KlimaBXsst wrote:

So in Southwest’s 40 plus year history:

-737’s have become unreliable (incorrect)
-single fleet types are less profitably efficient (incorrect)
-Southwest needs aircraft differently sized from the 737 (incorrect)
-employees cross-utilized across different aircraft architectures are more efficient (incorrect)

WHAT is CORRECT

- the length of the 737 MAX grounding is unprecedented
- Design culture at Boeing and Boeing really messed up on the MAX
- Boeing has all of its eggs in the 737 MAX narrow body basket. SIGNIFICANT.

(In the past Airlines could swap to a 737, 727, 757 or even the 717 for a while, to meet their narrow body short-medium haul needs if something wasn’t working as it should. Airlines cannot necessarily ask Boeing to switch back to NG or Classic 737s)

Maybe it is time for Boeing to have a range of narrow-body aircraft instead of just one type.

The A223's would be perfect 737-7 replacements on the low end and A321NEO family to cover the high end,
with many 738NG's and Max 8 still making up the bulk of WN's fleet.

As for the percentages, I leave that to the experts in WN fleet plannng to figure that out

bob75013 wrote:

747megatop wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

Did WN's earnings report help you come to that conclusion?

Common sense and then this - https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/business ... index.html

Ahh, so the most profitable airline in the US. The airlne tht has suceeeded by doing the opposite of what the various talking heads told it to do, should now start listening to talking head experts now?

Really???

There is a reason WN didn't go BK wen all the legacies did. There is a reason WN has nrvver laid an enoloyee off whie the legacies laid off thousands and thousands/.
There is a reason WN has been profitable for over 40 consecutive years (the legacies might get there is they have another 35 straight years of profits).

The reason is that WN does what WN thinks it needs to do to be a great company -- F..K the talking heads and what they think.

Well, right now WN's board and CEO seem to be agreeing with the "talking head experts". BTW, the "talking head experts" are just echoing what they are seeing in news reports and just voicing what they think (speculating if you will...typically what 99% of folks do on a.net). WN's board & CEO are not expected to start listening to any of the "talking head experts". And btw, where did you come to the conclusion that WN IS profitable only because of an all 737 fleet? Sounds like a "talking head expert" conclusion to me. Let the CEO (who knows more than any of us here) + board make that determination...maybe they have a way of keeping WN profitable (and maybe more profitable) with 2 or more suppliers for their fleet; for example...starting by having Airbus to sweeten the deal with a massive discount + free cross training for pilots thrown in. They (Aribus) i am sure are watching the unfolding events with glee. All Airbus has to do is not mess up like Boeing did on the basic design of an aircraft and put lives at stake.

Just curious, why does a CEO need a green light from the chairman in order to look at other manufacturers?

Doesn’t the CEO have the authority to choose the aircraft that he or she thinks would maximize the value of shareholders regardless of the supplier?

Eyad89 wrote:

Just curious, why does a CEO need a green light from the chairman in order to look at other manufacturers?

Doesn’t the CEO have the authority to choose the aircraft that he or she thinks would maximize the value of shareholders regardless of the supplier?

I’m not privy to how these decisions work at WN, but it usually is about optics, it’s a signal to shareholders and Wall Street that the company’s board and leadership are in sync and are examining the way the company does business. Fleet procurement is a huge capital investment, so while the nuances of the choice of aircraft comes down to the airline said leadership, presenting the business case for the decision would go before the board.

Eyad89 wrote:

Just curious, why does a CEO need a green light from the chairman in order to look at other manufacturers?

Doesn’t the CEO have the authority to choose the aircraft that he or she thinks would maximize the value of shareholders regardless of the supplier?

Large capital investments are typically overseen by the BOD as a means of regulation and protection of the shareholders.

