Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5283477/

Topic: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: jcs17
Posted 2011-10-18 20:23:22 and read 18642 times.

This weekend I was waiting for a flight to ISP at BWI and was listening to gate announcements while waiting to get on the cattle car (in this case, a rundown 733). Why does WN have three or four stop flights that no one in their right mind would take when they simply could connect at a "hub" and be there seven hours earlier? It's kind of funny. How many people actually board that Southwest flight from BWI-MDW-MCI-LAS-AUS with the intention of getting to Austin?

It's not like Southwest is on any GDS, so there is no advantages in listings. Nor does Southwest have any codeshare partners where the idea might pop in a schedulers at HQs head, "Oh crap, were running out of four digit flight numbers."

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: DCA-ROCguy
Posted 2011-10-18 20:33:40 and read 18594 times.

Ah, the Southwest love at our site. A warm, glowing coal that never seems to cool. Nice on these cool fall evenings.

A search might have been helpful. Southwest's hopscotch-type route network has been widely discussed over the years here. Southwest has a somewhat different model from the network carriers. WN's largest stations function as hubs, but somewhat loosely. The airline keeps its aircraft in the air more hours per day by not tying them to bank schedules at hubs, which is a key element of their profit strategy. Espcially with oil expensive and a mature, highly-paid work force.

WN also gets the flexibility to route people over many routings--through large hub stations or medium-size focus cities of 50-100 flights, even through outstations. You'd be amazed how many people fly multistop WN routings to save money, or stay on one plane, or have a mainline a/c. I for one am glad to land once or twice if it saves me money (and I comparison shop to be sure).

Once I flew to see friends in Dallas and went BWI-STL-TUL-DAL. An extra 90 minutes saved me over $100. On that trip, it was worth it. On another trip, my return flight from MSY to BWI landed for 25 minutes in BHM. 25 minutes in Alabama went by very quickly with a book to read. Again, the flight was much cheaper than other options I shopped for that trip.

If it offends you so badly to land a couple of times, network carriers for hubs are available. And as I always say in response to the "cattle car" comments--I'll take a WN 73G with its 32-inch seat pitch any day.

Jim

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: 26point2
Posted 2011-10-18 20:39:39 and read 18526 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Thread starter):
How many people actually board that Southwest flight from BWI-MDW-MCI-LAS-AUS with the intention of getting to Austin?

Oooh, Oooh, I know! How about no one?

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: WNCrew
Posted 2011-10-18 20:41:46 and read 18518 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Thread starter):
the cattle car

Really?...still...

Quoting jcs17 (Thread starter):
Why does WN have three or four stop flights that no one in their right mind would take when they simply could connect at a "hub" and be there seven hours earlier? It's kind of funny. How many people actually board that Southwest flight from BWI-MDW-MCI-LAS-AUS with the intention of getting to Austin?

VERY few people actually go as far as a flight number is listed... so they're not really sold that way. I've never had a pax on more than 3 legs. I've seen flight numbers than run through the Midwest, down to Florida then UP the East Coast. Obviously nobody is going to go that way, but as it's been explained to me, it's got something to do with cargo and paying taxes (if it's on the same flight number with no change they don't pay the same amount... I'm not certain).

The company has asked us not to announce beyond the 4th or so city because that's just ridiculous. I think our employees sometimes think it's amusing to do that but that Ops Agent shouldn't have made the PA that way. You're right, nobody would (nor is it sold) for you to go BWI-MDW-MCI-LAS-AUS. If you were going to AUS you'd likely fly BWI-MDW-AUS if you had to make a connection, of BWI-HOU-AUS, OR you could take the nonstop BWI-AUS.

Our number of transfer pax is actually quite low when compared to the other majors, which means MOST of WN's pax are in-fact, flying NS or direct with no connection.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: steex
Posted 2011-10-18 20:42:08 and read 18476 times.

Often times the longer routes that seem to make no sense are simply following an aircraft for a day. In your example of BWI-MDW-MCI-LAS-AUS, the first four stations make perfect sense. Obviously BWI-MDW is a major route on its own, and BWI-MDW-MCI provides an additional same-plane BWI-MCI frequency (even though there is a stop). Probably relatively few people originate in BWI and travel even all the way to LAS (though some will), however, MDW-MCI-LAS similarly provides an additional same-plane MDW-LAS frequency. So if the above are what WN is trying to accomplish, there is nowhere along the BWI-MDW-MCI-LAS route to change the flight number without abandoning one of those goals.

Now, obviously there will be virtually nobody selecting a route from MCI (or before) bouncing off LAS all the way back to AUS. But since they have the same aircraft scheduled, what's the impetus to change the flight number? Personally, I prefer that method since you can very frequently check the status of your incoming WN plane by simply searching your flight number.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: JayDub
Posted 2011-10-18 20:47:00 and read 18436 times.

My all-time favorite WN cabin crew announcement is:

"Welcome aboard Southwest flight 1234, Luvjet service to Chicago, Kansas City, Dallas, Albuquerque, Las Vegas, Oakland, and Seattle. If your final destination is Seattle, you need to find a new travel agent."

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: blueflyer
Posted 2011-10-18 20:51:15 and read 18391 times.

Actually, I think that if you try and book one such flight online, you won't even find it. Online reservations will come up instead with a connection that totals up to less stops.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: Drerx7
Posted 2011-10-18 20:51:57 and read 18397 times.

Back in 1990 I flew WN432 from Houston to San Diego on a 73S. HOU-MAF-ABQ-LAS-SAN. It was pretty fun...but I was also young.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: dadoftyler
Posted 2011-10-18 21:29:10 and read 18168 times.

Hi folks. Bill Owen from Southwest Airlines Network Planning here. WNCrew is right--we seldom carry people on flights further than 3 legs--we don't sell itineraries with more than 2 stops. However, we will publish flight numbers with up to 8 legs because imbedded in those flights are (usually) 7 attractive onestop, no-change-of-plane itineraries. We prevent the sale of itineraries of more than 2 stops internally by suppressing them in our res system and externally by use of traffic restrictions in our SSIM file (and yes, jcs17, we are in two GDS', Sabre and Apollo). For example, our flight 725 tommorrow operates BUF-BWI-BNA-BHM-DAL-AUS-PHX-ONT-OAK. All of those are quite viable onestop itineraries--so why not sell them, and prevent display of the itinerary combinations that we don't want?

Just answering the question. Have a great rest-of-the-week!

Bill

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: rampart
Posted 2011-10-18 22:29:55 and read 17900 times.

I used to not mind the through-plane stops just to see an airport I'd never seen. But, I never made more than 2 stops on a WN flight.

The original local service carriers, and then some of their regional airline replacements, used to offer these types of flights as well. On Frontier I could get from COS to MEM on one plane with stops in DEN, Lawton, OKC, and LIT, or to Farmington via Alamosa, Durango, and Cortez. Actually, any of the original major carriers did as well right until Deregulation. You used to see flights listed in timetables with 3 stops on CO, BN, NW, DL. WN therefore qualfies as a "Legacy" carrier, a throwback!  

Didn't WN's frequent flier program used to count segments rather than miles? I seem to remember having a card that was stamped every time I went through a gate. That may have been one incentive not to list and sell hopscotches.

-Rampart

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: KELPkid
Posted 2011-10-18 22:40:07 and read 17845 times.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 6):
Actually, I think that if you try and book one such flight online, you won't even find it. Online reservations will come up instead with a connection that totals up to less stops.

When my wife and I got stranded at ELP on the day after Christmas (by another airline), I called 1-800-I-FLY-SWA in the face of the other airliner's ticket agent when she told me "Well, I can get you to Houston at 9 PM" (when our destination was PDX!    ). The WN agent on the phone took pity on us, and ticketed us on a flight which originated elsewhere in Texas, but the segment was ELP-LAX-SMF-RNO-PDX. If you tried to book that on the website, you wouldn't even be offered the choice of that flight, even though it was the same flight number all the way through. It was all that was available that day, though.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: jcs17
Posted 2011-10-18 22:43:29 and read 17833 times.

