dfw88 wrote:

9lflyguy wrote:

Well, comparing anything to the last few months isn't reality, and I'd say more kudos to UA for recognizing a reduced schedule was needed.

Destinations served in Colorado (and you will never see WN overtake UA in Colorado):

UA: DEN/COS/HDN/MTJ/EGE/ASE/DRO/GUC/GJT/PUB
WN: DEN/COS/HDN/MTJ

In destinations, probably not. In passengers carried, it's possible. And lets be honest, how many of those UA routes are EAS subsidies?

Um, one? None of the ski markets are EAS. Just PUB (and I think UA is picking up ALS early next year).

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-03/Current%20list%20of%20EAS-Eligible%20communities%20excl%20AK%20%20HI_Feb2020_0.pdf

I think he meant how many routes out of DEN are EAS (though, I could be wrong). If that's his point - the list is quite long, now that OO has stepped up EAS bidding.

Still a lot more destinations than SWA - but again, the O&D traffic heavily favors WN out of DEN in recent years

Cubsrule wrote:

evank516 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

I'm trying to think of a market that is as small and as DL-focused as SAV that they have started ex-SAV, and I don't think any of those you've identified fits the bill. I think we might see ATL down the road once they have some brand equity in SAV - very much like what happened with CHS - but I don't see how they benefit from opening the station with ATL.

GSP, no?

GSP opened with the same cities as CHS (BNA/BWI/HOU/MDW) plus MCO. I'd make a similar point about GSP as I would about CHS, although I think CHS is a more similar market to SAV than is GSP.

Yeah, but weren’t they down to JUST ATL for a while there? I think RIC ended up the same way. Not sure what happened with them in this mess, but pre-COVID I think both saw other destinations return.

bob75013 wrote:

Southwest says it is investigating the A220 as a fleet addition:

https://finance.yahoo.com/m/68e85392-3f ... hwest.html

Most likely would only happen via an M&A event which GK didn’t dismiss as a possibility after we get out of this pandemic. Since there are only two Airlines (technically one Airline and one Air Line), I’ll let you all speculate on which one WN would probably be interested in.

flyfresno wrote:

WN732 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

I will be curious to see whether WN changes their tune when it comes to dedicated gate space. While I haven't seen any direct confirmation about this, multiple rumors (as well as WN gate situations at most of their domestic airports) supports their desire for dedicated (not shared) gates. FAT has been adamant about sharing gates between carriers (not having any dedicated gates, even though, in practice, most gates at FAT are dedicated right now), and I wonder how much that has played and will play into WN choosing to serve FAT. The new concourse and FIS gates aren't scheduled to open for at least two years, and there will only be two of them. If we assume those gates will be used for Y4 and AM, as well as F9 and G4 during the day, and we give one jetway each to DL (11) and UA (15 - plus lower gates 5 & 7), two jetways to AS (8 & 12) and two to AA (14 & 16), that only leaves one dedicated WN gate (17), assuming they don't want to use air stairs (and why should they), and that's after construction is complete. Enough?

One gate for WN should be fine. They could still squeeze 10 flights or more per day if they wanted to. I don't think they would start with that many, but they would definitely grow into FAT.

I would assume so. Probably something like 6am to DEN, 7am tow from RON to PHX, 9am from SAN -> 10am to SAN, 11am from PHX -> 12pm to LAS, 4pm from LAS -> 5pm to SAN, 6pm from SAN -> 7PM to LAS, 9pm from DEN tow to RON (-> PHX next morning), 10pm from LAS (-> DEN next morning).

FAT- SAN is slow to recover in this Covid environment and LAX is worse. My AS flights to LAX in the last month never have more than 15 pax on them.. Anything interstate is packed to where you’d never know there is a Covid problem, including PHX. I’d expect PHX and DEN. LAS to fill a five flight schedule. But then, I am not holding my breath. EUG may score first. SBA might start before FAT, although that’s well served out of BUR. FAT - fat chance?

They have already ordered 30 737-7MAX..But they can always cancel it..The 737 flies longer and has more capacity but it's 10tons heavier..do they need the extra capacity though? The A223 is extremely quiet,efficient and can do both short and long hops..Its max pax capacity is 160 but i suspect WN, would arrange for a 150config. They never fly high density config. anyway..If they do go for it, it would be an incredible boost for the A220 since they have about 490 737-700 in their fleet!..And if by 2025 are still on the Hawaii inter-island business, the A220 would be a much safer bet than the MAX..methinks

marcogr12 wrote:

They have already ordered 30 737-7MAX..But they can always cancel it..The 737 flies longer and has more capacity but it's 10tons heavier..do they need the extra capacity though? The A223 is extremely quiet,efficient and can do both short and long hops..Its max pax capacity is 160 but i suspect WN, would arrange for a 150config. They never fly high density config. anyway..If they do go for it, it would be an incredible boost for the A220 since they have about 490 737-700 in their fleet!..And if by 2025 are still on the Hawaii inter-island business, the A220 would be a much safer bet than the MAX..methinks

I think it’s very possible that WN would look into having the MAX 7 become ETOPS certified for Hawaii- BUR/SNA/DEN/LAS/PHX.

evank516 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

evank516 wrote:

GSP, no?

