nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
does this mean they will have to pull out of the newer southwest airports?
Until WN posts a loss, their business model works just fine...
MSNBC doesn't have a clue - what a bunch of nimrods
Until WN posts a loss, their business model works just fine...
Wouldn't you just #### if they filed bankruptcy (twice) to enable them to compete in an industry that would most likely be strong and vibrant had the bankruptcy courts not been liberal enough to let not one....not two...not three...but four...and one of those (the one you post in the most) has been thru bankruptcy a (merged) total of 3 times. Didja ever stop to think that had the free market run it's course, we might have a couple of fewer "major" airlines in business...but those that remained would have ended up stronger and more vibrant than anyone could have imagined, since they would have been competing against carriers that did little things like pay their creditors and reward their shareholders? Long Live Southwest and AA.." The airline had similar figures for Philadelphia, where planes were "just more than half full"
But such growth has come with mixed results. The Post notes that overall passenger load is down from 71% to 69% so far this year, and that "Flights out of Dulles, where the carrier started service in October, were barely half full during the first two months of the year." The airline had similar figures for Philadelphia, where planes were "just more than half full" and at Denver, where its 66% rate was still "far short" of other carriers at DIA.
McAdoo says that because Southwest has enjoyed 34 straight profitable years investors are perhaps “lulled†into thinking management has the company in good hands. It has also distracted them from the dark numbers coming from the large markets like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. For example, the firm's Chicago to Los Angles lost $2 million in the last quarter, with seven daily roundtrips per day. In 2004 the firm had four round trips a day for that route, but still lost from $1 million to $2 million per-quarter.
Wouldn't you just #### if they filed bankruptcy (twice) to enable them to compete in an industry that would most likely be strong and vibrant had the bankruptcy courts not been liberal enough to let not one....not two...not three...but four...and one of those (the one you post in the most) has been thru bankruptcy a (merged) total of 3 times. Didja ever stop to think that had the free market run it's course, we might have a couple of fewer "major" airlines in business...but those that remained would have ended up stronger and more vibrant than anyone could have imagined, since they would have been competing against carriers that did little things like pay their creditors and reward their shareholders? Long Live Southwest and AA.
Didja ever stop to think that had the free market run it's course, we might have a couple of fewer "major" airlines in business...but those that remained would have ended up stronger and more vibrant than anyone could have imagined.
Is that like THIS-----> running it's course, where YOU enter a market, FLOOD IT with frequency and charge UNREALISTIC low fares? To chase your competition off the route? That free market?
Yet as this article shows, according to DOT numbers, PHL is barely running a 50% Load Factor for WN. Another article says that something like 65 out of the last 71 markets WN entered were unprofitable.
Tick, tock. Keep flying those unprofitable flights as your fuel hedges DIMINISH. That high frequency thing is gonna hurt when your hedges diminish more each year.
How many creditors and shareholders has Southwest screwed in this process? How many bankruptcies does it take to finally 'become competitive' before you'd consider them to be "too many"? Your "savior" airline went the bankruptcy route...and your airline went that way twice in as many years....how badly did YOUR airline hurt the Deltas and Northwests' in the industry by hiding behind bankruptcy "protection"?Is that like THIS-----> running it's course, where YOU enter a market, FLOOD IT with frequency and charge UNREALISTIC low fares? To chase your competition off the route? That free market?
how badly did YOUR airline hurt the Deltas and Northwests' in the industry by hiding behind bankruptcy "protection"?
Long live SWA and AA.
Would that have been before or after U's first or second bankruptcy? Because at that same time, while U was demanding that employees give back...while they were screwing a second round of creditors and shareholders in bankruptcy court...they were also offering a whole bunch of loss leader fares to "keep the load factors up". You don't think that hurt a healthier Delta or Northwest?Delta?....one of the reasons it had to enter bankruptcy was because it tried to put US out of business. One of their FAILED business plans!
Look again kemosabe....LUV's systemwide load factors have historically been lower than the other majors...have been that way for YEARS. LUV flies with a systemwide load factor in the low to mid 70's and makes a profit because they have MORE folks paying "full fare" than any other airline. The fact that their highest fare is considerably less that what US might have charged is what makes them "low fare"...not the $99 transcon roundtrips offered by the other guys. Nor do they have many seats sold at a great loss to the Pricelines and Hotwires in order to put "butts in seats". So yeah...it's quite possible to have a 50% full flight make a profit....you know...for a while there US was flying planes over 80% full...and losing enough money to have to march back into bankruptcy court for another go round of "restructuring".its about YIELD.........however, what's surprising is that FACT that load factors are weak. An airline that supposely charges LOW fares, just isnt filling it's planes up.