Quoting dadoftyler (Reply 8):
(and yes, jcs17, we are in two GDS', Sabre and Apollo)

You might be in them, but I can't buy the ticket unless I go to your site. It's a ridiculously outdated penny-pinching move from the 1970s and 1980s, like your refusal to sign interline transfer agreements. FL competes with Delta furiously at ATL and they had the foresight to sign interline agreements.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 1):
Ah, the Southwest love at our site. A warm, glowing coal that never seems to cool. Nice on these cool fall evenings.

I didn't buy the ticket. If I had it would've been DL JFK-IAD-JFK. I would've had an assigned seat and wouldn't have needed to queue up to board a 733 that had seen better days.

No one ever answered the question of why this (the ridiculous routings) happens.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: 707lvr
Posted 2011-10-18 22:48:20 and read 17792 times.

I'd love to take the entire flight 725 and spend a full day seeing a good part of the US of A.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: christao17
Posted 2011-10-18 22:58:54 and read 17746 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 11):
No one ever answered the question of why this (the ridiculous routings) happens


Your question was answered in reply #4. The flight numbers generally follow the aircraft's activity for the day. There is no particular need to change flight numbers and, as was explained in reply #8, WN benefits from having the same flight number because that increases the number of one-stop, same aircraft connections that can be sold in their reservations system.

Consider this: BWI-MDW-MCI listed as flight 1234 and then the same plane continues MCI-LAS-SAN as flight 5678. With two different flight numbers, a booking for MDW-MCI-LAS will show as a connecting flight, not as a one-stop with same plane service. By listing the entire routing as one flight number, WN has one additional one-stop that it can offer in its reservation system.

If anything, one wonders why more airlines don't do this.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: WNCrew
Posted 2011-10-18 22:59:38 and read 17752 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 11):
No one ever answered the question of why this (the ridiculous routings) happens.

Actually Bill Owen himself from route planning answered your question quite well, but you've already made up your mind about WN in many ways so I'm not quite sure an ANSWER is what you'r eloping for. Maybe just someone to agree with you.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: RamblinMan
Posted 2011-10-18 23:05:44 and read 17705 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 11):
No one ever answered the question of why this (the ridiculous routings) happens.

The reason nobody's explained it is because it doesn't need explaining...They don't actually sell the things you mentioned, at least under normal circumstances. In fact, it's been discussed on here how an a.nutter would have to call to reserve one of these crazy routings if he wanted to take one. If you try to book BWI-AUS, the route you mentioned, you get options for nonstops, 1 stop with a plane change, or 2 stops with no plane change. The longest duration option is 7 hours total, incl. connection in DEN. Not unreasonable at all really.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 11):
I didn't buy the ticket. If I had it would've been DL JFK-IAD-JFK. I would've had an assigned seat and wouldn't have needed to queue up to board a 733 that had seen better days.

However you would have used one of the most delay-prone airports in the world, and had the choice of only 3 different flights instead of 5. To each his own I guess.

Quoting rampart (Reply 9):
Didn't WN's frequent flier program used to count segments rather than miles?

It still has nothing to do with miles. Technically the old program counted one-way flights flown (meaning origin to destination and ignoring stops/connections.) Now it counts dollars spent and fare type.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: BlueJuice
Posted 2011-10-18 23:16:11 and read 17657 times.

From in operational standpoint, it's pretty darn smart. Besides the previously mentioned utilization benefit, there is also more chances to sell. Each leg is a chance to earn revenue on early bird check-in, extra checked bags, beverages, UM, etc.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: Furlough
Posted 2011-10-18 23:35:14 and read 17592 times.

I am sure someone from WN can can answer this question. If I listed for one of these crazy routings by calling reservations that had 4 or 5 legs... and there were seats on each segment that were open, could I conceivably be cleared all the way through starting and the origin city? You never know when useless information like this can save the day when non-revving.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: blueflyer
Posted 2011-10-18 23:49:50 and read 17541 times.

Quoting dadoftyler (Reply 8):
we will publish flight numbers with up to 8 legs because imbedded in those flights are (usually) 7 attractive onestop, no-change-of-plane itineraries.

Very interesting explanation, thanks. Always figured it had to do with assigning as few flight numbers per aircraft per day for some technical reason, never thought of the sales angle. Pretty nifty.

Quoting christao17 (Reply 13):
If anything, one wonders why more airlines don't do this.

I can think of two reasons. One is that other airlines have hubs where most flights begin and end (yes, there are exceptions). The other is that it wouldn't work within their hub-and-spoke network, they'd have to have several point-to-point routes instead, since hubs are linked by non-stop flights usually. Take AA for example, it wouldn't make sense for a ELP-DFW-LIT-ORD-DTW, since DFW passengers can as easily take a non-stop to ORD or DTW and vice-versa.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: WNCrew
Posted 2011-10-18 23:50:26 and read 17531 times.

Quoting Furlough (Reply 17):
If I listed for one of these crazy routings by calling reservations that had 4 or 5 legs... and there were seats on each segment that were open, could I conceivably be cleared all the way through starting and the origin city?

Yes! In fact, last year after running an endurance race, I was trying to get to the East Coast on standby and I was routed PDX-SJC-DEN-MDW-BOS... it was the long way 'round but I got there!

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: Furlough
Posted 2011-10-18 23:54:14 and read 17510 times.

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 19):
Yes! In fact, last year after running an endurance race, I was trying to get to the East Coast on standby and I was routed PDX-SJC-DEN-MDW-BOS... it was the long way 'round but I got there!

Thanks for the answer and the good news. WN is usually the airline that ends up saving my behind, especially during heavier travel periods. This creates many new opportunities. I enjoy flying WN a lot, I will happily take 4 or 5 legs if it gets me there with out getting bumped.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: shnoob940
Posted 2011-10-19 00:28:04 and read 17414 times.

Quoting JayDub (Reply 5):
My all-time favorite WN cabin crew announcement is:

"Welcome aboard Southwest flight 1234, Luvjet service to Chicago, Kansas City, Dallas, Albuquerque, Las Vegas, Oakland, and Seattle. If your final destination is Seattle, you need to find a new travel agent."

  

I once heard, Welcome aboard Southwest flight ... to Midland/Odessa, then onwards to Dallas, then... uhhh... some place else!

In my opinion, I don't mind it. 5 flights for the price of one? Absolutely  

gibbo

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2011-10-19 05:28:49 and read 16963 times.

Quoting christao17 (Reply 13):
If anything, one wonders why more airlines don't do this.

Some of us are old enough to remember when it was very common on most airlines.

What changed was the introduction of the regional jet and the ability to do a hub-spoke system.

For example Delta used to fly (and I've flown it several times) ATL-MGM-MEI-JAN-MLU-SHV-DAL in a DC-9 or B727. It moved to DFW after that airport opened. The flight wasn't for ATL-DAL passengers but if you were destined to or originating from one of the mid-flight cities - that was the only way to get there.

I also remember a flight JFK-BUF-IND-MEM-LIT-DAL-IAH.

Passengers for long legs flew the entire route. I once left DAL-SAN military standby on a AA B707, while at the gate right beside me another military standby passenger I knew took a flight DAL-ABQ-PDX-SAN on a AA B727. I got there about 3 hours before he did.

Now that regional jets are so cheap, and airline can make a profit running five RJs from ATL to MGM, MEI, JAN, MLU, SHV and back - rather than trying to add enough O&D pax from each of those stops to try and fill a larger mainline aircraft.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: stlgph
Posted 2011-10-19 06:11:49 and read 16821 times.

i flew Southwest Hartford-Baltimore-Birmingham-St Louis once on the same plane. didn't bother me really ... total travel time was 5 minutes less (published) than making connections in Detroit, Atlanta, Washington DC, etc. etc. and the flights were all early, in essence, I arrived 15 minutes beforehand anyway.

for Christmas Southwest has a 2 stop routing to Midway coming in less than $100. it honestly has me departing NYC at the time I want to fly and arriving in Chicago at exactly the right time I want to arrive .... wouldn't bother me to book it despite their other 5 or 6 nonstop offerings.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: ckfred
Posted 2011-10-19 07:10:59 and read 16095 times.

