Antarius wrote:

marcogr12 wrote:

Which are Southwest most heavy-trafficked routes that could warrant a MAX10 with 200+ seats?

Leisure routes such as west coast to Hawaii, HOU to Mexico beach destinations and potentially some peak trunk routes like HOU-DAL, DAL-MDW etc.

HOU-DAL is a frequency dependent business route. the Max10 would not be a good fit. It would be good for a route that can't support 3 Max8 but could operate with 2 Max10. But once again WN is about high frequency. High frequency with High capacity are not a good combination & WN management know that well after 50 years operating (as of June 18)

TranscendZac wrote:

Great order and shot in the arm for the Max. Love that they order -7s. Isn’t the range 3800nm+? That should give them a lot of flexibility in new international destinations. Also hoping to see the -10 ordered.

For the few routes needed the 10 would give them about 25 pass increase between each model flown. The -10 I could see on International routes that are doing well as those routes can be limited 1/day vs the usual WN operation style. But seems there are not a lot of routes that need it. Also new gear (increased cost), & may have OWE slides added (increased cost)

rbavfan wrote:

Antarius wrote:

marcogr12 wrote:

Which are Southwest most heavy-trafficked routes that could warrant a MAX10 with 200+ seats?

Leisure routes such as west coast to Hawaii, HOU to Mexico beach destinations and potentially some peak trunk routes like HOU-DAL, DAL-MDW etc.

HOU-DAL is a frequency dependent business route. the Max10 would not be a good fit. It would be good for a route that can't support 3 Max8 but could operate with 2 Max10. But once again WN is about high frequency. High frequency with High capacity are not a good combination & WN management know that well after 50 years operating (as of June 18)

It is both frequency and volume. Pre Pandemic, there were 2 6 AM flights and 2 7 AM flights, along with a 6:15 and a 6:30.

No reason that they can't upgauge some aircraft without sacrificing frequency.

INFINITI329 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

marcogr12 wrote:

Which are Southwest most heavy-trafficked routes that could warrant a MAX10 with 200+ seats?

Leisure routes such as west coast to Hawaii, HOU to Mexico beach destinations and potentially some peak trunk routes like HOU-DAL, DAL-MDW etc.

To add PHX-DEN, PHX-MDW, BWI-FLL,BWI-MCO,

I think essentially any route that has multiple 738s a day would probably do well with a 200 seater Max 9/10. Along with slot-controlled airports such as LGA. The beauty is that it will not cost Southwest that much more to operate a Max 9/10 vs the 738/MAX 8 so the additional profit potential is high. Larger cargo holds obviously would allow more cargo to be carried. I agree with the consensus that 30-50 airplanes would be ideal for Southwest's network

Slot controlled airports might be good, but you have to add in the longer turn times & at LGA the -10 may be cargo limited due to runway length. While it looks good, some airport limits might be there in cases such as LGA. One slotcontrolled airport that the -10 would be a waste is SNA. That airport is combined slot control & passenger limited/day by law. So you can't just drop in a larger plane. Even using the -7 could be an issue as well with the added seats it could cost a slot due to passenger numbers. Unless the blocked seats every flight. Which could still save them money.

Antarius wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Leisure routes such as west coast to Hawaii, HOU to Mexico beach destinations and potentially some peak trunk routes like HOU-DAL, DAL-MDW etc.

HOU-DAL is a frequency dependent business route. the Max10 would not be a good fit. It would be good for a route that can't support 3 Max8 but could operate with 2 Max10. But once again WN is about high frequency. High frequency with High capacity are not a good combination & WN management know that well after 50 years operating (as of June 18)

It is both frequency and volume. Pre Pandemic, there were 2 6 AM flights and 2 7 AM flights, along with a 6:15 and a 6:30.

No reason that they can't upgauge some aircraft without sacrificing frequency.

True but the reason for my comment is it might not be effective if there are not enough other routes in sync with the rotations. Remember WN flight might go HOU-DAL-STL-BWI. If they can't fill all 200 seats each time it could become a money looser. Easier to fill the 150-175 seaters than constantly do so on a 200 seater. If it just ran HOU-DAL all day full great but where to route the rest of the day.

rbavfan wrote:

Antarius wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

HOU-DAL is a frequency dependent business route. the Max10 would not be a good fit. It would be good for a route that can't support 3 Max8 but could operate with 2 Max10. But once again WN is about high frequency. High frequency with High capacity are not a good combination & WN management know that well after 50 years operating (as of June 18)

It is both frequency and volume. Pre Pandemic, there were 2 6 AM flights and 2 7 AM flights, along with a 6:15 and a 6:30.

