![]() |
$2.5B in stock buybacks while slashing the operation.
I wonder if that was part of the "difficult decisions" made. |
Originally Posted by e6bpilot
(Post 3839894)
You could take it one of two ways.
1. EIM is knocking at the door and wants to fire them all. They are in self preservation mode and looking under the couch cushions via leaseback schemes and other free cash flow generating revenue models to bribe institutional investors to keep their jobs. 2. EIM is knocking at the door and wants to install a board of directors that is going to hollow out Southwest and turn it into a short term cash printer and then dump it. Current leadership are freeing up cash to pay investors and generate earnings to defend the airline and its people from this outside invader. I am firmly in the option 1 camp after todays announcements. Maybe I am getting jaded after a decade of mostly empty promises from Dallas, but this sure feels like they are in short term panic mode to preserve their jobs so that they can keep on slogging along with their stale and inept leadership that they have demonstrated for the last decade or so. While I am no fan of EM or their founder, I hope they succeed in flushing the C suite and giving this place a fresh start. Since they don't even expect any free cash flow till 2026, those stock buy backs that the BOD authorized, is a two year story at the earliest. Just headline cat nip for Wallstreet. SWA had two options when it comes to the Boeing orders. Defer or buy. Since they have heavy discounts and credits, it makes sense to squeeze some cash out the fleet to maximize it. We are going to have excess airplanes, so why not? Help's keep a net cash position. Helps with the precious cash flow. They still plan on being a 100% max fleet by 2031. GTF engines are a bigger issue IMO then Boeings problems. Even Ed Bastian of Delta admitted as much. Their is a lot demand for narrow bodies. This is not something new for SWA. All those 717's that Delta got from SWA, those leases are owned by SWA. The lease payments that Delta pay's every month to SWA roll's right into the all those lease payments of the 7800 birds that are flying. EM says that BJ lacks the vision and capability to execute this. So they don't necessarily disagree with some of the idea's but think BJ can't make it happen. So the next guy that comes in will make much of these idea's real, add to the cost cutting of 500 million that they outlined. Almost 1900 employees(non flight ops) have taken a LOA or work less hours according to the presentation. Guarantee you that a new CEO will pink slip them, as well as close the ATL base. Alot of rumors were abound that SWA would go full hub and spoke. Looks like it's not. I bet though EM wants SWA to look like the network carriers. |
Originally Posted by PackFan1
(Post 3839874)
Buybacks are a way to return money to investors. You sound like Elizabeth Warren.
Buybacks used to be illegal for good reason. It's nothing but a way to artificially pump the stock by using your hard earned revenue to do it. |
Originally Posted by REF 5
(Post 3839942)
So all next summer the misery will continue.
Cosnider that half the airplanes out there by next summer will have the new cabin configuration, but we will still have open seaeting. What could go wrong? |
Originally Posted by ReluctantEskimo
(Post 3839940)
$2.5B in stock buybacks while slashing the operation.
I wonder if that was part of the "difficult decisions" made. |
Originally Posted by Proximity
(Post 3839948)
Change continue to "intensify".
Cosnider that half the airplanes out there by next summer will have the new cabin configuration, but we will still have open seaeting. What could go wrong? |
Originally Posted by PackFan1
(Post 3839874)
So because SWA authorized a buyback, that automatically means corprate raidership?
What about AAPL, Google, microsoft, Visa, chevron? Some of the largest buybacks in the market. Are they experiencing corprpate raidership too? Buybacks are a way to return money to investors. You sound like Elizabeth Warren. That's rich. SWA is more like sears, JCPenney's or red lobster . It must be nice to live in the naïve world that you live in. |
Originally Posted by PackFan1
(Post 3839874)
So because SWA authorized a buyback, that automatically means corprate raidership?
What about AAPL, Google, microsoft, Visa, chevron? Some of the largest buybacks in the market. Are they experiencing corprpate raidership too? Buybacks are a way to return money to investors. You sound like Elizabeth Warren. "In some cases, a leveraged buyback can be used as a means to fend off a hostile bidder.2 The company takes on significant additional debt to repurchase stocks through a buyback program. Such leveraged buybacks can be successful in thwarting hostile bids by both raising the share value (hopefully) and adding a great deal of unwanted debt to the company's balance sheet." |
Originally Posted by ReluctantEskimo
(Post 3839943)
It's always baffling to see people defend the people who actively out to make their lives worse.
Buybacks used to be illegal for good reason. It's nothing but a way to artificially pump the stock by using your hard earned revenue to do it. |
Originally Posted by PackFan1
(Post 3840000)
Then we need to ban dividends as well if that's the case. It's effectively the same thing, minus the tax consequences.
If you want to shovel money to the shareholders, at least it's on the level. Either case, slashing and burning your route structure while rewarding wall street is a Gordon Gekko move. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:34 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands