We it time for another WN schedule extension.
As always last minute predictions and rumors buzzing around.

Sadly the buzz is big schedule reduction to appeal to wall street and curve growth plans.

I've heard everything from small station closings to parking the remaining 737-500 earlier than planned.

Odd rumor is FNT,DAY,DSM and CAK are being shutdown and resources shifting to adding CVG.
But I highly doubt this is even a plan.

No new international flying adds until summer time scheduled.

Drum roll enjoy.

Flyguy

Anyone know when they upload the new schedules? I know its not Midnight EST or anywhere around then, is it Central time since HQ is in DAL?

Nervous for ROC with the end of MDW. Hopeful this will bring some good news to the market.

Quoting wnflyguy (Thread starter): appeal to wall street

hooray for short sighted, short term gains! Lets restrict demand/capacity, and fatten the bottom line so that new LCC entrants can come in and trash them!

Last short sighted wall street push (outsourced regional flying) trashed the next generation of pilot workforce in ways we have not even began to comprehend yet.

History always shows, if you don't give the consumer what they want, they will find it elsewhere. But much applause to you on your short term gains!

Quoting wnflyguy (Thread starter): Odd rumor is FNT,DAY,DSM and CAK are being shutdown and resources shifting to adding CVG. But I highly doubt this is even a plan

I hate that rumor.. being based in CVG, moving to DSM shortly, and having flown WN a number of times from DAY/CMH and DSM.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 2): hooray for short sighted, short term gains! Lets restrict demand/capacity, and fatten the bottom line so that new LCC entrants can come in and trash them!

Quoting jbmitt (Reply 3): I hate that rumor.. being based in CVG, moving to DSM shortly, and having flown WN a number of times from DAY/CMH and DSM.

Quoting wnflyguy (Thread starter): Odd rumor is FNT,DAY,DSM and CAK are being shutdown and resources shifting to adding CVG. But I highly doubt this is even a plan.

I would note that FNT was one of the markets that they cutback in the last couple of weeks in order to meet the new Wall Street capacity shaming guidance they were forced into which MAY indicate it is weak.

So, looking at WN routes from these cities (not just LF, but fares and prorated revenue vs. cost) here's my feeling on performance in these markets (NOTE: This is from CY2014 data using DB1B so if anything I mention is already axed that's why, so cut me some slack):

FNT-BWI/LAS/MCO/TPA all look like they are in the bottom 20% of WN's network in terms of profitability. BWI is by far the worst of the group and one of the worst routes in their whole network.

DAY-DEN looks really terrible. BWI/MCO/TPA are probably close to profitable, but a little bit underwater.

DSM-LAS looks awful. DSM-MDW looks similar to DAY-BWI. Close to profitable, but slightly under.

CAK-ATL was good, but has been dying since they debanked ATL. It had slid from solidly profitable to slightly negative by the end of last year and is probably a trainwreck by now. CAK-MCO/RSW looked breakeven, but G4 is probably doing a lot of damage. TPA looked very poor. A lot of the stuff they cut from CAK in the last change actually looked profitable. DCA/LGA looked solid. I think they moved them not because they were losing, but for broader strategic reasons, plus perhaps the hope the slots could make more money elsewhere.

OVERALL OPINION
I think WN is VERY reluctant to close stations. I think there is only a 20% chance of any of these being cut in this change.

CAK seems safe as they just announced CAK-LAS in the last change, right? The only way I see it going is if they decided G4's big move there was the last straw. Still, very unlikely they close it any time soon. I think it has at least another year or two left in it. If they close it now then they aren't really doing it for long-term economic reasons.

DAY is more likely than CAK to close. Things aren't going that badly except the DEN flight, but if they did CVG it's possible.

DSM is still worse and only has a few flights. I think just the limited schedule alone is a harbinger of bad things to come.

FNT is the weakest of the bunch. It is most likely to go, but they have hung on there for quite a while so far.

There are other crappy markets like GRR. ROC-BWI looks good, but the rest is junk.

Quoting enilria (Reply 4): CAK-ATL was good, but has been dying since they debanked ATL.

