mrskyguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1203 posts, RR: 3 Posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4534 times:
The Boeing 737-200 launched and grew Southwest (with the short 7 A/C exception of the Braniff antitrust 727s). The last -200s WN took delivery of included 5 ships in 1983, 4 ships in 1984, and 1 ship in 1985 (the last being N105SW SN23249) for a total of 60 individual Boeing 737-200's that flew for WN through it's history.
The question is, how was the -200 utilized after the -200 deliveries stopped in favor of the "new" -300? I'm aware of the -200 being primarily used in the "Texas triangle" routes in the 2000's as it's useful time and fleet count dwindled, but what happened to the -200 within the 20 years that followed the -300's EIS? Did the -200 ever supplement the -300s on routes where primarily -300's were flown? Were they ever used in rare circumstances in the 1990's and 2000's on routes where -300/NGs were only flown as backups?
In February 1983, WN operated the following routemap almost exclusively with the -200 series:
By April 1988, WN's routemap looked like this:
"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
SXDFC From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2005 posts, RR: 19 Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4515 times:
I believe after the -300s started arriving, the -200s basically shared the same routes as the -300s flew.Keep in mind, in 1984 WN only had a small number of -300s so it would make sense that the -200s were limited to any specific destination. I believe it wasn't until there was a fairly limited amount of -200s that they were limited to Intra Texas routes.
MSYtristar From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 6242 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4496 times:
The -200's got around.
I once flew a -200 on a PVD-BWI flight. It was a sub for a -300, IIRC,. This was in '98 or '99...needless to say, I was surprised (pleasantly) to see the -200 pull up to the gate. I also flew a -200 in 1996 LAX-ELP-HOU-MSY...same flight number...and the aircraft's full routing was SMF-LAX-ELP-HOU-MSY-TPA.
mrskyguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1203 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4322 times:
Were they used specifically on routes not listed in the maps above or did they effectively operate as substitutes on 733 and 73NG routes?
"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
SXDFC From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2005 posts, RR: 19 Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4183 times:
Quoting mrskyguy (Reply 3): Were they used specifically on routes not listed in the maps above or did they effectively operate as substitutes on 733 and 73NG routes?
I believe it wasn't until 2003 ( not quite sure ) that WN started limited -200 ops, but that was mostly due to noise restrictions and the fact that the -200s days were numbered with WN.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
wedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5526 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3889 times:
A lot of OAK's service is flown with many -200's. I flew the 7AM departure OAK-LAX several times on a 737-200.
mrskyguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1203 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3703 times:
Quoting SXDFC (Reply 4): I believe it wasn't until 2003 ( not quite sure ) that WN started limited -200 ops, but that was mostly due to noise restrictions and the fact that the -200s days were numbered with WN.
Very interesting.. were these flights highlighted as 732 flights in the timetables? I don't recall, and I don't have my batch of WN timetables handy to check.
"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
mrskyguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1203 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2342 times:
Was the WN 732 ever operated to SNA or BUR, even just as a reliever?
"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
United_fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7158 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2251 times:
Quoting mrskyguy (Reply 8): Was the WN 732 ever operated to SNA or BUR, even just as a reliever?
Good question,but I doubt it because they were so loud. I know towards the end,the 732's stayed in Texas. Also,that particular 732 was painted accidentally. It was the only -200 in Canyon Blue colors.
'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
mrskyguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1203 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2156 times:
Quoting United_fan (Reply 9): Also,that particular 732 was painted accidentally. It was the only -200 in Canyon Blue colors.
That's a rumor that I've seen circulated for years, but I recall reading that someone at WN debunked it as false.
"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
mrskyguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1203 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2113 times:
OPNLguy wrote me:
"The SWA -200s never operated at SNA, as we were not authorized (in our Ops Specs) to use them there. We couldn't use SNA as a destination alternate or takeoff alternate either.
Some -200s did operate into BUR, but we tried to use -300s (and later, -500s) in there as much as possible because the takeoff weights on the newer aircraft were much better than the -200s (which only had -9 engines, versus the more powerful -15 and -17 variants that were available).
We took delivery of our first -300s in the 4th quarter of 1984, and it was probably close to 1988 before they out numbered the -200s, and started taking over the lion's share of the longer-haul flying. Up until then, the -200s flew just about anywhere. After 1988, the -200s started staying on a higher percentage of shorter-haul flights, especially once -200 retirements started."
"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
MakeMinesLAX From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 516 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2079 times:
"The SWA -200s never operated at SNA, as we were not authorized (in our Ops Specs) to use them there. We couldn't use SNA as a destination alternate or takeoff alternate either.
I'm curious if that was WN policy or if the granting of slots came with that restriction. Certainly, SNA was home to AirCal's -200s for many years, but there was a clear shift as the -300s started arriving. These went to SNA, while the -200s became the mainstay of the new LAX operation.
Wow, so SFO/LAX - LAS actually disappeared for a while. I'd be curious to see the map showing the intra-California expansion once PSA and AirCal were gone.
United_fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7158 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2031 times:
"The SWA -200s never operated at SNA, as we were not authorized (in our Ops Specs) to use them there. We couldn't use SNA as a destination alternate or takeoff alternate either.
I'm curious if that was WN policy or if the granting of slots came with that restriction. Certainly, SNA was home to AirCal's -200s for many years, but there was a clear shift as the -300s started arriving. These went to SNA, while the -200s became the mainstay of the new LAX operation.
So,when did SNA and BUR become so noise-restricted?
'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
MakeMinesLAX From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 516 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2005 times:
Quoting United_fan (Reply 13):
So,when did SNA and BUR become so noise-restricted?
There are numerous posts regarding SNA's noise abatement policy and slot restrictions, plus many videos depicting the non-standard take-off procedure required. I can't answer the "when" part of your question precisely, but the residents of Newport Beach are a primary factor in the situation.
Obviously, BUR and other airports in heavily populated areas are under the same pressures, but SNA seems to be among the most restrictive. Getting back on topic, I was wondering if WN's entry into SNA was conditioned upon operating Stage III equipment only, whereas AirCal and other established carriers might have been granted more leniency.
United_fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7158 posts, RR: 8 Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1961 times:
So,when did SNA and BUR become so noise-restricted?
There are numerous posts regarding SNA's noise abatement policy and slot restrictions, plus many videos depicting the non-standard take-off procedure required. I can't answer the "when" part of your question precisely, but the residents of Newport Beach are a primary factor in the situation
I know they are noise-restricted,I was inquiring to as what year this came to be.
'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
United_fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7158 posts, RR: 8 Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1849 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 16): Quoting United_fan (Reply 13):
So,when did SNA and BUR become so noise-restricted?
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1203 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21465 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
