I think the 150 number has to do with the need for an additional FA.

Boeing will sell the -7 at 1% over production cost if need be. This is just a bluff to get Boeing serious.


That said the A220 would be a perfect machine for Southwest and I'd love it to happen

I could see WN reducing its MAX order, along with, if they get a new agreement with the pilots union, to up-gauge some of the order to the 7M9 F with 198 seats. If WN considered the A220, they would be considering a large order to replace their 73G fleet, as Boeing doesn't really offer a 3 FA plane (the 7M7 is longer than the 73G). A large order like WN would be what could be used to ramp up production.

SEU wrote:

Boeing will sell the -7 at 1% over production cost if need be. This is just a bluff to get Boeing serious.


That said the A220 would be a perfect machine for Southwest and I'd love it to happen

I don't think WN is bluffing. I think this will be a true comparison. That said, -7s barely above cost vs. a lighter plane with excellent subsystems.

We'll see... FWIW I estimate the A223 in 145 seat configuration.

Lightsaber

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I could see WN reducing its MAX order, along with, if they get a new agreement with the pilots union, to up-gauge some of the order to the 7M9 F with 198 seats. If WN considered the A220, they would be considering a large order to replace their 73G fleet, as Boeing doesn't really offer a 3 FA plane (the 7M7 is longer than the 73G). A large order like WN would be what could be used to ramp up production.

Doesn't matter what the pilots say for new 737s it's the FAs. SWA went through a not so small battle with the FA union (was it still TWU at the time) to bring in the 800. From wiki, the 8 holds 178 in a normal 2 class config, SWA is 175. The 10 holds 204 in a 2 class (I assume with the same seats and pitch) in 2 class, so SWA would almost definitely cap it at even 200 in their config. This is all off the top of my head so maybe a union fight won't happen but maybe they wanna go to 210 and that's when it'd go down.

It feels like I have been assured here at least a dozen times SW will order 737 MAX only and nothing else over the last 7-8 years. Quotes of Kelly and others confirming this, the CSeries / A220 was simply not an option. Full stop.
https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/01/south ... ing-737-7/

But reality seems to return to the table and Boeing already made SW the best offer ever, promised them 100% cockpit commonality and even stretched the -7 a bit for them, allowed conversions, push-outs, paid compensations.

Why the 737-7 would be the best option for SW remains a kind of vague, general. I’m not sure there really is any -7 order left in the MAX backlog. Everybody pulled out. It seems to go the way of the 777-8, A350-800 and 787-3.

seratonin77 wrote:

catdaddy63 wrote:

I don't see them ordering anything other than MAX until NSA shows up. Having two pilot pools raises their costs as I doubt the pilots union would allow the pay scale to be any different from the 737 as well as limiting crew and route flexibility. Now a Max-10 order I could definitely see happening.

Could they hire a new set of pilots to fly the Airbus, paying them less? Then as they get seniority move up to the 737, or is that prohibited in their contract?

Obviously adding the 220 would increase costs, but could flying more efficiently on some routes and getting into smaller markets offset the costs?

I realize this isn't in their playbook but neither was flying into La Guardia or O'hare. Business models change.

This is not how any of this works. Southwest just can not just hire a new pilots to man a new aircraft without an pay rate agreement with the union. Then southwest will have to put out a vacancy bid to the pilot group before vacancy slots will become available to new hire pilots. This process is industry standard in the US.

SEU wrote:

Boeing will sell the -7 at 1% over production cost if need be. This is just a bluff to get Boeing serious.


That said the A220 would be a perfect machine for Southwest and I'd love it to happen

Wouldn’t that be called Product Dumping? The same thing Boeing took to the WTO against other manufacturers?

In this new era of the MAX Disaster and Covid, with all the order cancellations, I’m sure Boeing has already given WN rock bottom deals In the MAX7, but how much more deal can they squeeze out of Boeing with a bluff towards Airbus without it being an illegal dump?

TWA772LR wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I could see WN reducing its MAX order, along with, if they get a new agreement with the pilots union, to up-gauge some of the order to the 7M9 F with 198 seats. If WN considered the A220, they would be considering a large order to replace their 73G fleet, as Boeing doesn't really offer a 3 FA plane (the 7M7 is longer than the 73G). A large order like WN would be what could be used to ramp up production.

Doesn't matter what the pilots say for new 737s it's the FAs. SWA went through a not so small battle with the FA union (was it still TWU at the time) to bring in the 800. From wiki, the 8 holds 178 in a normal 2 class config, SWA is 175. The 10 holds 204 in a 2 class (I assume with the same seats and pitch) in 2 class, so SWA would almost definitely cap it at even 200 in their config. This is all off the top of my head so maybe a union fight won't happen but maybe they wanna go to 210 and that's when it'd go down.

The reason why I said the 7M9 instead of the 7MJ is because the 737-9 would definitely be a 4 FA plane in 32-33" pitch, while the 737-10 might require too much seat pitch to avoid going to a 5th FA in a 32" seat configuration (the exit door limit is 230 for the 737-10 at 28" pitch)...one would have to go 33-34" to get down to 200...and also the 737-9 has the same range as the 737-8. The 737-10 would look nice for WN, but I can't see it working without a 5th FA.

lightsaber wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

I think the E195 E2 would fit Southwest even better because I dont think they would really need the range of the CS300 or even MAX7 for 95% of the routes. On these shorter routes the E2 seems even more efficient and its closest to 737-700 capacity, and Embraer would make them a hell of a deal, I am absolutely sure about that.

The issue is it is E2-195 needs 6,463 ft at MTOW vs.
A223 at 6,200 ft.

