Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No B737-400s For WN?  
User currently offlineKDTWFlyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 828 posts, RR: 1
Posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3535 times:

I've wondered why WN doesn't operate the B737-400.. did they at one time?


NW B744 B742 B753 B752 A333 A332 A320 A319 DC10 DC9 ARJ CRJ S340
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3522 times:

Capacity.... they didn't wanna pay an additional FA.

Same reason they dont fly -800s/900s


User currently offline1MillionFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3515 times:

They never operated that type. they did not need that many seats at the onset of the -400 program. Ironically the -700's seat almost as much as a 400

User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3510 times:

That's easy. WN just does not want to introduce a B737 with more than one overwing emergency exit. In such a case, they couldn't use their standardized safety card any longer for all their aircraft.  Wink/being sarcastic  Wink/being sarcastic


Regards
Udo


User currently offlineWnsocal From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3493 times:

I think it was because the range on a 400 & 800 are weaker than a 300 or 700.wns


Airline Nut
User currently offlineHR001 From Honduras, joined Nov 2004, 303 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3448 times:

"Ironically the -700's seat almost as much as a 400" The -400 seats up to 188 pax in single class layouts it is pretty much a 800 classic not close to the 700. WN did not want a extra FA for the 400 and is still the reason that no 800's in WN fleet.

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3372 times:

If WN ever experiences slot constraints at LAX or similar, I can see WN adding a small fleet of 738/739 to faciliate growth at slot-constrained fields.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26449 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3333 times:

>WN just does not want to introduce a B737 with more than one overwing emergency exit. In such a case, they couldn't use their standardized safety card any longer for all their aircraft. <

Their safety card already covers the 2 different interiors of the aircraft. They could easily have 2 different exit types, especially after they do all the current planes in the -700 interior

>If WN ever experiences slot constraints at LAX or similar, I can see WN adding a small fleet of 738/739 to faciliate growth at slot-constrained fields.<

There are no slot constraints at LAX, or most other major US airports. It is currently only smaller metro airports or ones that are noise sensitive that have constraints, the biggest examples being SNA, LGB, DCA and LGA. LAX is actually 13 million passengers below its highest historical levels and if they show any sense, they will actually expand capacity even further.

>I think it was because the range on a 400 & 800 are weaker than a 300 or 700.wns<

Not at all. The -800 can do any mission WN needs it for, as can the -400 on almost all -300 routes.

>"Ironically the -700's seat almost as much as a 400"<

The -700 has the exact same capacity as the -300, 149 max/137 at WN

>The -400 seats up to 188 pax in single class layouts it is pretty much a 800 classic not close to the 700. WN did not want a extra FA for the 400 and is still the reason that no 800's in WN fleet.<

The original certification for the -400 was 168 and it is a bit smaller than the -800 (115'7" to 129'6"). Its exit configuration allows 189, but that is not really easy to do (has been done), and WN does not pack people like sardines. The extra FA is a concern, but WN does have the capability to both manage a subfleet and staff an extra FA



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3324 times:

Their safety card already covers the 2 different interiors of the aircraft. They could easily have 2 different exit types, especially after they do all the current planes in the -700 interior

That was a J-O-K-E. Big grin


User currently offlineHR001 From Honduras, joined Nov 2004, 303 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3237 times:

N1120A "but WN does have the capability to both manage a subfleet and staff an extra FA" of course they can do it but they operate a simply as possible and a sub fleet or the need for an extra FA complicates operations. Ie a 700 breaks down and the replacement AC is a 800 where is the extra FA needed?? It they didn't order the 400 and haven't ordered the 800 is because they don't need them !! Lets wait what the future says.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3226 times:

a 700 breaks down and the replacement AC is a 800 where is the extra FA needed??

If the 738 is restricted to a certain "hub" or certain routes, the addl FA and the occa 73G/738 swap can be managed. It's not brain surgery.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3197 times:

The question has been answered a couple of times already....

Too big, the need for a 4th FA...



[Edited 2005-02-09 23:26:34]

User currently offline252MKR From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3160 times:

The way WN would configure a 73-4 / 8 would only give about 20-ish extra seats--and not worth an extra FA. Remember FA's are actually paid well at WN. In the US any FAR 121 plane with more than 19 seats requires an FA for every 50 seats. This pretty much drives staffing levels.

As an asside--WN had some 73-5's for a time. There was a joke about a captain sitting in a 73-5 before a flight and asking, "When are we going to see some of those 500's."



"...If I'm here, and you're here--doesn't that make it our time?" Jeff Spicoli
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3140 times:

>>>As an asside--WN had some 73-5's for a time.