GSP opened with the same cities as CHS (BNA/BWI/HOU/MDW) plus MCO. I'd make a similar point about GSP as I would about CHS, although I think CHS is a more similar market to SAV than is GSP.

Yeah, but weren’t they down to JUST ATL for a while there? I think RIC ended up the same way. Not sure what happened with them in this mess, but pre-COVID I think both saw other destinations return.

GSP went down to just ATL. WN has struggled with cities in the southeast that don't have a leisure component, though CLT seems finally to be growing a bit.

I’d love for WN to order the 220 but I can’t help think this is just them saying they have options to get a better deal for some MAX7s

airplaneboy wrote:

marcogr12 wrote:

They have already ordered 30 737-7MAX..But they can always cancel it..The 737 flies longer and has more capacity but it's 10tons heavier..do they need the extra capacity though? The A223 is extremely quiet,efficient and can do both short and long hops..Its max pax capacity is 160 but i suspect WN, would arrange for a 150config. They never fly high density config. anyway..If they do go for it, it would be an incredible boost for the A220 since they have about 490 737-700 in their fleet!..And if by 2025 are still on the Hawaii inter-island business, the A220 would be a much safer bet than the MAX..methinks

I think it’s very possible that WN would look into having the MAX 7 become ETOPS certified for Hawaii- BUR/SNA/DEN/LAS/PHX.

If you read the article, you will notice that the Max 7 order is very suspect at this point. While being exclusive to the 737 has its benefits, they need a lower cost option to fill the 140-150 seat category, which has A220-300 written all over it. DEN-Hawaii may be out the question due to elevation and LAS due to heat, but they can definitely hit Hawaii from SNA/BUR/SEA-PDX/OAK/LAX/SFO/LGB/SAN/ONT/SJC and maybe even PHX.

The A223 has a significantly lower trip cost than the Max 7 and in this current environment, could probably get a near Delta deal for both models.

Jshank83 wrote:

I’d love for WN to order the 220 but I can’t help think this is just them saying they have options to get a better deal for some MAX7s

I completely agree. There's no way they bail on commonality for aircraft of that size. But then again, 2020 has been a weird year, and Southwest has been doing things that no one has ever dreamed they would.

panam330 wrote:

COS is a nifty, but great, addition to their expanding Colorado market. Wonder if they’ll choose to serve DEN-COS.
The return to JAN is bizarre; if they couldn’t make it work in much better times, what’s changed their minds? Subsidies, perhaps?

COS is a positively superb focus city for a carrier. Let's please see COS as a sparkling alternative to the big DEN. Bring it on. Solid local feed and serious alternative to DEN.

Sancho99504 wrote:

If you read the article, you will notice that the Max 7 order is very suspect at this point. While being exclusive to the 737 has its benefits, they need a lower cost option to fill the 140-150 seat category, which has A220-300 written all over it. DEN-Hawaii may be out the question due to elevation and LAS due to heat, but they can definitely hit Hawaii from SNA/BUR/SEA-PDX/OAK/LAX/SFO/LGB/SAN/ONT/SJC and maybe even PHX.

The A223 has a significantly lower trip cost than the Max 7 and in this current environment, could probably get a near Delta deal for both models.

Why would Hawaii- DEN and LAS flight conditions exclude the A220's successful performance?

NZ321 wrote:

panam330 wrote:

COS is a nifty, but great, addition to their expanding Colorado market. Wonder if they’ll choose to serve DEN-COS.
The return to JAN is bizarre; if they couldn’t make it work in much better times, what’s changed their minds? Subsidies, perhaps?

COS is a positively superb focus city for a carrier. Let's please see COS as a sparkling alternative to the big DEN. Bring it on. Solid local feed and serious alternative to DEN.

I know; I live in South Denver. At this point, with 25/225 and Peña traffic what it is, it’s almost faster to go to COS - and it’s certainly more convenient.

Sancho99504 wrote:

airplaneboy wrote:

marcogr12 wrote:

They have already ordered 30 737-7MAX..But they can always cancel it..The 737 flies longer and has more capacity but it's 10tons heavier..do they need the extra capacity though? The A223 is extremely quiet,efficient and can do both short and long hops..Its max pax capacity is 160 but i suspect WN, would arrange for a 150config. They never fly high density config. anyway..If they do go for it, it would be an incredible boost for the A220 since they have about 490 737-700 in their fleet!..And if by 2025 are still on the Hawaii inter-island business, the A220 would be a much safer bet than the MAX..methinks

I think it’s very possible that WN would look into having the MAX 7 become ETOPS certified for Hawaii- BUR/SNA/DEN/LAS/PHX.