As you note, the A220 has surplus range, so will offload more weight in fuel.

SNA: 5,701 ft
MDW: 6,522 ft

With rain, winds, and other reductions, I am concerned that the E2-195 does not have the field performance WN requires.

It is possible the E2 could win. I do not believe the E2-190 per seat costs will work in the US market. The E2-175 would only work on a regional pay scale and work rules, not at SouthWest.

This competition is versus the 737-7.

I take SouthWest talking to Airbus for the A220 seriously. Smart companies switch strategies. If SouthWest changes, I fully expect a large order, as many as 200, but no less than a hundred.

This would make the E2. As WN buys many used aircraft, as does DL, whatever they buy will be bought by other airlines in future years. No one gets fired for buying what SouthWest will buy used.

WN will still buy MAX.

However, if they go A220, that means two of the top used aircraft buyers are onboard and that opens up new sales even more than DL's purchase. For WN+DL+LH+AF starts to become an impressive bench of MRO support and demand.

This could be a non-event or a huge deal. Not much more to say until a contract is signed, or not.

Lightsaber

According to Embraer brochure numbers, the 195E2 Takeoff Field Length is 5922 at MTOW with standard engine, and 4281 at MTOW for high thrust engine.

There are multiple reasons why Southwest could go for the A220:

1. The 737-7 is in no man's land in terms of weight and capacity, especially so for Southwest. Capped at 150 passengers (to avoid having the 4th cabin crew) this is 25 fewer passengers than the 737-8. However it's only 4,000lbs lighter at MTOW than the -8 and 3,000lbs heavier than the -800! Unless it is needed for very specific missions (shorter runways or longer range), there's little justification to select the -7 over the -8. Compared to the A220 it is 23,000lbs heavier. The A220 can probably do around 145 seats in a Southwest configuration. This is an ideal 73G replacement.

2. Following the issues with the MAX, I think Southwest have realized that the MAX is the end of the line for the 737. Boeing will not be making this model forever. Eventually Southwest will introduce a new type. And replacing the 737 fleet with a new type cannot happen overnight. Replacing 700+ aircraft will take many years. So for many years, they will be operating 2 types.

3. Right now, it seems unlikely that Boeing (or any OEM) has the capability to launch an all new model. Southwest can wait for Boeing to do this and risk watching airlines like JetBlue, Breeze and Spirit gain market share flying their more efficient A220s and NEOs.

4. It is also very unclear right now, if Boeing is even looking at a new aircraft below 200 seats. Assuming they are not, then, for the next 20-30 or so years, is it better to be operating a "cheap" (in terms of purchase price) 1960s technology aircraft, at the end of its line (737-7), or worth going for the newer aircraft with already proven impressive capabilities (A220)?

I think the A220 has a decent chance here. The circumstances and timing is right.

kaneporta1 wrote:

There are multiple reasons why Southwest could go for the A220:

1. The 737-7 is in no man's land in terms of weight and capacity, especially so for Southwest. Capped at 150 passengers (to avoid having the 4th cabin crew) this is 25 fewer passengers than the 737-8. However it's only 4,000lbs lighter at MTOW than the -8 and 3,000lbs heavier than the -800! Unless it is needed for very specific missions (shorter runways or longer range), there's little justification to select the -7 over the -8. Compared to the A220 it is 23,000lbs heavier. The A220 can probably do around 145 seats in a Southwest configuration. This is an ideal 73G replacement.

2. Following the issues with the MAX, I think Southwest have realized that the MAX is the end of the line for the 737. Boeing will not be making this model forever. Eventually Southwest will introduce a new type. And replacing the 737 fleet with a new type cannot happen overnight. Replacing 700+ aircraft will take many years. So for many years, they will be operating 2 types.

3. Right now, it seems unlikely that Boeing (or any OEM) has the capability to launch an all new model. Southwest can wait for Boeing to do this and risk watching airlines like JetBlue, Breeze and Spirit gain market share flying their more efficient A220s and NEOs.

4. It is also very unclear right now, if Boeing is even looking at a new aircraft below 200 seats. Assuming they are not, then, for the next 20-30 or so years, is it better to be operating a "cheap" (in terms of purchase price) 1960s technology aircraft, at the end of its line (737-7), or worth going for the newer aircraft with already proven impressive capabilities (A220)?

I think the A220 has a decent chance here. The circumstances and timing is right.

Plus, they only have 30 or so MAX 7’s on order. Not nearly enough to replace the 73Gs. If they do order the A220, they’ll need to configure them in the 130-140 range though.

TaniTaniwha wrote:

Seriously, you think that's how big business works? They want to teach Boeing a lesson....?

I mean, if that lesson is "work out your engineering and quality control issues that have thrown a serious wrench in our own plans or risk losing your most important non-government customer," then yeah? That's hardly being petty.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I could see WN reducing its MAX order, along with, if they get a new agreement with the pilots union, to up-gauge some of the order to the 7M9 F with 198 seats. If WN considered the A220, they would be considering a large order to replace their 73G fleet, as Boeing doesn't really offer a 3 FA plane (the 7M7 is longer than the 73G). A large order like WN would be what could be used to ramp up production.

The only way I could see WN getting the 7M9 is if Boeing offers it with the 7M10 landing gear. That way it could take off with ~200 passengers and luggage from MDW to any destination in the contiguous US. It would also be an excellent plane for flying between the west coast and Hawaii.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I could see WN reducing its MAX order, along with, if they get a new agreement with the pilots union, to up-gauge some of the order to the 7M9 F with 198 seats. If WN considered the A220, they would be considering a large order to replace their 73G fleet, as Boeing doesn't really offer a 3 FA plane (the 7M7 is longer than the 73G). A large order like WN would be what could be used to ramp up production.

