Originally Posted by
Snoop
The numbers I was referencing were for 2008. One quarter's performance can be slanted by one time charges, etc., and can be very volatile from quarter to quarter. Longer periods of time smooth out the fluctuation and are a better picture of the true metric being looked at. SWA's 1Q costs are adversely affected by the mark-to-market accounting of the decline in the value of the futures contracts used in it's fuel hedging program - hedges made SWA a ton of money in 2008. This may also help explain why they had the lowest % decrease in CASM. I have not looked, but I'd be willing to wager that if you looked at the stage length adjusted numbers from 1Q SWA would come out on top.
I'd also be willing to bet if you did it with stage length adjusted non-fuel CASM the numbers would be very different. That would show the costs of the core business, not the success that SWA had for a period of time at the futures table.
As your interested, you might have fun looking at Form 41 data for like cost comparisons. I think you'd find the differences to the numbers you've published surprising when comparing say Delta domestic mainline to SWA. No question system costs at Delta are higher, but that's generally driven by the differences in the systems. If you were to compare similar types of flying (say DAL mainline versus SWA at SLC), SWA no longer shows a cost advantage.
Please do not take this as bashing SWA. It's an analytical discussion of how far the costs have fallen at some mainline carriers (much on the backs of labor and investors), and makes for a much different landscape for all of us to operate in. It also makes it that much more difficult to restore our profession to compensation levels we once attained.