oh idk, maybe because I bought and paid for a ticket 6 months prior to that. Seems like if I wanted a seat on a specific flight, then buying a ticket for that flight should do the trick.GasAg90 said:Baby Billy said:
If you wait until you get to the airport to check in to a Southwest flight there's a pretty good chance they overbooked and you got booted. The open seating sucks
You can check in 24 hours in advance. You know this, so I am guessing you like to complain about things that you can actually control. The internet was invented for you.
SWA moving to assigned seating in 2025
21,318 Views |
226 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by Ozzy Osbourne
8 of last 10 SW flights I've been on have been completely full and the other 2 were 90%
How are they struggling?
Being from Houston I love SW
How are they struggling?
Being from Houston I love SW
Anyone with two brain cells understands swa has never, in their 50 year history, assigned seats. I think you are either an idiot that can't figure out simple concepts or just likes to complain.
If you want an assigned seat book another airline and quit blaming other people(companies) for your lack of intelligence.
If you want an assigned seat book another airline and quit blaming other people(companies) for your lack of intelligence.
Delays of deliveries from Boeing have stunted growth and due to SWA not taking those planes of the schedule like several other airlines did they're now experiencing severe over staffing along w pilot contract renegotiations, and increased fuel prices. They have had very light volume on several newer routes and due to light pricing across the industry, they're making less on their profitable routes w little to no up charges to generate extra revenue and no ability to expand operations where profitable. Essentially poor management for not seeing the writing on the wall and waiting until it was so underperforming that an activist had to get involved.
Just to show you how bad the backlog is for United and SWA from Boeing. SWA is currently waiting on 482 planes to be delivered. All 737 Max. United is waiting on 497 w a mix of Dreamliner (150) and Max (347). Currently the FAA has the Max production capped at 38 per month. That's 2 years worth of production for only 2 airlines. The issue isn't going away anytime soon. Likely not until end of 2026/2027 at the earliest.
Huh? Anyone who had MAX delivery schedules (United, Alaska, Southwest) have experienced overstaffing and damages and secured damages from Boeing in the hundreds of millions of dollars. They all pulled their schedule back this year when the MAX 9 door plug happened and the FAA limited production rate. This isn't a Southwest only issue.Bayou City said:
Delays of deliveries from Boeing have stunted growth and due to SWA not taking those planes of the schedule like several other airlines did they're now experiencing severe over staffing along w pilot contract renegotiations, and increased fuel prices. They have had very light volume on several newer routes and due to light pricing across the industry, they're making less on their profitable routes w little to no up charges to generate extra revenue and no ability to expand operations where profitable. Essentially poor management for not seeing the writing on the wall and waiting until it was so underperforming that an activist had to get involved.
The over staffing is 100% a SWA and United issue but United has done a far better job of creating other revenue to offset the issue. SWA doesn't have that ability because of previous poor management relying on supply of planes to generate growth and revenue when those planes now won't be delivered for 2+ years instead of growing revenue from their existing fleet. Now SWA sees the delays are even worse than predicted and knows they have at least 2 years of heavy losses if they fail to generate other revenue streams. That's going to be even further stretched when they start having to retrofit planes to accommodate their new seating program which will reduce the fleet even further. Rumors are they're waiting until 2025 to implement it because they don't have the ability to remove planes from the current fleet so instead of retrofitting their current planes they delayed this into 2025 because that's when their first change bill orders from Boeing can be delivered. They're in a BAD spot. They don't have the runway to just keep things the same and they're 2 years late to the party whereas their competition is already generating those streams.
Here's a simple way to think of it:
Airlines are all struggling thay rely on Boeing for deliveries. However, Southwest is the only one that decided to try to fly through the issues vs. recognizing the need to generate other revenue streams to offset the losses. That's 100% on Southwest management. They didn't want to upend their historical business model and that models now broken and they're playing catch up. Problem with catch up is they now offer nothing unique to a travel except free checked bags and most business fares don't care about free bags. Not to mention the Christmas meltdown that had nothing to do with Boeing.
Boeing is a reason they're struggling but they're struggling more than the other airlines because they went ostrich for 2 years focusing on sustainable fuel and other woke **** when everyone else went proactive.
That's why SWA is under attack from Elliot and not United or American etc. The systematic risk is the same for all of them but the business specific risk for SWA makes it ripe for an activist investor because of previous action and inaction of the C suite. You don't have that business risk disconnect with the other public traded major carriers.