Before deregulation, most airlines had flights with multiple stops. Now, AA and UA wouldn't have 5 or 6 stops on a flight. UA might have had ORD-SLC-SFO, and AA might have had LGA-DTW-DFW. DL might have had ORD-BNA-MSY-MAI.

On the other hand, Hughes Air West (RW) would have had LAX-LAS-SLC-TWF-BOI-GEG-SEA. No one boarded at LAX for SEA with 5 intermediate stops.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: Markam
Posted 2011-10-19 07:16:56 and read 16370 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 22):
Some of us are old enough to remember when it was very common on most airlines.

What changed was the introduction of the regional jet and the ability to do a hub-spoke system.

Indeed, and actually many arilines in non-hub-and-spoke environments (e.g. most of Africa) still do this a lot. For example, I flew 2J (Air Burkina) from OUA (Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso) to LFW (Lomé-Tokoin, Togo) via COO (Cotonou, Benin) as a one-stop, and the aircraft would go on to ACC (Accra-Kotoka, Ghana) and back to OUA. All was with the same flight number, and you could book OUA to ACC with two stops. I was told that this way Air Burkina catters to the local, one-segment market, but also can sustain other pairs of cities that would be otherwise economically unfeasible. Again, this is mainly possible because few if any other airlines fly the direct routes, and because the low demand would not support hub-and-spoke for many of those pairs of cities, nothing to do with low-cost structure (Air Burkina is technically a legacy).

As a sidenote, in this kind of market environment tag-on flights are also very common, even with global legacy carriers which otherwise use a hub-and-spoke strategy. For example, LH used to fly (probably still does, but not sure) FRA-ACC, and then go on to LBV (Libreville-Leon M'ba, Gabon) and back to FRA via ACC again. Also, SA flights from JNB to LOS used to have a tag-on segment to ACC and back (again, probably still the case, but not sure). Same thing in many routes for AF, EK and others in the region.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: ScottB
Posted 2011-10-19 07:17:50 and read 16341 times.

Quoting stlgph (Reply 23):
i flew Southwest Hartford-Baltimore-Birmingham-St Louis once on the same plane. didn't bother me really

Yep, I've flown PVD-BWI-JAN-HOU, MHT-MDW-LIT-HOU, and MHT-MDW-BNA-HOU. The extra stop (versus connecting with anyone else) was no big deal, and I got to see a couple of airports that I would have never otherwise had any reason to visit.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 11):
No one ever answered the question of why this (the ridiculous routings) happens.

Bill Owen did, so clearly you are just trolling. The guy from Southwest's Network Planning department is probably going to have the right answer as to why Southwest schedules that way.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 22):
For example Delta used to fly (and I've flown it several times) ATL-MGM-MEI-JAN-MLU-SHV-DAL in a DC-9 or B727.

Ya know, the JAN-MLU-SHV-DAL part of THAT route was flown by Delta Air Service with Travel Airs back in 1929.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: planespotting
Posted 2011-10-19 07:29:54 and read 16315 times.

From my experience, non-revjing employees use this same plane/multiple stop service far more than any paying passengers. I once went DAL-LIT-STL-MDW on the same plane (different flight number after the LIT turn because of the Wright Amendment), but on a non-rev pass.

But two stops isn't really a big deal - I know a few WN employees who've meandered from DAL to SEA (or another similarly long distance) via three or more stops in between, usually on family vacation trips where they've had to pick flights that were guaranteed to have four or more empty seats. Fun for the kids, long and arduous for the parents.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: JAAlbert
Posted 2011-10-19 07:32:29 and read 16213 times.

I once used my SWA FF miles to book a trip from SAN to SWA's new destination Baltimore. The plane hopscotched across the country, from SAN - Kansas City - Midway - Someplace in Tennasee or Kentucky - and finally Baltimore. I think the flight took something like 11 hours. I prepared myself for SWA's onboard service - I packed several sandwiches, fruit and other life sustaining supplies and a backpack filled with magazines and books. There actually were a few of us traveling the entire distance - By the time we hit Midway, I was selling sandwiches, and bananas at a substantial profit!

It was a fun adventure, but not a flight I'd take if I had to be somewhere.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: BRJ
Posted 2011-10-19 07:38:49 and read 16093 times.

Quoting Markam (Reply 25):

The FRA-ACC and FRA-LBV are separate flights now (both operated by PrivatAir 737s) as is the JNB-ACC and JNB-LOS flights.

However, you the Air Burkina routes are still the same. And you see this alot in Africa. ASKY flights are multi-stops, for example. Some Air Nigeria and Arik Air flights are as well. And then you also have flights on MEA that route such as BEY-KAN-ACC-ABJ.

My apologies, I know this is getting slightly off topic.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2011-10-19 07:42:08 and read 16008 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 11):
I can't buy the ticket unless I go to your site. It's a ridiculously outdated penny-pinching move from the 1970s and 1980s, like your refusal to sign interline transfer agreements.

To each his own. You do not like the fact that an airline sells tickets only on their website. Fine. I have plenty of issues with other types of airlines, too. But at least WN is honest about their strategy, and it seems to work for them. I like them, it is a great airline!

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 14):
Actually Bill Owen himself from route planning answered your question quite well, but you've already made up your mind about WN in many ways so I'm not quite sure an ANSWER is what you'r eloping for. Maybe just someone to agree with you.

  

Quoting shnoob940 (Reply 21):
In my opinion, I don't mind it. 5 flights for the price of one? Absolutely  

My thoughts exactly.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: gators312
Posted 2011-10-19 07:48:47 and read 15917 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 11):
...to board a 733 that had seen better days.

Sure the 733 is my least favorite WN equipment, but to insinuate that DL has no older birds "that have seen better days" is just silly. Obviously there is more to the story of why WN seems illogical to you.

Since we are talking WN 733s, will these frames get WiFi? I always assumed due to their age and expected replacement with the next WN order the investment wouldn't be made on them. They do make up 1/3 of the fleet though?

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: m11stephen
Posted 2011-10-19 08:29:50 and read 15238 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 11):
You might be in them, but I can't buy the ticket unless I go to your site. It's a ridiculously outdated penny-pinching move from the 1970s and 1980s, like your refusal to sign interline transfer agreements. FL competes with Delta furiously at ATL and they had the foresight to sign interline agreements.

If you don't like WN then don't fly WN! I don't like them thus the reason why I don't fly them. I WISH airlines only sold tickets on their own websites. Websites like Cheaptickets, Cheapoair, Orbitz, Expedia, etc. drive me insane as a CSA. These websites cause nothing but problems. I can not tell you how many times I have gone to check in one of these passengers and there is no eTicket linked to the reservation meaning I can't check them in. I tell them, "Call Orbitz, Cheaptickets, etc. get a ticket number and come back and see me." They then stare at me and I proceed to tell them in the kindest way possible, "It is not my job to sit on the phone for hours with some third party travel agency because you were too cheap to fork over the $50 and buy the ticket directly from the airline."

Interline agreements also just cause problems as well. I had one passenger fly CDG-FRA on AF, FRA-JFK on LH, have a one hour connection in JFK that they barely made, then fly JFK-IAD-ORD-MKE-DEN on UA and then fly DEN-SAN on F9 all to save $100. What people don't realize is that if your first flight on airline A from point A to point B is late causing you to miss your second flight on airline B from point B to point C airline A isn't liable to accommodate you or rebook you since all they were liable to do is to get you from point A to point B. Also, your connection from airline A to airline B at point B may require a tram ride, change of terminals and require you to re-clear screening which just isn't going to happen with the 30 minute connection time you are allotted. Also airline A may not have a baggage agreement with Airline B meaning you may arrive at your final destination only to be told that you were suppose to claim and recheck your bags with airline B at your layover city.

