LUVs take on the AA BK

AAviator

Veteran
Nov 12, 2002
1,385
633
Came via e-mail from a friend...


Gary C. Kelly

Chairman of the Board, President &

Chief Executive Officer



P.O. Box 36611

Dallas, Texas 75235-1611











To: All Southwest and AirTran Warriors


From: Gary Kelly



Date: December 5, 2011



RE: American Airlines More Challenges for Southwest than Opportunities





The past week has been extraordinary with the bankruptcy of American Airlines and the
unexpected retirement of their Chief Executive Officer. Not surprisingly, I have had questions
from our People about what this means for us. I have heard comments like, .Im sure glad Im
not at American. Im glad to be at Southwest.. I can assure you, in this season of giving
thanks, it is the correct perspective. In this time of enormous world-wide economic uncertainty,
it is the right perspective.



Just as I wrote in an article in LUVLines after 9/11: While an airline needs to be good at many
things to be successful; low costs and profitability, ultimately, mean the difference between
survival or not. To be clear, American Airlines, as you knew it, will not survive. Bankruptcy, by
definition, means that it will be radically reorganized, or it will be completely shut down and
liquidated.



American isnt the only airline not to survive without bankruptcy. Lets look back to 1989the
year Southwest became the newest member of the old major airline club, based on annual
revenues. All the majors from 1989 have gone bankrupt. Pan Am. Eastern. Braniff.
Continental. America West. TWA. US Air. United. Delta. Northwest. And now, American.
Every single one failed. Why? Not because of Customer Service, but because of high costs.
Great Customer Service cannot overcome high costs. That is the imperative I wrote about a
decade ago: low costs.



Southwest Airlines is the only major airline from 1989 that has survived this tumultuous industry
without bankruptcy. Why? Because our low costs have preserved our profits. Period.



If American Airlines emerges from the ashes of bankruptcy, and I believe they will, you can be
certain their costs will be substantially lower, especially their labor and aircraft costs. If they
cant achieve that, they will cease to exist (like Pan Am, Eastern, Braniff, and TWA). If they do
emerge from bankruptcy, as I believe they will, they will join the New United, New Delta, and
New US Airways as giant, lower-cost airlines. They are, collectively, much more formidable
competition than their predecessors. The term, .Legacy Carrier,. no longer will apply.






December 5, 2011

Page 2





In the good old days, when the Legacy Carriers costs were higher, we brought our low costs
and low fares to their markets, stimulated demand, and expanded dramatically. Now, while our
costs are still lower, our advantage has been cut in half. We currently do not have a sufficient
cost advantage to stimulate the market because our fares are much closer to our New Airline
competitors. These New Airlines, reconstituted from their Legacy ashes, join younger, lower-
cost airlines like JetBlue and Frontier, as well as an even newer group of ultra low-cost airlines
like Allegiant and Spirit. As predicted, the industry has transformed to lower costs.



Of course, one major point of low costs is to drive profits. The old airline industry was famous
for not achieving profits, which rendered them very weak competitors. The New Airline industry
is profitable. In fact, the New Delta and New United had better profit margins than Southwest in
the third quarter, despite the magnificent gains weve made over the last four years with our
Customer Experience enhancements and our revenues. On that front, we have outperformed
all competitors. We have a cost challenge, and it is one that looms large.



American Airlines lost its way. It made promises it could not keep. It tried very hard to avoid
bankruptcy. As every other major airline used that tortured strategy, American became higher
and higher cost relative to the New Airline industry. Just when we thought 2011 would be safe
from the perils of the 2009 recession, American is posting another massive loss. The New
Delta and the New United are producing strong profits. Why? You know lower costs. It puts
New Delta and New United in a position to grow from here. American has shrunk dramatically
this past decade. They will shrink more. That may provide Southwest some opportunities to
capture more Customers and grow; however, we will have to compete with a stronger
marketplace for Americans customers. You know how much harder that is because of our
diminished cost advantage.



Americans employees will make many sacrifices. It is convenient to lay the blame at the feet of
Americans management. Certainly, they deserve their share of the blame. But, just as
employees deserve credit when a company does well, so do they deserve some of the blame
when it does not. American has outdated and inflexible work rules that render it less productive
than the New Airline industry. Thats just one example of how the company lost its way, and
just one example of what is imperative to change, lest they be shut down.



