Antarius wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

With a fundamentally better aircraft on offer, even WN's single type fleet costs will not likely match the gains available.

This is wishful thinking at it's finest, as WN found the exact opposite of your conclusion. As the article clearly says, WN elected for a single type as it was more economical than a more efficient second type.

I get that context can sometimes involve significant difficulty for some of us, but I am going to invite you to re-read the entire posting. I know you are trying very, very hard, and you should know I appreciate that.

Please feel free to take all the time you need. You will see that I have already very well covered this for you WRT overall fleet numbers.

Thanks!

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Antarius wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

With a fundamentally better aircraft on offer, even WN's single type fleet costs will not likely match the gains available.

This is wishful thinking at it's finest, as WN found the exact opposite of your conclusion. As the article clearly says, WN elected for a single type as it was more economical than a more efficient second type.

I get that context can sometimes involve significant difficulty for some of us, but I am going to invite you to re-read the entire posting. I know you are trying very, very hard, and you should know I appreciate that.

Please feel free to take all the time you need. You will see that I have already very well covered this for you WRT overall fleet numbers.

Thanks!

I I get that reality can sometimes involve significant difficulty, but just because you don't like the result, doesn't mean creating an alternate reality with alternate outcomes is healthy. Your post, read in entirety, comes off just like everyone who said that the A220 was going to happen, hopeful fantasy.

WN isn't going to order 200 A220s in the near future or far future. Their management team has made that pretty clear. I am going to invite you to re-read the entire article.

People keep arguing about something that is already decided. The choice is made. Period !!!

WN likes to tout that it "chooses" to do something because of reasons (X-Y-Z) but the fact of the matter is, WN is so behind in terms of technology and industry integration that the reality is, it CAN'T utilize other options. It's incapable; just like it was incapable of using carts on the -800. They have no catering or cleaning infrastructure and they can't connect to the industry standard for catering. Airbus could offer an aircraft that was 40% more fuel efficient and WN would panic bc it doesn't know what to do with anything other than the 737, the way it boards, the amount of time dedicated to it's processes, the cabin cleaning process, the catering etc. They only know how to (barely) do one thing... they haven't chosen to stick to the MAX... they don't know how to do anything else.

WNCrew wrote:

WN likes to tout that it "chooses" to do something because of reasons (X-Y-Z) but the fact of the matter is, WN is so behind in terms of technology and industry integration that the reality is, it CAN'T utilize other options. It's incapable; just like it was incapable of using carts on the -800. They have no catering or cleaning infrastructure and they can't connect to the industry standard for catering. Airbus could offer an aircraft that was 40% more fuel efficient and WN would panic bc it doesn't know what to do with anything other than the 737, the way it boards, the amount of time dedicated to it's processes, the cabin cleaning process, the catering etc. They only know how to (barely) do one thing... they haven't chosen to stick to the MAX... they don't know how to do anything else.

Well one type of aircraft under the HERB KISS philosophy kept WN as the most constant profitable airline in all of the worlds aviation history. Only a uncontrollable pandemic broke the streak.

Flyguy

WNCrew wrote:

WN likes to tout that it "chooses" to do something because of reasons (X-Y-Z) but the fact of the matter is, WN is so behind in terms of technology and industry integration that the reality is, it CAN'T utilize other options. It's incapable; just like it was incapable of using carts on the -800. They have no catering or cleaning infrastructure and they can't connect to the industry standard for catering. Airbus could offer an aircraft that was 40% more fuel efficient and WN would panic bc it doesn't know what to do with anything other than the 737, the way it boards, the amount of time dedicated to it's processes, the cabin cleaning process, the catering etc. They only know how to (barely) do one thing... they haven't chosen to stick to the MAX... they don't know how to do anything else.

I wouldn’t say WN *can’t* do this or that...just that it won’t unless it is forced to. For example, the pandemic really forced cleaning initiatives on aircraft turns and it seemed to work a lot better than many expected. Tech is definitely another weak point, but again changes and incremental improvements are being forced by circumstances. When the time comes to add another type to the fleet, no doubt WN will do so crying, kicking, and screaming!

iamlucky13 wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

Anyone who thought WN was seriously contemplating the A220 is a fool.

Southwest themselves said it.

https://theaircurrent.com/scoops/southw ... -or-a220s/
https://theaircurrent.com/airlines/sout ... -aviation/

If they made material statements they knew to be false in order to mislead a party they were engaged in business negotiations with, they could end up creating some trouble for themselves.

The first article gives us what WN actually said for the record:

“We simply don’t comment on discussions regarding our future fleet decisions and do not have anything to announce. We’re marking 50 years as a single fleet airline and have shared consistently our hope to keep that simplicity,” a Southwest spokesman told TAC. “We’ve also shared that we consistently evaluate the performance and availability of other fleet types that could potentially work within our strategy and business model.”

This is very consistent with other statements they've made.

Various A220 partisans always claimed this was just posturing.

Now we know it wasn't just posturing, A220 didn't make the first cut.

All the rest of the stuff in the article falls into the immaterial category, IMO.

TAC does a good job of summarizing what was at stake though:

Losing Southwest’s exclusivity could be catastrophic for Boeing and its leadership team. The expectation is that a win for the A220-300 could spark similar purchases at American Airlines and United Airlines as they look for a 150-seat aircraft to go head-to-head with Southwest’s fleet. Further, Southwest’s endorsement, just as was for the 737 family, carries enormous weight globally as the standard bearer of the industry’s most successful business model.

One paragraph I didn't see earlier (the first article is open to non-subscribers now):

The senior Southwest executive acknowledged the “widely held view that there’s a gap” between the A220 and Max 7, but cautioned there’s “not unanimity on the numbers” given the assumptions that are going into the calculations. The conclusions can vary, for example, with the precise internal layouts for seating or plane maker’s expectation of the number of engine overhauls promised on the Leap-1B or PW1500G engines. Boeing and CFM’s maintenance costs are more established, the executive noted, compared to the all-new A220.