INFINITI329 wrote:

Gary Kelly on Bloomberg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-HcFKa_2KQ

Some interesting quotes from this interview:

"We speak to Airbus all the time"

"The 737-8 is the best narrowbody airplane in the world - and we still believe that"

"Boeing doesn't really have a close as competitor to the Airbus A220, which is something we've already been looking at"

"We've already decided the MAX is our future, we have orders for the MAX 7 in addition the MAX 8, and I'm hopefully we can continue with that, but that's something we'll have to take a good hard look at next year."


He also mentions that Southwest is 8% below expected capacity due to the Boeing MAX problems, and that other airlines are picking up the slack.

It's worth noting that while Southwest does have a majority 737-700 fleet currently, they only have 30 737-7 MAX on order, and 23 deliveries have been deferred to beyond 2023. This means that Southwest is not happy with the 737-7 MAX, AND/OR they believe the 737-8 MAX is the right size of aircraft going forward.

JetBuddy wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

Gary Kelly on Bloomberg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-HcFKa_2KQ

Some interesting quotes from this interview:

"We speak to Airbus all the time"

"The 737-8 is the best narrowbody airplane in the world - and we still believe that"

"Boeing doesn't really have a close as competitor to the Airbus A220, which is something we've already been looking at"

"We've already decided the MAX is our future, we have orders for the MAX 7 in addition the MAX 8, and I'm hopefully we can continue with that, but that's something we'll have to take a good hard look at next year."


He also mentions that Southwest is 8% below expected capacity due to the Boeing MAX problems, and that other airlines are picking up the slack.

It's worth noting that while Southwest does have a majority 737-700 fleet currently, they only have 30 737-7 MAX on order, and 23 deliveries have been deferred to beyond 2023. This means that Southwest is not happy with the 737-7 MAX, AND/OR they believe the 737-8 MAX is the right size of aircraft going forward.

In other words, at best it's just another periodic episode of due diligence, combined with some opportunism now that Boeing has set aside $billions for MAX damages.

JetBuddy wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

Gary Kelly on Bloomberg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-HcFKa_2KQ

Some interesting quotes from this interview:

"We speak to Airbus all the time"

"The 737-8 is the best narrowbody airplane in the world - and we still believe that"

"Boeing doesn't really have a close as competitor to the Airbus A220, which is something we've already been looking at"

"We've already decided the MAX is our future, we have orders for the MAX 7 in addition the MAX 8, and I'm hopefully we can continue with that, but that's something we'll have to take a good hard look at next year."


He also mentions that Southwest is 8% below expected capacity due to the Boeing MAX problems, and that other airlines are picking up the slack.

It's worth noting that while Southwest does have a majority 737-700 fleet currently, they only have 30 737-7 MAX on order, and 23 deliveries have been deferred to beyond 2023. This means that Southwest is not happy with the 737-7 MAX, AND/OR they believe the 737-8 MAX is the right size of aircraft going forward.

It doesn't mean that WN is unhappy with the Max7 at all. It means that Southwes has over 500 700s, most of which are no where near retirement, and has no immediate need for large numbers of Max7 size aircraaft. That ime will come.

This is some of the potential after-effects of Boeing's "penny-wise, pound foolish" shortcuts on the 737 Max. There will be the direct costs of the grounding, but potentially tens or hundreds of billions in longer term strategic impacts.

So what we know now is that in addition to assigned seats and charging for all bags, WN will now operate Airbus a/c...yaaah.

Due diligence and a cry for lower costs and compensation from Boeing. That's all I see here.

Eyad89 wrote:

Just curious, why does a CEO need a green light from the chairman in order to look at other manufacturers?

Doesn’t the CEO have the authority to choose the aircraft that he or she thinks would maximize the value of shareholders regardless of the supplier?

2 words. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. If it was a privately run sole proprietor company it would have been a different ball game, the founder/ceo could have run it like a dictatorship then.
As an example (of corporate governance & the topic at hand); Alan Mulally, the then CEO of BCAG had to seek the Boeing board's approval to offer the 7E7 (later renamed as 787) for sale - http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 17%29.html

bob75013 wrote:

It doesn't mean that WN is unhappy with the Max7 at all. It means that Southwes has over 500 700s, most of which are no where near retirement, and has no immediate need for large numbers of Max7 size aircraaft. That ime will come.