For us, the bottom line is simple. There may be some near-term opportunities for Southwest as
American shrinks and is distracted with the human struggle of bankruptcy. American will be
governed through a bankruptcy court and a creditor committee, and it will be sheer hell for them.
Once they get through it though, several years from now, they will join the New Airline industry
as a much more formidable competitor. We need to prepare ourselves better right now for this
New Airline industry.



So, what if we dont? As stated earlier, Southwest is the only 1989 major airline that has
survived without bankruptcy. Why? Because our low costs have preserved our profits.






December 5, 2011

Page 3





Our labor rates are now, far and away, the highest in the industry. Through bankruptcy, very
large New Airlines have emerged with lower rates than us and better productivity. Next to fuel,
labor is our highest expenditure. We cant have lower overall operating costs if our labor costs
arent lower. We cant have lower labor costs if we arent more productive. The good news is
that we have a lot of opportunities to improve our productivity, eliminate waste, and preserve our
pay rates and benefits for the foreseeable future. Its crucial that we take advantage of those
opportunities.



The imperative I spoke about nearly a decade ago has been fulfilled by our remaining, formerly
.Legacy,. competitors. The imperative is now squarely upon Southwest. I know you all
understand the evidence hundreds of airlines perished since deregulation. No 1989 major
airline has survived without bankruptcy except Southwest. We are the maverick. We are
different. Thats how we have prevailed with a Warrior Spirit, a .Never Give In. resolve, and a
burning desire to be the very best. The sloth-like industry you remember competing against is
now officially dead and buried. We fought them, and we won.



Now, the enemy is our own cost creep, our own legacy-like productivity, and our own
inefficiencies. Fighting this cost enemy is an imperative to remain the Maverick. We will fight,
and we will remain the Maverick.



It is important to say that low costs, alone, will not win the day. Our People are most important.
It is our People who produce this great low-cost airline. It is our People who serve our
Customers in an outstanding way. And, it is our People who will continue to transform
Southwest with four big initiatives: AirTran, All-New Rapid Rewards, B737-800, and a new
reservation system.



Finally, please remember, all the great things our People do will be for naught without low costs.
Just ask the old .Legacy. airlines.



I am very grateful and very thankful for all of you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
A lot of hand wringing and a shot across the bow to SWA employees. Will be interesting to see how things play out over at SWA over the next few years.
 
I'm a little surprised to see some of the things being written but the letter/he is right that WN has lost alot of its advantage at the very time it needs an advantage trying to move into the east coast.
The whole reason WN's push into the east coast including ATL has turned out to be less than what alot of people predicted is because DL is indeed a very effective low cost competitor and WN is just not prepared to get into a royal pushing match w/ a competitor that is in many ways far better positioned to defend its home turf than WN - and ATL for WN will be another "outpost".. not its primary focus.
.
The DL-WN comparison is highly relevant because AA mgmt IS aware that the end of the Wright Amendment spells the single greatest threat to AA's existence - if AA does not successfully restructure in order to compete.
But if AA DOES successfully restructure, WN's ability to grow its position in its own backyard is severely hampered.
.
When you factor in what WN needs to do in order to preserve its ability to grow against its network competitors, the merger integration with FL looks even more difficult - they simply cannot throw a bunch of money at the problem to make the merger work.
.
There are many sub-themes that will be running during the AA BK process and how AA positions itself relative to WN in preparation for the fall of the Wright Amendment will be one of the key issues to watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Thanks for that post. Interesting for sure. LUV is determined to NOT be the high cost carrier, which means AA restructure cost targets may need to be lowered. Ouch!
 
I forgot to mention, I heard a few months ago that AA was looking into a SWA style point-to-point operation. "Is this the same old airline within an airline that has been tried and failed before at other airlines?" Sort of. The way it was explained to me, this is not like Ted or Song where they just repaint the planes and call it "low cost". This would be a system of point to point carved out within the AA system using A319s and getting VASTLY greater aircraft and crew utilization. If AA does it that way it makes sense to me, but what do I know I'm just another heavy brick in mAAnagement's backpack.
 