Still do, like 25 of them...  Big grin


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26449 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3137 times:

>WN had some 73-5's for a time. There was a joke about a captain sitting in a 73-5 before a flight and asking, "When are we going to see some of those 500's."<

They still do have them and the pilots still fly them interchangably.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineRedDragon From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 1135 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3113 times:

Its exit configuration allows 189, but that is not really easy to do (has been done)

Bloody hell, what pitch would be necessary to get 32 rows into a 734...? What operator(s) have done this?

Does WN still have any aircraft with rear-facing exit row seats, or were they only used on the 732s as I suspect?

Rich


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26449 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3096 times:

>Does WN still have any aircraft with rear-facing exit row seats, or were they only used on the 732s as I suspect?<

They were used on everything up to the 73G. When they got the 73G, they began changing the interiors on the -300s and -500s to the current config. It actually allowed more seats at a better pitch last I checked.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4325 posts, RR: 36
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3064 times:

the maximum seating capacity of a 737-400 is 170 seats and 189 seats in the significantly longer 737-800.
Although I don't hold my breath, I DO imagine it's possible Southwest will order the 737-900X or a comparible 737-follow up one day and put about 190 seats in it. The slightly higher purchase price of the longer 737, the 4th F/A with its planning complications and the slightly higher fuel bill will be more then paid for by the 50 extra tickets they can sell on the flights on which it will be used, especially when market are growing and bigger like 10 years from now.



nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offline252MKR From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3055 times:

OPNLguy and 1120A,

Thanks for the info; you two are exactly correct. For some reason I thought WN got rid of the 500's. Here are the fleet numbers from the media fact sheet: type / # in service and # of seats.

Southwest currently operates 415 Boeing 737 jets (as of October 1, 2004).

737-200
13
122

737-300
194
137

737-500
25
122

737-700*
183
137



"...If I'm here, and you're here--doesn't that make it our time?" Jeff Spicoli
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26449 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3033 times:

252MKR, WN does not have the -200s anymore, they just made a big deal about the retirement of the plane that made them.


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offline252MKR From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2929 times:

N1120A,

I am aware that WN does not have -200's any more--and saw the numerous posts surrounding this. If you notice the press release from SWA; you will see that it is dated October 1, 2004.

For the second aside of the day; WN did not use flight directors for takeoff on the -200's. They were also very Dallas centric--b/c of fuel costs.

I find you attention to detail about a Texas airline mildly amusing--what with you being from France. This is said in a friendly way.

Cheers, Brother



"...If I'm here, and you're here--doesn't that make it our time?" Jeff Spicoli
User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12242 posts, RR: 35
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2771 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Speaking of Southwest, I was watching Airline yesterday and I told my wife how it's so cool that Herb takes the time to go to a pilot's retirement flight. She just said, "isn't Southwest just a little airline so they have time for stuff like that?" Kinda funny, considering they've got more than a couple of planes here and there


911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26449 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2655 times:

>For the second aside of the day; WN did not use flight directors for takeoff on the -200's. They were also very Dallas centric--b/c of fuel costs.<

Fuel costs and the fact that there were enough differences that WN saw the need to keep certain pilots trained up specifically on the -200 and kept them localized at the DAL base.

>I find you attention to detail about a Texas airline mildly amusing--what with you being from France. This is said in a friendly way.<

I am actually a born and bred Californian. I am half French and changed the flag on the first Wednesday in November last year. Also, while WN may be from TX originally, we Californians like to see them as our own.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
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...
Why No Leather Seats For BA Long Haul? posted Wed Sep 6 2006 19:23:42 by 8herveg
Why No New Y Cabin For LH´s A300? posted Mon Mar 20 2006 21:29:06 by LH492
Why No A340-500 For VS? posted Wed Mar 8 2006 00:30:20 by AirCanada014
Why No Long Range A/c For Tunisair? posted Tue Dec 6 2005 17:12:24 by LY777
Why No Red-eyes On WN? posted Thu Nov 3 2005 03:20:56 by Jsposaune
Why No U.S. FA/Pilots For CX? posted Mon Oct 3 2005 04:33:01 by Centrair
Why No Regional Airlines For LCCs. posted Mon Aug 22 2005 20:10:10 by AirWillie6475
Why No DCA-LAS For US posted Thu Mar 10 2005 03:01:36 by Jdwfloyd
Travel Benefits: Why No Partner Status For Gay Partners? posted Sat Feb 5 2005 05:25:22 by Aerofan
Why No New Cities For Spirit Airlines This Year? posted Sat May 15 2004 05:06:48 by ScottysAir