Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Southwest: Why Not Bigger Planes?  
User currently offlineJJ8080 From Brazil, joined Aug 2008, 932 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13544 times:

There is no doubt the WN's 737 fleet is huge: IIRC, 189 733s, 25 735s, 325 73Gs. Although, I'd never understood why they never got a bigger plane for high density routes, like a 757 or 767. In the past, 757s and 767s could have been very usefull for them and would still be flying around. Today, why not order 738s or 739ER?


100 146 319/20/21 332 722 732/3/4/5/G/W/8/H/9 742/3/4 752/3 762/3 772/W BE2 BET E75 CNJ CR2 D10 F27 F50 ER4 LRJ M11 M80
66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2821 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13543 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

I believe the original reason was for efficiency. If something breaks all the parts fit. Why they didn't order 738s or 739ERs is beyond me.
Blue



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineJJ8080 From Brazil, joined Aug 2008, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13530 times:

Quoting Jetblueguy22 (Reply 1):
I believe the original reason was for efficiency. If something breaks all the parts fit. Why they didn't order 738s or 739ERs is beyond me.

I thought about it, but maybe they would won more by adding capacity to some routes than by having an totally homogeneous fleet.

[Edited 2008-08-10 19:45:56]


100 146 319/20/21 332 722 732/3/4/5/G/W/8/H/9 742/3/4 752/3 762/3 772/W BE2 BET E75 CNJ CR2 D10 F27 F50 ER4 LRJ M11 M80
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6633 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13493 times:



Quoting JJ8080 (Thread starter):
There is no doubt the WN's 737 fleet is huge: IIRC, 189 733s, 25 735s, 325 73Gs. Although, I'd never understood why they never got a bigger plane for high density routes, like a 757 or 767. In the past, 757s and 767s could have been very usefull for them and would still be flying around. Today, why not order 738s or 739ER?

The problem with the 738 is that it would seat over 150 passengers, which requires a fourth FA. Unless WN decided to offer a domestic J/F cabin, WN is trying to keep costs down without requiring to have a fourth FA on their planes.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineJetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2821 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13472 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 3):
The problem with the 738 is that it would seat over 150 passengers, which requires a fourth FA. Unless WN decided to offer a domestic J/F cabin, WN is trying to keep costs down without requiring to have a fourth FA on their planes.

I never thought of that.

Quoting JJ8080 (Reply 2):
I thought about it, but maybe they would won more by adding capacity to some routes than by having an totally homogeneous fleet.

They typically do that by adding another flight. Thats seems to be the Southwest way of doing things.
Blue



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23223 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13451 times:



Quoting JJ8080 (Reply 2):

I thought about it, but maybe they would won more by adding capacity to some routes than by having an totally homogeneous fleet.

WN isn't about capacity, though. WN's business model is arguably more based on frequency than any other carrier. Where's the evidence? Look to their average load factor, routinely the lowest in the industry. On many of their routes, their success of failure does not depend on the total number of seats they offer but rather on the frequencies that they offer. As other carriers make it harder and harder to change travel plans, this arguably becomes an even larger advantage. I can think of four other reasons WN doesn't need widebodies:

1) WN flies into only one slot-controlled airport (SNA) but couldn't fly widebodies in there anyway.
2) While larger aircraft are generally more fuel and labor-efficient (two pilots for 250 pax rather than 137), WN's single aircraft model results in significant efficiencies other carriers don't have. Widebodies would hurt WN far more than, say, B6 or FL. Furthermore, I'm not sure that widebodies would be more fuel efficient in the WN network (see #4).
3) WN depends on quick turns to keep utilization up. Large aircraft take more time to turn.
4) WN thrives on the short hop, where widebodies are not at their most efficient. The vast majority of markets where WN has more than 10 daily flights are less than 500 miles.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineJJ8080 From Brazil, joined Aug 2008, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13434 times:



Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 3):
The problem with the 738 is that it would seat over 150 passengers, which requires a fourth FA. Unless WN decided to offer a domestic J/F cabin, WN is trying to keep costs down without requiring to have a fourth FA on their planes.

