This article requires a subscription. But it makes you wonder what might be going on with that Texas based airline.

http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/ ... s-strategy

OLYMPIC VALLEY, Calif.—Southwest Airlines’ international expansion could take it to Canada, and an executive for the company did not rule out eventual transatlantic flights. Dave Harvey, the carrier’s managing director for business development, told Aviation Daily that Southwest might one day consider transatlantic flights. Flights to the U.K. from some of Southwest’s East Coast cities are within the theoretical range of the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft which the airline ...


Very Interesting. Any thoughts?

WW

Unfortunately, I think Jetblue will beat Southwest to being the first low cost US carrier to start TATL operations.

Couldn't imagine flying Transatlantic on an LCC. It's bad enough with AA's economy class. NEVER again shall I do that!

787fan8 wrote:

Unfortunately, I think Jetblue will beat Southwest to being the first low cost US carrier to start TATL operations.

What's unfortunate about it? I'd much rather have the JetBlue passenger experience on a TATL flight than WN's.

Two words - contract vote.

FA's and pilots suddenly both have AIP's after four plus years of talks. The last time we voted on something (the 800's) we were all but promised Hawai'i.

That was 2011 and I'm fairly certain there aren't any HNL overnights in our immediate future. These non-committal big expansion plans always seem to materialize around voting time.

I've been very fortunate to have had only good experiences flying JETBLUE. If the price is right, I will gladly fly JETBLUE over the pond.

barney captain wrote:

Two words - contract vote.

FA's and pilots suddenly both have AIP's after four plus years of talks. The last time we voted on something (the 800's) we were all but promised Hawai'i.

That was 2011 and I'm fairly certain there aren't any HNL overnights in our immediate future.

It's interesting to note that all the -800s new from the factory have been fitted with SELCAL which generally is only done if the operator plans to fly them over the Pacific or through Bermuda Triangle area (as far as US operators go anyway). They are only VHF SELCAL equipped from the factory, but that can be quickly remedied with a HF box like FX have recently done with their new 767s operating in Asia.

Gary Kelly has already stated that if and when WN fly's over the pond he will not be the CEO.

FLY

Just loving how Europe, especially UK, are getting invaded by Jet Blue A321neo LR and SW 737 Max 8 plus Norwegian 737. This is at best a limited market from the North east to really western Europe. People want cheap but they also want nonstop and try doing a DFW, LAX, or SFO to MAN or LGW with a narrow body plane, this is a 787-8 market. Even ORD or DTW or ATL with a 737 - 8 or A321neo are highly questionable. IAD, BOS and JFK could support some of these flights but people still want the 777 or A380 or 747 experience.

The bar is pretty low when 'did not rule out... eventual' counts as news.

787fan8 wrote:

I think Jetblue will beat Southwest to being the first low cost US carrier to start TATL operations.

Agreed. While this concept might sound nice in theory, the practical reality is that I don't think Southwest is ready for it, and by the time Southwest may be ready, I think it might be too late.

Just like how Southwest should have been flying to Latin America and the Caribbean ten years ago, and should have had modern IT systems twenty years ago, this seems to me like another example of Southwest just missing the boat (or the plane, as it were).

Southwest remains exceptionally good at what it does best, but flying 6-8 hour redeye missions is most definitely not what Southwest does best. And with the way, and at the speed, that the competitive landscape is evolving, I question whether Southwest will truly be able to carve out a niche for itself and stimulate demand across the Atlantic years from now. As said, I think the example of Latin America and the Caribbean is instructive - Southwest has gone into some of those markets now, in just the last few years, after the AirTran merger. But look at how much market development and stimulation JetBlue and Spirit have/had already done. By the time Southwest got there, the market was already well served.

commavia wrote:

[quote="787fan8"Southwest has gone into some of those markets now, in just the last few years, after the AirTran merger. But look at how much market development and stimulation JetBlue and Spirit have/had already done. By the time Southwest got there, the market was already well served.

