Visconti

Ah, to me, they still are a "low cost carrier."

Semantics aside, I take the term to mean the "best bang for your buck" thing. While I'm surely ignorant of many routes, I do know the SFO - LAX/LAS ones quite well. What I can assert is that, unless one's a top elite at one of the legacies, I can't fathom a reason why anyone wouldn't choose WN at the same or similar price point. I mean, you get the full refund/free change thing, free checked bags and assured decent boarding, assuming one can make the effort to check in at T-24. And, as someone above observed, no barbie/twinkie jets. And, personally, I like their boarding process, which I find idiot proof. Unlike the big 3 or 4, you don't get confusion and the perennial gate lice thing.

As to irrops, I would be so lucky and use my CCs insurance and go to town on them for the $500 - $1,000, or whatever coverage amount.

_fx

These simply aren’t true. A LCC could have lower operating costs for any number of reasons. For example, WN flies almost exclusively 737s, which reduces their pilot training costs. They have their own reservation system, which means a lower IT and vendor budget. Their award redemption options are more limited, which reduces the liability of unused miles on their balance sheet. Their network is smaller, so they assume less risk when starting new routes. etc etc etc.

Remember, this term originated internally as part of communications with Wall St. That means it’s about PnL/business strategy at the time the term was invented, not what customers perception of the brand is today. It’s the same reason people still refer to big tech as FAANG, even though MSFT currently has a higher market cap than 4/5 of those companies.

usedtobeimportant

If they are not true then:

a) Name me other LCCs that gives you free baggage and free carry on?
b) Name me other LCCs that charge comparable fares to legacy carriers on so many routes?

That's my point, people keep on calling SW a LCC but its like no other LCC I know off. The LCC and ULCC start of with a ridiculously low fare and then nickel and dime you for everything. I remember EasyJet would actually charge for printing boarding passes at the airport!

_fx

It doesn’t matter whether they’re like other LCCs or not. They’re still a LCC, because they have low operating costs.

How about instead you name a legacy carrier that has historically had lower operating costs than WN?

If your point is “Southwest offers great value for many people,” or “Southwest is better than Spirit,” then sure. I agree. But that’s not the origin of the term LCC.

mtofell

I've always thought of Southwest as the McDonalds of carriers. They have the most customers and generally make a lot of money (the most?) but few would say they are the best from a quality standpoint. Don't get me wrong - I've flown Southwest many times and will in the future. Just like I've eaten at the golden arches. I just don't set out to Southwest when I'm looking for the best the aviation industry has to offer. I also really like what their stock does in my IRA!

wetrat0

The confusion seems to stem entirely from people who don't understand the difference between "cost" and "price". Fundamentally, businesses make money by selling something at a price that is greater than their cost (margin = price - cost). The most successful businesses in the world have high prices and low costs.

Whether WN's operating model is similar or different to other LCCs is beside the point. They are typically classified as a LCC because their cost structure is lower than the legacy airlines.

BRITINJAPAN4

For B, thats easy, when I am looking at Europe flights, BA or LH are often cheper than Ryanair or Easyjet. The days of true LCC being way cheaper than the deals you can get on "full service" airlines are over, both due to higher fares from LCC's and lower fares from FS carriers.
It is really a waste of time argument, , all that matters is what matters to you, total cost of providing what you want .

Lomapaseo

Nostalgia

m907

I agree with you except that they have eliminated the giant hubs. Over the last year, Southwest has become a hub-and-spoke airline. They eliminated tons of direct flights and routed those through hubs. DAL, HOU, MDW, DEN, PHX, ATL, BWI, BNA, pretty much every airport in Florida, etc. all serve as hubs. The difference is that they have more hubs than the legacy airlines and those hubs are in more desirable destinations (Florida, Phoenix, etc. as opposed to CLT, MSP) so connections are needed less often.

dmbolp

Wife and I are doing ATL-HNL round trip in October, stop in PHX each way, for $300 total...good enough reason for me

Peoriaman1

Is this all still because of that IDB thing?

pinniped

LOL...I had to google to figure out the N. (It's Netflix, which seems strange...). I guess FAAMG doesn't roll off the tongue?

I think people are getting lost in the various product offerings, thinking that's what defines whether an airline has low costs or not. Southwest pioneered the LCC model and did it without nickel and diming everybody. Ryanair and Frontier both began without extra fees (or least not many) and evolved into that over time. In fact, it's the legacies who have always gone hog-wild with truly junk fees that weren't even associated with delivering transportation - things like award redeposits, "convenience" fees (), etc.

One popular ULCC model was built around spamming the universe with 1-euro fare ads and then layering on the fees, but that isn't the only model and it isn't what makes a carrier a (U)LCC.

I would never rank them as the highest-quality carrier in the world, but they aren't attempting to be that. I will say they are the best at what they do - the short domestic flight in the U.S. Granted, their competition is usually quite awful on the quality front. It's not a high bar.

We may be splitting hairs on what constitutes a giant hub. I'm not saying I never have a connection on WN - I certainly do to get to smaller cities on either coast. (And would for international or Hawaii.) Southwest has 10-15 "hubbish" cities, I suppose, but I consider that a strength. My airport (MCI) probably falls just outside what would be considered hubbish. Maybe 20th in the Southwest system in terms of total passengers?? So we get nonstops to most of those 10-15 top cities, plus some to other random places. That means when I do want to go off the beaten path - to one of WN's small outposts like SBA - chances are good I have a fairly straight shot connection to get there faster than dealing with a legacy.

Contrast to UA, AA, and DL, where we *only* have service to the giant hubs with very, very few exceptions. If I want to fly AA out west, I have no choice but to spend half a day going through Dallas or Chicago. United is a little better...at least the hubs are in all four directions from here. That first flight to the hub is often a barbie jet.

In the past 2 years, starting with the MAX grounding, we've lost a couple destinations and gained a couple new ones. The only disappointing part for me is that we lost some *great* destinations - daily flights or more to PDX, SEA, BOS, etc. - and have mostly picked up cities I don't fly to. But I'm also willing to give it a year or two and see how things shake out once all of the aircraft are back in the air and MCI opens its new terminal.

mtofell

Agreed.... Southwest definitely identified a niche and has done a masterful job filling it.

CA1900

On the other hand, they also won't put you on a cramped regional jet run by a contractor, painted up in the same colors. So that's a bonus!

m907

I think we're actually saying the same thing. I was saying Southwest is a hub airline, just with more small hubs. You're saying the legacies have a few giant hubs. I agree with that. My point was that Southwest has doubled down on its many small hubs model in the last year (really two years, beginning with the MAX issue). Ironically, the legacies have been experimenting with point-to-point service, mainly between Midwest cities and Florida/other beach destinations (PIT-PWM on UA, CVG-FLL on DL, CAK-CHS on AA, etc.).