Southwest giving perks to business travelers

[pc95]

When I think of low fares, I think of late 90's when Southwest had the same SAN-SMF route for around $70 tax included. I notice that they dont advertise that route on DING often at all. The supposedly cheap $59 fare comes out to nearly $140 - twice that of awhile back. Still, driving the same up and back costs about
$120 in gas, and total trip times are about 6 hours by plane vs. 13 for car. The numbering system for tickets seems reasonable, but the business idea is gimmicky. Yes I'm a new poster. Got a little upset as a first reaction to reading about SW's new "improvements".

 

[KCFlyer]

When I think of low fares, I think of late 90's when Southwest had the same SAN-SMF route for around $70 tax included. I notice that they dont advertise that route on DING often at all. The supposedly cheap $59 fare comes out to nearly $140 - twice that of awhile back. Still, driving the same up and back costs about
$120 in gas, and total trip times are about 6 hours by plane vs. 13 for car. The numbering system for tickets seems reasonable, but the business idea is gimmicky. Yes I'm a new poster. Got a little upset as a first reaction to reading about SW's new "improvements".

I don't know if you noticed, but airlines are not a "not for profit" business (although I can see how 4 of the majors filing bankruptcy of the past couple of years might lead you to believe otherwise). Why back in the late 90's, I could fill my T-Bird for less money than it costs me to fill my Prius today.

Let me ask you something...I don't know if you've ever been told at 9 in the morning to be on the noon flight out...if it was a popular route, you usually got stuck in a center seat...whether it was because you were in the C boarding group on Southwest or assigned that seat on another airline. I have. Is it "gimmicky" that the traveller like that now can get in the A group? FWIW...when my dad was in chemo, I paid AA $850 to get a center seat to fly down there. It was assigned and all that, but since I booked at the last minute, and it was a Friday afternoon, I got the best seat that they had...in the middle.

 

[BoeingBoy]

When I think of low fares, I think of late 90's when Southwest had the same SAN-SMF route for around $70 tax included.

The supposedly cheap $59 fare comes out to nearly $140 - twice that of awhile back. Still, driving the same up and back costs about
$120 in gas

I think you've just answered a large part of your question about the fare increases - what would have been the gas bill for driving that trip in the late 90's?

For quickly accessible data on jet fuel prices, 2001 is the earliest I found. That year, the average spot price of jet fuel was about 75 cents/gallon. So far, the average for this year is about $2.00/gallon and for last month was about $2.40/gallon. WN, even with their hedges, has to recoup the extra cost of fuel from someone.

Jim

 

[magsau]

Not quite. If I don't fly one of the others enough to become "elite", I get nothing. If I only fly Southwest once, but pay full fare - I get far more for that flight than other guys who diligently fly the others in order to attain "elite" status do in a year.

So SWA runs an ad that showed a passenger using an E-check in machine and being denied a window seat. Is there a guarantee when you buy a SWA ticket that you get a window seat? Or is this program that is being touted giving you the ability to "Hunt" for a window seat ahead of others. Actually if you have elite status on one of the real airlines you do get some nice perks. At many of the other carriers you get some nice perks that you won't get at SWA. I believe the drink coupons are abundant amongst the elite travelers, the dedicated boarding lane with the red carpet at UAL for our elite travelers and several other perks. If you are a high mileage or high revenue traveler you will get the seating preferences and in the F cabin you are given your choice of meals before the others.

 

[KCFlyer]

So SWA runs an ad that showed a passenger using an E-check in machine and being denied a window seat. Is there a guarantee when you buy a SWA ticket that you get a window seat? Or is this program that is being touted giving you the ability to "Hunt" for a window seat ahead of others. Actually if you have elite status on one of the real airlines you do get some nice perks. At many of the other carriers you get some nice perks that you won't get at SWA. I believe the drink coupons are abundant amongst the elite travelers, the dedicated boarding lane with the red carpet at UAL for our elite travelers and several other perks. If you are a high mileage or high revenue traveler you will get the seating preferences and in the F cabin you are given your choice of meals before the others.

That's all great mags...but if I am only on United because that was the one time they fit my schedule, what do I get...oh...if I pay full fare I might get a econ+ seat (if the elites haven't taken them all first), but I get none of the other things. That's the point...If your very FIRST flight on Southwest is business select, you get first boarding group (40 people...most 737's I know of have two rows of window and two rows of aisle seats, so odds are good I might even get an EXIT row window...something reserved for elites on others) plus I get a free drink.