If you read the article, you will notice that the Max 7 order is very suspect at this point. While being exclusive to the 737 has its benefits, they need a lower cost option to fill the 140-150 seat category, which has A220-300 written all over it. DEN-Hawaii may be out the question due to elevation and LAS due to heat, but they can definitely hit Hawaii from SNA/BUR/SEA-PDX/OAK/LAX/SFO/LGB/SAN/ONT/SJC and maybe even PHX.

The A223 has a significantly lower trip cost than the Max 7 and in this current environment, could probably get a near Delta deal for both models.

“Additional orders.” Southwest has committed to at least 30 units, some of which have already been produced and painted. They were to receive its first MAX 7s this year. I don’t have the data off hand, but my understanding is that the MAX 7 has the performance capability to fly DEN/LAS/PHX- Hawaii throughout much of the year.

Having the A220 would be a nice way to augment their current fleet needs, but I also don’t see how having a subfleet of MAX 7s hurts their bottom line when they will already have a large MAX 8 fleet. The MAX 7 has better ability to fly ETOPS missions from the short runways of BUR and SNA, as well as from the aforementioned LAS/PHX/DEN (which the MAX 8 cannot with a full payload) than the A220.

As only one of two customers who ordered the MAX 7, I would imagine WN has great negotiating power in thIs current environment to obtain additional MAX 7s at a great deal. Or to at least renegotiate the the acquisition costs of the 30 units they have on order.

I can see WN operating operating the MAX 7 & 8, along with the A220. The A220 would definitely provide lower trip costs for some of their missions, while the MAX 7 would be dedicated to ETOPS flying from airports with performance limitations. I’d imagine that certifying the MAX 7 and MAX 8 for ETOPS, on top of the existing ETOPS -800 NG fleet, would sufficiently meet their needs for Hawaii flying. Certifying the A220 for ETOPS on top of that wouldn’t be financially sound. If anything, the A220 (if ordered) would be used strictly on non ETOPS missions where the the -800/MAX 8 are too large, and the MAX 7 too heavy.

flyfresno wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Wow FAT gets snubbed big time. Just one comparison, in 2019, FAT had in 1,964,489 total pax while COS had 1,671,757. ALSO, FAT went up by over 10% 2018-2019, COS went down by 3%. Gotta wonder whether gate space has anything to do with this...

COS is quickly becoming the south suburb of Denver. Plenty of demand that isn't reflected in the boarding totals, as most people just drive to DEN.

Agreed, but two things to reply to that:

1) Perhaps they are changing their tune, but why would WN give up economies of scale and potentially cannibalize flights in such a large station in favor of COS, especially when DEN is a de facto hub? I realize that there will definitely be a number of WN FFs who will migrate to COS no matter what, but does WN specifically want to target those types of people? Wouldn't WN want to use these flights to mostly grab *new* passengers?

2) I don't live in that region, but how many nonstops and what sort of fares will it take to stop leakage? Would someone, for example, fly COS-MDW-LGA rather than drive to DEN and fly straight to LGA, assuming the same fares? What if COS is 10% higher? 20%?

As for your second question: The drive to DEN and the increased security and transit times (especially with all the construction on I-25 and in the terminal) can add 3 hours tot he trip and that's if the weather is good over Monument Hill.

El Paso County has a population over 600,000 people now, so let's not keep thinking COS is a sleepy little mountain town anymore.

flyfresno wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

The folks in Fresno are probably having steam coming from their ears right about now...all these new cities and they're STILL not added by WN.

I think this has gotta be at least partially about gate space. Current airport management at FAT's game plan is to operate the minimum number of gates possible and have all its airlines share, and the rumor is that WN does not like that idea. There's really no completely free gates that aren't ground level, and it will be a couple of years before any new ones open...

Wouldn't it be crazy if BFL gets WN service before FAT?

Excited to see JAN back since I have family in Ridgeland. When WN flew there I know they served BWI, DAL, HOU, MDW, MCO NS during their time there and was about 25% of their available seats when WN pulled out in 2014. 17 years and then POOF!

marcogr12 wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

If you read the article, you will notice that the Max 7 order is very suspect at this point. While being exclusive to the 737 has its benefits, they need a lower cost option to fill the 140-150 seat category, which has A220-300 written all over it. DEN-Hawaii may be out the question due to elevation and LAS due to heat, but they can definitely hit Hawaii from SNA/BUR/SEA-PDX/OAK/LAX/SFO/LGB/SAN/ONT/SJC and maybe even PHX.

The A223 has a significantly lower trip cost than the Max 7 and in this current environment, could probably get a near Delta deal for both models.

Why would Hawaii- DEN and LAS flight conditions exclude the A220's successful performance?

