OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 1247 posts, RR: 2 Posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3206 times:
I now that southwest has not mentioned anything about this, so this is a hypothetical thread. But why doesn't southwest adapt the strategy of Ryanair to fly cramped B 737-800 and that way get the cost per seat down? It does seem logical. The 737-800 has transcontinental range.
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I did a quick search. Not a broad one to see if this has been discussed before, but could not find anything.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
B4real From United States, joined Aug 2003, 2431 posts, RR: 6 Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3181 times:
How many seats does the WN 737-700 have? - I think it is at or just under 150. Why I ask is if they had the 737-800 in single class config with 32/33 inch pitch, they may reach a threshold of passengers to require an additional flight attendant that may adversely effect their cost model. So, if passenger count is greater than 150, they'd need a 4th flight attendant for us safety rules - and that may not jive with the WN money situation.
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 1247 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3160 times:
I don't know the seating capacity, but I believe you are correct. It wouldn't make sense to have more than 150 passenger on the 73G. But if you could fill up an 738 with 179 passenger, or better yet an 739ER with just about 200 passengers it would still have a lower seat mile cost?
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
FlyDreamliner From United States, joined Jan 2006, 2223 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3133 times:
Southwest also doesn't give seating assignments. If you press much over 150, the capacity of the 733's they built their current model on, that might be an issue. Their model is all keeping human expense costs low. In the US, as expensive as fuel is, employees cost more. Plus, WN is calling for Boeing to build the 797 ASAP, apparently the 73G is just a stop gap to sub in for their aging aircraft, and to give a little extra range for longer routes.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
Iowaman From United States, joined May 2004, 3221 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3098 times:
The problem is they wouldn't really be able to do 30 minute turns with the 738/9, and they have one of the lowest load factors in the industry so why would they want bigger planes?
N200WN From United States, joined Feb 2005, 682 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3074 times:
All of Southwest's -700's and -300's have a seating capacity of 137 (the -500's are at 122). A crucial part of Southwest's business model is high frequency service in top business markets, and a larger capacity aircraft would only result in lower load factors.
Barney Captain From United States, joined Nov 2001, 517 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3067 times:
Our capacity on the -300 and -700 is 137 (122 for the -500). A larger type was a "strong rumor" a while back but alas never amounted to anything. I suspect that IF we ever squeezed the trigger for a larger type, we would want the most bang for the buck from the extra F/A. Anything over 149 pax requires an additional F/A (up to 199), so it might make sense to go with something like the -900ER with 199 seats. Now turn times and gate space would be another story....................
B4real From United States, joined Aug 2003, 2431 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3048 times:
Quoting Barney Captain (Reply 7): I suspect that IF we ever squeezed the trigger for a larger type, we would want the most bang for the buck from the extra F/A.
agreed 100%
Quoting N200WN (Reply 6): All of Southwest's -700's and -300's have a seating capacity of 137 (the -500's are at 122).
That's another plus. Equipment subsititutions are that much easier for the -300 and -700 models!
FlyDreamliner From United States, joined Jan 2006, 2223 posts, RR: 11 Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3028 times:
I'm sure in time, Southwest will work up to slightly larger aircraft. A few years ago, their CEO went on TV and said they didn't think there would be a cost increase in assigning seats, like most airlines do, because of computers ability to lower the cost there, but alas, it never happened. Assigned seats might also get in the way of their instant turn-arounds. All the same, they don't fly to my city MSP, the 14th largest metropolitan area in america, and home to one of its 10 largest/busiest airports.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 1247 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2993 times:
Thanks for interesting answers. As for the turnaround time, Ryanair has 180 seats according to their website, and the turnaround time does not seem to be an issue. I understand the extra cost of an extra F/A and the risk of overcapacity. But isn't the US. Marked bigger than Euorpe's? So it should be the other way around
With an additional 43 seats in a -800 and the fare of 49$ it would ad 2107 dollars to the flight income. That must exceed the cost of a F/A? With 199 seats in a 739ER and 49$ fare you would ad 3038$ pr flight.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
DfwRevolution From United States, joined Mar 2004, 7596 posts, RR: 55 Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2954 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 2): But if you could fill up an 738 with 179 passenger, or better yet an 739ER with just about 200 passengers it would still have a lower seat mile cost?
The 739ER with 199 seats would have lower seat/mile cost than any 738 configuration in the 150-180 range. I suspect WN would skip over the 738 if they ever wanted larger capacity.
Quoting Iowaman (Reply 4): The problem is they wouldn't really be able to do 30 minute turns with the 738/9, and they have one of the lowest load factors in the industry so why would they want bigger planes?
