Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Southwest A Potential Customer For 738/739?  
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2686 posts, RR: 10
Posted (10 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 4815 times:

It seems to me that Southwest has done one thing as its 737s continue to spread like the plague (in a good way) over the U.S. They have avoided ordering the stretched versions of the 737 (the -400, -800, and -900). Why? I have nothing against the short versions of the 737 (or short airplanes, for that matter) but if I were an airline executive of Southwest, I would think on the transcontinental routes I would want a 737 capable of carrying a substantially larger amount of passengers than the -700s. (BTW, I am well aware that many of their -700s are being refitted with winglets, but I wouldn't think that is going to do too much to increase MTOW)


Fly one thing; Fly it well
44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 4729 times:

The 800s and 900s require an extra flight attendant, and they are trying to cut costs by making their crews consistent with all types in the fleet.

User currently offlineMCIB757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 280 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 4727 times:

Perhaps the biggest reason is b/c with the 737-800 or -900 they would have to add a fourth flight attendant which would increase cost to much, that is just what I have heard the most for the reason not.

Tom



"God bless catastrophe..."
User currently offlineMCIB757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 280 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 4709 times:

BR715-A1-30 you beat me by 6 seconds lol, until next time, oh well.

Tom



"God bless catastrophe..."
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 4648 times:

As has been noted, -800s or -900s would necessitate a 4th F/A, but that's not necessarily the obstacle that some folks may think it to be. Sure, costs would go up, but so would the revenue from the increased capacity. Crew scheduling is already heavily-computerized, and tracking/assigning the 4th F/A wouldn't be any big deal.

If I recall correctly from Boeing's site, the -700 has the best payload/range balance, better than either the -800 or -900. There's been a buzz about a souped-ip -900 (-900X?) with better performance, but I don't think Boeing has committed on it as yet. If they do, I think the -900X would be more likely than either the existing -800 or -900.

In any event, you almost certainly wouldn't see -800s/-900s/-900Xs at SWA until:

1/ All the -200s are retired, which will probably occur before the end of 2004.

2/ The labor contract with the F/As is settled.

Just my 2 cents...


User currently offlineAs739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6001 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 4615 times:

I'd agree with the Flight Attn. reasoning. Alaska passed on the 738 for that reason as well and now think we may be kicking ourselves. The -800 was over the pax load for 3 working Flight Attn. by 6 passengers. With the -900 is what justified being roughly 30 passengers over.
Hope the way I explaind this made sense!
ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineTheFLCowboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 4607 times:

Just out of curiosity - is there a pax to F/A ratio that they look for? or is there some other criteria?

MD



A318, A320, A332, A333, B1900, B722, B732, B733, B734, B735, B737, B738, B772, CR1, CR2, CR7, CR9, MD80, MD81, MD82, MD8
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2686 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 4592 times:

The SWA -200s are still in service? This is news to me. There can't be many left? Up-to-date photos of them are so hard to find in this database (for me).


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1254 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 4578 times:

I know one 737 Captain I spoke with said that he was expecting to see a 738 order following the 732 retirement. Of course, one guy at AirTran said they ordered a bunch of 7E7s, so you can't be sure... The Captain did seem fairly with it though, and had something like 18 years with the company.


CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineAs739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6001 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 4576 times:

Yes Cowboy, the FAA requires a ration. I don't know the count though.
ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 4509 times:

>>>Just out of curiosity - is there a pax to F/A ratio that they look for? or is there some other criteria?

In a nutshell, the US FAR requires 1 F/A for every 50 passengers. That's not exactly the way the exact reg reads, but that's what it boils down to.


>>>The SWA -200s are still in service? This is news to me. There can't be many left

Yes. We ended 2003 with 22 -200s still in service. The retirement schedule calls for 16 to be retired in 2004 (5 in January alone) and the last 6 are scheduled to retire in the first quarter of 2005. That said, prevailing buzz is that all 22 will be gone by the end of 2004. We have 47 -700s scheduled for delivery in 2004, so it's not exactly like we'd be short on aircraft....  Big grin



User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2991 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 4480 times:

The SWA -200s are still in service? This is news to me. There can't be many left? Up-to-date photos of them are so hard to find in this database (for me).