That is very true. But, I'll add to this that even though Southwest's low-cost competition had already set-up shop in those markets (hence invalidating the potential impact of a "Southwest-effect" on average fares between the US and Latin America/Caribbean, if that concept still even exists anymore?) there was still room for Southwest to enter due to several reasons:

1. Customer base: Southwest, being the largest domestic US carrier, obviously has millions of loyal frequent fliers who had been wanting INTL services for quite some time (same logic applies to markets Southwest currently doesn't serve, but has acknowledged potential, such as Hawaii, non-English/Spanish-speaking countries like Canada, Haiti etc)

2. The evolution of Southwest from a pure point-to-point model to more of a traditional hub-and-spoke network that could feed traffic to both leisure and VFR markets

3. The presence of multiple Southwest "hubs" geographically located in advantageous areas to springboard South of the border (i.e. FLL, ATL, BWI, HOU, LAX, SNA, OAK) which contrasts to JetBlue and Spirit's INTL networks, which are disproportionately, if not almost exclusively, East Coast-centric.

4. The potential for codeshare and interline opportunities down the road

So yes, while in the traditional, "Southwest-style" sense they were a bit late to the game relative to their LCC competition, I think that there were still plenty of business justifications to enter.

jfk777 wrote:

Just loving how Europe, especially UK, are getting invaded by Jet Blue A321neo LR and SW 737 Max 8 plus Norwegian 737. This is at best a limited market from the North east to really western Europe. People want cheap but they also want nonstop and try doing a DFW, LAX, or SFO to MAN or LGW with a narrow body plane, this is a 787-8 market. Even ORD or DTW or ATL with a 737 - 8 or A321neo are highly questionable. IAD, BOS and JFK could support some of these flights but people still want the 777 or A380 or 747 experience.

In regards to Jetblue, If they do decide to test TATL, YES A321neo LR to test the routes. But,if the routes are successful I can forsee Airbus giving them a good deal on some A330's.

I think lots of people flying transatlantic would be unhappy if they only had peanuts to eat. None of WN's aircraft are equipped with galleys suitable for serving full hot meals. They would need to start serving meals on some of the their longer flights first before I would consider flying them on overnight transatlantic flights.

Never say never, but I don't think WN is going to be starting trans-atlantic service this decade. Their two focus areas have been slowly bringing back more point to point shorter haul routes and expanding service to Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean from their focus cities. They can't be everything to everyone. As many have said, B6 is in a much better position to offer trans-atlantic service from their hubs in JFK and BOS with the A321LR.

RobK wrote:

barney captain wrote:

Two words - contract vote.

FA's and pilots suddenly both have AIP's after four plus years of talks. The last time we voted on something (the 800's) we were all but promised Hawai'i.

That was 2011 and I'm fairly certain there aren't any HNL overnights in our immediate future.

It's interesting to note that all the -800s new from the factory have been fitted with SELCAL which generally is only done if the operator plans to fly them over the Pacific or through Bermuda Triangle area (as far as US operators go anyway). They are only VHF SELCAL equipped from the factory, but that can be quickly remedied with a HF box like FX have recently done with their new 767s operating in Asia.

Emb-145 I flew at my airline had SELCAL too. It's not uncommon.

Maybe take out the red-eye training wheels first and try Domestic West to East Coast?

Let's go with this. Where would they fly to? I can see them foresaking the larger UK airports. For Southeast England, Stansted would be interesting - allowing people to self connect onto Ryanair's services. For Northwest England, Liverpool may be better for them. Midlands- given the lack of any USA route from Birmingham, I'd wager them. For Scotland and Wales, i can imagine the State-owned airports at Prestwick and Cardiff offering advantageous rates/

flyingclrs727 wrote:

I think lots of people flying transatlantic would be unhappy if they only had peanuts to eat. None of WN's aircraft are equipped with galleys suitable for serving full hot meals. They would need to start serving meals on some of the their longer flights first before I would consider flying them on overnight transatlantic flights.

I am pretty sure the new -800 and MAX galleys can be easily made ready for hot meals.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

I think lots of people flying transatlantic would be unhappy if they only had peanuts to eat. None of WN's aircraft are equipped with galleys suitable for serving full hot meals. They would need to start serving meals on some of the their longer flights first before I would consider flying them on overnight transatlantic flights.

