking sides at all, i completely understand their point. I do believe there was some language thrown into their last contract allowing possible codesharing only on flights not possible to be flown on the 737. I welcome someone correcting me if I’m wrong it’s been a while since I’ve taken a peak at their contract.

As far as codesharing goes it certainly makes it hard flying out of the secondary airports. That being said we certainly could offer said codeshares in SAN, SFO, LAX and to a lesser extent SEA, DTW, PHL and MCO. I’m just throwing out airports with international long haul service that may or may not support a WN codeshare. Fun fact we already do some freight codesharing. I’ve personally seen British Airways, WestJet and Hawaiian.


The thing is, in WN’s case, I don’t get why the pilots would be completely against it. Flying to places such as Europe would require a drastic shift in business model and would mess drastically with WN’s core values, so it is unlikely management would acquire the planes to go the distance. Plus, WN’s POS outside the US is weak. Codesharing with foreign carriers would allow WN passengers to connect onto international itineraries without having to operate the flights themselves, and would make them an attractive option for business travelers who need to go overseas (thus, increasing passengers and demand for WN flights).

Airports such as BWI, BNA, DEN, LAX, OAK, MCO, etc, could be used as gateways.

Airlines that could be decent codeshare partners for WN include FI, EI, Y4 (should have never abandoned that one to begin with), etc.
 
jplatts
Posts: 3932
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:27 am

fraspotter wrote:
I agree. I've been saying on here for years but it's criminal how much WN is neglecting some of their former Air Tran destinations such as RIC. 20 consecutive months of record passenger numbers going through RIC and still all WN can muster is 3 daily flights during the week to ATL (2 each on Sat/Sun) and seasonal weekend service to MCO (Sat) and TPA (Sat/Sun)? Pathetic. I love WN but hoping that ATL doesn't s**t the bed either operationally or because of weather can be a big ask at times.


While WN hasn't yet added RIC-MDW nonstop service, RIC can likely support nonstop service to at least MDW in addition to ATL on WN.

WN can likely make RIC-MDW nonstop service work since:
(a) RIC is the largest market in the U.S. that WN has never served nonstop from MDW,
(b) RIC-CHI had higher PDEW's in 2018 than most of the other domestic markets that WN doesn't currently serve nonstop from MDW,
(c) WN already serves MDW nonstop from a few domestic markets that are smaller than RIC such as ALB, ABQ, and TUS,
(d) there are more passengers connecting to destinations west of the Mississippi River from RIC than from most of the other WN destinations on the East Coast that aren't served nonstop from MDW,
and
(e) WN adding RIC-MDW nonstop service would give travelers 1-stop connecting access to additional WN domestic destinations from RIC on WN (and vice versa).
 
bob75013
Posts: 1023
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:07 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Veigar wrote:
Are people still questioning WN?

Why fix what isn't broken, as hOMSaR pointed out?

The general answer to such a question is:
Because what doesn't evolve, will eventually perish due to changing environmental pressures.

.


You seem to be saying the WN has not eveloved. Let's examine the premise.

1) Southwest originally was point to pont only out of secondary airports. That "evolved"

2) Southwest was only a lower 48 airline - no international. That "evolved"

3) Southwest would never fly to Hawaii -- too much competition. Thar "evolved."

Soutwhest would never fly anything bigger than the 737-300. That "evolved."

Your premise is flawed.
 
Miamiairport
Posts: 813
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:14 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:17 pm

I'm sure WN has done extensive analysis and has decided they can command a premium for things like 2 free checked bags and no change fees. They court a sizable domestic business traveler not interested in upgrades and lounges (yes they actually do exist) but want flexibility and consistency. They've successfully outgrown the airline of secondary airports and domestic only operations.
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2898
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:23 pm

People seem to forget WN management wanted to charge bag fees, but their limited/basic IT system couldn't support the change.
 
raddek
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:09 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:29 pm

ULCC are slowly eating into WN market share.

They have a unique Product that had worked for many years, and that's great.

But NK, and F9 are only getting more aircraft every month and are adding more routes to WN cities where they have had very strong market share.

Prime example is NK. They opened up AUS with a very aggressive 9 routes, and BNA will open with 7 routes. NK has also encroached on monopoly routes that WN has had for years, like LAS-BUR/SMF.

US3 on one side, and ULCC on the other. WN will be in the middle of this battle for many years to come. So let's see how well they come out of this in the next 10 years+
 
texl1649
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:02 pm

They're not cheaper any longer (except of course if you are comparing business/first), net, but in my experiences they also tend to operate on time, and don't have their mechanics sabotaging departures/arrivals a la AA for instance (in DFW).

Their downsides nowadays are basically only two fold; (a) you have to connect to more stops still, and (b) lack of premium product.
 
alo2yyz
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:53 am

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:09 pm

BNAMealer wrote:
737MAX7 wrote:
BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:
This topic has been mentioned a few times in this thread so I'll bite:

Can someone explain to me how codesharing would work for international travel for Southwest? I am a bit perplexed because the airline uses a lot of secondary airports in key international gateways (SJC/OAK versus SFO, MDW versus ORD, DAL versus DFW, LGA versus JFK, FLL versus MIA) so how would they be able to connect passengers to these international flights?

Perhaps there is a simple answer, but to me this seems like a glaring reason as to why WN isn't in agreements with other airlines. Thoughts?

This and the fact that the pilots have been been against codesharing because they feel if we want to serve certain destinations then they should be flying the plane themselves. I’m not taking sides at all, i completely understand their point. I do believe there was some language thrown into their last contract allowing possible codesharing only on flights not possible to be flown on the 737. I welcome someone correcting me if I’m wrong it’s been a while since I’ve taken a peak at their contract.

As far as codesharing goes it certainly makes it hard flying out of the secondary airports. That being said we certainly could offer said codeshares in SAN, SFO, LAX and to a lesser extent SEA, DTW, PHL and MCO. I’m just throwing out airports with international long haul service that may or may not support a WN codeshare. Fun fact we already do some freight codesharing. I’ve personally seen British Airways, WestJet and Hawaiian.


The thing is, in WN’s case, I don’t get why the pilots would be completely against it. Flying to places such as Europe would require a drastic shift in business model and would mess drastically with WN’s core values, so it is unlikely management would acquire the planes to go the distance. Plus, WN’s POS outside the US is weak. Codesharing with foreign carriers would allow WN passengers to connect onto international itineraries without having to operate the flights themselves, and would make them an attractive option for business travelers who need to go overseas (thus, increasing passengers and demand for WN flights).

Airports such as BWI, BNA, DEN, LAX, OAK, MCO, etc, could be used as gateways.

Airlines that could be decent codeshare partners for WN include FI, EI, Y4 (should have never abandoned that one to begin with), etc.


PD would also make sense, at least at MDW.
 
hohd
Posts: 948
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 1:03 am

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:19 pm

Brickell305 wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
Am I missing a reason their decades of consistent profits do not speak for themselves?


Indeed they're profitable, however they're failing to see the difference between profit and more profit. Southwest chases profit, but they don't chase more profit. There are so many things they can make extra money on which they don't. That's their weak point.

Yet somehow WN has the best profit margins of the US majors. Why should they conform to become more like their less profitable competition?
j

This is no longer true. Delta and United have better profit margins, and their stock has performed better than Southwest lately. Even Alaska has better stock performance. As a stockholder I am not thrilled at their performance, I wish they give 1 free checked bag instead of 2 (and reserve 2 free for A listers and Business selects). The one big improvement they can do to improve their profit and stock performance is hook up with foreign carriers for code shares, they are leaving lot of money on the table.
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:23 pm

This shows our AA, UA, and DL are short-sighted.
 
jplatts
Posts: 3932
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:23 pm

raddek wrote:
But NK, and F9 are only getting more aircraft every month and are adding more routes to WN cities where they have had very strong market share.