Come to any city in Texas, you'll see them all the time! I live in AUS, and I see one every time I go to the airport. I flew on one as recently as mid-October, HOU-AUS.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 4426 times:

The F/A-to-seat ratio is 1 F/A per 50 seats, regardless if that seat is occupied by a passenger. So with a 737 with 150 seats, you'll need 3 F/A. At the 151st seat and more, you'll need a fourth F/A. For smaller aircraft such as Metroliner, you'll need a F/A for 20 seats or more. Anything with 19 seats or less no F/A is required, as per FAA rules. Hope that helps you with your question. Regards.


"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2686 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 4380 times:

Another year of SWA 737-200s? Wahoo! This is extremely pleasing news.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 4345 times:

>>>Another year of SWA 737-200s?

Maybe not a full one... My gut feeling is that they'll all be gone between Labor Day and Halloween... For sure, your chances of seeing one will be better in the first part of the year and decline from there...


User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2686 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 4303 times:

The only problem is, Brons2, I have not visited Texas in nearly 4 years! In STL, the 737-200s evaporated. I am well aware that 737-200s are much more likely to be found spotting at the airports they serve rather than hoping someone was at the airport and took a photograph to show you in the database (don't mean to sound stuck-up in that sentence). to find if you're at an airport spotting than looking for photographs. Wished I did live in Texas; that state is swarmed with airline traffic. Would love to be able to spot at AUS for a day or two to see these rare beauties. STL is no longer worth spotting at. Thanks for informing me where to find these evaporating classics, Brons2. Will hopefully try to get down to Texas to spot them.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2991 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 4274 times:

Spotting at AUS? I guess, if you really want to see a WN 732. And a lot of MD-80's and other 737 varieties, as well as a few CRJ and A319, and occasionally a 757, or a cargo widebody if you're lucky.

On the other hand, AUS does have a nice "family viewing area" that allows you to get VERY close to 17L/35R. You'll definitely want to have the earplugs handy when the 732's are using 35R, as they are lifting off right as they pass the observation point.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 months 18 hours ago) and read 4222 times:

You will see the most-200s at DAL, of course, but if you don't want to come that far, TUL, OKC and LIT also see them...

User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2686 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 months 18 hours ago) and read 4191 times:

When an aircraft that I like is being retired, it tends to cause me to enjoy photographs of them more, and the value of an aircraft for a certain airlines tends to increase in my eyes when that aircraft is no more, or due to be no more. Whereas before, I just said, yeah, while I like them, photos and sightings of this aircraft are common. Sort of like the theme, "You don't know what you've got until its gone."


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2686 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 months 18 hours ago) and read 4182 times:

Oh yeah, forgot that WN's main hub is at Dallas-Love Field.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineSWAFA30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 months 18 hours ago) and read 4106 times:

Aside from needing a 4th flight attendant. We would lose our fleet commonality from a staffing standpoint. If a -700 goes out of service on a mechanical at an outstation and an -800 is the only A/C available for a swap...the crew is now 1 person short. Now you are looking a crew skied nightmare especially if is late in the day. You can pull a crewmember out of crew rest at the hotel or take one from antoher crew but then the flights they were supposed to be working are now short a man or woman short and it's the domino effect.

In any event, you almost certainly wouldn't see -800s/-900s/-900Xs at SWA until:

1/ All the -200s are retired, which will probably occur before the end of 2004.

2/ The labor contract with the F/As is settled.



At the rate things are going...the -200s will be gone long before our contract is settled.


User currently offlineAerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2634 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 months 16 hours ago) and read 4028 times:

Hasn't everyone forgotten that a 737-800, under a typical low-cost airline seating arrangement, would carry 189 pax? So with 4 F/As it's virtually the same pax/crew ratio as flying the -700 with 3 F/As.

Sooner or later, the airline will be forced to replace frequency with capacity.


User currently offlineSWAFA30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 months 16 hours ago) and read 3974 times:

Hasn't everyone forgotten that a 737-800, under a typical low-cost airline seating arrangement, would carry 189 pax? So with 4 F/As it's virtually the same pax/crew ratio as flying the -700 with 3 F/As.

Perhaps but then there go our turn times. They have already gradually crept up from 10 minutes in the 70s to 20 minutes in the 80s and 90s to now 30 minutes. You just would not be able to get the planes on and off the gate as quickly as we like.

Sooner or later, the airline will be forced to replace frequency with capacity.

Why?


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 months 16 hours ago) and read 3966 times:

Hasn't everyone forgotten that a 737-800, under a typical low-cost airline seating arrangement, would carry 189 pax? So with 4 F/As it's virtually the same pax/crew ratio as flying the -700 with 3 F/As.
----

Southwest doesnt use the typical lo-co arrangement. They have a higher seat pitch than most lo-co's. In fact, it is better than any US domestic coach service except American's MRTC. The above posts reflect this.