No. AUS flights were just to a single major destination--LAX, ORD, MIA, etc. I think what SuperFluf was referring to would be more like a true WN routing where airplane AND crew would go something like DFW-BHM-ATL-CLT-BWI then layover--instead of DFW-BHM-DFW-ATL-DFW-CLT-DFW-BWI--with different crews almost every time you touched DFW. That is just an example. I'm not saying that particular routing is even doable.

I'm guessing that part of the deal would be f/as would clean the plane at every stop. If they would just eliminate the unpaid 3-hour sits in DFW, ORD, and MIA, I'd be willing. (Well, as long as we have time in MIA to go to La Carreta. That is not negotiable. :lol:)
 
AA's looked at the Southwest P2P model for the past 20 years. "Checkerboard" gating was supposed to achieve a lot of that a few years back and that initiative seems to have died a quiet death.

Maybe with more nimble work rules for FA's and FSC's that might come back (i.e. turns cleaned like thru flights are today, outsourcing lav & cabin service so that FSC's can focus on load/unload.
 
E, with the exception of f/as cleaning on turns, we are already doing a lot of that at some of the smaller stations--BHM, HSV, etc. These stations are now staffed with either contract employees or everyone has been downgraded to AE payroll and pay rates.
 
the benefit of the WN model comes in cities where there is enough demand to offer true point to point service or to string together a bunch of point to point routes such as what was described above.
AA and DL at least have both tried to de-hub their largest hubs in order to improve the inefficiencies but found that there is more revenue to be gained by being inefficient but tightly banked than to be lower cost and efficient. That is why the network carrier hub and spoke model really cannot be made more efficient.
.
The concept of creating point to point markets separate from the hub and spoke system does make sense. Song failed because it was using big airplanes to compete against a lower cost competitor that was using smaller aircraft and Song still had higher costs than B6 due to DL's higher cost pre-BK cost structure. Ted was an airline within an airline concept based on hubs... Song was more of a point to point operation similar to what is proposed above for AA and it very well could work w/ the right costs and the right aircraft - and it would put a dent in WN's ability to control markets outside of hubs.
.
It could also reflect a shift in strategy away from the 5 cornerstones and the traditional hub and spoke system and it also means that AA could create what it needs w/o a merger... which is exactly what I believe they can do.
It is very possible
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
A good example...

AA does a land office business DFW-MCI-DFW; also, DFW-STL-DFW. TWA had a number of flights/day MCI-STL. AMR surrendered that entire market to WN from the beginning (which when coupled with several other STL non-stop routes that were eliminated immediately, tells me they never had any intention of keeping STL as a true hub). I think a DFW-MCI-STL-DFW route would work; or DFW-MCI-STL-MCI-DFW; or any combination of those you can think of. And, it would not be devoid of premium passengers. All one has to do is go over to East Terminal (WN) at STL and look at the number of suits (with their attendant laptops, I-pads, and Blackberries) that have paid the extra $25 to board first.
 
The concept of creating point to point markets separate from the hub and spoke system does make sense.

So SWA doesn't have hubs and point to point? Then what do you call OAK, BWI, MDW, STL, DAL, ATL, PHL, PHX etc..?

The biggest thing AA wanted out of this deal was the increase in aircraft utilization. The thing holding them back was various pilot and FA work rules. Now, that does not appear to be an issue.
 
At least WN is acknowledging that change is coming and the airline must evolve...like everyone else...to be competitive in the new industry. Hate to say it but all industries will be getting hit by the economy until at least 2015. It's going to be a rough ride for everybody from airlines to government to retail to transportation and commerce, etc.
 
So SWA doesn't have hubs and point to point? Then what do you call OAK, BWI, MDW, STL, DAL, ATL, PHL, PHX etc..?

The biggest thing AA wanted out of this deal was the increase in aircraft utilization. The thing holding them back was various pilot and FA work rules. Now, that does not appear to be an issue.

Besides cleaning the plane, I can't thing of any work rule that we flight attendants have that are more restrictive then WN that wouldn't allow better aircraft utilization. We went to FAA minimums in 2003 and it took us a letter of agreement to get 8 hours behind the door again.
 
What about preferential bidding? Separate bids for Dom/Int? Prohibiting SA based FA's from operating north of MIA?

Part of the point in the note is that WN is no longer the benchmark being sought...