SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Ahh, so you're manipulating the numbers in order to arrive at that craziness. Got it. That explains it.
Moxy and 60 A220s
- Thread starter bp
- Start date
Ecl!pse
Well-Known Member
That's a shame. I laid out exactly how I presented it in posts above, and am using an industry-standard and accepted way of looking at cost structures.
I'm sorry that this doesn't align with your view of Southwest, but I think you are letting your emotion get the better of you here. And rather than refute it, you've simply accused me of manipulating numbers to skew towards Southwest, though I have absolutely no reason to be defending them. That's pretty low, and I'll stick by the comment I made after the "trailer park trash" post - you are, and I expect, better than this.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Explaining how you manipulated the numbers doesn't change the fact that you manipulated them.
You're being dishonest by referring to it as an "industry-standard and accepted way of looking at cost structures." Yes, it's true that it's a commonly used number (as is straight CASM, by the way), but I've never met an analyst who didn't take the resultant numbers with a giant grain of salt. Stage-length adjusted numbers are great when you're comparing like-carriers with roughly similar numbers. For example, American and United have very similar average stage lengths. They've outsourced a whole lot of their domestic flying, which has pushed their average stage lengths way up. Comparing the two of them by adjusting for stage length makes a whole lot of sense. It takes small variations in the numbers as a result of minor stage length differences and smooths them out. But Southwest's average stage length is only about 60% of United's. If you try to adjust that for stage length, you're not getting useful data. You're getting garbage. The carriers are simply too different to be able to make a basic mathematical adjustment and arrive at useful data.
You're being dishonest by referring to it as an "industry-standard and accepted way of looking at cost structures." Yes, it's true that it's a commonly used number (as is straight CASM, by the way), but I've never met an analyst who didn't take the resultant numbers with a giant grain of salt. Stage-length adjusted numbers are great when you're comparing like-carriers with roughly similar numbers. For example, American and United have very similar average stage lengths. They've outsourced a whole lot of their domestic flying, which has pushed their average stage lengths way up. Comparing the two of them by adjusting for stage length makes a whole lot of sense. It takes small variations in the numbers as a result of minor stage length differences and smooths them out. But Southwest's average stage length is only about 60% of United's. If you try to adjust that for stage length, you're not getting useful data. You're getting garbage. The carriers are simply too different to be able to make a basic mathematical adjustment and arrive at useful data.
Ecl!pse
Well-Known Member
I feel bad about continuing to derail a thread about Moxy on Southwest & the likes, so if this is getting too far off the path @Derg, let us know and we can discuss in another thread.
It's dishonest calling the metric "dishonest", when you turn around and immediately say its a commonly used number. I'll agree CASM is as well, but really only in the context of an airline vs. itself, not vs. peers. It's a fine and fair point on comparing Southwest to say, United, where the stage lengths are grossly different. We've already come to agreement that in order to back out the Big 3's comparable domestic cost structures will be near impossible, so we're going to be in stalemate there. The numbers I posted do not reference any of the Big 3 for that exact reason.
That said, the comparison between Southwest, JetBlue, and Alaska is absolutely valid, as all three are mainly domestic players with smaller international presences. In that lens, if the three carriers all flew CHI-MIA against each other (~1,000 mi), I am quite confident Southwest would have the lowest costs. And absent any concrete data, I do not believe that any of the legacies would have lower costs than Southwest - just as you, absent any concrete data, do not believe that Southwest has lower costs than the legacies.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Come now, you know better. Alaska’s average stage length is about the same as American’s. You simply can’t compare the two. Even JetBlue has an average stage length about a third more than Southwest’s. When you artificially stretch out Southwest’s fixed costs using the “adjusted stage length” formula, you’re always going to arrive at garbage data that makes Southwest look unrealistically cheap because of this. The only airlines with stage lengths even remotely close to Southwest’s are Hawaiian and Allegiant. But Hawaiian’s data is tough to compare because they’re basically two different airlines within an airline, one with radically short stage lengths, and the other with radically long stage lengths. Again, that makes artificial manipulation of the stage lengths unlikley to come up with useful data. The only airlines you can really use your formula to arrive at useful data with is Allegiant compared to Southwest. Both have roughly similar stage lengths with roughly similar businesses.
