Early 1990's all over again :(

Re: 737 dude

[ QUOTE ]
I did'nt realize that routes like El Paso-Lubbock(SWA),Atlanta-Gulfport(FL),Denver-Oklahoma City(F9)and New York-Burlington(B6) were such high volume markets. Just being a little sarcastic but you can see my point,us "LCC" folks just don't fly the kiddies to Orlando.



[/ QUOTE ]

SW in particular is expanding beyond some of the typical high volume markets, and as I said earlier, Air Tran even has a regional now. These are departures from the traditional LCC concept. For the most part, LCCs stick with huge metro areas and vacation destinations.

[ QUOTE ]
Then explain to me why we have things like Song,MetroJet,Delta Express and United Shuttle popping up all the time.



[/ QUOTE ]

That further makes my point. The LCC concept is currently a profitable model and it is different from the traditional airline model. Therefore, airlines that want to cash in on the idea, can't even do so within their own scope clauses. They have to start alter-ego carriers.

[ QUOTE ]
The difference here is that the "LCCs" plan on rainy days. We have survived(and made a profit) in the most unhospitable business enviorment in airline history....I think we'll be the red-headed stepchildren of the industry for a little bit longer.



[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that many of the LCC management teams have a clearer vision of what needs to be done than some of the majors. But LCCs have had their share of failures as well, including virtually every LCC started by a major. Remember Tower Air, the Trump Shuttle, and Air South?

[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate the fact that our pilots help out by either bringing a wheelchair passenger down to a airplane, helping to clean up the cabin or throwing a couple bags. It shows me that they don't have that typical "Pilot" attitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't solely the province of the LCCs either. Our employee newletter regularly trumpets stories about our pilots and crew who go above and beyond. I do agree as well that a lot of the traditional airlines have a lot to learn about customer service though.

I was recently impressed when I jumpseated on US Airways that they were some of the nicest and friendliest people that I had ever flown with.
 
Re: Early 1990\'s all over again :(

[ QUOTE ]
Best is when the AC was catered in MSP the night before, and it sat in MOT or FAR all night long, and everything is frozen. Yummy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I resemble that remark! My hometown is FAR.

(I always thought it was cool that FAR=Fargo and FRA=Frankfurt. Just a simple letter switcheroo. But I think FRA has one or two taxiways more than FAR.)
 
Re: 737 dude

Dad retired from Ozark (TWA technically) and flew the -10s, -30s and -40s and just before TWA gobbled up Ozark they got their hands a few of the first MD-80s (though he didn't get in on those). He started flying on the DC-3, however!
smile.gif
 
Re: 737 dude

Maybe I'm playing devil's advocate....but wasn't Southwest the only airline - niche or not - to post a profit last year? Just wondering....

Personally, in my EXTREMELY humble opinion, I think that many of the larger airlines are going to start going the way of Southwest, because America has changed. Many people aren't willing to pay the extra money for a few more amenities. I predict that in about 10 years, there will be lots of airlines like Southwest, and a few high-profile "niche" airlines with silly things like first class, and movies. Kinda like Demolition Man....
tongue.gif


"We're flying to London on Southwest??"
"Of course!! All airlines are Southwest!!"
 
Re: 737 dude

I agree to a point. I think that the majors are slowly learning that people are paying for transportation and not for a meal that everybody makes fun of. It's easy to see that plenty of companies are cutting back on snacks and other little things.

When I say that SW is a niche airline, though, I mean that they don't serve small communities or international destinations. I don't forsee the majors scaling back to that type of operation. If anything, I think that SW may gradually try to become a major airline in that sense.

And ACA posted a profit for most of last year. We posted a $1 million loss in the fourth quarter due to writing off leases on the turboprop fleet. So far this year, revenue miles are up 21% and load factors are averaging about 73%.
 
Re: 737 dude

I've got you Dave....I meant to say "...only major airline...". I agree that SWA will definately expand their ops to bridge the gap between themselves and the other, more traditional airlines ; however, I also think that the other airlines are going to meet them in the middle.
 
Re: 737 dude

I have to disagree with you there. The way for the traditional airlines to keep and bring back the business traveler that is their bread and butter is to keep the amenities that make them different than the discounters. Allowing the frequent business traveller to board first, to get the seats up front, and so on definitely is something that keeps him coming back. I used to fly UAL pretty much exclusively, for example, because since they had a hub at IAD, I could fly them pretty much anywhere I needed to go nonstop. I didn't care if they cost more. That's pretty typical of someone who is traveling for business, and that's who the traditional airlines make their money on.
 
Re: 737 dude

You see, Tony, that's exactly it!

Some time ago, the majority of customers were on business, and that's where the airlines decided that they would make the majority of their profits. Times have changed, and there are a whole lot of people flying for the fun of it. In the future, there will be a couple of airlines competing for the people that are willing to show up late, delay the flight, and sit in the front of the plane. The other airlines will cut back on the frills, keep prices low, and make the most money.