I just want to hit some of these passengers over the head for being so cheap. The $50 you saved is not worth all the frustration, pain and agony you will go through. Long story short I applaud WN for not participating in these insane practices.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: redflyer
Posted 2011-10-19 08:32:51 and read 15171 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 22):
What changed was the introduction of the regional jet and the ability to do a hub-spoke system.

I started flying WN almost exclusively years ago because I hated the hub-and-spoke system of other carriers. My colleagues never understood why I gave up the ability to get upgrades just to fly "cattle car". Frankly, with all the flying I do, my #1 priority is to get to my destination as quickly as possible and with as little time as possible spent in airports waiting for connecting flights. For me, THAT was and remains one of the biggest selling point of WN. (Far fewer delays and cancellations as the flights don't rely as much on feeder traffic from other flights.) As their network has grown to encompass almost every major metro area in the nation, it's only become more of a convenience. I'll take straight-through flying with stops over connections at busy hubs any day of the week (and twice on Sundays!).

Regards

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: RamblinMan
Posted 2011-10-19 08:59:55 and read 14707 times.

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 32):
Long story short I applaud WN for not participating in these insane practices.

  
No doubt if they sold tickets on orbitz, then orbitz would create connections with other airlines and create all sorts of hassle. I remember years ago WN used to show up in travelocity...I'm sure it was no accident they stopped doing that.

Unless I get a deep-discount package which makes the hassle worth it, I stopped using expedia in 2005 when they had me going SNN-PHL on US, then PHL-ORD on UA, then ORD-BNA on AA. The schedule for the middle segment was changed, leaving a 25 minute connection. I called expedia and had to argue for 30 minutes through 2 levels of supervisors to get it changed.

The only time I've ever had to call WN was once when I was on the way to MDW, realized I had time to catch an earlier flight, and had a biz select ticket anyway, so I gave them a call and they had me taken care of in less than 5 minutes. So, if refusing to sell through orbitz, expedia, etc keeps their reservation system more efficient, I'll live with it!

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: JHCRJ700
Posted 2011-10-19 09:05:44 and read 14648 times.

Everyone always compares WN's planes to cattle cars, but they must have never flown Ryanair or some of the other ultra LCC because Southwest isn't THAAT bad. And if you don't like them so much then don't fly them.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: txjim
Posted 2011-10-19 09:14:37 and read 14475 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 11):
You might be in them, but I can't buy the ticket unless I go to your site. It's a ridiculously outdated penny-pinching move from the 1970s and 1980s

Let me get this straight.... Selling tickets on the internet is a stale leftover from the 70s?

I have a prediction for the future.... Someday, people will have computers in their house! These computers will have the ability to communicate with different information sites in these things called Windows (much like the Xerox CAD station does today, although I hear a company called Apple is working on something similiar). They will be able to look at the SWA site as well as other sites at the same time!!!!

[Edited 2011-10-19 09:22:14]

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: NathanH
Posted 2011-10-19 09:18:02 and read 14395 times.

Quoting JHCRJ700 (Reply 35):

Everyone always compares WN's planes to cattle cars, but they must have never flown Ryanair or some of the other ultra LCC because Southwest isn't THAAT bad. And if you don't like them so much then don't fly them.

Moreover, with the [A,B,C] + Number system, I find it much more pleasant to get on the flights. So what if I have an assigned seat if I have to fight through the mass of people trying to get on the plane to find a tiny amount of overhead space that you get with the legacies these days. To me that is way more of a cattle car than an orderly line where I then get to pick any available seat.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: delta2ual
Posted 2011-10-19 09:25:40 and read 14253 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 22):
Some of us are old enough to remember when it was very common on most airlines.

Yes. My first flight was on DL DTW-IND-MEM-IAH.

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 32):
"It is not my job to sit on the phone for hours with some third party travel agency because you were too cheap to fork over the $50 and buy the ticket directly from the airline."

When I have to buy a ticket, I usually go to Orbitz, find the cheapest flight, then go directly to the airline's website and 99% of the time, it's actually cheaper to buy the ticket on the airline's website.

Quoting JHCRJ700 (Reply 35):
Everyone always compares WN's planes to cattle cars, but they must have never flown Ryanair or some of the other ultra LCC because Southwest isn't THAAT bad.

WN does not have cattle car anymore. You're given a number and stand in a line according to that number. For those people who don't like that-pay the extra 10 bucks to be in the first grouping. I did and it was worth every penny!  

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: WNCrew
Posted 2011-10-19 09:32:34 and read 14159 times.

Our boarding process is FAR more organized than any other major US Carrier that I've flown on, and as an off-line commuter, I actually fly as a pax more on other carriers than on my own. At WN you get in line no sooner then 5 mins prior to boarding and you board according to number, at the other carriers everyone forms a HERD at the gate (you can't see the boarding agent) and they all sort of mush in together all vying to be FIRST on... regardless of their boarding number. OR you'll see a line snaking ridiculously out into the concourse (usually blocking foot traffic in the main hallway because people can't figure out how to make a sideways line).

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: trigged
Posted 2011-10-19 09:37:25 and read 14027 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 11):

No one ever answered the question of why this (the ridiculous routings) happens.
Quoting Furlough (Reply 17):

I am sure someone from WN can can answer this question. If I listed for one of these crazy routings by calling reservations that had 4 or 5 legs... and there were seats on each segment that were open, could I conceivably be cleared all the way through starting and the origin city? You never know when useless information like this can save the day when non-revving.
Quoting dadoftyler (Reply 8):

Hi folks. Bill Owen from Southwest Airlines Network Planning here. WNCrew is right--we seldom carry people on flights further than 3 legs--we don't sell itineraries with more than 2 stops. However, we will publish flight numbers with up to 8 legs because imbedded in those flights are (usually) 7 attractive onestop, no-change-of-plane itineraries. We prevent the sale of itineraries of more than 2 stops internally by suppressing them in our res system and externally by use of traffic restrictions in our SSIM file (and yes, jcs17, we are in two GDS', Sabre and Apollo). For example, our flight 725 tommorrow operates BUF-BWI-BNA-BHM-DAL-AUS-PHX-ONT-OAK. All of those are quite viable onestop itineraries--so why not sell them, and prevent display of the itinerary combinations that we don't want?

Just answering the question. Have a great rest-of-the-week!

Bill

Just making sure people notice the reply numbers versus when the question was answered. Does anyone read more than the first 2 or 3 responses before jumping down to the Reply box?

When I was a kid (81-86), I used to fly Frontier from TUS-PHX-DEN or TUS-ABQ-DEN and never leave the plane. The only nonstop one I remember was a UA 722 from TUS-DEN and that was in either 84 or 85. If I could have made 5 or 6 stops back then, I would have loved it!

I may do a round trip on WN just to do a ton of takeoffs/landings one summer vacation.


Ahhh.... I miss the old colors of Frontier.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: jcs17
Posted 2011-10-19 09:44:46 and read 14019 times.

Quoting RamblinMan (Reply 15):

However you would have used one of the most delay-prone airports in the world, and had the choice of only 3 different flights instead of 5. To each his own I guess.

You might want to tell Southwest to stop begging for slots at LGA and EWR. Two of the most delay prone airports in the world.

Quoting m11stephen (Reply 32):

If you don't like WN then don't fly WN!

I honestly try not to. The ticket was given to me by my father, who has some sort of odd infatuation with WN. He travels from Fairfax to BWI to stand in line like cattle and accrue miles to go to places like Orlando and Los Angeles (or Islip).