I'll be moderately surprised if WN takes more than the 7 MAX 7s already built, and very surprised if it takes more than 100. The Max 8 is the 737-700 replacement aircraft as things stand today.

barney captain wrote:

"Southwest always had a lot to say about projected modifications to the 737, and Kelleher’s team mostly wanted as few technical modifications as possible. With the MAX, they upped the ante: According to Rick Ludtke, a former Boeing employee, Boeing agreed to rebate Southwest $1 million for every MAX it bought, if the FAA required level-D simulator training for the carrier’s pilots."

And? Notwithstanding the fact that "Kelleher's team" didn't even exist for the MAX development (Kelly had long since taken over), I see nowhere in that piece where WN insisted on anything wrt the MAX. Boeing made a business agreement to offset WN for additional training (if required). When industry discounts on new aircraft are often approaching 40% of list price, a one million dollar a unit offset is a statistical zero.

And how, pray tell, was Boeing going to sell aircraft to anyone that required time in a level-D sim, when those sims wouldn't even be available for months and years after it's release?

They couldn't.

Blame Big Bad WN all you want, these were business decisions that drove the MAX to not require sim training. Just like the NG - and that was a MUCH bigger jump in technology.

It’s not huge, but over an order of hundreds of aircraft it’s more money than you make it out to be. If the were to impose this rebate to WN, it is probable that everyone else with 737NGs would want it too. Again, you have a point, this is not the hugest or issues as per unit it’s not that much money , but it exists as a factor nonetheless.

Might I also remind you that Boeing was planning to make a clean sheet narrowbody until Airbus re-engined the A320 and existing 737 customers lobbied for a Boeing alternative to come out quickly so that they could remain competitive with airlines signing on with the new A320. Was Southwest not one of these customers, if not the largest and most influential Boeing customer? Were they not one of these airlines asking a cheap, quick, and convenient competitor to this more efficient plane everyone else was getting?

barney captain wrote:

And how, pray tell, was Boeing going to sell aircraft to anyone that required time in a level-D sim, when those sims wouldn't even be available for months and years after it's release?

How have they done it every other time a new aircraft is engineered? Again it’s the customer that lobbied for this accelerated timeframe, Southwest arguably being one of the most influential.

For my performance guys, I got a couple of Airbus related questions. (These are out pure curiosity to just see the options that Southwest is weighing)

What kind of performance (range) would a 200 seat A321N with 180 bags have out of MDW? (Assuming dry conditions)

While most likely a stunt to get a discount, they are at a scale in which they can economically open up other types of aircraft, what about E-Jet family to take up smaller routes? While they do fly to many states they have a large hole in the midwest such as the Dakotas and while such niche markets don't warrant a whole new fleet type it would:
A. Open up smaller markets and more niche flying
B. Free up 737-700s to help with 737 MAX flying
I'm sure I am wrong for a variety of reasons and I would love to know why or why not!

william wrote:

keesje wrote:

Slowly reality is sinking in.

Just one thing is worse than leaving the sole 737 fleet strategy, that is sticking with it.


Source photo: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/05/07/luchtvaartramp-boeing-zweeg-over-ontbreken-van-waarschuwingssysteem-in-737-max-a3959328

Ah, yes, the Anet motto-

One fleet strategy with Airbus good.

One fleet strategy with Boeing bad.

That's what I gather from reading these posts.

Realistically... there is going to be a 737 replacement. So Southwest will have two fleet types eventually anyway.

-The Boeing 737 Replacement
-The Boeing 737 NG / MAX

Might as well have

“AxZ aircraft manufacturer” supply Southwest with “AxZ aircraft”

so Southwest’s risks are minimized when it goes back to an All Boeing fleet, when the Boeing 737 Replacement is ready, or just stick with AxZ manufacturers aircraft as the 737s are retired.

Southwest has to face it the MAX is the last 737 so they are going to have two fleet types eventually.

