Well I hope that, as long as everyone attacks the arguments and not each other, this isn't in violation of the rules---but rather the whole point of a discussion forum.

+1 to the whole argument [snipped for brevity ]

Sorry, but none of your own personal situation matters! Once the "dinosaur" airlines are all out of business, all of the new found efficiencies will kick in with the new "12 plane-a-day B737 theme", and the simply empty, free-flowing taxiways that are totally void of anything smaller than a 137-seater, you'll hafto conform to the system (below), or take Greyhound!

The OP seems VERY intelligent, so, I'm sure that when he becomes Prez, he'll change Air Force1 to an all Y config!

Wishful thinking on the part of Southwest's competition for 40 years, almost entirely profitable years for Southwest, not so much for the competition!

And their beer is still free, at least it was the last time I flew on one.

_ IBTL _

Why do we all have to like what you like? Last time I checked, I still live in the US and I have a choice.



I agree.

I must have missed the memo on that amid all of Delta's recent profit and loss reports.

... drawn to its logical conclusion, that means we would end up with another Pan Am -- an international airline that couldn't survive without a domestic network. I don't see that happening. As competition and the market place reduce the number of players, the survivors will adapt.

Southwest is no longer a domestic airline. With their acquisition of AirTran, Southwest is starting to serve Caribbean and Latin American destinations. Once those are integrated into Southwest's network, other international destinations will be ripe for consideration.

Southwest has already moved away from the all-138-seat 737 model with their orders for larger 737's. I will not be at all surprised if regionals are also in their future. They almost acquired them when they considered buying Frontier out of bankruptcy. In Australia Virgin Blue (originally modeled after WN with an all 737 fleet) has evolved to flying Embraers as well as 737's and has made some other non-Southwest-ish changes as well. The Southwest example is not necessarily a universal solution.

Over the long run you're going to see DL & WN (& UA & US/AA) evolving to be more competitive with each other. What most people think of as Southwest today is not the answer. Southwest is already evolving well past that.

Change happens to everything, and will continue to happen.

That's why they are contracted to regional airlines with smaller planes and different cost structures. Only a few years ago a Mesaba first officer new on the job could have earned more money as a WalMart greeter. Their pay scales are higher today but still much lower than the major airlines.

It's not a matter of agreeing with you. The numbers have said that for years. Delta (w/ NW now counted as DL) is still 2-3% ahead in enplanements, but that counts international passengers. And that without counting AirTran, which is still reported separately.

That was known as Song. Technically they were not a separate airline: They flew planes repainted with Song logos & colors under Delta's operating certificate, and they tried to emulate Southwest -- and they flubbed.

If you like Southwest so much, why does there need to be another airline just like them?

You confuse me. Most of your posts state there should be fewer options, fewer flights, fewer aircraft and fewer airports served. Why do you want more options?

But there are other airlines similar in some respects to Southwest, they probably just don't serve his airports.

Virgin America & Spirit come to mind. Frontier now seem poised to explore the bottom limits of the marketplace.

Correct. If people don't want to read it, they don't have to.

There are very specific reasons why Air Force One is what it is. That has nothing to do with commercial air travel.

I sure hope not. Part of their business model is that they only have one type of aircraft to maintain and train on. They have different types of 737s now, but they all share a lot of parts and operational commonality.

Hopefully not into a dinosaur. They need to dig deeper into low-cost, and not turn into the messes that the old guard has.

That's a problem. I don't trust an airline who isn't paying their pilots well. That's also why I like to fly O&O. The regional airlines are just way too shady.

They could operate actual Delta more like Southwest.

I'd like to see an airline out Southwest Southwest. As long as the experience and training of the crew, and the airworthiness of the aircraft are not affected, I'd like to see a race to the bottom. Southwest is getting too comfortable be just being cheaper then the inefficient big carriers (which isn't hard, they give Southwest a lot to work with in terms of efficiency), rather than being as cheap as possible.

Spirit and Frontier are interesting. Spirit has the best advertising campaign ever. However, they only do major, major markets. I'd like to see another carrier who will come in, serve every relevant us market like Southwest, and then out Southwest Southwest (more like RyanAir than Southwest). Southwest is a kinder, gentler low-cost airline, and not as aggressive as RyanAir.

Is anyone else concerned that the OP had a Delta shortbread cookie? The ones they serve in first class?!? Could the OP have purchased an upgrade or bribed the FA?

