[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
OK.

Always within regulations, the cut-price airlines (which is what I was referring to by the term "new airlines" because the other "new" ones are just mergers) are shaving costs by getting around proper maintenance and safety precautions. They are "assisted" in this endeavor by cutting down on various supporting jobs and hiring some mechanic and pilot jocks/hot shots, who are then encouraged to engage in cowboy acts.

The Helios Airline tragedy last week was, it appears, the outcome of such practices.

The upshot (for the company) is that the plane leaves on time -- and flies cheaply.

Meantime, stodgy old foggies such as British Airways or Qantas will delay a plane for an hour making sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's at the quintessential cut-price airline: Southwest. I think it's "safe" to say (pun intended) that Southwest's success is due to far more than safety and maintenance cost-cutting.

They came up with a new strategy, which involved cost-cutting across the board (not just maintenance), but which also included different routes and airports. In effect, they created a new segment in the airline industry, and they were therefore "first mover" into that segment, an advantage in and of itself. Other airlines have tried to copy their success, but most have failed: Southwest has been able to sustain its competitive edge.

Also, to speak to your point about on time vs. delayed flights, that is another of Southwest's edges. They streamlined everything, including assigned seating, different "classes", and different meals, all adding to a speedy turnaround at the terminal.

The non-union factor is also not negligable to Southwest's bottom line.

I'm not saying the maintenance factor is negligable, but even with my fear of flying, I know that statistically, flying Southwest is pretty damn safe.

-ptmusic