RyeFly From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1396 posts, RR: 0 Posted (15 years 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3825 times:
The 737 has been the bread and butter for Southwest and now with so many sizes to choose from its hard to see them in anything else. Even so do you eventually feel Southwest will take on some widebodies in the future for high capacity markets or even go international? for fun What aircraft would best suit them? The 757-300 would seat up to 289 in a 1-class configuration which would be 100 seats more then the 737-900. As for the widebody market here are the choices from Boeing.
767-200 (up to 285 pax 1-class)
767-300 (up to 351 pax 1-class)
767-400 (up to 375 pax 1-class)
777-200 (up to 440 pax 1-class)
777-300 (up to 550 pax 1-class)
From Airbus no single class configurations was available on the airbus site. I could only find two and three class conversions. So you will have to estimate sorry.
I would think Southwest would stay with Boeing if they ever went to a widebody or even a larger single isle plane then the 737-900. Of the selections anything over the 767-400 would more then likly be too big. The 767-200ER would seem like a good choice to start off on and if its sucessful get a couple 767-300's or 400's.
Ctbarnes From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3491 posts, RR: 48
Reply 5, posted (15 years 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3574 times:
I don't see Southwest buying anything else besides 737's. Part of why Southwest is able to keep its overhead costs down is that they have standardized on one type of aircraft. This means a smaller parts inventory and less time having to certify pilots for different aircraft types among other things. They get very good economies of scale by having only one aircraft type in the fleet.
The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
RyeFly From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1396 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (15 years 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3542 times:
I understand the current Southwest strategy. That has worked out for them strongly so far. However adding a fleet of say 30 widebodies to a major airline would not effect them but rather help them in the long run. I would think eventually Southwest would not want to restrict itself to North America. And who if available would take a 737 over seas? I certianly wouldn't no matter how cheap the ticket was.
Besides this is for fun.. if you don't think Southwest will ever get planes larger then a 737 write that down. But if you thought a widebody is not totally out of the question have some fun and pick a plane.
Blink182 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 5496 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (15 years 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3538 times:
I hope they don't but if they do, I would like to see some 777's and 757's and 767's in WN colors (see how ugly they would look) but I am not sure if anyone, including me would want to fly overseas on a 737, and get a couple of rounds of drinks and peanuts, C'MON, I asked for service on a long haul, not 45 minute flight service but not to break up an argument, Go AA, keep WN in the states
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
Fjnovak1 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 615 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (15 years 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3494 times:
They'd never order the 737-900 because its only certified to carry up to 189 passengers (and in one class that is a big seat pitch)....the 737-800 and -900 are both listed as carrying 189 people in one class, because if they go above that that is 757-200 territory. Therefore, I don't think that Southwest will ever operate the 737-900, but maybe they will order the 737-800 that will seat about 180 people for them. Perhaps they could use it to expand to Hawaii, although I doubt it.
Okforalll From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (15 years 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3475 times:
Hea guys....ever heard of Aloah? They use the 737-700 from OAK to OGG and HNL. Not a bad ride either. Don't think Southwest wouldn't try the same thing if they think they can make a buck or two. Also Boeing used HNL as a fueling point when proving the 700's. That sure brought tears to United with they saw that on the ground in HNL.
AussieErj145 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (15 years 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3473 times:
As to ordering a wide body, I think that with a fleet getting near 300 737s, it's doubtful they would want another type in the fleet.
And flying overseas? Whats the matter with you? If the plane is flying for four hours who cares what it's flying over, mountains, desert, forrest, water or cities do not affect the aircraft at all.
Here in Australia both Qantas and Our Neighbour Air New Zealand operate the 737 between our two countries. It's the same as flying the same plane to to Perth but going the other direction!
Hypermike From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1001 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (15 years 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3433 times:
You're missing the point, folks.
As long as Boeing makes the 737, Southwest will fly them. But I believe, more accurately, that as long as Southwest flies the 737, Boeing will make them. Southwest made the decision to stick with a single aircraft type about 30 years ago, and it hasn't stopped working. (sans the brief entry of the leased Braniff 727s)
Based on what I know about Southwest, there are several rules to how they work.
Rule #1 is simplicity. Any crew can fly any plane to just about anywhere. A 767 changes that drastically.
Rule #2 is speed and high utilization. A 767 would probably as much ground time as it would flying time for Southwest. That's terribly inefficient in their system. You can't turn around a 767 in 25 minutes.
Rule #3 is commonality. While this isn't as important for other airlines, its critical for Southwest. A 767 introduces a whole new maintenance ordeal for them. It also involves training pilots, ground crews, and flight attendants.
Rule #4 is cost. Did you ever notice that every Southwest flight has three flight attendants. Flying the 737-400 or the 737-800 would require an additional flight attendant.
Rule #5 is frequency. Remember the "Just say when" campaigns from Southwest? If a route shows higher volume, most carriers switch to a bigger plane. Southwest adds more flights.
Southwest has stayed with one type of aircraft for almost thirty years. I believe they'll stay with that same type of aircraft as long as Boeing makes them.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8216 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (15 years 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3381 times:
I think the biggest factor in WN keeping with the 737 is this: 15-20 minute turnaround times.
WN wants to a plane that is ready to "push back" from the parking ramp in (ideally) 15 minutes after arrival, and no way they can do that with a 757-200, let alone a 767! That's why they've stuck with the 737 series from the -200 to -700 models. Using WN's methods of turning around a plane, they're probably need about 25-30 minutes to turn around a 757-200.
Texairport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (15 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3372 times:
Never say never, but WN will NEVER order anything other than 737 (as long as its produced), or go Int'l. They have found the perfect niche market for them and they're not going to screw it up by flying 747's all over the world.
Read the book Nuts (don't remember the author), it explains in detail the WN philosophy.
NWA Man From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1828 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (15 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3337 times:
Southwest flies such routes as BWI-PHX and MDW-LAS, but they don't fly coast to coast (as far as I know) anymore. They used to fly BWI-OAK, but seem to have discontinued that route. I remember reading an article on surviving that route on WN in Business Week. The passengers got a sandwich and a few bags of peanuts, if I recall correctly.
Goingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (15 years 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3332 times:
WN flew BWI-OAK once - it was on Thanksgiving day, and it was a sort of "trial run" to see what they would need to do - like what to do with trash on a flight that long. They never "discountinued that service" . Most likely the passengers got a "snack pack" consisting of a turkey stick, crackers, cheese, and a fruit cookie, and peanuts if you wanted them. That's not too much less than what you get on a "major" airline. When they deplaned they also got their choice of a frozen turkey or a bottle of Wild Turkey Bourbon. Also, look at your map, and take a geography quiz...LAS is farther west than LAX. Strange but true, and they do offer a BWI-LAS nonstop, so while they may not fly "coast to coast", they most certainly do fly transcon. I have "survived" a WN nonstop from MCI-OAK. IT was actually more enjoyable than the DFW-LAX that I flew on DAL and AA.
Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 43
Reply 23, posted (15 years 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3328 times:
I don't know what map you were looking at, but LAS is not-and I emphatically repeat NOT further west than LAX. I can't imagine how else to prove it other than by looking at a map. But consider this: When flying from LAS to LAX, the plane will depart to the west, turn slightly south, then turn west again. The plane never, and I mean NEVER flies east of Mccarran Int'l.....not without turning back.