What's the difference between them and the majors other than they don't have first class? Both transport people from point A to point B using the same method of transportation. Where they go may be different but they do the exact same thing. It's not greyhound vs the railroad. It's a passenger airline vs a passenger airline.

By the way they are very comparable if you both are competing for your customers out of the same customer pool.

 

It's a different business structure. That's a fact. They are different. Not sure about your last statement. If Delta wants to send someone from LAX-NYC, it'll be nonstop. On SWA, it'll be something like LAX-PHX-MDW-LGA.

 

So because the hub and spoke doesn't seem to be the most profitable way to run an airline then they can't be compared? Weak argument for bad management decisions.

1 airplane vs. multiple. Once again weak and that's up to management. Remember they have 2 right now and getting rid of one and you guys are adding another type rather than getting more of what you have.

International shouldn't be a factor because that should pay for itself. If it's a loosing product then once again bad management.

Type ratings I'll give you that as a cost savings but they still do the exact same thing as the majors just minus first class.

 

What's your argument when Delta or any other hub and spoke airline makes more money then SWA? Who is making the poor decisions then?

I see. So how do you intend to serve JFK-TLV or JFK-ACC with a 737? And Delta is taking deliveries of MD90's and B737's. Both types we already have.

So international should pay for itself, but domestic shouldn't? It's called route management. If it's profitable, you keep it. If not, bye-bye. It doesn't matter if it's domestic or not.

They really don't. The SWA operation is different on many levels. Also, Delta seems to be making money just fine. So your poor management argument isn't really holding water.

 

Then name a route where they both fly non stop and tell me what is the difference? They are both trying to pull from the same passenger pool.

Here's where your argument doesn't hold water on the LAX to NYC. Can they both get you from where you are to where you want to go? Yes. Go to delta and pull up that flight. I'll put money on it that it gives you more than just the direct option. I bet they have connecting options too. Just like southwest. You just picked a route that Southwest doesn't do direct and say it's different.

Was Continental different because they flew 3 aircraft compared to your 9?

 

Yup, Delta will give more options then the non stop. They'll also give options to get you Europe, Africa, and Asia. Does SWA do that? And yes, Continental is different then SWA because they fly multiple types of airplanes.

 

Funny, we're up to page 7 and no response from Slow. It seems every time a logical argument that actually might prove him wrong comes up he just ignores it.
Slow, I like the balance you bring (most of the time) especially when you bring ALL the fact's not just the ones that support your argument!

 

I NEVER said you said swa pilots were not in our peer group. I very clearly stated that was a dalpa meme. Your statement of them not being comparable to us is, however, very much alike to what they have been saying during these negotiations.

And what does multiple fleet type have to do with giving away rj's or not giving away rj's and being profitable (and furloughing, as in slowplays post)? Are you saying that having multiple fleet types somehow makes rj's profitable or a good idea? Seems to me that is a reason to NOT have rj's as we have different types to "fit the bill" ourselves.

And flying around the world imho is irrelevant. The rj's we have basically fly domestically. Just like sw does. We could be using a 737 (or smaller mainline) to bring people to those int'l flights, just like swa uses a 737 to bring in people to connect to their other domestic flights. They have been doing it with a profit. And our rj's DO NOT just feed mainline....

Paying for their type ratings??? Now that is reeeaaalllyy a stretch. What on earth does that have to do with the fact that they are the most profitable airline for quite some time and they have no rj's??? That is an irrelevant "comparable" in realtion to a rj vs non rj profitablity discussion.

The question I originally posed has to do with "comparable" in regards to rj's and profitablity. Not some red-herring comparable of training. Their pilots still go through the same company required training as ours.

Also remember: my original post had to do with slowplays assertion that tighter scope somehow equated into furloughs.

 

For the moment, which makes that last statement just funny. How did they do over the last 12 years compared to Southwest? How has Delta done over their lifetime in bad times compared to southwest?

I'm sure Delta and United do things differently on many levels. Doesn't make them different. Still providing virtually the exact same product as Southwest plus or minus destinations and first class.

 

And minus the last 8 years, SWA pilot pay lagged just about everyone else. Even though the company was doing so well. So they as a pilot group really haven't contributed much, have they?

Southwest does thing differently. Do they serve cities like PIA, SGF, MTY, etc? No, they stay away from the small communities because they can't serve then without a hub and spoke system.