Bingo. BNA would get hammered.

 

Oh I know they did…I’m just curious if they’re throwing NB/WB in there or it’s just codeshares and RJ’s

 

Do you have any plans to clarify on your cute little drive-by? FFS

 

What do you want clarified?

I don't know when you'll get the official announcement from SW. Probably not too long, they have set things in motion apparently.

 

In the dystopian base closing scenario, I could definitely see this happening, SJC/SMF happening, and the two other California bases closing or shrinking to insignificant sizes. LAX is mired in construction hell with terminal 5 completely shut down and its tenants displaced for the next 2 years. That leaves B6 squatting on 4 of our former gates. Not that it mattered much, we were under utilizing them anyway.
HQ has already shown us that they don’t care about displacements or keeping things status quo in order to make crews happy. It’s only a matter of time before they start closing under performing bases and moving crews to airports and cities that make sense. SAN has the footprint to make this happen.
Just using the data available to us, SAN has over 50 more departures and 2 more overnighting aircraft on the summer schedule.

 

Fairly certain I heard it was mostly all RJ flying by Skywest.

 

Delta doesn't need to #1 in AUS. They just need to be competitive in AUS. Look at BOS and SEA. They are not #1 in market share but they are competitive. If you look at both SEA and BOS gate wise, they have more gates in BOS and SEA than what is proposed in AUS. Since Delta operates a hub and spoke, the real estate required to make a true dent would be quite substantial. As we know, hub and spoke is a great way to connect passengers but a inefficient use of gate utilization. On the other hand, SWA is a p2p, so doubling the gates, just by that definition will create bigger footprint. I don't have any data to back this up but I suspect yields are better in AUS than DAL or HOU. If Delta can get a slice of it, to them its worth it. Plus it dilutes the yields that SWA enjoys at the moment.

 

Their is a short window here but ALK and SWA are both in a transition. Following the acquisition of Hawaiian Airlines, which utilizes expensive widebody aircraft and produces low yields, Alaska Air Group reported HA incurred losses exceeding half a million dollars a day. Which brought down earnings this past quarter as well as forecasting a loss in the first quarter. Very rare for ALK. It will be short lived as ALK pivots and redeploys those airplanes to potential better yielding markets as well as streamlining the fleet(rid of 717's and A321's). Mergers are very expensive, time consuming and require much effort by mangement to put together. So SWA definitely sees some openings. It's not a coincidence that SWA is opening a 12,000 square foot, two floor lounge in HNL. Remember, airlines are required to report 10% of their fares to the DOT. Modeling does the rest. So SWA knows what is bleeding and what is profitable. All airlines do this. SWA has a 33% market share vs ALK's 12%(3rd) in SAN. Either way, SWA opening a base or not in SAN doesn't really change those dynamics. Operationally though, single runway operation? Don't know but SWA decision's these days doesn't surprise me.

 

Regarding closing OAK or LAX and moving the bases to SMF and SAN: Wouldn’t it be cheaper for management to use co-domicile language? OAK/SMF/SJC and LAX/SAN/BUR. This would negate the need for new base infrastructure and moving expenses. That way, they can have their cake and eat it too. Does the CBA allow for this solution?

 

Co domiciles are only allowed in
1. DFW/DAL
2. HOU/IAH
3. MDW/ORD

Plus it can't take affect until all IT stuff that is required by the CBA is implemented....in 2028. So they have to amend that by SWAPA/SWA. I don't think at the moment that would go over well with the pilot group.