Seems like the arm twisting was to get GE to promise a lower number of engine overhauls needed so they would need to pay compensation if/when the promise is missed.

In other words WN wanted better guarantees around engine maintenance cost and leaked to the media to pressure GE to come up with better numbers.

Antarius wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

With a fundamentally better aircraft on offer, even WN's single type fleet costs will not likely match the gains available.

This is wishful thinking at it's finest, as WN found the exact opposite of your conclusion. As the article clearly says, WN elected for a single type as it was more economical than a more efficient second type.

The TAC article says:

Any outcome has to balance the operating economics of a performance shortfall or advantage against fitting into or breaking the existing single-type structure that Southwest’s operations are based upon with the 737. “The whole package has to work” for each aircraft, said the senior Southwest executive.

Clearly:

• A220 partisans over-valued A220's advantages in WN's exact configuration and as flown on WN's network
• A220 partisans under-valued WN's single fleet advantages

It turns out the lighter aircraft isn't always the best aircraft.

WNCrew wrote:

WN likes to tout that it "chooses" to do something because of reasons (X-Y-Z) but the fact of the matter is, WN is so behind in terms of technology and industry integration that the reality is, it CAN'T utilize other options. It's incapable; just like it was incapable of using carts on the -800. They have no catering or cleaning infrastructure and they can't connect to the industry standard for catering. Airbus could offer an aircraft that was 40% more fuel efficient and WN would panic bc it doesn't know what to do with anything other than the 737, the way it boards, the amount of time dedicated to it's processes, the cabin cleaning process, the catering etc. They only know how to (barely) do one thing... they haven't chosen to stick to the MAX... they don't know how to do anything else.

This has always been my take on a lot of decisions Southwest has made or is making.

No advanced seat selection (or seat selection at all) because their computer couldn’t handle it. Yes, the 10 minute turn made sense in 1975, but today it simply is not an issue. Same thing with no baggage charges; at the time, their IT simply was not capable.

The “no red eyes” was borne from their computer not being able to handle the date change. I say “their computer” but really it involves all IT. Flight Dispatch, Reservations, etc. Heck even payroll IT couldn’t handle the date change.

An airline the size of Southwest (and let’s face it, it’s huge), starts to be at an economic disadvantage when not matching the right size airframe to the job. Thankfully, the 737 has evolved to many sizes and missions. But with advanced fleet movement planning and control, crew scheduling (including training) planning etc, it needn’t cost any more having two types/fleets .... then the cost advantage of the other type can be realized. But that advanced technology has to be in place first.

That is how (pre-covid) profitable airlines like UAL, DAL and AAL can have similar narrow body fleets of more than one type and run them profitably.

IMO, the choice of the 737 over the A220 has nothing though to do with Southwest and more with Airbus. There is no way the limited production capabilities of the A220 could ever satisfy a huge demand of an airline the size of Southwest.

CrewBunk wrote:

An airline the size of Southwest (and let’s face it, it’s huge), starts to be at an economic disadvantage when not matching the right size airframe to the job. Thankfully, the 737 has evolved to many sizes and missions. But with advanced fleet movement planning and control, crew scheduling (including training) planning etc, it needn’t cost any more having two types/fleets .... then the cost advantage of the other type can be realized. But that advanced technology has to be in place first.

It will always cost more to have two fleets rather than one.

The real question is can you make more money by having two fleets rather than one.

Clearly WN thinks the answer to that is "no", the negatives outweigh the positives in their estimation.

BTW, that advanced IT stuff is not free.

I've seen some software licensing invoices for advanced enterprise software and the prices are eye-watering.

Guess what, the people who write the software have very clear data on how much the software will save you and they price accordingly.

Sure, you can develop your own, but that comes with a lot of risk and a lot of cost.

Revelation wrote:

It will always cost more to have two fleets rather than one.

Only if the cost to operate each type is the same.

However, if each type is better suited to a particular mission or if one is significantly more efficient than the other, then it costs less to have two types.

CrewBunk wrote:

Revelation wrote:

It will always cost more to have two fleets rather than one.

Only if the cost to operate each type is the same.

However, if each type is better suited to a particular mission or if one is significantly more efficient than the other, then it costs less to have two types.

No, it still costs more to have two fleets, but there are cases where the efficiency of two fleets means you make more profit with two versus one.

Revelation wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

Anyone who thought WN was seriously contemplating the A220 is a fool.

Southwest themselves said it.

https://theaircurrent.com/scoops/southw ... -or-a220s/
https://theaircurrent.com/airlines/sout ... -aviation/

This is very consistent with other statements they've made.

Various A220 partisans always claimed this was just posturing.

Now we know it wasn't just posturing, A220 didn't make the first cut.

Very clearly they made the first cut (it was under evaluation), and some benefits were noted.

They did not make the 2nd, much less final cut, so it is also very clear Southwest still places a very high value on fleet commonality, putting the CSeries at a significant disadvantage in the evaluation. Yet it's inclusion in Southwest's latest fleet evaluation is clearly established, so the insult that Scarebus34 made was not only uncalled for, but contradicted by the facts.

CrewBunk wrote:

WNCrew wrote:

WN likes to tout that it "chooses" to do something because of reasons (X-Y-Z) but the fact of the matter is, WN is so behind in terms of technology and industry integration that the reality is, it CAN'T utilize other options. It's incapable; just like it was incapable of using carts on the -800. They have no catering or cleaning infrastructure and they can't connect to the industry standard for catering. Airbus could offer an aircraft that was 40% more fuel efficient and WN would panic bc it doesn't know what to do with anything other than the 737, the way it boards, the amount of time dedicated to it's processes, the cabin cleaning process, the catering etc. They only know how to (barely) do one thing... they haven't chosen to stick to the MAX... they don't know how to do anything else.

This has always been my take on a lot of decisions Southwest has made or is making.

No advanced seat selection (or seat selection at all) because their computer couldn’t handle it. Yes, the 10 minute turn made sense in 1975, but today it simply is not an issue. Same thing with no baggage charges; at the time, their IT simply was not capable.

The “no red eyes” was borne from their computer not being able to handle the date change. I say “their computer” but really it involves all IT. Flight Dispatch, Reservations, etc. Heck even payroll IT couldn’t handle the date change.

An airline the size of Southwest (and let’s face it, it’s huge), starts to be at an economic disadvantage when not matching the right size airframe to the job. Thankfully, the 737 has evolved to many sizes and missions. But with advanced fleet movement planning and control, crew scheduling (including training) planning etc, it needn’t cost any more having two types/fleets .... then the cost advantage of the other type can be realized. But that advanced technology has to be in place first.

That is how (pre-covid) profitable airlines like UAL, DAL and AAL can have similar narrow body fleets of more than one type and run them profitably.

IMO, the choice of the 737 over the A220 has nothing though to do with Southwest and more with Airbus. There is no way the limited production capabilities of the A220 could ever satisfy a huge demand of an airline the size of Southwest.

At the end of the day, WN remains the only one of the majors that has not either disappeared or declared Chapter 11 over 4 decades plus of existence. WN may be stuck in an "outdated" or "limited" model due to whatever reason, but they remain profitable and successful.

Maybe simple is good in a capital intensive, low margin business. History seems to indicate this.

Revelation wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

Revelation wrote:

It will always cost more to have two fleets rather than one.

Only if the cost to operate each type is the same.

However, if each type is better suited to a particular mission or if one is significantly more efficient than the other, then it costs less to have two types.

No, it still costs more to have two fleets, but there are cases where the efficiency of two fleets means you make more profit with two versus one.

Yup. And that's heavily dependent on what your business model is.

Revelation wrote:

No, it still costs more to have two fleets, but there are cases where the efficiency of two fleets means you make more profit with two versus one.

In other words, if; carrying the same passengers for the same revenue on the same mission, you make “more profit” with two types vs. one, then .... it costs less.

I’m not saying it happens all the time, and certainly in a smaller operation, it’s a better idea to have only one type, but .... there comes a time when “more profit” will be realized as the fleet grows by introducing another type.

I think it’s testimony to the 737 that across Southwest’s vast network, stretching from the South Pacific to the Caribbean, the 737 is capable of fulfilling all demands.

Antarius wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

WNCrew wrote:

WN likes to tout that it "chooses" to do something because of reasons (X-Y-Z) but the fact of the matter is, WN is so behind in terms of technology and industry integration that the reality is, it CAN'T utilize other options. It's incapable; just like it was incapable of using carts on the -800. They have no catering or cleaning infrastructure and they can't connect to the industry standard for catering. Airbus could offer an aircraft that was 40% more fuel efficient and WN would panic bc it doesn't know what to do with anything other than the 737, the way it boards, the amount of time dedicated to it's processes, the cabin cleaning process, the catering etc. They only know how to (barely) do one thing... they haven't chosen to stick to the MAX... they don't know how to do anything else.

This has always been my take on a lot of decisions Southwest has made or is making.

No advanced seat selection (or seat selection at all) because their computer couldn’t handle it. Yes, the 10 minute turn made sense in 1975, but today it simply is not an issue. Same thing with no baggage charges; at the time, their IT simply was not capable.

The “no red eyes” was borne from their computer not being able to handle the date change. I say “their computer” but really it involves all IT. Flight Dispatch, Reservations, etc. Heck even payroll IT couldn’t handle the date change.

An airline the size of Southwest (and let’s face it, it’s huge), starts to be at an economic disadvantage when not matching the right size airframe to the job. Thankfully, the 737 has evolved to many sizes and missions. But with advanced fleet movement planning and control, crew scheduling (including training) planning etc, it needn’t cost any more having two types/fleets .... then the cost advantage of the other type can be realized. But that advanced technology has to be in place first.

That is how (pre-covid) profitable airlines like UAL, DAL and AAL can have similar narrow body fleets of more than one type and run them profitably.

IMO, the choice of the 737 over the A220 has nothing though to do with Southwest and more with Airbus. There is no way the limited production capabilities of the A220 could ever satisfy a huge demand of an airline the size of Southwest.

At the end of the day, WN remains the only one of the majors that has not either disappeared or declared Chapter 11 over 4 decades plus of existence. WN may be stuck in an "outdated" or "limited" model due to whatever reason, but they remain profitable and successful.

Maybe simple is good in a capital intensive, low margin business. History seems to indicate this.

Revelation wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

Only if the cost to operate each type is the same.

However, if each type is better suited to a particular mission or if one is significantly more efficient than the other, then it costs less to have two types.

No, it still costs more to have two fleets, but there are cases where the efficiency of two fleets means you make more profit with two versus one.

Yup. And that's heavily dependent on what your business model is.

“Just because you can do it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do it”

Revelation wrote:

No, it still costs more to have two fleets, but there are cases where the efficiency of two fleets means you make more profit with two versus one.

Right, this is an important distinction. I do not believe anyone has said having two fleets would be the same or less expensive, so I am really thinking that specific point drifts into strawman territory. For a company like WN, your point is actually seen applied in a number of areas. WN are —demonstrably— not afraid to leave money on the table in defense of operation efficiency/stability. Things like not adding bag fees or red-eyes speak as loudly to that philosophy as fleet type mgmt.