I thought ATL is still banked. It's possible to do PHL-ATL-CAK, PHL-ATL-RDU, RIC-ATL-BOS, etc..

However, I see atypical faring on CAK-ATL. Southwest is faring ATL-CAK with $54-74 WGAs for August. Essentially it's faring that segment very low but the connections are fared quite high. e.g. $208 one-way on many CAK-ATL-east routes.

Flying from CAK-ATL-West is fared very high and to the east not really discounted. Maybe it's because of the ULCC pressure over in ATL?

e.g. a PHL-ATL and ATL-CAK booked separately is now over $50 cheaper than PHL-ATL-CAK. Is this a firesale way of ending the route?

[Edited 2015-06-29 11:13:52]

Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 5): I thought ATL is still banked. It's possible to do PHL-ATL-CAK, RIC-ATL-PIT etc.

http://www.airlinecompetition.org/ne...its-flight-strategy-there-changes/

You can still connect, but the flights aren't timed for it. Besides, PHL-ATL-CAK is exactly the kind of connection that banking de-emphasizes. The purpose of banking is to optimize geographically strong connects. A backhaul like PHL-ATL-CAK would be a long connect, while PHL-ATL-MSY would have had a 40 minute connect.

FL might have had pricing freedom from DL/US in something like PHL-ATL-CAK because DL/US knew it wasn't competitive in terms of elapsed time. WN is not a sophisticated pricer (meaning they don't change their pricing as often as other carriers, nor do they use it to hunt pricing advantages like FL did). FL was very nimble at finding pricing tricks or niches to get a price advantage and then milking them. One well known one was their use of sales that lasted only a few hours before they could be matched. FL would also rebucket their fares routinely to confuse their competitors.

FL was also much more likely to be ignored than WN.

I think it isn't as much a firesale as much as throwing their hands up in the air in terms of what to do in a lot of former FL markets. Without banking and without FL's pricing tricks they just can't compete with DL frequency in a lot of markets. They are only really doing well in markets where the WN network really helped like AUS-ATL.

Oh, the a.net rumors around WN schedule release time...

Quoting enilria (Reply 6): You can still connect, but the flights aren't timed for it.

I remember reading a post not too long ago, from knope2001, where he did an analysis, and concluded banking activity was still present.

Edit:
Southwest Airlines In Atlanta (by airliner371 Dec 28 2014 in Civil Aviation)

Reply 44

"Something which surprised me much more as I was pulling these numbers is how heavily Southwest is banked in Atlanta this coming summer. Not sure if this is a new development or not, but ATL is clearly well-banked in the summer 2015 schedule."

[Edited 2015-06-29 11:46:06]

For myself I don't think or see any major cuts coming to the network. I would not be shocked at all to see a small market/city cut. I think shifting the timeline to park the 737-500's early would work well with DAL gate space. WN could shrink DAL- LBB,MAF,AMA and HOU flights by parking the 737-500's. But fill the void with either a few 737-800s or 700's keeping the seats at prime times of the day. This could open up a few more slots at DAL to add more Long Haul flying. My predictions and mine only I see IAD,ICT,CAK,ROC and DAY getting big reductions. Another prediction IF WN was to close some small cities but still remain in the market I see closing CAK but shifting some flying to CLE, DSM would still be covered by OMA and PNS would be covered by ECP. Flyguy

Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 8): Quoting enilria (Reply 6): You can still connect, but the flights aren't timed for it. I remember reading a thread not too long ago, from knope2001, where he did an analysis, and concluded banking activity was still present. But perhaps the schedule has changed even more since the period used in that analysis.

I went back and looked at today's schedule and was surprised. It is banked to my shock, but for at least two reasons it is much less effective banking than in the past. There are now ~14 airplane banks at 0825, 0935, 1330, 1520, 2050, and 2200. If you go back to 2012, FL had 27 airplane banks. 14 airplane banks create 196 cross connects. 27 airplane banks create 729 cross connects, but it's worse than that. Back in 2012 it was directionally banked so that the 27 planes came from the North and went to the South pretty much. Now it's a mess. It's much more heavily weighted to the North and much less to the South, plus the banks are completely non-directional now. I'd guess that instead of generating 196 quality connects, probably 100 of those are significant backhauls. So they are probably only getting about 96 quality connects per bank, down from 729 (or maybe 650 if it were totally apples to apples on backhauls) in 2012. So connectivity is down around 85%. So it is still banked to my surprise, but it is much less effective than in the past...thus the diminished performance.

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 9): For myself I don't think or see any major cuts coming to the network.

If they close stations it will be a bunch at once. I don't see it in this change. They will probably wait for an economic excuse.

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 9): I would not be shocked at all to see a small market/city cut.

It's only a matter of time for CRP.

Are the CRP loads that low?

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 11): Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 9): I would not be shocked at all to see a small market/city cut. It's only a matter of time for CRP.

You know I almost included it on my list, but I looked at the data and it is massively up. RASM went from 28.5 in 2013 to 33.6 in 2014 on pretty flat capacity. That's a pretty monstrous revenue improvement. The LFs were also up about 10 pts YOY and are now decent for WN. I think it is actually on fairly safe ground.

ECP is pretty awful except BNA-ECP which is fine. PNS is bad to everywhere. ORF and RIC are both pretty bad with ORF slightly better. SDF is terrible except for BWI and MDW which are good. EWR to everything but MDW is terrible. MDW is fine.

[Edited 2015-06-29 12:17:05]

Quoting enilria (Reply 10): So it is still banked to my surprise, but it is much less effective than in the past...thus the diminished performance.

I just wonder if CAK-ATL might be a casaulty in this next schedule release as the connect in ATL faring from CAK also seems more off than in the past, while the CAK-ATL direct flights are way underpriced. Typically WN doesn't underprice DL standard fares by so much.

Atleast CLE is up the road and many connects via BWI/MDW/DEN are possible from there.

If ATL becomes more debanked, RIC is going to need MDW flight service or some flight to help connections into the rest of the WN network. Could WN make a daily RIC-DEN or RIC-LAS work for better west-bound?

Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 14): I just wonder if CAK-ATL might be a casaulty in this next schedule release as the connect in ATL faring from CAK also seems more off than in the past

That's a significant possibility.

Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 14): Atleast CLE is up the road and many connects via BWI/MDW/DEN are possible from there.

If they moved CAK-ATL to CLE-ATL I'd feel more confident about ATL going forward. My original theory was they would move all the business markets to CLE and ATL is the last one remaining at CAK. If they don't fly it from either it bodes poorly for ATL.

Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 14): Could WN make a daily RIC-DEN

I seriously doubt it and almost certainly not yearround. F9 tried PHF I believe.

Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 14): RIC-LAS work for better west-bound?

If fuel is cheap it could work, but that's the type of market better served with a red-eye and a plane otherwise doing nothing and WN can't compete in that arena. Having said that, I can see them trying it.

Sounds like WN needs to work on their costs. If they got back to something closer to what they used to be, many of the markets in discussion here would probably be well above water.

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 2): hooray for short sighted, short term gains! Lets restrict demand/capacity, and fatten the bottom line so that new LCC entrants can come in and trash them!

   Wall Street has very unrealistic short-term expectations for airlines. WN needs to hold the schedule line and work on costs, to strengthen long-term profitability.

Jim

Quoting enilria (Reply 4): ROC-BWI looks good, but the rest is junk

Are you kidding? WN has a total monopoly over MCO and TPA in ROC. Those routes continue to perform very well. The only reason MDW was cut from ROC is because of a low amount of terminating pax at MDW, the route carried a profitable load factor. It just wasn't what WN was looking for. During the high season WN has repeatedly scheduled the -800's to operate MCO and TPA. ROC is a profitable station, it's just a matter of finding a balance. I could ironically see PHX being added- it could be supported seasonally, and has in the past had several direct flights placed on that route.

Quoting ryanrap1 (Reply 12): Are the CRP loads that low?