Unless the OP is confusing shortbread with Biscoff.

What's scary is there is no bottom limit. When an airline starts boxing people up and flying them in cargo planes, OP will praise their efficiency and hold them to be the model for everyone else, so long as they serve his home airport and save him a dollar or two over WN.

The OP said in one long post "I'd like to see a race to the bottom."

Saying the at word 3 times is like saying Beetlejuice 3 times, but nobody should have any doubt now. Do we really need further evidence?

It's pretty darn well controlled. And that "chaos" as you call allows them to turn the planes around faster and run a 5th flight a day on average, which allows them to offer lower cost fares. The service is far better than Delta. Faster, more efficient boarding, you can sit anywhere you want, or anywhere there's overhead space, better aircraft, less time taxiing around doing nothing, it's just better.

Southwest is just as professional or more so than Delta. They are professionals at efficiently operating the plane, right down to getting the drinks out.

Why is that funny? Airplanes get more efficient as they get bigger. Cars, in general, get less efficient.

What I am suggesting would drastically reduce congestion at JFK and other major airports. It would allow airlines to serve the same purpose, but by flying significantly fewer flights with fewer planes and fewer airports. That's systemic efficiency.

I'm not trolling. I am also not mbwmbw, whoever he is.

I did not know that. That's just ridiculous. The market should decide who gets service. I can see subsidizing capital investment in something forward looking and requiring massive capital, like a national high-speed rail system, but subsidizing the airlines is just ridiculous. Let the market figure it out. If an airport is too small, take it off the map. That's disgusting that the government is subsidizing Delta to provide service that no one needs.

The more pax you can move for less $, the lower the fare you can offer. The problem with premium is that a lot of the time they don't sell, as the result is giving people free upgrades, which is a money loser.

Exactly.

Flying is one of two things:

1. An absolute necessity because you are going somewhere really far away that's not practical or possible to get to by car or boat.

2. A necessity because of our wholly inadequate (read: non-existant) high-speed train system. I.e. CT to MI. If we had the train system we should, I could go from the shoreline to NHV to SPG to TOL to DTW, with 225mph service on the BOS-CHI route, and 125mph feeder service elsewhere. That would make flying totally unnecessary if you were staying within anywhere east of the Mississippi, or staying on the west coast. The only places that rail now services a route that might otherwise be served by air is something like BOS-BWI, BOS-WAS, NYP-WAS, etc.

I can figure out how to get places. Sometimes just driving. Sometimes a combination of flying and driving. Like going to the Traverse City area. Drive to PVD. PVD-BWI, BWI-GRR, rent a car. Drive to Traverse City. Not that hard. In many cases, my low-cost philosophy and strategy allows me to travel places that I otherwise wouldn't be able to go, and see people I otherwise wouldn't be able to see.

Southwest built their model on people like me. And I like that. Except that I get more on Southwest for less money, and on Delta I get less for more money. And which one is a better deal?

No. That's not true at all.

We have bad weather. It's a fact of life. Deal with it.

I suppose I could afford it, but it's a total waste of money. You get nothing in return for paying more money. The same plane, the same destination. I don't want to fly on an airline that's so inefficient that it gives out upgrades to it's 75k members or whatever. Southwest cuts that entire inefficiency out of the business model, and I like that a lot.

Well, I don't fly on toy planes. I don't really care what was what 20 years ago.

Or the free market, which has recognized the efficiency of Southwest's model.

It's a biscoff. Yeah. Sorry. Got my cookie types mixed up. Didn't know they had special cookies for first class. Don't care, as I will never fly first class, nor do I have any desire to do something so inefficient. I don't fly enough to get free upgrades, and I wouldn't pay anything to upgrade.

If they can prove that it's equally as safe as being in a seat, than I would fully support them running like a subway. However, I don't think that they could make it as safe as being in a seat during a crash landing. Unless they pack the people in so tight.... Efficiency and low cost are the goals. Airlines shouldn't be striving to be comfortable. That's not their job. Their job to get as many butts from point A to point B in the most efficient, lowest cost manner possible. I would also support charging passenger by the pound, a "fat tax" so to speak, as it's a true measure of how much it costs the airline in fuel burn. It might end up hurting me, as I'm a bit bigger, but oh well, it would certainly be a fair system. Encouraging people financially to lose weight couldn't hurt.