I'm sure if WN's flights to Europe were even just $50 cheaper than Economy Class on a legacy carrier, people would be fine with buying a McDonald's meal or two at the airport for about $10-$20 to take on the flight.

DariusBieber wrote:

I'm sure if WN's flights to Europe were even just $50 cheaper than Economy Class on a legacy carrier, people would be fine with buying a McDonald's meal or two at the airport for about $10-$20 to take on the flight.

Perhaps people who have never flown transatlantic before. If WN were to fly transatlantic from the northeast US, the connecting passengers would need even more time between flights to get some food to carry onboard. If flights are delayed, they might not have time. Connecting to international flights is a hassle enough already.

If WN just flies to western Europe from the northeast US with no interlining, I don't think it will be very useful to me. Turkish Airlines already has very competitive rates even though travel to western Europe via IST requires significant backtracking, and they have very good catering onboard.

Regarding food, there are lots of possible solutions; order meals ahead, only cold options etc. WN touted all the future revenue potential from the POS systems, maybe food is one of them. Maybe not.

IMO this is just typical exec speak to open up the speculation. But as others have mentioned above, being the largest domestic airline, they have a large FF base and most people who are traveling across the pond are doing so for their one big trip, they aren't the road warriors (even tho WN has a very large business traveler base as well).

Not only the 738 MAX but the 7.5MAX as well opens up possibilities.

At an airport like BWI, WN certainly has enough presence to fill the plane with O/D, minimizing the need for connecting traffic, of which they would have plenty.

WN has great potential to Canada from their non-hubs at BWI and MDW, but nothing. I think this will happen before Europe. Heck, WN is just getting acquainted with the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central America. Also, WN does not fly to AK or HI which would be much easier to do than Europe.

Just don't see Europe on the radar.

At this point in time, I don't really know why B6 or WN are considered LCCs. I often find similar fares on DL, and now and then, even considerably lower fares. Granted, I don't tend to book flights 8 months out.

RobertS975 wrote:

At this point in time, I don't really know why B6 or WN are considered LCCs. I often find similar fares on DL, and now and then, even considerably lower fares. Granted, I don't tend to book flights 8 months out.

The time of LCC's is coming to an end. No wait, the time of Full Service Carriers is coming to an end. The Full service carriers are copying everything the LCC's have introduced. Give it a couple of years and you're paying for your windowseat, suitcase and meal. Than it doesn't matter anymore who flies you across the world.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

DariusBieber wrote:

I'm sure if WN's flights to Europe were even just $50 cheaper than Economy Class on a legacy carrier, people would be fine with buying a McDonald's meal or two at the airport for about $10-$20 to take on the flight.

Perhaps people who have never flown transatlantic before. If WN were to fly transatlantic from the northeast US, the connecting passengers would need even more time between flights to get some food to carry onboard. If flights are delayed, they might not have time. Connecting to international flights is a hassle enough already.

If WN just flies to western Europe from the northeast US with no interlining, I don't think it will be very useful to me. Turkish Airlines already has very competitive rates even though travel to western Europe via IST requires significant backtracking, and they have very good catering onboard.

Not only people who have never flown transatlantic before. Some people just don't care about service, all they want is the lowest price regardless of how crappy it is. I've flown long haul on a LCC (Norwegian) and would do it again any moment if the price is right. Legacy carriers are always more expensive and thus not an option.

For many years Ryanair has been saying they would one day start low-cost transatlantic service, but they never did. Then when the day came they said they wouldn't other LCC's are stepping in to do what Ryanair didn't. Definitely a missed chance for Ryanair.

ual777 wrote:

RobK wrote:

barney captain wrote:

Two words - contract vote.

FA's and pilots suddenly both have AIP's after four plus years of talks. The last time we voted on something (the 800's) we were all but promised Hawai'i.

That was 2011 and I'm fairly certain there aren't any HNL overnights in our immediate future.