But they have also shown that they have they capability of making incremental evolutions as well. I very much doubt your 1993 analog would see WN operating in places like MIA, DCA, DEN etc. There was a time when operating out of smaller, lower cost fields was as important to them as anything else. Leave alone the complexities involved with Int'l flying, ETOPS, the M&As of the last two and half decades etc.

Multiple fleet types are more expensive. But the idea that they will eventually forgo cost savings in favor of greater profit opportunity is hardly difficult to grasp. I do not think anyone seriously thought the 220 was going to happen at this point, given the overall circumstances and numbers involved. But there will come a point —especially in the likelihood of a 500 series being greenlighted— where it is no longer realistic to discount that eventuality either.

iamlucky13 wrote:

They did not make the 2nd, much less final cut, so it is also very clear Southwest still places a very high value on fleet commonality, putting the CSeries at a significant disadvantage in the evaluation. Yet it's inclusion in Southwest's latest fleet evaluation is clearly established, so the insult that Scarebus34 made was not only uncalled for, but contradicted by the facts.

Without a doubt. The order they were looking for was nowhere enough wings to overcome the Credits issue and the fleet complexities issue. This will not always be so. In fact, the end of the decade will likely be a very different story on all that.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Multiple fleet types are more expensive. But the idea that they will eventually forgo cost savings in favor of greater profit opportunity is hardly difficult to grasp. I do not think anyone seriously thought the 220 was going to happen at this point, given the overall circumstances and numbers involved. But there will come a point —especially in the likelihood of a 500 series being greenlighted— where it is no longer realistic to discount that eventuality either.

A220-500 in WN's fleet is now extremely unlikely given they just passed on A220-300 for the MAX7 replacement. Their only hope of placing A220-500 was to get A220-300 in as a bridgehead.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Without a doubt. The order they were looking for was nowhere enough wings to overcome the Credits issue and the fleet complexities issue. This will not always be so. In fact, the end of the decade will likely be a very different story on all that.

WN has MAX deliveries scheduled out to 2030 and has options they can trigger with attractive pricing. Time will tell as to what tech is available in the post-2030 world but chances are it will be something better than Cseries/A220. Till then WN is in Boeing's camp.

[/quote]

“Just because you can do it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do it”[/quote]

and.. just because you CANT do something, doesn't mean that what you ARE doing is the "best way"...

WNCrew wrote:

“Just because you can do it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do it”

and.. just because you CANT do something, doesn't mean that what you ARE doing is the "best way"...

When all of your competition has declared chapter 11 and you haven't.... Maybe you are on to something.

I'm not a regular WN customer, but I sure as heck respect their business model. The stats speak for themselves.

Revelation wrote:

[*] A220 partisans over-valued A220's advantages in WN's exact configuration and as flown on WN's network
[*] A220 partisans under-valued WN's single fleet advantages[/list]

It turns out the lighter aircraft isn't always the best aircraft.

I'm not sure what % bags take up for a 149Y 737-7, but given that it has 30% more belly volume than the A220-300... Its going to result in a huge difference in available cargo capacity. WN makes money on cargo. It does not make money on giving up a huge chunk of revenue for a meaningful cost savings on only a part of the trip costs. 6Y vs 5Y at the same total seats should result in slightly shorter turn times, not that WN is pushing ultra quick turns anymore.

I can see why some airlines would value the lower operating costs, just not in this case. In this case its highly likely that even without fleet commonality being an issue WN would make more profit with the larger plane.

Opus99 wrote:

The jet southwest orders next will be whatever Boeing uses to replace the MAX. And that jet will have MAJOR input from southwest, Ryanair, United etc. Southwest knows they cannot last with the 737 forever. But when the day comes they want to be very well prepared and informed. So they will an integral part of what that next jet does and what it ought to be able to do, especially the 180-200 seater variant

I hope Southwest doesn't have any major input. Because then it will only be the 737-1100, 1200 and 1300.

Different types do not necessarily create more costs, if each subfleet is big enough. This entirely depends on your infrastructure. If you have a MRO branch that is already working on different types for other airlines and a training branch that also handles different types for other customers, the costs of adding an additional type to your fleet are rather limited. If your whole system is focussed on one type, like it is a Southwest, the disadvantage of a second type can nearly never be regained through performance advantages of the second type, if they are of the same generation.

seahawk wrote:

Different types do not necessarily create more costs, if each subfleet is big enough. This entirely depends on your infrastructure. If you have a MRO branch that is already working on different types for other airlines and a training branch that also handles different types for other customers, the costs of adding an additional type to your fleet are rather limited. If your whole system is focussed on one type, like it is a Southwest, the disadvantage of a second type can nearly never be regained through performance advantages of the second type, if they are of the same generation.

Absolutely true. However, being on the brink of a new generation of narrowbody technology (~2030 generation of single aisles) — as well as Airbus’ inability to compete with Boeing on price, quick mass production, and engine performance/MX guarantees (regarding the A220 series), the MAX7 currently makes the most economic sense for WN for the next decade. Especially because:

Revelation wrote:

WN has MAX deliveries scheduled out to 2030 and has options they can trigger with attractive pricing. Time will tell as to what tech is available in the post-2030 world but chances are it will be something better than Cseries/A220. Till then WN is in Boeing's camp.

By ordering more MAX 7 units and converting some MAX 8 orders to MAX 7s, WN is buying time and displacing the inevitable higher costs of a second fleet type to the next decade. At which time — a completely new, clean-sheet design will most likely come on the market by both manufacturers. And also at the time that WN will truly have no choice but to transition to a different fleet post 737 MAX (~2030-2050).