User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 months 16 hours ago) and read 3934 times:

I don't see any need for -800s in WNs fleet. They could just keep -700s as they cover all of the airlines needs.

25 SWAbubba : OPNLguy, I've got to disagree about the 4th FA not being much of an obstacle. Just look at the current FA negotiations. What the company seems to want
26 Drerx7 : Actually, the Southwest -700 order does allow for 738 options.
27 SWAFA30 : What the company seems to want more than anything is to give the FA's the pilots' rigs and duty day. Which is why the negotiations have come to a grin
28 ConcordeBoy : Oh yeah, forgot that WN's main hub is at Dallas-Love Field. It's their home base, but not even close to their main operation... that would be Phoenix-
29 OPNLguy : SWAbubba, As far as the 4th F/A goes, sure, it would be a move away from "optimum" commonality, but I don't think that necessarily means that we'd shy
30 Thrust : Thanks ConcordeBoy, guess my dad doesn't know everything about Southwest. OPNLguy, I whole-heartedly agree with your statement. By waiting, the airlin
31 Post contains images Barney Captain : I've often felt that the 800 configured for 149 pax would be a nice solution. Just like the ol' 72's were (remember OPNLguy ). Nice arrangement; LOTS
32 Post contains images OPNLguy : >>>Just like the ol' 72's were (remember OPNLguy Sure do, but I'm enough of a fossil to remember the -first- 727-200 with 155 seats (N406BN). The -800
33 SWAFA30 : Nice arrangement; LOTS of leg room and the room for a 4th lav would make the 6 1/2 hour long-hauls much more enjoyable. This would still only require
34 Kevin752 : I hope that WN orders the 800 or 900. I would love to see them fly some 737-800/ 900. I have yet to fly on a 737-700 with WN. I have only flown their
35 Swacle : ConcordeBoy Actually, WN's largest city is now LAS with 185, then PHX with 184 =) Don
36 RayChuang : I think if WN does order the larger 737-800, it would probably seat around 155 passengers and will be primarily flown on WN's longer routes (e.g., LAX
37 Larspl : with all do respect, but a 737-800 in a 155 seating would be so uneconomical.. that would mean for 5 seats more you would have to take a 4th flight at
38 Thrust : Kevin752, I also hope Southwest orders the -800 and -900 variants. However, it doesn't seem likely to happen. According to many statements in this dis
39 InnocuousFox : "The other problem with a larger aircraft come with airplane swaps-currently if we substitute a 200 or 500 for a 300 or 700 we lose 15 seats, but if y
40 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Actually, WN's largest city is now LAS with 185, then PHX with 184 I wouldn't doubt it at all, just that their latest published data only the reflects
41 Elwood64151 : with all do respect, but a 737-800 in a 155 seating would be so uneconomical.. I may be completely out of it, but I remember WN having fewer than 150
42 OPNLguy : >>>. People don't realize how difficult it makes the delay/swap decisions if you have a mixed fleet like that. As I've said previously, it's not all t
43 094147 : The 700 orders seem to be the "BIRD OF CHOICE" for Herb and the Gang. Smart move # 1. SWA Continues to use the "KISS" philosophy. As long as we, I mea
44 Post contains images OPNLguy : >>>( I'm retired) I -wondered- if you were -the- John Fay....
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus Predicts BA Customer For A380 posted Fri Nov 24 2006 15:48:15 by JAM747
Potential Timeframe For Delta 787 Order posted Sun Oct 29 2006 01:25:55 by 1337Delta764
Delta Becomes US Launch Customer For 777-200LR posted Wed Oct 11 2006 21:17:33 by Leelaw
Southwest Load Request For Tomorrow posted Fri Aug 25 2006 21:40:22 by Iowaman
25 Potential Customers For The 747-8I posted Mon Jul 17 2006 19:33:31 by FCKC
Southwest Pilots Go For Pay Raise posted Sat Jul 1 2006 19:05:37 by ArtieFufkin
Southwest Load Request For Tomorrow posted Fri May 19 2006 01:46:19 by Iowaman
New Southwest Capacity Controls For Rapid Rewards posted Wed Mar 29 2006 22:10:41 by Ssides
Southwest: PHX Lobbying For Headquarters posted Sat Feb 25 2006 05:06:49 by DfwRevolution
Deadline Reached For Potential Bidders For Flyi posted Fri Dec 2 2005 02:07:16 by Malaysia