It's interesting to note that all the -800s new from the factory have been fitted with SELCAL which generally is only done if the operator plans to fly them over the Pacific or through Bermuda Triangle area (as far as US operators go anyway). They are only VHF SELCAL equipped from the factory, but that can be quickly remedied with a HF box like FX have recently done with their new 767s operating in Asia.

Emb-145 I flew at my airline had SELCAL too. It's not uncommon.

Yes I know they did, presumably ASH or ASQ you're talking about. My point was that none of the SWA types have ever been fitted with selcal - it's only started with the 800s and given the wide range of communication channels available on modern aircraft in domestic areas it makes no sense to fit antiquated selcal equipment unless they are/were planning to operate them over oceans/out of VHF range.

David_itl wrote:

Let's go with this. Where would they fly to? I can see them foresaking the larger UK airports. For Southeast England, Stansted would be interesting - allowing people to self connect onto Ryanair's services. For Northwest England, Liverpool may be better for them. Midlands- given the lack of any USA route from Birmingham, I'd wager them. For Scotland and Wales, i can imagine the State-owned airports at Prestwick and Cardiff offering advantageous rates/

Don't forget Ireland! I can see Dublin being a possibility, BFS, ORK and SNN too. Indeed, with Aer Lingus now operating 757s (and will eventually order A321LRs) and JetBlue and Norwegian expected to fly t/a as well, the transatlantic widebody market is going to get very interesting and very busy. You will certainly see a lot of UK cities, particularly "second tier" cites like BRS, CWL, NCL, LBA, getting direct links to N England and other E coast destinations, possibly Midwest as well, depending on the ranges of available aircraft.

It'll certainly make things very interesting on the North Atlantic in years to come. If the "Southwest effect" were replicated across the Atlantic, how many new markets could that open up. It may well be something said, as suggested above, as part of contract negotiations, but I could see Southwest being drawn in.

my only real question for Southwest is this - from which hub ? Let's just be generous and give 3800mi usable distance for next gen narrowbodies to factor in west bound headwinds in winter.

The only top 10 station of WN within this distance would be BWI, and even then the MAX 7.5 might struggle to common destinations such as CDG BCN BRU AMS FRA.

Other less desirable options would be BOS to go heads up against B6, or EWR and heads up against UA. Both are better distance wise (esp BOS), but WN isn't too strong in either market.

a380787 wrote:

my only real question for Southwest is this - from which hub ? Let's just be generous and give 3800mi usable distance for next gen narrowbodies to factor in west bound headwinds in winter.

The only top 10 station of WN within this distance would be BWI, and even then the MAX 7.5 might struggle to common destinations such as CDG BCN BRU AMS FRA.

Other less desirable options would be BOS to go heads up against B6, or EWR and heads up against UA. Both are better distance wise (esp BOS), but WN isn't too strong in either market.

Not just from where, but also to where? I don't think they'll pick major hubs like CDG, BRU, AMS or FRA when there are smaller (cheaper) alternatives available. Southwest is a bit like Ryanair, prefering secondary airports. Maybe they can even team up with Ryanair as their European feeder since Ryanair is looking for airlines to feed for.

Being Dutch I would very much like them to fly to Eindhoven. EIN is a growing airport with mostly LCC's, but doesn't yet have transatlantic service. WN can change that. It would be a very lucrative destination for them, being right in the center of the AMS/BRU/DUS triangle.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

a380787 wrote:

my only real question for Southwest is this - from which hub ? Let's just be generous and give 3800mi usable distance for next gen narrowbodies to factor in west bound headwinds in winter.

The only top 10 station of WN within this distance would be BWI, and even then the MAX 7.5 might struggle to common destinations such as CDG BCN BRU AMS FRA.

Other less desirable options would be BOS to go heads up against B6, or EWR and heads up against UA. Both are better distance wise (esp BOS), but WN isn't too strong in either market.

Not just from where, but also to where? I don't think they'll pick major hubs like CDG, BRU, AMS or FRA when there are smaller (cheaper) alternatives available. Southwest is a bit like Ryanair, prefering secondary airports. Maybe they can even team up with Ryanair as their European feeder since Ryanair is looking for airlines to feed for.