 

[JS]

So SWA runs an ad that showed a passenger using an E-check in machine and being denied a window seat. Is there a guarantee when you buy a SWA ticket that you get a window seat? Or is this program that is being touted giving you the ability to "Hunt" for a window seat ahead of others. Actually if you have elite status on one of the real airlines you do get some nice perks. At many of the other carriers you get some nice perks that you won't get at SWA. I believe the drink coupons are abundant amongst the elite travelers, the dedicated boarding lane with the red carpet at UAL for our elite travelers and several other perks. If you are a high mileage or high revenue traveler you will get the seating preferences and in the F cabin you are given your choice of meals before the others.

Give us a break. How much "hunting" does one need to do for a window seat when you have an A boarding pass? An A boarding pass results in a window seat just as much as an A or F seat assignment on UAL -- very likely (not guaranteed, since you could get booted out of that seat by a UAL FA to accomodate someone else).

No one denies that elite status on other airlines comes with perks, and in many cases those perks exceed those of SWA (if you get a mainline jet). But on the other hand, SWA doesn't have any RJ's, prison matrons as flight attendants, no-service flights because it's less than two hours in length, or pre-assigned middle seats.

 

[magsau]

No one denies that elite status on other airlines comes with perks, and in many cases those perks exceed those of SWA (if you get a mainline jet). But on the other hand, SWA doesn't have any RJ's, prison matrons as flight attendants, no-service flights because it's less than two hours in length, or pre-assigned middle seats.

SWA does not have RJ's. But SWA does not serve the majority of the airports in the country. SWA can not get you to many places the real airlines can.

SWA does not have prison matron flight attendants. Really? I have been unfortunate to see some granny's and tranny's in the terminal sporting the "go team" outfits of SWA.

no-service flights because it's less than two hours in length
What meal are you serving in F class on a transcon, transpacific, transatlantic, etc flight. In fact I think the drink service is comparable on all carriers on the short flights. Also, you will often get a Buy On Board choice at the real airlines.

And my favorite SWA myth:
or pre-assigned middle seats I don't ride SWA. But if I am to decipher the method of boarding you give people cards for an A-Z or some type of boarding mush. Is someone that gets one of those high letters going to have a better chance of getting a middle seat than someone in a low letter? You can not guarantee someone won't be in a middle seat and at the real carriers you CAN. Also, with the ability to see you seat on line before you get to the airport you have a choice in where you are sitting and you don't have to be on the computer 24 hours prior to dept. trying to beat the system. The SWA pax are the dumpster divers and mosh pit people of travel. I am sure the suits of the world will not mind the exercise of elbowing grandma and aunt ethel for a place in the line to get a seat. ....... Where is that America West Ad that depicts boarding at SWA as a mosh pit at a rock concert???? Pretty apt.

It does appear SWA is trying everything they can to capture market because the current plan is not working too well. With the hedges expiring the truth will be brutal for SWA.

 

[skyguy25]

simple math.. the first 92 people on the plane are promised a window or aisle......only 45 people people get the "middle seat".... if you can't tolerate a non-assigned middle seat for an hour flight from LAX-LAS seek professional help.

 

[KCFlyer]

SWA does not have RJ's. But SWA does not serve the majority of the airports in the country. SWA can not get you to many places the real airlines can.

Don't look now, but neither can many of the "real" airlines. Want to go to Peoria? You'll need to book on one of the "regional affiliates.

no-service flights because it's less than two hours in length
What meal are you serving in F class on a transcon, transpacific, transatlantic, etc flight. In fact I think the drink service is comparable on all carriers on the short flights. Also, you will often get a Buy On Board choice at the real airlines.

What good is a transpacific meal if I am going to Nashville? And why buy on board when I can pop into an au bon pain or something at the airport and eat it at my convenience?

It does appear SWA is trying everything they can to capture market because the current plan is not working too well. With the hedges expiring the truth will be brutal for SWA.

Yes...key words "everything they can". Compare this to the "real" airlines who are trying to be all things to all people...low fare...first class...Europe...Asia...Peoria. Seems like that strategy got you all a lot of concessions and a trip to bankruptcy court.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

The SWA pax are the dumpster divers and mosh pit people of travel.

