SJCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 579 posts, RR: 1 Posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2879 times:
Not personally confirmed, but heard from a very reliable source at the station that we will be ordering somewhere around 8 737-800's come fall 2002. If memory serves, they will be configured to seat somewhere around 189(??). They will be used for the soon to be LAX-BWI nonstops, and more transcontinental flights from SEA and other west coast cities. Per Colleen Barrett at the PHX "Message to the Field" last winter, Southwest will be "evolving" slowly into a long haul carrier. I will find out more at work tomorrow.
Apologize if this topic has been discussed, I searched but found nothing...
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2729 times:
In another thread, BarneyCaptain said that Southwest's 727's (yes, they did have them once) had 149 pax w/ 3 flight attendants and the pax loved them. Perhaps with the 800's economics and commonality they could have better luck with larger A/C this time around.
A few questions - assuming 149 pax, how much extra fuel and acquisition cost are we talking about here, compared to the -700? Would the extra cargo revenue and passenger appeal offset this? I would guess that there would be virtually no extra maintenance and staffing expense.
Another weird idea - suppose you go with 3-2 seating instead of 3-3. You end up with 157-8 seats, assuming the same seat pitch. Take out 2-3 rows to get down to 149 - this allows you to still increase seat pitch a bit. Can anyone calculate how much? Im to lazy for this one....
Anyway, this would give a far superior product to most competitors on the transcon market. Your chances of getting a middle seat are slim, the seat pitch may still become competitive with American's (34' - SW's current figure - is already pretty good), and you get a first-class width seat.
My guess is that if they do this new type of long haul service, it would be for 3 main reasons The first is to be prepared for when JB grows up. The second is to have a hedge against a decline in their primary business. The third is to capitalize on a new expanision oportunity that requires no new stations. All this for little sacrifice in commonality of equipment and training. I can certainly see the attraction.
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2659 times:
The 737-800 only holds 189 in all Y, 31" pitch. WN wuold need the 737-900 to do 189 pax. But the 737-90wuoldn't be able t do eastbound transcon, especially in winter. Of course, it's not proven that WN is going to make transcnos a key part of their route structure.Steve
Invicta From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 58 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2441 times:
I can see why Southwest would change their business model right now, there are lots of opportunities out there. Underserved markets, weak competion and airport space. The big full service airlines have scaled back and opened up markets for others to take advantage. They can't afford to take advantage of the situation. Southwest is one of the few companies that can. Southwest management seems pretty sharp, I would think it's worth a little risk for them because if it works the full service companies won't want to fight Southwest to win back those routes when times get better.
Sjc>sfo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2370 times:
SJC-MSY? wow, I'd be impressed to see that make money... though I'm afraid southwest is steering away from what has been successful for years. It's not like there aren't anymore short stage-length routes that need SW service.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4419 posts, RR: 35 Reply 15, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2312 times:
JetBlue seats 162 in A320's, which must require a 4th f/a, and their profits speak for themselves. Perhaps WN is deciding that their own profit matrix can sustain a 4th f/a. And 738 seat pitch with 162, for example, would still be awfully good, comfy for long hauls.
Long haul is the next big growth area for the low-fares. That's why AA is getting so thuggish with the Long Beach city gov't. Don Cartyleone can see the handwriting on the cabin wall. JetBlue broke the ice--demonstrated that long-haul service without full food service (something that deterred WN, from what I read, in 1998) can be profitable. Now WN wants in on the act. God bless them. I'll eat a $5 McDonald's value meal at the airport and save $200 on my roundtrip airfare any day.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7865 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2230 times:
I think given WN's seating pitch of around 33.6-33.7 inches, if WN does get the 737-800 the seating capacity would probably be the same as the B6 A320 configuration, about 162-165 seats. They'll probably be limited to flights between LAX and OAK on the US West Coast, MDW, and BWI and one other US East Coast destination. In short, they'll be transcon flights only.
Udo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2165 times:
No way, a B738 order would require the introduction of new safety cards and WN would never do that...they will stick to their unified B737-200/300/500/700 safety card, showing only one emergency exit over the wing...