SWA traffic declines

[N421LV]

Have you ever spent a day in the cockpit of a 737? I would rather drive a truck for the rest of my career than spend another day in a 737.

As for you payrates you can thank UA and DL pilots for securing your rates for you. That is right. The ALPA pilots have always done the heavy lifting for your Baby S&^% Brown Herb T&^d drivers.

Also, since you want to "Not forget to metion" something. How about your airlines inability to comply with normal aircraft performance specs.

That vein in your neck is starting to bulge again, Mags. As for our payrates, consider the favor returned...you can now thank SWA pilots for securing rates you can strive for in your next contract.


P.S. The planes are fast becoming Canyon Blue. You really need to update your material...

 

[boeingdriver213]

I prefer not to sit on my *ss for 8-12 hours at a time. I like domestic flying. Straight and level is not that hard with a good autopilot, except the occasional thunderstorm.Takeoffs and landings are what it's all about. I don't have to go to the sim every 3 months to get current on landings like so many International guys do. Ultimately, job security is what it's about. I fly airplanes. SWA has airplanes for me to fly. So here I am....

 

[chucky]

Getting back to topic folks, I found these two articles seem to contradict eachother. On the one hand, travel demand is slowing, on the other hand Southwest continues to grow:

Southwest Ceo sees no quick return to strong demand

Southwest Airlines Co.'s (LUV.N: Quote, Profile , Research) chief executive said on Thursday domestic air travel demand was showing signs of weakness, which threatens to halt the U.S. airline industry's budding recovery and attempts to raise fares.

There is "no evidence at this point of a return to the stronger demand we were experiencing in the fourth quarter," said Gary Kelly, the CEO, in a conference call with analysts.


Southwest Reports First Quarter profits

"We continue to actively explore the secondary aircraft market for additional aircraft and currently have intentions to lease two previously owned 737-700 aircraft, bringing our aircraft additions to 39 for this year. Our estimated year-over-year available seat mile growth for 2007 is approximately eight percent. In addition, we exercised two Boeing 737-700 options for 2008 delivery, bringing our 2008 firm orders and options to 32 and two, respectively. These aircraft will allow us to continue the successful development of our new markets and to respond to Customer demand in existing markets. We are also excited to resume service to San Francisco International Airport this fall."

 

[jimntx]

No contradiction at all. SWA management has been wildly successful over the years by managing expectations. That includes both passengers and investors.

I would much rather have a company exec give a conservative estimate of the future, and be pleasantly surprised if they break all records (as SWA tends to do with annoying regularity ) than to say "we gonna shoot da moon", then come up with a total net profit of 4 dollars and a nickel.

 

[FWAAA]

I don't see any contradiction. In one article, WN makes it clear that it doesn't see any huge growth in demand for air travel and in the other article, WN makes it clear that it's still gonna add capacity in a (probably successful) bid to take passengers away from other airlines.

Lack of demand will make it more difficult for WN (and, of course, all other airlines as well) to continue to raise fares in markets it already serves.

The new airplanes will enable WN to serve additional cities which have yet to feel the "WN effect." In those cities, WN will drive down fares, inflict a world of hurt on the dominant legacy airline, and still cause overall demand to rise in that city (due to much lower fares).

I don't see any contradictions. WN is gonna keep growing and is gonna keep eating other legacy airlines for lunch. B)

 

[magsau]

I prefer not to sit on my *ss for 8-12 hours at a time.

Sit???? So little you know. The bunk room is a nice treat. I can fly a 16 hour duty day with 13 hours of block time and get a 6 hour nap enroute. But hey you like TUL and I like HKG.

 

[KCFlyer]

Sit???? So little you know. The bunk room is a nice treat. I can fly a 16 hour duty day with 13 hours of block time and get a 6 hour nap enroute. But hey you like TUL and I like HKG.

and

I get paid to take 3 to 4 vacations a month to great cities around the globe. My contribution is I get to fly the airplane and drink all the free coffee I want.

I forwarded those comments to UAL headquarters so that they can see that more concessions might be received from the long haul pilots...I mean, with the 3-4 vactions a month and their pilots napping for 6 hours each trip - seems like a ripe area for some cuts.

 

[SKY HIGH]

I mean, with the 3-4 vactions a month and their pilots napping for 6 hours each trip - seems like a ripe area for some cuts.

.....seems WN may be ripe for some cuts after 2008:

Southwest's fuel-hedge advantage 'comes down drastically' after '08
Business-oriented website 24/7 Wall St. takes a look at Southwest's fuel hedge program, something that has helped keep the discount giant at a competitive advantage over its rivals in recent years. The website notes that Southwest's "forward fuel hedges are dwindling," adding that the carrier's 2006 total fuel costs jumped 48.5% "because so many hedges ratcheted higher."

According to 24/7 Wall St., here's what Southwest’s fuel hedges look like for the coming years:

"2007 is 95% hedged at $50/barrel;
2008 is 65% hedged at $49/barrel;
2009 is over 50% hedged at $51/barrel;
2010 is over 25% hedged at $63/barrel;
2010 is over is 15% hedged at $64/barrel;
2012 is 15% hedged at $63/barrel."

The conclusion, according to 24/7 Wall St., is that "if you look at current prices with crude at $62.21, the company is much closer to coming online to current fuel prices than it has been in any recent year.

 

[1 VF-1 2NV]

.....seems WN may be ripe for some cuts after 2008:

Southwest's fuel-hedge advantage 'comes down drastically' after '08
Business-oriented website 24/7 Wall St. takes a look at Southwest's fuel hedge program, something that has helped keep the discount giant at a competitive advantage over its rivals in recent years. The website notes that Southwest's "forward fuel hedges are dwindling," adding that the carrier's 2006 total fuel costs jumped 48.5% "because so many hedges ratcheted higher."