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: AirCalSNA
Posted 2011-10-19 09:50:07 and read 13799 times.

I would love to know how WN sets the different route and flight numbers in its network, since they don't follow the more easily conceived hub-and-spoke model. I imagine they use some sort of computer models to predict traffic-flow patterns and the experience of folks who have flown the network for years. WN often has hundreds of flights in the air, and from looking at Flightaware, they seem to blanket the country in a true "network" where "primary" routes are far less discernible than with other carriers.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: n471wn
Posted 2011-10-19 10:05:27 and read 13613 times.

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 14):
Actually Bill Owen himself from route planning answered your question quite well, but you've already made up your mind about WN in many ways so I'm not quite sure an ANSWER is what you'r eloping for. Maybe just someone to agree with you.

So well said......As SWA grows and grows because people like us do not fly them only if they do not go to where we are headed, others are just plain envious ( and afraid) of their 40 year success

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: Markam
Posted 2011-10-19 10:41:34 and read 13053 times.

Quoting BRJ (Reply 29):
The FRA-ACC and FRA-LBV are separate flights now (both operated by PrivatAir 737s) as is the JNB-ACC and JNB-LOS flights.

Thanks for the updated info, it is sad to see the FRA-ACC downgraded (it was great to fly there with LH mainline on the A330-300), but I am glad that Air Burkina are doing well, they were a surprisingly fine airline (always on or before time, great service), which is even more remarkable given the challenging environment they operate in.

Anyway, as you point out, this is getting slightly off topic, sorry for that!

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2011-10-19 10:47:32 and read 12980 times.

I'd much rather sit on one plane than connect through the major hubs. If one doesn't like WN, don't buy a 'tag on' routed ticket.

Quoting JayDub (Reply 5):
My all-time favorite WN cabin crew announcement is:

"Welcome aboard Southwest flight 1234, Luvjet service to Chicago, Kansas City, Dallas, Albuquerque, Las Vegas, Oakland, and Seattle. If your final destination is Seattle, you need to find a new travel agent."

Best post of the thread. If one is flying 4 or more legs, one isn't looking for efficient routings or is desperate.

Quoting dadoftyler (Reply 8):
All of those are quite viable onestop itineraries--so why not sell them, and prevent display of the itinerary combinations that we don't want?

Thank you for the detailed explination and software limits on the ticket sales. It is a wise strategy that works. WN figured out years ago that tag on flights (one or two legs) increase yeild.

The question should be, 'why do other airlines return to the hub when a tag on leg would improve yeild?'

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 1):
Once I flew to see friends in Dallas and went BWI-STL-TUL-DAL. An extra 90 minutes saved me over $100. On that trip, it was worth it.

Most people's time is worth less than $1/minute...

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 3):
I think our employees sometimes think it's amusing to do that but that Ops Agent shouldn't have made the PA that way.

Unless they say to get a new travel agent.  
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 10):
but the segment was ELP-LAX-SMF-RNO-PDX. If you tried to book that on the website, you wouldn't even be offered the choice of that flight, even though it was the same flight number all the way through. It was all that was available that day, though.

Hey, in a pinch it was nice the software could be bypassed.

Quoting trigged (Reply 40):
Does anyone read more than the first 2 or 3 responses before jumping down to the Reply box?

I read them all.    But this discussion was over by a few dozen posts.

Quoting delta2ual (Reply 38):
When I have to buy a ticket, I usually go to Orbitz, find the cheapest flight, then go directly to the airline's website and 99% of the time, it's actually cheaper to buy the ticket on the airline's website.

Shhh, you're giving away my secrets.  
Quoting txjim (Reply 36):
much like the Xerox CAD station does today, although I hear a company called Apple is working on something similiar

  

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: ScottB
Posted 2011-10-19 11:04:21 and read 12718 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 41):
I honestly try not to. The ticket was given to me by my father, who has some sort of odd infatuation with WN.

Then pay for your own ticket.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 11):
It's a ridiculously outdated penny-pinching move from the 1970s and 1980s

It's not "penny-pinching" when GDS fees are upwards of $10 for a ticketed itinerary. And to a large degree, Southwest stumbled on to that strategy in the mid-1990's, not "the 1970s and 1980s," when United and Continental moved to kick Southwest off the reservations systems those airlines owned at the time. And in any event, if you don't want to fly Southwest, why do you even care how they choose to distribute their product?

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 11):
like your refusal to sign interline transfer agreements. FL competes with Delta furiously at ATL and they had the foresight to sign interline agreements.

Interline agreements have a cost. And they're generally not worthwhile to Southwest, since they are the largest carrier at most airports they serve, and with lower load factors than most competitors, they often have the ability to reroute on their own network.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: EDTrauma
Posted 2011-10-19 11:16:20 and read 12556 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Thread starter):
cattle car

Just slightly redundant. SWA has enough loyal fans to see them through this rough economy and onto a solid future. Negative impressions on them have rarely affected them much.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2011-10-19 12:09:34 and read 11925 times.

I think what the OP misses is that WN flys a "web" of flights attempting to maximize the non-stop and 1-stop flights while minimizing passengers connecting.

They also require a station to have a number of flights per day to be in the system and for small cities thats only possible by way of being the one stop between two larger markets.

This gives maximum frequency and flexiblity to the traveler, while still providing enough passengers per flight to make every segment (theoreticly) profitable.

So a city like spokane sees WN service largely due to the fact that its the "one stop" for many flights so the O&D can be far smaller than the number of seats WN sends there would normaly indicate. If 75% of the plane is continuing on, you only need to have the demand for that 25% left over. You "pay" for the extra stop with more customers flying your airline as its another destination, and extra frequencies between the major cities. Truth be told, even the flights between major cities that many book as non-stop are also the 1 stop trip for passengers flying longer trips, so no flight in the WN system is every really about just the demand for that city pair.

Its also ignoring the fact WN ranks at the top for utilization of its aircraft. It does this by quick turn times allowing for these large numbers of cities to be served in one day by one plane. If one company gets 3 flights a day from a 738 and WN gets 5 flights a day from its 73G, which hauled more passengers in a given day? Its a big deal when you are talking about the utilization of a $30M+ aircraft.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: rdh3e
Posted 2011-10-19 12:58:55 and read 11227 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Thread starter):
Nor does Southwest have any codeshare partners where the idea might pop in a schedulers at HQs head, "Oh crap, were running out of four digit flight numbers."

How many flights does SA)">WN have daily? I know there are majors that are dangerously close to the 10k mark, but that does include codeshares etc.

Quoting christao17 (Reply 13):
because that increases the number of one-stop, same aircraft connections that can be sold in their reservations system.

No it does not. It increases the number of one stop SAME FLT NUMBER connections. You can still get a same aircraft connection with different flight numbers. I'm not sure if SA)">WN lets you stay on the aircraft during a stop, but that is the only advantage of using the same flight number. Has nothing to do with "same plane" connections.

Quoting BlueJuice (Reply 16):
From in operational standpoint, it's pretty darn smart. Besides the previously mentioned utilization benefit, there is also more chances to sell. Each leg is a chance to earn revenue on early bird check-in, extra checked bags, beverages, UM, etc.

Unless you have to get off the plane at every stop then no, it doesn't gain them any chance at more ancillaries in any meaningful sense.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: MD-90
Posted 2011-10-19 13:01:55 and read 11206 times.

This may seem like an ignorant question, since I've never flown Southwest (from Huntsville it's always been more convenient to fly to Atlanta on Delta and connect there), but when the plane makes a stop on a multi-stop itinerary, do the through passengers get off the plane with everyone else or do they stay onboard?

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: PHLBOS
Posted 2011-10-19 13:09:09 and read 11116 times.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 53):
when the plane makes a stop on a multi-stop itinerary, do the through passengers get off the plane with everyone else or do they stay onboard?