It's hard to change people's perception of an airline when for 50 years all of their commercials are "we're Southwest, we're different" and now they're going to be basically "we're Southwest, and we do things the exact same as the other guys". For the people that didn't like them, it validates what they didn't like. For the people that did, they value prop just went down the toilet. This is a move they're making because they need to survive. This isn't a move they're making to unwind it when things get better w Boeing. SWA is the KMart/Sears of airlines right now. When all the big boxes were struggling some didn't make changes some focused on the past and some failed to make the aggressive changes necessary to capitalize on the changing landscape while others took action cut costs cut leases closed underperforming stores and hunkered down to make it through (Walmart). Those that made adequate changes thrived later. Those that didn't struggled or failed. The same goes with airlines now. Some made changes years ago and they're still producing profits even with the Boeing disruption others like SWA didn't and now they're scrapping to make end meet. That's the juxtaposition between good and bad management.
Here's a simple way to think of it:
Airlines are all struggling thay rely on Boeing for deliveries. However, Southwest is the only one that decided to try to fly through the issues vs. recognizing the need to generate other revenue streams to offset the losses. That's 100% on Southwest management. They didn't want to upend their historical business model and that models now broken and they're playing catch up. Problem with catch up is they now offer nothing unique to a travel except free checked bags and most business fares don't care about free bags. Not to mention the Christmas meltdown that had nothing to do with Boeing.
Boeing is a reason they're struggling but they're struggling more than the other airlines because they went ostrich for 2 years focusing on sustainable fuel and other woke **** when everyone else went proactive.
That's why SWA is under attack from Elliot and not United or American etc. The systematic risk is the same for all of them but the business specific risk for SWA makes it ripe for an activist investor because of previous action and inaction of the C suite. You don't have that business risk disconnect with the other public traded major carriers.
It's hard to change people's perception of an airline when for 50 years all of their commercials are "we're Southwest, we're different" and now they're going to be basically "we're Southwest, and we do things the exact same as the other guys". For the people that didn't like them, it validates what they didn't like. For the people that did, they value prop just went down the toilet. This is a move they're making because they need to survive. This isn't a move they're making to unwind it when things get better w Boeing. SWA is the KMart/Sears of airlines right now. When all the big boxes were struggling some didn't make changes some focused on the past and some failed to make the aggressive changes necessary to capitalize on the changing landscape while others took action cut costs cut leases closed underperforming stores and hunkered down to make it through (Walmart). Those that made adequate changes thrived later. Those that didn't struggled or failed. The same goes with airlines now. Some made changes years ago and they're still producing profits even with the Boeing disruption others like SWA didn't and now they're scrapping to make end meet. That's the juxtaposition between good and bad management.
Rumor has it another reason SWA is making this change is because the FAA requires a crew member for every 50 passengers. Currently the SWA 737-8 is configured to hold 175 passengers (4 crew members required). If they eliminate 2 rows of seating to provide for excess premium legroom space they now are down to 151 passengers. If they cut 2 more seats that cuts a required crew member which would save them millions across the company. They have to cut rows to accommodate the new seating so this change potentially not only puts them in a position to charge for amenities that would cover + the loss of seats but also cut their in flight crew costs by 25%.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say these changes are never put in place. Southwest had an awful earnings release, and this was a convenient distraction. In a few months they'll come back and say that based on customer feedback they've decided to abandon the plan and stick to their current boarding process.
Hard to do that when they announced it was made because of customer feedback. Something like 80% were in favor per their press release. That's a FAT lawsuit if they back track claiming customer feedback as the rational. If they didn't plan on implementing it they shouldn't have provided hard data especially not 80%. Instead they should've said significant number of customers or something vague. When you put out that you polled your customer base and 80% were in favor of the change you can't go back later and say we re-polled and now there's a 30% change in response rate from our original and all 30% of the change represented a change from affirmative to negative. That's just not believable.
^
So how long you been flying with Southwest? I share shuttles with crews and they all ***** and moan about management acting like they can run an airline, but fail to acknowledge that their industry-leading salary that was demanded is a big reason for the trouble at Southwest. It will be epically ironic if a company known for caring about their employees goes broke because of those same employees. It can certainly happen to Southwest.