No reason that they can't upgauge some aircraft without sacrificing frequency.

True but the reason for my comment is it might not be effective if there are not enough other routes in sync with the rotations. Remember WN flight might go HOU-DAL-STL-BWI. If they can't fill all 200 seats each time it could become a money looser. Easier to fill the 150-175 seaters than constantly do so on a 200 seater. If it just ran HOU-DAL all day full great but where to route the rest of the day.

Fair enough.

Im not saying that WN will definitely buy the MAX10, just that there is potential for it and I wouldn't rule it out. Another option is some MAX10s for Hawaii and making them ETOPS certified. This way, they're a sub fleet already and not having to be in the entire system.

Then again, they may not. Will be interesting to see.

rbavfan wrote:

Antarius wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

HOU-DAL is a frequency dependent business route. the Max10 would not be a good fit. It would be good for a route that can't support 3 Max8 but could operate with 2 Max10. But once again WN is about high frequency. High frequency with High capacity are not a good combination & WN management know that well after 50 years operating (as of June 18)

It is both frequency and volume. Pre Pandemic, there were 2 6 AM flights and 2 7 AM flights, along with a 6:15 and a 6:30.

No reason that they can't upgauge some aircraft without sacrificing frequency.

True but the reason for my comment is it might not be effective if there are not enough other routes in sync with the rotations. Remember WN flight might go HOU-DAL-STL-BWI. If they can't fill all 200 seats each time it could become a money looser. Easier to fill the 150-175 seaters than constantly do so on a 200 seater. If it just ran HOU-DAL all day full great but where to route the rest of the day.

Line routing would be key. Because the Max 9/10 will have very similar operating costs to the Max 8 Southwest would not necessarily need to fully fill a 200 seater to make a profit on the flight. Obviously the more the better. Honestly, as long as they can do 176 or better it would be a win. The operating cost between the MAX 8 and MAX 9/10 may only be a difference of a few hundred dollars as referenced below between the 738 and 739ER. This difference could be may be made up by a few seats over 175 or additional cargo.

Cost per hour 739 vs 738
Alaska $3279/ $3975...-$696
Delta $4445/ $4356...+$89
Southwest N/A / $3276
United N/A / $4355
(Operating data for United's 739 was not available but is probably on par with DL's cost.)
https://www.planestats.com/bhsn_2018dec

INFINITI329 wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

Antarius wrote:

It is both frequency and volume. Pre Pandemic, there were 2 6 AM flights and 2 7 AM flights, along with a 6:15 and a 6:30.

No reason that they can't upgauge some aircraft without sacrificing frequency.

True but the reason for my comment is it might not be effective if there are not enough other routes in sync with the rotations. Remember WN flight might go HOU-DAL-STL-BWI. If they can't fill all 200 seats each time it could become a money looser. Easier to fill the 150-175 seaters than constantly do so on a 200 seater. If it just ran HOU-DAL all day full great but where to route the rest of the day.

Line routing would be key. Because the Max 9/10 will have very similar operating costs to the Max 8 Southwest would not necessarily need to fully fill a 200 seater to make a profit on the flight. Obviously the more the better. Honestly, as long as they can do 176 or better it would be a win. The operating cost between the MAX 8 and MAX 9/10 may only be a difference of a few hundred dollars as referenced below between the 738 and 739ER. This difference could be may be made up by a few seats over 175 or additional cargo.

Cost per hour 739 vs 738
Alaska $3279/ $3975...-$696
Delta $4445/ $4356...+$89
Southwest N/A / $3276
United N/A / $4355
(Operating data for United's 739 was not available but is probably on par with DL's cost.)
https://www.planestats.com/bhsn_2018dec

I don’t put a lot of stock into that data. Look at spirit and frontier crew costs. There is a huge disparity between the two in that table, but in reality they are roughly the same. I just have to question the validity of the other data as well. Also, the fuel costs per hour for the same planes are all over the map. I understand some airlines have better fuel costs due to geography, owning a refinery, and hedging strategies, but I can’t imagine the difference would be this big.

The 737 MAX 7 might have enough range to reach DAL nonstop from HNL as the published range of the 737 MAX 7 is 4430 miles (635 miles longer than the great circle distance of DAL-HNL) whereas the published range of the 737-800 is 3377 miles (763 miles longer than the great circle distance of SAN-HNL).