Spiderguy252 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

The jet southwest orders next will be whatever Boeing uses to replace the MAX. And that jet will have MAJOR input from southwest, Ryanair, United etc. Southwest knows they cannot last with the 737 forever. But when the day comes they want to be very well prepared and informed. So they will an integral part of what that next jet does and what it ought to be able to do, especially the 180-200 seater variant

I hope Southwest doesn't have any major input. Because then it will only be the 737-1100, 1200 and 1300.

As the pioneer of the “low cost, single fleet” model, WN will definitely have a seat at the table in the design of the next generation of single aisle narrowbody aircraft (they currently have over 700 737-series in their fleet accounting for retirements and lease returns during Covid). Especially with Boeing. As a longtime customer, they have as much say in what the next generation of aircraft should be capable of performing and at what costs, as much — if not more than, any other current 737 operator (with the exception of Ryanair perhaps). It’s up to Boeing and Airbus to design such an aircraft that is SAFE to operate — regardless of the expectations and demands of its airline clients. **The onus on certification and outright safety of any new design falls directly with the manufacturers and federal/regulatory aviation agencies — NOT the airline clients (as has contrarily been expressed in these forums when it comes to the MAX incidents).** The customer can ask for whatever they want, it’s the builder’s responsibility to design, manufacture, and certify that product in cooperation with all global aviation safety regulatory agencies (FAA, JAA, etc.)

The development of the 737 MAX wasn’t due to the pressure by Boeing’s customers to produce a new aircraft. Instead, it was a reactionary response to Airbus. Airbus launched the A320 NEO in 2010. To potentially avoid losing customers, Boeing quickly launched the 737 MAX in 2011 by “re-engining” the 737 with minor tweaks to the fuselage to cater to their 737 operators — hoping that they’d stick with the 737 instead of switching to the A320 NEO. This is why airlines like Spirit, were rumored to be considering switching from the Airbus CEO to the 737 MAX during that timeframe.

CrewBunk wrote:

WNCrew wrote:

WN likes to tout that it "chooses" to do something because of reasons (X-Y-Z) but the fact of the matter is, WN is so behind in terms of technology and industry integration that the reality is, it CAN'T utilize other options. It's incapable; just like it was incapable of using carts on the -800. They have no catering or cleaning infrastructure and they can't connect to the industry standard for catering. Airbus could offer an aircraft that was 40% more fuel efficient and WN would panic bc it doesn't know what to do with anything other than the 737, the way it boards, the amount of time dedicated to it's processes, the cabin cleaning process, the catering etc. They only know how to (barely) do one thing... they haven't chosen to stick to the MAX... they don't know how to do anything else.

This has always been my take on a lot of decisions Southwest has made or is making.

No advanced seat selection (or seat selection at all) because their computer couldn’t handle it. Yes, the 10 minute turn made sense in 1975, but today it simply is not an issue. Same thing with no baggage charges; at the time, their IT simply was not capable.

The “no red eyes” was borne from their computer not being able to handle the date change. I say “their computer” but really it involves all IT. Flight Dispatch, Reservations, etc. Heck even payroll IT couldn’t handle the date change.

An airline the size of Southwest (and let’s face it, it’s huge), starts to be at an economic disadvantage when not matching the right size airframe to the job. Thankfully, the 737 has evolved to many sizes and missions. But with advanced fleet movement planning and control, crew scheduling (including training) planning etc, it needn’t cost any more having two types/fleets .... then the cost advantage of the other type can be realized. But that advanced technology has to be in place first.

That is how (pre-covid) profitable airlines like UAL, DAL and AAL can have similar narrow body fleets of more than one type and run them profitably.

IMO, the choice of the 737 over the A220 has nothing though to do with Southwest and more with Airbus. There is no way the limited production capabilities of the A220 could ever satisfy a huge demand of an airline the size of Southwest.

Whatever the reason is for no seat assignments and as much as I wish they had them, there is no question that WN flights board significantly faster.

Surprised that this has gone almost unnoticed:

Southwest said the order was an outgrowth of talks with Boeing for compensation due to the 20-month grounding of the MAX.

Pretty straightforward explanation why only the 737MAX was considered.

planecane wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

WNCrew wrote:

WN likes to tout that it "chooses" to do something because of reasons (X-Y-Z) but the fact of the matter is, WN is so behind in terms of technology and industry integration that the reality is, it CAN'T utilize other options. It's incapable; just like it was incapable of using carts on the -800. They have no catering or cleaning infrastructure and they can't connect to the industry standard for catering. Airbus could offer an aircraft that was 40% more fuel efficient and WN would panic bc it doesn't know what to do with anything other than the 737, the way it boards, the amount of time dedicated to it's processes, the cabin cleaning process, the catering etc. They only know how to (barely) do one thing... they haven't chosen to stick to the MAX... they don't know how to do anything else.

This has always been my take on a lot of decisions Southwest has made or is making.

No advanced seat selection (or seat selection at all) because their computer couldn’t handle it. Yes, the 10 minute turn made sense in 1975, but today it simply is not an issue. Same thing with no baggage charges; at the time, their IT simply was not capable.

The “no red eyes” was borne from their computer not being able to handle the date change. I say “their computer” but really it involves all IT. Flight Dispatch, Reservations, etc. Heck even payroll IT couldn’t handle the date change.

An airline the size of Southwest (and let’s face it, it’s huge), starts to be at an economic disadvantage when not matching the right size airframe to the job. Thankfully, the 737 has evolved to many sizes and missions. But with advanced fleet movement planning and control, crew scheduling (including training) planning etc, it needn’t cost any more having two types/fleets .... then the cost advantage of the other type can be realized. But that advanced technology has to be in place first.

That is how (pre-covid) profitable airlines like UAL, DAL and AAL can have similar narrow body fleets of more than one type and run them profitably.

IMO, the choice of the 737 over the A220 has nothing though to do with Southwest and more with Airbus. There is no way the limited production capabilities of the A220 could ever satisfy a huge demand of an airline the size of Southwest.