On the WN through flight I was on last year (BNA-MCI-PDX), all through passengers (including myself) stayed on board.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: aloha73g
Posted 2011-10-19 13:09:17 and read 11078 times.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 53):
do the through passengers get off the plane with everyone else or do they stay onboard?

They very much stay on board. Once all the passengers getting off leave the aircraft, the F/As do a count of those staying on board & then you are free to move to a different seat, stretch your legs or use the bathrooms. The F/As tidy up the cabin quickly, then boarding begins again. The stops on the ground go by VERY quickly!

-Aloha!

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: rampart
Posted 2011-10-19 13:11:49 and read 11040 times.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 53):
This may seem like an ignorant question, since I've never flown Southwest (from Huntsville it's always been more convenient to fly to Atlanta on Delta and connect there), but when the plane makes a stop on a multi-stop itinerary, do the through passengers get off the plane with everyone else or do they stay onboard?

On a longer stop over, I've been permitted to leave the plane to stretch legs, get a snack, use a real restroom. Other airlines allow this as well. I see a few people stay on. If it's a short stop, leaving is discouraged.

-Rampart

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: WNCrew
Posted 2011-10-19 13:12:07 and read 11044 times.

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 52):
How many flights does SA)">WN have daily?

It fluctuates I believe between 3200 and 3500 daily depending on the time of year; that's ALL WN Operated Aircraft, no codes-hares, regional affiliates etc included.

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 52):
No it does not. It increases the number of one stop SAME FLT NUMBER connections.

Um... potato potahto... ??? The point it still made as was stated in previous responses so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 53):
when the plane makes a stop on a multi-stop itinerary, do the through passengers get off the plane with everyone else or do they stay onboard?

No, you stay onboard, especially given that our turn times are scheduled at 25-30 mins avg there's really very little time to get off. Our turns are very fast and usually we walk through, get a thru count, give you just a few short mins if you need to use the labs etc and then we board and leave again... we don't "lolly-gag" as they say.

**I should amend this to say that, on occasion we will ask thrus to deplane in the event of:

Unscheduled aircraft changes, or if the FA crew is expected to work another flight and the outbound crew hasn't arrived, or if the flight is extremely early and the ground-time will exceed 45min, then sometimes they'll ask everyone to deplane so that the entire crew can deplane and use the real restroom or get food, but these are all exceptions.

[Edited 2011-10-19 13:14:44]

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: rdh3e
Posted 2011-10-19 13:22:40 and read 10833 times.

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 57):
Um... potato potahto... ???

Nope, cause you have the option to stay on board for the same flight number, but not if it's a different flt number. At least that's how my airline does it.

Are there any problems with this not leaving the desirable seats open to new pax getting on? Presuming thru pax can change seats?

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-10-19 13:32:34 and read 10684 times.

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 57):
r if the flight is extremely early and the ground-time will exceed 45min, then sometimes they'll ask everyone to deplane so that the entire crew can deplane and use the real restroom or get food, but these are all exceptions.

  

But if the weather is good in the northeast or the tailwinds coming from the west coast are strong, it'll be a good number of flights in a given day. I recently flew BNA-LAX on a flight that routed PHL-BNA-LAX-OAK; the PHL-BNA leg was nearly an hour early.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: RamblinMan
Posted 2011-10-19 13:33:02 and read 10700 times.

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 58):
Nope, cause you have the option to stay on board for the same flight number, but not if it's a different flt number. At least that's how my airline does it.

Thereby proving WNCrew's point. They have one flight number for one plane making 7 flights in a day because an individual passenger might want to take any 2 or 3 of those segments without having to leave the aircraft, NOT because pax make 6 stops on the way across the country as the OP seems to think.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2011-10-19 13:41:07 and read 10569 times.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 53):
do the through passengers get off the plane with everyone else or do they stay onboard?

I used to get off at STL on flights SDF-STL-MCI a plane change and MCI-DAL - After I learned crews on those end of the workday flights often order pizza from California Pizza Kitchen at STL.

I'd ask the FA to include my order with the crew order, but I'd have to go with the 'selected' crew member to pay with my own money for my meal.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: rdh3e
Posted 2011-10-19 13:44:06 and read 10503 times.

Quoting RamblinMan (Reply 60):
Thereby proving WNCrew's point. They have one flight number for one plane making 7 flights in a day because an individual passenger might want to take any 2 or 3 of those segments without having to leave the aircraft, NOT because pax make 6 stops on the way across the country as the OP seems to think.

  We agree in this thread. I was just making the point that you can have those same offerings for SALE on different flight numbers, just at a slight inconvenience to the pax.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: steex
Posted 2011-10-19 13:50:43 and read 10421 times.

Quoting rdh3e (Reply 52):
No it does not. It increases the number of one stop SAME FLT NUMBER connections. You can still get a same aircraft connection with different flight numbers. I'm not sure if SA)">WN lets you stay on the aircraft during a stop, but that is the only advantage of using the same flight number. Has nothing to do with "same plane" connections.

Unlike some other airlines, though, same flight number ALWAYS means same scheduled aircraft at WN. They never schedule a single flight number and have it changing birds at various stops, so when aside from the very long stops previously discussed, you are always able to stay on the aircraft - and in the case of long stops, you at least depart from the same gate you arrived. Only in the case of disruptions can that change.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: ABQopsHP
Posted 2011-10-19 14:13:23 and read 10158 times.

Quoting Furlough (Reply 17):

I am sure someone from WN can can answer this question. If I listed for one of these crazy routings by calling reservations that had 4 or 5 legs... and there were seats on each segment that were open, could I conceivably be cleared all the way through starting and the origin city? You never know when useless information like this can save the day when non-revving.

I did. I was stuck in CRP a few years back, when I still lived in ABQ and was commuting back and forth to see my parents here. Giving up on the COex flights, I went over to WN and the next flight out that day, went CRP-HOU-DAL-MAF-ABQ and beyond. When I stayed on the plane at DAL, while the crew was counting thru passengers, they asked if I was going with them further on? I said yes, I was going on to ABQ. They laughed and said that deserved something, and comp'ed me a couple of drinks. Back at the HOU stop, they were either over sold or cleared too many stand-by's. They called people back off the plane, but did not call me. The CRP agent had told me to stay on board, unless they called me at any one of the stops.

JD CRPXE

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: sparky35805
Posted 2011-10-19 17:34:50 and read 8164 times.

All this talk about multi stops takes me back to the late 50s here in HSV.Eastern had a north and southbound MIA-MDW and MDW-MIA that stopped here using Martin 404s or CV440s.Flt 180 was MIA-PBI-ORL-TLH-DHN-MGM-BHM-HSV-BNA-SDF-IND-MDW.Flt 181 same cities reversed untill TLH-TPA-SRQ-MIA.Southern had a DC-3 flight that stopped six times between HSV and MEM.
Sparky

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: SZDC10
Posted 2011-10-19 18:29:36 and read 7573 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 41):
I honestly try not to.

Thank God.

SZDC10  

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: Archer
Posted 2011-10-19 19:33:41 and read 6950 times.

I noticed the other day their Flight 7 starts on the west coast and passes through Albany NY on its way to several
other stops.
Too bad segments don't count!

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: acjflyer
Posted 2011-10-20 01:43:57 and read 6166 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 41):
stand in line like cattle

Clearly you have not flown on WN in years. The "standing in line like cattle" that you refer to is actually quite brilliant. With the introduction of numbers to their boarding groups you only line up once your group is called. The true cattle call has now become Legacy carriers. I can't tell you how tired I am of flying legacies and when my group/zone number is called I am constantly fighting my way while groups and zones 2, 3, 4, 5 etc are hovering over the gate like a bunch of race horses making it extremely difficult to board with my assigned group.

So who has the cattle call in all reality?

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: jasewgtn
Posted 2011-10-20 11:36:02 and read 5737 times.

