Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
jubguy3 wrote:Is that year over year or from month to month?
n471wn wrote:While one month does not a trend make, traffic for July tells a typical story and that is that SWA is growing faster than the legacy carriers with the second tier carriers far behind. July RPM growth for Delta was 3.4 while UAL was 1.6 and American a paltry 0.8. SWA came in at 6.0%. Point being that if one extrapolates the growth over time using just RPM's then SWA will pass them all.
n471wn wrote:While one month does not a trend make, traffic for July tells a typical story and that is that SWA is growing faster than the legacy carriers with the second tier carriers far behind. July RPM growth for Delta was 3.4 while UAL was 1.6 and American a paltry 0.8. SWA came in at 6.0%. Point being that if one extrapolates the growth over time using just RPM's then SWA will pass them all.
aklrno wrote:Predicting long-term growth from short-term figures is fraught with danger. If I grew from age 12 to my current age at the rate I grew from 0-12, I'd be about 30 feet tall. Circumstances change.
Polot wrote:DL's July RPM traffic growth was 2.7%, and UA's 3.9%.
You also have to be careful comparing percentages, as DL, UA, and AA all have higher RPM than WN's to start with. UA's raw RPM July growth for example, was higher (804,000 RPMs) than WN's (696,000 RPMs) despite "only" growing 3.9% versus WN's 6%. If you assume the same raw growth for both WN will never catch up.
Saying 6% growth every month does not mean you are saying growth is constant. It says the opposite in fact- you are saying each month WN is growing faster and faster (unlikely, especially with the Classics leaving at the end of September). If growth was constant (e.g. always adding only 3 planes a month) then the percentage growth will drift down month to month over time.
aklrno wrote:Predicting long-term growth from short-term figures is fraught with danger. If I grew from age 12 to my current age at the rate I grew from 0-12, I'd be about 30 feet tall. Circumstances change.
atl100million wrote:UA''s domestic system carried 71.3 million domestic RPMs and 54 million more international RPMs.
n471wn wrote:[threeid][/threeid]Polot wrote:DL's July RPM traffic growth was 2.7%, and UA's 3.9%.
You also have to be careful comparing percentages, as DL, UA, and AA all have higher RPM than WN's to start with. UA's raw RPM July growth for example, was higher (804,000 RPMs) than WN's (696,000 RPMs) despite "only" growing 3.9% versus WN's 6%. If you assume the same raw growth for both WN will never catch up.
Saying 6% growth every month does not mean you are saying growth is constant. It says the opposite in fact- you are saying each month WN is growing faster and faster (unlikely, especially with the Classics leaving at the end of September). If growth was constant (e.g. always adding only 3 planes a month) then the percentage growth will drift down month to month over time.
I used systemwide RPM's on purpose as all the airlines I cited have international traffic so I do not care about the breakdown
timz wrote:atl100million wrote:UA''s domestic system carried 71.3 million domestic RPMs and 54 million more international RPMs.
Billion, you mean.
Polot wrote:DL's July RPM traffic growth was 2.7%, and UA's 3.9%.
You also have to be careful comparing percentages, as DL, UA, and AA all have higher RPM than WN's to start with. UA's raw RPM July growth for example, was higher (804,000 RPMs) than WN's (696,000 RPMs) despite "only" growing 3.9% versus WN's 6%. If you assume the same raw growth for both WN will never catch up.
USAOZ wrote:they are also the best U.S. airline, which explains their growth. Have flown AA, UA & DL hundreds of times, not through choice & would much rather fly WN anyday. Less figjammers passengers on WN as well. (figjammer is F..k, I'm, Good, Just, Ask, Me)
atl100million wrote:Further, WN doesn't carry as many SYSTEM enplanements as AA, DL or UA although it is likely they carry more domestic enplanements - but that data is not provided.
tlecam wrote:Polot wrote:DL's July RPM traffic growth was 2.7%, and UA's 3.9%.
You also have to be careful comparing percentages, as DL, UA, and AA all have higher RPM than WN's to start with. UA's raw RPM July growth for example, was higher (804,000 RPMs) than WN's (696,000 RPMs) despite "only" growing 3.9% versus WN's 6%. If you assume the same raw growth for both WN will never catch up.
How does this fit into the OP theory?