Doesn't matter what the pilots say for new 737s it's the FAs. SWA went through a not so small battle with the FA union (was it still TWU at the time) to bring in the 800. From wiki, the 8 holds 178 in a normal 2 class config, SWA is 175. The 10 holds 204 in a 2 class (I assume with the same seats and pitch) in 2 class, so SWA would almost definitely cap it at even 200 in their config. This is all off the top of my head so maybe a union fight won't happen but maybe they wanna go to 210 and that's when it'd go down.

The reason why I said the 7M9 instead of the 7MJ is because the 737-9 would definitely be a 4 FA plane in 32-33" pitch, while the 737-10 might require too much seat pitch to avoid going to a 5th FA in a 32" seat configuration (the exit door limit is 230 for the 737-10 at 28" pitch)...one would have to go 33-34" to get down to 200...and also the 737-9 has the same range as the 737-8. The 737-10 would look nice for WN, but I can't see it working without a 5th FA.

I see what your getting at, but at face value for the respective seat numbers at the wiki config for the 8 is only 3 seats more than SWAs current config. It's not inconceivable to see that SWA can fit 200 seats at their pitch in a -10 since the generic 2 class config is 204, 4 seats difference for the 10 and a similar 3 seats difference for the 8. SWA doesn't necessarily need TCON range for a 10, it's more designed to be a high yield or high pax heavy lifter.

Revelation wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

I am not sure the 15% figure holds any ground. Leeham did an extensive write up comparing the A223, A319neo and 737-7 MAX. A223 did ~8% better on trip cost and ~5% better on a cost per seat basis. It might have changed with time but I am guessing not by much. There were/are talks that with PIPs the delta between the A223 and the other two would become bigger...

https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/19/econo ... 737-max-7/

It's a shame this is behind a paywall.

The part we can see:

Summary:
* The A319neo has 126 seats in our normalized domestic cabin, the CS300 132 seats and the 737 MAX 7 138 seats.
* The CSeries is more fuel efficient, both on a trip basis and on a per seat basis, than the smaller A319neo and the larger 737 MAX 7.
* On a total cost basis, the CS300 is the lower cost aircraft (as long as normal net pricing prevails, it's best to add).

... suggests a different config than the WN MAX 7 with 147 seats and suggests the operating cost difference might be made up with aggressive pricing which is something Boeing can move on since it has so much more production volume than A220. Then you need to consider the direct (training, maintenance) and indirect (network inefficiency) cost of a 2nd type and I think Boeing is the likely winner.

Comparing based on seating is difficult as theoretically you can put 160 seats in the A223.

I do agree that Boeing has huge scale they can use as leverage in pricing. That is the main reason I believe the A223 will never go on the tarmac for Southwest...

JonesNL wrote:

Comparing based on seating is difficult as theoretically you can put 160 seats in the A223.

I do agree that Boeing has huge scale they can use as leverage in pricing. That is the main reason I believe the A223 will never go on the tarmac for Southwest...

I think any aircraft of this size would be capped at 150 seats, to avoid a fourth flight attendant.

I'm sure the A220 was designed with Southwest in mind even though the original C-Series seemed like a long shot. I don't think Southwest is bluffing on this to get a better price, though that could be the outcome. The 737 isn't going to be around forever, that much is now quite clear. It would be irresponsible to not consider all other alternatives for their future.

When JetBlue get a healthy amount of these in house and upstart Breeze gets going competing for the same leasure traveler, those leasure travelers may begin to develop a subconscious bias toward the A220 class plane, especially couples traveling together. The price argument doesn't work as these airlines fall in line with Southwest's pricing on common shared routes. It becomes what the flyer prefers at the same seat costs. If I'm flying to NYC for an extended weekend with the wife and the cost is similar. I'll choose the A220 every time over 3x3 seating on a 737, especially if a seat assignment is a minimum upgrade cost of a 20 bucks or so. The vast majority of American not flying point to point from major cities fly on regional planes and are accustomed to 1x2 and 2x2 seating. Delta flyers (and to a lessor extent AA) from mid major airports with mainline service are accustomed to 2x3 of the MDs and now A220s(in Delta's case).

Maybe Southwest realizes that the market may dictate this type of plane to complete at the best level.

OK guys,

Let's keep in mind that the 737-7 was made larger due to Southwest and West Jet's request. They wanted an airplane with the max number of seats they could get with 3 FA (150), Not every market can fill a 737-8. With SW having almost 500 737-700NG's, there's no way they plan on having an all 737-8 fleet. This is especially true when they fly to many airports with limited runway lengths (MDW being one example).

The A223 needs almost the length of a 737MAX-8 to seat the number of pax on a 737MAX-7. This could be an issue at space limited terminals such as Burbank

eraugrad02 wrote:

OK guys,

Let's keep in mind that the 737-7 was made larger due to Southwest and West Jet's request. They wanted an airplane with the max number of seats they could get with 3 FA (150), Not every market can fill a 737-8. With SW having almost 500 737-700NG's, there's no way they plan on having an all 737-8 fleet. This is especially true when they fly to many airports with limited runway lengths (MDW being one example).