(Whoops posted on wrong line)

Truthfully

Southwest’s none cart cabin service worked FAR BETTER on a 737-200 sized or smaller aircraft anyway.

There seems to be so much more passenger tension on a Southwest flight then in the old days.

seabosdca wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

It doesn't mean that WN is unhappy with the Max7 at all. It means that Southwes has over 500 700s, most of which are no where near retirement, and has no immediate need for large numbers of Max7 size aircraaft. That ime will come.

I'll be moderately surprised if WN takes more than the 7 MAX 7s already built, and very surprised if it takes more than 100. The Max 8 is the 737-700 replacement aircraft as things stand today.

I would be surprised if no more were taken. I would be surprised is more than 20 are taken up. With the improved short field of the -8 and the HUGE -700 fleet which must be usable until a MAX replacement is available

Lightsaber

KlimaBXsst wrote:

(Whoops posted on wrong line)

Truthfully

Southwest’s none cart cabin service worked FAR BETTER on a 737-200 sized or smaller aircraft anyway.

There seems to be so much more passenger tension on a Southwest flight then in the old days.

I fly WN over 30 times a year, and I sure don't see that.

lightsaber wrote:

I would be surprised if no more were taken. I would be surprised is more than 20 are taken up. With the improved short field of the -8 and the HUGE -700 fleet which must be usable until a MAX replacement is available

I guess the question is what the minimum number is to operate the fleet in a viable way. I was assuming that MAX 7s can be scheduled interchangeably with -700s. If not, I tend to agree with you that something like 20-25 will be needed to make the fleet viable. But I just don't see the need for a MAX 7 fleet when the MAX 8 can reach any Southwest destination other than Hawaii from Midway, or any destination from Burbank, with a full passenger load at only very slightly increased cost.

Should WN order E175 like DL, AA, UA and AS next? It's useful for operating at smaller airports.

UA772IAD wrote:

Recall other things that would "never" happen in the airline world, until they did:
- UA would never order another GE engine after UA 232
- AA would never order another Airbus after AA587
- UA would never actually order the A320 over the 737...
I'm sure there are many others.

Like UA's order for the A350 (presuming it ever comes to fruition)?

SQ789 wrote:

Should WN order E175 like DL, AA, UA and AS next? It's useful for operating at smaller airports.

No, the smallest WN should go is 100 seats if they decide to go smaller

Unfortunately, I don’t see WN pulling the trigger on anything other than another 737 variant. Let’s face it, WN is about as bland as a saltine cracker.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 737-8 looks rightsized for SW and will carry on for at least 20 years, if everything goes right.

At this stage the bulk of the fleet is 737-700, that might change into the larger variant.

The A220-300 looks very good for Southwest replacing at least most of the 737-700s.

- Right capacity <150 seats) as 737-700 replacement
- Quiet, efficient engines
- Way lighter and leaner
- More comfortable (space, noise)
- Lot's of US content & assembly


https://twitter.com/leehamnews/status/1 ... lang=en-gb

Southwest sidelined the MAX-7 already before the crashes / MAX grounding.

https://blog.wandr.me/2018/01/boeings-7 ... southwest/, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... x-7-planes

keesje wrote:

Southwest sidelined the MAX-7 already before the crashes / MAX grounding.

Not entirely true. I was in Seattle last October and there are already five 737-7s built and painted for Southwest and one of the articles you linked said they were due to receive seven in 2019. Yes, that's less than originally planned, but they're still taking -7s.

scbriml wrote:

keesje wrote:

Southwest sidelined the MAX-7 already before the crashes / MAX grounding.

Not entirely true. I was in Seattle last October and there are already five 737-7s built and painted for Southwest and one of the articles you linked said they were due to receive seven in 2019. Yes, that's less than originally planned, but they're still taking -7s.

I think Southwest committed to the ones already in production & deferred the rest for years.

It would be good to see Southwest go back to its roots and into the small to mid size cities nonstop which made it so loved in its early history.