It might make sense for WN to order some 737 MAX 7's with auxiliary fuel tanks that would allow WN to serve Hawaii nonstop from DAL, HOU, and MCI. WN already has significant market share in the Dallas, Houston, and Kansas City markets to support possible nonstop service to Hawaii from DAL, HOU, and MCI, and there would also be some connecting opportunities on both ends of the route if WN adds HNL-DAL/HOU/MCI nonstop service.

I probably would expect WN to add nonstop service to Hawaii from DEN, LAS, and PHX prior to adding nonstop service to Hawaii from DAL, HOU, or MCI with DEN, LAS, and PHX being closer to Hawaii.

jplatts wrote:

The 737 MAX 7 might have enough range to reach DAL nonstop from HNL as the published range of the 737 MAX 7 is 4430 miles (635 miles longer than the great circle distance of DAL-HNL) whereas the published range of the 737-800 is 3377 miles (763 miles longer than the great circle distance of SAN-HNL).

It might make sense for WN to order some 737 MAX 7's with auxiliary fuel tanks that would allow WN to serve Hawaii nonstop from DAL, HOU, and MCI. WN already has significant market share in the Dallas, Houston, and Kansas City markets to support possible nonstop service to Hawaii from DAL, HOU, and MCI, and there would also be some connecting opportunities on both ends of the route if WN adds HNL-DAL/HOU/MCI nonstop service.

I probably would expect WN to add nonstop service to Hawaii from DEN, LAS, and PHX prior to adding nonstop service to Hawaii from DAL, HOU, or MCI with DEN, LAS, and PHX being closer to Hawaii.

On Boeing’s website it say the max seven can only go 3,850 miles so I don’t know how they would fly those routes ? Is there a way a to increase the miles it’s can go some how ?

Wneast wrote:

jplatts wrote:

The 737 MAX 7 might have enough range to reach DAL nonstop from HNL as the published range of the 737 MAX 7 is 4430 miles (635 miles longer than the great circle distance of DAL-HNL) whereas the published range of the 737-800 is 3377 miles (763 miles longer than the great circle distance of SAN-HNL).

It might make sense for WN to order some 737 MAX 7's with auxiliary fuel tanks that would allow WN to serve Hawaii nonstop from DAL, HOU, and MCI. WN already has significant market share in the Dallas, Houston, and Kansas City markets to support possible nonstop service to Hawaii from DAL, HOU, and MCI, and there would also be some connecting opportunities on both ends of the route if WN adds HNL-DAL/HOU/MCI nonstop service.

I probably would expect WN to add nonstop service to Hawaii from DEN, LAS, and PHX prior to adding nonstop service to Hawaii from DAL, HOU, or MCI with DEN, LAS, and PHX being closer to Hawaii.

On Boeing’s website it say the max seven can only go 3,850 miles so I don’t know how they would fly those routes ? Is there a way a to increase the miles it’s can go some how ?

The boeing website says 3850 Nautical miles (nm), which is 4430 miles. HNL-DAL is 3795 miles.

That said, I don't put stock in manufacturer website stated ranges.

Antarius wrote:

Wneast wrote:

jplatts wrote:

The 737 MAX 7 might have enough range to reach DAL nonstop from HNL as the published range of the 737 MAX 7 is 4430 miles (635 miles longer than the great circle distance of DAL-HNL) whereas the published range of the 737-800 is 3377 miles (763 miles longer than the great circle distance of SAN-HNL).

It might make sense for WN to order some 737 MAX 7's with auxiliary fuel tanks that would allow WN to serve Hawaii nonstop from DAL, HOU, and MCI. WN already has significant market share in the Dallas, Houston, and Kansas City markets to support possible nonstop service to Hawaii from DAL, HOU, and MCI, and there would also be some connecting opportunities on both ends of the route if WN adds HNL-DAL/HOU/MCI nonstop service.

I probably would expect WN to add nonstop service to Hawaii from DEN, LAS, and PHX prior to adding nonstop service to Hawaii from DAL, HOU, or MCI with DEN, LAS, and PHX being closer to Hawaii.

On Boeing’s website it say the max seven can only go 3,850 miles so I don’t know how they would fly those routes ? Is there a way a to increase the miles it’s can go some how ?

The boeing website says 3850 Nautical miles (nm), which is 4430 miles. HNL-DAL is 3795 miles.

That said, I don't put stock in manufacturer website stated ranges.

so they could DAL and HOU and hawaii then ?

Wneast wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Wneast wrote:

On Boeing’s website it say the max seven can only go 3,850 miles so I don’t know how they would fly those routes ? Is there a way a to increase the miles it’s can go some how ?