Step out of the cockpit and take a look at some of the UA pax.

 

[magsau]

Don't look now, but neither can many of the "real" airlines. Want to go to Peoria? You'll need to book on one of the "regional affiliates.

Actually it is seamless. You don't have to book Peoria via the affiliate, the mainline will take care of that. Do you also want to earn some miles for being loyal, well you will get those also.

What good is a transpacific meal if I am going to Nashville? And why buy on board when I can pop into an au bon pain or something at the airport and eat it at my convenience?

What if the line at Au Bon Pain was too long or you got hungry while on board the SWA flight? Better eat your shoe because there are no options. The real airlines offer options that SWA is just now trying. They are trying to make changes in a marketplace that has the highest fuel cost ever. The SWA effect may just be cutbacks and furloughs. If not those then complete stagnation and limited upgrades.

Yes...key words "everything they can". Compare this to the "real" airlines who are trying to be all things to all people...low fare...first class...Europe...Asia...Peoria. Seems like that strategy got you all a lot of concessions and a trip to bankruptcy court.

Well the real airlines are posting better revenues than the likes of SWA. We have had this discussion many times. But all that Bk did was level the playing field. Carriers like SWA that offered no A plan retirement and willing to do the job for much less than the going rates were the first turn of the wrench of the major airline employees careers. So to see them suffer from their actions is nothing less than enjoyable.

 

[KCFlyer]

But all that Bk did was level the playing field.

Hmmm...level the playing field. IMHO, had UAL not been afforded the "luxury" of a 3 year stint under bankruptcy protection, the field would have been leveled, and most likely Delta and Northwest would not have had to conduct their own "field leveling operations".

 

[magsau]

Hmmm...level the playing field. IMHO, had UAL not been afforded the "luxury" of a 3 year stint under bankruptcy protection, the field would have been leveled, and most likely Delta and Northwest would not have had to conduct their own "field leveling operations".

This might require a separate thread as the drift is mighty in the revisionist history that you are trying to spin. If you have an issue with the BK process then please address it with your votes. As to the specifics of UAL's BK length you have omitted the several "try agains" issued by the ATSB. If UAL had not been given the carrot of the ATSB, the BK stint would have been much shorter.

So please try again and if possible keep it on topic.

 

[NYCDelta]

Hmmm...level the playing field. IMHO, had UAL not been afforded the "luxury" of a 3 year stint under bankruptcy protection, the field would have been leveled, and most likely Delta and Northwest would not have had to conduct their own "field leveling operations".

Whether we like it or not, BK is something MANY companies have used to shed costs. The government is probably hesitant to change it for fear of causing the loss of thousands of jobs. Plus, I'm not sure the "playing field" would be level anyway. Eastern, Braniff, PanAm-they all went away, yet we still seem to have "overcapacity". If CO had "died" during their first BK, it wouldn't have changed this industry. New airlines are always waiting in the wings. They spring up with lower fares, lower costs, and a low-paid workforce. You should be glad the big airlines haven't gone out of business. If CO, US, DL, UA and NW had all gone out of business, new entrants would spring up in their place. These new entrants would ALL have lower costs than WN. I'm sure that wouldn't make it easy for WN.

OTOH, WN should be commended for their success. People always like to say, "wait until their fuel hedges go away" or "wait until their contracts are up for renewal". The fact of the matter is, WN is a very successful business. I've only flown them once, PHX-DAL via ABQ, but they do it right. I definitely think they are a "real" airline. I just prefer to fly a legacy if it's a longer flight. I wouldn't hesitate to fly WN if I lived closer to MDW-but I live closer to O'Hare. If I HAVE to buy a ticket, I normally can find a decent fare on a legacy, without the 45 minute drive to MDW.

 

[CynicalResAgent]

I live in STL and have a lot of flight options on WN but have never flown on them opting instead for other choices but enjoying the benefit of having them in the market and thus keeping airfares somewhat reasonable. I deal with WN on a regular basis being a travel agent and I like dealing with them as they are easy to deal with (no change fees) and have friendly agents (no outsourcing... Helo my name is Jim (but he sounds like he is from Mumbai))

I think it's a smart move for WN to go after higher paying passengers because they are doing it without increasing their costs in any substantial way, thus it's a win-win.