Prime example is NK. They opened up AUS with a very aggressive 9 routes, and BNA will open with 7 routes. NK has also encroached on monopoly routes that WN has had for years, like LAS-BUR/SMF.

US3 on one side, and ULCC on the other. WN will be in the middle of this battle for many years to come. So let's see how well they come out of this in the next 10 years+


There are still some medium-sized markets in the U.S. such as STL, SAT, CVG, ORF, MKE, OKC, MEM, and SDF that aren't currently served by NK. There are also still opportunities for further expansion by WN in mid-sized markets in the U.S. that aren't currently served by NK.

There are also many travelers in domestic markets served by NK that will avoid NK at all costs due to (a) NK not properly re-accommodating passengers in cases of overbooking, delays, or cancellations, (b) poor customer service by NK's agents, and (c) NK charging fees for carry-on baggage.

There are also some former F9 FF's in the DEN market who have switched over to WN after F9 adopted its current ULCC business model, and WN had also added nonstop service to CVG, ELP, and MEM out of DEN last year.

WN also still has brand loyalty in most of the large and mid-sized markets in the U.S. to support nonstop service to LAS, PHX, DEN, MCO, TPA, and FLL from most of the large and mid-sized markets in the U.S.

Things that will continue to drive demand for WN nonstop service to major leisure destinations in the U.S. from large and mid-sized markets in the U.S. include (a) WN brand loyalty in most of the large and mid-sized markets in the U.S., (b) travelers who will avoid ULCC's at all costs, and (c) WN offering more flexibility for itinerary changes than US3 carriers and ULCC's.
 
bob75013
Posts: 1023
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:45 pm

hohd wrote:
Brickell305 wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:

Indeed they're profitable, however they're failing to see the difference between profit and more profit. Southwest chases profit, but they don't chase more profit. There are so many things they can make extra money on which they don't. That's their weak point.

Yet somehow WN has the best profit margins of the US majors. Why should they conform to become more like their less profitable competition?
j

This is no longer true. Delta and United have better profit margins, .



That is a lie. Data based on 2Q19 financials

Pre-Tax Income Non-GAAP adjusted excluding special items, and Margin:

WN: 968 (16.4%)
DL: 1,997 (16.0%)
AS: 362 (15.8%)
UA: 1,416 (12.4%)
B6: 238 (11.3%)
AA: 1,072 (9.0%)
 
User avatar
fraspotter
Posts: 2266
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 8:12 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:07 pm

jplatts wrote:
fraspotter wrote:
I agree. I've been saying on here for years but it's criminal how much WN is neglecting some of their former Air Tran destinations such as RIC. 20 consecutive months of record passenger numbers going through RIC and still all WN can muster is 3 daily flights during the week to ATL (2 each on Sat/Sun) and seasonal weekend service to MCO (Sat) and TPA (Sat/Sun)? Pathetic. I love WN but hoping that ATL doesn't s**t the bed either operationally or because of weather can be a big ask at times.


While WN hasn't yet added RIC-MDW nonstop service, RIC can likely support nonstop service to at least MDW in addition to ATL on WN.

WN can likely make RIC-MDW nonstop service work since:
(a) RIC is the largest market in the U.S. that WN has never served nonstop from MDW,
(b) RIC-CHI had higher PDEW's in 2018 than most of the other domestic markets that WN doesn't currently serve nonstop from MDW,
(c) WN already serves MDW nonstop from a few domestic markets that are smaller than RIC such as ALB, ABQ, and TUS,
(d) there are more passengers connecting to destinations west of the Mississippi River from RIC than from most of the other WN destinations on the East Coast that aren't served nonstop from MDW,
and
(e) WN adding RIC-MDW nonstop service would give travelers 1-stop connecting access to additional WN domestic destinations from RIC on WN (and vice versa).