727200 wrote:USAOZ wrote:they are also the best U.S. airline, which explains their growth. Have flown AA, UA & DL hundreds of times, not through choice & would much rather fly WN anyday. Less figjammers passengers on WN as well. (figjammer is F..k, I'm, Good, Just, Ask, Me)
I will grant you 'They are the best,' if you are going to LBB, SHV, or ACT. But then, who goes there? And even better yet, who would want to?
airliner371 wrote:atl100million wrote:Further, WN doesn't carry as many SYSTEM enplanements as AA, DL or UA although it is likely they carry more domestic enplanements - but that data is not provided.
This is not true. Southwest carries more passengers per year (enplanements) than United by a decent amount: 8,563,357 passengers last year. And year-to-date, Southwest has grown enplanements by 4.5% versus United's 4.3% so at this point, they are on track to expand that difference.
atl100million wrote:yes, you are right that WN has carried more system enplanements year to date than UA but not DL or AA.
atl100million wrote:I'm still not sure what the point is... WN's business model is built around shorter, domestic flights that generate less revenue than the legacy airlines.
atl100million wrote:While WN carries more passengers than UA, they still don't generate more system RPMs and they don't generate as much domestic revenue - let alone total system revenue.
atl100million wrote:The big 3 global carriers and WN have different models.
atl100million wrote:The one safe statement that you can make about WN compared to AA, DL and UA is that WN carries more domestic passengers - but the international/domestic passenger enplanements don't come out on the big 3 monthly traffic reports.
Otherwise, WN doesn't even carry the most system passengers and the global carries generate more revenue.
william wrote:SWA carries the most pax of any carrier. ..................(I remember when that honor was owned by Delta not too long ago)....................."Scoreboard",as they say,SWA is already the #1 carrier by one metric.
n471wn wrote:aklrno wrote:Predicting long-term growth from short-term figures is fraught with danger. If I grew from age 12 to my current age at the rate I grew from 0-12, I'd be about 30 feet tall. Circumstances change.
Bad analogy as all airlines grow at different rates and there is no upper limit. Go back 20 years and see where SWA was then versus now
AADFWFlyer wrote:Sorry William, my typo.... 'not WN and has never been' - but they are #1 for domestic passengers.
USAOZ wrote:they are also the best U.S. airline, which explains their growth. Have flown AA, UA & DL hundreds of times, not through choice & would much rather fly WN anyday. Less figjammers passengers on WN as well. (figjammer is F..k, I'm, Good, Just, Ask, Me)
jbs2886 wrote:n471wn wrote:While one month does not a trend make, traffic for July tells a typical story and that is that SWA is growing faster than the legacy carriers with the second tier carriers far behind. July RPM growth for Delta was 3.4 while UAL was 1.6 and American a paltry 0.8. SWA came in at 6.0%. Point being that if one extrapolates the growth over time using just RPM's then SWA will pass them all.
Since no carrier changes their growth plan and those numbers will stay the same ad infinitum. This is a pretty Kool-Aid drinking, pointless thread.
BMWdrvr75 wrote:jbs2886 wrote:n471wn wrote:While one month does not a trend make, traffic for July tells a typical story and that is that SWA is growing faster than the legacy carriers with the second tier carriers far behind. July RPM growth for Delta was 3.4 while UAL was 1.6 and American a paltry 0.8. SWA came in at 6.0%. Point being that if one extrapolates the growth over time using just RPM's then SWA will pass them all.
Since no carrier changes their growth plan and those numbers will stay the same ad infinitum. This is a pretty Kool-Aid drinking, pointless thread.
Boy isn't that the truth.....largest carrier that still can't figure out how to do red-eyes, fly to Hawaii or Alaska and the unthinkable fly anything other than the Boeing 737....geez GK got scared with the Boeing 717 and paid DL to take over those leases. Just to really get the kool aide drinkers and peeps on this site even more angry with me.....If WN flew the Boeing 757 we would certainly see the Boeing 757MAX7,8,9 and the 57 line would have never been closed....Futhermore, the carrier that is shaping up to supposedly to be the largest in the United States the has not improved their inflight service in 45 years, still uses galleys from the '70s, not even chargers on board the aircraft let alone IFE....Southwest is nothing but an overgrow regional carrier that is stagnate where they are...And that is great for their share holders and employees since they have continued to secure jobs and consistently make a profit.....In the meantime Alaska is quietly growing and offering an upgraded product. On a side note can just imagine WN landing in CDG with their 737SUPERDUPERMAX8000 saying were here "Y'All" and we offered our legendary hospitality tray service over the atlantic......
seabosdca wrote:I will avoid WN whenever possible until they do the minimally civilized thing and allow assigned seating. I have better things to do with my life than ensure I'm checking in precisely 24 hours, 0 minutes, and 0 seconds before my flight and better things to do with my money than paying at least $40, and often much more, just to avoid sitting in a center seat.
bob75013 wrote:AADFWFlyer wrote:Sorry William, my typo.... 'not WN and has never been' - but they are #1 for domestic passengers.