That's true. These way they hold expanses. But still, a plane with more capacity like a 738 or 739ER could bring more revenues than the costs coupled by the 4th or even 5th FA. There must be several routes that would be much more profitable if operated with higher capacity planes, mainly because of costs prorating and higher revenues.



100 146 319/20/21 332 722 732/3/4/5/G/W/8/H/9 742/3/4 752/3 762/3 772/W BE2 BET E75 CNJ CR2 D10 F27 F50 ER4 LRJ M11 M80
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1992 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13420 times:

WN was created as a LCC, IIRC they were pioneers applying that model, and one of the keys for the success of the LCC model is precisely keeping the fleet with the lowest number of aircraft type possible, they choose the 737. There is a lot of MX issues, spares availability, etc., that make the sense of this. About the 738 or 739, i don't have first hand information, don't know for sure if they don't have orders in the Boeing queue. WN it's basically a "local" carrier, they haven't flights to destinations so far so they don't need medium or long haul aircraft types.

Saludos.
GR1



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23223 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13423 times:



Quoting JJ8080 (Reply 6):
That's true. These way they hold expanses.

A WN 738 would likely seat somewhere in the neighborhood of 175 (that's what the TZ 738s sat in the all-Y configuration). 38 additional pax can easily cover the costs of a fourth f/a. That's not the issue.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineJetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2821 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13391 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 8):
38 additional pax can easily cover the costs of a fourth f/a. That's not the issue.

But if you think about it WN wouldn't just buy one they would probably buy 50. That is a lot of F/A they have to add just to cover all of those planes.
Blue



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13377 times:

Larger aircraft (727-200s) were utilized in the late 70s/early 80s (N406BN) and in the mid-80s (several PEX (ex-BN) birds), but the choice was to stick with the 737 family.

At the risk of stating the obvious, suffice it to say that if SWA had ever thought larger aircraft were a prudent long-term idea in its 37-year history, they would have been ordered or acquired.


User currently offlineJJ8080 From Brazil, joined Aug 2008, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13377 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 5):
WN isn't about capacity, though. WN's business model is arguably more based on frequency than any other carrier. Where's the evidence? Look to their average load factor, routinely the lowest in the industry. On many of their routes, their success of failure does not depend on the total number of seats they offer but rather on the frequencies that they offer. As other carriers make it harder and harder to change travel plans, this arguably becomes an even larger advantage.

Didn't know about these loads. But on the other hand, These frequency-based business model is indead more risky IMO. In addition, even based on a higher number of frequencies, how can a flight with one of the lowest loads in the market be profitable? I mean, there are a lot of other costs that are "per/flight" right?

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 5):
I can think of four other reasons WN doesn't need widebodies:

1) WN flies into only one slot-controlled airport (SNA) but couldn't fly widebodies in there anyway.
2) While larger aircraft are generally more fuel and labor-efficient (two pilots for 250 pax rather than 137), WN's single aircraft model results in significant efficiencies other carriers don't have. Widebodies would hurt WN far more than, say, B6 or FL. Furthermore, I'm not sure that widebodies would be more fuel efficient in the WN network (see #4).
3) WN depends on quick turns to keep utilization up. Large aircraft take more time to turn.
4) WN thrives on the short hop, where widebodies are not at their most efficient. The vast majority of markets where WN has more than 10 daily flights are less than 500 miles.

I got your point, but what about 738s, 739ERs or 757s??



100 146 319/20/21 332 722 732/3/4/5/G/W/8/H/9 742/3/4 752/3 762/3 772/W BE2 BET E75 CNJ CR2 D10 F27 F50 ER4 LRJ M11 M80
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23223 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13358 times:



Quoting Jetblueguy22 (Reply 9):
That is a lot of F/A they have to add just to cover all of those planes.