Whatever the reason is for no seat assignments and as much as I wish they had them, there is no question that WN flights board significantly faster.

Incentivizing behavior certainly works best. Asking people to do the right thing usually elicits cooperation from a small percentage of people. Passengers are incentivized to get on the airplane early to secure aisle and window seats, and to get overhead space. The late boarding people get middle seats, and possibly no overhead space. It is a system that recognizes human behavior, and uses it to get the desired response. I don’t like it much, but it works.

Revelation wrote:

The real question is can you make more money by having two fleets rather than one.

Hmm and "not quite".

the cusp is when to accept a two type fleet ( for a while?).
at some point in time they will have to ween themselves of the 737 family. It will go away. that is certain.

established management dogma is to delay decisions until they no longer are decisions.
( Just like my mother. Change early into age and bodily limitations compatible living quarters?
Never ever! ... until there was absolutely no way around it. )

I think the 737 could very well see another generation of engines by 2030-35.

Lets also remember that WN DID have the option for two fleet types for a while - the 717s from AirTran. They consciously opted not to use them...

CrewBunk wrote:

No advanced seat selection (or seat selection at all) because their computer couldn’t handle it. Yes, the 10 minute turn made sense in 1975, but today it simply is not an issue. Same thing with no baggage charges; at the time, their IT simply was not capable.

The “no red eyes” was borne from their computer not being able to handle the date change. I say “their computer” but really it involves all IT. Flight Dispatch, Reservations, etc. Heck even payroll IT couldn’t handle the date change. .

It's strange that the same IT that can't handle baggage fees can handle charging for a 3rd, 4th, or 5th bag. The same issue with red-eyes. The IT can handle red-eyes when they are done as charters. Also there was also a Fri and Sat flight from MCI-BWI that left MCI about 11:30 PM and arrived in BWI at 3 AM.

orlandocfi wrote:

WNCrew wrote:

WN likes to tout that it "chooses" to do something because of reasons (X-Y-Z) but the fact of the matter is, WN is so behind in terms of technology and industry integration that the reality is, it CAN'T utilize other options. It's incapable; just like it was incapable of using carts on the -800. They have no catering or cleaning infrastructure and they can't connect to the industry standard for catering. Airbus could offer an aircraft that was 40% more fuel efficient and WN would panic bc it doesn't know what to do with anything other than the 737, the way it boards, the amount of time dedicated to it's processes, the cabin cleaning process, the catering etc. They only know how to (barely) do ow that the Embraer merger os off, one thing... they haven't chosen to stick to the MAX... they don't know how to do anything else.

I wouldn’t say WN *can’t* do this or that...just that it won’t unless it is forced to. For example, the pandemic really forced cleaning initiatives on aircraft turns and it seemed to work a lot better than many expected. Tech is definitely another weak point, but again changes and incremental improvements are being forced by circumstances. When the time comes to add another type to the fleet, no doubt WN will do so crying, kicking, and screaming!

Now that the merger with EMB is off, that could be the trigger for BA to re-enter the sub-150 seat market ...

cheers

WIederling wrote:

at some point in time they will have to ween themselves of the 737 family. It will go away. that is certain.

At that point there will be a next generation aircraft with compelling enough advantages to make the switch worthwhile.

As admirable as it is, A220 wasn't that aircraft.

washingtonflyer wrote:

Lets also remember that WN DID have the option for two fleet types for a while - the 717s from AirTran. They consciously opted not to use them...

I found that parallel quite compelling, others did not.

My point was that WN had a strong preference for the flexibility of a single fleet.

Others suggested A220's trip economics were better than 717s (which is obviously true) and these economic advantages were strong enough to convince WN to operate a second fleet (which is now shown to be false).

vfw614 wrote:

Surprised that this has gone almost unnoticed:

Southwest said the order was an outgrowth of talks with Boeing for compensation due to the 20-month grounding of the MAX.

Pretty straightforward explanation why only the 737MAX was considered.

Indeed.

However one would also have to say that WN is - commercially - the best airline the world has ever seen.

My take is that the KISS model has delivered unprecedented
flexibility and responsiveness.



cheers

737tanker wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

No advanced seat selection (or seat selection at all) because their computer couldn’t handle it. Yes, the 10 minute turn made sense in 1975, but today it simply is not an issue. Same thing with no baggage charges; at the time, their IT simply was not capable.

The “no red eyes” was borne from their computer not being able to handle the date change. I say “their computer” but really it involves all IT. Flight Dispatch, Reservations, etc. Heck even payroll IT couldn’t handle the date change. .

It's strange that the same IT that can't handle baggage fees can handle charging for a 3rd, 4th, or 5th bag. The same issue with red-eyes. The IT can handle red-eyes when they are done as charters. Also there was also a Fri and Sat flight from MCI-BWI that left MCI about 11:30 PM and arrived in BWI at 3 AM.

You attempting to interject facts into this discussion? Let's not forget, that the only reason why WN made profits a few years ago was due to them being an oil and gas company playing at an airline, if it was not for those fuel hedges and other management decisions, they would be just like the rest.

par13del wrote:

737tanker wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

No advanced seat selection (or seat selection at all) because their computer couldn’t handle it. Yes, the 10 minute turn made sense in 1975, but today it simply is not an issue. Same thing with no baggage charges; at the time, their IT simply was not capable.

The “no red eyes” was borne from their computer not being able to handle the date change. I say “their computer” but really it involves all IT. Flight Dispatch, Reservations, etc. Heck even payroll IT couldn’t handle the date change. .

It's strange that the same IT that can't handle baggage fees can handle charging for a 3rd, 4th, or 5th bag. The same issue with red-eyes. The IT can handle red-eyes when they are done as charters. Also there was also a Fri and Sat flight from MCI-BWI that left MCI about 11:30 PM and arrived in BWI at 3 AM.