From what I understand, CRP is one of those WN stations that is just kind of there. If the aircraft are needed elsewhere, I could see them being cut.

Quoting jbmitt (Reply 3): I hate that rumor.. being based in CVG, moving to DSM shortly, and having flown WN a number of times from DAY/CMH and DSM.

I highly doubt DSM will be cut. Could I see a consolidation to only serving LAS? Yes. However, I could also see them ending MDW and starting a PHX or DAL.

CAK is, and will most likely be safe if for no other reason than they are starting an LAS flight out of there. However, seeing them end 4 destinations last quarter was a huge shock to everyone if you ask me.

Quoting enilria (Reply 13):

RIC I believe will probably stay the way it is. Loads are very good to both ATL and MCO from what I've heard. If ATL was downsized THAT much, then I could see them swapping ATL for DAL.

First of all, I don't get why WN decided to deviate from their decades-long strategy of "we won't start em unless we think they can sustain 10 daily flights."
Second, I personally think, due to the deviation mentioned above, in most cases, it's WN's fault for pulling out of these cities or drastically reducing their services when they didn't provide because of their limited flights.

Maybe it's my naivete, but there should be zero reason why cities like DSM and RIC should be failing cities for WN. DAY is understandable due to proximity to CMH and IND...but somehow AirTran made it work just fine before the merger.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 18): Maybe it's my naivete, but there should be zero reason why cities like DSM and RIC should be failing cities for WN. DAY is understandable due to proximity to CMH and IND...but somehow AirTran made it work just fine before the merger.

To be fair, FL had lower costs and could fill lots of planes to Florida (or to Florida via ATL) with $69 fares. WN can't do that. FL struggled with DAY-BWI.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 18): Second, I personally think, due to the deviation mentioned above, in most cases, it's WN's fault for pulling out of these cities or drastically reducing their services when they didn't provide because of their limited flights.

Agreed. In some cases, WN's limited schedule almost dooms them to failure. For a market like PNS, offering 2x to BNA (which has limited connectivity as a hub) and 1x to HOU just isn't going to cut it.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 16): If they got back to something closer to what they used to be, many of the markets in discussion here would probably be well above water.

I seriously doubt WN's labor groups will take paycuts when the company is rolling in Billions of profits. Good luck selling that.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 18): First of all, I don't get why WN decided to deviate from their decades-long strategy of "we won't start em unless we think they can sustain 10 daily flights."

Because they have grown to the point that there aren't markets like that still for the picking. (except for a couple hyper-competitive or transcon markets)

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 18): Maybe it's my naivete, but there should be zero reason why cities like DSM and RIC should be failing cities for WN.

Those cities do not generate huge amounts of traffic to one destination. Rather they generate traffic to tons of different destinations, requiring connections, which are not WN's forte.

Quoting ROCDLFAN (Reply 17): Quoting enilria (Reply 4): ROC-BWI looks good, but the rest is junk Are you kidding? WN has a total monopoly over MCO and TPA in ROC.

That's just your opinion. I'm telling you I am looking at their RASM performance created from DB1B and T100 and it is quite sub-par vs other routes of that length in their network. It's a yield issue. As to why it is bad I don't know enough to speculate, but certainly there are a lot of connect options between and that can create price pressure on the nonstop carrier as the other guys undercut to try to get a chunk of the market.

Quoting enilria (Reply 21):

ROC&Airport_Name=Rochester,%20NY:%20Greater%20Rochester%20International&carrier=FACTS" target="_blank">http://www.transtats.bts.gov/airport...ster%20International&carrier=FACTS

According to BTS, ROC-MCO carried aprox. 49,000 passengers between APR 2014 and MAR 2015. That adverages out to aprox. 134 pax per day. With an aircraft capacity of 143, that's a 93.7% L/F. Albeit not 100%, but I would hardly call that Sub Par.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/13197...ll-doesnt-get-it-analyst-says.html

"Shares in Southwest have sold off as investors consider whether the airline, which said it will grow capacity about 7% during the rest of the year, is growing too fast."