Now the question becomes who has the better takeoff performance. The 223 fully loaded at 145 passengers or the 737 Max 7 at 150?
I don't see how WN doesn't take more Max 7 at this point. Because they requested a bigger Max 7 plus Boeing will give a better price than the A220 because they kinda have too at this point. Even though the A220 would be the investment for the future

PHLspecial wrote:

eraugrad02 wrote:

OK guys,

Let's keep in mind that the 737-7 was made larger due to Southwest and West Jet's request. They wanted an airplane with the max number of seats they could get with 3 FA (150), Not every market can fill a 737-8. With SW having almost 500 737-700NG's, there's no way they plan on having an all 737-8 fleet. This is especially true when they fly to many airports with limited runway lengths (MDW being one example).

Now the question becomes who has the better takeoff performance. The 223 fully loaded at 145 passengers or the 737 Max 7 at 150?
I don't see how WN doesn't take more Max 7 at this point. Because they requested a bigger Max 7 plus Boeing will give a better price than the A220 because they kinda have too at this point. Even though the A220 would be the investment for the future

Not sure the question should be “which has better takeoff performance” as much as “does each have acceptable takeoff performance for all missions on which it would be used.” Or (as it relates to performance) does one hold a unique capability over the other that would add to the business case. If both are adequate, then being “better” for takeoff won’t really matter imo. But, fwiw, the A223 is 6,200’ required at MTOW and the max7 is 7,000’ required at MTOW according to wiki. I think both would be fine for SNA, BUR, MDW, etc., and marginally better/worse takeoff performance wouldn’t move the needle in this as much as cost and operational complexity. Just my $.02

The E195-E2 lifts higher payload than the A220-300 at SDU (4,341ft long runway). Do you really believe there would be a take-off performance issue for the aircraft at any airport WN serves?

eraugrad02 wrote:

OK guys,

Let's keep in mind that the 737-7 was made larger due to Southwest and West Jet's request. They wanted an airplane with the max number of seats they could get with 3 FA (150), Not every market can fill a 737-8. With SW having almost 500 737-700NG's, there's no way they plan on having an all 737-8 fleet. This is especially true when they fly to many airports with limited runway lengths (MDW being one example).

Thats a reason to build a MAX7, which was a real 150 seater. What I dont understand then is why they beefed it up to the MAX7.5. If these Airlines will fly it with 150 seats anyway due to the F/A issue -- the MAX7(.5) now carries around excess weight that was not necessary.
Also its too close to the MAX8 now, just 17 seats below the 8 with an OEW that is not too much below the 8. Only advantages of the 7.5 are the field performance and its range, but no one seems to need these specifications.

If they want to stay below the 150 seat I think (now even more) that the E195E2 is the perfect airplane. At 146 seats its operating at its best possible seatcost (but also the tightest seating possible) and should be more effective than a CS300 with just 150 or even less seats where 160 would be possible -- the MAX7 even worse with 150 of 172 possible. Embraer really needs this order, I would be very happy for them if they could land a deal with SWA. Would Boeing sue them then? If Boeing would have finalized the Embraer Deal I think that a SWA E2 order would be a no-brainer.

eraugrad02 wrote:

I went through the first few pages of threads and did not see this posted but The Motley Fool is reporting that the airline is looking at the A220 as a replacement for their Boeing 737-700. They still are in talks with Boeing for the 737-7 which most of us know hey ordered 30 of that model. This is put out there to get a better deal on more of the 737-7's, What say you guys?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/uh-oh-boeing-southwest-considering-an-airbus-plane/ar-BB1akR0k?ocid=msedgntp

Cheers,
Des

Why not? The airplane is pretty darned good, and could help WN alot IMO.

flipdewaf wrote:

eraugrad02 wrote:

What say you guys?

1. They definitely will get it, it’s the lowest CASM machine around and WN are sick of being screwed and want to teach Boeing a lesson because of the MAX.
2. They have to demonstrate to the shareholders that they are showing due diligence and have approached airbus as a way to extract the best price from Boeing, they will never leave Boeing.

Delete as appropriate.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well, Boeing has been in the business of teaching people lessons, including its own work force. Then they did the dirty move on the C Series and it backfired. Why not?

SA280 wrote:

The E195-E2 lifts higher payload than the A220-300 at SDU (4,341ft long runway). Do you really believe there would be a take-off performance issue for the aircraft at any airport WN serves?

Source? The public numbers are worse on the E2-195 in terms of runway length, at least on Wikipedia.

The A223 is 1.3 tons heavier (37 vs.35.7 tons for the E2-195.

The E2 has 103m^2 of wing, the A223 112.3m^2

Theoretically, that extra 9% of wing, even with engines at the same thrust, should overcome the weight penalty. It means a U^2 9% less or takeoff velocity 96% as high. Thrust to weight, full pax, is only 3.3% worse on short missions. I calculate at full pax, light fuel, the A223 should take 1% less runway on power to weight and wing area. It has taller landing gear too...

We've had discussions on how it has been promised to get the A223 LCY certified:

viewtopic.php?t=1424001


But as noted, what is good enough? SNA is the challenge. The A223 is fine there with 145 pax and bags to LAS, PHX, SLC, OAK, and DEN. I consider that adequate.

I appreciate the E2 enthusiasm, but is there any source SouthWest is looking at it? We're talking the difference between, in my estimate, 145 seats for the A223 and 132 seats in the E2-195. Most WN routes, e.g. DAL, MDW, PHX, LAS have no field performance issue with the types under discussion. So the extra 13 seats win. Besides here on a.net, is there any noteworthy discussion about Embraer getting in a bid? All the sources I've seen have been A220 or just Airbus vs. -7 MAX. Is there a reason to believe WN is considering the E2-195?

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

SA280 wrote:

The E195-E2 lifts higher payload than the A220-300 at SDU (4,341ft long runway). Do you really believe there would be a take-off performance issue for the aircraft at any airport WN serves?

