southwest737500 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 593 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3754 times:
1. Someone told me on anet that WN will be announcing service to(on AUG 12). CLT with there own metal.
2. What possible routes and equipment ( probably a 737-700)
I think they will add...
MDW 2
STL2
DEN or LAS 1
MCO 2
AirTran has 4 flights to ATL 3 to BWI 1 to MCO which ironically ends on the day they will announce service(supposedly)
Planes I've been on: Dash8,CRJ 200,CRJ 700,CRJ 900,ERJ 175, ERJ 190, 717,732,733,734,735,737,738.A319,A320,A321,762,763
Are you saying service is set to commence on 8/12 or is being announced on 8/12?
I'm a little wary about about this. If it was supposed to start on 8/12/12 (the same day as ATL-ORF/SDF), it wold have probably been announced in January 2012 as those two routes were. There is a slight possibility that CLT will be announced with the next schedule extension next month, but even still, that would have CLT service starting in January 2013.
As for routes, you'll most likely see the typical WN destination: MDW, BWI, HOU, and MCO. Possibly STL, LAS, TPA, and BNA. Definitely nothing too large at first, they don't want another battle against US in one of US' entrenched hubs.
GSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2745 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3401 times:
GSP is currently getting everything in the WN fleet, except the new -800's of course. I would expect the same at CLT. Routes are really anyone's guess. Seeing that WN is selling FL's 717s to DL, I would expect routes like BWI to be operated as WN on their 737s sooner rather than later.
RWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2157 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3368 times:
Quoting sdoyon (Reply 1):
As for routes, you'll most likely see the typical WN destination: MDW, BWI, HOU, and MCO. Possibly STL, LAS, TPA, and BNA. Definitely nothing too large at first, they don't want another battle against US in one of US' entrenched hubs
Unless US is looking at the merged map of AA/US. As some say here CLT would be a casualty of a merger. Not my opinion, but who knows what the mucky mucks are thinking, maybe with their attentions turned towards a merged AA/US WN may sneak in like a ninja and take a little market share with their trademark low fares and that award winning WN spirit.
Next Flights: AS PDX-SEA-KOA on DH4/738 in F, HA KOA-OGG on 717 in Y, AS OGG-PDX on 738 in F
GSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2745 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3347 times:
Quoting RWA380 (Reply 4): As some say here CLT would be a casualty of a merger. Not my opinion
Not mine, either. The proposed combined carrier will still NEED a hub in the Southeast. MIA is a minimal hub for most folks in the Southeast - it's more of a funnel for its Latin American flights.
RWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2157 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3323 times:
Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 5): Not mine, either. The proposed combined carrier will still NEED a hub in the Southeast. MIA is a minimal hub for most folks in the Southeast - it's more of a funnel for its Latin American flights.
Agreed 100%, CLT is a great place to hub, milder weather, good facility, US would be fools to leave. But I do have to wonder what hub city would really go, isn't how these things work? The carrier promises everything will be the same, then 6-12 months later hubs disappear, cities slashed, routes abandoned as they "streamline"?
Next Flights: AS PDX-SEA-KOA on DH4/738 in F, HA KOA-OGG on 717 in Y, AS OGG-PDX on 738 in F
WN would probably need to beef up CLT-BWI which is only 3x on FL. Over on WN, they fly 7x on RDU-BWI. At 3x, it's likely not sufficient to serve a larger market and be competitive against US and another carriers. CLT is also a longer drive to the WAS area than RDU or PIT is to the WAS area. My guess is they have both FL and WN flying CLT-BWI before all of the flights are on WN.
WN hasn't converted BWI like MKE, leaving just ATL service, as FL at BWI has Carribean offerings, and cities like ROC and PWM connected nortthbound without WN yet.
It's strange to me that when I look at fares like BWI-ATL, where both FL and WN are flying it now, FL fares are the same and not lower. I realize that FL is on the search engines and WN isn't and connection choices would be different too, so that's different, but what would be the benefit of paying more to fly FL in economy, and have bag fees, change fees, less legroom and a hassle to convert points over to RR for the O&D that fly the route. Pax are likely doing so (otherwise the FL flights would be a little lower in fares), maybe unaware WN is flying the route too.
cessna2 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 268 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (10 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2297 times:
Quoting RWA380 (Reply 6):
Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 5):
Not mine, either. The proposed combined carrier will still NEED a hub in the Southeast. MIA is a minimal hub for most folks in the Southeast - it's more of a funnel for its Latin American flights.
Agreed 100%, CLT is a great place to hub, milder weather, good facility, US would be fools to leave. But I do have to wonder what hub city would really go, isn't how these things work? The carrier promises everything will be the same, then 6-12 months later hubs disappear, cities slashed, routes abandoned as they "streamline"?
And this is where AA goes and reopens the RDU hub and says we were just kidding when we said we were cutting capacity DL
737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 464 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1908 times:
Quoting Gr8SlvrFlt (Reply 8): CLT is one of the cities getting outsourced ramp so I doubt we'll be seeing much growth there anytime soon.
Not yet it's not??? Still has to be voted on by the WN rampers. As of right now, no agreements have been made as to the use of contract workers anywhere concerning ramp folks. I really don't know how they will vote, but it does have to be voted on. To the best of my knowledge no ramp work (except fueling) has ever been contracted. I hope they don't give it up like we did on the fueling and pushing here in DAL. (fortunately 1/2 of it was to our own employees).
I know i'll get some grief on this but it is my opinion that WN employees do a better job then a non-interested contractor.
737tanker From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1815 times:
Quoting 737tdi (Reply 14): but it is my opinion that WN employees do a better job then a non-interested contractor.
I agree with you on that, and Herb learned that lesson when WN first opened LAX. Unfortunately the ground side gave that up in their last contract, and they are trying to get it back in this one. I had Mike Van de Ven on the jumpseat shortly after WN signed the last contract with ground side. He said that since WN could use contract people at new stations WN could be profitable with 4 flights, instead of 8. With those numbers I think it will be hard to get not using contract workers back. Hopefully it won't spread to the old/current cities.
WWTRAVELER99 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 265 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1444 times:
Quoting 737tdi (Reply 14): Still has to be voted on by the WN rampers. As of right now, no agreements have been made as to the use of contract workers anywhere concerning ramp folks. I really don't know how they will vote, but it does have to be voted on.
This does not have to voted on by the ramp workers. Their contract already allows those station not already on the WN route map to be contracted out if there is few than 12 flights a day.
olddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 336 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1164 times:
I think CHI, ATL, ORL, HOU, BAL, LAS, DEN, PHX, STL
sldispatcher From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 330 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1103 times:
Quoting 737tanker (Reply 15): He said that since WN could use contract people at new stations WN could be profitable with 4 flights, instead of 8
Interesting. You would think they might have held on to some of those FL cities they dropped. Or maybe paving the way to enter smaller markets? Who knows?
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 593 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