According to 24/7 Wall St., here's what Southwest’s fuel hedges look like for the coming years:

"2007 is 95% hedged at $50/barrel;
2008 is 65% hedged at $49/barrel;
2009 is over 50% hedged at $51/barrel;
2010 is over 25% hedged at $63/barrel;
2010 is over is 15% hedged at $64/barrel;
2012 is 15% hedged at $63/barrel."

The conclusion, according to 24/7 Wall St., is that "if you look at current prices with crude at $62.21, the company is much closer to coming online to current fuel prices than it has been in any recent year.

So does that mean WN will no longer be profitable ???

 

[WNjetdoc]

Glad to see magsau is still sticking his foot in his mouth, too funny.

magsau starts a thread saying our load factor is decreasing, sfb posts information proving him wrong, yet again, and he ignores the post. Good job there sparky, lol. Have anymore MIS-information to post? :down:

Actually...it looks like they found 3.7% more people to sit in the added seats; they just added more seats than that.

Last year's March load factor was an all-time record for WN; this year's was #4 out of the past 11 years (and 0.4% behind the second best March in 2004 at 73.7%). I'd be more concerned if the decline hadn't been from an all-time record month and if the month's numbers were below the long-term trend, which they are not.

March load factors from 1997 through 2007:
1997: 65.8%
1998: 68.0%
1999: 69.9%
2000: 72.9%
2001: 72.2%
2002: 70.2%
2003: 67.3%
2004: 73.6%
2005: 73.7%
2006: 75.5%
2007: 73.3%

 

[KCFlyer]

.....seems WN may be ripe for some cuts after 2008:

Southwest's fuel-hedge advantage 'comes down drastically' after '08
Business-oriented website 24/7 Wall St. takes a look at Southwest's fuel hedge program, something that has helped keep the discount giant at a competitive advantage over its rivals in recent years. The website notes that Southwest's "forward fuel hedges are dwindling," adding that the carrier's 2006 total fuel costs jumped 48.5% "because so many hedges ratcheted higher."

According to 24/7 Wall St., here's what Southwest’s fuel hedges look like for the coming years:

"2007 is 95% hedged at $50/barrel;
2008 is 65% hedged at $49/barrel;
2009 is over 50% hedged at $51/barrel;
2010 is over 25% hedged at $63/barrel;
2010 is over is 15% hedged at $64/barrel;
2012 is 15% hedged at $63/barrel."

The conclusion, according to 24/7 Wall St., is that "if you look at current prices with crude at $62.21, the company is much closer to coming online to current fuel prices than it has been in any recent year.

Which is why they are looking at ways to save money in other areas BEFORE it happens. Can the same be said of your airline? Or...are labor costs the FIRST rather than the last place they look for "cost savings"???

 

[magsau]

and I forwarded those comments to UAL headquarters so that they can see that more concessions might be received from the long haul pilots...I mean, with the 3-4 vactions a month and their pilots napping for 6 hours each trip - seems like a ripe area for some cuts.

Sorry KC but we work under the FAR rules and any trip that exceeds 8 hours requires augmented crews. So while I am sure you would like to have the FAR's changed you would also have your SH&^ Box drivers at SWA doing the same. In a 16 hour flight we get a nap, that is FAR mandated. It just so happens that the airplane I fly lands in cities many consider a vacation and due to the length of the flights I only have to fly 3 to 4 of them a month. Same deal as the hoover drivers at SWA we just get our time in quickly.

Them's the rules ace. I don't make'em but I do fly'em.

 

[KCFlyer]

Sorry KC but we work under the FAR rules and any trip that exceeds 8 hours requires augmented crews. So while I am sure you would like to have the FAR's changed you would also have your SH&^ Box drivers at SWA doing the same. In a 16 hour flight we get a nap, that is FAR mandated. It just so happens that the airplane I fly lands in cities many consider a vacation and due to the length of the flights I only have to fly 3 to 4 of them a month. Same deal as the hoover drivers at SWA we just get our time in quickly.

Them's the rules ace. I don't make'em but I do fly'em.

Who said anything about changing the FAR's mags? Just pointing out that UAL managment might like to know that their long haul crews enjoy the rules so much...and it's such a vacation, that they'd most likly not have any problems for doing the same thing for less money. Gotta cut costs whereever you can you know....

 

[I'mRayFlyMe]

Sorry KC but we work under the FAR rules and any trip that exceeds 8 hours requires augmented crews. So while I am sure you would like to have the FAR's changed you would also have your SH&^ Box drivers at SWA doing the same. In a 16 hour flight we get a nap, that is FAR mandated. It just so happens that the airplane I fly lands in cities many consider a vacation and due to the length of the flights I only have to fly 3 to 4 of them a month. Same deal as the hoover drivers at SWA we just get our time in quickly.

Them's the rules ace. I don't make'em but I do fly'em.

You have a point, Magsau... wear a hat and nobody will notice it.

 

[magsau]

Who said anything about changing the FAR's mags? Just pointing out that UAL managment might like to know that their long haul crews enjoy the rules so much...and it's such a vacation, that they'd most likly not have any problems for doing the same thing for less money. Gotta cut costs whereever you can you know....

Where did I say I was up to doing it for less? Just because I enjoy what the job and layover does not imply doing it for less. I guess it is OK for a SWA guy to be happy by flying between Odessa and Tulsa all day. SWA just has to throw money at them to make them happy? Is that what you are implying? If all of the SWA people are so peachy then should we all be sending notes to BSB headquarters informing them to cut the salaries?

Perhaps you could work through your scenario then get back here with an update.

The fact that I get 21 days off and fly the max allowed must be driving you up the wall. Oh that feels real good.