The question is what does it actually cost to operate a flight profitably? With the adoption of internet pricing, most customers select their flight according to cost of ticket. Convienence and service are well down the priority list. The result is it becomes necessary for the carrier to list the ticket price well below the cost to operate. Carriers have figured out that the area that will generate the profit is in the cafeteria of add on fees.
It's all a function of the switch to internet booking.
SWA does not participate in the internet travel booking sites such as Expedia or Travelocity. So, they are not compared as apples to apples. Rather, they make you go to their website in order to book. Many people will not bother to then compare the "complete" deal at SWA reservations with the "complete" deal at a legacy carrier. SWA is no cheaper. They are just better at making people think that they are cheaper. The baggage advertisment is a good example. Perception is everything.
Remlap, I definitely agree that SWA is the best at making the general public think their prices are the cheapest. However, nothing is for free and most reasonable people know that.
The question I have is, I can't think of any other airline that advertises on TV other than Southwest. I've seen the Delta credit card commercial -- but it's not an airline commercial. So I wonder, how much are they spending on this ad campaign compared to the increase in revenue?
There is more to "bags fly free" then just bag fees. Our customers know that they can check bags for free and do so. On full flights, we rarely tag bags, and when we do it is usually only a hand full. By comparison, I commute on USAirways about 3 times a month. The flights are always full, and since passengers don't want to pony up for the bag fee, almost everyone has a roller bag. Is is not uncommon for the jetway to look like a luggage warehouse by the time boarding is completed.
With the SWA business plan, our 20-25 minute turns would be impossible with so many gate checked bags. If we had to do 50 minute turns everywhere we went in order to accommodate carry on bags (that become free checked bags) we would lower aircraft utilization. Gary Kelly stated a couple months ago that getting an extra flight or three by keeping an airplane in the air will outweigh the extra bag revenue.
I've been watching revenue comps with other companies closely, and it's really hard to tell if not charging for bags is helping or hurting us. It seems as if last quarter passengers are starting to react positively to the "no bag fee" campaign, but the revenue numbers aren't conclusive yet.
There is more to "bags fly free" then just bag fees. Our customers know that they can check bags for free and do so. On full flights, we rarely tag bags, and when we do it is usually only a hand full. By comparison, I commute on USAirways about 3 times a month. The flights are always full, and since passengers don't want to pony up for the bag fee, almost everyone has a roller bag. Is is not uncommon for the jetway to look like a luggage warehouse by the time boarding is completed.
With the SWA business plan, our 20-25 minute turns would be impossible with so many gate checked bags. If we had to do 50 minute turns everywhere we went in order to accommodate carry on bags (that become free checked bags) we would lower aircraft utilization. Gary Kelly stated a couple months ago that getting an extra flight or three by keeping an airplane in the air will outweigh the extra bag revenue.
I agree with this statement thoroughly. My employer largely emulates the Southwest business model--at least it did for the first 5 years. We charge for the second bag underneath (so not too bad yet-you get one underneath for free). It has harmed our turn times. We shoot for 40 minutes, but the A320 is tough at 40 mintues with 150 seats and, with regularly high loads, we blow this often because of the bag fees! Customers have dead relatives in some of these roll aboards. Constant boarding delays occur while folks manage these things into overheads.
Bag fees make money, but what about when a customers luggage does not arrive or is lost? This happened to my parents on another carrier. They were angry. They paid extra to have their bags delayed! In the future, they'll avoid that carrier. There are consequences to this charging scheme. Good for LUV!
Position: Laughing at you guys, still fighting each other. For what?
Posts: 6
Due to larger and larger bags being brought on as carry ons, the FAA and the airlines have been looking for away to police this. The little box at the gate allows to little control over billing for additional bags. Plans I have heard being thrown around are to have it done at Securty check points, so that if the bag is too big you must go back to the counter, check, and pay for it. The gate check "because I'm stupid" loop hole will be closed.
Maybe we should charge nothing for checked bags, and charge for roll-aboards instead!
That would be great! People have figured out if they gate check the bag, they don't pay the fee. I was sitting in the last row the other day and no room for this guys bag, so the checked it. He loudly asked "am I gonna get charged" , FA said no; and everyone who paid for a checked bag started grumbling
The WN bags fly free scratchin' and rappin' commercial is possibly the cheesiest most annoying thing in television history. I am actually embarrassed for WN when I see it. It ranks right up there with "Head-On, apply directly to the forehead", "Head-On, apply directly to the forehead", "Head-On, apply directly to the forehead", "Head-On, apply directly to the forehead". I would never buy that product because the commercial is so dam_ed annoying.
Annoying commercials sell sell sell. Even you remember Head-On's commercial.
The rapping Southwest commercial plays exactly into the type of passenger Southwest is looking for. It is a very smart ad campaign. But, for now, nobody knows for sure if it is a success.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