OK, 38 additional pax per flight can easily cover the cost of a fourth f/a. By your logic, WN shouldn't operate any aircraft because they have to pay the damn f/as. The 738s would almost assuredly have a lower CASM than the 73Gs. Again, costs aren't the issue.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineFRNT787 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1329 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13359 times:



Quoting JJ8080 (Reply 6):
That's true. These way they hold expanses. But still, a plane with more capacity like a 738 or 739ER could bring more revenues than the costs coupled by the 4th or even 5th FA.

I think a large part of it is the quick turns as mentioned before. A 737-800 or certainly a -900(ER) would take much more time to load and unload. (Upwards of 50 more passengers for still a single aisle. Flying on an AA 737-800 for example takes longer to unload than a WN 737-700.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 8):
A WN 738 would likely seat somewhere in the neighborhood of 175 (that's what the TZ 738s sat in the all-Y configuration). 38 additional pax can easily cover the costs of a fourth f/a. That's not the issue.

See above (that is my take at least.)



"We have a right to fail, because failure makes us grow" --Glenn Beck
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23223 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13342 times:



Quoting JJ8080 (Reply 11):

I got your point, but what about 738s, 739ERs or 757s??

Well,

Point 1 really isn't any different. WN does fine at SNA without larger aircraft.

Point 2 applies to the 752. Some think that the additional f/as would be a problem with larger 737s. I don't buy it.

Point 3 is equally true (maybe more true) with long single aisle aircraft. A 752 probably takes more time to turn than a 762.

Point 4 doesn't change much either.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineJetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2821 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13325 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 12):
By your logic, WN shouldn't operate any aircraft because they have to pay the damn f/as.

Well thats a little blown up. Of course they need F/As. But costs are the issue. If costs these days are the issue why are airlines cutting so much? I know Wn hasn't cut as much as many others but their hedges are starting to run low and costs are rising everyday.
Blue



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineBooDog From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13326 times:



Quoting Jetblueguy22 (Reply 4):
They typically do that by adding another flight. Thats seems to be the Southwest way of doing things.
Blue

But I have to wonder: how much more patient will WN be with airports that are slot restricted (SNA) or are locked in by terminal size (LAX)?

The real telling will be in 2014, when WN can fly anywhere from DAL, but will have a restricted gate capacity. If ever they get better planes, it will be now.

We know how well WN stays ahead of the curve; considering the fuel savings of a 737-800 over the 737-700, they MUST be looking at this closely.



B1B - best looking aircraft ever.
User currently offlineJJ8080 From Brazil, joined Aug 2008, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13309 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 8):
A WN 738 would likely seat somewhere in the neighborhood of 175 (that's what the TZ 738s sat in the all-Y configuration). 38 additional pax can easily cover the costs of a fourth f/a. That's not the issue.

Yeas, I stated this following the sentence. But maybe less the 175, considering their pitch. Brazilian G3 puts 177Y on it's 738SFP with the tigther pitch I've ever been on.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 7):
WN it's basically a "local" carrier, they haven't flights to destinations so far so they don't need medium or long haul aircraft types.

Yes, local carrier. I don't think they need or needed in the past long-haul planes also. But like ALL other US carriers, the 757 could have been a great add to it's fleet.



100 146 319/20/21 332 722 732/3/4/5/G/W/8/H/9 742/3/4 752/3 762/3 772/W BE2 BET E75 CNJ CR2 D10 F27 F50 ER4 LRJ M11 M80
User currently offlineTravaz From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13296 times:

I asked a WN pilot about why they didnt get 738's or 739's. When he explained why it made sense. Yes there are routes that they could use a larger plane, but that means you have aircraft that are somewhat restricted on which route you can use them. Now you have narrowed your options for a certian number of aircraft. In thier current configuration you can use any WN plane on any route in the whole system.

User currently offlineJetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2821 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13298 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting BooDog (Reply 16):
If ever they get better planes, it will be now.

Well they are going to have to make a decision soon. With Boeing talking about designing a replacement for the 737 they are going to have to pick a new aircraft soon. Anyone thinking A319/320?
Blue



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineJJ8080 From Brazil, joined Aug 2008, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13277 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 14):
Well,

Point 1 really isn't any different. WN does fine at SNA without larger aircraft.

Point 2 applies to the 752. Some think that the additional f/as would be a problem with larger 737s. I don't buy it.

Point 3 is equally true (maybe more true) with long single aisle aircraft. A 752 probably takes more time to turn than a 762.

Point 4 doesn't change much either.

But considering all your points and all other ones here "against" NW with bigger planes, than all other US carriers should have got 734s, 738s, 739s, 752s, 753s, 320s, 321s, etc.. Only stayed with 735s, 733s, 738s, 319s, 318s, and with 767s/A330s and up for the long-haul services.



100 146 319/20/21 332 722 732/3/4/5/G/W/8/H/9 742/3/4 752/3 762/3 772/W BE2 BET E75 CNJ CR2 D10 F27 F50 ER4 LRJ M11 M80
User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13168 times:



Quoting Jetblueguy22 (Reply 19):
Well they are going to have to make a decision soon. With Boeing talking about designing a replacement for the 737 they are going to have to pick a new aircraft soon. Anyone thinking A319/320?

I can guarantee that WN will be at the forefront of consultations with Boeing when a replacement for the 737 is discussed. The 737 is the best-selling commercial airliner in history, and there is no way the most successful customer of that aircraft type will not be included in those discussions. Assuming that the replacement aircraft has the same general characteristics of the 737 (size, ease of maintenance, etc), there's no reason to expect WN to fly anything different.



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineJetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2821 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13095 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting Ssides (Reply 21):
I can guarantee that WN will be at the forefront of consultations with Boeing when a replacement for the 737 is discussed. The 737 is the best-selling commercial airliner in history, and there is no way the most successful customer of that aircraft type will not be included in those discussions. Assuming that the replacement aircraft has the same general characteristics of the 737 (size, ease of maintenance, etc), there's no reason to expect WN to fly anything different.

I never thought about that. You are probably right that they would be included in the talks. I guess we will wait and see.
Blue



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineUnmlobo From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 209 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 12985 times:



Quoting Travaz (Reply 18):
I asked a WN pilot about why they didnt get 738's or 739's. When he explained why it made sense. Yes there are routes that they could use a larger plane, but that means you have aircraft that are somewhat restricted on which route you can use them. Now you have narrowed your options for a certian number of aircraft. In thier current configuration you can use any WN plane on any route in the whole system.

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner! This is exactly the reason. With virtually all of WN's 737's holding 137 passengers, any aircraft can be subbed for another aircraft if need be. This provides great operational flexibility in the event of mechanical problems where a spare aircraft is needed to fit in.

Think about the situations that could occur if WN added 738's or larger. Situation 1: 73G goes down during the middle of a crew trip and the only spare aircraft at that base available is a 738. The flight will be delayed while crew scheduling goes and finds a fourth F/A to work the flight.
Situation 2: 738, fully booked, goes down. The only spare available is a 73G which seats ~35 less passengers. Flight is now overbooked by 35 and all of these passengers have to be rebooked on other flights.

I know other airlines have to deal with and WN could as well, but the key to the single fleet-type strategy is simplicity and the ability to plug a part or aircraft in where it is needed without complexity.



The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of Southwest Airlines its Directors or its Employees
User currently offlineJJ8080 From Brazil, joined Aug 2008, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 12947 times:



Quoting Travaz (Reply 18):
I asked a WN pilot about why they didnt get 738's or 739's. When he explained why it made sense. Yes there are routes that they could use a larger plane, but that means you have aircraft that are somewhat restricted on which route you can use them. Now you have narrowed your options for a certian number of aircraft. In thier current configuration you can use any WN plane on any route in the whole system.

That's very reasonable. But let's remeber they still have 25 -735s. ON this idea, however, all other major carrier should have chosen one a/c type an operated it only. There will be no reason to make a mixed fleet otherwise range limitations, and range not the only reason all other carriers get different planes, actually, 738 and 739 has shorter legs than 73G.
Anyway, that's very plausibale, but still, the gains in profitability with bigger planes in certain routes wouldn't be bigger than the savings with plane rotation?



100 146 319/20/21 332 722 732/3/4/5/G/W/8/H/9 742/3/4 752/3 762/3 772/W BE2 BET E75 CNJ CR2 D10 F27 F50 ER4 LRJ M11 M80
25 Imapilotaz : To answer your question, there is a faction at WN that would like to add the -900 for transcon flying, as well as international (Mexico, Carribean and
26 JJ8080 : Very Good. That's what I was after. 738s and 739s would make costs strcture much more optmized for medium and long-haul transcon routes. As you said,
27 Tsaord : Some of you should work for WN. Some know more about their business model and how they do things than the average WN employee.
28 XT6Wagon : WN 738's would almost certainly seat 149 to start with if they got them. Why hasn't WN gotten the 738 yet? Simple. Its a whole new type. Parts common
29 Lufthansa : This is BS. Virgin Blue and Ryanair both have operated smaller 737s alongside the -800 and it was found the -800 offered an amazing combination of bo
30 JayinKitsap : WN must know anything, after all it is just pure luck and all of that excess cash that they used to buy fuel hedges. They aren't perfect, but their mo
31 2175301 : I am sure that Southwest has weighed carefully the pro's and con's. Even I can see that just adding a few larger planes would be more of a distraction
32 DLPMMM : I think it is more likely that WN will just offer less or no transcon's at all. They will just let the transcon pax use multiple connections. They do
33 SWALoveField : Someone already said it. We want more frequency! As a business traveler I use WN almost exclusively for MANY reasons. First and foremost, I can prett
34 JJ8080 : So if their business model is so strongly based on frenquencies, and as already stated on this threat they have on of the lowest loads in the market,
35 EMBQA : Here is a question....? For years and years Southwest has made money hand over fist with they way they do business, but every A.net wanna be finds fau
36 Steex : I think the problem with this would be that WN has far too many routes where they are filling planes even with high frequency. DAL-HOU would need 50%
37 Cubsrule : No, WN is different from others. First, as detailed above, they focus more than others on frequency. Second, they only have one fleet type, where oth
38 TN757Flyer : Been stated many times. Frequency is what has made Southwest so successful. Why tinker with something that isn't broken? Yep. Umm, huh? Costs are ALW
39 SWALoveField : With all due respect, it is more complicated than just aircraft type. Building a successful business involves almost countless variables. Aircraft ty
40 FrmrCAPCADET : I think he meant that the immediate, direct costs of a single flight is not the issue. Costs of course are always the issue, but you have to look at
41 TN757Flyer : LOL. Which goes a long way to explain why Southwest is the most profitable airline in history and carries more pax than any other airline. Every LCC
42 SPREE34 : Dang them fellers er smart. Ding! They hire for attitude, then treat them right.
43 XT6Wagon : The differences are hardly small. Just as a small example that I know of the landing gear from the axle to the tire and everything between is differe
44 Post contains links and images EA772LR : Cubsrule basically summed it the OP's question very well. It would be cool however to see WN's livery on a widebody... Modified Airliner Photos:Desig
45 Cubsrule : What I should have said is that flight attendant costs are not the issue.
46 N53614 : Remember...PSA picked up a couple of L-1011s for the SFO-LAX route and it ended up taking longer to get the pax on the bird than to fly the route, Sou
47 DTWAGENT : I think they should have a larger aircraft on the coast to coast flights..... That way they can carry more people and still increase the number of fli
48 BOSSAN : SNA is not slot-controlled; it has an annual passenger cap (10.3 million/yr), noise restrictions (maximum 85 average daily departures with greater th
49 737tanker : When I went through upgrade class in 2000 here is how the VP of Flight Ops explained why WN didn't get the -800, and it had nothing to do with there b
50 747400sp : I agree! I may say Southwest is a step up from Greyhound, but there business model works. I may say the 737 is a weak excuse for an airliner, but it
51 JJ8080 : Agree about they having a great business model. But every existing business model can be improved.. GOL already flies their 738s with 177 and it's th
52 Ssides : Thanks for the honesty, 747400sp. There are way too many "WN-haters" on this board that think Herb and his team have and are destroying the airline i
53 BooDog : WN's way of doing business is staying flexible and responding to the ever-changing world of the airline business. And we sure enjoy helping WN with t
54 BAW716 : Why not bigger planes??? Well, if it ain't broke, don't fix it....and WN is NOT broke. baw716
55 JoeCanuck : I think the 737 is a great excuse for an airliner. There are lots of airlines making lots of money flying lots of these planes.
56 LTBEWR : Another reason against larger a/c at WN is that you would have more seats to fill and may not fill especially at off-peak times unless offer lower and
57 Par13del : Not sure WN has many bean counters, I think they are the folks who play with numbers to make things look "different" from their own "reality". I do n
58 Alphaomega : I think this is the key to SW - yes a 757 might be good on some routes, maybe a widebody here or there, the 738 adds a flight attendant for the extra
59 TN757Flyer : Weak excuse? I guess that the fact it is the best selling jetliner in history is just coincidence? I think not. While not my personal favorite aircra
60 Viscount724 : That would be very wasteful. A 738 at equivalent seating density to a 737-700 with 137 seats holds about 180 seats. But how often would those 38 addi
61 XT6Wagon : Nope, good bit fewer than that. WN runs larger seat pitches than the other people. The extra floor space could/would be used for more room in the ent
62 Viscount724 : How do you arrive at your "good bit fewer" number? The 737-800 is 19 feet longer than the 737-700. At WN's 33 inch seat pitch (I think it's 32 inches
63 SXDFC : From what I know of GOL is that they operate a special version of the 738 which I believe is the 737-800SPF? I am sure it would obviously fit less pa
64 Lufthansa : If you run any business with LONG TERM thinking, you can't afford to take this attitude. Sure things will be fine now, but that attitude means that i
65 Cubsrule : If WN had been able to instantaneously replace all of their 733s with 73Gs, my guess is that they would have. Unfortunately, Boeing doesn't work that
66 TN757Flyer : I don't doubt for a second if they could magically make all the 733's and 735's go away today and tomorrow have an all 73G fleet, they'd go for it. I
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 Not Design Planes To Fly Higher? posted Fri Dec 5 2003 14:44:03 by Pkone
No Assigned Seating On Southwest--Why Not? posted Fri Jan 11 2002 17:13:25 by Lindy field
Why Not Faster? Why More Efficient And/or Bigger? posted Thu Apr 26 2007 16:00:14 by B777A340Fan
Why Not Price Airbus' Planes In Euros? posted Sat Nov 27 2004 20:15:49 by A380900
Cell Phones On Planes, Why Not? posted Fri Dec 28 2001 10:46:04 by Ual747
Why Not Southwest At Dia? posted Mon Nov 19 2001 05:36:45 by Brett80211
Not A Single 748 Photo....why Not? posted Sat Jul 26 2008 08:56:47 by Manfredj
Why Not? (way For Airlines To Cover Oil Costs) posted Mon Jun 30 2008 16:16:12 by Joelfreak
Why Not Winglets On Every 737? posted Mon May 26 2008 07:10:07 by JayDavis
Boeing: Why Not Make Them ER's From The Beginning? posted Mon May 19 2008 11:50:21 by RobK
Why Not? (way For Airlines To Cover Oil Costs) posted Mon Jun 30 2008 16:16:12 by Joelfreak
Why Not Winglets On Every 737? posted Mon May 26 2008 07:10:07 by JayDavis
Boeing: Why Not Make Them ER's From The Beginning? posted Mon May 19 2008 11:50:21 by RobK