BTS statistics don't lie./ domestic enplanements last full year data
2016 2015 growth
rank pax rank pax rate
"1 Southwest 151.740 1 144.575 5.0
2 American** 144.191 3 118.293 21.9
3 Delta 143.076 2 138.591 3.2
4 United 100.119 4 95.327 5.0
AA didn't grow by 21.9%, but it did add LCC passengers in 2016
https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/press_releases/bts017_17
WWads wrote:seabosdca wrote:I will avoid WN whenever possible until they do the minimally civilized thing and allow assigned seating. I have better things to do with my life than ensure I'm checking in precisely 24 hours, 0 minutes, and 0 seconds before my flight and better things to do with my money than paying at least $40, and often much more, just to avoid sitting in a center seat.
Yep. WN is 100% no-go for me due to the lack of seat assignments. WN's target audience may not care, but as someone who flies regularly, it's a major inconvenience that adds up quickly.
For the record, not once have I found WN to be significantly cheaper than the other three on the routes I frequent. What's worse is that they are often significantly more.
Cubsrule wrote:WWads wrote:seabosdca wrote:I will avoid WN whenever possible until they do the minimally civilized thing and allow assigned seating. I have better things to do with my life than ensure I'm checking in precisely 24 hours, 0 minutes, and 0 seconds before my flight and better things to do with my money than paying at least $40, and often much more, just to avoid sitting in a center seat.
Yep. WN is 100% no-go for me due to the lack of seat assignments. WN's target audience may not care, but as someone who flies regularly, it's a major inconvenience that adds up quickly.
For the record, not once have I found WN to be significantly cheaper than the other three on the routes I frequent. What's worse is that they are often significantly more.
I don't really understand this criticism, primarily because it's so easy to earn status on WN. Something well south of $5,000 of spend will get you status if you buy Anytime tickets.
WWads wrote:Cubsrule wrote:WWads wrote:
Yep. WN is 100% no-go for me due to the lack of seat assignments. WN's target audience may not care, but as someone who flies regularly, it's a major inconvenience that adds up quickly.
For the record, not once have I found WN to be significantly cheaper than the other three on the routes I frequent. What's worse is that they are often significantly more.
I don't really understand this criticism, primarily because it's so easy to earn status on WN. Something well south of $5,000 of spend will get you status if you buy Anytime tickets.
I would never fly enough on WN to hit status, and don't view guaranteed A1-15 as a real benefit, since non-status pax on other airlines can select whichever seats they want at any time.
Cubsrule wrote:WWads wrote:Cubsrule wrote:
I don't really understand this criticism, primarily because it's so easy to earn status on WN. Something well south of $5,000 of spend will get you status if you buy Anytime tickets.
I would never fly enough on WN to hit status, and don't view guaranteed A1-15 as a real benefit, since non-status pax on other airlines can select whichever seats they want at any time.
If your final sentence were true, I would agree with you, but increasingly it isn't. When was the last time that you got the seat you wanted on a legacy flight that you did not buy ridiculously far in advance?
NZ321 wrote:With regard to the title of this thread, I think the US majors could reinvent their domestic ops along lines of a low cost model in the way Air NZ did. Both domestically and trans-taxman. It worked wonders for that airline's profitability and share price and pulled them out of the mire. It would take a radical step but it is possible. Maybe not trans-con, but practically everything else could be. Whether they choose to do that, however, remains to be seen.
william wrote:The July.August Air Transport World, a trade mag, states-
Southwest-147,200 million
AA-144,530
Delta-131,074
Ryanair-116,780
China South- 114,616
Pax carried. Now when the airline CEOs of the world see these numbers they are not thinking," I wander if those are domestic or international?" I would like to think a trade mag would not post fictitious numbers or mislead its readers. So by this metric, pax carried, SWA is #1.
For the reasons given in this thread I avoid SWA at all costs, but give credit where credit is due, per the numbers in ATW they the most pax in the world of any airline.
atl100million wrote:And I still am not sure what the bragging rights are in saying that WN carries the most passengers, even if that is true for their entire system.
What does that get you? Higher pay for employees? Lower fares for customers? Higher stock prices?