Flight Attendant Cleaning Station Update

[mweiss]

First off you need to know the legal definition of collusion.

I'm well aware of the legal definition of collusion, thank you.

All airlines (parties) raising fares in itself doesn't constitute collusion any more then all airlines lowing fares.

Of course not. However, all parties raising fares in concert is significant evidence toward a collusion charge.

Also it can apply to two parties all parties do not have to participate for collusion to occur.

No, not all parties have to participate. However, only two parties participating (when there are more than two in the market) will rarely produce the desired effect.

Collusion can also apply to lowering fares if it involves lowering fares to get rid of competition by selling under cost of doing business.

It can, but it's usually far easier to prove the predatory pricing charge than the collusion charge in that case. Hence why you won't see collusion charges when fares are lowered.

Southwest's advantage in the market is not only their fuel hedging as you seem to be implying.

I apologize if that was your inference. My intent was to suggest that WN's fares would be higher were it not for the hedging. They'd still retain pricing power in certain markets, but not to the degree that they currently do.

The only reason they have a fuel hedging advantage now is because they already had other advantages over the other airlines not because of the hedging in itself.

Patently false. It is one reason, but far from the only reason.

When all is said and done taking out all costs for fuel Southwest will still beat the legacys hands down.

[post="251689"][/post]​

In cost, yes. However, the legacies do still retain a degree of pricing premium over WN. This is why I was saying that WN's pricing power erodes without the hedging. Right now, AA has a much better cost structure than they did in 2001. Combined with their premium offering, they would have an opportunity to compete effectively against WN were it not for the additional competitive advantage of hedging. The same could be said for CO.

 

[SKY HIGH]

I'm a clean person and a considerate pax.
I'd rather have my F/A, who's there for my safety first, make sure the inflight medical equipment is intact and that nothing is blocking the exit row - and have utility clean the a/c - but, if this is what the new F/A contract says, I can at least do my part to make it easier on my safety professional.


Sky high states: I think I had you on my flight.........in the seventies. LOL. No, seriously, THANK YOU for your compassion and RESPECT.

 

[SKY HIGH]

One of the problems I see with this new procedure is having TIME TO GO GET SOMETHING TO EAT between flights. No more crew meals. Time between flights is limited. And you can only pack so much that isnt perishable.
Oy vey!

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

I'm well aware of the legal definition of collusion, thank you.

Of course not. However, all parties raising fares in concert is significant evidence toward a collusion charge.

No, not all parties have to participate. However, only two parties participating (when there are more than two in the market) will rarely produce the desired effect.

It can, but it's usually far easier to prove the predatory pricing charge than the collusion charge in that case. Hence why you won't see collusion charges when fares are lowered.

I apologize if that was your inference. My intent was to suggest that WN's fares would be higher were it not for the hedging. They'd still retain pricing power in certain markets, but not to the degree that they currently do.

Patently false. It is one reason, but far from the only reason.
In cost, yes. However, the legacies do still retain a degree of pricing premium over WN. This is why I was saying that WN's pricing power erodes without the hedging. Right now, AA has a much better cost structure than they did in 2001. Combined with their premium offering, they would have an opportunity to compete effectively against WN were it not for the additional competitive advantage of hedging. The same could be said for CO.

[post="251739"][/post]​

From your original post on collusion you couldn't tell you knew the definition hense I submitted it.

I never said in concert which would imply all at once. I originally compared all airlines raising fares (Which we all know is a wait and see proposition) against all airlines lowering fares which we all know isn't done in concert.

Glad we agree to what I said all parties do not have to participate to have collusion.
Glad we agree to what I said collusion can occur in lowering fares too

About Southwests fares, it stands to reason if Southwest has so much pricing power because of hedging then Southwest could make alot more money now if they just raised fares now instead of waiting for worse times and the end of their hedging advantage. Why don't they then? They either don't have the pricing power you think rather fares are set by market as everyone likes to say here or Southwest lies and their real goal is to eliminate any competition by setting fares so low other airlines can't survive.

You say I am patently false saying "The only reason they have a fuel hedging advantage now is because they already had other advantages over the other airlines not because of the hedging in itself"

Please tell me how I am wrong. They had other advantages what "other reason is there" any reason you give will fit in other advantages category the only one I excluded was "the only reason was fuel hedging" which means I included fuel hedging as a reason too just not as the only reason.

The legacys do have a pricing premium over Southwest for sure. No one I know ever said Southwest delivered the top premium product in ever category. Obviously price isn't the only thing to every person or every company when it comes to flying. But I still stand by what I said put southwest in most markets heads up with any legacy and Southwest wins. I did say most not all so please note that. I am tried of having to come back after a comment of your and say glad you agreed.

 

[mweiss]

About Southwests fares, it stands to reason if Southwest has so much pricing power because of hedging then Southwest could make alot more money now if they just raised fares now instead of waiting for worse times and the end of their hedging advantage.