LAS is 2,181 feet above sea level and has temperatures that routinely exceed 100 degrees thru a significant portion of the year.
DEN is 5,430 feet above sea level and gets pretty warm during the summer.
A220-300 has a still air range of 3,400NM.
DEN-HNL is 2,924NM
LAS-HNL is 2,400NM, which might be doable afterall. I don't know how much the extreme heat degrades the GTF performance, but LAS-Hawaii was just a guess.

airplaneboy wrote:

I can see WN operating operating the MAX 7 & 8, along with the A220. The A220 would definitely provide lower trip costs for some of their missions, while the MAX 7 would be dedicated to ETOPS flying from airports with performance limitations. I’d imagine that certifying the MAX 7 and MAX 8 for ETOPS, on top of the existing ETOPS -800 NG fleet, would sufficiently meet their needs for Hawaii flying. Certifying the A220 for ETOPS on top of that wouldn’t be financially sound. If anything, the A220 (if ordered) would be used strictly on non ETOPS missions where the the -800/MAX 8 are too large, and the MAX 7 too heavy.

Some of their missions? What missions could A220 have lower trip cost than MAX? If they bite the bullet of adding a fleet type, I think they will place a pretty large order.

Heard a rumor today that WN will start COS with 13 daily flights to five destinations and will go on sale October 28. If true, we should find out the destinations quickly.

Sancho99504 wrote:

marcogr12 wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

If you read the article, you will notice that the Max 7 order is very suspect at this point. While being exclusive to the 737 has its benefits, they need a lower cost option to fill the 140-150 seat category, which has A220-300 written all over it. DEN-Hawaii may be out the question due to elevation and LAS due to heat, but they can definitely hit Hawaii from SNA/BUR/SEA-PDX/OAK/LAX/SFO/LGB/SAN/ONT/SJC and maybe even PHX.

The A223 has a significantly lower trip cost than the Max 7 and in this current environment, could probably get a near Delta deal for both models.

Why would Hawaii- DEN and LAS flight conditions exclude the A220's successful performance?

LAS is 2,181 feet above sea level and has temperatures that routinely exceed 100 degrees thru a significant portion of the year.
DEN is 5,430 feet above sea level and gets pretty warm during the summer.
A220-300 has a still air range of 3,400NM.
DEN-HNL is 2,924NM
LAS-HNL is 2,400NM, which might be doable afterall. I don't know how much the extreme heat degrades the GTF performance, but LAS-Hawaii was just a guess.

I dont know either but I do know that the AirBaltic A223 flies from the "desert" of Abu Dhabi to Riga 6h-6,5h non-stop without payload restrictions and AUH has similar weather conditions to LAS (but not the altitude)...

Cubsrule wrote:

evank516 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

GSP opened with the same cities as CHS (BNA/BWI/HOU/MDW) plus MCO. I'd make a similar point about GSP as I would about CHS, although I think CHS is a more similar market to SAV than is GSP.

Yeah, but weren’t they down to JUST ATL for a while there? I think RIC ended up the same way. Not sure what happened with them in this mess, but pre-COVID I think both saw other destinations return.

GSP went down to just ATL. WN has struggled with cities in the southeast that don't have a leisure component, though CLT seems finally to be growing a bit.

In a few months GSP will be back at ATL, BWI, and HOU.

BA744PHX wrote:

Now that is interesting, based on the quote "Leveraging additional airports in cornerstone cities where our customer base is large" I assume the following where they can connect the remaining network via these cities. Similar to what we've seen at PSP, MTJ & HDN

COS-DEN/PHX/DAL

I honestly can't see WN doing COS-DEN. First of all, I don't think they would waste an aircraft and resources on an 80 mile, 20 minute flight. The only way I could see this is if they intend to act as a spillover flight to capture OO /UA passengers that otherwise can't make that flight work for them.

Second, I work at COS and can tell you the DEN flights are delayed daily due to flow constraints in the Denver area. Most of the year, you might get a 15 minute delay, or you might get a 3 hour delay. I'm not sure WN wants to roll those dice and risk that many passengers missing connecting flights.

TWA302 wrote:

Excited to see JAN back since I have family in Ridgeland. When WN flew there I know they served BWI, DAL, HOU, MDW, MCO NS during their time there and was about 25% of their available seats when WN pulled out in 2014. 17 years and then POOF!

They never served DAL-JAN, despite the fact that the Wright Amendment allowed it.

They started service in the mid 90s with the other four but over time dropped BWI, MDW, and MCO. By the time the station closed, HOU was the lone market left.

Boeing is hurting because of the MAX debacle. WN is hurting because of the covid effects so it's looking at every situation to cut it's cost. It ordered the MAX8 and MAX7 in a high priced booming economy. Now everything has changed it's got a surplus of aircraft it's not struggling to searching the used market for 7377 anymore While it waits for the MAX to be ungrounded. They now have the leverage to force Boeing to renegotiate the list price of the MAX8 and MAX7. It helps WN even more that Airbus is also desperate to sale the A220 and they can easily accelerate it's deliveries should WN pull the trigger on a HUGE order. But WN is trying to control cost in this pandemic and post pandemic fallout so it's gonna be more costly to add another fleet type.
The winning thing going for Airbus and potentially WN is that the A220 economics on all 3 sizes give WN great opportunity for a smaller sub fleet it can use in markets were the MAX7 going to be to much aircraft.


