rather a pompus attitude busdrvr. Nobody ?????? That is right back to the ACARS discussion. WN will never buy ACARS because it would make them play in the same league as everyone else. An FAA inspector laughed when I asked if Southwest would ever buy ACARS.
Surprise!WN Ontime Rating Takes a Hit
- Thread starter ref80
- Start date
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/26/2002 8:43:39 PM kiowa wrote:
rather a pompus attitude busdrvr. "Nobody" ?????? That is right back to the ACARS discussion. WN will "never" buy ACARS because it would make them play in the same league as everyone else. An FAA inspector laughed when I asked if Southwest would ever buy ACARS.
----------------
[/blockquote]
My gosh, I can't even give SWA a compliment without getting slammed
![3.gif']](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F%5Bimg+src%3D%27http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usaviation.com%2Fidealbb%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2F3.gif%27%5D&hash=89c742f533ab2ebda2af7727cac53725)
----------------
On 9/26/2002 8:43:39 PM kiowa wrote:
rather a pompus attitude busdrvr. "Nobody" ?????? That is right back to the ACARS discussion. WN will "never" buy ACARS because it would make them play in the same league as everyone else. An FAA inspector laughed when I asked if Southwest would ever buy ACARS.
----------------
[/blockquote]
My gosh, I can't even give SWA a compliment without getting slammed
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/26/2002 7
16 PM KCFlyer wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 9/26/2002 3:49:30 PM Busdrvr wrote:
Lower your fares and you can increase the frequency out of DEN to DET. It's called "demand for supply". But why would a UAL aircraft sit on the ground at MCI for 90 minutes, waiting to go back to ORD...why not scheduled less time, then send the plane to DEN and the DEN-MCI plane on to ORD? At least they'd be in the air making some money rather than parked at a gate waiting for it's slot to open up in Chicago. [/P]
----------------
[/blockquote]
KC, stick to the sure paycheck government thing, you don't seem to get the whole free enterprise supply and demand thing
----------------
On 9/26/2002 7
16 PM KCFlyer wrote: [BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 9/26/2002 3:49:30 PM Busdrvr wrote:
Lower your fares and you can increase the frequency out of DEN to DET. It's called "demand for supply". But why would a UAL aircraft sit on the ground at MCI for 90 minutes, waiting to go back to ORD...why not scheduled less time, then send the plane to DEN and the DEN-MCI plane on to ORD? At least they'd be in the air making some money rather than parked at a gate waiting for it's slot to open up in Chicago. [/P]
----------------
[/blockquote]
KC, stick to the sure paycheck government thing, you don't seem to get the whole free enterprise supply and demand thing
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/26/2002 9:56:44 PM KCFlyer wrote:
That's pure poppycock - if anything, you'll drive the few folks willing to pay that straight to the videoconference centers. Lower the prices, feed the demand. Low[STRONG] [/STRONG]prices don't mean you are selling at a loss. It just means your selling MORE at a slight lower profit.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I don't know if you've been following load factors, but the jets are, and have been fairly full. WE ARE SELLING THE SEATS VERY CHEAP! We do offer seats for sale at the last minute on an otherwise full flight. Yes they can get pricy. But you are right the supply and demand CURVES are CURVES!. Dropping the price by 10% or 20% would definately increase demand. Now if they would just lower the Tax!
----------------
On 9/26/2002 9:56:44 PM KCFlyer wrote:
That's pure poppycock - if anything, you'll drive the few folks willing to pay that straight to the videoconference centers. Lower the prices, feed the demand. Low[STRONG] [/STRONG]prices don't mean you are selling at a loss. It just means your selling MORE at a slight lower profit.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I don't know if you've been following load factors, but the jets are, and have been fairly full. WE ARE SELLING THE SEATS VERY CHEAP! We do offer seats for sale at the last minute on an otherwise full flight. Yes they can get pricy. But you are right the supply and demand CURVES are CURVES!. Dropping the price by 10% or 20% would definately increase demand. Now if they would just lower the Tax!
KCFlyer
Veteran
[BR]Oh busdriver....if you go to your local lexus dealer and he tells you that his car is $60,000, would you jump right in and buy it, or would the demand just not be there. But what if he told you that the same car was $30,000 - would you buy it then? I would because the dealer just stimulated demand. [BR][BR]All of the airlines could stimulate demand by lowering their prices. You're airlines costs are currently showing (according to your 10Q) are 11.32 cents per ASM. And I'm assuming that's including all the planes sitting idly at the gates, waiting to be half filled so they can hit the banks at ORD on time. You're charging the business traveller who needs the flexibility of a full fare ticket about 75 cents a mile for the DEN-ORD trip. That's a pretty nice profit over the 11 cents it costs you to fly the seat, empty or not. In fact, anything over 12 cents, and you are actually making a profit. So...why not drop the unrestricted price to the neighborhood of 35 cents a mile? $350 for the one way ticket. Hell, you might find you need [STRONG]two [/STRONG]767's around the same time to accomodate the demand you just stimulated... And that's using the CURRENT costs that UAL has. Didn't even ask for a dollar back from you. But y'all won't try that. No, you'll have managment asking you guys for $9 billion dollars in wage concessions, all the while bemoaning the fact that We have no option but to raise the unrestricted fares to twice their normal levels to make any money. That's pure poppycock - if anything, you'll drive the few folks willing to pay that straight to the videoconference centers. Lower the prices, feed the demand. Low[STRONG] [/STRONG]prices don't mean you are selling at a loss. It just means your selling MORE at a slight lower profit.