That's because WN uses the same 137 seat 737 on routes between huge city pairs that other airlines fly 738, A320, 757, etc and also thin routes that many airlines fly with RJ. Some flights go out with a butt in every seat (DAL-HOU in the early morning), others go out half full.
Just because the average load factor is in the 60-70% range, that doesn't mean there are not many WN routes that could support larger equippment.
ScottB From United States, joined Jul 2000, 3922 posts, RR: 21 Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2821 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter): But why doesn't southwest adapt the strategy of Ryanair to fly cramped B 737-800 and that way get the cost per seat down?
Well, for one, Southwest's strategy isn't to fly "cramped" planes; the seat pitch on their 737-700's is better than what's offered by most network carriers. Even though the product is inexpensive, it does not have to be cheap.
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 11): With an additional 43 seats in a -800 and the fare of 49$ it would ad 2107 dollars to the flight income. That must exceed the cost of a F/A?
Only if you fill most of the additional seats on a consistent basis, and there are some additional costs in the way of fuel, airframe depreciation, etc. for flying a larger aircraft. In Southwest's configuration, they'd probably have about 4 more rows, or roughly 25 additional seats, not 43. Any time you fly the plane with fewer than 140-145 people (accounting for incremental costs above 137 passengers), it would have made a lot more sense to use a -700.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 14947 posts, RR: 59 Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2793 times:
What will trigger a 738/739 purchase is slot growth restrictions at key airports. At that point, the only option for growth at those airports would be a larger aircraft. Airports I could see this happening at within 10 years include LAX/MDW.
Wjcandee From United States, joined Jun 2000, 3334 posts, RR: 13 Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2370 times:
I wonder if there might be an effect on service flow, as well. Perhaps not, as the extra distance to the galley isn't that significant, and the existing galleys would probably be big enough to accomodate an extra f/a making and serving drinks. But it *would* be different, and that fact alone may induce issues that nobody can predict. Of course, the service flow is a bit different for the longest segments, but WN does get a lot of kudos for service *consistency*. One reason for this may well be due to the fact that there are always 3 positions, and the service and safety duties of, say, position 1 don't really vary from flight to flight (except on the longest stage lengths). Add a fourth f/a on some flights, and then duties in each position may change. This is hardly some kind of insurmountable problem, but when the service flow has worked so well for so long and everybody knows what to do, one should have a very good reason to change it. Again, on the one hand, every other airline deals with it; on the other hand, sometimes what seem like comparatively small changes, particularly in the airline business, can in fact be a major deal that has effects that nobody predicts until it gets rolled out and everybody goes, "Oh, *#&*!"
BrazilExPat From Brazil, joined Jan 2006, 17 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2346 times:
I know that scheduling the 4th flight attendant isn't a big problem at all. The maestro system actually has the capability of assigning flight attendants A-F which means 6. (We used to fly 727's back in the day and the scheduling was the least of the problem). I think the major problem is the point-to-point flying and the routing of the aircraft. The 800 or 900 would have to be dedicated to specific city pairs with consistent high yields. What about larger higher-end charter flying? Anybody?
Iowaman From United States, joined May 2004, 3221 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2322 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 12): Just because the average load factor is in the 60-70% range, that doesn't mean there are not many WN routes that could support larger equippment.
That's the thing, WN adds frequency, such in the morning, when needed. There is no need right now for larger equipment. It would only complicate things. You guys act like I'm dumb just because of my age.
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 1247 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2238 times:
Quoting Iowaman (Reply 18): That's the thing, WN adds frequency, such in the morning, when needed. There is no need right now for larger equipment. It would only complicate things. You guys act like I'm dumb just because of my age.
I hope you haven't felt like I have been mocking you. I have been into aviation all my life and read Air Transport World and aviation Week since we learned English in school (About 9 years old). Keep up with the aviation passion. There are allot of great news the next 5-10 years that we will be witnessing.
My idea for a 738/739ER was based on the success of Ryanair and their 738. Michael O`Leary went to Southwest to learn from their experience. And he has been adopting it quite well with Ryanair. Though even more extreme than southwest. It is based on that background information that I was curious to see if it was a possibility for Southwest to buy the 738/739ER.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
Stirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 25 Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2221 times:
Aren't most of the places Ryanair operate in to equipped only with airstairs?
And don't they use two (2) at a time; front and back?
Whereas Southwest primarily flys into airports with jetways and then only one (1)? (Exceptions apply, like BUR)
Seems to me that would make the difference between 135 and 180.
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 1247 posts, 
From United States, joined Aug 2003, 2431 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4459 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 14947 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Jan 2006, 17 posts, 
From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts,