Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Southwest Trans-Atlantic?  
User currently offlineC5LOAD From United States of America, joined exactly 6 years ago today! , 917 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8369 times:

Excuse me if this has been posted before, but if Southwest is doing so well and making profit by hedging fuel, why don't they explore getting a couple of widebodies like the 762 from the boneyard and going trans-atlantic. International flights always cost more anyways and if they get fuel cheap wouldn't they be able to make a lot of profit by getting their foot in the door that way?


"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12465 posts, RR: 37
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8328 times:

Totally different type of business for a start; "new type", lots of competition, not that well known a company in Europe ... just a few reasons.

What it comes down to is learning from "New Coke": "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

There are a lot of growth opportunities for WN in the US - particularly if other large airlines go under - F9, US, YX, opening potential markets for Southwest. I would think this will be its main focus. It doesn't need to go transatlantic.


User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8281 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1):
What it comes down to is learning from "New Coke": "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Peoples Express.....???????



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8140 times:

There was speculation a few months ago Southwest would start SNN [Shannon, Ireland] as soon as the full Customs/Border Protection is established next summer. It could then be treated as a domestic flight for WN. I don't know how true that is...


Shannon-Chicago
User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6471 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8116 times:



Quoting AmricanShamrok (Reply 3):
There was speculation a few months ago Southwest would start SNN [Shannon, Ireland] as soon as the full Customs/Border Protection is established next summer. It could then be treated as a domestic flight for WN. I don't know how true that is...

Exactly where was this speculation?


User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2930 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7884 times:



Quoting AmricanShamrok (Reply 3):
There was speculation a few months ago

amongst spotters perhaps....  Yeah sure



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7683 times:



Quoting EMBQA (Reply 2):
Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1):
What it comes down to is learning from "New Coke": "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Peoples Express.....???????

PeoplExpress was pretty broke. They should have stuck to 737-200s flying out of EWR.


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5162 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7639 times:

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 6):
PeoplExpress was pretty broke. They should have stuck to 737-200s flying out of EWR.

PeoplExpress did FINE on its transatlantic service. What put them under was their decision to rescue the original, failed, pissed-off-union-worker Frontier. They stupidly-but-optomistically thought that the Frontier folks would appeciate the opportunity to have a job. WRONG. Because PeoplExpress used a totally-different opportunity and responsibility paradigm than other carriers, leading them to hire a different type of personality than most other carriers, they should, in my view, have realized that the culture clash was too great. The only way, in my view that they could have expanded in Denver, sadly, would have been to let Frontier fail, then go in and hire their own type of people and bring in their own planes and totally ignore the carcass of Frontier. That they never would have hired most of the Frontier people if they had come in the door looking for a job should have been a clue that hiring them en-masse would be a mistake.

[Edited 2008-11-28 14:06:14]

[Edited 2008-11-28 14:06:45]

User currently offlineJimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 653 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7154 times:



Quoting C5LOAD (Thread starter):
if Southwest is doing so well and making profit by hedging fuel

Actually, if they're doing so well making profit by hedging fuel...they should just become a hedge fund and stop this silly flying planes and passengers thing.  Smile

Southwest is working very hard right now to make its flights profitable without the hedges. Part of that has included removing transcontinental flights. I figure if they won't even fly a 737 across the US, I can't see them seriously considering doing anything across the atlantic.


User currently offlineWAC From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6707 times:

Ryanair or an o'leary product will emerge way before Southwest.....Southwest is a too happy company to be the ruthless carries that u need to be crossing the pond

User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6690 times:



Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 7):
PeoplExpress did FINE on its transatlantic service. What put them under was their decision to rescue the original, failed, pissed-off-union-worker Frontier.

They were in trouble before that. The reason they bought Frontier according to "Hard Landing" was they were getting killed by AA's RM on transons and mid-cons. AA would match or under cut PE and PE didnt have RM so when PE matched AA, they would open up the whole flight to $59 fares to DFW versus AAA that had only 10% of its seats on EWR-DFW selling for $59. They bought FRontier to bring in a new revenue stream. But by 1985, PE was in deep trpuble

Europe may have done well, in the summer anyway, but it involved opening up a new aircraft type. I still think they would have been more successful had they stuck to 737-200s


User currently offlineThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1651 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6539 times:

Dallas-Houston, Dallas-Houston, Dallas-Houston, Houston-Dallas, Houston-Dallas, Houston-Dallas; flogging the Puppies back and forth like that has been a sure win for WN for 35 years, so you want them to change?

The only profitable airline in the USA should fly trans-Atlantic routes in used aircraft with no commonality with the 737? Who are you, the ghost of Harding Lawrence?

Maybe, WN should resurrect a few Concordes for the route and block off the first two rows so that Harding and Mary can sleep on the way? Maybe, WN could buy an old 747SP and paint it orange?


User currently offlineDelawareUSA From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6441 times:

Doubt SW will try Europe. SW make money by turing the aircraft frequently. Also now they may be on the wrong side of the fuel hedge.

User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4116 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6385 times:

If there's a secret to Southwest's success, it's as much about what they decide not to do.

User currently offlinePmk From United States of America, joined May 1999, 664 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6234 times:

Just piling on but International is simply not WN's bailywick. Their utilization is short hops to focus cities, short sector lengths, fleet commonality to a fault. If they had to add a type, or even ETOPS certified 737s it would create a sub fleet which would require a MUCH larger logistical tail; as has been said by many others not WN's plan.

PMK


User currently offlineUN_B732 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 4289 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5744 times:

Ryanair is going trans-atlantic. Let em carry the cheap seats across the pond.

I don't think it would work with 762s.. the CASM on those things is pretty high, if I remember right..

-A



What now?
User currently offlineAtlanta From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 473 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5548 times:



Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 11):
The only profitable airline in the USA

 redflag  Didn't they post a loss last quarter?



Welcome To The New Delta- The World's Largest Airline
User currently offlineBbinn333 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5003 times:

WN's 737s acually have the range to fly BWI-KEF !

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4629 times:



Quoting UN_B732 (Reply 15):
I don't think it would work with 762s.. the CASM on those things is pretty high, if I remember right..

CASM is a matter of how many seats you use to divide the trip costs.  crowded 

Although with the exception of CO's 767-200s, most other -200/ERs are reaching their twilight and wouldn't be an attractive prospect to new passenger carriers. But with winglets and a new cabin, the 767-300/ER might be competitive in a high-density config for a while longer.

Quoting Atlanta (Reply 16):
Didn't they post a loss last quarter?

They will still post a yearly profit, which is more important than a quarterly profit. They are (undeniably) the most consistently profitable passenger airline in the U.S.

Quoting Jimbobjoe (Reply 8):

Southwest is working very hard right now to make its flights profitable without the hedges. Part of that has included removing transcontinental flights. I figure if they won't even fly a 737 across the US, I can't see them seriously considering doing anything across the atlantic.

I wonder if that's the case these days as the fuel hedges are exactly what caused the Q3 loss. Oil and jet fuel prices have plummeted and most airlines are back to prices where they can turn a profit. Provided of course that there are still customers with enough money in their pockets to fly  Wink

The reason transcons were cut was less to do with fuel utilization and more to do with aircraft utilization. Several shorter segments can bring in just as much revenue (or more) than one long cross-country segment.

Quoting Pmk (Reply 14):
If they had to add a type, or even ETOPS certified 737s it would create a sub fleet which would require a MUCH larger logistical tail; as has been said by many others not WN's plan.

What others have also been saying is that WN has spent the last few years quietly laying the ground work to support more complex operations. New computer scheduling systems, currency changers, etc. All things that would make another 737 type, ETOPS subfleet, regional partner, or international partner a much easier pill to swallow.


User currently offlineFlybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1801 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4219 times:

Oh geeze... not another will X low fare airline fly the most competative premium sector in the world. Southwest wouldn't fly to Mexico with their own metal... just a stone's throw from Dallas. Seriously, what make's you think that they will introduce a new airplane type in all economy configuration to fly people across the pond for discout transcon prices? I suppose Southwest needs to buy the 787 just for us aviation enthusiasts to see a widebody in Southwest colours nevermind that airlines are a business and need to do what is profitable.


"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
User currently offlineXJETFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4169 times:

WN is playing it smart right now. With the economy standing where it's at and who knows where it's heading, WN is using other companies to meet their needs. THese same companies are jumping at the chance. WHy spend more on equipment and overhead when you can get it for almost free!

User currently offlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4151 times:



Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 4):
Exactly where was this speculation?

Clare FM news, the local radio station for Shannon.



Shannon-Chicago
User currently offlineLrdc9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 610 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3953 times:

Um ... first Southwest's most recent fuel bets have been a an utter failure, placed just before the precipitous decline of oil to $50 p/b. Further, WN posted a LOSS {LOSS LOSS LOSS LOSS] last Q. Anyway WN would do this if they thought it posed a profit making opertunity, but me thinks that they found the additional fleet costs and outside of domestic flying as well as the relative volatility of trans-atlantic flying to be too big detractors to allow the positives to win over the situation. This type of thing probably won't happen for a minimum of 10-15 yrs. with Southwest. However, one can always wish.


Just say NO to scabs.
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...
United: Hot Meals On Trans-atlantic To Continue posted Tue Sep 2 2008 09:38:51 by UAORD2000
737-900ER On Trans-Atlantic Flights? posted Tue Aug 19 2008 15:26:18 by CARST
Air Berlin/LTU Trans-atlantic posted Sat Jul 26 2008 13:27:29 by 767driver
CO Trans-Atlantic 737s posted Thu May 29 2008 16:32:15 by Falcon flyer
BA Westbound Trans Atlantic Meal Timing posted Fri Mar 28 2008 12:40:05 by DocLightning
Narrow Bodies On Trans Atlantic posted Thu Feb 7 2008 12:47:00 by Rscaife1682
Trans-Atlantic Capable Biz Jets? posted Wed Jan 2 2008 17:20:36 by A380fo
NWA: No Meal Trans-atlantic? posted Tue Jan 1 2008 17:33:00 by ACdreamliner
Why Did AA Give Up On 767-200 Trans-Atlantic? posted Sat Dec 22 2007 15:53:15 by DC10@DFW
SAS First To Commence Trans-Atlantic Green Flights posted Mon Dec 10 2007 09:46:18 by TUNisia