You attempting to interject facts into this discussion? Let's not forget, that the only reason why WN made profits a few years ago was due to them being an oil and gas company playing at an airline, if it was not for those fuel hedges and other management decisions, they would be just like the rest.

Oh, so now we're going to go with "they are lucky"? Those fuel hedges and management decisions are precisely why they've been so successful.

How about post 9/11? Were they lucky too when every single one of their competitors (and then AA in 2012) declared Bankruptcy?

seahawk wrote:

I think the 737 could very well see another generation of engines by 2030-35.

To compete against the new cleansheet NB offering of Airbus? Sounds like a plan!

Antarius wrote:

par13del wrote:

737tanker wrote:

It's strange that the same IT that can't handle baggage fees can handle charging for a 3rd, 4th, or 5th bag. The same issue with red-eyes. The IT can handle red-eyes when they are done as charters. Also there was also a Fri and Sat flight from MCI-BWI that left MCI about 11:30 PM and arrived in BWI at 3 AM.

You attempting to interject facts into this discussion? Let's not forget, that the only reason why WN made profits a few years ago was due to them being an oil and gas company playing at an airline, if it was not for those fuel hedges and other management decisions, they would be just like the rest.

Oh, so now we're going to go with "they are lucky"? Those fuel hedges and management decisions are precisely why they've been so successful.

How about post 9/11? Were they lucky too when every single one of their competitors (and then AA in 2012) declared Bankruptcy?

We also seem to be going with "software developers work for free and enterprise software firms and service providers are charities" too.

Antarius wrote:

Those fuel hedges and management decisions are precisely why they've been so successful.

Exactly, but try telling that to the A.Net experts, including those who say unions are the bane of the airlines, we forgot that little titbit.

My take Southwest considered the A220 insofar as to perform their due diligence and fiduciary duty to the owners. But the A220 didn't make sense from a fleet perspective. And I am not sold there will ever be an A220-500. That would directly compete with the A320 instead of the -300 being on the fringe of competition. And we can see Airbus enjoys selling the A320NEO at a near 8:1 clip over the A220.

Antarius wrote:

par13del wrote:

737tanker wrote:

It's strange that the same IT that can't handle baggage fees can handle charging for a 3rd, 4th, or 5th bag. The same issue with red-eyes. The IT can handle red-eyes when they are done as charters. Also there was also a Fri and Sat flight from MCI-BWI that left MCI about 11:30 PM and arrived in BWI at 3 AM.

You attempting to interject facts into this discussion? Let's not forget, that the only reason why WN made profits a few years ago was due to them being an oil and gas company playing at an airline, if it was not for those fuel hedges and other management decisions, they would be just like the rest.

Oh, so now we're going to go with "they are lucky"? Those fuel hedges and management decisions are precisely why they've been so successful.

How about post 9/11? Were they lucky too when every single one of their competitors (and then AA in 2012) declared Bankruptcy?

I agree, luck has nothing to do with it. At the same time, a bet like their fuel hedge seems unlikely to ever happen again. Those were some very unique circumstances, but they were mostly brought about by WN’s excellent financial habits.

Elementalism wrote:

And I am not sold there will ever be an A220-500. That would directly compete with the A320 instead of the -300 being on the fringe of competition. And we can see Airbus enjoys selling the A320NEO at a near 8:1 clip over the A220.

The A225 is a virtual certainty at some point in the near/mid term. There has been a lot of interest there from larger A320 operators.

The bottleneck there —and on all existing series— is manufacturing capability and unit cost. The A320 is a very mature platform that has these very well dialed in. But when the A220s get to where that becomes competitive and even advantageous, you will see a shift in AB's sales strategy. AB do indeed enjoy selling 320NEOs. But they are not so sentimental as to allow something with greater margins to slide by in the name thereof.

Elementalism wrote:

My take Southwest considered the A220 insofar as to perform their due diligence and fiduciary duty to the owners. But the A220 didn't make sense from a fleet perspective. And I am not sold there will ever be an A220-500. That would directly compete with the A320 instead of the -300 being on the fringe of competition. And we can see Airbus enjoys selling the A320NEO at a near 8:1 clip over the A220.

I agree. The a220 has a limitation in that there isn't a model possible (from what I've seen) that can compete with the a321. The a321 is a key part of the family.

Then again, we will just have to see. I'm sure we'll see many declarative statements with no sources about it, but that's just usual a.net speculation.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Elementalism wrote:

And I am not sold there will ever be an A220-500. That would directly compete with the A320 instead of the -300 being on the fringe of competition. And we can see Airbus enjoys selling the A320NEO at a near 8:1 clip over the A220.

The A225 is a virtual certainty at some point in the near/mid term. There has been a lot of interest there from larger A320 operators.

The bottleneck there —and on all existing series— is manufacturing capability and unit cost. The A320 is a very mature platform that has these very well dialed in. But when the A220s get to where that becomes competitive and even advantageous, you will see a shift in AB's sales strategy. AB do indeed enjoy selling 320NEOs. But they are not so sentimental as to allow something with greater margins to slide by in the name thereof.

When is that supposed to happen? Their goal for the A220 pre-covid was 10 frames a month by the mid 2020s. That has obviously been pushed back. So closer to 2030 after Airbus delivers 3000 frames of the A320 NEO and most likely has a new narrow body family on the drawing board?

One serious question. Which airlines have show interest in a potential A220-500? It seems to me cargo becomes an issue when comparing the A320 and A220-500 at 180 seats.

DL220MSP wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I think the 737 could very well see another generation of engines by 2030-35.

To compete against the new cleansheet NB offering of Airbus? Sounds like a plan!