Source? The public numbers are worse on the E2-195 in terms of runway length, at least on Wikipedia.

The A223 is 1.3 tons heavier (37 vs.35.7 tons for the E2-195.

The E2 has 103m^2 of wing, the A223 112.3m^2

Theoretically, that extra 9% of wing, even with engines at the same thrust, should overcome the weight penalty. It means a U^2 9% less or takeoff velocity 96% as high. Thrust to weight, full pax, is only 3.3% worse on short missions. I calculate at full pax, light fuel, the A223 should take 1% less runway on power to weight and wing area. It has taller landing gear too...

We've had discussions on how it has been promised to get the A223 LCY certified:

viewtopic.php?t=1424001


But as noted, what is good enough? SNA is the challenge. The A223 is fine there with 145 pax and bags to LAS, PHX, SLC, OAK, and DEN. I consider that adequate.

I appreciate the E2 enthusiasm, but is there any source SouthWest is looking at it? We're talking the difference between, in my estimate, 145 seats for the A223 and 132 seats in the E2-195. Most WN routes, e.g. DAL, MDW, PHX, LAS have no field performance issue with the types under discussion. So the extra 13 seats win. Besides here on a.net, is there any noteworthy discussion about Embraer getting in a bid? All the sources I've seen have been A220 or just Airbus vs. -7 MAX. Is there a reason to believe WN is considering the E2-195?

Lightsaber

As accurate as your numbers might be, the real numbers are the ones operators compute when they look into buying planes. And I think those operators have spoken: 148 E190-E2 have been ordered (for a total of 173 E2s ordered), vs 545 A220-300s (for a total of 639 A220s ordered)... And the E2 had the advantage to build on the existing 1,500+ delivered E-Jets whereas the A220 (or CSeries) started from fresh.
With all this, I think the operators have spoken loudly and clearly, and that the E2s are really the flavor of the month currently.

lightsaber wrote:

SA280 wrote:

The E195-E2 lifts higher payload than the A220-300 at SDU (4,341ft long runway). Do you really believe there would be a take-off performance issue for the aircraft at any airport WN serves?

Source? The public numbers are worse on the E2-195 in terms of runway length, at least on Wikipedia.

The A223 is 1.3 tons heavier (37 vs.35.7 tons for the E2-195.

The E2 has 103m^2 of wing, the A223 112.3m^2

Theoretically, that extra 9% of wing, even with engines at the same thrust, should overcome the weight penalty. It means a U^2 9% less or takeoff velocity 96% as high. Thrust to weight, full pax, is only 3.3% worse on short missions. I calculate at full pax, light fuel, the A223 should take 1% less runway on power to weight and wing area. It has taller landing gear too...

We've had discussions on how it has been promised to get the A223 LCY certified:

viewtopic.php?t=1424001


But as noted, what is good enough? SNA is the challenge. The A223 is fine there with 145 pax and bags to LAS, PHX, SLC, OAK, and DEN. I consider that adequate.

I appreciate the E2 enthusiasm, but is there any source SouthWest is looking at it? We're talking the difference between, in my estimate, 145 seats for the A223 and 132 seats in the E2-195. Most WN routes, e.g. DAL, MDW, PHX, LAS have no field performance issue with the types under discussion. So the extra 13 seats win. Besides here on a.net, is there any noteworthy discussion about Embraer getting in a bid? All the sources I've seen have been A220 or just Airbus vs. -7 MAX. Is there a reason to believe WN is considering the E2-195?

Lightsaber

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... rcial-jet/

E2 is not being considered because they need 160 seats. That’s pretty clear from the new reports. If they needed less seats, I am pretty sure it would be considered.

And certification numbers depends on much more than only theoretical data. Even the flight test pilot can make a difference on getting better numbers.

catdaddy63 wrote:

I don't see them ordering anything other than MAX until NSA shows up. Having two pilot pools raises their costs as I doubt the pilots union would allow the pay scale to be any different from the 737 as well as limiting crew and route flexibility. Now a Max-10 order I could definitely see happening.

As it stands right now? The Max Pilots are going ti already have a type rating different from the 737's they fly already. Remember? Boeing got into all of this trouble so that Southwest woukldn't need a second Pilot rating to fly the Max Vs the NG airplanes. So that's out of the window and If WN get's another Type or Model? Then there's No Difference because they'll STILL have a divided pilot pool won't the ? Not many Major Airlines that don't anymore,, At some point? I expect WN to get larger and longer range airplanes, If for nothing Else? Tan to fly DEN-HNL, DAL or DFW-HNL and ORD-HNL. And it's either going to be on another Boeing Narrow body or an Airbus Narrowbody as I don't see WN going for a 797.
Not Yet... But for sure they're getting past the all 737 stage, May not be next week Nor next year? But it's going to happen,

strfyr51 wrote:

catdaddy63 wrote:

I don't see them ordering anything other than MAX until NSA shows up. Having two pilot pools raises their costs as I doubt the pilots union would allow the pay scale to be any different from the 737 as well as limiting crew and route flexibility. Now a Max-10 order I could definitely see happening.