This article is what somewhat causes me to believe that they will not be closing stations to the magnitude the discussion believes.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 18): First of all, I don't get why WN decided to deviate from their decades-long strategy of "we won't start em unless we think they can sustain 10 daily flights."

Actually, it was eight flights. It was replaced by a minimum 15% return on investment for a new station after the FL merger. At the same time, WN allowed for small stations to have third-party ground handling - the requirement for WN employees was a large reason why the eight-flight rule was in place, because a station would be unprofitable with WN employees and fewer than eight flights.

But that rule had to go, because the only markets left that WN doesn't serve (aside from ANC and Hawaii) that can support eight or more daily flights from day one are CVG, GSO, and FAT. IMO, it's only a matter of time before WN shifts resources from DAY to CVG. GSO is a little too close to other WN cities to serve, particularly RDU where they are strong. I could see them adding FAT with WN's traditional strength in California, but likely with fewer than eight flights at first to places like LAS and DEN, avoiding short hops like LAX and SFO that WN's been avoiding as of late.

WN is moving into smaller markets because they have to. As soon as the inevitable happens with CVG and Hawaii starts, they will try more smaller cities to keep domestic flying growing. Some will work, some won't as can be evidenced by what happened after the FL merger. WN will need to be careful about which small cities will meet their requirement of a 15% return on investment.

Quoting ROCDLFAN (Reply 22): According to BTS, ROC-MCO carried aprox. 49,000 passengers between APR 2014 and MAR 2015. That adverages out to aprox. 134 pax per day. With an aircraft capacity of 143, that's a 93.7% L/F. Albeit not 100%, but I would hardly call that Sub Par.

They flew more than daily. Average for the year was 1.1 deps/day, so the load factor was actually about 83%.

Quoting ROCDLFAN (Reply 22): According to BTS, ROC-MCO carried aprox. 49,000 passengers between APR 2014 and MAR 2015. That adverages out to aprox. 134 pax per day. With an aircraft capacity of 143, that's a 93.7% L/F. Albeit not 100%, but I would hardly call that Sub Par.

If there's one thing I've learned on a.net, it's that LF doesn't tell the whole story. It may go out 94% full, but what if they're only paying $59? $79? $99? It's more complicated than just LF.

[Edited 2015-06-29 13:30:13]

If WN dropped ROC-MCO/TPA, probably B6 would add it. It's in New York state and B6 wants to stand behind being New York's Hometown Airline.

Also G4 just started limited ROC-FLL and likely could accomodate if WN pulled out of the nonstop Florida business from ROC. So it'd be B6 or G4, with most likely hoping B6. The big loss from WN, ROC-MDW, has already been cut.

Quoting sdoyon (Reply 25):

Fair and valid point.

My argument for WN as a whole however would be that they have been posting record numbers overall at ROC since service first began. (as far as the first 3 months posted)

ROC:

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=1

CAK:

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=1

RIC:

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=1

DAY:

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=1

Quoting enilria (Reply 4): There are other crappy markets like GRR.

GRR wouldn't be crappy if SWA was still following their original model of pricing to build a market, and if they offered more balanced routes to the west. Instead they are following the same strategy as the other three and pricing at a premium to DTW and MDW. Offering three flights to the east coast and just one west to Denver doesn't help as it means 75% of the country has to fly through BWI to get to GRR.

The other thing I don't get is the airlines' reluctance to stick it out in some markets to actually let the route and market grow. Nowadays, if it doesn't make money on the first month, it's gone...

If that was the case, CRP, AMA, etc. would've been dropped by Herb a long time ago

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 29): AMA, etc. would've been dropped by Herb a long time ago

AMA existed as a Wright Amendment stop, no more WA no more AMA.

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 30): AMA existed as a Wright Amendment stop, no more WA no more AMA.

But WN had AMA in their route network between the enactment of Wright and ban of through-ticketing from the perimeter until the repeal of both.