Who says their will be one. PW talks about the next evolution of the GTF, which could bring 10% fuel burn reduction while keeping the same fan diameter and so being compatible to existing designs. It would be a stepping stone until alternative fuels and new designs take over after 2040.

Revelation wrote:

My point was that WN had a strong preference for the flexibility of a single fleet.

Others suggested A220's trip economics were better than 717s (which is obviously true) and these economic advantages were strong enough to convince WN to operate a second fleet (which is now shown to be false).

Yes they do have a strong preference for a single fleet; but, do know that at some point they will have to change.

What most people touting the benifits of the A220 forget is that Southwest really needed two things to seriously consider the A220 at this time that just were not available:

1) They needed to have hundreds of new aircraft delivered in a few years. The A220-300 current production rate and announced ramp up plan could not supply Southwest with the number of aircraft they need in the next few years.

2) They need to know that the larger size aircraft will be available in a few years, and in similar production rates to be able to transition back to a future single fleet model at a reasonable rate. The much discussed A220-500 would have fit along with the A220-300 as a great common cockpit 2 size family. However, Airbus had made clear that they have no near future plans to develop and offer this aircraft, much less in the needed production numbers.

The A220 program has cost Airbus a lot more than they expected and while its supposedly on track to reach production cost breakeven by mid decade (or perhaps a bit latter)... The situation is that Airbus is now willing to dump extra $Billions into the program at this stage to quickly ramp up production and develop the A200-500.

Because of the the above reasons I believe that the A220 had no chance even if Southwest could not use compensation credits from Boeing.

Have a great day,

Elementalism wrote:

One serious question. Which airlines have show interest in a potential A220-500? It seems to me cargo becomes an issue when comparing the A320 and A220-500 at 180 seats.

One aviation industry writer, Tim Dunn, said Delta wants 220-500 for its next 160 passenger aircraft.

ehaase wrote:

Elementalism wrote:

One serious question. Which airlines have show interest in a potential A220-500? It seems to me cargo becomes an issue when comparing the A320 and A220-500 at 180 seats.

One aviation industry writer, Tim Dunn, said Delta wants 220-500 for its next 160 passenger aircraft.

Delta also wants to the NSA from Boeing as well. Delta wants paper airplanes.

Elementalism wrote:

When is that supposed to happen? Their goal for the A220 pre-covid was 10 frames a month by the mid 2020s. That has obviously been pushed back.

A well educated guess would tell you sometime within this decade.

Elementalism wrote:

So closer to 2030 after Airbus delivers 3000 frames of the A320 NEO and most likely has a new narrow body family on the drawing board?

They may. More likely is that they will continue to refine and develop the A321 series. The number of 320 orders vs 321 has already been declining in favor of the 321 to this point. As well, AB very likely would rather sell 321s than 320s as they not only bring more money in, unit per unit, but have enough developmental potential to form the lower end of the an effective counter strategy to any future MOM/NMA offerings.

The 320 is very good, but is too closely matched to BCA's 7M8 to stand out the way the 321 does on capacity and an A225 would on efficiency. Again, it is its unit production costs —and the associated bid flexibilities— that bring it any real favor against an A225. And that is not a static situation.

Elementalism wrote:

It seems to me cargo becomes an issue when comparing the A320 and A220-500 at 180 seats.

The mission profiles for anything in that class are becoming more H2P in nature anyway. That does not take away the importance of cargo, but it is very unlikely to be a deal breaker one way or the other here. As it pertains now, WN do operate a fairly busy cargo concern, and that has been almost conspicuously omitted from their comments during this latest round.

Elementalism wrote:

One serious question. Which airlines have show interest in a potential A220-500?

AF/KLM Group & DL, for a start. More below...

bigb wrote:

ehaase wrote:

One aviation industry writer, Tim Dunn, said Delta wants 220-500 for its next 160 passenger aircraft.

Delta also wants to the NSA from Boeing as well. Delta wants paper airplanes.

That is how more or less every airplane has started in recent times. Delta wants the NSA & the 225, and is actually not inconceivable that they would eventually go with both, provided the missions at their respective capability fringes are different enough. I do not personally think it will go that way, but they are not beholden to the same restraints WN are at the fleet level, so it could.

If they are looking into the timeframe when their oldest 738s are due for replacement, a 225 would have leg up given the eventual 100 or more 223s already on property.

2175301 wrote:

2) They need to know that the larger size aircraft will be available in a few years, and in similar production rates to be able to transition back to a future single fleet model at a reasonable rate. The much discussed A220-500 would have fit along with the A220-300 as a great common cockpit 2 size family. However, Airbus had made clear that they have no near future plans to develop and offer this aircraft, much less in the needed production numbers.

The A220 program has cost Airbus a lot more than they expected and while its supposedly on track to reach production cost breakeven by mid decade (or perhaps a bit latter)... The situation is that Airbus is now willing to dump extra $Billions into the program at this stage to quickly ramp up production and develop the A200-500.

Right. If they cannot get there before the end of the decade, this does not happen. Like more or less anything now, this will be a very long lived production run, and it is not inconceivable that the last of these will be alternatively powered decades hence. Up to 2030 is I think as far as it is reasonable to look for these ordering trends, and I think your conclusions are more or less right for that.

In terms of AB pumping money into the 220 line, yes, I do not see how they have much of a choice there. The biggest Pro column for developing the 225 is that it will do the 320's job better while extending downward to the 223 & 221s. This allows things like an eventual re-wing for the 321 family to become more defensible without losing otherwise 320 unit sales. If they handle this right, and get production to where it needs to be, that will leave AB with a very comprehensive product family offering.

WN already made the decision to
Stick with the 737. Is this thread and ongoing debate needed anymore? Mods Lock it down already.

Flyguy

Lock down the thread? Why?

This is still an interesting read, and brings in excellent analyses - for the most part.