As it stands right now? The Max Pilots are going ti already have a type rating different from the 737's they fly already. Remember? Boeing got into all of this trouble so that Southwest woukldn't need a second Pilot rating to fly the Max Vs the NG airplanes. So that's out of the window and If WN get's another Type or Model? Then there's No Difference because they'll STILL have a divided pilot pool won't the ? Not many Major Airlines that don't anymore,, At some point? I expect WN to get larger and longer range airplanes, If for nothing Else? Tan to fly DEN-HNL, DAL or DFW-HNL and ORD-HNL. And it's either going to be on another Boeing Narrow body or an Airbus Narrowbody as I don't see WN going for a 797.
Not Yet... But for sure they're getting past the all 737 stage, May not be next week Nor next year? But it's going to happen,

Southwest doesn’t have Max pilots and NG pilots. They all fly all of them, with the same type rating.
fefe

The only way LUV ends up with the A220 is if Airbus sells them at Delta pricing, that is not going to happen. The A220 program has to reduce costs and increase pricing to ever be profitable, even on a cash flow basis (excluding development costs). I would bet that the A220 loses more money per unit than any other active program at Airbus or Boeing on a cash flow basis. Canada is now a high cost manufacturing country. Just look at the Auto industry, it is now cheaper to make autos in the US than Canada, 20 years ago Canada was lower cost than the US.

The A220 is a great plane with low CASM, but without higher pricing and lower costs it may not survive.

fcogafa wrote:

The A223 needs almost the length of a 737MAX-8 to seat the number of pax on a 737MAX-7. This could be an issue at space limited terminals such as Burbank

Gate space really isn't an issue because of the aircrafts length but its the wingspan. That's why you have the longest commercial plan in production (Boeing 777-9) has folding wing tips to allow it the ability to pull into gates A330/340 and B747/757/767/777's can currently so that airports don't have to reconfigure gates for B777-8/-9's like the A380.

DLHAM wrote:

eraugrad02 wrote:

OK guys,

Let's keep in mind that the 737-7 was made larger due to Southwest and West Jet's request. They wanted an airplane with the max number of seats they could get with 3 FA (150), Not every market can fill a 737-8. With SW having almost 500 737-700NG's, there's no way they plan on having an all 737-8 fleet. This is especially true when they fly to many airports with limited runway lengths (MDW being one example).

Thats a reason to build a MAX7, which was a real 150 seater. What I dont understand then is why they beefed it up to the MAX7.5. If these Airlines will fly it with 150 seats anyway due to the F/A issue -- the MAX7(.5) now carries around excess weight that was not necessary.
Also its too close to the MAX8 now, just 17 seats below the 8 with an OEW that is not too much below the 8. Only advantages of the 7.5 are the field performance and its range, but no one seems to need these specifications.

If they want to stay below the 150 seat I think (now even more) that the E195E2 is the perfect airplane. At 146 seats its operating at its best possible seatcost (but also the tightest seating possible) and should be more effective than a CS300 with just 150 or even less seats where 160 would be possible -- the MAX7 even worse with 150 of 172 possible. Embraer really needs this order, I would be very happy for them if they could land a deal with SWA. Would Boeing sue them then? If Boeing would have finalized the Embraer Deal I think that a SWA E2 order would be a no-brainer.

146 seats on an E295 is high-density as that's the exit door limit. B6 plans to configure its BCS3s with 140 seats (if WN orders the BCS3, I expect they would also go Y140 or Y145)...where the exit door limit is 160. But no one is going 160 because why pay a 4th flight attendant for just 10 seats? BT has the densest configuration to date at Y150...a 3 FA configuration. A major selling point is that at MTOW, the BCS3 is 10 metric tons lighter than the B37M. While the BCS3 has 500 nmi less range than the B37M (the BCS3 is limited by its fuel capacity), it doesn't carry around weight not needed. Except for Hawaii, the average WN stage length, now that EWR service has been discontinued, is only about 1000 to 1500 nmi.

That is why I believe it would make sense to up-gauge that B37M order to either the B39M or the B3XM (along with converting some of the B38M order to larger variants)...and then go with the BCS3 to replace the 73G. Airbus could also offer BFM as the FAL for this order.

DLHAM wrote:

eraugrad02 wrote:

OK guys,

Let's keep in mind that the 737-7 was made larger due to Southwest and West Jet's request. They wanted an airplane with the max number of seats they could get with 3 FA (150), Not every market can fill a 737-8. With SW having almost 500 737-700NG's, there's no way they plan on having an all 737-8 fleet. This is especially true when they fly to many airports with limited runway lengths (MDW being one example).

Thats a reason to build a MAX7, which was a real 150 seater. What I dont understand then is why they beefed it up to the MAX7.5. If these Airlines will fly it with 150 seats anyway due to the F/A issue -- the MAX7(.5) now carries around excess weight that was not necessary.
Also its too close to the MAX8 now, just 17 seats below the 8 with an OEW that is not too much below the 8. Only advantages of the 7.5 are the field performance and its range, but no one seems to need these specifications.

If they want to stay below the 150 seat I think (now even more) that the E195E2 is the perfect airplane. At 146 seats its operating at its best possible seatcost (but also the tightest seating possible) and should be more effective than a CS300 with just 150 or even less seats where 160 would be possible -- the MAX7 even worse with 150 of 172 possible. Embraer really needs this order, I would be very happy for them if they could land a deal with SWA. Would Boeing sue them then? If Boeing would have finalized the Embraer Deal I think that a SWA E2 order would be a no-brainer.

WN didn’t request that. Boeing told WN that if they wanted a MAX-7 developed, the only way Boeing would commit to it was by using the MAX-8 wing box and take one plug out of the MAX-8 to bring the size down to the MAX-7 and keep the development costs lower for Boeing. The -700 had a different wing box and other slight differences from the rest of the NG line that Boeing wasn’t willing to do for the MAX especially since WN and WS were at the time the only carriers with any interest in the MAX-7.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

That is why I believe it would make sense to up-gauge that B37M order to either the B39M or the B3XM (along with converting some of the B38M order to larger variants)...and then go with the BCS3 to replace the 73G. Airbus could also offer BFM as the FAL for this order.