This fighting is amazing - can't you all see pretty much everyone is right to at least some extent?
1) Yes, short turns are better in many respects, as it keeps the plane moving and generating revenue. There is no doubt that Southwest is among the best airlines out there in doing this. I can only think of once when I saw a much more impressive turn on a major airline than a typical Southwest turn (this was a 15 minute turn on a TWA L-1011 at LAX - they probably could only have done this faster if they'd shoved everyone out the emergency exits).
2) Having a high on-time % is important, even if it means padding your schedule. What's the point in scheduling short turns and flights if you can never meet the schedule? Your customers will be happy if they get what they expect - and this includes arriving within a reasonably short time period of the scheduled arrival. So if you're late 80% of the time on a given flight, the schedule needs to be adjusted. Granted, there is a balancing act with comment #1 on wanting short turns, but when you know the distribution of arrival times and how late they are, it is relatively easy to reschedule the arrival so that it is on-time an acceptable % of the time, then put in a short turn after the new scheduled arrival time to help keep costs low.
Arguing that it is not Southwest's fault that their on-time % fell by a disproportionate amount compared to the other majors isn't that different from the other majors blaming their woes on anything other than themselves. If the business environment has changed and they can no longer reasonably expect to have 20 minute turns, they need to adjust.
1) Yes, short turns are better in many respects, as it keeps the plane moving and generating revenue. There is no doubt that Southwest is among the best airlines out there in doing this. I can only think of once when I saw a much more impressive turn on a major airline than a typical Southwest turn (this was a 15 minute turn on a TWA L-1011 at LAX - they probably could only have done this faster if they'd shoved everyone out the emergency exits).
2) Having a high on-time % is important, even if it means padding your schedule. What's the point in scheduling short turns and flights if you can never meet the schedule? Your customers will be happy if they get what they expect - and this includes arriving within a reasonably short time period of the scheduled arrival. So if you're late 80% of the time on a given flight, the schedule needs to be adjusted. Granted, there is a balancing act with comment #1 on wanting short turns, but when you know the distribution of arrival times and how late they are, it is relatively easy to reschedule the arrival so that it is on-time an acceptable % of the time, then put in a short turn after the new scheduled arrival time to help keep costs low.
Arguing that it is not Southwest's fault that their on-time % fell by a disproportionate amount compared to the other majors isn't that different from the other majors blaming their woes on anything other than themselves. If the business environment has changed and they can no longer reasonably expect to have 20 minute turns, they need to adjust.
I was gonna stay out of this because I've been told I don't know what I'm talking about....but I'm gonna stay just this....The 20 min turn can be done....I try to do it everyday...for the most part It can be done. There are some cities (who will remain nameless,because I don't want to offend) that have issues turning their flights. As someone (Rhino?) said before when it is determined that a flight has a problem with on-time performance it is labeled a Focus Flight...meaning that Scheduling is aware of the problem is is looking at this flights stats to see where it is going wrong. Now since schedule changes happen every 3-4 mos. here it will be awhile before a major change will be put into effect. If a flight is really screwed up then they try to do equipment swaps until the next change,but that comes with it's own price. Now as KCFlier stated, the Ground Ops and Flight Ops (including the F/As) employees bust ass out there when we are late...but you are not gonna make up time doin a BWI-CLE-MDW-STL roatation. There's no time there....on the long hauls you can make up time....I seen the BWI-LAS flight leave 1 1/2 late and get to Vegas early. Like I said in a earlier post,If the TSA drops the search at the gate then this will really be a moot point because as most SWAers know this has been what is really killing us out there. And before anyone states that I'm blaming anyone else for our delays,let me state we screw up sometimes too! I taken stupid delays that I've had to code OPO1 (any delay surrounding the duties of an Operations Agent) such as trying to do weight and balance on a -300 with a -700 load sheet(Gotta watch those equipment changes) and starting the boarding process too late. But I code a lot more flights OPO7(Security Delay). Stepping off the soapbox!
Busdriver, I didn't miss the points I wanted to respond to. I was responding to the turnaround times that Southwest maintains, and to the rather stale ACARS argument. Sorry I wasn't up to speed on the rest of the discussion.
Each city has its own unique circumstances.