A super efficient 112 seat sized aircraft would be nice again.

Wonder if the board approved looking at a new fleet type that is already painted yellow and is currently being deployed in several SW focus cities. Could solve a fleet selection problem and competitive take out with one move.

This strikes me as being different from mere posturing. Before, we had Southwest's CEO saying yes, we're always open to looking at new types. That was posturing. Now, however, we've got the board literally saying yes, go look at other planes, Please! That's just one or two steps away from authority to order, or to at least negotiate an order.

I don't doubt that this is at least partly intended to ramp up the pressure on Boeing. However, this also seems to possess the ring of seriousness, as well. With airlines like American blocking out the MAX until August at the earliest, and the prospect of the MAX remaining out even longer, operating a smaller subtype as Southwest grows in size actually might make some sense, especially for such a long ranged aircraft as the A220. And, you just know that Airbus would do just about anything to steal away one of Boeing's most loyal customers, even for just a few dozen jets. Imagine dirt cheap A220s (made in the USA to avoid any tariff nonsense) in Southwest colors, flying relatively medium to long haul from smaller, more outlying airports. With the right fare structure, it just might be worth it.

Were I Boeing, I wouldn't discount this as simple posturing. I'd see this as a legitimate and very serious threat and act accordingly. If they don't, I could easily see Southwest buying some A220s in the very near future, fleet commonality be darned.

Bob

I wonder if WN regrets getting rid of their 717s they got with AirTran. Would have been a cool to see a tailjet in WN colors.

INFINITI329 wrote:

SQ789 wrote:

Should WN order E175 like DL, AA, UA and AS next? It's useful for operating at smaller airports.

No, the smallest WN should go is 100 seats if they decide to go smaller

A220 or Embraer 190 E2 or maybe Spacejet is the other options then.

Aptivaboy wrote:

If they don't, I could easily see Southwest buying some A220s in the very near future, fleet commonality be darned.

Problem is that fleet commonality is a big thing for an organization run the way WN is.

I think we'll see how things go once WN gets more -800s in its fleet.

Southwest Airlines needs about 100 more Boeing 737-8s before turning its attention to the 737-7, CEO Gary Kelly told LNC in a press scrum at the 2018 Aviation Summit today, sponsored by the US Chamber of Commerce.

The current fleet of 737-700s won’t see retirements until about 2022, at which time the need for the 7 MAX arises.

Earlier this year, Southwest deferred delivery of 23 of 30 7 MAXs from the next two years until 2023-24.

Kelly, responding to a question from LNC, said he expects that perhaps 60% of the fleet will eventually be the MAX 7. Southwest currently has more than 500 737-700s.

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/01/south ... ing-737-7/

indcwby wrote:

I wonder if WN regrets getting rid of their 717s they got with AirTran. Would have been a cool to see a tailjet in WN colors.

At that time WN didn't have the software configured appropriately for efficient maintenance of a 2nd fleet type. Nor training. Core strengths are also core rigidities, companies really good at only one thing have trouble.

That said, SouthWest learned and started adapting. If they bring in a second type, it will be done better.

I see WN wanting shortfield performance, decent range (TCON not required), efficient.
I really only see the A220 (-300 and maybe a few -100) and E2-195 (not -190) being contenders. The MRJ and other planes are too small.


Lightsaber

Problem is that fleet commonality is a big thing for an organization run the way WN is.

If the MAX remains out for a significant chunk of time, at some point SW may simply decide that the benefits of fleet commonality no longer benefit them in quite the same manner that they did before. Having a second type in the fleet would allow flights to remain flying (more or less) if one type was experiencing troubles. I don't see them leaving Boeing anytime soon, but the appeal of also not being completely tied to one manufacturer cannot be denied. It made economic sense very early in SW's history. It may not make as much sense today. Time will tell.

lightsaber wrote:

indcwby wrote:

I wonder if WN regrets getting rid of their 717s they got with AirTran. Would have been a cool to see a tailjet in WN colors.