Exactly... In a nutshell this what I beleive WN should do:
- take delivery of MAX7s that are already built.
-Convert the remaining MAX7 orders to MAX9s that have the MAX10 landing gear in a 200 seat configuration.
-Order the A223 to replace the remaining 73G fleet

I seem to recall McDD operating an MD-80 for AA to see how AA liked the aircraft on their route network, and look what a big fleet of them they eventually had. Airbus could do the same and do a try-it-and-see test with a couple of A223's for a few weeks on a variety of WN routes including SNA.

I have mixed feelings about this. I hate to see my home team lose the exclusivity with their most prominent customer.

However, I've thought for years that as the narrowbody upgauging trend continues, Southwest would likely reach a point where it makes sense to have a smaller aircraft to serve their thinner routes, and the CSeries looked perfect for that.

(I also wish the home team had bought the CSeries when they had the chance, instead of driving it into the arms of Airbus for $1).

seratonin77 wrote:

SXDFC wrote:

Perhaps someone can educate me on this one. Before COVID, WN only ran the MAXs for four legs a day, typically legs like BWI- LAS, etc. From my understanding the MAXs engines are that durable to do 5+ legs a day. Lastly the economics of some of the shorter routes (LAS- RNO, ISP-BWI, DAL-HOU) favor the A220 as cheaper to operate than a MAX7. Again if someone could educate me on both of those issues, that would be great... Although I’d luv to see a WN A223

I didn't know 737's had a limit/recommendation to how many legs they do a day. Does letting it sit overnight (or whenever after 5 legs) allow for more cycles vs running it 6+ legs a day?

From what I remember reading, it appears the engines are sensitive and need a 3 min warm up and cool down. If you don’t do this, it could damage the engine..

What I am trying to ask is if the MAX could do 5+ legs a day like some of our -700s were doing prior to covid. Also if the MAX7 is economical to operate on the shorter flights versus the longer flights.

SXDFC wrote:

seratonin77 wrote:

SXDFC wrote:

Perhaps someone can educate me on this one. Before COVID, WN only ran the MAXs for four legs a day, typically legs like BWI- LAS, etc. From my understanding the MAXs engines are that durable to do 5+ legs a day. Lastly the economics of some of the shorter routes (LAS- RNO, ISP-BWI, DAL-HOU) favor the A220 as cheaper to operate than a MAX7. Again if someone could educate me on both of those issues, that would be great... Although I’d luv to see a WN A223

I didn't know 737's had a limit/recommendation to how many legs they do a day. Does letting it sit overnight (or whenever after 5 legs) allow for more cycles vs running it 6+ legs a day?

From what I remember reading, it appears the engines are sensitive and need a 3 min warm up and cool down. If you don’t do this, it could damage the engine..

What I am trying to ask is if the MAX could do 5+ legs a day like some of our -700s were doing prior to covid. Also if the MAX7 is economical to operate on the shorter flights versus the longer flights.

There is a warm up period of 3 mins before applying take off thrust, also making sure the oil temp is over 31°C. The 3 min cooling before shutdown is the same requirement as the NG.

As for the 5+ legs a day, I haven’t seen a limitation on that...

Whiteguy wrote:

SXDFC wrote:

seratonin77 wrote:

I didn't know 737's had a limit/recommendation to how many legs they do a day. Does letting it sit overnight (or whenever after 5 legs) allow for more cycles vs running it 6+ legs a day?

From what I remember reading, it appears the engines are sensitive and need a 3 min warm up and cool down. If you don’t do this, it could damage the engine..

What I am trying to ask is if the MAX could do 5+ legs a day like some of our -700s were doing prior to covid. Also if the MAX7 is economical to operate on the shorter flights versus the longer flights.

There is a warm up period of 3 mins before applying take off thrust, also making sure the oil temp is over 31°C. The 3 min cooling before shutdown is the same requirement as the NG.

As for the 5+ legs a day, I haven’t seen a limitation on that...

Hawaiian will do 18 legs in a day (peak, individual planes) with the 717, so I see no issue with the MaX.

We had a discussion on the A220, overall, utilization wasn't that high
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1435989

The discussion died off at the conclusion the A220 utilization was low and probably indicative of needing maintenance time.
I like the A220, but I'll call it how I see it. I tried in that thread finding reasons why the utilization was pretty low. It should have been 10+ hours per day.

Now, there were PiPs since then. I couldn't find any records of 4Q2019 utilization or 1Q2020.

Lightsaber

SEU wrote:

Boeing will sell the -7 at 1% over production cost if need be. This is just a bluff to get Boeing serious.


That said the A220 would be a perfect machine for Southwest and I'd love it to happen

I was thinking exactly the same thing...

But, let's not forget: these are crazy times.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

When JetBlue get a healthy amount of these in house and upstart Breeze gets going competing for the same leasure traveler, those leasure travelers may begin to develop a subconscious bias toward the A220 class plane, especially couples traveling together. The price argument doesn't work as these airlines fall in line with Southwest's pricing on common shared routes. It becomes what the flyer prefers at the same seat costs. If I'm flying to NYC for an extended weekend with the wife and the cost is similar. I'll choose the A220 every time over 3x3 seating on a 737, especially if a seat assignment is a minimum upgrade cost of a 20 bucks or so. The vast majority of American not flying point to point from major cities fly on regional planes and are accustomed to 1x2 and 2x2 seating. Delta flyers (and to a lessor extent AA) from mid major airports with mainline service are accustomed to 2x3 of the MDs and now A220s(in Delta's case).