Flyguy

Joeblow wrote:

TWA302 wrote:

Excited to see JAN back since I have family in Ridgeland. When WN flew there I know they served BWI, DAL, HOU, MDW, MCO NS during their time there and was about 25% of their available seats when WN pulled out in 2014. 17 years and then POOF!

They never served DAL-JAN, despite the fact that the Wright Amendment allowed it.

They started service in the mid 90s with the other four but over time dropped BWI, MDW, and MCO. By the time the station closed, HOU was the lone market left.

I thought it was very telling that nonstop DAL-JAN service was ever attempted. Even BKG was linked nonstop to DAL! I believe BWI-JAN and MDW-JAN did pretty poorly. I would be surprised to see anything other than HOU-JAN, ATL-JAN, and maybe a seasonal holiday JAN-MCO service.

SurfandSnow wrote:

Joeblow wrote:

TWA302 wrote:

Excited to see JAN back since I have family in Ridgeland. When WN flew there I know they served BWI, DAL, HOU, MDW, MCO NS during their time there and was about 25% of their available seats when WN pulled out in 2014. 17 years and then POOF!

They never served DAL-JAN, despite the fact that the Wright Amendment allowed it.

They started service in the mid 90s with the other four but over time dropped BWI, MDW, and MCO. By the time the station closed, HOU was the lone market left.

I thought it was very telling that nonstop DAL-JAN service was ever attempted. Even BKG was linked nonstop to DAL! I believe BWI-JAN and MDW-JAN did pretty poorly. I would be surprised to see anything other than HOU-JAN, ATL-JAN, and maybe a seasonal holiday JAN-MCO service.

Not saying you are wrong but just curious why DL has been able to consistently offer mainline out of JAN but WN struggled. But you would think GPT would have more appeal because of the casinos and resorts.

What about JAN-BNA? That might work.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

TTailedTiger wrote:

Not saying you are wrong but just curious why DL has been able to consistently offer mainline out of JAN but WN struggled. But you would think GPT would have more appeal because of the casinos and resorts.

I think GPT is still mostly a drive market except for charters. (GPT ranked only 152nd in enplanements last year.) And from what I've witnessed, it's a pretty old crowd.

SurfandSnow wrote:

Joeblow wrote:

TWA302 wrote:

Excited to see JAN back since I have family in Ridgeland. When WN flew there I know they served BWI, DAL, HOU, MDW, MCO NS during their time there and was about 25% of their available seats when WN pulled out in 2014. 17 years and then POOF!

They never served DAL-JAN, despite the fact that the Wright Amendment allowed it.

They started service in the mid 90s with the other four but over time dropped BWI, MDW, and MCO. By the time the station closed, HOU was the lone market left.

I thought it was very telling that nonstop DAL-JAN service was ever attempted. Even BKG was linked nonstop to DAL! I believe BWI-JAN and MDW-JAN did pretty poorly. I would be surprised to see anything other than HOU-JAN, ATL-JAN, and maybe a seasonal holiday JAN-MCO service.

This is probably about right, although JAN-MCO was generally regarded as the best (or least bad) performing route when JAN had a handful of routes. While it’s odd to say this about a domestic route, at one point JAN-CHI had a lot of VFR traffic owing to the Great Migration. Thirty years ago, it wasn’t at all uncommon to run in to Black folks in Chicago who had and visited with some regularity family in Alabama and Mississippi. Presumably the passage of time has decreased that traffic flow.

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Not saying you are wrong but just curious why DL has been able to consistently offer mainline out of JAN but WN struggled. But you would think GPT would have more appeal because of the casinos and resorts.

I think GPT is still mostly a drive market except for charters. (GPT ranked only 152nd in enplanements last year.) And from what I've witnessed, it's a pretty old crowd.

I was at the Beau Rivage in September and almost everyone there was from Ohio or Michigan. They flew down on charter flights. I doubt there would be much money to be made serving that crowd and the ones willing to pony up reasonable airfares can easily be served through NOLA.

TTailedTiger wrote:

SurfandSnow wrote:

Joeblow wrote:

Not saying you are wrong but just curious why DL has been able to consistently offer mainline out of JAN but WN struggled.

Only place DL flies to out of JAN is ATL. Since the pandemic started, most DL flights out of JAN have been on regional jets, with an occasional 717 sprinkled in. UA and AA are all regional jet. I live 8 miles away from JAN. I don't know what potential Southwest sees here, but the natives are happy to see it return.

[threeid][/threeid]

TTailedTiger wrote:

SurfandSnow wrote:

Joeblow wrote:

They never served DAL-JAN, despite the fact that the Wright Amendment allowed it.

