MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W248316428

Southwest Airlines 2007.(instructor's Note)

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

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Academy of Case Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexCompetition (biology)MarketingComplaintBusiness modelBusinessLow-cost carrierEconomicsManagementFinancePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from 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. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International Academy of Case StudiesSame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207