Any of the following would be great connecting hubs for daily WN service out of RIC : MDW, STL, DEN, or HOU. DEN and Houston (through IAH) are currently monopolized by UA and they'd have the STL market all to themselves. I've read that MDW might be a problem due to lack of gate space (same reason I didn't list DAL) but here's hoping.
"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee."

— Gunter's Second Law of Air Travel
 
User avatar
usdcaguy
Posts: 1559
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:41 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:13 pm

WN does currently have the best margin, but their revenue growth is also currently the lowest, and Wall Street likes to see growth. Their grounded MAXes aren’t helping, either. That said, their willingness to expand to new cities domestically and try new routes has helped them, as has their willingness to cut markets when warranted. As someone who has flown WN since they started, I will say that I have consistently gotten decent service, though flying them on the East Coast is not the same as flying them out of Texas. Fares these days are also extraordinary. Domestically, I check one bag tops, and the difference in fare is often over $100 versus other carriers, and I refuse to pay that.
 
jplatts
Posts: 3932
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:21 pm

fraspotter wrote:
Any of the following would be great connecting hubs for daily WN service out of RIC : MDW, STL, DEN, or HOU. DEN and Houston (through IAH) are currently monopolized by UA and they'd have the STL market all to themselves. I've read that MDW might be a problem due to lack of gate space (same reason I didn't list DAL) but here's hoping.


WN will have enough gate space at MDW to accommodate MDW-RIC nonstop service with WN pulling out of EWR, and WN also currently operates fewer departures out of MDW than it did 2 years ago.
 
bob75013
Posts: 1023
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:29 pm

hohd wrote:
Brickell305 wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:

Indeed they're profitable, however they're failing to see the difference between profit and more profit. Southwest chases profit, but they don't chase more profit. There are so many things they can make extra money on which they don't. That's their weak point.

Yet somehow WN has the best profit margins of the US majors. Why should they conform to become more like their less profitable competition?
j

This is no longer true. Delta and United have better profit margins, and their stock has performed better than Southwest lately. Even Alaska has better stock performance. As a stockholder I am not thrilled at their performance, .


As a stockholder, I think you sjould be sure of what you are saying. You did not do so. In fact WN stock has outperformed both United and Alaska so far this year.

Want proof? OK read it and weep:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/LUV/cha ... eSJ9fX0%3D
 
9Patch
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 3:42 pm

usdcaguy wrote:
Fares these days are also extraordinary. Domestically, I check one bag tops, and the difference in fare is often over $100 versus other carriers, and I refuse to pay that.

An LCC experience without the LC.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13434
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 3:45 pm

bob75013 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Veigar wrote:
Are people still questioning WN?

Why fix what isn't broken, as hOMSaR pointed out?

The general answer to such a question is:
Because what doesn't evolve, will eventually perish due to changing environmental pressures.

.


You seem to be saying the WN has not eveloved. Let's examine the premise.

1) Southwest originally was point to pont only out of secondary airports. That "evolved"

2) Southwest was only a lower 48 airline - no international. That "evolved"

3) Southwest would never fly to Hawaii -- too much competition. Thar "evolved."

Soutwhest would never fly anything bigger than the 737-300. That "evolved."

Your premise is flawed.

Um, no... your reading comprehension is flawed.

If the first three words in my post weren't of sufficient notice that I'm only responding to the poster's question in general, my statement of WN changing through the last two decades should've clued you that I'm well aware of their continued evolution.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
737MAX7
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:26 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:37 pm

alo2yyz wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:
737MAX7 wrote:
This and the fact that the pilots have been been against codesharing because they feel if we want to serve certain destinations then they should be flying the plane themselves. I’m not taking sides at all, i completely understand their point. I do believe there was some language thrown into their last contract allowing possible codesharing only on flights not possible to be flown on the 737. I welcome someone correcting me if I’m wrong it’s been a while since I’ve taken a peak at their contract.

As far as codesharing goes it certainly makes it hard flying out of the secondary airports. That being said we certainly could offer said codeshares in SAN, SFO, LAX and to a lesser extent SEA, DTW, PHL and MCO. I’m just throwing out airports with international long haul service that may or may not support a WN codeshare. Fun fact we already do some freight codesharing. I’ve personally seen British Airways, WestJet and Hawaiian.


