The point was that SWA's big advantage is evaporating over the next few years. The only way they could maintain it is to hedge at lets say $65 and then have the market go up to $90....

But with the current volatility of energy, even getting a semi-long term hedge at TODAYs price is going to cost you...

Remember, somebody somewhere had to buy oil at $70 and turn around and sell it to SWA at $25... and they're not going to want to do that sh*t again...

True but but SW had to pay cash way back when for their hedge..............
That money in turn was used by someone else.............to raise cash.

For every hedge that pays off..........somewhere there are a few who didn't................

So for the $25/barrel SW paid when the market was $70.......................Someone somewhere lost their shirt and had $60/barrel oil when the market was $50.

Ever buy PUTS and CALLS? Very risky.............can make a ton of money or ????.

I once made 10 grand in a week............but it cost me 20 grand to do it:p

You have got to be the dumbest *@#$ on this BB!:eek:
If people want or need to fly coast to coast, why do you think $389 is too much? Look at the alternative, you can either drive, 5 days, maybe 4 if you drive all night; or.... hire NextJets or own your own GV and go that way. I'm guessing that makes a $389 fare look pretty good, doesn't it?:rolleyes:
JB, driving down Trans con fares to double digits give the traveling business flyer the preverbal "free ride" as for the leisure passenger, if they don't think their time is work 5 hours vis 5 days in a car, they should drive, saves them having to rent one on the other end:D
If airlines (read: LCC's ) want to cost there product to provide "all most"free air travel, they will find people to travel on them. Just understand, the business traveler, saving days of road travel and the productivity it provides will pay a fair price to travel vis the alternative. We could argue what "fair" is but just consider the cost of the next step up (that GV or Lear) and the costs of flying coast to coast doesn't seem so high. If the flying business men can get it for $99 or what have you, they will, laughing all the way to the bank. They'd gladly pay much more, and have.

DC,

Thanks for saying what I was thinking!

That's what I love about guys like you. Your ability to conduct a polite, logical debate. If we priced our product so that only business travelers could fly there would be a very small amount of pilots. But that's what you want, isn't it? An old boys club? And how are you going to create this Nirvana? By having Uncle Sam eliminate all competition? Name an industry that works this way. When you bought your last car, did you go out and find three identical cars and then buy the most expensive one?

communist.

I still stand by my first statement:p

This industry is not a charity and it is not civil service. Everybody in it is in it for themselves. Managers will INVARIABLY act in their own self-interest every time, with total disregard to the well being of employees, the public, and even stockholders.

The pilot groups need to operate in the same manner. The exception is safety, pilots as a group won't compromise, while management has reduced compromising safety to a fine art form.

Normally there would be a sensible pricing point which would maximize revenue. This point, almost by definition, will drive away some (perhaps many) low budget customers. And that is GREAT. If the government wants to subsidize low-cost airtravel for poor people, then everyone can vote on that...but we as pilots and the industry in general have NO obligation to give a remote **** about who can or cannot afford our services.

There complex reasons as to why we are not operating at the aformentioned pricing point (having to do with fixed and variable costs).