People have been saying for 30 years that there was no way for SWA to stay competitive. 30 years later, they're still doing it. We've watched other airlines come, and go. I agree that many LCCs can't, and won't last forever. But Southwest, by virtue of the numbers, is going to make it.
 
Re: 737 dude

[ QUOTE ]
Times have changed, and there are a whole lot of people flying for the fun of it. In the future, there will be a couple of airlines competing for the people that are willing to show up late, delay the flight, and sit in the front of the plane. The other airlines will cut back on the frills, keep prices low, and make the most money.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that, but I think that it will also be related to the economy. As times are hard, we currently see the airlines cutting back on perks. As people start flying en masse again, the perks might start coming back in an effort to woo pax away from other companies.

But essentially I agree with you. There are a lot of ways to communicate without actually making a trip, but for some things, the personal touch is necessary.
 
Re: 737 dude

[ QUOTE ]
Some time ago, the majority of customers were on business, and that's where the airlines decided that they would make the majority of their profits. Times have changed, and there are a whole lot of people flying for the fun of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what the traditional airlines are set up to do and that's what will happen as soon as the economy picks back up. You will see the business traveller, who is so not going to put up the the stuff you have to on the discounters, go back to the traditional airlines. It's happened every single time the economy has picked up since deregulation. I see no reason why this time will be different.

Back in the early 90s, they said things like the fax machine and teleconferencing would kill business travel. Ten years later, they haven't learned their lesson and they are saying that email and videoconferencing will kill business travel.

The so called experts haven't learned that ain't nothing ever gonna replace face to face interaction. You can email, fax, telephone, videoconference, and so on all you want, but there's nothing that's as effective as a face to face meeting if you want to get something done.
 
Re: 737 dude

If you dig into most "experts" background, you'll usually find that they're a journalism graduate assigned to report on a particular field and given no apparent training. Not quite an expert at all.

Here's something fun, when an expert writes about labor, they'll usually hail union-free airlines like SWA that have the ability to enter and markets free from union strong-arm tactics.

Interesting...

Nearly everyone at SWA is in a union!
smile.gif
 
Re: 737 dude

[ QUOTE ]
That's what the traditional airlines are set up to do and that's what will happen as soon as the economy picks back up. You will see the business traveller, who is so not going to put up the the stuff you have to on the discounters, go back to the traditional airlines. It's happened every single time the economy has picked up since deregulation. I see no reason why this time will be different.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not exactly true Tony. I can only speak of my time at SW and JB but we have TONS of business people who are regular passengers,regardless how the economy is doing. At SW I had my usual cadre of bizguys everyweek going to Baltimore,Cleveland,Detriot,Chicago,Nashville,and Houston even though they could be "Super-Deluxe Gold" passengers on the other carriers who served those same cities. They flew SW because they found that SW delivered what was promised.....a seat,a smile,and a safe arrival.

The "LCC" aren't gonna be everything to all people,but for a large segment of America,it works. Frankly paying $1000+ dollars for a 2 hour flight is absurd,and the travling public has finally figured that out. Can't blame us for catering to that.
 
Re: 737 dude

[ QUOTE ]
That's not exactly true Tony. I can only speak of my time at SW and JB but we have TONS of business people who are regular passengers,regardless how the economy is doing. At SW I had my usual cadre of bizguys everyweek going to Baltimore,Cleveland,Detriot,Chicago,Nashville,and Houston even though they could be "Super-Deluxe Gold" passengers on the other carriers who served those same cities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you do. But not all of them are going to be flying with you folks. First of all, the most lucrative business travelers are the international ones. Sorry, but you guys ain't gonna be able to get me to London, Tokyo, Sydney, or Hong Kong!

Keep in mind that the business traveler really doesn't give a rat's ass how much money he's spending because it's all some money that's going to be used or lost at the end of the fiscal year! One time I needed to burn a couple of grand in less than a week so I asked my travel agent to find me the MOST expensive ticket to visit a client. We bought the unrestricted coach ticket.

Before someone says something about fiscal responsibility, spare me. It's not on my list of worries when the head honcho at whatever company brings in 100 percent less money than I do to the company yet gets paid at least 50 times more than I do.
 
Re: 737 dude

[ QUOTE ]
Here's something fun, when an expert writes about labor, they'll usually hail union-free airlines like SWA that have the ability to enter and markets free from union strong-arm tactics.

Interesting...

Nearly everyone at SWA is in a union!
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

The other thing is that they talk as if every airline should be like SWA. Ain't gonna happen. Not if you want the route system that we need in this country.

We may see a traditional airline or two disappear during this downturn. But what will happen is that in the end, after all is said and one, there will be several of the "doomed dinosaurs" carrying the vast majority of the traffic in the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top