The thing is, in WN’s case, I don’t get why the pilots would be completely against it. Flying to places such as Europe would require a drastic shift in business model and would mess drastically with WN’s core values, so it is unlikely management would acquire the planes to go the distance. Plus, WN’s POS outside the US is weak. Codesharing with foreign carriers would allow WN passengers to connect onto international itineraries without having to operate the flights themselves, and would make them an attractive option for business travelers who need to go overseas (thus, increasing passengers and demand for WN flights).

Airports such as BWI, BNA, DEN, LAX, OAK, MCO, etc, could be used as gateways.

Airlines that could be decent codeshare partners for WN include FI, EI, Y4 (should have never abandoned that one to begin with), etc.


PD would also make sense, at least at MDW.

I don’t see the pilots agreeing to a codeshare with PD because they’d make the argument they should be flying it themselves.
 
BNAMealer
Posts: 1033
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:03 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:43 pm

737MAX7 wrote:
alo2yyz wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:

The thing is, in WN’s case, I don’t get why the pilots would be completely against it. Flying to places such as Europe would require a drastic shift in business model and would mess drastically with WN’s core values, so it is unlikely management would acquire the planes to go the distance. Plus, WN’s POS outside the US is weak. Codesharing with foreign carriers would allow WN passengers to connect onto international itineraries without having to operate the flights themselves, and would make them an attractive option for business travelers who need to go overseas (thus, increasing passengers and demand for WN flights).

Airports such as BWI, BNA, DEN, LAX, OAK, MCO, etc, could be used as gateways.

Airlines that could be decent codeshare partners for WN include FI, EI, Y4 (should have never abandoned that one to begin with), etc.


PD would also make sense, at least at MDW.

I don’t see the pilots agreeing to a codeshare with PD because they’d make the argument they should be flying it themselves.


I’m thinking EI would be a decent codeshare, because like I said, it is unlikely WN would go to Europe without drastically changing their business model. Not sure if the BA/AA jv would approve of it though.
 
Miamiairport
Posts: 813
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:14 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:08 pm

WN has showed the ability to evolve over the years and face the many changes within the industry. At the same point WN has resisted many changes being hoisted on them by Wall Street and other "airline experts." From bag fees to creating a first class cabin or assigned seating. No one (even WN) knows where/WN will be in 10 years. WN by then might be merger/acquired by another airline. Few companies have faced the tumultuous times that WN has and come out so strong. Their dedication to a "people culture" (as overused and abused as that terms gets) is a primary reason. Sadly most businesses see people nothing more than SG&A expenses.
 
raffy
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:25 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
FLLflyboy wrote:
WN has some smart and bright people working for them. I wouldn't worry too much as to how they conduct business. They have proven they can weather just about anything and I think their long-term future looks promising.


I tend to disagree. In my opinion those "smart and bright people working for them" have a tunnel vision of how an airline should be run and everything that doesn't match their vision, they don't want to hear of. So far it has worked, but it has resulted in the products of Southwest and the rest of airlines drifting further and further apart. This total incompatibility with everyone else might eventually cause trouble for them.

Another airline with tunnel vision is Norwegian. Of course the product Norwegian has in mind is different from what Southwest has in mind, but just like Southwest Norwegian also doesn't want to adapt their product. They just set it up the way they see it and then wait for it to work. Even if it's obvious it's not going to work, they don't want to hear that and continue waiting for it to work. We know what that did to the financial situation of Norwegian. The same might happen to Southwest.



