Capital146 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2125 posts, RR: 49 Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1110 times:
When you say overseas, do you mean Caribbean, South America, tranatlantic or transpacific?
Here's my personal opinion:
I think that for everything apart from transpacific (excluding Hawaii) they would choose 757's due to their exceptional low seat costs on medium haul routes.
For all the rest it would most likely be 763's.
I would expect that movies etc would be shown on flights 4 hours+, though I would doubt whether they would have PTV's in every seat.
Meals/snacks/drinks would all be at an additional cost.
Turnarounds would be under 60 mins on Caribbean/South American flights and under 90 mins on transatlantic/transpacific routes.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 958 times:
If they did go "overseas", they would most likely go into the Caribbean. The next most likely would be Central America or Mexico. They already serve many routes with a high percentage of Hispanic customers. Fares to many cities in those regions tend to be unnaturally high. And there would be fewer weather delays than many other places.
Canada is covered by Westjet, which has said it will enter the transborder market soon. Trans - Atlantic or Trans - Pacific travel would require a new aircraft in all but a few select markets like Hawaii and Ireland. More importantly, it would probably require an alliance of some sort with an airline at the other end - and WN hates alliances.
Southwest has many expansion opportunities left in the US, using both their traditional model and the new longhauls. International service will probably not happen anytime soon.
Aerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4634 posts, RR: 51 Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 923 times:
WN would fly 777's or 7e7's form their new LAS hub to their other new HNL hub which is the base for their inter-island airline called 'Southwesterer". This airline would feature their older 733's and their newly acquired Embraer 170's.
Aa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3338 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 916 times:
What about 757-200 trans-atlantic. Boeing claims that a 757-200 will 200 passengers can go non-stop to Paris from New York. 33 inch pitch. Food, probably. Inside it would likethis:
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 887 times:
I certainly would understand if WN felt the need to compete to Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean.
Their fleet already is optimized for this kind of flying, and as they add additional 73Gs they can afford more new cities in those regions.
People far smarter than me are on both sides of the Hawaii debate. Their fleet is fine for that route, certainly its no farther than LAS-MHT or much longer than LAX-BWI. I don't understand all the other market forces at work there but my guess is they could do a good job. I remain undecided while the smarter people decide.
I DO NOT see 757s or similar aircraft in their fleet. They have a good recipe, they need to stick to it. If they feel they can expand beyond their current core demographic with a large RJ, then so be it, again I'm not smart enough to debate that.
JpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4240 posts, RR: 29 Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 868 times:
Boeing claims that a 757-200 will 200 passengers can go non-stop to Paris from New York. 33 inch pitch.
Expressjetphx From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 835 times:
Actually, Gigneil, their fleet is not ready for overseas operations. WN cannot fly more than 50 miles from land because they do not have life rafts in their aircraft and are not permitted by the FAA. And to JpetekTXMD80- wow CLE-LGW in a 757-200 even I'd be a little scared on that one...
Ndege From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 204 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 804 times:
I've personally flown on a 757-200 from IND to LGW. I think I'd have gone completely mad if I'd not had an exit row/bulkhead. It got me there, and it was cheap, but the space thing is just a little too little. I prefer widebody aircraft on longer flights because of the traffic congestion which can occur in a single-aisle arrangement. Flight attendants coming forward and going aft at the same time, passengers trying to get to the toilets between them, it's a real mess. Also, though I don't do it myself, I'm confident that walking around the plane to stretch your legs on a long flight would be rather complicated in a 757 as compared to a 777.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 796 times:
Adding rafts, or ordering new build aircraft with overwater gear, would be relatively minor compared to adding a new aircraft type.
CO offers other 757 routes from both CLE and EWR over the course of the year, and in years past. SNN, DUB, LIS, and AMS have all been on that list as has STN.
Flying the 757 transatlantic should be no different than some of our more experienced travellers remember of the 707 or DC-8.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 83 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2125 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