MDW construction has created several problems. Most active gates are jammed in a back alley with little room (parked SWA a/c have been struck by OALs 3 times during pushback). Often one has to wait for someone to taxi out before you can taxi in and vice-versa.
Another problem there is that the security point is TSA, but the gate screeners are contract. These contract personnel know they're about to lose their jobs and their work ethic reflects that.
We'll just have to do the best we can in the interim.
MDW construction has created several problems. Most active gates are jammed in a back alley with little room (parked SWA a/c have been struck by OALs 3 times during pushback). Often one has to wait for someone to taxi out before you can taxi in and vice-versa.
Another problem there is that the security point is TSA, but the gate screeners are contract. These contract personnel know they're about to lose their jobs and their work ethic reflects that.
We'll just have to do the best we can in the interim.
[BR]Hey Rhino,[BR][BR] I wasn't blasting MDW...they actually do a pretty good job getting their flights turned.....Baltimore has got a couple issues though.....BTW I heard it was ATA that backed up into our jets....including one brand spanking new one...I thought is was a joke though!
- Thread Starter
- #41
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/25/2002 2:41:07 PM wannabe CRJ driver wrote:
[P]How come no one every posts our completion factor.....I think we complete 99% of our flights....like I tell our passengers....we may get you there a little late,butwe will get you there. All I have to say is this....weather wise it was a crappy summer....and with the flights being as packed as they were I think we did a hell of a job out there! Relief may be in sight....I heard that the new head of TSA wants to get rid of the security screening during boarding (which is killing us on every turn!)...so we may get our number 1 spot back......Keep turning those planes![/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]I believe if you Take-Off 99% of the time ,your completion factor should be the same,right? Weather wise it was a drought stricken eastern seaboard(is this poor flying weather?)and this is why US,DL had record month's for on-time performance over the summer.
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/25/2002 2:41:07 PM wannabe CRJ driver wrote:
[P]How come no one every posts our completion factor.....I think we complete 99% of our flights....like I tell our passengers....we may get you there a little late,butwe will get you there. All I have to say is this....weather wise it was a crappy summer....and with the flights being as packed as they were I think we did a hell of a job out there! Relief may be in sight....I heard that the new head of TSA wants to get rid of the security screening during boarding (which is killing us on every turn!)...so we may get our number 1 spot back......Keep turning those planes![/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]I believe if you Take-Off 99% of the time ,your completion factor should be the same,right? Weather wise it was a drought stricken eastern seaboard(is this poor flying weather?)and this is why US,DL had record month's for on-time performance over the summer.
- Thread Starter
- #42
[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR][FONT size=4]Sorry for the dupe.[/FONT][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR][FONT size=4]Sorry for the dupe.[/FONT][/BLOCKQUOTE]
WNjetdoc
Veteran
We had a bid in MDW for doing ACARS install but I'm not sure of the date for starting. As for that fed laughing, what was that about? Oh yea, I'm sure it was a real story, lol.
You guys are cracking me up... While SWA dropping to 7th in OTP is a bit of a story, the REAL story is UAL getting their feces collated and going from a 73.5% OTP for the year 2001 to freaking NUMBER ONE at 83.2% in July! An almost ten percent improvement in 7 months is amazing... and they did with ACARS no less! Conversely, SWA dropped from the top spot for '01 with an 81.7% OTP to 7th for the month of July '02 with 77.9%. (Interesting sidebar: All this hoopla about SWA's drop in OTP for July is still better than what the current top dog UAL could manage for the entire year of 2001.) While OTP is an important indicator of an airlines' overall performance, it is but one piece of the puzzle. In a capitalistic industry, a going concern exists to make money for the owners. Everything else is ancilliary to that end; jobs, tax revenue, purchasing, blah blah blah. If OTP were truly the measure of a successful airline, the headlines would be reading very differently today. SWA is a very lean and efficient machine. This is indeed a double-edged sword... lean machines get indigestion very quickly when forced to eat inefficiences (i.e., new security procedures, MDW construction). The Sophie's choice for the managers is to decide what do they wish sacrifice? On-time performance or efficiency? IMHO, they've had to do a lot of both but are choosing to control costs rather than compete for 5 or 6% in OTP. SWA could run it's schedule differently next cycle and recoup some of those points, but has decided not to. In fact, what I hear everyday on the line is, we don't care if you're late, but save every drop of fuel you can. When the measure goes from profitability to OTP, we'll see a lot of changes in the schedule. But as long as making money is the reason for being, expect more of the same.
Thankyavermuch,
Elvis
Thankyavermuch,
Elvis
WNjetdoc
Veteran
Great post Elvis dude. You hit a very good point about the other guys really improving over last year. I personall think it has a lot to do with 2 points. One is the increased security time. Trying to turn a a/c in 25 minutes or so and eating security delays is more difficult than trying to do the same in a hour turn, like the other airlines do. Also I wonder if cutting capacity by a least 20% has helped the other majors improve their times?