They started service in the mid 90s with the other four but over time dropped BWI, MDW, and MCO. By the time the station closed, HOU was the lone market left.

I thought it was very telling that nonstop DAL-JAN service was ever attempted. Even BKG was linked nonstop to DAL! I believe BWI-JAN and MDW-JAN did pretty poorly. I would be surprised to see anything other than HOU-JAN, ATL-JAN, and maybe a seasonal holiday JAN-MCO service.

Not saying you are wrong but just curious why DL has been able to consistently offer mainline out of JAN but WN struggled. But you would think GPT would have more appeal because of the casinos and resorts.

I fly SNA-DFW-JAN 3 times a month on AA. Is DL still flying mainline there? I’ve seen a steady stream of CRJ9’s but I haven’t seen the 717 for few months. Of course I really haven’t been paying too close attention to DL there. WN should do ok in JAN. I just don’t know if they can fill a 700. I haven’t been on too many full CR9 or E-175’s on AA.

lat41 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

COS wasn't kept when they bought Morris Air could have been WN back door to Colorado all these years.

They quit limiting themselves to secondary (that is to say, distant or garbage) airports fifteen years ago when they started adding DEN, PHL, SFO, LGA, ATL... They need to go where the people are.

COS could never have been even 1/5th what DEN is today.

So e of the "distant or garbage" airports where they could be the monopolizing or dominant carrier and charge a premium were what built WN. Later on, at some cities "where the people are" competition hammered them.

Not to mention that those "distant or garbage" airports apparently included such secondary airports as MDW, BWI, DAL, HOU. Their network is still, to this day, built on the back of secondary airports. There are just a finite quantity of such airports in the US that can support frequent 737 service. They either needed to choose a new, smaller fleet type to continue expanding on that model or go into primary airports. Now times change again.

These airports sound like WN is getting ahead of a stiff breeze.

IADCA wrote:

Not to mention that those "distant or garbage" airports apparently included such secondary airports as MDW, BWI, DAL, HOU. Their network is still, to this day, built on the back of secondary airports. There are just a finite quantity of such airports in the US that can support frequent 737 service. They either needed to choose a new, smaller fleet type to continue expanding on that model or go into primary airports. Now times change again.

I would consider BWI to be a primary airport instead of a secondary airport as BWI carried more domestic passengers than DCA or IAD did in 2019.

On the other hand, I would consider MDW, DAL, HOU, and OAK to be secondary airports as MDW, DAL, HOU, and OAK carried fewer domestic passengers in 2019 than the primary airports in the same markets (ORD, DFW, IAH, and SFO). BWI also carried more domestic passengers than MDW, DAL, HOU, or OAK did in 2019.

Here is the breakdown of the number of domestic passengers in the Baltimore/Washington, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, and San Francisco Bay Area markets in 2019:

Baltimore/Washington (BWI/DCA/IAD):
BWI - 25836609
DCA - 22913161
IAD - 15701787

Chicago (ORD/MDW):
ORD - 68306867
MDW - 19800273

Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW/DAL):
DFW - 62518206
DAL - 16798378

Houston (IAH/HOU):
IAH - 33107906
HOU - 13710425

San Francisco Bay Area (SFO/OAK/SJC/STS):
SFO - 40878987
SJC - 14764727
OAK - 12604119
STS - 476912

Sancho99504 wrote:

marcogr12 wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

If you read the article, you will notice that the Max 7 order is very suspect at this point. While being exclusive to the 737 has its benefits, they need a lower cost option to fill the 140-150 seat category, which has A220-300 written all over it. DEN-Hawaii may be out the question due to elevation and LAS due to heat, but they can definitely hit Hawaii from SNA/BUR/SEA-PDX/OAK/LAX/SFO/LGB/SAN/ONT/SJC and maybe even PHX.

The A223 has a significantly lower trip cost than the Max 7 and in this current environment, could probably get a near Delta deal for both models.

Why would Hawaii- DEN and LAS flight conditions exclude the A220's successful performance?

LAS is 2,181 feet above sea level and has temperatures that routinely exceed 100 degrees thru a significant portion of the year.
DEN is 5,430 feet above sea level and gets pretty warm during the summer.
A220-300 has a still air range of 3,400NM.
DEN-HNL is 2,924NM
LAS-HNL is 2,400NM, which might be doable afterall. I don't know how much the extreme heat degrades the GTF performance, but LAS-Hawaii was just a guess.

Density altitude of DEN at 100F is 9134 ft.

Density altitude of LAS at 110F is 5800 ft.

I suspect that the A220-300 cannot depart DEN fully loaded (offloading either pax or fuel) on a 100 F degree day and thus range would be less than 3400 NM or passengers less than full load.

KLMatSJC wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

I’d love for WN to order the 220 but I can’t help think this is just them saying they have options to get a better deal for some MAX7s

I completely agree. There's no way they bail on commonality for aircraft of that size. But then again, 2020 has been a weird year, and Southwest has been doing things that no one has ever dreamed they would.