The boeing website says 3850 Nautical miles (nm), which is 4430 miles. HNL-DAL is 3795 miles.

That said, I don't put stock in manufacturer website stated ranges.

so they could DAL and HOU and hawaii then ?

Theoretically. But manufacturers ranges are often not with real world conditions, so usually anticipate less in actuality.

jplatts wrote:

The 737 MAX 7 might have enough range to reach DAL nonstop from HNL as the published range of the 737 MAX 7 is 4430 miles (635 miles longer than the great circle distance of DAL-HNL) whereas the published range of the 737-800 is 3377 miles (763 miles longer than the great circle distance of SAN-HNL).

It might make sense for WN to order some 737 MAX 7's with auxiliary fuel tanks that would allow WN to serve Hawaii nonstop from DAL, HOU, and MCI. WN already has significant market share in the Dallas, Houston, and Kansas City markets to support possible nonstop service to Hawaii from DAL, HOU, and MCI, and there would also be some connecting opportunities on both ends of the route if WN adds HNL-DAL/HOU/MCI nonstop service.

I probably would expect WN to add nonstop service to Hawaii from DEN, LAS, and PHX prior to adding nonstop service to Hawaii from DAL, HOU, or MCI with DEN, LAS, and PHX being closer to Hawaii.

DAL/HOU-HNL on a 737 has to be pushing almost 9hrs.. I would want no parts of these flights

noviorbis77 wrote:

Great order for Boeing.

Congratulations

when there is no competition.... it helps

itisi wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Great order for Boeing.

Congratulations

when there is no competition.... it helps

And WN didn't become one of the largest and most successful airlines in the world, by listening to your sour grapes comments, they chose Boeing, because they know how to run their own company and chose what aircraft suited them best...period

INFINITI329 wrote:

DAL/HOU-HNL on a 737 has to be pushing almost 9hrs.. I would want no parts of these flights

The flight time of DAL-HNL is approximately 8 and a half hours going west and the flight time of HNL-DAL is approximately 7 hours going east.

Is a Main Cabin seat on an AA 787-8 or AA 777-200 more comfortable than a seat on a WN 737 MAX 7?

jplatts wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

DAL/HOU-HNL on a 737 has to be pushing almost 9hrs.. I would want no parts of these flights

The flight time of DAL-HNL is approximately 8 and a half hours going west and the flight time of HNL-DAL is approximately 7 hours going east.

Is a Main Cabin seat on an AA 787-8 or AA 777-200 more comfortable than a seat on a WN 737 MAX 7?

Westbound flights could be pushing ETOPS limits as well.

jplatts wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

DAL/HOU-HNL on a 737 has to be pushing almost 9hrs.. I would want no parts of these flights

The flight time of DAL-HNL is approximately 8 and a half hours going west and the flight time of HNL-DAL is approximately 7 hours going east.

Is a Main Cabin seat on an AA 787-8 or AA 777-200 more comfortable than a seat on a WN 737 MAX 7?

It feels more spacious.

But in reality, it doesn't matter. If the price is right, it will be full. The seats could be filled with spikes for all most care.

ClipperMonsoon wrote:

itisi wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Great order for Boeing.

Congratulations

when there is no competition.... it helps

And WN didn't become one of the largest and most successful airlines in the world, by listening to your sour grapes comments, they chose Boeing, because they know how to run their own company and chose what aircraft suited them best...period

Exactly. It's just how the chips fall. WN started their operation with the 737-200 and the 737 has been in production and evolved ever since. It's not that hard to see the benefit. Now, had WN started operations with the DC-9 then we would have seen a more interesting competition between Boeing and Airbus since WN would have been forced to move to a new fleet.

The WN seating has better legroom than the AA seating in the back.

ClipperMonsoon wrote:

itisi wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Great order for Boeing.

Congratulations

when there is no competition.... it helps

And WN didn't become one of the largest and most successful airlines in the world, by listening to your sour grapes comments, they chose Boeing, because they know how to run their own company and chose what aircraft suited them best...period

Yep.

There's a reason that the people on this site don't run airlines.

TTailedTiger wrote:

ClipperMonsoon wrote:

itisi wrote:

when there is no competition.... it helps

And WN didn't become one of the largest and most successful airlines in the world, by listening to your sour grapes comments, they chose Boeing, because they know how to run their own company and chose what aircraft suited them best...period

Exactly. It's just how the chips fall. WN started their operation with the 737-200 and the 737 has been in production and evolved ever since. It's not that hard to see the benefit. Now, had WN started operations with the DC-9 then we would have seen a more interesting competition between Boeing and Airbus since WN would have been forced to move to a new fleet.