Maybe Southwest realizes that the market may dictate this type of plane to complete at the best level.

The market isn't speaking this to WN or any airline. No plane is purchased because it is2x3 vs 3x3. WNs model has endured different eras of commercial aviation. To commit to a new type - a fundamental change to the WN model- with all the market uncertainty doesn't seem like something any airline is doing anytime soon.

Jetport wrote:

I would think the E195-E2 would be a better fit for LUV if they want to go smaller. Price and availability would be much better than the A-220 and LUV's route network doesn't need the extra range of the A-220.

See that's were your wrong. WN wants a smaller aircraft that's great on short hops but can easily fly a longer thin P2P. They also want the flexibility for IROPS situations able to handle almost any mission.

Flyguy

One thing that gotten zero traction here is the ability of Airbus to supply Southwest. The production numbers on this excellent airplane are paltry. If I recall correctly, Airbus has indicated that they will prioritize manufacturing issues ahead of PIPs. So let's not get caught up with the theoretical arguments of economy of an upgraded A223 -- they are 5 years away. Further, both Boeing and Airbus are fighting for their lives in the current environment. I agree, Airbus is better advantaged but is disadvantaged by the entire industry's condition. I don't see enormous investment in additional manufacturing capacity.

I do think Southwest will take a big operational hit with the introduction of a second major fleet type particularly if there are several years of a very modest fleet size. There is a huge amount to consider, analyze and decide. We have watched Southwest grow its business model with considerable deliberation (ETOPS, Hawaii ex-USA flying). Schedule additions this year have made our collective heads spin, partly due to the destinations breaking 'golden rules' and the speed with which they happen.

I think our discussion here, interesting and vital as it is, is too focused on just the hardware and not the whole business system and culture at Southwest.

tootallsd wrote:

I do think Southwest will take a big operational hit with the introduction of a second major fleet type particularly if there are several years of a very modest fleet size. There is a huge amount to consider, analyze and decide. We have watched Southwest grow its business model with considerable deliberation (ETOPS, Hawaii ex-USA flying). Schedule additions this year have made our collective heads spin, partly due to the destinations breaking 'golden rules' and the speed with which they happen.

I think our discussion here, interesting and vital as it is, is too focused on just the hardware and not the whole business system and culture at Southwest.

Southwest will eventually operate a second fleet. They simply cannot operate 737s forever. Following the MAX issues, they must know by now that there will not be another 737 derivative. So they can either pull the trigger now, buy an aircraft that fits their needs and is available now, or gamble/hope/influence that Boeing will eventually launch a new aircraft that will fit Southwest's needs.

Either way, they will have 2 fleets operating in parallel, probably for a decade or so.

kaneporta1 wrote:

Southwest will eventually operate a second fleet. They simply cannot operate 737s forever. Following the MAX issues, they must know by now that there will not be another 737 derivative. So they can either pull the trigger now, buy an aircraft that fits their needs and is available now, or gamble/hope/influence that Boeing will eventually launch a new aircraft that will fit Southwest's needs.

Either way, they will have 2 fleets operating in parallel, probably for a decade or so.

Yes, and eventually A220 will be replaced by something better, nothing lasts forever.

The point is to look at what both A and B are offering right now and project the cost/benefit of either MAX7 or A223, which is what it seems WN is committed to doing. This projection will of course have to include the cost of what going to a second fleet for A223 costs right now, not what you think going to a second fleet would cost once the MAX is to leave the fleet. If you did that, then you'd have to consider what happens if the new Boeing product is batter across the board than A220 so you then have the cost of retiring off A220 to get back to single fleet mode.

I think Boeing should be cautious what happens if Airbus launches a stretched A220-500 with 20-25 seats extra. SW might get strange ideas.

https://www.flightglobal.com/flight-int ... 01.article

FixemFlyem wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

catdaddy63 wrote:

I don't see them ordering anything other than MAX until NSA shows up. Having two pilot pools raises their costs as I doubt the pilots union would allow the pay scale to be any different from the 737 as well as limiting crew and route flexibility. Now a Max-10 order I could definitely see happening.

As it stands right now? The Max Pilots are going ti already have a type rating different from the 737's they fly already. Remember? Boeing got into all of this trouble so that Southwest woukldn't need a second Pilot rating to fly the Max Vs the NG airplanes. So that's out of the window and If WN get's another Type or Model? Then there's No Difference because they'll STILL have a divided pilot pool won't the ? Not many Major Airlines that don't anymore,, At some point? I expect WN to get larger and longer range airplanes, If for nothing Else? Tan to fly DEN-HNL, DAL or DFW-HNL and ORD-HNL. And it's either going to be on another Boeing Narrow body or an Airbus Narrowbody as I don't see WN going for a 797.
Not Yet... But for sure they're getting past the all 737 stage, May not be next week Nor next year? But it's going to happen,

Southwest doesn’t have Max pilots and NG pilots. They all fly all of them, with the same type rating.
fefe

Maybe you haven't been reading Aviation week. The Max will have a type from the NG and the pilots WILL be be required to have Both. if they fly both. WN didn't win anything in this and neither did Boeing except a Black eye..

DenverTed wrote:

Could WN and Alaska operate the E175E2 since they do not have the same scope clause contract on weight as UA, AA, and DL?

why of course they could. WN has no Express Carrier. And? UA.AA and DL could also operate the E175 or the E195 E2 and it wouldn't violate Scope.
that's am internal issue purely. But will it solve a Type issue? No.. and if WN only wants to fly one model of airplane? It sure won't solve that problem either.,