Then again, WN might make a lowball bid to snatch few of the 450+ MAX whitetails sitting around Washington state.

bob75013 wrote:

KLMatSJC wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

I’d love for WN to order the 220 but I can’t help think this is just them saying they have options to get a better deal for some MAX7s

I completely agree. There's no way they bail on commonality for aircraft of that size. But then again, 2020 has been a weird year, and Southwest has been doing things that no one has ever dreamed they would.

Then again, WN might make a lowball bid to snatch few of the 450+ MAX whitetails sitting around Washington state.

Those white tails lack the WN MAX galley set up which is unique only to WN .The retro fitting of those airplanes would almost eat up the cost savings WN would make on them.
AlaskaAir wants out of their VX Airbuses I'm gonna guess they will be taking the LOT.

Flyguy

wnflyguy wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

KLMatSJC wrote:

I completely agree. There's no way they bail on commonality for aircraft of that size. But then again, 2020 has been a weird year, and Southwest has been doing things that no one has ever dreamed they would.

Then again, WN might make a lowball bid to snatch few of the 450+ MAX whitetails sitting around Washington state.

Those white tails lack the WN MAX galley set up which is unique only to WN .The retro fitting of those airplanes would almost eat up the cost savings WN would make on them.
AlaskaAir wants out of their VX Airbuses I'm gonna guess they will be taking the LOT.

Flyguy

What’s the difference with the galleys? No ovens/warmers?

tomaheath wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

Then again, WN might make a lowball bid to snatch few of the 450+ MAX whitetails sitting around Washington state.

Those white tails lack the WN MAX galley set up which is unique only to WN .The retro fitting of those airplanes would almost eat up the cost savings WN would make on them.
AlaskaAir wants out of their VX Airbuses I'm gonna guess they will be taking the LOT.

Flyguy

What’s the difference with the galleys? No ovens/warmers?

WN MAX8 Has three galley work spaces.
The extra galley is located in the forward part of that aircraft right inside next to the forward Passengers service door in front of the Flight attendant Jumpseats.
This is unique option that only WN uses. It's basically the "C Flight attendants work space and beverage storage space".

Flyguy

wnflyguy wrote:

tomaheath wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

Those white tails lack the WN MAX galley set up which is unique only to WN .The retro fitting of those airplanes would almost eat up the cost savings WN would make on them.
AlaskaAir wants out of their VX Airbuses I'm gonna guess they will be taking the LOT.

Flyguy

What’s the difference with the galleys? No ovens/warmers?

WN MAX8 Has three galley work spaces.
The extra galley is located in the forward part of that aircraft right inside next to the forward Passengers service door in front of the Flight attendant Jumpseats.
This is unique option that only WN uses. It's basically the "C Flight attendants work space and beverage storage space".

Flyguy

For the record the galleys are absolutely asinine they try to keep the galleys 1970 design just so they can continue tray service which absolutely ridiculous, inefficient, and disgusting. Not to mentioned short sided.... On the other hand It Has been said that the new Galley design on the newer -800s and Max aircraft are quickly changeable for carts and ovens.

bob75013 wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

marcogr12 wrote:

Why would Hawaii- DEN and LAS flight conditions exclude the A220's successful performance?

LAS is 2,181 feet above sea level and has temperatures that routinely exceed 100 degrees thru a significant portion of the year.
DEN is 5,430 feet above sea level and gets pretty warm during the summer.
A220-300 has a still air range of 3,400NM.
DEN-HNL is 2,924NM
LAS-HNL is 2,400NM, which might be doable afterall. I don't know how much the extreme heat degrades the GTF performance, but LAS-Hawaii was just a guess.

Density altitude of DEN at 100F is 9134 ft.

Density altitude of LAS at 110F is 5800 ft.

I suspect that the A220-300 cannot depart DEN fully loaded (offloading either pax or fuel) on a 100 F degree day and thus range would be less than 3400 NM or passengers less than full load.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make.

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

With all these new destinations proposed by WN I'll throw another successful former FL city in the mix: BMI.

Wait...what?

FL was the old two-letter code for AirTran.

jplatts wrote:

IADCA wrote:

Not to mention that those "distant or garbage" airports apparently included such secondary airports as MDW, BWI, DAL, HOU. Their network is still, to this day, built on the back of secondary airports. There are just a finite quantity of such airports in the US that can support frequent 737 service. They either needed to choose a new, smaller fleet type to continue expanding on that model or go into primary airports. Now times change again.

I would consider BWI to be a primary airport instead of a secondary airport as BWI carried more domestic passengers than DCA or IAD did in 2019.

Since when did only domestic passengers count as passengers? And you've just posted a pretty interesting example of circular logic: somehow, by flying a ton of flights into the third airport of a multi-airport city, WN has apparently turned it into the primary airport.