In my view, the fact that Southwest stands far apart from other airlines is its greatest strength. Very frankly, much of the way other airlines run their businesses sucks! Fees for baggage, fees for reserving seats, forcing people to either reserve their seats or wind up sitting in seats that suck, being forced to fight and compete with other passengers for overhead baggage space (because passengers try to carry as much stuff as possible on board the plane to avoid baggage fees) - all that sort of things makes the products of most other American airlines inferior to that of Southwest. I love how Southwest allows passengers two free checked bags (which usually means plenty of overhead luggage space for carry ons), has open seating, generally makes the best effort to be on time and whose flight attendants offer (for the most part) generally courteous service. That combination makes for a much more stress-free experience compared to other airlines - and there is much to be said for that, even if one winds up paying a bit more.

Another absolutely huge practice that they have is their policy of no fees for reservation changes (other paying any fare difference, if any). I have had to take advantage of that before for one trip several times - and that would have cost me hundreds of dollars in fees on the so-called "legacy" airlines.

Unfortunately, I cannot fly Southwest from my locale without driving about two hours. I have done that quite a few times (especially if Southwest has a nonstop flight to my destination), but it is an inconvenience. But I love Southwest's product for the most part, for the reasons stated above. IMO, it's much better than those of the "legacy" carriers.
 
ScottB
Posts: 7191
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:58 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
Another airline with tunnel vision is Norwegian. Of course the product Norwegian has in mind is different from what Southwest has in mind, but just like Southwest Norwegian also doesn't want to adapt their product. They just set it up the way they see it and then wait for it to work. Even if it's obvious it's not going to work, they don't want to hear that and continue waiting for it to work. We know what that did to the financial situation of Norwegian. The same might happen to Southwest.


Norwegian's problem isn't "tunnel vision." Their problem is pretty similar to what brought Braniff down in the early days of deregulation: a highly-aggressive expansion plan which overwhelmed a previously-profitable business with huge losses on new service/routes.

usdcaguy wrote:
their revenue growth is also currently the lowest, and Wall Street likes to see growth. Their grounded MAXes aren’t helping, either.


Um, the grounded 737-MAX aircraft are pretty much the entire reason revenue didn't grow as much. WN had planned to grow capacity by 5% for 2019 but roughly 5% of the fleet is grounded and they're not going to be taking 41 expected deliveries for 2019 until the grounding is lifted. WN has the greatest dependency on the MAX and are consequently going to be handicapped the most by its grounding.

Aceskywalker wrote:
The cost of potentially having grounded MAXs well into 2020 if not longer, compounded with pressure to introduce a new fleet type.


There is zero pressure to add a new fleet type over the next decade or so. Hawaii will eat up much of the company's planned growth for the next several years and there are ample opportunities for further growth within the existing route system. There's little to be gained from another fleet type like the A220 or E195-E2 unless they can bring down pilot costs on those aircraft. Sure, they might be able to bring down fuel costs by a few percent, but fuel is a much smaller component than labor of the airline's unit costs these days. While the complexity of multiple fleet types is manageable with large enough subfleets of each type, that complexity still adds costs in and of itself.

And the grounded MAX aircraft are a short-term problem. Unless there's some indication from Boeing that the MAX cannot be fixed, sourcing other aircraft/fleet types probably won't solve the capacity crunch before the 737-MAX returns to airline service.
 
PSAatSAN4Ever
Posts: 1162
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:31 pm

When using the word "sustainable" in this topic, are we referring to the long term viability of the company? Or are referring to "the vulture capitalist" model, where the first priority is golden parachutes for upper-level executives, followed by draconian cost-cutting measures and massive outsourcing so that the investors make ridiculous short-term profits, followed by bankruptcy protection to repeat the cycle until the company is dead?
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5755
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:44 pm

737MAX7 wrote:

I don’t see the pilots agreeing to a codeshare with PD because they’d make the argument they should be flying it themselves.


WN as no aircraft capable of serving YTZ. WN has also avoided Canada like the plague most likely due to high airport charges. Of course the pilots could also say "We should fly to YYZ ourselves".
"My soul is in the sky". -Pyramus- A Midsummer's Night Dream
 
jplatts
Posts: 3932
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:06 pm

OzarkD9S wrote:
737MAX7 wrote:

I don’t see the pilots agreeing to a codeshare with PD because they’d make the argument they should be flying it themselves.