At that time WN didn't have the software configured appropriately for efficient maintenance of a 2nd fleet type. Nor training. Core strengths are also core rigidities, companies really good at only one thing have trouble.

That said, SouthWest learned and started adapting. If they bring in a second type, it will be done better.

I see WN wanting shortfield performance, decent range (TCON not required), efficient.
I really only see the A220 (-300 and maybe a few -100) and E2-195 (not -190) being contenders. The MRJ and other planes are too small.


Lightsaber

So throwing this out there for airlines greatly affected by waiting for the MAX a/c to return to service. Don't know how the economics would work out, but would this not be something to sign a short term agreement with a regional jet operator to help with load management and keep their own a/c where they need it most. Just taking a stab at this and haven't seen this scenario out there.

indcwby wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

indcwby wrote:

I wonder if WN regrets getting rid of their 717s they got with AirTran. Would have been a cool to see a tailjet in WN colors.

At that time WN didn't have the software configured appropriately for efficient maintenance of a 2nd fleet type. Nor training. Core strengths are also core rigidities, companies really good at only one thing have trouble.

That said, SouthWest learned and started adapting. If they bring in a second type, it will be done better.

I see WN wanting shortfield performance, decent range (TCON not required), efficient.
I really only see the A220 (-300 and maybe a few -100) and E2-195 (not -190) being contenders. The MRJ and other planes are too small.


Lightsaber

So throwing this out there for airlines greatly affected by waiting for the MAX a/c to return to service. Don't know how the economics would work out, but would this not be something to sign a short term agreement with a regional jet operator to help with load management and keep their own a/c where they need it most. Just taking a stab at this and haven't seen this scenario out there.

May work for UA/AA/FR but absolutely no way SWAPA allows this.

KlimaBXsst wrote:

(Whoops posted on wrong line)

Truthfully

Southwest’s none cart cabin service worked FAR BETTER on a 737-200 sized or smaller aircraft anyway.

There seems to be so much more passenger tension on a Southwest flight then in the old days.

You don't ascirbe the increased tension to the generalized increase in tension in the entire USA at every instant in time? Just on WN planes? You are very short-sighted.

With the ways things keep going for the MAX, maybe we see it back in service by the fall? If not in service until 2021, why not look at other options.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Problem is that fleet commonality is a big thing for an organization run the way WN is.

If the MAX remains out for a significant chunk of time, at some point SW may simply decide that the benefits of fleet commonality no longer benefit them in quite the same manner that they did before. Having a second type in the fleet would allow flights to remain flying (more or less) if one type was experiencing troubles. I don't see them leaving Boeing anytime soon, but the appeal of also not being completely tied to one manufacturer cannot be denied. It made economic sense very early in SW's history. It may not make as much sense today. Time will tell.

You have to take in all the factors. Dual fleet provides protection against grounding but increases costs. Grounding is a very rare event, MAX is a historically worst case scenario unless you count Comet which never returned to service. MAX grounding will come with compensation payments in the form of cash and reduced prices on MAX going forward. WN really can't operate small planes with its current cost structure. You need a lot of seats to offset the increased trip costs due to higher pilot and FA contracts and operating at major airlines. MAX7 at 150 seats is about as small as they will go in the future ( IMO ), fits in with their current fleet structure and comes with discounts due to the grounding.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Were I Boeing, I wouldn't discount this as simple posturing. I'd see this as a legitimate and very serious threat and act accordingly. If they don't, I could easily see Southwest buying some A220s in the very near future, fleet commonality be darned.

Bob

As nervous as Boeing might be, I don't think they're THAT nervous. Long-term the relationship could be at risk, but where else is Southwest going to go right now? There aren't enough A220 slots available as far as I know for the next few years and they certainly wouldn't enter the fleet before the MAX issues get sorted out (barring another major setback, but it would have to be MAJOR). Same could be said for the A320 family.