So how long you been flying with Southwest? I share shuttles with crews and they all ***** and moan about management acting like they can run an airline, but fail to acknowledge that their industry-leading salary that was demanded is a big reason for the trouble at Southwest. It will be epically ironic if a company known for caring about their employees goes broke because of those same employees. It can certainly happen to Southwest.
No one is filing a credible suit if they walk it back. There are no quantifiable damages for anyone, just some potentially unhappy survey respondents.
They're struggling because of C suites decisions not their salaries. That's the complaint of every worker that's not an executive at a public traded company.
They're going to continue to have terrible earnings releases until they find other revenue streams to off set the Boeing losses that are going to continue into at least 2026. Their business model is broken. They didn't want to think that but it's been very obvious for several quarters. It's BROKEN and took a 2b activist investment for them to finally come to terms with it. They were Joe Biden saying "I'm not old. It's all ok" when it obviously wasn't.
Bayou City said:
They're struggling because of C suites decisions not their salaries. That's the complaint of every worker that's not an executive at a public traded company.
SWA unions have a part of this, and it's obvious they're trying to get out in front of it. The math is there in front of everyone. SWA has industry-leading costs. Why can't you even acknowledge that? Are you so brainwashed by your union rep that you cannot see reality?
It's just so cheap and insincere when pilots making $3-500K per year sit back and ***** about management when their demands are a big reason for the company's struggles.
The company is struggling because they put all of their eggs in one manufactures basket when the signs were there that said manufacture was having quality control issues. They thought Boeing would get better and it's gotten worse. They had no plan B so when it became clear those orders would be delayed and growth stunted, they have no ancillary revenue streams and little to no pricing power while their competition made the necessary changes to capture excess revenue in the same environment.
Their passenger Yield / RPM has been flat for 2+ years. It's somewhere around 17.3. United has the same Boeing headwinds but been growing and is currently 20.40. Thats a huge difference for two companies plagued by similar issues.
Delta is 21.34
American is 20.64
So Southwest lags anywhere from 15-20% behind the competition on the most important rev metric in the industry. All of those airlines happen to have up charges for seating and charge for bags for non premier or card holders.
That's why Eliot decided to make a huge investment. If they can create a process that closes that gap, it's a great investment.
Looks like their plan to do that is by lowering labor costs (2000 positions are sunsetting this year and won't be filled) along w generating more revenue from in flight amenities. That doesn't seem like a stretch and if successful means LUV is significantly undervalued.
Their passenger Yield / RPM has been flat for 2+ years. It's somewhere around 17.3. United has the same Boeing headwinds but been growing and is currently 20.40. Thats a huge difference for two companies plagued by similar issues.
Delta is 21.34
American is 20.64
So Southwest lags anywhere from 15-20% behind the competition on the most important rev metric in the industry. All of those airlines happen to have up charges for seating and charge for bags for non premier or card holders.
That's why Eliot decided to make a huge investment. If they can create a process that closes that gap, it's a great investment.
Looks like their plan to do that is by lowering labor costs (2000 positions are sunsetting this year and won't be filled) along w generating more revenue from in flight amenities. That doesn't seem like a stretch and if successful means LUV is significantly undervalued.
where did I say I wanted an assigned seat?GasAg90 said:
Anyone with two brain cells understands swa has never, in their 50 year history, assigned seats. I think you are either an idiot that can't figure out simple concepts or just likes to complain.
If you want an assigned seat book another airline and quit blaming other people(companies) for your lack of intelligence.
This focus on sustainable fuel amuses me. It's not scalable. I know there are some people on here close to that business who will argue it's close, but it's not. It's a waste of time and resources considering how far out that is.
SWA needs to focus on blocking and tackling first and foremost. A few basic things that need to get fixed:
Safety
They've had numerous pilot issues lately to the point that the FAA just announced a full audit of their operation. That is not great, Bob.
WiFi
It sucks and has sucked since it was launched several years ago. It's just pathetic that the FA's will openly tell you during their announcements that the flight is equipped with WiFi "assuming it works". So you pay your $8 (which by the way is now per leg and not all day) and then just hope it works. And if doesn't you just eat your $8 because who is going to go spend the time to try and claw that back later.
No Power in Seats
They announced this was coming a year ago. Have heard nothing about it since unless it was mentioned in the latest earnings call. The only thing that has offset this to some degree is that battery life in mobile devices has only improved over the years and considering SWA does a lot of short hauls it really wasn't that critical for most flights. However, it's still annoying if you find yourself low on juice.
Snacks
They just abandoned the snack mix (not that great anyway) for freaking vegan pretzels (worse and dumb). lol.
Personal Nitpick Item
The air vents on the 800s are trash compared to the 700s. Give me the jet blast vents from the 700s and older configs vs the fake news 800 vents. This would apply to other airlines as well.
SWA needs to focus on blocking and tackling first and foremost. A few basic things that need to get fixed:
Safety
They've had numerous pilot issues lately to the point that the FAA just announced a full audit of their operation. That is not great, Bob.
WiFi
It sucks and has sucked since it was launched several years ago. It's just pathetic that the FA's will openly tell you during their announcements that the flight is equipped with WiFi "assuming it works". So you pay your $8 (which by the way is now per leg and not all day) and then just hope it works. And if doesn't you just eat your $8 because who is going to go spend the time to try and claw that back later.
No Power in Seats
They announced this was coming a year ago. Have heard nothing about it since unless it was mentioned in the latest earnings call. The only thing that has offset this to some degree is that battery life in mobile devices has only improved over the years and considering SWA does a lot of short hauls it really wasn't that critical for most flights. However, it's still annoying if you find yourself low on juice.
Snacks
They just abandoned the snack mix (not that great anyway) for freaking vegan pretzels (worse and dumb). lol.
Personal Nitpick Item
The air vents on the 800s are trash compared to the 700s. Give me the jet blast vents from the 700s and older configs vs the fake news 800 vents. This would apply to other airlines as well.
SWAs recent safety issues have been awful. Like 3 planes in the last 4 months have almost catastrophically crashed on landing. Complety unacceptable.
The thing not mentioned here, is that in the past 3 years, the number of passengers willing to pay up for more luxurious travel experiences has surged. This is why Frontier, Spirit, and SWA have fallen way behind United, Delta, and American since COVID. More people paying cash for extra leg room, domestic first, and international business seats than ever before. SWA was left behind once those consumer habits flipped.
The thing not mentioned here, is that in the past 3 years, the number of passengers willing to pay up for more luxurious travel experiences has surged. This is why Frontier, Spirit, and SWA have fallen way behind United, Delta, and American since COVID. More people paying cash for extra leg room, domestic first, and international business seats than ever before. SWA was left behind once those consumer habits flipped.
Its addition to the snack mix betrayal they need to introduce snack boxes for sale. Those are huge revenue items and a nice and simple perk for business customers A list preferred.
Southwest is a 64 GB Apple SE at this point in the game.
Southwest is a 64 GB Apple SE at this point in the game.
What they didn't realize was that what they were avoiding snd promoting was exactly the opposite of what people wanted and now are acclimated to paying. They kept telling people fees for legroom etc are bad when people were speaking with their wallets saying "we want more legroom and will happily pay for it." Now they have to find a way to walk back the "fees are bad" mantra to something else which directly contradicts their previous sentiments. Awkward culture shift for sure.
You implied it by complaining not having one. Kind of like the implication. You are stupid.
Not as familiar with SWA standby policies but pretty sure if there aren't seats available on UAL and you miss a connection or something like that you go on the standby list a paid ticketed passenger originally assigned to that flight doesn't get bumped to make room for someone who missed a connection.
GasAg90 said:
You implied it by complaining not having one. Kind of like the implication. You are stupid.
Man, you are really upset about this. Sorry I offended you buddy. Have a good one
Gordo14 said:
SWAs recent safety issues have been awful. Like 3 planes in the last 4 months have almost catastrophically crashed on landing. Complety unacceptable.
The thing not mentioned here, is that in the past 3 years, the number of passengers willing to pay up for more luxurious travel experiences has surged. This is why Frontier, Spirit, and SWA have fallen way behind United, Delta, and American since COVID. More people paying cash for extra leg room, domestic first, and international business seats than ever before. SWA was left behind once those consumer habits flipped.
The highest paid pilots are not performing.
They aren't the highest paid so I guess they have room for error. They are the highest paying when you only consider the 737 line. SW pilots also only get paid for time in the air. SW isn't near the top compared to other the other airlines if you factor in the premium they pay for pilots to cross train on larger aircraft.
Bayou City said:
They aren't the highest paid so I guess they have room for error. They aren't even in the top 3 for only domestic based carriers. Sorry to throw facts out there.
What domestic based carriers are you referring to? Cargo? Would it be fair to compare those?
https://atpflightschool.com/become-a-pilot/airline-career/major-airline-pilot-salary.html
Please provide your proof.
You should probs check what you provided. It has SW pilots at 87/hrs and everyone else at 72/75 hrs. Apples to apples that's less pay and very misleading since SW pilots only get paid for air time and the other carriers listed pay for boarding etc. It also only includes the A320/737 line for other carriers when most pilots cross train and get paid far more for larger aircrafts. Southwest also has the worst benefits package of the major carriers. As mentioned, unlike most other carriers, SW pilots only get paid for time in the air and they haven't seen in increase in base hours in 2+ years since the flight schedule hasn't grown. That means they have to fly more to reach the same number of hours. They also have no ability to earn extra through cross training on larger aircraft. I know several United 787 pilots that pocket over $500,000 a year. It just depends on what aircraft they fly. For SW every pilot gets paid the 737 rate outside of LOS.
I used to be airlines analyst. SW doesn't touch Delta or AA or UAL if the pilot is flying an aircraft larger than a 737 and they pay more even if the pilot primarily flies 737 and a larger aircraft even minimally and if you count total time, SW lags because it only pays air time.
Where UAL and Delta and AA pay less is their regional aircraft that are express jets. If it's a even hourly base comparison at the 737 level they aren't top 3 and if it's a comparison of total hours worked to reach a complete work week, SW pilots fly more and get paid less because SW only counts time in air not time boarding etc.
I used to be airlines analyst. SW doesn't touch Delta or AA or UAL if the pilot is flying an aircraft larger than a 737 and they pay more even if the pilot primarily flies 737 and a larger aircraft even minimally and if you count total time, SW lags because it only pays air time.
Where UAL and Delta and AA pay less is their regional aircraft that are express jets. If it's a even hourly base comparison at the 737 level they aren't top 3 and if it's a comparison of total hours worked to reach a complete work week, SW pilots fly more and get paid less because SW only counts time in air not time boarding etc.
Bayou City said:
You should probs check what you provided. It has SW pilots at 87/hrs and everyone else at 75 hrs. Apples to apples that's less pay.
So 92% of the pilots approved this contract. Why are you complaining?
https://onemileatatime.com/news/southwest-pilots-contract/
So yes, my point still stands that they are paid more and any other domestic carrier, and that has a direct impact on costs.
Look, I think SWA pilots should be well compensated. I also think management has done a terrible job to find ways to raise more revenue while focusing on inconsequential crap. But to act like salaries don't impact their bottom line is ludicrous. Besides, SWA would not be in this position if Boeing didn't **** the bed.
I have a friend in management and he said that moving to another aircraft manufacturer would increase costs 30% across the board. Do you really think investors would buy that? I don't.
No they aren't. 93% could've approved it. It doesn't mean they make the most. They don't.
Bayou City said:
No they aren't. 93% could've approved it. It doesn't mean they make the most. They don't.
Dudeyou just admitted they are when you look at the 737 line. And please don't edit that post.
Bayou City said:
They aren't the highest paid so I guess they have room for error. They are the highest paying when you only consider the 737 line.
Southwest wouldn't be in this position if they flew more than one class of carrier. That's a risk they took and should've know it was going to bite them. BA has had production issues since I started doing airlines in 2012 and they whisper were yells by 2014/15. I remember several analysts asking about their titanium sourcing from china on earnings calls YEARS before the issues were disclosed by BA. If we knew about them, they did too. They didn't care because their compensation was based on planes delivered before schedule. So that was the focus.
What you provided isn't an apples to apples comparison. Not even close. Anyone in the airline industry knows that. I'm sorry but it shows you have little to no experience analyzing airline costs.
Bayou City said:
What you provided isn't an apples to apples comparison. Not even close. Anyone in the airline industry knows that. I'm sorry but it shows you have little to no experience analyzing airline costs.
I provided sources and cited your own post. You have not done anything except say you are smart.
Featured Stories
See All
A&M at risk of undercut when undertaking trip to underrated Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
48:02
23h ago
4.0k
5:59
20h ago
2.0k
16:53
1d ago
3.1k