IADCA wrote:

jplatts wrote:

IADCA wrote:

Not to mention that those "distant or garbage" airports apparently included such secondary airports as MDW, BWI, DAL, HOU. Their network is still, to this day, built on the back of secondary airports. There are just a finite quantity of such airports in the US that can support frequent 737 service. They either needed to choose a new, smaller fleet type to continue expanding on that model or go into primary airports. Now times change again.

I would consider BWI to be a primary airport instead of a secondary airport as BWI carried more domestic passengers than DCA or IAD did in 2019.

Since when did only domestic passengers count as passengers? And you've just posted a pretty interesting example of circular logic: somehow, by flying a ton of flights into the third airport of a multi-airport city, WN has apparently turned it into the primary airport.

But isn’t BWI only the “third airport” because it markets itself as “Washington?” I mean, if it were still BAL/Friendship, wouldn’t we just call it (accurately) Baltimore’s primary airport?

BMWdrvr75 wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

tomaheath wrote:

What’s the difference with the galleys? No ovens/warmers?

WN MAX8 Has three galley work spaces.
The extra galley is located in the forward part of that aircraft right inside next to the forward Passengers service door in front of the Flight attendant Jumpseats.
This is unique option that only WN uses. It's basically the "C Flight attendants work space and beverage storage space".

Flyguy

For the record the galleys are absolutely asinine they try to keep the galleys 1970 design just so they can continue tray service which absolutely ridiculous, inefficient, and disgusting. Not to mentioned short sided.... On the other hand It Has been said that the new Galley design on the newer -800s and Max aircraft are quickly changeable for carts and ovens.

LOL ok where to start:

No this G7 galley is NOT unique to WN. SAS had it on their 736, and DL has it on their 717. It's not NEW, or specific to WN by any stretch.

As for this galley "quick change"... no. The FWD galleys could never hold ovens or carts. That leaves the AFT Galleys. Yes they could add ovens, but given that they couldn't add carts, and "meal" carts can't be used for anything else unless they are removed and sanitized (this is what you see conventional airline catering doing).. then WN cannot offer meals onboard. It was just a "selling" point to the employees...

tphuang wrote:

If they bite the bullet of adding a fleet type, I think they will place a pretty large order.

I agree. If they add the 220, it will be in a big way. Seems WN is considering more small markets that cannot support 175 seats or even 150. WN knows that if they want to expand into this uncharted territory, they need something lighter and more cost effective for the size. Going with a small sub fleet of 220s adds too many costs for the benefits. Have to go big or stay home.

Adding a small sub fleet of Max7s on the other hand might still work OK for WN for niche routes. They already have a small sub fleet of ETOPS -800s. But a big order of Max7s doesn’t make much sense to me because it doesn’t open the door to smaller market expansion like the 220s. I guess it all depends on WNs expansion plans and if they decide to pursue smaller markets.

Finally, just so I’m clear, I don’t think Boeing ever built the true Max7 and instead went with the larger Max7.5. Is that now being officially called the Max7?

Sancho99504 wrote:

they need a lower cost option to fill the 140-150 seat category...

Why do they? Upgauging has been a thing for a decade with U.S. carriers. UA hasn't taken a new anything smaller than a 738. WN didn't take a single new -700 after the first 737-800 delivery in 2012. Look at what Spirit and Frontier have done. Pilots aren't flying any faster than they did 40 years ago. If you want to increase pilot hour/$ productivity you upgauge. The 3Q20 10-K filing references flying the -800s vs. the -700s for better economics - even in a time of crushed demand. If you're chasing leisure customers frequency doesn't matter (much); CASM does. Lots and lots of routes don't need 10x seven days a week.

LotsaRunway wrote:

tphuang wrote:

If they bite the bullet of adding a fleet type, I think they will place a pretty large order.

I agree. If they add the 220, it will be in a big way. Seems WN is considering more small markets that cannot support 175 seats or even 150. WN knows that if they want to expand into this uncharted territory, they need something lighter and more cost effective for the size. Going with a small sub fleet of 220s adds too many costs for the benefits. Have to go big or stay home.

Adding a small sub fleet of Max7s on the other hand might still work OK for WN for niche routes. They already have a small sub fleet of ETOPS -800s. But a big order of Max7s doesn’t make much sense to me because it doesn’t open the door to smaller market expansion like the 220s. I guess it all depends on WNs expansion plans and if they decide to pursue smaller markets.

Finally, just so I’m clear, I don’t think Boeing ever built the true Max7 and instead went with the larger Max7.5. Is that now being officially called the Max7?

I believe all the first MAX7 are supposed to be ETOPS. These will be better for Hawaii operations giving them the ability to fly BUR,SNA,PHX,LAS and DEN without weight restrictions. In addition the 150 seat MAX7 will only require 3 flight attendants vs 4 on the MAX8.
That saves money on Crew Hotel cost in Hawaii.
I think with the MAX7 would also give ITO the right amount of seats to be profitable for Mainland flight to OAK,LAS or the LA area if and when they pick a city to start from.

Flyguy