So short of buying Neeleman out before Breeze gets off the ground, thereby gaining his early A220 slots, I think Southwest's best choice is to go all-in on the MAX right now and hope that everything gets sorted out correctly, including public perception. They might even be able to negotiate some insane discounts on already-built frames that are rejected by other airlines, if that happens.

And long-term I'm sure Southwest has resigned themselves to the fact that they're going to be a multi-type operator one way or another. The writing is on the wall. Whether they operate the A220 or A320 alongside the 737, or operate the eventual 737 replacement alongside the 737, either way at some point not too far in the future they're going to be operating two different types side by side for at least ten years or more. Even then I don't think it will be an issue because they'll still have hundreds of each type, so the scale of each fleet will still be working in their favor.

lightsaber wrote:

indcwby wrote:

I wonder if WN regrets getting rid of their 717s they got with AirTran. Would have been a cool to see a tailjet in WN colors.

At that time WN didn't have the software configured appropriately for efficient maintenance of a 2nd fleet type. Nor training. Core strengths are also core rigidities, companies really good at only one thing have trouble.

That said, SouthWest learned and started adapting. If they bring in a second type, it will be done better.

I see WN wanting shortfield performance, decent range (TCON not required), efficient.
I really only see the A220 (-300 and maybe a few -100) and E2-195 (not -190) being contenders. The MRJ and other planes are too small.


Lightsaber

A220-100 at 125 to 130 seats
and/or
A220--300 at 145 seats

East of Mississippi to West Coast , DEN to smaller stations east of the Appalachians/Smokies and smaller New Markets like TYS/XNA/COS/JAC/MSN,FAT ect, ect, ect.

IMO SWA potentially opening their fleet to other manufacturers’ and aircraft types doesn’t make a lot of financial or marketing sense, relative to maintaining the corporate long standing and successful “brand.”

Sadly (BTW I'm an American) the US FAA abdicated their regulatory responsibilities to Boeing for the previous 8 or so years. Just recently the FAA started crawling back to regain accountability and responsibility, only after the MAX issues surfaced around a year ago. Having not been adequately involved in the MAX (and other aircraft) regulatory responsibilities for generally that period of time, the concern is that after sitting on their (abdicating) behinds the past 8 or so years that the FAA may not have the adequate technical staff (the ‘ol gotten fat and lazy scenario) to respond to Boeing’s MAX revisions in a normal, timely manner. Hence the MAX RTS remains a moving target with IMO the FAA (now desperate to get respect back) moving at a snail’s pace…while desperately internally restructuring and resetting and finally now desperately challenging staff to actually “regulate.”

That being said, SWA is now increasingly being pressured to consider other brands, considering that the (desperately trying to heal) FAA seemingly has no reasonable schedule to review and approve the Boeing MAX revisions and resulting RTS. BTW, the FAA sadly has become a national embarrassment to many citizens of the USA, after formerly being the long standing premier aviation regulatory agency in the world.

Sooner787 wrote:

KlimaBXsst wrote:

So in Southwest’s 40 plus year history:

-737’s have become unreliable (incorrect)
-single fleet types are less profitably efficient (incorrect)
-Southwest needs aircraft differently sized from the 737 (incorrect)
-employees cross-utilized across different aircraft architectures are more efficient (incorrect)

WHAT is CORRECT

- the length of the 737 MAX grounding is unprecedented
- Design culture at Boeing and Boeing really messed up on the MAX
- Boeing has all of its eggs in the 737 MAX narrow body basket. SIGNIFICANT.

(In the past Airlines could swap to a 737, 727, 757 or even the 717 for a while, to meet their narrow body short-medium haul needs if something wasn’t working as it should. Airlines cannot necessarily ask Boeing to switch back to NG or Classic 737s)

Maybe it is time for Boeing to have a range of narrow-body aircraft instead of just one type.

The A223's would be perfect 737-7 replacements on the low end and A321NEO family to cover the high end,
with many 738NG's and Max 8 still making up the bulk of WN's fleet.

As for the percentages, I leave that to the experts in WN fleet plannng to figure that out

A220-300 smaller than the 737-7
A321 NEO make it into Midway?