If WN had started with the DC-9 and ordered as many DC-9s and MDs as they did 737s we very well might be talking about an MD-90 MAX order instead of a 737

rbavfan wrote:

TranscendZac wrote:

Great order and shot in the arm for the Max. Love that they order -7s. Isn’t the range 3800nm+? That should give them a lot of flexibility in new international destinations. Also hoping to see the -10 ordered.

For the few routes needed the 10 would give them about 25 pass increase between each model flown. The -10 I could see on International routes that are doing well as those routes can be limited 1/day vs the usual WN operation style. But seems there are not a lot of routes that need it. Also new gear (increased cost), & may have OWE slides added (increased cost)

OWE slides? Isn't the main appeal of the extending landing gear that, with the exception of just before rotation, the length of the gear is the same as every other model? OWE slides would be quite the design change and weight increase for not many seats over the MAX 9.

It seems Airbus was not invited to bid the A220 against the MAX7:

"Southwest conducted an internal technical analysis of the A220-300 vs. the 737-7 MAX. The A220-300 offered better economics. But this competed against the costs of retaining a common 737 fleet.

“Southwest acknowledged the merits of the A220, but there was no competition” for a commercially-based bid, LNA is told."

https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/05/ponti ... us-to-bid/

JerseyFlyer wrote:

It seems Airbus was not invited to bid the A220 against the MAX7:

"Southwest conducted an internal technical analysis of the A220-300 vs. the 737-7 MAX. The A220-300 offered better economics. But this competed against the costs of retaining a common 737 fleet.

“Southwest acknowledged the merits of the A220, but there was no competition” for a commercially-based bid, LNA is told."

https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/05/ponti ... us-to-bid/

Very interesting. Thanks for this.

You know reading that article this is the exact same thing Revelation said regarding Airbus and their strategy on negotiations:

“Boeing’s financial terms and compensation due Southwest made it impossible for Airbus to match even if invited to bid. Furthermore, Airbus’ sales philosophy changed since the 2018 retirement of John Leahy as COO-Customers.
The aggressive Leahy was often willing to pursue creative deals to break Boeing’s incumbency. (Leahy’s willingness had limits, however. He never seriously pursued a deal with Ryanair, a rock-solid Boeing customer.)
But under his successor, Christian Scherer, Airbus is less willing to drop prices to rock-bottom levels to win a deal. Scherer is known to see the A320 and A220 families as more technologically advanced than the 737. He has noted these aircraft still have growth opportunities, while the 737 is maxed out. A stretched A220-500 and an “A322” or A321 Plus-Plus designs are on the shelf, waiting to go when the time is right. The A220-500 is a question of when, not if, a person close to the situation tells LNA.
Taking a page from decades-long messaging by Boeing, Scherer believes Airbus can command a premium over Boeing.“

Do you guys think Airbus can sustainably command a greater price over Boeing’s products?

I think the main chance Airbus has at winning an order from Southwest will be when the 737 line is shut down and the new NSA /NMA arrives (assuming Southwest/Boeing/Airbus are still around when that happens). Also wouldn't disregard the idea of the MC-21 or the Comac 919 if they are able to evolve their products into a truly global competitor

Opus99 wrote:

Very interesting. Thanks for this.

You know reading that article this is the exact same thing Revelation said regarding Airbus and their strategy on negotiations:

“Boeing’s financial terms and compensation due Southwest made it impossible for Airbus to match even if invited to bid. Furthermore, Airbus’ sales philosophy changed since the 2018 retirement of John Leahy as COO-Customers.
The aggressive Leahy was often willing to pursue creative deals to break Boeing’s incumbency. (Leahy’s willingness had limits, however. He never seriously pursued a deal with Ryanair, a rock-solid Boeing customer.)
But under his successor, Christian Scherer, Airbus is less willing to drop prices to rock-bottom levels to win a deal. Scherer is known to see the A320 and A220 families as more technologically advanced than the 737. He has noted these aircraft still have growth opportunities, while the 737 is maxed out. A stretched A220-500 and an “A322” or A321 Plus-Plus designs are on the shelf, waiting to go when the time is right. The A220-500 is a question of when, not if, a person close to the situation tells LNA.
Taking a page from decades-long messaging by Boeing, Scherer believes Airbus can command a premium over Boeing.“

Do you guys think Airbus can sustainably command a greater price over Boeing’s products?

Airbus has a huge narrow body backlog, more planes than it can build for years to come.

Their biggest problem is how to maximize their profits while building all those aircraft.