Being Dutch I would very much like them to fly to Eindhoven. EIN is a growing airport with mostly LCC's, but doesn't yet have transatlantic service. WN can change that. It would be a very lucrative destination for them, being right in the center of the AMS/BRU/DUS triangle.

They *used* to prefer secondary airports such as OAK, BWI, ISP, PVD etc, but now they're very comfortable also flying into more primary airports of SFO, DCA, EWR/LGA, and BOS.

WN's cost base is now high enough that they can't be flying to those Ryanair type of airports. I'm not too optimistic if they were to do things like Brussels Charleroi CRL, Oslo Sandefjord TRF, Frankfurt Hahn HHN etc.

Just for reference, even ULCC WOW Air of Iceland has to switch from Stockholm Västerås VST back to the primary one of Stockholm Arlanda ARN.

VST is not really a good example since it's in the middle of nowhere and there hardly are any connecting flights. As for Stockholm they might pick NYO (Skavsta). It's a little closer to Stockholm and it has a good bus connection to the city (shared with Ryanair and Wizzair to cut the costs). Besides NYO is in a more dense populated area than VST so it also attracts more local traffic. And on top of that, NYO is a Ryanair base so Ryanair can provide connecting flights to destinations not directly served by Southwest.

Major airports like LHR may handle a lot of passengers, but by far most of them travel on legacy airlines. They're of no interest to a LCC like WN. I bet STN handles more low-cost passengers than LHR, so for London STN would be a more logical choice for them. Passengers flying a LCC mostly connect to another LCC, not a legacy carrier.

Imagine you want a low-cost flight from Boston to Pisa and let's say WN has a flight BOS-FRA that's very cheap and well within your budget. Then you're looking for a connecting flight FRA-PSA and guess what? No LCC flies this route, only legacy carriers who all charge way too much. But wait a moment, FR flies HHN-PSA for almost nothing. Bingo! All you need is to get from FRA to HHN. Then wouldn't it be better if WN would fly directly BOS-HHN instead of BOS-FRA? It would save you a ground trip FRA-HHN.

I remember this from my trip to Thailand a few years back. Went to CNX and my LCC flight (DY) took me to BKK. There are no LCC flights from BKK to CNX, but a lot from DMK so straight after arrival at BKK I took the shuttle bus to DMK for my connecting flight to CNX. Then wouldn't it be better if DY would just have dropped me off at DMK instead of BKK? BKK may be larger, but DMK is larger in low-cost.

The optimists talking about WN connecting to/from European LCCs are missing a vital point. European LCCs don't do connections - with two major exceptions: Norwegian, who connect between their own flights - and they're really not going to co-operate with an airline competing with them across the Atlantic, and Vueling - who connect between their own flights and those of BA, EI, IB, and now AA, and as a wholly owned subsidiary of IAG they're not likely to co-operate with WN either.
Ryanair said they would have a trial of connections between their own flights, an option that currently doesn't exist. This should have started by now, but hasn't. Many people think they've found out how much extra it will cost them in increased handling and in boarding delays - this is the airline with the 25 minute turn for a 189 seat 738 using allocated seating - and can't see enough increased revenue to offset it, or that the airports they often use simply aren't designed for connecting passengers. The other two big players, easyJet and Wizzair, don't connect between their own flights, let alone anyone else's and have announced nothing that would change that.

Suggesting STN as a suitable connecting airport for passengers from the USA to elsewhere in Europe does bring problems. The place has no transit channels and in common with most UK and Irish airports there is rigid segregation of arriving and departing passengers. Everyone has to clear UK Immigration, pass through baggage reclaim, UK customs and go landside in order to start again for the next flight. There's a reason why Norwegian use LGW even though it is more expensive than STN - it has transit "Flight Connections" routes which bypass immigration and customs for international - international through ticketed passengers. That's apart from the bigger O&D traffic at Gatwick which has a larger population in the area and better road and rail links to much of London and beyond.