What about HRL (Harlingen)? It has seen a lot of flight cuts, I think it is down to 5 daily flights (4x HOU 1x AUS). Does anyone see this airport being cut or service moving to the much larger McAllen Airport 30 minutes west of HRL?

the 737 is too big for alot of the smaller markets currently left unserved. I know alot of people don't like to except this but if WN wants to dominate these smaller markets they need a smaller aircraft that with built in effencies. with a smaller aircraft I think some of these routes can be done profitably...as long as they are priced right.

Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 14): If ATL becomes more debanked, RIC is going to need MDW flight service

I've been saying this for awhile. The only two routes out of RIC are to MCO and ATL both geographically similar if you're trying to connect westward. MDW would make much more sense for people wanting to head west without having to take a sizable detour to the southeast.

Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 14): Could WN make a daily RIC-DEN

In May I flew to DEN from RIC via MCO on the way there and ATL on the way back. If not DEN then at least MDW. Either way both make more sense than LAS which seems to be too far west if you're trying to get to the Rockies or Midwest region. DAL would be nice but again that almost seems too far south.

Quoting sdoyon (Reply 25): If there's one thing I've learned on a.net, it's that LF doesn't tell the whole story. It may go out 94% full, but what if they're only paying $59? $79? $99? It's more complicated than just LF.

I have never once seen the TPA or MCO flights go for under $100 each direction and I look quite often, but I see your point.

Quoting ROCDLFAN (Reply 27): My argument for WN as a whole however would be that they have been posting record numbers overall at ROC since service first began. (as far as the first 3 months posted)

WN was the best damn thing to ever happen to ROC.

Quoting rtalk25 (Reply 26): If WN dropped ROC-MCO/TPA, probably B6 would add it. It's in New York state and B6 wants to stand behind being New York's Hometown Airline.

Why didn't B6 start it before WN came into town? If they were so interested in serving Florida the service would have existed long ago.

Quoting ROCDLFAN (Reply 22): According to BTS, ROC-MCO carried aprox. 49,000 passengers between APR 2014 and MAR 2015. That adverages out to aprox. 134 pax per day. With an aircraft capacity of 143, that's a 93.7% L/F. Albeit not 100%, but I would hardly call that Sub Par.

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 24): They flew more than daily. Average for the year was 1.1 deps/day, so the load factor was actually about 83%.

Quoting sdoyon (Reply 25): If there's one thing I've learned on a.net, it's that LF doesn't tell the whole story. It may go out 94% full, but what if they're only paying $59? $79? $99? It's more complicated than just LF.

It's really easy to just look at LF, but RASM and fare are more difficult. ROC-MCO is not super bad, but it is considerably worse than the average WN route in terms of revenue performance.

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 28): GRR wouldn't be crappy if SWA was still following their original model of pricing to build a market, and if they offered more balanced routes to the west.

As I said above, FL made these markets work with aggressive pricing and some hocus pocus to snooker competitors. WN plays by the book on pricing...possibly the first edition of the book.

Quoting mfe777 (Reply 32): What about HRL (Harlingen)?

HRL looks like a mix of good and bad from the data I've compiled. It could get cut more, but the station is in no danger.

Some small cities I'm told like CRP and HRL what they lack in PAX they make up in Cargo REV per flight to still make a profit.
Flyguy

Quoting enilria (Reply 4): DSM-LAS looks awful. DSM-MDW looks similar to DAY-BWI. Close to profitable, but slightly under.

I don't know if this means much, but WN has upgauged DSM-LAS to a 738 this fall. Then back to a 73G in November. If the route is so awful, why would they put a larger aircraft on it?

[Edited 2015-06-29 19:24:59]

Quoting dbo861 (Reply 38):

Upgrading doesn't mean much. ROC-MDW is upgraded to the 738 from AUG-NOV, yet the route is ending.

Quoting dbo861 (Reply 38): Quoting enilria (Reply 4): DSM-LAS looks awful. DSM-MDW looks similar to DAY-BWI. Close to profitable, but slightly under. I don't know if this means much, but WN has upgauged DSM-LAS to a 738 this fall. Then back to a 73G in November. If the route is so awful, why would they put a larger aircraft on it?

enilria, can you post the data on why DSM-LAS is so bad? Just curios? I'd look it up myself but no easy access this week, out of town.