It does feel like they are taking their foot off the neck of Boeing, but it's not too hard to justify the choice to do so.

It is a change of the aggressive strategy of the Leahy eara, IMO.

The article also points out Airbus did not offer competitive pricing on A321neo to Alaska which ended up taking more 739s.

Seems Airbus is content with its order book and is not going to be very aggressive in terms of pricing and new product introduction.

Not as much fun as the Leahy era, but pretty easy to justify as long as they keep funding R&D so they are ready with a counter stroke if/when needed.

Airline customers are struggling and no one really knows what the post-covid world will look like so it's not a great time to spend money bringing a new product to market.

Seems to me that Airbus will also be as John Leahy says a paper airplane company for quite a while.

Also, having a viable competitor actually makes Airbus's life easier.

Think of how Microsoft kept investing in putting Office onto Mac, if they didn't have a viable competitor all kinds of anti-competitive accusations would have flown their way.

The next interesting competition will be IAG, IMO.

That might be a big enough concern in the halls of TLS to decide it's time to break open the war chest.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

It seems Airbus was not invited to bid the A220 against the MAX7:

"Southwest conducted an internal technical analysis of the A220-300 vs. the 737-7 MAX. The A220-300 offered better economics. But this competed against the costs of retaining a common 737 fleet.

“Southwest acknowledged the merits of the A220, but there was no competition” for a commercially-based bid, LNA is told."

https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/05/ponti ... us-to-bid/

Pure excuse.

Good salespeople always remember that "If you don't ASK for the order, you will never GET the order."

bob75013 wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

It seems Airbus was not invited to bid the A220 against the MAX7:

"Southwest conducted an internal technical analysis of the A220-300 vs. the 737-7 MAX. The A220-300 offered better economics. But this competed against the costs of retaining a common 737 fleet.

“Southwest acknowledged the merits of the A220, but there was no competition” for a commercially-based bid, LNA is told."

https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/05/ponti ... us-to-bid/

Pure excuse.

Good salespeople always remember that "If you don't ASK for the order, you will never GET the order."

Do the maths. If Airbus would have to literally print money to sell the A220 to WN, it just doesn't add up for them even thinking about asking to waste time (and money) to do a quote.

bob75013 wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

It seems Airbus was not invited to bid the A220 against the MAX7:

"Southwest conducted an internal technical analysis of the A220-300 vs. the 737-7 MAX. The A220-300 offered better economics. But this competed against the costs of retaining a common 737 fleet.

“Southwest acknowledged the merits of the A220, but there was no competition” for a commercially-based bid, LNA is told."

https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/05/ponti ... us-to-bid/

Pure excuse.

Good salespeople always remember that "If you don't ASK for the order, you will never GET the order."

Better sales people understand the difference between revenue and margin.

oschkosch wrote:

Do the maths. If Airbus would have to literally print money to sell the A220 to WN, it just doesn't add up for them even thinking about asking to waste time (and money) to do a quote.

Airbus already has to print money every time they deliver an A220, and will till at least mid decade., so that can't be the main concern.

The posts earlier in this thread suggest the main concern is they are still sorting out the production line and the supply chain and having to spend money on things like new interiors and parts redesigns.

In short it's not clear if the A220 program is in a position to deliver on its earlier planned trajectory, never mind take on an accelerated one.

jplatts wrote:

The 737 MAX 7 might have enough range to reach DAL nonstop from HNL as the published range of the 737 MAX 7 is 4430 miles (635 miles longer than the great circle distance of DAL-HNL) whereas the published range of the 737-800 is 3377 miles (763 miles longer than the great circle distance of SAN-HNL).

It might make sense for WN to order some 737 MAX 7's with auxiliary fuel tanks that would allow WN to serve Hawaii nonstop from DAL, HOU, and MCI. WN already has significant market share in the Dallas, Houston, and Kansas City markets to support possible nonstop service to Hawaii from DAL, HOU, and MCI, and there would also be some connecting opportunities on both ends of the route if WN adds HNL-DAL/HOU/MCI nonstop service.

I probably would expect WN to add nonstop service to Hawaii from DEN, LAS, and PHX prior to adding nonstop service to Hawaii from DAL, HOU, or MCI with DEN, LAS, and PHX being closer to Hawaii.