WN as no aircraft capable of serving YTZ. WN has also avoided Canada like the plague most likely due to high airport charges. Of course the pilots could also say "We should fly to YYZ ourselves".


WN's FF base in the U.S. and PD's FF base in Toronto would both benefit from a WN-PD codeshare, as such a codeshare would
(a) give WN FF's in the U.S. 1-stop connectivity to YTZ, which is much closer to Downtown Toronto than YYZ,
(b) give WN FF's in the U.S. who are traveling to Toronto an alternative to AC, AA, DL, or UA,
(c) allow WN FF's to earn Rapid Rewards points on PD's MDW-YTZ nonstop flights,
and
(c) give PD's FF's in Toronto 1-stop connectivity to domestic destinations that WN serves nonstop from MDW.
 
mauro10
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:12 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:31 pm

I think people who suggest that WN should embrace all the ancillary revenue thing and charge for bags or for rescheduling are misreading what WN is. Making these changes would basically turn WN into a ULCC, while they have a lot of business passengers among their mix that don't really fly NK/F9 for work.

WN just battles for the business passengers with the US3 with different weapons. AA/UA/DL have premium cabins, international network + codeshares to spend miles from the FF programs etc. WN has bags, a more point-to-point approach and mainly flexibility. To me it doesn't make sense to change something that is key to attract the most important part of the market. And it's working, best margins among US carriers and 50 years of profits speak loudly and consistently.
 
EvanWSFO
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:51 pm

BNAMealer wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Veigar wrote:
Are people still questioning WN?

Why fix what isn't broken, as hOMSaR pointed out?

The general answer to such a question is:
Because what doesn't evolve, will eventually perish due to changing environmental pressures.

That said, there doesn't seem to be any catalyst on the foreseeable horizon to bring WN to the point of radical change.... but that said, let's also not pretend that the WN of 2019 isn't significant different in many practices/procedures/approaches than the WN of the '90s and early '00s, either.

Gonna be interesting to keep an eye on them vs. NK, over time, however.


That first sentence is a really good point.

Once things get back to normal after the MAX is fixed, I wonder where future growth opportunities will come from. It seems like they are getting close to being maxed out on growth opportunities in the lower 48 (unless they get a smaller fleet).

If there recent pull out of MEX is any indication, think they would struggle internationally as they don’t have a strong POS outside the US.

I have to wonder when/if they will get into codesharing. It seems like a low hanging fruit and there are some strong growth opportunities there if they were so inclined to pursue it, but do they have the willingness?

You’re right, it will be interesting to watch them, not necessarily vs NK, but in general. The next decade is going to be very telling for them.


There are many routes and cities WN can venture into. Their service is far superior to NK. As someone noted, lots of WN pax never look at what the ULCC's offer. I know I don't. While I expect they are keeping an eye on what Spirit does, they will continue to be a profitable carrier.
I have been on this site 15 years. A unrecoverable email account led me to starting over. Those of you who call me a rookie, you may stop ok?
 
aklrno
Posts: 1582
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: WN Practices Sustainable?

Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:52 pm

Most of the comments about WN codeshares seem to be about advantages to the airline in sales. From a passenger point of view I'd like to see codeshares with international long haul for protection against IRROPS. If I fly RNO-LAS-AKL I can book it all on UA/NZ but there are limited flights RNO-LAX. If I book WN to LAX and the flight is delayed I'm out of luck on my LAX-AKL ticket. RNO-LAX is rarely delayed, but I did have one day where high winds stopped all flights into and out of RNO. Had to pay NZ $200 to change my ticket to another day.

As far as other WN advantages, I love the no-fee flight changes. A few weeks ago I got to the airport early and changed to an earlier flight. I had made the first reservation on short notice so I paid a lot. The earlier flight turned out to be cheaper. I changed my flight, got home 2 hours early, and got a refund on my credit card!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos