Not if you equalize hours and understand SW only pays for in flight time. I don't think you understand how this industry operates. You have friend in SW management. That's cool. I guess I stayed at a holiday inn last night.

They lag passenger yield / rpm and that delta isn't from pilot pay. They could double the pilot pay and the delta would still be 10% between them and the other carriers in an industry that top carriers fight for .5% and die for anything over 2%. I don't think you understand this industry.

Bayou City said:

---

Not if you equalize hours and understand SW only pays for in flight time. I don't think you understand how this industry operates. You have friend in SW management. That's cool. I stayed at a holiday inn last night.

---

So how does SWA reconcile a 30% increase in O&M costs? They cannot stay competitive with that considering labor has surpassed even fuel costs.

Have you seen their results for the last 6 quarters? They don't have a fix that's why we have this thread. They are bleeding money and have no way to plug the leak. They are getting railed from every angle and have no where to hide at this point. That's why Eliot made the investment. You literally cannot do a worse job of managing an airline. It be almost impossible.

Bayou City said:

---

Have you seen their results for the last 6 quarters? They don't have a fix that's why we have this thread. They are bleeding money and have no way to plug the leak. They are getting railed from every angle and have no where to hide at this point. That's why Eliot made the investment. You literally cannot do a worse job of managing an airline. It be almost impossible.

---

You think they will raise billions selling snacks? LOL

Your union has all the answers.

Standardize what you posted and you'll see. It's math. 3rd grade math.

United saw a TRASM increase of 14% the first full year they sold snack boxes. That's not all from snacks, but also not peanuts by any stretch.

IIRC, Customers that buy snack boxes are 2 times more likely to make an in cabin alcohol purchase and something like 1.8x more likely to have paid for an upgraded seat. So yeah attracting snack box buyers is what you want as an airlines. those little snack boxes are pretty damn powerful. it all adds up. Again, I think you don't understand how the industry operates.

If SW was doing a decent job they wouldn't be lagging on the most important revenue metric passenger yield (PR/RPM) used by the industry by 20% compared to Delta and 15%+ between them and UAL/AA. You'll notice that AA/UAL are seperated by a PR/RPM of less than 4.4% w Delta and 1% between UAL and AA. That puts SW a magnitude below them. I haven't done the statistics but it may even produce them as an outlier. It's THAT bad. Oh yeah and every one of those has union labor. So it's not the union labor costs blowing them up. They all have those costs and UAL has even more of a backlog w BA so you can't claim that as the reason SW is struggling compared to other carriers. They're struggling because bad management. It's really that simple.

Now we're getting somewhere! Interesting information, thank you.

Not offended. I figured it would take three posts for you to understand.

That's the most crazy rant I've seen in a while.

Bayou City said:

---

United saw a TRASM increase of 14% the first full year they sold snack boxes. That's not all from snacks, but also not peanuts by any stretch.

---

What is your point?

More hilarious news for SWA:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/27/weather/southwest-airlines-soda-cans-heat-climate/index.html

See above. They generate revenue and help drive alcohol sales which is the most profitable in flight amenity along w correlating strongly w premium seating up charge choices. So they aren't responsible for the full 14% but they're responsible for some and help generate another portion from alcohol sales and highly correlate with another component seat upgrades.

TRASM is a total revenue available per seat mile.

Families can just board with the A passenger. I'm A-List preferred and that's what we do, I don't even bother with family boarding.

Bayou City said:

---

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%.

---

BTW, where did you hear about this one. It's rather hard to believe given American, Delta, and United have 160+ seats on there 737-800s with a first class cabin.

SW Pilot. I said the same thing but he works for them not me. Back of the envelope that's A TON of RASM to give you to eliminate labor costs.

Bayou City said:

---

See above. They generate revenue and help drive alcohol sales which is the most profitable in flight amenity along w correlating strongly w premium seating up charge choices. So they aren't responsible for the full 14% but they're responsible for some and help generate another portion from alcohol sales and highly correlate with another component seat upgrades.

TRASM is a total revenue available per seat mile.

---

Wow... if you honestly believe that that snack boxes drove a 14% increase in Ticket RASM, I don't know what to to tell you... That's crazy.

This is me now. SWA has the best route and time for my destination, as a result I'm A List preferred and companion. In turn it's been great for domestic family travel.

Bayou City said:

---

SW Pilot

---

Why would a SWA pilot know anything about this?

I just told you they didn't and I said they didn't in the original post. Selective reading comprehension?

" United saw a TRASM increase of 14% the first full year they sold snack boxes. That's not all from snacks, but also not peanuts by any stretch."

What's the second sentence say?

You just said you heard it from a SWA pilot...

Bayou City said:

---

I just told you they didn't and I said they didn't in the original post. Selective reading comprehension?

" United saw a TRASM increase of 14% the first full year they sold snack boxes. That's not all from snacks, but also not peanuts by any stretch."

What's the second sentence say?

---

OK... your implication was what?

Read the next post. It's all there.

I fly that much and I base it off which has the best route time, in my case SWA has the best routes and has better mid day options for me if I can swing it. I'll get my companion pass again sometime in the winter and be about halfway to platinum medallion. For me SWA wins because of the companion pass. When that's gone, I'll move all my travel over.

I think the companion pass is the next thing to go once they get this seating issue resolved and if it's a profitable as expected. They don't have the capacity with the BA delays. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't renew past 2025 or 2026 but more realistically 2025.

That's my thought as well which is why I started making moves on Delta. When I have to book something super last minute, I'll go delta and get the MQD that comes with the price.

Bayou City said:

---

SW Pilot. I said the same thing but he works for them not me. Back of the envelope that's A TON of RASM to give you to eliminate labor costs.

---

Really? Removing 25 seats to remove one flight attendant?

Something smells here...

Stymied said:

---

Bayou City said:

---

SW Pilot. I said the same thing but he works for them not me. Back of the envelope that's A TON of RASM to give you to eliminate labor costs.

---

Really? Removing 25 seats to remove one flight attendant?

Something smells here...

---

I don't have the math in front of me so who knows, but I could see where new revenue + lower FA labor costs with one fewer headcount per flight + removal of one more point of failure in crew staffing and optimization could offset removal of these seats at current revenue methodologies.

There's also a reduction in plane weight for fuel costs due to the removal of the seats and the associated baggage and other ancillary weight loss from things like carrying less beverage inventory given the lower headcount. For the 737, a 1% reduction in weight = .75% reduction in fuel costs. The empty weight of a Boeing 737-8 MAX is 145,400 lbs, and the maximum takeoff weight is 181,200 lbs. If you assume they're currently flying at the maximum takeoff weight (they aren't but it's easier for comparison) and you assume each removed seat weight 500lbs, the passenger weights 150 and they carry 40lbs each of luggage. Then, 690lbs per seat x 25 seats = 17,250 lbs removed per flight for passenger and another 150lbs for the crew member. That's 9.6% of the maximum takeoff weight. At .75%/1%, that's a 7.2% decrease in fuel per flight. In 2023 SW spent 6.21 billion on fuel. -7.2% would be ballpark $450 mm in fuel expenses. Between lower fuel cost, lower labor costs, and additional revenue from premium seating options, it may very well be a go vs no go.

Bayou City said:

---

Not if you equalize hours and understand SW only pays for in flight time. I don't think you understand how this industry operates. You have friend in SW management. That's cool. I guess I stayed at a holiday inn last night.

They lag passenger yield / rpm and that delta isn't from pilot pay. They could double the pilot pay and the delta would still be 10% between them and the other carriers in an industry that top carriers fight for .5% and die for anything over 2%. I don't think you understand this industry.

---

But they pay based on segments and not time. The segment metric is based on the distance between Dallas and Houston or something. That allows for some pretty insane gaming of the system. There was a pilot who created an app that helped pilots bid the most profitable segment. He even helped them take advantage of vacation policies that allowed a pilot to get paid for an entire trip (without flying at all) that happened to fall on or near a holiday.

I've only flown SWA with kids, so I don't even understand this discussion. I avoided them for 20 years because I thought they would separate you from your children without assigned seats. I thought it was just some big cattle car like general admission at a baseball game. Well, that, and the fact that they didn't go to IAH.

Yes, I'm guilty of using that term because they do line you up and send you through, but I also called out that I find it to be the most orderly boarding process of all airlines. It's a well designed cattle call. As far as other airlines, my biggest beef are the people in latter groups that crowd the gate. It's ridiculous.

I think they just never explained what they were doing in a way that families could understand. I guess if you were a lone traveler, it didn't matter, and maybe they wanted it to be murky for families so they could keep kids off the planes. Either way, I never knew how it worked, and still don't. I've flown SWA and never not had a seat before boarding. Maybe I've only flown since they changed their policy. Also, I never cared about free bags. Taking anything larger than a backpack is a sign of weakness.

Obviously, you're not a golfer.

/Lebowski