Elementalism wrote:

Sooner787 wrote:

KlimaBXsst wrote:

So in Southwest’s 40 plus year history:

-737’s have become unreliable (incorrect)
-single fleet types are less profitably efficient (incorrect)
-Southwest needs aircraft differently sized from the 737 (incorrect)
-employees cross-utilized across different aircraft architectures are more efficient (incorrect)

WHAT is CORRECT

- the length of the 737 MAX grounding is unprecedented
- Design culture at Boeing and Boeing really messed up on the MAX
- Boeing has all of its eggs in the 737 MAX narrow body basket. SIGNIFICANT.

(In the past Airlines could swap to a 737, 727, 757 or even the 717 for a while, to meet their narrow body short-medium haul needs if something wasn’t working as it should. Airlines cannot necessarily ask Boeing to switch back to NG or Classic 737s)

Maybe it is time for Boeing to have a range of narrow-body aircraft instead of just one type.

The A223's would be perfect 737-7 replacements on the low end and A321NEO family to cover the high end,
with many 738NG's and Max 8 still making up the bulk of WN's fleet.

As for the percentages, I leave that to the experts in WN fleet plannng to figure that out

A220-300 smaller than the 737-7
A321 NEO make it into Midway?

Why would Southwest want to fly to Midway? I don’t think they are going to Australia any time soon and need of a diversion airfield. (;

737-7 is a bit long in the tooth going forward compared to the A220 offerings.

KlimaBXsst wrote:

737-7 is a bit long in the tooth going forward compared to the A220 offerings.

Many of those long teeth are there because WN asked Boeing to not change them.

cat3appr50 wrote:

IMO SWA potentially opening their fleet to other manufacturers’ and aircraft types doesn’t make a lot of financial or marketing sense, relative to maintaining the corporate long standing and successful “brand.”

Sadly (BTW I'm an American) the US FAA abdicated their regulatory responsibilities to Boeing for the previous 8 or so years. Just recently the FAA started crawling back to regain accountability and responsibility, only after the MAX issues surfaced around a year ago. Having not been adequately involved in the MAX (and other aircraft) regulatory responsibilities for generally that period of time, the concern is that after sitting on their (abdicating) behinds the past 8 or so years that the FAA may not have the adequate technical staff (the ‘ol gotten fat and lazy scenario) to respond to Boeing’s MAX revisions in a normal, timely manner. Hence the MAX RTS remains a moving target with IMO the FAA (now desperate to get respect back) moving at a snail’s pace…while desperately internally restructuring and resetting and finally now desperately challenging staff to actually “regulate.”

That being said, SWA is now increasingly being pressured to consider other brands, considering that the (desperately trying to heal) FAA seemingly has no reasonable schedule to review and approve the Boeing MAX revisions and resulting RTS. BTW, the FAA sadly has become a national embarrassment to many citizens of the USA, after formerly being the long standing premier aviation regulatory agency in the world.

Plenty to market with the A220, Neeleman has said they increased the seat width to 18inches to all seats, not just the middle seat on the 3 seat side. The 2x3bis more consumer friendly for pairs and famlies of three. It fits their model to a tee if you ask me. The downside is getting stuck on a 737 after having flown in an A220. The 2x3 seating is something you miss in Allegiant's all AB fleet now.

KlimaBXsst wrote:

Elementalism wrote:

Sooner787 wrote:

The A223's would be perfect 737-7 replacements on the low end and A321NEO family to cover the high end,
with many 738NG's and Max 8 still making up the bulk of WN's fleet.

As for the percentages, I leave that to the experts in WN fleet plannng to figure that out

A220-300 smaller than the 737-7
A321 NEO make it into Midway?

Why would Southwest want to fly to Midway? I don’t think they are going to Australia any time soon and need of a diversion airfield. (;

737-7 is a bit long in the tooth going forward compared to the A220 offerings.

I am pretty sure that refers to Chicago Midway...