Real-world range with reserves and a full passenger load is going to be ~10% lower than that, and westbound headwinds will reduce that another 10%. Add in additional ETOPS requirements and real life west bound ETOPS range would be closer to 3300sm, give or take. A North-South non ETOPS flight? Sure, it's possible at 4000sm it could work, but not East-West ETOPS. Realistically DEN is about as far East the Max 7 even has a chance at operating, and even that's a stretch IMO.

rbavfan wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Leisure routes such as west coast to Hawaii, HOU to Mexico beach destinations and potentially some peak trunk routes like HOU-DAL, DAL-MDW etc.

To add PHX-DEN, PHX-MDW, BWI-FLL,BWI-MCO,

I think essentially any route that has multiple 738s a day would probably do well with a 200 seater Max 9/10. Along with slot-controlled airports such as LGA. The beauty is that it will not cost Southwest that much more to operate a Max 9/10 vs the 738/MAX 8 so the additional profit potential is high. Larger cargo holds obviously would allow more cargo to be carried. I agree with the consensus that 30-50 airplanes would be ideal for Southwest's network

Slot controlled airports might be good, but you have to add in the longer turn times & at LGA the -10 may be cargo limited due to runway length. While it looks good, some airport limits might be there in cases such as LGA. One slotcontrolled airport that the -10 would be a waste is SNA. That airport is combined slot control & passenger limited/day by law. So you can't just drop in a larger plane. Even using the -7 could be an issue as well with the added seats it could cost a slot due to passenger numbers. Unless the blocked seats every flight. Which could still save them money.

Regarding seat blocking, that would be a maintenance action to perform and an AFM supplement to add/remove. I can't imagine they'd want to write up an entry in the maintenance logbook every time they wanted to fly the aircraft somewhere besides SNA and then bring it back again.

OKCPanda wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

To add PHX-DEN, PHX-MDW, BWI-FLL,BWI-MCO,

I think essentially any route that has multiple 738s a day would probably do well with a 200 seater Max 9/10. Along with slot-controlled airports such as LGA. The beauty is that it will not cost Southwest that much more to operate a Max 9/10 vs the 738/MAX 8 so the additional profit potential is high. Larger cargo holds obviously would allow more cargo to be carried. I agree with the consensus that 30-50 airplanes would be ideal for Southwest's network

Slot controlled airports might be good, but you have to add in the longer turn times & at LGA the -10 may be cargo limited due to runway length. While it looks good, some airport limits might be there in cases such as LGA. One slotcontrolled airport that the -10 would be a waste is SNA. That airport is combined slot control & passenger limited/day by law. So you can't just drop in a larger plane. Even using the -7 could be an issue as well with the added seats it could cost a slot due to passenger numbers. Unless the blocked seats every flight. Which could still save them money.

Regarding seat blocking, that would be a maintenance action to perform and an AFM supplement to add/remove. I can't imagine they'd want to write up an entry in the maintenance logbook every time they wanted to fly the aircraft somewhere besides SNA and then bring it back again.

The cap is based on number of passengers flown, not seat flown. By “blocking seats” all WN has to do is sell less seats on the flight than on the plane. It’s the same way WN “blocked” middle seats when the pandemic started and they were doing that- they only sold to 67% capacity.

Keep an eye on WN8725 on the 6th.

barney captain wrote:

Keep an eye on WN8725 on the 6th.

Proving run?? Muahahahaha

Antarius wrote:

There's a reason that the people on this site don't run airlines.

I disagree, there's a lot more nuance and insight on this forum than you'd find in many airline boardrooms.

When fleet sizes are in the hundreds, tying your choices to one company is myopic and potentially fatal to operations. And, as we saw with the Max, it can actually be fatal to innocent people because Boeing tried to maintain handling compatibility with the NG to ensure they'd get the Southwest order.

What signal does it send that a board will approve purchasing 255 of an aircraft that demonstrated poor engineering from the outset? The signal it sends me is "this airline doesn't care".

The signal is, that the economics work for SW.

ELBOB wrote:

Antarius wrote:

There's a reason that the people on this site don't run airlines.

I disagree, there's a lot more nuance and insight on this forum than you'd find in many airline boardrooms.

When fleet sizes are in the hundreds, tying your choices to one company is myopic and potentially fatal to operations. And, as we saw with the Max, it can actually be fatal to innocent people because Boeing tried to maintain handling compatibility with the NG to ensure they'd get the Southwest order.

What signal does it send that a board will approve purchasing 255 of an aircraft that demonstrated poor engineering from the outset? The signal it sends me is "this airline doesn't care".

