MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W248316428

Southwest Airlines 2007.(instructor's Note)

2009· article· en· W248316428 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas M. Box, Kent Byus

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the International Academy of Case Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésProfitability indexCompetition (biology)MarketingComplaintBusiness modelBusinessLow-cost carrierEconomicsManagementFinancePolitical science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

CASE DESCRIPTION The primary subject matter of this case concerns Airlines. A secondary issue concerns the appropriateness of modifying a Generic Strategy that has lead to thirty five years of uninterrupted growth and profitability. The case has a difficulty level of four (senior-level undergraduates). The case is designed to be taught in one fifty minute class period and is expected to require about two hours of outside preparation by students. CASE SYNOPSIS Airlines has long been cited in Business Strategy classes as an exemplar of Porter's Low Cost Leadership strategy. Through fiscal year 2006, they have enjoyed thirty five years of uninterrupted profitability. In 2007, they began considering several fundamental changes in their long-term business model to address the realities of increased competition, rapidly-escalating fuel costs and the threats of world-wide terrorism. New competition--particularly JetBlue and ATA have modeled their operations on the original Southwest Interestingly, David Neeleman--founder of JetBlue in 2001--was a former southwest Airlines executive and Michael O'Leary--CEO of Ryanair (Dublin, Ireland)--spent several weeks in 1991 at Airlines headquarters in Dallas, Texas learning the model. Ryanair is the lowest cost major airline in Europe at this time. Fuel prices--the second largest component of operating cost for airlines--has increased dramatically (about 50%) in the last three years. As a result, airline profits in 2008 will be lower than originally forecast in early 2007. The most common complaint about Airlines has been its boarding policy. For many years, passengers were assigned to groups of thirty with those arriving early at the gate getting into the first group of thirty and, thus, the first choice of seats. In 2007, began two experiments in seating--the first in San Diego--with assigned seats and later a differential pricing scheme whereby those willing to pay $10-$30 more per ticket were allowed to board first. is also considering the possibility of extending its route map to include large cities in Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean. An additional consideration is the possibility of buying smaller regional jets to serve smaller markets in the United States. INSTRUCTORS' NOTES Learning Objectives This case is intended to teach and reinforce various aspects of strategic analysis and choice including internal and external analysis, strategic choice as a function of SWOT analysis, implementation of a Low Cost Leadership generic strategy, utilization of Financial Ratio Analysis and modification of strategy as time unfolds. The case can also be used to examine the potential benefits and risks of overseas expansion for a domestic concern. Teaching the Case We suggest that a practical starting point for this case analysis is a discussion in class of mission, vision and SWOT analysis. This case illustrates how a Low Cost leadership generic strategy can be extremely successful in a very competitive industry--passenger airlines. has enjoyed profitability and continued growth for thirty five years. It should be noted that as of the date of the case (February, 2008) that Airlines' market cap was $9.42 billion while American Airlines, United, Delta, Northwest and Continental had substantially lower market caps. When assigning this case for classroom discussion, we recommend that the instructor require the students to read the case, review a selection of the references and jot down answers to the discussion questions before class. Then, in class, we suggest that individual students assemble themselves into teams of three to four students and prepare consensus answers to the five discussion questions. The answers should be presented by a team representative. This allows about ten minutes for presentation of each team answer and works well in a traditional seventy five minute class. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,142
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,271

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,063
Tête enseignante GPT0,317
Écart entre enseignants0,254 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the International Academy of Case StudiesMême sujetAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsTravaux en français237 207