Quoting dbo861 (Reply 38): I don't know if this means much, but WN has upgauged DSM-LAS to a 738 this fall. Then back to a 73G in November. If the route is so awful, why would they put a larger aircraft on it?

Sometimes you get what's at the gate. It's not a perfect system.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 33): the 737 is too big for alot of the smaller markets currently left unserved. I know alot of people don't like to except this but if WN wants to dominate these smaller markets they need a smaller aircraft that with built in effencies. with a smaller aircraft I think some of these routes can be done profitably...as long as they are priced right.

Accept. A smaller plane isn't always the answer. If they're willing to happily serve cities whose peak potential is 4-6 flights per day, I think they're just fine with the 737 for a while. Smaller planes have higher costs per seats, generally, so bringing in a smaller plane doesn't do much for the equation in some cases.

There looking at closing 20 deals for more -700's. 10 from China.

New schedule is out!

Anyone notice anything new or find a press release.

From the route map I don't see any new destinations but from my home airport IND-MDW has been added after 1/06/2016 at 2x weekly. A weird add for WN as this would mainly rely on connections

[Edited 2015-06-30 04:20:46]

[Edited 2015-06-30 04:28:44]

Quoting crazytoaster (Reply 43): From the route map I don't see any new destinations but from my home airport IND-MDW has been added after 1/06/2016 at 2x weekly

It's actually 2x daily except Saturdays, where there is only 1 flight (13x weekly).

Lookin forward to booking my annual BUF-FLL flight  

Quoting dbo861 (Reply 38): I don't know if this means much, but WN has upgauged DSM-LAS to a 738 this fall. Then back to a 73G in November. If the route is so awful, why would they put a larger aircraft on it?

Quoting ROCDLFAN (Reply 39): Upgrading doesn't mean much.

Quoting kcrwflyer (Reply 41): Sometimes you get what's at the gate. It's not a perfect system.

Quoting kcrwflyer (Reply 41): Accept. A smaller plane isn't always the answer. If they're willing to happily serve cities whose peak potential is 4-6 flights per day, I think they're just fine with the 737 for a while. Smaller planes have higher costs per seats, generally, so bringing in a smaller plane doesn't do much for the equation in some cases.

Again, people only think about load factor on a.net. If the plane is is full and you are losing money because the fare is too low, you might try a bigger plane to get the CASM lower and hope it fills up. A smaller plane would only lose more money because the CASM would go up.

Quoting Joeljack (Reply 40): enilria, can you post the data on why DSM-LAS is so bad? Just curios? I'd look it up myself but no easy access this week, out of town.

For 2014 the LF was fine at 92%, but it was only 47% local which is very low for LAS. That resulted in a low prorated average fare of $153. For a distance of 1216 miles that is very low. Also, keep in mind for WN that is nearly all the revenue as there is no bag fee revenue.

Not noticing anything new myself so far. Here at MKE (which I always check first) it's pretty identical to last year, with 40x/day being up 1x from last year at the same time.

Quoting enilria (Reply 46): That resulted in a low prorated average fare of $153. For a distance of 1216 miles that is very low.

That works out to be a yield of about 12.5 cents. For that stage length, that is not that bad and likely profitable for WN...albeit a small profit. Plus, factor in a little bit of ancillary revenue and it's not nearly as bad as you are making it out to be.

Quoting enilria (Reply 46): For 2014 the LF was fine at 92%, but it was only 47% local which is very low for LAS. That resulted in a low prorated average fare of $153. For a distance of 1216 miles that is very low. Also, keep in mind for WN that is nearly all the revenue as there is no bag fee revenue.

But you also have to consider that LAS is the only western connecting point out of DSM for WN, unless you backtrack to MDW. If there was another western hub from DSM for western connections, DEN perhaps, there could be more room LAS O&D passengers. LAS is one of the most popular destinations out of DSM and Allegiant always has the biggest marketshare according to the Consumer Airfare Report even though they only fly four times per week. I think Southwest could steal more of those passengers if more seats were available.