Everybody says this now because of the position you find yourself in. I’m sure if you were indeed in the position making role at Southwest you would’ve probably made the same decision in ordering the MAX. Is southwest the only one? This industry is built on the back of a duopoly almost every airline has that risk. If something should happen to the 320 series and it is grounded for an extended period. Jet blue faces serious problems. Same with LH or easyJet or spirit. MAX is even in less of that position following the scrutiny. 320neo probably isn’t in that position either but every business has risk. This is the risk of running a single fleet model. Does the benefit outweigh the risk? It probably does because that is how low cost airlines thrive. Southwest is not a legacy carrier. I don’t know why this purchase is difficult for people to understand. Would you expect a MAX at JetBlue? Yes it crashed and killed people but fortunately or unfortunately MAX is an extremely resilient product heavily in-part due to the fact that this is a duopoly, 737 has remained relevant for over 50 years with this same frame. I think that aircraft has done a great job over the years anyway.

Southwest is a business. Airlines are businesses, airlines that are not like businesses fall out (except heavily state backed). This business is extremely capital intensive and there’s little space for error.

ELBOB wrote:

Antarius wrote:

There's a reason that the people on this site don't run airlines.

I disagree, there's a lot more nuance and insight on this forum than you'd find in many airline boardrooms.

When fleet sizes are in the hundreds, tying your choices to one company is myopic and potentially fatal to operations. And, as we saw with the Max, it can actually be fatal to innocent people because Boeing tried to maintain handling compatibility with the NG to ensure they'd get the Southwest order.

What signal does it send that a board will approve purchasing 255 of an aircraft that demonstrated poor engineering from the outset? The signal it sends me is "this airline doesn't care".

Please bear in mind that single fleet type operations is a fundamental aspect of the LCC/ULCC model. The benefits are undeniable, so much so that legacy carriers worldwide are moving to simplify their fleets.

The good news is that consumers are free to give business to the airlines most aligned with their own personal values.

ELBOB wrote:

Antarius wrote:

There's a reason that the people on this site don't run airlines.

I disagree, there's a lot more nuance and insight on this forum than you'd find in many airline boardrooms.

When fleet sizes are in the hundreds, tying your choices to one company is myopic and potentially fatal to operations. And, as we saw with the Max, it can actually be fatal to innocent people because Boeing tried to maintain handling compatibility with the NG to ensure they'd get the Southwest order.

What signal does it send that a board will approve purchasing 255 of an aircraft that demonstrated poor engineering from the outset? The signal it sends me is "this airline doesn't care".

The signal sent is that WN knows their business model. There's a reason they're the only long running major that hasn't declared bankruptcy.

This board has a lot of people that are involved with aviation and therefore think they can run an airline. We don't let a bus driver design public transit, why do you think it would be any more successful here.

barney captain wrote:

Keep an eye on WN8725 on the 6th.

This just popped up on FR24: Its currently 09:31 MST

Flight history for Southwest Airlines flight WN8725
DATE FROM TO AIRCRAFT FLIGHT TIME STD ATD STA STATUS
06 Apr 2021 Phoenix (PHX) Phoenix (PHX) B38M — 10:00 — 14:47
Estimated departure 10:10
05 Mar 2021 Dallas (DAL) Dallas (DAL) B38M (N8735L) 0:49 13:00 13:33 14:15
Landed 14:22
05 Feb 2021 Dallas (DAL) Dallas (DAL) B38M (N8734Q) 1:07 13:00 13:08 14:18
Landed 14:15
22 Jan 2021 Dallas (DAL) Dallas (DAL) B38M (N8735L) 0:55 13:00 13:11 14:16
Landed 14:05

SWAFA27 wrote:

barney captain wrote:

Keep an eye on WN8725 on the 6th.

Proving run?? Muahahahaha

It's a proving run for the com portion initially. They check HF/SAT/CPDLC/SELCAL operation in Class II airspace.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA8725

UA735WL wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

ClipperMonsoon wrote:

And WN didn't become one of the largest and most successful airlines in the world, by listening to your sour grapes comments, they chose Boeing, because they know how to run their own company and chose what aircraft suited them best...period

Exactly. It's just how the chips fall. WN started their operation with the 737-200 and the 737 has been in production and evolved ever since. It's not that hard to see the benefit. Now, had WN started operations with the DC-9 then we would have seen a more interesting competition between Boeing and Airbus since WN would have been forced to move to a new fleet.

If WN had started with the DC-9 and ordered as many DC-9s and MDs as they did 737s we very well might be talking about an MD-90 MAX order instead of a 737

That would have been nice, in terms of more variety.

WN doesn't care about variety, if you wanted variety you should have been around in the late 90s, since then, its all pretty generic, avgeeks are the only ones who complain about lack of variety, I miss the older days too, these days its boring