Simple. LUV's competitors took 'advantage' of Sept 11th and slashed their route structure and operating capacity. (UAL's 3-holers and 732s dissapeared in weeks.) I believe it was AA reporting a 14% drop in rev miles, but 20% drop in capacity, so their load factors were, of course, up considerably. The catch is that AA (and UAL, and US Air and....) have heavy fixed operating costs even with planes parked on the Mojave. LUV had a drop in rev miles, but virtually no drop in capacity, so their load factors were soft. It's called sticking to your guns, sticking to the belief in your product. That's why LUV and it's bretheren have been profitable more often than not. Matthew > -----Original Message----- > From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU] On > Behalf Of Bahadir Acuner > Sent: March 5, 2002 1:35 PM > To: AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > Subject: Re: More LUV for us all > > > Interesting thing about LUV is they are still growing despite > the fact that they may not be profitable at the first Q of > 2002. Another interesting point that all the LUVers missed > was the lower load factors for the airline when everybody > else reported better load factors. Or is this the end of a > great LUV and end of a great passion for dull yrs to come ? :) > > BAHA >