It would stand to reason, if air travel were an inelastic commodity. Since it's not, that argument doesn't stand to reason. You make the most money not by charging as high a price as you want, but rather by tuning your pricing to your unique combination of supply and demand profiles.

They either don't have the pricing power you think rather fares are set by market as everyone likes to say here or Southwest lies and their real goal is to eliminate any competition by setting fares so low other airlines can't survive.

Nope. To say that a business has pricing power (again, we're using economic terminology) is not to suggest that the business can raise prices with impunity and not reduce profits. It is to say that the cost profile of WN permits WN to set pricing without having to consider the cost profiles of their competitors.

You say I am patently false saying "The only reason they have a fuel hedging advantage now is because they already had other advantages over the other airlines not because of the hedging in itself" Please tell me how I am wrong.

Anybody could have bought those contracts in 2000. The other advantages that WN had at the time in no way precluded anyone else from doing the same. So, what I'm saying is that the other advantages had little to do with their current fuel hedging advantage.

But I still stand by what I said put southwest in most markets heads up with any legacy and Southwest wins.

Historically, that has been true. However, DL, CO, and AA have all made strides in the direction of closing the gap. If WN's hedges were out of the picture, would DL, CO, and/or AA be able to effectively compete against WN? Certainly AS would be able to.

I am tried of having to come back after a comment of your and say glad you agreed.

[post="251791"][/post]​

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

[post="251832"][/post]​

Though I had a reponse to you I will withhold it. You seem to be the type to never want to agree to disagree or agree to agree. You will agrue someone who agrees with you or you agree with. Wanting to debate on and on and and twist words, change stance and make mountains out molehills. My participation ends here and you can consider yourself outlasting me. Enjoy.

 

[700UW]

Can we get back on topic?

 

[mweiss]

You seem to be the type to never want to agree to disagree or agree to agree.

Sheesh...how can I possibly agree with that statement? Wait...I can. I probably do seeom to be the type. Except that BoeingBoy and I often find ourselves with agreement lovefests.

My participation ends here and you can consider yourself outlasting me.

[post="251848"][/post]​

I'm sorry to see you give up so quickly. This discussion was so much in contrast to your usual posts...I was beginning to have respect for you.

Seriously, none of us learn unless there's something new to share, whether a new fact or a new perspective on an old fact. I'm willing to learn.

700, please accept my apologies for being one of the guilty parties in topic drift.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

[post="251858"][/post]​

I admit it did cross my mind to use the topic drift excuse to get out of our never ending boring Southwest babble. Don't worry about the respect part I would have soon enough lost it back anyway.

Now back to topic....hmm what was it?

 

[ISP]

I find both MWeiss and UVN to be quite irritating, anyone agree?

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

I find both MWeiss and UVN to be quite irritating, anyone agree?

[post="252302"][/post]​

I most certainly do agree

 

[SKY HIGH]

Here's what happens when you DONT HAVE a...."it's NOT my job"....attitude.

ARLINGTON - Three flight attendants received kudos from customers and fellow employees last Thursday, when their efforts reduced a prolonged delay for a New Orleans - Charlotte flight. Dara Furash, John Hurd, Jr., and Charlie Welch, sprang into action upon hearing that the crew members scheduled to work the Charlotte flight were held up for over an hour coming in from Pittsburgh due to Air Traffic Control issues there.

When New Orleans Customer Service Supervisor Tina Molaison announced to those waiting in the gate area about the delay, Dara, John and Charlie -- who were awaiting the inbound flight -- volunteered to help prepare the aircraft and greet customers.

As a result, New Orleans agents were able to start the boarding process. By the time the scheduled crew arrived, all customers were on board and seated, with their carry-on luggage stowed.

The unselfish assistance provided by these three did not go unnoticed. Director of Inflight Product Stephen Kingsley expressed appreciation for the "cooperative spirit they displayed." Tina agreed, saying "the crew members went above and beyond the call of duty in turning this flight."

Added Bryan Smith, New Orleans station manager, "By speeding the boarding process of the Charlotte flight, these three helped us avoid an additional 20-minute or longer delay. They minimized inconvenience both for our internal and external customers on this occasion." Thanks to Dara, John and Charlie for a job well done.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

Here's what happens when you DONT HAVE a...."it's NOT my job"....attitude.

[post="252431"][/post]​

I don't think that was a violation of any contract or was it?

I don't pretend to know about the crews job but can the late crew fly without doing their own safety check before the flight leaves?

Don't fellow employees help their peers everyday?

 

[BoeingBoy]

can the late crew fly without doing their own safety check before the flight leaves?

[post="252439"][/post]​

Checking the safety equipment only takes a couple or three minutes.

Jim

 

[mweiss]

Here's what happens when you DONT HAVE a...."it's NOT my job"....attitude.

[post="252431"][/post]​

That's great to see. It's that sort of out-of-the-box thinking that should be encouraged at all levels of the company.