Interesting reading the info for the "multi sector" flights, and which legs they have "traffic rights" on etc



SOUTHWEST AIRLINES TEXAS - WN 2142

[Planned Flight Info]
BUF-BWI 10:15/Fri - 11:25/Fri 01:10
BWI-RDU 11:55/Fri - 13:00/Fri 01:05
RDU-TPA 13:30/Fri - 15:20/Fri 01:50
TPA-AND CURRENT: Austin - Bergstrom International (AFB) (AUS / KBSM), USA - Texas">AUS 15:50/Fri - 17:25/Fri 02:35
AND CURRENT: Austin - Bergstrom International (AFB) (AUS / KBSM), USA - Texas">AUS-SAN 17:55/Fri - 19:00/Fri 03:05
SAN-SFO 19:35/Fri - 21:05/Fri 01:30

[Flight Notes]
BUF-BWI F/ LOCAL AND ONLINE CONNECTING TRAFFIC ONLY
BUF-RDU F/ LOCAL AND ONLINE CONNECTING TRAFFIC ONLY
BUF-TPA A/ NO LOCAL TRAFFIC
BUF-AND CURRENT: Austin - Bergstrom International (AFB) (AUS / KBSM), USA - Texas">AUS A/ NO LOCAL TRAFFIC
BUF-SAN A/ NO LOCAL TRAFFIC
BUF-SFO A/ NO LOCAL TRAFFIC
BWI-RDU F/ LOCAL AND ONLINE CONNECTING TRAFFIC ONLY
BWI-TPA F/ LOCAL AND ONLINE CONNECTING TRAFFIC ONLY
BWI-AND CURRENT: Austin - Bergstrom International (AFB) (AUS / KBSM), USA - Texas">AUS A/ NO LOCAL TRAFFIC
BWI-SAN A/ NO LOCAL TRAFFIC
BWI-SFO A/ NO LOCAL TRAFFIC
RDU-TPA F/ LOCAL AND ONLINE CONNECTING TRAFFIC ONLY
RDU-AND CURRENT: Austin - Bergstrom International (AFB) (AUS / KBSM), USA - Texas">AUS F/ LOCAL AND ONLINE CONNECTING TRAFFIC ONLY
RDU-SAN F/ LOCAL AND ONLINE CONNECTING TRAFFIC ONLY
RDU-SFO A/ NO LOCAL TRAFFIC
TPA-AND CURRENT: Austin - Bergstrom International (AFB) (AUS / KBSM), USA - Texas">AUS F/ LOCAL AND ONLINE CONNECTING TRAFFIC ONLY
TPA-SAN F/ LOCAL AND ONLINE CONNECTING TRAFFIC ONLY
TPA-SFO F/ LOCAL AND ONLINE CONNECTING TRAFFIC ONLY
AND CURRENT: Austin - Bergstrom International (AFB) (AUS / KBSM), USA - Texas">AUS-SAN F/ LOCAL AND ONLINE CONNECTING TRAFFIC ONLY
AND CURRENT: Austin - Bergstrom International (AFB) (AUS / KBSM), USA - Texas">AUS-SFO F/ LOCAL AND ONLINE CONNECTING TRAFFIC ONLY
SAN-SFO F/ LOCAL AND ONLINE CONNECTING TRAFFIC ONLY
RDU-TPA DEPARTS TERMINAL 1
SAN-SFO DEPARTS TERMINAL 1
BWI-RDU ARRIVES TERMINAL 1
AND CURRENT: Austin - Bergstrom International (AFB) (AUS / KBSM), USA - Texas">AUS-SAN ARRIVES TERMINAL 1
SAN-SFO ARRIVES TERMINAL 1

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: RamblinMan
Posted 2011-10-20 12:12:46 and read 5637 times.

Quoting jasewgtn (Reply 66):
Interesting reading the info for the "multi sector" flights, and which legs they have "traffic rights" on etc

Not sure what you're talking about...there's no such thing as "traffic rights" within the U.S. unless you count subsidies or airports that have slot and perimeter rules. And I'm absolutely sure there is not a single flight in the WN system that doesn't carry local traffic.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: JRadier
Posted 2011-10-20 12:21:42 and read 5620 times.

He is probably talking about what sectors WN will sell to passengers, for example it will not sell BUF-TPA to a pax on this flight, but will sell them a connection instead.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2011-10-20 12:22:34 and read 5617 times.

Quoting RamblinMan (Reply 67):
Not sure what you're talking about...there's no such thing as "traffic rights" within the U.S. unless you count subsidies or airports that have slot and perimeter rules.

He means whether a particular itinerary is bookable (or is bookable without an override from reservations).

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2011-10-20 13:57:37 and read 5399 times.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 26):
was flown by Delta Air Service with Travel Airs back in 1929.

I'm old, but not that old !!!1

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: jcs17
Posted 2011-10-20 22:18:26 and read 5044 times.

Quoting acjflyer (Reply 65):
Clearly you have not flown on WN in years. The "standing in line like cattle" that you refer to is actually quite brilliant. With the introduction of numbers to their boarding groups you only line up once your group is called. The true cattle call has now become Legacy carriers. I can't tell you how tired I am of flying legacies and when my group/zone number is called I am constantly fighting my way while groups and zones 2, 3, 4, 5 etc are hovering over the gate like a bunch of race horses making it extremely difficult to board with my assigned group.

So who has the cattle call in all reality?

Hmm... actually just flew with Southwest a few days ago, which was the purpose of my post. You don't think standing line at posts at a gate is a little ridiculous and childish? It's kinda funny when the woman who is B26 is trying to organize us in order between B26-B31.

I am flying to my sister's wedding in Kansas City next weekend on DL. I bought the ticket a few days ago, reserved window seats, and don't have to line up with the cattle to attempt to get a window seat.

I don't think the anti-Southwest vs. pro-Southwest is a winnable one.

Can we end this?

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2011-10-20 22:25:32 and read 4995 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 71):
I don't think the anti-Southwest vs. pro-Southwest is a winnable one.

depends on if you are with the people who fly the largest domestic airline or not...

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: Silver1SWA
Posted 2011-10-20 23:27:01 and read 4935 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 71):
I am flying to my sister's wedding in Kansas City next weekend on DL. I bought the ticket a few days ago, reserved window seats, and don't have to line up with the cattle to attempt to get a window seat.

Cool.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 71):
I don't think the anti-Southwest vs. pro-Southwest is a winnable one.

Can we end this?

LOL seriously? You started this!

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: acjflyer
Posted 2011-10-20 23:35:56 and read 4931 times.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 73):
LOL seriously? You started this!

Well said.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 71):
You don't think standing line at posts at a gate is a little ridiculous and childish?

Pick what you are going to come to the battle with. You never said childish or ridiculous. You said cattle call and I have never once in my life seen cattle line up in order and carefully walk their way into the cattle chute. So please don't try to belittle me and make me sound dumb by coming at me from a different angle that you never stated.

Everyone rushing to the door when Zone 2 is called is much more like a cattle call - perhaps when you are in Kansas City for the wedding you should make a stop at a ranch and you will see what I am referring to.


As for childish - yes, the public needs order and as ridiculous as the lining up may be it creates that order. So I will give public the benefit of a doubt when they stop asking idiotic questions like "Is the plane on the ground yet?" to which the agent replies, "No not yet mam." to which she asked,"So is it still in the air?"

When those questions cease to exist then I will admit that the lining up is not necessary. I think I may be waiting some time.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: PITingres
Posted 2011-10-21 00:28:53 and read 4894 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 71):
I don't think the anti-Southwest vs. pro-Southwest is a winnable one.

I agree. You never should have started an anti-Southwest thread in the first place.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 71):
You don't think standing line at posts at a gate is a little ridiculous and childish?

As opposed to, say, arriving at a gate and trying to decide whether your Zone has been called yet? Nope, don't think it is childish or ridiculous at all. You must be a young'un, still sensitive to all sorts of illogical external inputs...