SurferLucas
Southern Gentleman
Soooo...there's gonna be an airline, named after a popular NE "coke" (soft drink, pop, whatever y'all call it)...started by a guy who's had a run of starting up successful airlines.
The important things here are, obviously, starting pay/QOL/Upgrade times/etc. No one gives two flying fornicators about SWA.
The important things here are, obviously, starting pay/QOL/Upgrade times/etc. No one gives two flying fornicators about SWA.
Ecl!pse
Well-Known Member
Though Alaska, JetBlue, and Southwest have different stage lengths, they are most certainly still comparable for SL-Adj CASM & CASM-Ex. The business models are all very similar, and none of them are burdened with the fixed cost infrastructure of long-haul International flying. In fact, in several instances I’ve seen these carriers simply add longer stage domestic flying for the purpose of lowering CASM and CASM-Ex.
I’m also happy to compare ALGT, SAVE, and F9 to these guys on an adjusted basis and they will all handily beat the LCC’s, as we’ve already discussed. That’s why I think when push comes to shove, they will ultimately be the top carriers. To use your terminology though, saying SWA and ALGT have similar businesses is “dishonest” (not actually accusing you of being dishonest, just not comparable). ALGT is a fee-based, low-utilization airline vs Southwest as a no-frills, high-utilization airline. Their business is actually quite different from SAVE and F9 - ALGT has a such a low fixed cost structure (used airplanes, all-outsourced, etc), that they can afford to fly a lower utilization profile. SAVE and F9, unfortunately, need to “sweat the assets” to help keep their costs low, as do the aforementioned 3 LCC’s. I actually think it’s pretty neat what ALGT has crafted, as it’s a bit contrarian to the rest of the industry.
I do feel bad about the thread hijack on SWA. We can table it for another thread. Excited to see what David Neeleman and the Moxy team can do soon.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I mean, I'd say the lack of conversation on that topic pretty much proves that it's Moxie that nobody gives two flying fornicators about.
I find that a silly claim when examined under the lens of basic mathematics, so I think we're at an impasse.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I interfaced with their people department team leader and we found the possibility for synergistic outcomes, so they’ll soon be onboarding me as part of the initial cadre.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
@Derg is also interested in this synergy-rich process of career development after he takes a 2 yr leave from SouthernJets.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
Dphoenix
Love lasagna, hate mondays
Is SEA-SJC the middle of nowhere? How about SEA-SFO? DEN-LAX? DFW-LAX? Because I've done all of those flights in a widget colored RJ... Now of course thanks to scope clause and 2-2 seating with extra legroom, I actually find the 175 more comfortable than if they put a 737 on it. But I would say this anecdote highly depends what market you're in. (And SEA-SFO has been recently usually been upgauged... Thankfully, because sitting waiting for flow is ugh.)
FTFY
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Just did a search for SEA-SFO. Very first Delta flight on the list is a 717. Didn’t bother looking at the rest after that.
I’m not saying RJs don’t exist on these routes. I’m saying you don’t have to fly on them. When I book a ticket, I check what the equipment is.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I’d fly MCO-SLC-LAX-CVG-DTW-LGA-ATL-AVL on Delta before I’d fly MCO-AVL on Spirit. No offense.
Dphoenix
Love lasagna, hate mondays
......... I *literally* said in the post that they just upgauged SEA-SFO... but 2 months ago, it would have been an E175. If you wanted non-RJ at that time, you needed to be on Alaska/Virgin/United etc. SEA-SJC is still all RJ on DL, and SJC is hardly a piddly little small town. SEA-PHX is mostly E175 as well, with the exception of one 717 a day.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Guess which flight I would be on?
I’m sure there are a handful of city pairs out there that still have nothing but RJs. But with all of the upgauging Delta has been doing over the last few years, it’s not like it was 15 years ago where RJs were unavoidable.
Thank you for your business, sir!