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: southloopswa
Posted 2011-10-21 00:39:14 and read 4878 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 71):
Hmm... actually just flew with Southwest a few days ago, which was the purpose of my post. You don't think standing line at posts at a gate is a little ridiculous and childish? It's kinda funny when the woman who is B26 is trying to organize us in order between B26-B31.

As opposed to a hundred + people crowding the gate entrance?

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: Jerseyguy
Posted 2011-10-21 21:14:31 and read 4356 times.

Quoting southloopswa (Reply 76):
It's kinda funny when the woman who is B26 is trying to organize us in order between B26-B31.

Actually it's more annoying and rude as long as she is in the correct spot she should mind her own business.

I'll take the no-assigned seating when it gives me no change fees. I am going to Florida in February and I haven't heard back yet about whether I have the time off, thanks to no change fees I was able to book now and take advantage of a sale not worring about if I needed to change the dates would I have to pay $150 to change it. I was also able to change my flight from 5pm to 1245pm when a few more sale price inventory was released.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2011-10-22 00:55:14 and read 4169 times.

I can't believe that I actually read through this whole thread.  

As soon as I read JCS17's post I knew where it was going. What's dissappointing about it is that more people fly this airline domestically then any other airline. They don't have to board a sardine can, they don't have to sit for four hours at a mega hub with 10,000 of their closest friends, they don't have to pay bag fees, they don't have to go to 10 different websites in order to have peace of mind in their buying decision, they don't have to pay change fees, they don't have to worry about showing up for a "Southwest" flight and being on some express carrier or partner airline, they don't have to wonder what - or if -the snack will be or whether there will be a beverage service - and on and on and on.

I'm not a WN fanatic. I would just as much choose Alaska (I live in Seattle), but honestly, I like being able to easily view all fares on their site in a simple format and I like being able to see if and where my flight will be stopping or I will need to change planes so that I can in a matter of moments pick the right fare and itinerary for my family. If I only flew AS on our trips to the sun, I'd have not been to SMF, OAK, SJC, or RNO in recent times. To me, it's mildly interesting to see the different areas, and you are really seldom there more than 30 minutes before you are on your way again.

You don't like those things? Fine. You've got lots of airlines to choose from. I just wish we didn't have to constantly rehash pet peeves as if it's a topic of revelation.

-Dave

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: type-rated
Posted 2011-10-22 02:23:50 and read 4058 times.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 22):
For example Delta used to fly (and I've flown it several times) ATL-MGM-MEI-JAN-MLU-SHV-DAL in a DC-9 or B727.

Actually I used to take that flight MLU eastward to ATL then connected to ORD. Since I was an aviation student I really liked all the take offs & landings.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: mrskyguy
Posted 2011-10-22 11:04:46 and read 3798 times.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 41):
The ticket was given to me by my father, who has some sort of odd infatuation with WN. He travels from Fairfax to BWI to stand in line like cattle and accrue miles to go to places like Orlando and Los Angeles (or Islip).

As a father who shares a similar 'infatuation' (though I, and perhaps your father too, would argue that a better term exists.. such as loyalty to quality, reliability, etc.), I beleive I can speak to this. I travel quite a bit for a living, which at the moment is at a bit of a peak. In the past 3 weeks I've flown through LAX, BUR, LAS, DFW, TUL, ORD, etc. enough times to make me feel like a nomadic local. When I flew American, they almost killed me with a hydraulic failure on approach in to DFW (AAL650) and then shuffled me in to the "system" for a 11pm arrival in to Tulsa. The emergency event could have occurred anywhere else, sure, but if it had occurred on WN my chances of getting to my final destination much faster would have been far better.. even if it was through DAL with a stop or 2.

From a 10,000' view, I can almost always count on Southwest to adapt to weather, delays and other unseen situations to get me to my destination on-time or with minimal inconvenience. I don't travel to get pampered and elitistic with window seats.. I travel to get where I am going on time.

Quoting jcs17 (Reply 71):
Hmm... actually just flew with Southwest a few days ago, which was the purpose of my post. You don't think standing line at posts at a gate is a little ridiculous and childish? It's kinda funny when the woman who is B26 is trying to organize us in order between B26-B31.

I am flying to my sister's wedding in Kansas City next weekend on DL. I bought the ticket a few days ago, reserved window seats, and don't have to line up with the cattle to attempt to get a window seat.

Childish? No. Functional, you bet. The forumla with Southwest is simple.. YOU CONTROL your options. Want food? Bring some. Don't want to bring some? Here's some free snacks. Want a window seat? Grab an Early Bird check-in. Don't want to pay for an Early Bird check-in? Then be sure to check in 24 hours and get yourself an A or B boarding group. You don't start loosing window and aisle seats until the high B's. Want to check a bag? That'll be $0. Want to get to your destination on time? Welcome aboard.

If Delta works for you, great. That's one less complaining person at the WN gate crying "cattle call" like it was the 1980s again..   

As for me, WN's not Virgin America because that's not their business model.. and that suits me just fine.  

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: bluewhale18210
Posted 2011-10-23 09:30:59 and read 3204 times.

Quoting mrskyguy (Reply 80):
If Delta works for you, great. That's one less complaining person at the WN gate crying "cattle call" like it was the 1980s again..

I'd take the 1980's flying over 2010's flying any day. And that is not factoring in the TSA.

But seriously, I can't see what the complain is.
The only difference boarding-wise between WN and others is that you HAVE to be at the gate at your assigned boarding slot (assume you have one where you can pick a seat you want) to get that seat you want. Legacies you don't. Maybe that's the whole "cattle call" reference. But that's WN's strategy to get people to hustle. In the interest of 25-min turns and on-time departure, I guess we have to sacrifice a few minutes of terminal-browsing.

And about flight routing...I just have to say jcs is thinking way too much. Instead of using 3 or 4 flight number to display the aircraft's routing for the day, they used one. Pure ops decision. To the general flying public it makes no difference whether they transfer in a WN city of SWF, MCI, or LAS, or a legacy hub ATL, DFW, ORD, or IAH.

WN has been able to make it work for the past 40 years despite the unconventional way of operating its route network. I guess there is method to the madness...

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: WNCrew
Posted 2011-10-23 09:46:47 and read 3182 times.

I'd love to see pax of today surviving travel "in the good days"... you better shower, put on your dress clothes and get ready to make a lot of through flights. You'd also better not have a roller-bag... you might be on a wide body but it's probably got small side-only bins that those you'll find on a Classic 737... some didn't have center-line bins.

Recently working a flight into So-CAL and there were young 20-somethings witting together all complaining about "..the good ole days of flying.." before they were even a twinkle in someone's pants... and this little old lady in front of them stood up, turned around and proceeded to tell them about the "Good Days" when she was traveling with her baby, in heels and hose, eating gross airplane food and it took her 14hrs to get from DEN to FRA to see her husband who was in the military... she had very few carryons because there was no place to put them and she smelled of old cigarette smoke when she landed. She said "I'll take the downsides of today over the REALITY of yesteryear ANYDAY..."

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: MD-90
Posted 2011-10-23 11:07:43 and read 3067 times.

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 82):
and she smelled of old cigarette smoke when she landed.

To me that's the worst thing about flying in the "good old days." Smoking and non-smoking sections of the cabin? Ugh, NO THANKS.

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2011-10-23 12:27:47 and read 2962 times.

It's almost silly the way I use to anticipate the rolling down the aisle of the food cart back in the day (70's/80's). I don't know what I was so excited about, but hey, it was "free"! Of course, I still get excited for the rolling down the aisle of the nuts and bev cart - it's still free!  

-Dave

Topic: RE: Southwest's Illogical Multi-stop Flights
Username: southloopswa
Posted 2011-10-23 14:27:40 and read 2800 times.

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 82):
Recently working a flight into So-CAL and there were young 20-somethings witting together all complaining about "..the good ole days of flying.."

Why am I not surprised this was in SoCal....  


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/